MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Second Amendment’

Turning the Clock Forward – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on October 1, 2020

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/09/turning_the_clock_forward_.html

by Christopher Garbacz

If America returned to 1950s family values with obvious improvements (constitutional civil rights and reasonable environmental regulations), would we be turning the clock back or forward? There is substantial evidence that this would turn the clock forward, given society’s backward trend over the last sixty years –family breakdown, retreat from religion, and educational and moral malaise. When Attorney General William Barr spoke at the Notre Dame Law School, he attributed this decline primarily to the progressive movement.

Amy Wax and Larry Alexander argued for a return to 1950s values (the bourgeois culture that reigned from the 1940s to the mid-1960s) to mend America’s torn social fabric and disparate class gap:

That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

Wax and Alexander do not offer a path back to the script. Congress has no will to act, and the President cannot legislate. However, a revitalized federal court system, starting with the Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), can lead the way. President Trump has moved the Court in the direction that would allow it to reverse past activism. Putting a strict constructionist in Justice Ginsburg’s seat is the precursor to another four years of Trump that would move the federal courts in this direction for decades to come.

This essay suggests ten key areas of change for SCOTUS, each of which could help turn America around. These changes might not contain all that needs to be done to restore the republic, but they would move us far down the path. These categories allow a cohesive, united country to emerge to solve our problems in an innovative process not possible under the current administrative state.

Category I. Taxation. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Joe Biden & Gun Rights: He Doesn’t Understand Second Amendment | National Review

Posted by M. C. on February 14, 2020

By arguing that legal guns are no match for an F-15, Biden is making a powerful case that citizens should be able to more easily own powerful military-grade weapons.

While offering lots of the usual misinformation — Biden stands firmly against “20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon,” for instance — things really fell apart when he started quoting Thomas Jefferson.

Perhaps he was thinking more about getting those leg hairs stroked in the pool.

The Democrats first choice candidate. Progressive America’s best.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/joe-biden-gun-rights-doesnt-understand-second-amendment/

By

Let us count the ways in which Joe Biden misunderstands gun rights.

Struggling Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden unleashed another incoherent rant about gun rights in front of a group of New Hampshire residents this weekend. While offering lots of the usual misinformation — Biden stands firmly against “20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon,” for instance — things really fell apart when he started quoting Thomas Jefferson.

This has to be the first time in history that a serious presidential contender has publicly gamed-out how a modern American military — armed with F-15s and air-to-surface missiles — would crush an imaginary citizen-led insurgency. (Sorry, Eric Swalwell — even though you once mocked Second Amendment supporters as being unable to defeat a government armed with nukes, you were never a serious presidential contender, so you don’t count.)

For one thing, it’s a weird way to appeal to a broad swath of voters. It’s also an ignorant way to talk about millions of law-abiding and peaceful American gun owners — many of them in contested states such as Wisconsin and Michigan — who are far less inclined to violence than the average WTO protester.

It’s also a really bad strawman, for a number of reasons:

Watch: 0:19
Biden Gets Another Major Endorsement

1) It’s highly improbable that members of the American military would start murdering their countrymen simply because some bloodthirsty president ordered them to do it. One imagines that a large-scale insurgency would only be sparked by cataclysmic national events that would likely cause a fissure in the military as well. The notion that the Air Force is going to carpet-bomb Iowa revolutionaries simply because it has capacity to do so is dubious. This is the United States. One suspects that the military would be on the side of the patriots.

2) Biden should be aware that modern armies, historically speaking, have had quite a tough time crushing insurgencies equipped with small arms. There have been hundreds of such deadly, drawn-out uprisings around the world over the past 70 years, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

3) Biden could not have used a worse example to make his point than the AK-47. Americans, of course, mostly own semi-automatic versions of the famous Russian rifle, but the real Kalashnikov is one of, if not the most, durable and successful in history. During the Cold War — and beyond — it was the weapon of choice for revolutionaries, gangs, guerrilla fighters, and terrorists around the world. It has been an extraordinarily pliant weapon, used in virtually every modern insurrection since the mid-1960s.

