Posted on 12/17/2012 6:07:10 AM PST by scottfactor
“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.” Those words, more than any other part of our Nation’s Constitution, have been the most contested. Keeping in mind that this writer is no lawyer, those words really seem simplistic to me. I think they would seem simplistic to Supreme Court Justice Scalia, also. He, of all the members of the Court, seems to have the clearest vision of how to interpret the Constitution…as it was written.
Liberals and self-described scholars seem to have a different view. They believe that the Constitution is a “living document”, one that is fluid and changes with time. Of course, these people only see the changes that benefit them and refuse to open their eyes to those which don’t. A shining example of this is our "press". The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” This is freely interpreted by the press as a license to lie to their heart’s desire to accomplish whatever agenda the editorial staff has chosen. I’m not sure that’s what the writers of the Constitution had in mind.
Looking at the language of both amendments, they both seem clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and no laws shall be made to abridge the freedom of the press. Simple…to me. But there are those who like to make mountains out of molehills. So, I will try to understand some their arguments here on this page.
Some argue that the Second Amendment was created back when cap and ball muskets were the norm; That the framers couldn’t have anticipated the complex military weaponry available to the masses in this modern era. It’s a good point and deserves some consideration. The only problem is that people arguing this point are the same ones that fail to recognize that the press was a single page letterpress when the Constitution was framed. The framers couldn’t have imagined computers, the internet, podcasts, etc., when they crafted the First Amendment. While the “press” continues to argue for more gun control, noting that the framers couldn’t have anticipated the power of modern weapons to maim and kill, they fail to mention the power of the internet and pod casts to spread their lies and distortions and the damage that can be done to society with such.
I’m willing to compromise. I’m a compromising kind of guy! I’m willing to discuss limits on my firearms if and when the “press” is willing to discuss more liability for those things printed that are not proven to be true. This includes the responsibility to pay for all legal fees for people who challenge…and win…in lawsuits against the “press” for lies and distortions. This includes elimination of the limitations imposed by the definitions of slander and libel. Simple and provable lies, to be determined by a jury, should be punishable in civil court.
I won’t hold my breath on that happening. In the meantime, the “press” and gun control advocates will argue that my right to keep and bear arms CAN and WILL be infringed by laws against open carry, concealed carry, carry in government buildings, bars, schools, sporting events…not to mention restrictions on magazines and round capacity, registration of my weapons, a ban on certain types of weapons, and the requirement that I no longer consider inspection of every area of my life…commonly called a “background check”… as unreasonable search and seizure.
While I am forced to accept all of that for the sake of a false sense of security for the “press”, they continue to degrade our national security by printing classified information, distributing false truths, and supporting political candidates by printing lies and distortions about the challengers of those candidates.
The “press” is currently gearing up for the lies that will encompass the debate on gun control that has been promised by the President. After all, the press is a master of it. The press has coined such terms as “assault weapon” to define any long gun that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition, “hi capacity clips”, which are magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and “Saturday night special”, which is…well, I’m not really sure of what that is other than an attempt to label inexpensive handguns to sound sinister. All of these terms will be hammered home by the “press”, as they exercise their free speech in an attempt to suppress my right to bear arms.
Ladies and gentlemen, the tragedy at Newton was committed by a mentally damaged young man who illegally possessed firearms that were illegally taken from his mother, illegally carried those arms onto a school campus, illegally carried those arms concealed, and murdered innocent children. Gun control people will tell you that a total ban on all guns for all people would have prevented this. Would it? Cocaine, heroin, and many other drugs have been contraband for years, yet millions of pounds of these substances enter the country every year. Do you really think banning all guns would stop guns from being acquired by bad guys?
Little by little, piece by piece, your gun rights will be chipped away until you can’t own any. This is the end goal of the liberals and the press. It’s time to turn the tables on them. It’s time to start chipping away at the rights of the “free press”. It’s time for reform of libel and slander laws. Time to shut down the National Enquirer, the Poynter Institute, and other lying liberal rags that are working to erode your rights. It’s time for a serious, damaging, all-encompassing boycott of any company that sponsors, advertises, or otherwise supports any form of gun control or the media that supports it. Sure, you may have to give up your Ben and Jerry’s ice cream or stop watching Matt Damon movies. You’ll have to give up a lot. Your other choice is giving up your Constitutional rights.
