Tag Archives: Second Amendment

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“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.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).

Friend of Freedom: My Remembrance of Bobby Franklin

26 Wednesday Aug 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Several days ago several of my friends lamented both the constant barrage of stories about abortion and the subject itself.  All averredly pro-life they are none-the-less tired of hearing about Planned Abor…Parenthood, pro-choice, pro-life, and broken Republican rhetoric.  One asked, “why doesn’t anyone just do something?”

Someone tried.  Oddly enough it was an elected Republican from Georgia who actually used his position of power to make a difference.  He tried time and again.  Failure to him only meant another chance to try again.

He was dead serious about protecting children in addition to championing various other causes of freedom.  He was one of the very few living politicians I admired. I knew the man personally.  His name was Bobby Franklin.

Robert “Bobby” Franklin represented Georgia’s 43rd House District (Cobb County) from 1997 until his death in 2011.

RepBobbyFranklin

Bobby Franklin at work.  Google.

A self-made businessman he served on the House Banking Committee, among others.  At one time he was chairman of the House Reapportionment Committee.  He consistently stood for less government and more freedom.  He was never shy of controversy.

His most famous stand was for those unborn Georgians.  In 2011 he made sure the very first bill in the House hopper was one which would have made abortion a felony punishable by either death or life in prison.  See: H.B. 1, 2011.  He rightly considered the practice a form of murder.

His hardest critics, had they not been weak cowards, would have possibly tried to murder Bobby himself for his stance.  Of course, they resorted to base distortion and lying, going so far as to say Bobby would criminalize ordinary miscarriage. These were and are the same sort of satanists who laugh while discussing chopping up living babies and then selling the parts.

You can read and judge for yourself the would-have-been effects of H.B. 1 via the link above.  Here is the pertinent part of the Bill, concerned with protecting the rights of all citizens:

bobby bill

H.B. 1, 2011, GA Gen. Assembly.

Extreme, huh?

Upon his untimely death his detractors still mocked:

Bobby Franklin was the demagogue the Founding Fathers feared and warned us about, a perfect example of the excesses of democracy that would strip the common American citizen of his or her rights.

If you must have a eulogy from me this morning, it will be this, and this only: Bobby Franklin was a danger to democracy and a danger to women and now he’s dead.

Hrafnkell Haraldsson, No Eulogies for Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin, 
July 28, 2011. 

Nonsense, all of it.  The free people of the state had no better friend.

Bobby did want to strip away certain things from out the overfilled lumber room of Georgia law.  He wanted to strip out taxes.  He wanted to strip away regulations.  He wanted to strip away government involvement in people’s lives – to include abolishing the requirement for a state-issued driver’s license.

Had the ultra-left not been so preoccupied with killing babies they might have recognized Bobby’s position of licenses as similar to those of the 1960’s counter-culture.

“Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose,” Franklin’s legislation states. “Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right.”
In an interview with CBS Atlanta News, Franklin claimed driver’s licenses are a throw back to oppressive times.

“Agents of the state demanding your papers,” he said. “We’re getting that way here.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/georgia-republican-nobody-should-need-a-driver-s-license

TPM Muckraker, Feb. 2, 2011.

He further proposed other “unthinkable” freedom-centered legislation, to include:

*The sole use of gold or silver as currency (where did he ever get that idea???);

*Taxing and regulating the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta like any other bank;

*Banning forced vaccinations;

*Eliminating the state income tax;

*Eliminating property taxes;

*Banning eminent domain;

*Recognizing that civil government is last and least after family, religion, and community;

*Protecting the right to bear arms and to use them in self-defense;

*Making it legal to carry a firearm into a Georgia church (actually passed three years after his death); and

*Mandating that questions of Constitutional Law be settled by elected officials in the General Assembly rather than the Courts.

Bobby never quite trusted the courts nor lawyers (maybe to include me..).  He was not afraid of them and did not worship their decisions as most lawyers do.  In fact, his H.B. 1, supra, would have specifically banned federal courts from reviewing his law, as they lacked jurisdiction (true if moot today):

bobby bill2

H.B. 1, 2011. Federal courts need not apply.

A little known fact about Bobby Franklin was that he actually wanted to become a Federal District Court Judge.  He once called me, during the early 2000s, to ask what the qualifications were and, specifically, if one had to be an attorney.  I explained to him he met all the (very few) technical qualifications.  There is no requirement that a federal judge of any sort be an attorney.  Some of the finest of all American jurists have been (long ago) non-lawyers.

We then discussed the political qualifications.  Politically, one does need to be an attorney.  One also needs to contribute heavily to a President’s campaign.  One must be capable of passing U.S. Senate scrutiny after securing a nomination.  I asked him if he thought George Bush (the dimmer) would nominate such an outspoken, relentless champion of liberty.  We laughed and he apparently dismissed the idea.  That was a shame.