4) By arguing that legal guns are no match for an F-15, Biden is making a powerful case that citizens should be able to more easily own powerful military-grade weapons. That’s why the Second Amendment exists, as a bulwark against tyranny, should it ever appear here again. So his position makes no sense. Why does Biden believe that Americans have a right to own shotguns when an Auto-5 has no real chance against a Hellfire missile?

5) Biden cuts off Jefferson’s hyperbole about revolutions at a very convenient spot. The quote, which was given in the context of a centuries-long fight for liberty, is: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. (My italics.) One suspects that Jefferson — granted, far too animated by the violence of the French Revolution for my taste — was more interested in spilling the latter’s blood. Lots of it. But Biden skips that part and stakes out an authoritarian position, not only because he doesn’t believe in the core rationale for the Second Amendment but also because he doesn’t believe in the core rationale for the Founding. The American citizenry is conferred rights by God, not by the power of a missile. What Biden said is tantamount to claiming that we don’t need to protect our First Amendment rights because they can always be crushed by the power of an M-1 tank.

There’s a good case to be made that we no longer have to take Biden seriously. But this risible argument seems to be increasingly popular among Second Amendment antagonists. I’ll give them this: “You don’t need your guns because we can annihilate you with advanced military weaponry” is a hell of an electoral sales pitch.

Be seeing you

facebook_1568111427238.jpg

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off on Joe Biden & Gun Rights: He Doesn’t Understand Second Amendment | National Review

The Second Amendment Works – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 21, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/james-ostrowski/the-second-amendment-works/

By

Note: This is an excerpt from The Second Amendment Works:  A Primer on How to Defend Our Most Important Right.

When I was a teenager, I supported gun control.  I had no real understanding of the issue, having never been taught about the history, purpose or efficacy of the right to bear arms in school.  I read Robert Sherrill’s book, The Saturday Night Special, and supported candidates who were anti-gun such as Ramsey Clark and Morris Udall.  I was on all other issues strongly in favor of civil liberties, but I did not make the connection at a young age.

In 1979, I joined the libertarian movement which is based on the natural rights of the individual to life, liberty and property, so the right to bear arms was an obvious part of the package.  Occasionally over the years, I would discuss the Second Amendment in my writings. In 1994, I wrote a column for the Mises Institute called “Guns and Drugs,”[1] in which I predicted, correctly, that the violence caused by the war on drugs would lead to an intensification of the war on guns, ironically since most gun owners favored the war on drugs.  I have urged, to no avail so far, advocates of the right to bear arms to join forces with advocates of the right to bear drugs, both being private property.  In the same article, published fourteen years before Heller v. District of Columbia, I argued that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms to deter government tyranny.

In 2001, the Journal of Libertarian Studies published my article on “The Rise and Fall of Jury Nullification,” in which I drew an analogy between the right to trial by jury and the right to bear arms, as instances of the Founders preserving liberty by allowing the people to retain certain fundamental rights lest the government get out of control.  That article, heavily reproduced herein, reiterates that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, not merely the right of states to maintain militias.

Although a long-time Second Amendment advocate, I only got involved with gun litigation in recent years.  In 2015, I filed a lawsuit to overturn the New York Pistol Permit Law.  That case, Libertarian Party of Erie County v. Cuomo, is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  At oral argument last year, the Court indicated it would hold the case until the Supreme Court issued a ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, argued on December 2, 2019.

In the lower courts, I have won some gun cases and lost some gun cases.  My biggest win so far was overturning the first SAFE Act conviction in People v. Wassell, 2019 NY Slip Op 03187 (4th Dept. 2019).  However, overall, New York State courts continue to operate as if Heller and McDonald had never been decided.

Frustrated with lower court rulings ignoring Heller and noting that public opinion appeared to be swinging against the right to bear arms, I helped organize a forum on Second Amendment strategy in Batavia, New York on April 15, 2018.  As a result of that meeting, it was decided that the movement needed a short, readable primer on the Second Amendment that would be made freely available to all those interested in learning the history and purpose of the Second Amendment.  I hope this book fulfills that mission.

