Click to watch“But there are certain people, people who have mental health issues, perhaps. People who have felony records. These are all categories of people who are not entitled to carry guns and I think that we have to make sure that it continues to be the case. One of the things that the President has asked me to do is to look at that list, those categories, and see if we have to expand it to make sure that, again, the wrong people do not come into possession of guns.”
I have posited elsewhere in these pages that the government (when run by this particular crowd of liberal Democrats at least) very likely engages in tax policy designed to eliminate political competition.
If, for example, you drive off all the wealthy people or confiscate so much of their wealth that they cling (bitterly) to whatever remains, the only people left willing and able to contribute to increasingly expensive political campaigns will be rich crony friends of the government, people who got waivers, or those that benefited from corporate socialism and are wealthy as a result and also dependent on that relationship.
If you own all the rich people you and your aristocracy can expect to control the power indefinitely.
I happen to think it’s a solid theory so here is another one.
‘…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Over at Bloomberg, Ramesh Pnnuru has piece on “Sensible Gun Legislation”. A ‘fair enough” piece that brings up some items that an uncle of one of the slain kids at Sandy Hook Elementary that included a legal requirement to report a imminent threat (or suffer jail time for remaining silent), a standard for how guns are secured in the home (disregarding it could result in a felony conviction / large fine), Federally paid for security reviews and upgrades and a national team of grief counselors.
This post is not about the above (other than to point out “why the heck is it the duty of the Federal Government to pay for a local school – especially the grief counselors”? If it is THAT important, why isn’t the more local level of government doing these things? But there was one comment that I did respond to:
Asked by “Leo”:
I just have one question for Matt A: Why?
Why do you own an AR-15 and 30-round magazines?
This is a 100% serious question. I’d appreciate a frank and full response. In legal terms, “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Since “Matt A” had not left a reply, I left one:
Your “worthiness” evaluation of my Need is irrelevant in a Free Society.
If we truly live in the “Land of the Free”, then the phrases “why do you need that?” or “I have no idea why anyone needs <insert whatever here> are based on an irrelevant premise. In a Free Society, perceived “need” is only based on the what the acquirer believes to be a need – or even a want. Not anyone else’s perception of such.
“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.”
…and not just the “hide the truth” by gun controllers that it is for “hunting, sport, and self-defense”. Rasmussen has the data (emphasis mine):
65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure.
72% of those with a gun in their family agree with the premise. Even without gun ownership, 57% still believe in that purpose.
Agree? 54% of Democrats, 75% of Republicans, 68% of Independents
60% would rather live in a neighborhood where they can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard
I have listened to him on WSB a number of times and often stop by his website. Well, this Libertarian has retired “early” according to some; he says that the reason is “because I can”. However, at the end of his “retirement post” is this: Obama is a destroyer. A sneering, menacing, arrogant destroyer – … Read more
“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy” —Charles de Montesquieu [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of … Read more
Professor Glenn Reynolds calls it correctly: “Gun control is a way of rubbing Middle America’s face in the fact that it doesn’t run things. That’s the actual appeal” Mark Levin does as well calling Obama’s executive orders “un-American,” “fascistic’…
If you gave Exxon Mobil an army, the ability to print their own currency, the power of taxation, the ability to set national energy policy, and executive authority to enforce it, what do you think might happen? If Democrats are to be believed they would do with oil and gas what Barack Obama and the … Read more
I put this post up yesterday (“I really hope that Kelly Ayotte, BFF with John McCain, is not playing this game”) after seeing what Captain’s Quarters had posted about a possible end run around the US Senate rules as they stand right now – but it would lend itself to passing all kinds of mischief to Liberty and Freedom without the “Senate governor” known as the Filibuster. But there was more to that post along the lines of what a number of us are seeing around the blogosphere – that other folks are getting extremely uneasy about the ramifications of the Left driving the culture. Always pushing, pushing, pushing, and pushing in changing American life to new norms – to secular Progressive (and Socialist) values. In essence, the slippery slope is getting tilted more and more with buckets of glycerine thrown onto it.