I think what had stirred him to this unlikely career change idea was the flap over the separation of church and state caused by the public display here and there of the Ten Commandments.  I’m sure he had other reasons too.  He would have made a fantastic judge.

Bobby was a fantastic man.  A man in real life in addition to the newspapers and the state house.  We attended a men’s wild game dinner at the First Baptist Church in Woodstock together.  Then governor Sonny Perdue gave a short sermon before shotguns were raffled off.  Sometimes Georgia is a damn fine place!  Perdue actually gave a decent homily, concerning the wrath of the devil in our lives: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”  1 Peter 5:8, JKV.

That is a powerful verse and Perdue’s usage was well placed.  Powerful also was Bobby Franklin’s response to a joking question asked that night by another speaker.  Remember, it was a men’s group.  The speaker laughingly asked how many of us were “henpecked.”   A thousand or so of us sheepishly raised our hands.  Bobby did not.  Real. Man.

I found out he was gone one day when I was poking around my Facebook feed and realized Bobby wasn’t on anymore.  A Google search revealed his death to me.  As could be guessed from his legislative history, Bobby was a staunch Christian.  His death was discovered when he failed to show as usual at his church on Sunday morning.  He died of well-hidden heart problems.  One would have never suspected he took prescription medications of any kind – he was as physically fit as he was steadfast to his principles.

The popular press was a bit kinder than the lunatic left in its obituary:

“He was one of the few politicians who stood by what he believed in, whether you agreed with it or not.” …

“He would want to be remembered first as a person of faith and second as a person who loved his country and loved liberty.” …

“While he certainly was controversial, he was never vitriolic and was never mean. This is a very sad day for Georgia.”

Franklin could also often be a thorn in the side of Republican leadership. While his go-it-alone attitude was rarely problematic, he could tie up committee meetings for hours. A member of the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, he would frequently attempt to add anti-abortion language to unrelated bills to the exasperation of his colleagues.

He also was unafraid to challenge the speaker of the House, an act somewhat akin to challenging a king. On several occasions, even challenging a member of the same party, Franklin would force a vote of the full House in an attempt to overrule the speaker. This was true under both former Speaker Glenn Richardson, R-Hiram, and current Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge.

Franklin Remembered, AJC, July 26, 2011.

I suppose this is my belated good-bye to Bobby.  His loss was a sad blow to Georgia and America.  Also, sadly, we will not likely see his kind again.

Valediction

24 Sunday May 2015

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As I type this bit up I am listening to several of my friends discuss the graduation of their several children from high school.  It’s that time of year.  All across America eighteen-year-olds are preparing to say goodbye to lifelong friends, to embrace college, to join the workforce, and to become adults.  It is a joyful time.

The local fish wrapper ran, today, a separate pictorial section dedicated to our young people, their early accomplishments and their future plans.  In particular the paper dwelt upon the lives and missions of the valedictorians and salutatorians of local schools. These are young men and women who are poised to go far in life.

The news calls them the “best and brightest.”  By the popular measure of educational achievement, this moniker fits.  However, these words are today minced in a somewhat incorrect manner.  “Valedictorian” and “salutatorian” come from Latin roots – valediction and saluation.  The former is a farewell, the latter a greeting.

At ceremonies coast to coast these meanings serve a justifiable purpose.  The valedictorian speaks first to bid the class farewell to the sheltered academic lives the members have known.  The salutatorian then speaks to the promise of the coming years. Or, something like that.

Those acquainted with the works of John Taylor Gatto or who have children of school age, surely understand the decline of quality in American public education.  Gatto was formerly New York’s teacher of the year (State and City).  His distinguished career spanned decades.  Now he speaks and writes of the critical need for drastic school reform.  His writing is frequently published at lewrockwell.com.  He is the author of The Underground History of American Education: A School Teacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling (2000).

Gatto has related the American model of public education to Soviet-era brainwashing:

Two years before I ran across that Atlantic broadside, I encountered a different analysis in the financial magazine Forbes. I was surprised to discover Forbes had correctly tracked the closest inspiration for school psychologizing, both its aims and its techniques, to the pedagogy of China and the Soviet Union. Not similar practices and programs, mind you, identical ones. The great initial link with Russia, I knew, had been from the Wundtian Ivan Pavlov, but the Chinese connection was news to me. I was unaware then of John Dewey’s tenure there in the 1920s, and had given no thought, for that reason, to its possible significance:

The techniques of brainwashing developed in totalitarian countries are routinely used in psychological conditioning programs imposed on school children. These include emotional shock and desensitization, psychological isolation from sources of support, stripping away defenses, manipulative cross-examination of the individual’s underlying moral values by psychological rather than rational means. These techniques are not confined to separate courses or programs…they are not isolated idiosyncracies of particular teachers. They are products of numerous books and other educational materials in programs packaged by organizations that sell such curricula to administrators and teach the techniques to teachers. Some packages even include instructions on how to deal with parents and others who object. Stripping away psychological defenses can be done through assignments to keep diaries to be discussed in group sessions, and through role-playing assignments, both techniques used in the original brainwashing programs in China under Mao.