There was no foundation or deep pocket behind this book.  It is the product of a genuine grassroots movement.  It effectively responds to and rebuts a gun confiscation movement funded by billionaires who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to take your guns away by force.  These men and women have armed bodyguards protecting them 24 hours a day.  They have the most sophisticated security systems money can buy protecting their many mansions.  They are driven around in limousines.  They are shielded from the mean streets that most of us must navigate daily. Despite being outspent by hundreds of millions of dollars, I have the advantage of having truth and justice on my side.  With all their billions, the sponsors of gun confiscation cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

If you like this book, you can support my work on behalf of American liberty by buying my other books: Political Class Dismissed (2004), Government Schools Are Bad for Your Kids (2009), Direct Citizen Action (2010) and Progressivism: A Primer (2014)These books form a quadrilogy that, together, provides the education about politics and liberty you did not receive in any school.

Though I make much of my living selling books, I decided this cause was so important that I would make this book available for free online at 2awny.com and at libertymovement.org (forthcoming).  We will also be making print copies available at cost.  To take advantage of the world’s best distribution system, the book will also be available for sale at Amazon.com for a nominal cost since Amazon has to make a living too. Please spread the word far and wide because the Gun Grabbers are coming!  The Gun Grabbers are coming!

[1] See, Appendix.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

In Defense of the Right – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 18, 2020

There is a reason why Antifa, communists and progressives like governor Northam of Virginia want to limit your rights. Especially defense from government violence.

facebook_1568111427238.jpg

And that right implies the right to defend life — the right to self-defense. If I am about to assault you in the nose, you can duck, run away or punch me first. If I am about to strike your children, you can strike me first. If I am about to do either of those things with a gun, you can shoot me first, and no reasonable jury will convict you. In fact, no reasonable prosecutor will charge you.

The reason for all this is natural. It is natural to defend yourself — your life — and your children. The Framers recognized this right when they ratified the Second Amendment. They wrote it to ensure that all governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms as a natural extension of the right to self-defense.

In Defense of the Right

The Ash Wednesday massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, seems to have broken more hearts than similar tragedies that preceded it. It was no more senseless than other American school shootings, but there is something about the innocence and bravery and eloquence of the youthful survivors that has touched the souls of Americans deeply.

After burying their dead, the survivors have mobilized into a mighty political force that loosely seeks more laws to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The young people, traumatized and terrified with memories of unspeakable horror that will not fade, somehow think that a person bent on murder will obey gun laws.

Every time I watch these beautiful young people, I wince, because in their understandable sadness is the potential for madness — “madness” being defined as the passionate and stubborn refusal to accept reason. This often happens after tragedy. After watching the government railroad Abraham Lincoln’s killer’s conspirators — and even some folks who had nothing to do with the assassination — the poet Herman Melville wrote: “Beware the People weeping. When they bare the iron hand.”

It is nearly impossible to argue rationally with tears and pain, which is why we all need to take a step back from this tragedy before legally addressing its causes.

If you believe in an all-knowing, all-loving God as I do, then you accept the concept of natural rights. These are the claims and privileges that are attached to humanity as God’s gifts. If you do not accept the existence of a Supreme Being, you can still accept the concept of natural rights, as it is obvious that humans are the superior rational beings on earth. Our exercise of reason draws us all to the exercise of freedoms, and we can do this independent of the government. Stated differently, both the theist and the atheist can accept the concept of natural human rights.

Thomas Jefferson, who claimed to be neither theist nor atheist, wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Such rights cannot be separated from us, as they are integral to our humanity. Foremost among our unalienable rights is the right to life — the right to be and to remain alive.

And that right implies the right to defend life — the right to self-defense. If I am about to assault you in the nose, you can duck, run away or punch me first. If I am about to strike your children, you can strike me first. If I am about to do either of those things with a gun, you can shoot me first, and no reasonable jury will convict you. In fact, no reasonable prosecutor will charge you.