Many Conservative folks (and lately, just ordinary non-political folks) are really starting to feel put upon by the constant din of “change your values – to what we say they should be” via the mainstream media, the culture makers of tv, movies, and music, and politics in loud, soft, and discrete ways and manners. However, it seems that the Progressives / gun-grabbers are switching gears and have now moved to going full out on what many see as inner core of American Freedom – wrapped in the ideas of the Right to self-defense, Citizen sovereignty and primacy over the State as people start examining and studying primary documents of our founding, and the proper role of Government……and feeling that Government, at the behest of Progressives, is far overstepping its bounds. It’s called the Second Amendment
Instead of the inanely stupid euphemisms of “gun control” or “gun violence” or “gun safety” or any other focus grouped “non-confrontation phrases”, many are seeing themselves sanctioned for gun removal and confiscation – and left defenseless not just before criminals but a tyrannical government (which, by this action, is starting to show itself to be exactly that). They feel they are being made into, not victims, but pariahs on the scale of sex offenders (except Progressives can forgive the latter and make excuses for them). If these potential gun grabber bills become law, gun owners see this as Government reaching into their homes and lives to punish them for actions they have not committed. In actuality, many on the Left have actively called for their deaths, to be thrown in jail, and to be marked for life simply for not wanting to give up things that are perfectly legal to own – to be treated as dangerous criminals.
ALG’s Daily Grind at Net Right Daily is reporting the rantings of New Hampshire Democrat Cynthia Chase…with a Tweest! OK, it’s actually an update.
The blog post from Rep. Cynthia Chase has been pulled down. In fact the whole website, BlueHampshire.comwas completely reset today just as light was being shed on the questionable blog post from Cynthia Chase. Convenient. Fortunately, we have the cached version of her post so that her words will forever be documented on the world wide web.
(emphasis mine)
How convenient, indeed.
I wonder what else went missing from the keyboard of the progressive Democrat Cynthia “I moved here from Rhode Island” Chase?
Self-defense? Yes, but not just for personal defense. As I said here, I often run out of time in commenting on others’ posts. Here, Kevin Williamson (whom we have interviewed in the past) talks about the real reason that the Second Amendment exists – the very uncomfortable reason, for Progressives and Big Government types that believe Government can only be for good, is that the Second Amendment is to be able to fight Tryanny – from without OR from within:
Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.
There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:
Are we to the point of asking “what will the Republicans stand for – do they even know what they stand for”? Or do we relegate them mostly sit in the corner, mumbling to themselves, drooling? Anyone that knows me knows that I am always good for a debate (er, not that I am always “good” – just always ready to debate) but I also like to listen to a good debate as well. Best part for me is listening to the Round Table segments of Fox News “Special Report with Bret Baier”.
But as I was listening Thursday night, my head snapped around from the laptop when I heard Tucker Carlson. They had been talking about the Fiscal Cliff and what was next:
But look, this is not the end. Even in this month, so Democrats have said that they want to get an immigration bill and a gun control bill through by the end of January. Whether they do that or not is an open question.
I spoke to a senior Republican, VERY senior republican last night and asked a simple question “Do you think that a lot of members in your caucus will break and vote for gun control. He said “YES”. That has got to be the last core Republican issue there is. If you see a sizable number of Republicans peel off to vote for a new version of the assault weapons ban, say, then, you know, it’s over at that point. They are just not a credible opposition if that happens.
Sure, I railed about the Congressional vote (“For a meager mess of porridge; so what DOES the Republican Party stand for now?“). Yes, it could have been cast as a win, as the long decided Bush tax cuts are now permanent – but not for all. The Republicans were willing to sacrifice some – letting Obama crow that he had broken their will on raising taxes, as their compromise did exactly that. $620 Billion more to fund an even bigger Government (any thoughts of it going to reduce the defict are about as illusory as the “clean” air in the Choom Gang’s Volkswagen bus).
Do the Republicans wish to defend the innocence of the vast majority of Americans, many of them Republicans, who the Left are declaring to be guilty simply because we own “scary” looking rifles?
“As New Hampshirite Steve MacDonald notes, “this sounds like tyranny.”
Given that Rush Limbaugh brought up NH Democrat House Rep Cynthia Chase’s name (AND STEVE MAC DONALDS!!) this past Friday, it was expected that the local NH media would be FORCED to also give a few column inches as well. And DiStaso of the UL does so (reformatted and emphasis mine) – reluctantly. But guess who he left out?