The Forbes writer, Thomas Sowell, perhaps invoking the slave states in part to rouse the reader’s capitalist dander, could hardly have been aware himself how carefully industrial and institutional interest had seeded Russia, China, Japan, and the Pacific Islands with the doctrine of psychological schooling long ago, nearly at the beginning of the century, and in Japan’s case even before that. All along we have harvested these experimental growths in foreign soil for what they seem to prove about people-shaping.

 – Gatto, The Empty Child, Chapter 13 of The Underground History of American Public Education (2000).

“Slaves,” “people-shaping,” and “brainwashing” are alarming and damning.  However, from my experience I find them succient and apt discriptions of American education.

I was lucky growing up.  I had a slew of teachers, older and steeped in the traditions of real education – the old school way, who actually dared and cared to teach.  I remember them fondly.  Also, in high school, college and graduate school I possessed a hard-headed resilience and independence which plagues me to this day.  You may sense in my writing.

Today schools are little more than prisons crossbred with day care centers.  Our children are marched around like cattle by overweight nitwits.  They are subjected to communist indoctrination and cultural immorality.  State-worship is everywhere.  Rules must be obeyed perfectly.  Freakism of every strip is revered.  God is banned from the building.

In all this idiocy the one thing missing is teaching – learning and educational experiment are vacant in our public schools.  They are unwanted qualities among the people.  As George Carlin used to say, the system wants people just smart enough to operate the machines and file the paper – they do not want educated people capable of free thought or consideration.

By the grace of God Almightly the “best and brightest” are often times exempted from this nonesense.  Many possess those rebellious traits I hold dear.  Many are allowed to pursue real studies in real academic subjects.  These are statistical outliers.  The other children, the majority, are treated like sheep and criminals.

A boy in West Virginian was recently ARRESTED for wearing a t-shirt which expressed support for the NRA and the Second Amendment.  No-one was bothered by the shirt. The lad harmed none.  However, the Second Amendment representing the last hope of freedom for oppressed people (like students), the shirt had to be banned and demonized. In an overreaction typical of modern schools administrators, the teacher and principal called the local Gestapo.  The child was led away in handcuffs – for wearing a shirt.

The charges were later dismissed by an honest judge.  However, great damage has been done.  The boy’s mother is suing the school for violating her son’s civil rights.  Go mama!

Long ago, public schools had civics classes.  In those classes the Constitution, its traditions and foundations were taught.  This included the second amendment and the necessary right and obligation of rebellion against tyranny.  Revolution was celebrated. Today, as best I can gather, such thought or instruction would constitute a criminal offense.  Our babes are taught the government is the end all and be all of human existence.  Its supremacy and place must never be challenged.

This is a crime, in and of itself, equal with all the positive modern instruction concerning dependence, homosexuality, death culture, etc.  Anything goes and is okay, our children are taught, so long as it does not make any sense.  I imagine that math, being completely based on absolute truth, is completely absent from the new schools.  Robots and foreigners can always add for us.  This subtracts from the ability of our people to independently endure.  It cries out for vengeance.  Most ears are deaf to that cry.

Back to our new graduates … the fish-wrapper relayed to its readers how a valedictorian and salutatorian of a local high school treated their classmates to the verse and wisdom of Dr. Seuss.  This is a commonality in schools these days.  Oh, the places you’ll go… This small child’s book was read, in part, in one of my law classes.  Maybe it was at our graduation.  It was foolish and inappropriate.

drseussbook

(Dr. Seuss, keeping children and adults shit stupid since 1937.  Google.)

What kind of world is it when the words of Jesus, Jefferson and Cicero are absent and replaced by the sophomoric rhymes of the kindergarten?  Seuss is the level of the new school – childish, pointless, and optimistically vacuous.

Were I permitted to address a graduating class I too would present a Seuss book.  I would introduce the Cat in the Hat. I would then rip it in half, throw it on the floor and proceed to tell the children that they were, that day, freed from one form of government oppression.  I would congratulate them for surviving without arrest records. I would then extol them of the crucial importance of real learning.  Never let schooling interfere with education.  Never let education interfere with learning.  Question everything.  Accept no mastery.  Put down with brutality that slavery prepared for your adult lives.  I would never be invited back again.

Before I wrote about my experience in college and in law school.  I ridiculed myself for opportunities lost and the system for lack of substance.  Schooling is what one makes of it.  I hope our future generations grasp this.  I hope they reject the new theories of dumbed-down complacency.  I hope they prosper.  Congratulations to the Class of 15.

 

Baltimore, Applecore…

29 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s not my normal realm of study but I feel like I should say something about the riots and chaos currently erupting in Baltimore.