Which do you prefer?
Keep in mind that in the 1700’s, the 2A included private ownership of cannons.
I have a simple answer to your question:
Resist them in every way possible: protests, opinion letters, private and public conversations, and if need be, other means.
Another way to put the question:
Is our freedom worth fighting for? It is and we should.
The Democrats believe that their best ‘weapon’ against the 2nd Amendment will be new and very high taxes at the Fed, State, and local level on firearms and firearm ammunition.
Chicago’s Cook County drops bullet tax, keeps gun levy
By Mary Wisniewski | Reuters – Wed, Oct 31, 2012
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The senior executive of the county that includes Chicago dropped a proposed tax on bullets on Wednesday but kept a plan to tax firearms to help defray healthcare expenses associated with the high rate of gun.
“It is very important to us to tax guns because we know that guns are the sources of the incredible violence we have in our neighborhoods,”
Under the plan, the county would impose a $25 tax on the purchase of firearms.
If approved by the board, the nation’s third most populous county with nearly 5.2 million residents could be the first major U.S. metropolitan area to impose a tax as a form of gun control, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
“The notion of taxing ammunition may be traced to comedian Chris Rock, who once quipped, “If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.” Before that, the legendary New York Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested a 10,000 percent tax on the most destructive bullets. Make them too expensive, he theorized, and they would disappear.”
If Guns Do Not Kill, Tax the Bullets
By JIM DWYER
Published: August 9, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/nyregion/taxing-bullets-as-de-facto-gun-control.html?_r=0
The Economist - 1994
“The idea of a license for gun owners has been floated by Mr Clinton and by Janet Reno, the attorney-general; it is argued most strongly by Charles Schumer, a Democratic congressman from Brooklyn. Under Mr Schumer’s bill, which is now before Congress, every owner would have a national handgun card, issued after a thorough background check, and all gun transfers would be registered with the ATF.”
All I know is that now is not the time to go weak in the knees over defending our constitutional God given rights.
Democratic lawmaker: To get gun control, Obama must ‘exploit’ shooting
By Ben Wolfgang
-
The Washington Times
Friday, December 14, 2012
A veteran Democratic lawmaker believes the nation will go along with stronger gun control laws if President Obama “exploits” the Newtown, Conn., tragedy and nudges Congress to action.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who represents portions of New York City, said he was encouraged by Mr. Obama’s statement on Friday afternoon that the mass shooting, which claimed the lives of 20 young children, requires “meaningful action” by Congress, but hopes those words turn into concrete legislation.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/14/dem-lawmaker-get-gun-control-obama-must-exploit-sh/print/#ixzz2FKC7xpjf
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
They don’t care, BCR. They want “feel good” legislation to palliate the masses. The problem is that once the legislation passes, you’ll see such a colossal ramp up in violent crime by “Holder’s People” that it’ll seem like they didn’t the opposite of banning them.
Gun control was once used by Democrats to keep blacks from getting “uppity.” Now the Democrats will use gun control to control everyone, whites included.
Compromise?
Accepting limits on my blogging AND my armament isn’t compromise.
“Ok, if you’ll just accept financial ruin, we’ll settle for whacking you in the head with a baseball bat.”
It's also time to turn the tables on Hollywood and the music industry. Since a LOT of our liberal indoctrinated youth are already stealing from them without remorse, we can use their ideology against them. Hollywood and the music industry, after all, ARE made up of one percenters. We need to rail on and on about the wealth in both industries, and how they need to be taxed more.
We also need to use their socialist ideology to break them. NO 0bama voters understand intellectual property rights. We can use that in a "Free the entertainment from the greedy Hollywood one percenters" campaign. Why should they benefit at our expense from digital entertainments that are essentially "free" to distribute over the internet?
Feel free to add your own ideas to this campaign. We need to hammer this from now until the end of the millenium, or until Hollywood gives in. I'll take the first option, personally.
I believe in property rights as much as anyone, way more than most, but in the case of Hollywood and the music industry, I'm willing to suspend my belief. It's for the children, after all.
