Yes, Mr. Liberal Whiny Pants, you DO have every right to be butt hurt over my guns

Over at Bearing Arms, Bob Owens cites a piece written, likely in Crayola, at The Huffington Post. The author of the drivel, Tom Harvey, proudly announces his right to be offended because I, and others own guns

I Have a Right to Hate Guns

Well, that is true Mr. Harvey, you DO have the right to hate guns, thank you for discovering what should have been obvious to anyone

I’m not sure that I do; it’s not that simple; but I certainly have the right and plenty of reason. I shouldn’t have to hide my position. I should be free to state it clearly, directly and simply and say:

No one is asking you to “hide” your positions. the fact that you must face, sir, is that most Americans disagree with you. See, your right to bless us with your infinite wisdom, is no different than our right to tell you to get stuffed. Liberals like you never seem to grasp that the whole freedom of speech thing cuts both ways.

• It’s much too easy for people of bad will or unstable emotions to become armed and dangerous and we should take the strong action needed to stop it.

Well, Mr. Harvey, it IS easy for people who will steal or buy guns on the black market, no law will stop them. Perhaps you should write your Congressman, and Senator and ask them why the vast majority of people who tried to buy a  gun and were denied by the background check are never questioned by authorities. Again, you call for laws, but say nothing of laws NOT enforced. Do you think more laws that will likely be unenforced will do one damn thing to make anyone safer?

• It is the responsibility of gun owners to prove that their activities do not create a danger to the public and submit to whatever regulation is needed to enforce that.

So, what government agency would you place in charge of choosing which American set to exercise their constitutional rights? How would we prove our “activities” do not pose a danger exactly? And what activities would be approved? I question if you actually thought at all before writing such an absurd idea down. I also would question if you can prove that your writing does not pose some threat? Surely you must think, and I use that word think reluctantly, that all of our liberties should be deemed “safe” by Big Brother.

• Unless one has an exceptional need, the risks of having guns far outweigh the benefits, making gun possession unwise for nearly everyone.

Mr. Harvey, have you one shred of credible evidence that supports this asinine claim? The fact is there are tens upon tens of millions of gun owners in America. The vast majority never harm anyone with them. It is also true that tens of thousands of Americans USE our guns in self-defense annually. Millions of Americans have concealed carry licenses, and despite the fantasies of people like you, those gun carriers cause ZERO harm to anyone, except of course, the many times they have stopped bad guys, and hurt the feelings of overly emotional people like you.

• Notwithstanding Antonin Scalia’s bogus logic, the Second Amendment only establishes a collective right.

Ah, here we are, back to the root of your problem sir. You are a Collectivist. Those individual rights are troublesome to you, as they always are to those who frown upon the very idea that there is an inherent human right to keep and bear arms. Where you get the notion that the second amendment applies only to a collective right I cannot say, but I will allow George Mason, known as the Father of said amendment answer. I also include some quotes from other Founders

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) 

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington) 

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) 

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) 

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) 

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) 

I left the last one last so that it be made VERY clear that the Constitution protects INDIVIDUAL rights Mr. Harvey, not Collective rights. That document protects the individual from tyrants, and the tyranny of the majority, and from people like you who hold their feelings in higher esteem than they do God-given liberties!

Idiot Democrat tries to appear pro-gun, hilarity ensues

Via Twitchy

Oh dear.

Kentucky Democrat Alison Grimes is hoping to defeat incumbent Senator Mitch McConnell come election time, and she (or her handlers) evidently decided that this would be the way to win over potential voters and Second Amendment supporters:

Unfortunately for Ms. Grimes, all that photo accomplished does is confirm that Dems who want to take away guns for our safety know very little about, you know, actual gun safety.

Guns

Oh my, go read the rest of the Tweets mocking this buffoon. Eyes and Ears Alison, Eyes and Ears

 

Hidden Camera Catches Culprit Taking Man’s Second Amendment Sign… Turns Out To Be A Cop

Hidden Camera Catches Culprit Taking Man’s Second Amendment Sign – Fox News

A New York man, frustrated when his pro-Second Amendment sign kept disappearing, was surprised when the hidden camera he set up revealed the culprit to be a local cop.

.

.

.

Jon Gibson, of rural Lake Lincolndale, about 50 miles north of New York City, told FoxNews.com he set up a hunting field camera near the sign, which reads “Protect the Second Amendment,” and features the silhouette of an assault rifle, after two mysteriously vanished. A third sign disappeared before the camera finally captured the sign stealer – a police officer from the nearby Somers Police Department.

“It was pure shock to see,” Gibson said to FoxNews.com about first seeing the video recorded on Monday. “He had a huge smile on his face as he’s kicking down the sign.

“I was in total disbelief to see such criminal behavior from a law-enforcement officer,” he added.

Gibson’s lawyer, Richard Bombardo, told FoxNews.com that they are currently having his property surveyed to be certain that the signs were not on the public right-of-way, which, though on Gibson’s property, would be restricted for signage.

“If the sign was close enough to public property, then they were within their right,” Bombardo said to FoxNews.com. “But if it was solely on his property, that’s where the issue is.”

Somers Town Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy told FoxNews.com that the signs were indeed on public property – within 15 feet of the road – and were removed to comply with town ordinances.

“The town does not allow signs in the right of way,” Murphy said. “The police chief had received numerous complaints from neighbors and it was determined that the sign was posted in the right of way.”