The situation in Maryland, evolving night by night, highlights two problems plaguing all of post-modern Amerika.  One is the trouble of the militarization of our police forces. The Baltimore police appear to have murdered a man (and I have limited facts to based this assessment on).  However, this happens all across the country on a daily basis.  It’s part of the War on Freedom.

Naturally, such crimes upset the populace.  They become restless.  Bereft of a government and society that gives a damn, they take to the streets to protest openly in the only way they can.

Add in a few professional agitators and militants and you have the violence and destruction you see on the nightly news.  This spectacle illustrates another problem with our society: that some cannot or will not conduct themselves according to the norms of civilization.  One would think they had recently emerged from a cave with an angry conscience and arms conditioned for throwing bricks and bottles.

Caught in the midst of these idiotic forces are the rest of us.  Cars and buildings are burned.  Lives ruined. Peace disrupted.  I have few answers for these evils.

Apparently I am not alone.  The best the stupid mayor of Baltimore can come up with is a strategy of giving the lawless “space to destroy.”  I suggest the affected property owners and insurance companies add this woman to their list of plaintiffs in their respective civil tort suits.  Remember, when you head to the polls come the next election, that this is the best our beloved Democrats and Republicans can do.

The press in Briton, often much more able to report on American issues than the American puppet press, notes that as the city burned, shopkeepers called on the police (who started this war in the first place) to help them and save them from the afore-mentioned cave dwellers.  These pleas for help were completely ignored.

The real purpose of the police is to enforce state power.  The reason given to the gullible public is to “serve and protect.”  When the Sh*t hits the fan, they do neither.  They retreat into phalanxs to protect their own and nothing more.  You, the innocent, are on your own.

As such, you need to arm yourselves.  During the 1990’s era riots in Los Angles some store owners gave up on the police and protected themselves the old fashioned way – with shotguns and rifles.  This approach worked perfectly.  Those from the caves do not wish to be riddled with bullets and, thus, leave the well armed alone.  Another benefit of the Second Amendment.

Rather than rely on moronic politicians and their corrupt police forces, instead put your faith in yourselves and people like Baltimore’s Mother of the Year.  Better yet, be like her and directly put an end to whatever of this madness you encounter.  Direct intervention is the only way to preserve freedom.

mother-of-the-year

(Fight the power, if you must, but don’t mess with Mama.  Google.)

 

Police State America: A Permanent Standing Army in Our Midst

28 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday I re-posted a popular column on the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878 to deter a standing army.  It did not work, as I noted in that article.  That piece briefly examined the use of the actual, federal military to combat drugs, terror, churches, etc.  Here, I want to delve into a growing trend, the development of a psuedo-military, based entirely within our society.  I’m writing about the militarization of our domestic police force.

This trend has resulted in a paramilitary police as well-trained and equipped as our national army.  Barney Fife has been replaced by an armored, machine gun wielding storm-trooper.

Barney was a goofy, good-natured fellow with one bullet (in his pocket):

nip-it

(Then. Google Images.)

The new masked face of law enforcement more resembles Darth Vader than a peace officer:

swat

(Now.  Google Images.)

William Grigg is far and away the best chronicler of modern, martial law enforcement.  Just pick any one of his humorous and shocking articles on police state abuse: Article Archive at lewrockwell.com.  Be forewarned, like a Pringles, just one won’t be enough.

I too have written short news notes on this phenomenon, none as good as Will’s.

Here’s a picture of a platoon of “officers” on the hunt for Boston Bombing patsy Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:

SWAT teams enter a suburban neighborhood to search an apartment for the remaining suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown

(Google Images.)

French police in similar fashion:

french swat

(Google, DailyMail, UK.)

The Pose Comitatus Act (“PCA”) reads, in its entirety: “Whoever, except in cases and circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

There has never been a prosecution under the PCA.  Considering the constant creation of exceptions to the Act and the fact that the police are not a direct portion of the Army nor the Air Force, the militarization trend will not run afoul of the watered-down letter of the law.  However, it violates the spirit of the law in horrific fashion.

At the end of the Roman Republic, more than twenty centuries ago, Gauis Curio attempted to disarm Caesar’s returning army in order to preserve domestic tranquility. See: Caesar, The Gallic War, Loeb Classical Library, 587 (Harvard U. Press, 2000). As you know, Caesar “crossed the Rubicon” and the Empire shortly thereafter commenced.

In early America the fear of armed military forces present in everyday life was of grave concern to our Founding Fathers.  Beginning the Declaration of Independence with a nod to Natural Law, Thomas Jefferson listed the first grievance against the King that “He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. … He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.” Dec. Independence, para. 13 – 14 (1776).

In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, himself not the greatest proponent of freedom, railed against the standing army as “unsupported by any precise or intelligible designations of reasons.” The Federalist, No. 27 (Hamilton).  “Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. ”  The Federalist, No. 8 (Hamilton).

A more concise explanation was set forth by Robert Yates: “The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.” The Anti-Federalist, No. 10 (Brutus [Yates]).