The reason for all this is natural. It is natural to defend yourself — your life — and your children. The Framers recognized this right when they ratified the Second Amendment. They wrote it to ensure that all governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms as a natural extension of the right to self-defense.

In its two most recent interpretations of the right to self-defense, the Supreme Court characterized that right as “pre-political.” That means the right pre-existed the government. If it pre-existed the government, it must come from our human nature. I once asked Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority’s opinion in the first of those cases, called the District of Columbia v. Heller, why he used the term “pre-political” instead of “natural.” He replied, “You and I know they mean the same thing, but ‘natural’ sounds too Catholic, and I am interpreting the Constitution, not Aquinas.”

With the Heller case, the court went on to characterize this pre-political right as an individual and personal one. It also recognized that the people who wrote the Second Amendment had just fought a war against a king and his army — a war that they surely would have lost had they not kept and carried arms that were equal to or better than what the British army had.

They didn’t write the Second Amendment to protect the right to shoot deer; they wrote it to protect the right to self-defense — whether against bad guys, crazy people or a tyrannical government bent on destroying personal liberty.

In Heller, the court also articulated that the right to use guns means the right to use guns that are at the same level of sophistication as the guns your potential adversary might have, whether that adversary be a bad guy, a crazy person or a soldier of a tyrannical government.

But even after Heller, governments have found ways to infringe on the right to self-defense. Government does not like competition. Essentially, government is the entity among us that monopolizes force. The more force it monopolizes the more power it has. So it has enacted, in the name of safety, the least safe places on earth — gun-free zones. The nightclub in Orlando, the government offices in San Bernardino, the schools in Columbine, Newtown and Parkland were all killing zones because the government prohibited guns there and the killers knew this.

We all need to face a painful fact of life: The police make mistakes like the rest of us and simply cannot be everywhere when we need them. When government fails to recognize this and it disarms us in selected zones, we become helpless before our enemies.

But it could be worse. One of my Fox News colleagues asked me on-air the other day: Suppose we confiscated all guns; wouldn’t that keep us safe? I replied that we’d need to start with the government’s guns. Oh, no, he said. He just meant confiscation among the civilian population. I replied that then we wouldn’t be a civilian population any longer. We’d be a nation of sheep.

Be seeing you

antifa

The ISIS head chopper look. Cultural appropriation!

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws – Foundation for Economic Education

Posted by M. C. on November 1, 2019

If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the Department of Justice to catch “red flags” using algorithmic technology.

The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat such ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real.

https://fee.org/articles/7-reasons-to-oppose-red-flag-guns-laws/

Jon Miltimore

Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level.

1. There’s No Evidence Red Flag Laws Reduce Gun Violence

Most people haven’t heard of red flag laws until recently—if they have at all—but they aren’t new.

Connecticut enacted the nation’s first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana (2005). This means social scientists have had decades to analyze the effectiveness of these laws. And what did they find?

“The evidence,” The New York Times recently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”

The Washington Post reports that California’s red flag went basically unused for two years after its passage in 2016. Washington, D.C.’s law has gone entirely unused. Other states, such as Florida and Maryland, have gone the other direction, seizing hundreds of firearms from gun-owners. Yet it’s unclear if these actions stopped a shooting.

With additional states passing red flag laws, researchers will soon have much more data to analyze. But before passing expansive federal legislation that infringes on civil liberties, lawmakers should have clear and compelling empirical evidence that red flag laws actually do what they are intended to do.

2. Congress Lacks the Authority

The Founding Fathers clearly enumerated the powers of the federal government in the Constitution. Among the powers granted in Article I, Section 8 are “the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office.”

Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

3. We Have Federalism

Unlike the federal government, whose powers, James Madison noted, are “few and defined,” states possess powers that “are numerous and indefinite.”

