Tag Archives: freedom

Gun Control…Ignorance

Posted on by
Reply

…or outright dishonesty.  As one demonstration, we have a breathtakingly ignorant claim from the Congresswoman who’s pushing a gun control bill in the House of Representatives.  Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D, CO) actually said this, out loud and in public, about firearm magazines and the usefulness of banning them:

These are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available[.]

For another demonstration, we have Barack Obama’s similarly ignorant (or, in his case, deliberately distorting) claim about the weapons used in the Sandy Hook massacre—the latest crisis this Progressive is trying not to let go to waste.  It’s interesting to note, also, that he made this remark at one of his campaign stops in in San Francisco [emphasis in the original].

…it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon—by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.

Leaving aside his arrogance in presuming—contra the 2nd Amendment—that the Federal government has authority to determine the permissible purposes for owning weapons, Obama knows two things about this: he knows that that Lanza killed his victims with a semi-automatic rifle, not a fully automatic one, and he knows the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a fully automatic one.

More Government Arrogance

Posted on by
Reply

This time on the immigration front, and it brings to mind the dark-of-night ram-through of Obamacare.  And that’s working out well, isn’t it?

Recall that Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D, VT) about upcoming immigration reform legislation and urging a “make haste slowly” process with open hearings and an opportunity for all Senators, and through them all Americans, to see and debate the matter.

Leahy wrote back saying he’d give hearings some thought, and maybe hold one.  After all,

The Judiciary Committee is capable of swift and thorough action.

And

I…remain mindful of the urgent need for us to actually get to the work of debating and considering amendments without unnecessary delay….

Yeah.  Just like Obamacare.  No need for petty Republican argument.  We already know the answer.

A copy of Leahy’s letter to Rubio can be seen here.

Why are Progressives always so afraid of open debate?

The Arrogance of Government

Posted on by
2

Here is an example of why we have a Constitution that explicitly limits the power of the Federal government and within that Constitution a Bill of Rights that both explains those limits and explicitly reserves the infinity of remaining rights and powers to the people and to the states.

This example, though, is by one of those state governments, the government of Maryland which also says it’s legal for approved gangs to commit trespass and terrorize children inside their own homes.  State Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D, Dist 27) said this in all seriousness:

We’ve allowed them to manufacture.  We’ve allowed them to sell, and we’ve cut back on their paperwork.

Notice that: government has allowed.  Because government will make these decisions, because what a manufacturer—or anyone—can do is only what a government will permit.

Never mind that the Maryland Constitution says this in Article I of its Declaration of Rights:

That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole….

In other words, government works for the people, and what government can do is what the people will permit, not the other way around.

Oh, wait, this is just Progressives disregarding yet another Constitution that’s more than 100 years old, confusing, and not binding on anything.

The Supreme Court and Prop 8

Posted on by
Reply

In California, the people—right, wrong, or indifferent—have spoken.  What the Supreme Court needs to think about as it considers California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage in that state, is whether the people are sovereign or the Court presumes to be.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in questioning lawyers defending the Proposition, pointed out that the children of gay parents have voices that ought to be heard.  And so they should.  When they’re adults, those 40,000 children (compared with the 10 million, or so, adult Californians who already have spoken in that referendum) can spearhead a new Proposition that would reverse Prop 8.  The people, after all, can change their minds.  That’s also easier to accomplish than getting the Supreme Court to reverse itself, even on an opinion with which they’ve interfered with the 10th Amendment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also questioning lawyers defending Prop 8, asked why California had an interest in denying gay couples the right to marry.   But this is to misunderstand the role of the Federal government in a Republic whose social compact has a 10th Amendment.  The Federal government—and so the Supreme Court as the pinnacle of a branch of that government—has no interest in why a state wants to do a thing, a thing that does no harm to its neighboring states or to the United States, within its own borders.

The only legitimate ruling for the Court is to let the people’s decision stand.  And leave California, in competition with those other states whose citizens have determined otherwise, to live with the consequences of its choice.  That’s simply an application of Saul Alinsky’s Rule 4.

Extremist Left on the Prowl, Again

Posted on by
Reply

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is attacking a Viet Nam War memorial, and it’s attacking Coos Bay, OR, for having it.

The atrocity this time is a small memorial erected by the local Jaycees in 1972—as that war was winding down—and that has a Latin cross atop it*:CoosBayVietNamMemorial

FFRF attorney Rebecca Markert, in a letter to City Manager Rodger Craddock, wrote—and she was actually serious

We have no objection to the veterans’ memorials.  Our objection is to the message of endorsement of Christianity over other religions and non-religions.  The Christian-only memorial sends a message that the government only cares about the deaths of Christian soldiers, not Jewish, other non-Christian, and non-religious soldiers[.]

She might want to consult with some of those Jewish, other non-Christian, and non-religious soldiers.  They certainly have been supportive of the Latin cross at the Mojave Desert and Mt Soledad War Memorials.  Maybe it’s because Latin Crosses aren’t Christian symbols, per se, on war memorials; they’re symbols, instead of our fallen and of our respect for their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their surviving families.  That’s a degree of respect the FFRF might want to start showing.

Craddock has the right of it:

With all the issues facing our city, we probably have more important things to do[.]

Indeed.

 

*The photo is by KCBY.