FRIDAY, JAN. 4: GOING VIRAL. A Democratic state lawmaker’s recent web post critical of the libertarian-leaning Free State Project has gone virtually viral in the past few days and, as one might expect, has drawn criticism. Reacting to reports that the Free State Project is aggressively trying to bring 20,000 supporters to live in the state over the next two years, Rep. Cynthia Chase, D-Keene, wrote on BlueHampshire.com: “In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today.”
She went on to write that while there is “legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal,” she proposed making “the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave.”
Chase continued, “One way is to pass measures that will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming.”
…The post this week was picked up by the Breitbart.com website, the creation of the late conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, with columnist Warner Todd Huston opining:
Warner – a long time Samsphere blogger buddy of mine – got the story from GraniteGrok which he reads often as we are the leading Conservative / Libertarian leaning blogsite in NH. He and I think a lot of like, and he likes what we do, commenting on local politics. Anyway, see these next lines from DiStaso’s post quoting Warner’s?
This goes into the “Wow that’s kind of cool category.” Today Rush Limbaugh mentioned me by name. I didn’t hear it but Skip called me from the road, and he was pretty darn excited for me.
But I have to wonder, as people give me digital high-fives and attaboys, just how much street-cred does this give to Ms. Chase? My earnest hope is that the weight of her remarks humbles her into reevaluating her worldview, but seeing as she is a New Hampshire Democrat the NHDP will probably give her an award and throw her a party for having Limbaugh call her out.
Such is the nature of the divide. Accused of Legislative Tyranny –Way to go Progressive Girlfriend!
Meanwhile, it is only January 4th. I’ve been linked to on Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh has quoted me on the air. Not a bad start to 2013. (And I was just awarded AFP’s blogger of the month for December 2012). I can’t say I expect the rest of the year to be more interesting but I’ll keep writing and sharing as I always do and whatever happens, happens.
(Transcript on the jump -MP3 available later today.)
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father (Er, that would be OUR Government)
“For Conservative thinkers believe that man is corrupt, that his appetites need restraint, and that the forces of custom, authority, law, and government, as well as moral discipline, are required to keep sin in check.”
-Quintin Hogg
John Adams
“Experience has ever shown, that education, as well as religion, aristocracy, as well as democracy and monarchy, are, singly, totally inadequate to the business of restraining the passions of men, of preserving a steady government, and protecting the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”
Q: This movie has a fair amount of gun violence and can be a bit flippant about it. Does that give you pause in the wake of what happened in Connecticut?
A: I don’t think movies or video games have anything to do with it. I don’t think [stopping gun violence] is about more gun control. I grew up in the South with guns everywhere, and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren’t taught the value of life.”
It seems that Progressives like Diane Feinstein have not understood that simple phrase. The problems that we see in mass murders (or single murders, or any other crime committed against another) is either one of a mental illness (who shoots their Mom or defenseless little kids as in Newtown?), or the latest where that previously incarcerated oldster (for killing his mom with a hammer) proclaimed “do what I do best – kill people – just plain black as night Evil. Or those that simply wish what others have for either the reasons of “I want what they have” and justify it with “they don’t need it” (just like Progressives / Liberals / Democrats) – its about control.
Diane Feinstein combines that latter part, control, with another. That is, Progressives so untrust their fellow citizens, they feel that they have the mandate to take away “all the toys” because we, the “unprogressed”, “uncivilized”, “uneducated”, stubborn, selfish, should-be-demonized ungrown-up child-citizen should not be allowed to have guns simply because those things either 1) insult their sensibilities (as guns do) or 2) have a longer range motive in mind.
As to #1, if “we” won’t cooperate and compromise with the Progressives as they head us from being the Land of the Free to that of the Land of We Submitted to Despotism, they will keep at changing the laws and changing the regulations to enforce their way to their Utopian version of Freedom (“you are free to do what we allow you to do – it’s not just for the common good but it’s good for you too – you’ll see!). Yes, it was enable citizens to protect themselves and their families at a personal level.
I have posited elsewhere in these pages that the government (when run by this particular crowd of liberal Democrats at least) very likely engages in tax policy designed to eliminate political competition.
This goes into the “Wow that’s kind of cool category.” Today Rush Limbaugh mentioned me by name. I didn’t hear it but Skip called me from the road, and he was pretty darn excited for me.