Indeed, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have red flag laws, and many more states are in the process of adding them. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws if they choose. If red flag laws are deemed desirable, this is the appropriate place to pursue such laws, assuming they pass constitutional muster. But do they?

4. Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process

The Constitution mandates that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”

Depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutionally-guaranteed right in the absence of criminal charges or trial is an affront to civil liberties.

5. Red Flag Laws Could Lead to More Violence

In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.

While red flag laws are designed to reduce violence, it’s possible they could do the opposite by creating confrontations between law enforcement and gun owners like Willis, especially as the enforcement of red flag laws expands.

6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged

In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently.

In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.

“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said. Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel.

“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”

Though comprehensive information is thin, and laws differ from state to state, anecdotal evidence suggests Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and threatened with a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.

Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.

7. They’re Basically Pre-Crime

As I’ve previously observed, red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime, a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.

I’m not the only writer to make the connection. In an article that appeared in Salon, Travis Dunn linked red flag laws “to the science fiction scenario of The Minority Report, in which precognitive police try to stop crimes before they’re committed.”

That government can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat posed to civil liberties is quite real.

If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the Department of Justice to catch “red flags” using algorithmic technology.

The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat such ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real.

Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies more suited for dystopian thrillers⁠—and police states⁠—than a free society.

It’s clear that laws of this magnitude should not be passed as an emotional or political response to an event, even a tragic one.

Be seeing you

Amazon.com: Minority Report: Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

When the Mind Goes Into Default Mode – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 13, 2019

But when you listen to the gaggle of Democratic Party presidential candidates with essentially the same baseless claim to run your life with policies that would be far more disruptive of your interests, you become aware that you are not hearing the voices of good-natured chuckleheads; but of men and women who fully intend to make their delusions enforceable through the coercive powers of the state.

Most conservative and Republican speakers make only token, superficial responses to the leftists, because they have little depth to their own understanding of what is at stake.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/butler-shaffer/when-the-mind-goes-into-default-mode/

By

Just because everything is different doesn’t mean anything has changed.
– Irene Peter

It is not a matter of coincidence that the collapse of civilization is accompanied by otherwise intelligent men and women negating their mind’s capacities to think, reason, and understand the complexities of their world. When systems and practices upon which previous social relationships were grounded no longer work, it can be said that the conduct of humans in society is subject to the principle offered by Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic: “Justice is serving the interests of the stronger. Just action is obedience to the laws of one’s state.” I add my own definition in the sentiments of economics: “justice is the redistribution of violence.”

Life experiences inform me that there are no objectively “true” or “correct” principles by which we ought to live. There are, however, principles that lead to differing consequences, the preferences depending upon whose interests are at stake. Politicians are perfectly happy with Thrasymachus’ opinion, while many of us would prefer principles that placed individual interests above those that give priority to collective political interests. It is up to each of us to think through the implications of either alternative, just as the political establishment has consistently found it to its interests to condition and subordinate our minds to its purposes.

Those who seek to control our lives must first gain control of our minds. If one of your neighbors went through the neighborhood with a gun, informing you that he was the sovereign authority therein, and that you were required to obey his orders, how would you respond? When, as a child, I visited my aunt and uncle on their farm, there was a retarded man in the neighborhood who informed us that he was the local sheriff and we had to do as he directed. Since he was completely harmless and pleasant, the neighbors tended to humor him and treat him with respect.

But when you listen to the gaggle of Democratic Party presidential candidates with essentially the same baseless claim to run your life with policies that would be far more disruptive of your interests, you become aware that you are not hearing the voices of good-natured chuckleheads; but of men and women who fully intend to make their delusions enforceable through the  coercive powers of the state.

Most conservative and Republican speakers make only token, superficial responses to the leftists, because they have little depth to their own understanding of what is at stake. The explanation for this, I suspect, is that for decades conservatives grounded their thinking and policies on anti-communist premises. When the Soviet Union collapsed they lost their raison d’etre. They tended to embrace private property and free-market principles not so much from deeply-held convictions traceable to the supremacy of the individual over collectives, but as tools to be employed against the “evil empire.” I heard one current articulate conservative distance himself from the Austrian school of economics and the libertarian philosophy on grounds he was unable to explain. When individuals give up on the principles and practices that provided the foundations for a free, peaceful, and civil society, they find themselves standing intellectually naked in a world that is destroying them and not understanding why.