Murphy also denied Gibson’s claim that the officer had attempted to destroy the sign.

“I have seen the images that were taken, but it is my understanding that he was loosening the sign from the ground,” she said. “It was brought to the Police Department and it is still intact and he (Gibson) would be able to come pick it up.”

However, images provided to FoxNews.com by Gibson clearly show the officer in mid-kick, snapping the post of the sign in half.

Murphy also said that there was never a fine issued, but that Gibson did receive a letter from the Somer Building Department.

Gibson says that he never received any sort of citation and that he’s been singled out as other signs in the area have been left undisturbed.

“This isn’t about the Second Amendment. My First Amendment and even my Fifth Amendment rights have been violated,” he said, explaining that words and image on the sign are protected by his right to free speech and the sign itself was taken from him without due process.

“I’m not quite sure where this is going to go, but what’s important here is that people need to defend their rights,” Gibson said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Our schools as re-education camps

I am one who believes that history, actual history, as it happened is not taught in our schools. I also believe that not enough attention is given to the founding of the nation. I also believe, and have for years, that the goal of government schools is not so much education as indoctrination. Moonbattery has another example that shows me, to be correct

Liberals like the idea of a “living Constitution” — that is, a Constitution that says whatever they want it to say at the moment. Here is what the Second Amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here is what advocates of statist tyranny want it to say:

falsified-2nd-amendment

Horrifyingly, the falsified version above was taken from United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination. From Amazon:

This text is designed for a one-semester or one-year United States history course for students preparing to take the AP U.S. History Exam. Teachers can assign the book as the course textbook or as a supplement to a college-level textbook.

Looking over the picture, I saw the butchering of the First Amendment too, adding the “separation of church and state” which is NOT in the Bill of Rights. God only knows how many other falsehoods are in that book.

Just another reason to either home school your kids, or to at least talk to your kids about history.  As much as we tout education in America, we forget that the goal of education should be to impart knowledge, not propaganda. 

*VIDEO* Nora Craig Instructs A New Jersey Senate Committee On The Second Amendment


.

CT Man’s Gun Control Testimony: ‘Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety, It Guaranteed Liberty’ (Video)

The Epic Gun Control Testimony You’ve Been Waiting For: ‘The Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety, It Guaranteed Liberty’ – The Blaze

How do Connecticut residents feel about the crackdown on the Second Amendment? Well, there are people from both sides making passionate arguments on the issue, however, one gentleman last week was able to make a particularly persuasive case against more gun control and in favor of the U.S. Constitution.

Meet Robert Steed, a resident of Vernon, Conn. who took three days straight off work to attend several gun control hearings in Connecticut. On March 14, Steed was more “aggravated” than usual with lawmakers and he let them know it in his fiery testimony, telling them that they were “coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters.”

“This is the third day I’ve taken off of work to come here to, like so many of the rest of us, to plead with you for us to keep our guns because of some wing-nut in Newtown, Connecticut,” he said. “If that isn’t inherently wrong, I don’t know what is. That these bills are even in proposed form is scary enough. That any of you could possibly be undecided is scary enough. What are you looking at?”

He went on: “I can’t for the life of me understand how this state can have as many gun laws on the books as it does and have members of its Legislature need to take firearms 101. And as far as what I felt were potshots taken at the NRA, they’ve done more for gun safety – they’ll do more for gun safety this weekend than this committee will do in your careers.”

Watch Steed’s testimony in full below:

.

.
Connecticut will be the next state set to tackle new gun control measures is Connecticut, the same state where the tragic Newtown massacre occurred. On Tuesday, a key committee of the state’s General Assembly unanimously approved expanding criminal background checks. On Wednesday, lawmakers were set to discuss expanding the state’s current ban on so-called “assault weapons” to include even more firearms as well as additional magazine limits and universal background checks.

Last week, Steed told lawmakers who believe legislation will prevent tragedies that “evil exists” and “sometimes things are beyond your control.”

“Adam Lanza commits a crime, and I’m here to gr0vel and plead for my rights and explain to you that my firearms are kept safely?” he asked rhetorically. “I keep hearing the word “solution”… you’re not going to find a solution, it doesn’t exist. You can’t find a broad brush solution to evil.”

Connecticut state Rep. Steve Mikutel (D) refuted Steed and said lawmakers can craft a solution to gun violence. “We can solve this,” he said.

Mikutel admitted that “we live in an open free democratic society,” therefore lawmakers won’t be able to address all violence in society. If the U.S. was a “dictatorship” Congress would have a better chance of dealing with violence, but that’s not the way they want to go, the Democrat added.

“You’ll get a better handle on it maybe in a dictatorship where they just go in and take all your guns and lock-down, and they’ve got big brother watching all over you everywhere, they’ve got cameras on every corner, cameras in every neighborhood,” the Democrat continued.

“Well, we have some of that going on right now,” Steed interrupted.

Mikutel explained that Connecticut doesn’t want to go down that route and so it makes lawmakers’ job more “difficult.”

“The reason that your jobs are becoming so difficult is because you’re coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters,” Steed shot back. “That’s the bottom line. You are trying to marriage up public safety with constitutional rights. The Constitution did not guarantee public safety, it guaranteed liberty. And sometimes what comes with liberty is tragedy, unfortunately.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

*AUDIO* Mark Levin: The Left’s Assault On Our Bill Of Rights



.