“Brutus” described the plight of both Rome and Britain under the rule of a standing army.  “Julius Cesar … changed [Rome] from a free republic, whose fame had sounded, and is still celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute despotism. A standing army effected this change, and a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked in the annals of history, with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and carnage; — The most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished or disgraced human nature.”  Anti-Federalist, No. 10 (Yates).

“The same army, that in Britain, vindicated the liberties of that people from the encroachments and despotism of a tyrant king, assisted Cromwell, their General, in wresting from the people, that liberty they had so dearly earned.”  Id.

The Forty-Fifth Congress considered several issues in developing the PCA: a standing army versus a militia; limited central government; and, the proper (if any) uses for an army within the confines of the territory of the Republic.  Rep. Abram S. Hewitt of New York commented on the subject: “If you want to fan communism, increase your standing army and you will have enough of it.” 7 Cong. Rec. H. 3538 (1878).

Numerous examples of Constitutional violations by federal troops aiding tax agents, governors, sheriffs, and district attorneys in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York were cited to Congress.  Other related troubles occurred all across the country. The problem was national in scope.

Senator Benjamin Hill of Georgia remarked, “A posse comitatus is a wholly different thing from an army; it is different in every respect from an army…” 7 Cong. Rec. 4246. He continued, “it never was lawful, it never shall be lawful, to employ the army as a posse comitatus until you destroy the distinction between civil power and the military power in this country.” Id.

Today we see the destruction of that distinction.  The police appear one and the same with the military – same tactics, same equipment.

The military equipment utilized by our police largely comes from the The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) under the 1033 program (National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 (“NDAA”) (FY 1997)).  “This law allows transfer of excess Department of Defense property that might otherwise be destroyed to law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories.”

Since 1997 the program has transferred over $5 BILLION worth of military equipment to the police agencies of America – $450 million in 2013 alone.  Again, the various, yearly NDAA provide Congressional cover which allows potential PCA violations to occur unabated.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently released a report which examined program 1033 and several examples of police militarization in the news.  Kara Dansky, An MRAP Is Not a Blanket, ACLU, (12/02/2014).

Ms. Dansky recounted the police responses in Ferguson, MO and the horrific maiming of baby Bou Bou Phonesavanh in rural Georgia.  The then 18 month old had “his chest ripped open and his face torn off by a flashbang grenade that police officers … threw into his crib during a paramilitary raid.”  Id.   The attack was part of a drug raid based on an erroneous tip from an informant – Bou Bou was not a suspect.

The Phonesavanh family faces over $1 Million in medical expenses as a result of this unnecessary, indefensible terror attack.  ABC News.  Look at the picture below (unpleasant).

Bou Bou is making a recovery but the police involved will not help with his recovery.  UK Daily Mail. And, of course, they will face no charges for their evil acts.  AJC.com.

bou bou

(The fears of the Founding Fathers realized.  ABC News.)

Baby Bou Bou’s ordeal blows apart the oft-repeated idiot’s argument that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”  These SS-style atrocities are oft-repeated as well – in every corner of America.

Echoing the Founding Fathers, the ACLU piece ends: “Militarized policing is dangerous, and American communities deserve better.”  We’re not likely to get better any time soon.  In 1980 there were approximately 3,000 paramilitary SWAT team raids in America; now there are more than 80,000 per year. Michael Synder, 10 Facts About The Growing SWAT Team Raids In America….  Over one-third of those raids are erroneous.  Id.  Will Grigg has an endless supply of horror stories about the needless, often deadly attacks on innocent Americans.

Yes, there are circumstances which warrant overwhelming police force, but they are few and far between.  Anymore, SWAT teams are deployed for anything and everything – from traffic offenses to searches for teenagers.

The worst part of this is the near complete acceptance of these tactics by the American public.  In the immediate wake of the Boston False Flag Bombing the entire city of Bay Area dutifully sheltered in place while a veritable army combed the streets looking for one man.  Travel was restricted, homes were searched without warrants, businesses closed, and millions willingly surrendered their freedoms.

It is my theory that the bombing was conducted as part of a test – designed to gauge the public’s willingness to accept a police state.  If I am correct, the experiment was a total success.  This scenario could likely be played out anywhere.  Your local police department (certainly your State) likely has the resources – the tanks, guns, training – to carry out a similar invasion.  The odds are you will shelter and comply as told too.

As I have written previously, the Second Amendment was crafted to ensure the people’s ability to resist, with arms, martial tyranny.  In addition to our lack of adequate arms and lack of resolve, we now have in our midst a formidable adversary.  This mixture is very dangerous indeed.

copmorph

(Google.)

Right of Rebellion

25 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have an affection for New Hampshire.  The air is clean.  The people are friendly.  They have mountains and beaches relatively close together.  There’s no income tax.  It’s close to Boston.  It’s far enough away from Boston.  The Granite State is just a beautiful place and bears a beautiful motto – Live Free or Die.