With rational thought and the search for truth being jettisoned by so many as standards on how to live in a complicated world, it should surprise no one that the modern political arena resembles nothing so much as H.L. Mencken’s “carnival of buncombe.” The likes of Jefferson, Franklin, and Sam Adams no longer dominate political thinking, while Hamilton’s thinking has taken over not only in Washington, but on Broadway! Without norms that aid intelligent minds in the search for understanding, why should we expect politicians to propose policies grounded in anything more profound than the whims of collectivists or the foggy sentiments of “tradition”? With the recent rash of mass-shootings that conveniently provide the statists with more fear-objects to reinforce their powers over a gullible public, I expect that many, if not most, Republican politicians – long defenders of the Second Amendment – will abandon their defenses of clearly expressed Constitutional principles and join with the Democrats to further curtail rights of gun-ownership.

One of the most valuable lessons learned toward the end of Western culture is found in the study of chaos. For those who had not already discovered, one of the truths to be found in the dregs of our deceased civilization is that our world is far too complex, interconnected, and changing in ways difficult to identify or measure. Chaos theory informs us that complex systems are unpredictable; that efforts to anticipate and plan for the future are as prone to error as are the attempts to explain the past (e.g., what was the cause – or causes – of the American Civil War?). As our world becomes ever-more complicated, its previous linear simplicities become more non-linear in nature (e.g., the well-known example of the straw that breaks the camel’s back). For this reason, a hunting/gathering society would be easier to organize and direct to desired ends by central management, than would a modern, international, industrial enterprise…

With George Carlin no longer around to help keep me amused – his mind never functioning in the default mode – I will have to depend on the politicians to keep me entertained. I haven’t checked today’s news, but when I do, I may find that Rep. Dildock will have proposed a bill that would send everyone now living in America back to the country wherein their most recent ancestor lived, and require each to apply for residency or citizenship in order to re-enter this country.

The late Richard Weaver reminded us that “ideas have consequences,” a truth that should be in the forefront of our minds as we sift through the rubble of our fallen civilization for future direction. Added to his warning is another admonition: the failure to live without clear, questioning, energized minds also has consequences.

Be seeing you

America has Become a Nation of Stupid Laws – Dr. Rich Swier

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Second Amendment – Those Old Guys Were Woke

Posted by M. C. on August 11, 2019

Image may contain: text

You I know the citizenry can’t fight the US army. But that is not the point.

Besides the US Army is not supposed to be fighting honest US citizens but that is another story and another post.

Be seeing you

The true purpose of the 2nd Amendment. | Being John Adams

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Violence Against Women Act Does Violence to the Constitution

Posted by M. C. on May 21, 2019

Red flag laws have led to dangerous confrontations between law enforcement and citizens who assumed that those breaking into their property to take their guns are private, rather than government, thieves

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/may/20/violence-against-women-act-does-violence-to-the-constitution/

Written by Ron Paul

A common trick of big-government loving politicians is to give legislation names so appealing that it seems no reasonable person could oppose it. The truth is, the more unobjectionable the title, the more objectionable the content. Two well-known examples are the “PATRIOT Act” and the “Access to Affordable and Quality Care Act.”

Another great example is the Violence Against Women Act. Passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act provides federal grants to, and imposes federal mandates on, state and local governments with the goal of increasing arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of those who commit domestic violence.

Like most federal laws, the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to three crimes: counterfeiting, treason, and piracy. All other crimes — including domestic violence — are strictly state and local matters.

The law also forbids anyone subject to a restraining order obtained by a spouse or a domestic partner from owning a gun. This is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment’s prohibition on federal laws denying anyone the right to own a gun. Whether someone subject to a restraining order, or convicted of a violent crime, should lose their rights to own firearms is a question to be decided by state and local officials.

