…for President Barack Obama’s (D) gun control:
Even if it is from last October and not post-Obama’s crocodile tears performance this year.
This
Reply
Category Archives: rights
The Left and Gun Control
A 23-year-old man, 5′ 11″ tall and weighing 200 lbs, stalked and tried to assault a 65-year-old woman, standing 4′ 11″ and weighing all of 105 lbs. This thug followed her from a convenience store stop she made on the way home from work to her parking spot in her apartment complex.
When he grabbed for the woman, she drew her (legally owned and carried) pistol and shot him, thereby successfully defending herself from what was, at best, a strong-arm robbery attempt, and quite possibly a follow-up murder.
Let me emphasize that: this small, older woman successfully defended herself against a man one-third her age and twice her size with the only equalizer adequate to the task, a firearm.
Let me emphasize one more item: this is the sort of thing that President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats and Progressives actively seek to prevent: a citizen defending himself—herself in this case—without benefit of Big Government’s good offices from an assault that even the police are powerless to prevent, only to react against well after the assault has run its course.
But, of course, Obama and Democrats and Progressives know full well that independent, self-reliant citizens are anathema to their policies.
Obama’s New Federal Firearms License Requirement
Obama and Gun Control
In a recent Wall Street Journal article regarding President Barack Obama’s (D) planned unilateral actions to impose further gun controls on us, Obama was quoted as saying
We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one? What if Congress did something—anything—to protect our kids from gun violence?
Congress already has done quite a bit to protect our kids: they’ve been blocking your constant efforts to disarm us and thereby leave our kids utterly defenseless against still-armed criminals.
What’s more, We the People—your employer, even though you choose not to accept that—also have already done something, the critical thing, to protect our kids. It’s called the 2nd Amendment, reprinted below for your education.
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.
There’s nothing in there that says you get to do what you feel like about our Arms. Note especially that phrase shall not be infringed. This means you, Ace.
Unions and Non-Member “Fees”
This session, the Supreme Court will hear, among other cases, Friedrichs v California Teachers Association.
On Jan 11 the court will hear arguments on whether public employees can be required to join a union or pay it a fee for collective-bargaining services.
The lawsuit contends such agreements violate First Amendment protections.
The argument is that, with public service unions, such fees also are political speech, since the unions also push for this or that domestic policy with their bargaining counterpart, the government, and there’s no way to separate out the union monies spent for bargaining outcome from those spent for political lobbying.
Such “agreements” (because paying the “fees” isn’t at all a voluntarily entered into arrangement, but a condition of having the job at all) go beyond that, though. They’re also a taking under principle of the 5th Amendment. Even though that Amendment binds the government and not private entities regarding takings, it’s not too far a stretch to apply it to the quasi-government entities of public service unions. Withal, the principle is valid, even if the Amendment itself is not strictly applicable.
Arguments in favor of the “fee” proceed from a false premise, too. “Fee” proponents argue that the payments are fair compensation for the union’s work in achieving an agreement for the nonmembers as well as the members. Of course, this is false on its face. The nonmembers are not represented by the union—that’s pretty obvious. As such, then, any arrangements between nonmembers and employers are strictly that: between the employer and the nonmember. If those arrangements look like what the union bargained for its members, oh well. They’re not required to be, and sometimes they are not.
Unions in Friedrichs also make the following argument:
If the suit prevails, public-employee unions say they could be crippled in about half the states that allow such agency shop clauses.
Couple things about that argument. One is that it may well be inconvenient to the unions (even extremely so), but that isn’t relevant. Either the “fees” are owed for the claimed services rendered, or they are not. The case should be decided on its merits, not on the basis of any supposed knock-on effects.
The other thing is this: so what?