The State Constitution is also unique among written political charters.  While generally resembling other such State documents as well as that of the United States this New England version has a stark difference.  It’s something I am not aware of, in writing, anywhere else in the world.  It contains a “Right of Revolution,” which I, here, call a Right of Rebellion (semantics).

“Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”  N. H. Const., Sect. I, Art 10 (entirety, as amended, 2007).

old_man

(The Old Man of the Mountain [NH natural wonder], Google Images)

Re-read the above and let the meaning sink in.  The free people not only have a natural right but a duty to reform a corrupted government.  When all other usual and peaceful methods of redress fail, the people are authorized to resist evil.  Otherwise the people become subjects – slaves.  That’s what “slavish” means: “of or characteristic of a slave; especially : basely or abjectly servile…”  Webster’s English Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com.

Further, such acquiescence is “absurd,” being illogical and futile.  This is the literary embodiment of that spirit which lead early Americans to cast off the yoke of King George III.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”  U.S. Declaration of Independence, Para. 1, July 4, 1776.

The Declaration proceeds with a long list of oppressive grievances committed by the King. A recount of usual redress follows: “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Then, the Declaration: “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved…”

Mind you, this is the spirit of the former America.  Today such sentiment is almost sacrosanct.  Look into the heart of nearly any purported American and one finds either a zealous appreciation for total government or, at the least, a complete resolve to do nothing conducive to the ends of liberty.  Worse than the loss of freedom in Columbia is the veneration of the forces which have brought forth the doom of tyranny.  There exists in America today a cult of statism.

The New Hampshire Constitution provides an outline for the heretics who would still be free.  The entire document is worth reviewing – please click here and read.

Article one artfully defines the sole legitimate reason for government: “All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.”

Article two evokes the Natural Law: “All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. ”  Made-man law is or is supposed to be an expression of the natural law. David Miller, et al., eds, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of political Thought (Oxford 1987).

Plato asserted that freedom from and doubt of human law is the “indispensable” beginning of the search for natural law.  Strauss, Natural Right and History, pg. 84, U. Chicago Press, 1953.

St. Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine posit that any law “which is not just seems to be no law at all.  Hence a law has as much force as it has justice.”  St. Thomas, Treatise on Law, R.J. Henle, S.J., editor, pg. 287, U. Notre Dame Press, 1993.  St. Thomas goes on to say that a civil or earthly law with conflicts with natural law is a perversion rather than a law.  Again, once an entire government loses its claim to justice the people have a duty to reform or disband said non-government.

Article two-a, mimics the Second Amendment and puts teeth behind the other declarations: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”  New Hampshire, with some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, has an on-again, off-again habit of allowing carry even inside the State Capital building.  N.H. lawmakers allow concealed weapons in House chambers, Boston Globe, Jan. 7, 2015.  Note that NH consistently ranks as one of the safest, crime free states in the Union.  101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire, Free State Project.

Those aiming to reform government or create anew must be able and willing to forcefully defend their cause.

The question arises as to when, exactly, does new for such cause becomes necessary and proper.  People acting out individually whenever they are personally slighted does not seem just cause.  Such action would inevitably lead to anarchy in the lowest sense of the word.

Article three notes, to this end: “When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.”  However, Article four affirms that “Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them.”

So, while individuals may not personally rebel without great need, they must retain the means to do so should collective need present itself.

How do or how will we know when this time comes?  I do not pretend to be an expert nor arbiter of this process.  For now I offer only mental food for thought.  I do, however, reserve the right to expand on this theme in the future.

PS: the forgoing is not a paid endorsement of New Hampshire.

“The Right of the Children to Keep and Bear Canned Corn Shall not be Infringed.”

21 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“A well regulated pantry, being necessary to the security of a free school, the right of the children to keep and bear canned corn shall not be infringed.”  I write a good bit about the Second Amendment.  Now I have re-written the text entirely.  It’s now compatible with the 21st Century.  For the children and all.

An Alabama middle school (junior high) principal wants to arm students with canned food goods so as to deter terrorism.  I’m not making this up:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/14/schools-plan-to-empower-students-in-intruder-scenario-slammed-as-dangerous-stupid-wow/.

Starting immediately intruders or other “would-be evildoer(s)” will be pelted with canned corn and beans.

Image source: WHNT-TV

(Blaze article image.)

The school admits this plan may seem odd – “We realize this may seem odd…”  “Principal Priscella Holley and assistant principal Donna Bell added in the letter that ‘the canned food item would give the students a sense of empowerment to protect themselves.'”  Blaze article, supra.

The school apparently has a program called ALICE – Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter and Evacuate.  It’s like sheltering in place with can goods.  An added benefit is that during a prolonged lockdown these canned weapons could also, theoretically, serve as food. As the old Woody Guthrie song goes – “You can get anything you want at Alice’s restaurant (excepting education)….”

Some ultra-liberal types have already come out against the plan: “‘WOW. The level of stupidity in this is astronomically high,’ one individual wrote.” Blaze.  “’This is probably the most dangerous and stupid thing I’ve ever heard an educator say,’ wrote another individual.” Id.

In all seriousness, school shooting and violence are serious topics.  Self-defense is serious business too.  In a way, this might be a step in the right direction.  Any person held helpless and hostage by criminals has a God-given right to deter violence and injury (even in a school).  My question is this: wouldn’t a few handguns in the right, trained hands serve as a more effective deterrent?  You don’t see many cops armed with food.

1001029_024000163022_A_400[1][1]

=

Glock_22

???????

Other important policy issues are raised by this proposal.  Will there be a size limit on these cans?  A No. 10 can, being much heavier and potentially more damaging, might be considered a weapon of mass destruction.  If the cans are intentionally predetermined to be weapons, would they not run afoul of the school’s anti-weapons/anti-defense policy?  Kids these days are arrested for simply drawing pictures of weapons or merely saying words like “gun.”  Would a canned corn armed student or teacher be subject to arrest or discipline?

The Brady folks might lobby for a waiting period for the purchase canned food hereafter.  What about lid-locks.  Would a concealed can permit be in order?  Some more sensible people might rightly argue that only the police or the military need canned goods. The Founders never imagined food used as a weapon.  Would a box containing ten or twelve cans be considered a “high-capacity” food?

These and other ideas need to be explored.  Please, no canned responses here.

 

Survey Says…Another “Common Sense” Gun Survey.

02 Thursday May 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Survey Says…Another “Common Sense” Gun Survey.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Today I received another email survey on the Second Amendment courtesy of CCRKBA.  See the survey here: https://secure.freedomdonations.com/ag/ccrkba/survey_stand/?a=7737-n-ag.

Once again, I cannot simply answer these questions with a “yes” or “no.”  Thus, I have written out my responses below for you to consider.  My answers follow in red.  Feel free to take the survey yourself.

1. Is the protection of your Second Amendment Rights the most important issue for you?

YES     NO

Yes and no.  The Second Amendment is representative of one of our fundamental natural rights; they must all be protected equally as a threat to any one is a threat to all.
2. Would you support background checks at gun shows and on the Internet that exempt family members and those with firearm permits that also contains protection and criminal penalties against forming a national gun registry?

YES     NO

No, I do not support background checks ay more than I do registries.
3. Do you think ANY military style firearm such as an AR-15 should be banned from law abiding citizens?

YES     NO

Only if those citizens work for the government.  Oh, we’re talking about law abiding people – no, then.  All military firearms should be available to the people and not the military, which should not exist.
4. Do you think ANY rifle used for hunting should be banned from law abiding citizens?

YES     NO

See number 3, above.
5. Do you think ANY handgun should be banned from law abiding citizens?

YES     NO

See number 3, above.
6. Do you think ANY shotgun should be banned from law abiding citizens?

YES     NO

See number 3, above.
7. Do you think there should be more severe penalties for breaking current gun laws such as illegal gun purchases or guns used in crimes?

YES     NO

Almost all current gun laws are illegal.  Let’s just prosecute the real crimes.
8. Should veterans diagnosed with PTSD be allowed to own a firearm?

YES     NO

Absolutely!  These people are horribly abused by the government and needs a reliable means to defend themselves.
9. Would you support a UN Arms Trade Treaty in our United States?

YES     NO

I do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the UN or any other extra-national “government.”
10. Would there be any benefit to keeping records of firearms owned by law abiding citizens?

YES     NO

Only for the government and the ruling elite.  And, it’s not “would.”  It’s “is” as they already tract our guns.  This is adire threat to everyone else.
11. Should there be a national Conceal Weapons Permit so you do not have to worry about breaking a law when carrying firearms across the country?

YES     NO

Yes!  Fortunately, we’ve had one since 1791.  It’s called the Second Amendment.
      Yes, I want to support the CCRKBA with a much-needed contribution of:

$10 $20 $40 $80
$100                Your most generous gift: $. * Please enter numbers only, no decimal points or commas.

I do not wish to donate at this time.

I am broke and cannot donate at this time.  In fact, I am currently soliciting donations myself.  How about it, kind, rich friends???

News From the Senate!

27 Saturday Apr 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on News From the Senate!

Tags

, , , , , , ,

As you know I played a pivotal role in helping defeat the anti-freedom gun vote in the Senate a week or so back.  My letters to Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss convinced them to vote in favor of the Second Amendment. 

Johnny’s office sent me a “thanks” email for my efforts.  Saxby replied with a more substantial, if generic reading, response.  I have included it for you:

****

“Dear Honorable Lovett:

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Your taking time to contact me is appreciated.

I have always been and remain a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and it is Congress’ responsibility to make sure that Americans’ constitutional rights are protected. We must make certain that the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens are not unfairly impeded. I believe that the ability of sportsmen, hunters, gun enthusiasts and citizens concerned with their personal safety to own a gun, whether for sport or protection, is clearly defined in the Constitution and must not be compromised.