At least the current law requires individuals receive due process before the government can deprive them of their Second Amendment rights. The House of Representatives recently passed legislation reauthorizing and making changes to the Violence Against Women Act. The most disturbing part of this “upgrade” gives government the power to take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights based solely on an allegation that the individual committed an act of domestic violence. The accused then loses Second Amendment rights without even having an opportunity to tell their side of the story to a judge.

This is a version of “red flag” laws that are becoming increasingly popular. Red flag laws are not just supported by authoritarians like Senators Diane Feinstein and Lindsey Graham, but by alleged “constitutional conservatives” like Sen. Ted Cruz.

Red flag laws have led to dangerous confrontations between law enforcement and citizens who assumed that those breaking into their property to take their guns are private, rather than government, thieves…

Be seeing you

image_511

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Financial Blacklisting: YouTube Strips Ad Revenue from Second Amendment Activist Antonia Okafor

Posted by M. C. on April 25, 2019

Youtube-Keeping political correctness and snowflakes safe from the scourge of individual liberty and responsibility.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/24/financial-blacklisting-youtube-strips-ad-revenue-from-second-amendment-activist-antonia-okafor/

by Allum Bokhari

Conservative YouTuber and second amendment activist Antonia Okafor reports that her entire channel was stripped of advertising revenue by the Google-owned video platform after she uploaded an interview about self-defense with a fellow conservative.

“YouTube went straight to just demonetizing my ENTIRE channel today” wrote Okafor. “Just uploaded an episode where Nina Prevot, a Creole libertarian and I interviewed Amy Robbins about teaching young women to defend themselves.”…

Okafor is the CEO of EmPOWERed, an organization that teaches self-defense and second amendment rights to college-aged women around the country. The organization’s slogan is “gun rights are women’s rights.”

YouTube has yet to respond to Breitbart News’ inquiry about the status of Okafor’s channel.

Prominent conservatives took to Twitter shortly after the news to condemn YouTube’s decision.

“Blatant viewpoint suppression,” wrote Lila Rose, president of the pro-life group Live Action…

Be seeing you

gun_control3

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Democrats are waging a financial civil war in America, targeting banks that fund pro-liberty projects that Leftists don’t like – NaturalNews.com

Posted by M. C. on March 21, 2019

How dare the company do that, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) lectured. How dare Wells Fargo not bow to the browbeating of Leftist Democrats and follow the lead of other banks in ditching gun makers and retailers.

Specifically, she blasted Sloan because Wells Fargo hasn’t adopted what the anti-gun Left calls “best practices” for the banking industry when it comes to firearms…

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-03-17-democrats-waging-financial-war-in-america-targeting-banks-that-fund-pro-liberty-projects.html

(Natural News) Let’s get one thing straight: The Democratic Left hates the Constitution. They always have and they always will because it is so effective in preventing authoritarians like them from taking over all the reins of power…

The Left looks at sabotaging the Second Amendment in the same way. Because they know they won’t ever muster support among enough states to repeal it, they are focusing instead on strategies to simply neuter it.

That’s what Operation Choke Point (OCP) was designed to do. As a refresher, OCP was an Obama-era initiative implemented by lawless hacks at his “Justice” Department to investigate (i.e. harass) banks that did business with gun dealers, as well as payday lenders and other companies thought to be involved in fraud or money-laundering.

As Frank Keating wrote in The Hill last year:

A little-known program carried out by President Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) whipsawed small business for years, and to date no one has been held accountable. Federal officials pressured banks to close the accounts of businesses solely because they were ideologically opposed to their existence. This runs counter to the very principles of due process and fairness that form the backbone of our nation’s laws.

The Obamaites knew they couldn’t get a GOP Congress to approve legislation that would put gun makers and dealers out of business, so they devised another way to do it: Ruin them economically by cutting off their access to financial services, despite the fact that they were lawful businesses operating on the up-and-up.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »