Kudos to my wife for sending me the link to this article. THANKS!
Here is something I thought was news-worthy. Not the statistics reported, though if you’re paying attention, you probably already new them. No, the thing that is news worthy is that the Washington Post published the article.
For the benefit of readers overseas, there is a political divide over gun rights in the United States. The liberal faction absolutely hates guns, and those who own them, and works tirelessly to eliminate them from our country. The conservative faction sees guns as a matter of personal defense, and the last line of defense against the abuse of power by our elected leaders. Finally, in all honesty, there are the criminals who do not follow any laws, know they will always be able to get/make guns, and unrepentantly do as they please wherever they feel safe from resistance.
The Washington Post is a mostly liberal news publication based in the Washington, DC, area.
So, with that background, you can see why it is worth noticing that the Washington Post ran an article with the headline, “Gun Violence Declining, Except In Gun-Free Zones”.
But, it is also pretty easy to see where the BBC’s opinions fall –
Negotiations are underway in Mexico, even as you read this, to use the UN Small Arms Treaty as a vehicle to give President Obama all the gun-control powers he’s been craving.
If you care about this, please sign a petition aimed at your Congress officials, to pressure them to fight against it.
The Second amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
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.
The history of the Second Amendment indicates that its purposes were to secure to each individual the right to keep and bear arms so that he could protect his absolute individual rights as well as carry out his obligation to assist in the common defense. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an “unorganized” armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant. This concept of an unorganized, armed citizenry clearly recognized the right, and moreover the duty, to keep and bear arms in an individual capacity.
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” PATRICK HENRY, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“A free people ought…to be armed…” GEORGE WASHINGTON, speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” ALEXANDER HAMILTON, the Federalist Papers at 184-8
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
“A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” TENCH COXE, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” Benjamin Franklin
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”, Thomas Jefferson
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” THOMAS JEFFERSON, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967).
Also, the liberal article acts as if Supreme Court members have never commented previously on the Amendment:
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”– Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”– Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carry a war arm… is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.”
– Arkansas Supreme Court –1878
… that you are a potential terrorist. More behind the link above.
Whenever gun crimes are perpetrated, liberals love to point the finger of blame at law-abiding gun owners, but a list of mass shooters from the past 20 years proves that they all had one thing in common – and it wasn’t the weapons used.Evidence shows that the common factor in nearly every mass shooting is that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been taking them at one point before committing their crimes.
Multiple credible scientific studies going back more then a decade, as well as internal documents from certain pharmaceutical companies that suppressed the information show that SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior. One need only Google relevant key words or phrases to see for themselves. www.ssristories.com is one popular site that has documented…
View original post 534 more words
Hypocrisy, your name is once again “Democrat.” Last week we saw gun control advocates, Bill Maher and Ben Affleck admit they own guns and will not give them up unilaterally while advocating laws that would make it illegal for you to have a gun. Now we see a Missouri State Senator who actually has promoted and voted for anti-gun laws, caught when arrested during a protest in Ferguson, Missouri with a loaded 9mm handgun.
Missouri state Democratic Senator Jamilah Nasheed was arrested Monday night while protesting with a group outside the Ferguson Police Department. What makes this interesting is what was in her possession at the time.
According to Police Chief Tom Jackson, Nasheed was carrying a loaded 9mm handgun along with extra rounds of ammunition. She also refused to take a breathalyzer test after officers determined she “smelled strongly of intoxicants,” sources told KMOV-TV.
The irony in this…
View original post 178 more words
Here is something you probably haven’t heard about the debacle in Ferguson, MO, USA.
I am of the firm opinion that this was a totally predictable event. The seeds have been sown since September 11, 2001. It started with the USA Patriot Act. This is what happens when government lawmakers make decisions based on FEAR.
With the deaths of nearly 3000 people on 9/11 our government lawmakers learned that the US was vulnerable. The proof was on every news station, every website, every radio station in the country. The immediate reaction was shock. Every citizen in the country was asking, “How did this happen HERE?”
Our lawmakers went from shock to fear. They feared their own constituents. The prevailing mood in Washington, DC, can best be summarized as, “We need to be seen trying to do something and it needs to be fast! The result was one long series of legislative missteps made under the assumption that “any action is better than no action.” USA Patriot – illegal wire taps – NSA data mining – TSA airport security screening. It was all ineffective, because it was all reactionary.
Now we see on the news yet another by-product of that fear. Local police forces confronting local citizens with military-grade hardware – equipment that was either given or sold to the local police department under the justification that if al-Qaida attacked, we’d need to be ready for an effective, local response anywhere in the country. FEAR. Guess what? That which they feared never happened.
As I’ve said before, it is my considered opinion that any weapon or protective armor that the government can justify equipping the police with should legally be available to all law-abiding citizens. It’s called the 2nd Amendment – which is just as much about enabling us to resist the abuse of power by our own government as it is about hunting or crime.
So, I have a solution for the current problem of police departments having military-grade equipment. Hold a raffle, and give away half of all the equipment they have received from the military to law-abiding citizens. Nobody with a violent crime record would be eligible. Provide the winners with specific training in the safe use of their weapons, along with 10,000 rounds of ammo and a lifetime membership to https://www.frontsight.com/ that covers training/practice on the weapons they win. Then appoint them as the Citizen Militia, and let them worry about protecting their communities from al-Qaida. Let the police go back to doing what they were supposed to do – enforce the local laws.
• The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life.
Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.” Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”
• The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.” (Emphasis added)
• The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal
ones, in the public sector.
“Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.” (Article 32)
• The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.
Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
“In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.”
• An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.
• Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).
• The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
• The Mexican constitution singles out “undesirable aliens.” Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.”
• The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests.
Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.
• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”
MEXICO’S IMMIGRATION LAW:
• Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
– Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
– Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
– Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
– The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
• Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
– Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
– A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
– A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
• Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
– Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
– Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
– Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
– Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
– Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
• Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
– “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
– Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
– Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
– A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
– Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
Yet they reserve the right to meddle in US internal affairs and send their citizens into our country to demand “rights” they won’t give to anyone from any other country. The United States needs to pass one new law – no foreigner illegally within US Territory has any rights within the US that their home country does not grant to foreigners there.