In response to recent tragic and high-profile acts of violence, there has been a renewed focus on government regulation of guns. Congress has had an extensive and detailed debate about the potential causes of these crimes, including mental health issues, depictions of violence in television, movies, and video games, and firearms.

It is my belief that implementing improved background checks could significantly impact the ability of individuals who are a danger to themselves and to others from obtaining guns. For this reason, I voted in favor of the Grassley/Graham/Cruz amendment # 725 to S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013,” to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and to address mental illness in the justice system. Ultimately, this amendment failed on April 17, 2013 by a 52-48 vote margin.

Additionally, Senators Manchin, Toomey, and Schumer offered amendment # 715, which in certain instances would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens. Specifically, this amendment would require individuals who sell their firearms to lifelong friends, neighbors, and even family members to obtain the federal government’s permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. I voted against the Manchin-Toomey amendment #715, which failed passage by a 54-46 vote margin.

The dialogue regarding acts of violence will likely continue with additional legislative proposals seeking to address the underlying causes. As Congress continues this conversation, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance to you in the future. In the meantime, if you would like to receive timely e-mail alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov.”

****

Yes, I’m sure the above response was canned and ready in an intern’s computer, but it was nice to hear back.  Click on that last link if you live in Georgia and want to add anything to our dialogue.  Together we can make a difference!

 

Thursday Night Roundup

18 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Thursday Night Roundup

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

This evening I hit the nutsedge and the clovery stalk-thing weeds in the yard.  It’s a horticultural genocide… All the rain and sun have done wonders for the lawn and soon the last of the pesky unwanteds will be displaced by green, green grass.  Hooray!  I live a simple life…

This has been a record-setting week so far and today was the highest rated day in blog history!!!!  Today was not a geometric increase but it was off the charts.  I think it was about a 30% increase over the previous best.

balloons

(Party time!)

I thank all of you for your interest and dedication to the best and most “dangerous foolishness” on the web.  Step up the on-site comments, folks.  Don’t be afraid.  I approve just about anything, even if it labels me (or Alex Jones) as “dangerous nuts.”  I love comments – it means you’re involved.

Remember to stop by tomorrow for the special column on Waco, 20 years after.  Yes, it has been two whole decades.

The News:

Two of the dudes pictured by the press and presented as possible bombing suspects have come forth to clear their names.  One is a 17-year-old high school student.  Clearing your name can be done on Facebook or Good Morning America (or here).  Don’t talk to the cops like this kid did today.  They never say, “Gee thanks, pal!  We’re all done with you!”  Silence is golden.

This afternoon the FBI came forth with video and pics of two more men.  The Feds say they have “good confidence” these are the suspects, 1 and 2.  Here they are:

suspects bmb

(CBS News.  FBI.)

You’ll notice they appear to walk the same way aaaaaand…. they white!  Domestic agenda perhaps.  However, Domestic SS Minister Napolitano says they are not suspects “under technical terms…”  Huh?  What terms then, patsys??

FBI special agent Richard DesLauriers warned the public not to take action into their own hands.  Naturally.  Apprehending real terrorists would leave the FBI obsolete – leave it to Big Brother.  Also, attacking, killing, or kidnapping innocent men would be illegal.  They have to cover all the bases.  No word yet about those Seal-looking Craft men with the Inspector brand radiation detectors.  You might want to leave them alone for your own safety’s sake.

In other news – the assault on the Second Amendment has been beaten back for now.  Just remember, these people do not ever stop.  They’re like Terminator units, virtually unstoppable.  As is, Dirty Harry Reid has removed the universal background check foolishness from the floor for now.  I imagine it will re-emerge, maybe as a rider on a bill to ban pressure cookers.  By the way, I lost the exact number but FBI statistics show that only something like .03% of normal (UnConstitutional) gun checks find disqualifying criminal histories.  That means 99%+ of us are subjected to stupid paperwork and hassle for nothing.

Anyhow, as a result of their outstanding Congressional work, I wrote my Senators a heart-felt thank you.  Here is the body of the letter(s):

******

Dear Senator:

Thank you so very much for you vote against the illegal, anti-Second Amendment legislation yesterday.  You have proved yourself a champion of Liberty!

Your vote was a far better response than any other to my letter last week.

However, as noted in that letter, we still have much work to do.  I look forward to you leading the charge to remove the existing illegal gun laws from existence.  I will be happy to help as needed.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Perrin Lovett

*******

It’s important to acknowledge when someone does a good job.  Write or call your pro-freedom representatives and let them know you care.  Schedule permitting, I may launch a grass-roots initiative to get those existing laws off the books.  The grabbers always seem to have us on the defensive.  Maybe it’s time we turned the tables.

That’s all for now.  Thanks again for the views, reads, and comments.  Check back in the AM!  Or PM…