Falsehoods are NOT how the MSM "lies." It "lies" by ignorning crucial truths. How much of this story on Adam Lanza has the MSM stressed that his mother, who knew the kid was seriously mentally tweaked, failed to lock up her guns in the house where this kid lived? It could certainly be argued with legitimacy that that WOMAN is more responsible for all the deaths in that shooting than either Lanza or the guns, but the MSM is carefully downplaying that aspect of it by ignoring it.
The media didn't lie about Palin -- but by never reporting the tens of thousands of people who showed up to hear her speak, they distorted the truth, which was that many, many Americans identified with her, many more than made the MSM comfortable. They didn't lie, they just omitted the truth, thereby creating a general impression among MSM consumers that Palin wasn't as popular as she actually was.
When the MSM reports on global warming, it doesn't lie or fabricate things. But it IGNORES those who point out the myriad fallacies in the whole man-caused global warming fantasy, thereby creating the impression that there aren't any.
Have faith. Your fellow Americans are smarter than we tend to give them credit, and the reason we don't give them credit is, again, because of the good ol' MSM, to whom the the majority, who hold the MSM in contempt for its liberal bias (just go read the consumer comments at any MSM news site, say LA Times, Washington Post, Yahoo, etc. if you don't believe me), is invisible.
By not lying, but instead by leaving out crucial evidence and facts in its reporting, the MSM has created the illusion that America is a nation of liberals and that Americans who don't embrace liberalism are a fringe minority. But that is an illusion, a mind trick. We are the majority. If we weren't, liberals wouldn't have to stoop to such extremes to manufacture and gin the votes that elect their candidates.
We can no more rely on government to "fix" the MSM problem as we can rely on it to fix anything else. We need to get government OUT of it. Imagine how many more news sources there would be if government wasn't making it so tiresome and expensive for entrepreneurs to start publications and to employ people, for example.
Have faith in your fellow Americans, and realize that between MSM distortion of the "real" America and vote fraud/manipulation, a minority has seized power over a majority made to perceive itself as a minority. For now. When we wake up and recognize that most Americans are good, moral, innovative, productive people who resent excess government, THEN we will start to win our country back.
They can only control those that comply. I will not. I refuse to live on my knees and watch my daughter live in fear because of these idiots.
I’m really thinking that if they do pass a ban, the people that voted for it need to be removed from office by force if necessary and banished from our shores for life.
We’re in the same boat, BCR. I’m 32 now. I’ve been saying for a few years now that I don’t believe I’ll live to see 50. I think the government is going to start down the path of rounding up dissidents. I’ll die firing.
Oh, I fully plan on living to a ripe old age. But I won’t live on my knees. I’m 41 now and I know how to be sneaky if I have to be. We as American Citizens must teach the world, including our own Government that we are NOT to be trifled with.
I don’t condone violence as a means to an end but I sure as hell will meet violence with violence if need be.
Make your home a home invasion nightmare. Always be aware of your surroundings, never be unarmed. Always avoid places where you are vulnerable. Be prepared to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones.
After what Obama has done with Fast and Furious, the Government has lost all credibility to even think to demand anything of the citizens in regards to firearms. Until Obama, Holder, and all the others are put on public trial for the deaths from F&F, I will not comply with any new gun laws.
I do and I will continue to do so.
This the aspect I'm not seeing much comment on. A 20 year old kid pulled right up to a door got out and (one would assume) took a minute or so to arm and waltzed right in and committed a mass murder. It could have also been a pedophile that snatched a kid or kids.
Why not have a volunteer militia guard schools?
Well said BCR.
What stands in the way of total takeover is the fact that tens of millions of citizens are armed and many could be expected to take up those arms in rebellion if basic freedoms are usurped.I'd like to think so too, but they won't. I'm sure some will, but not enough to reach critical mass and be effective. The rest would be too afraid of govt reprisal.
I fear that the only way you would see a majority of firearms owners rise up in unison would be if the govt instructed them to do so in response to some national urgency (and I can't think of a believable urgency off the top of my head... invasion perhaps?). Then and only then would they feel "covered" and take to arms. I fear we are a society wholly adverse to any risk whatsoever and the majority will always take the easy/safe route.
If anyone thinks I'm very, very wrong and just having a bad Monday, I'd appreciate the kick in the rear...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.