…is nearly as comprehensive as that of “due process.”
Susan Collins Unveils a Gun-Control Compromise
After the Senate voted down four gun-control bills inspired by the Orlando massacre, the Maine Republican Susan Collins unveiled compromise legislation Tuesday that addresses a bipartisan concern: individuals suspected of terrorist ties being able to purchase guns.
[…]
The New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte emphasized that the legislation protects Americans’ due-process rights, a major concern among Republicans who voted against a Democratic bill restricting sales on Monday.
Collins is the NRA B+ rated fool whose closest approach to being pro-RKBA is that there are only some infringements she’s OK with. Ayotte, you may recall, is one of the turncoats who voted for cloture on the Manchin-Toomey-Gottlieb abomination, allowing it to go to a vote; but then she threw a hissy fit because they wouldn’t let her amend it further to expand mental health prohibitions.
The compromise (PDF) is that both statist parties get the unethical, unworkable, rights-violating additions to the prohibited persons list, and the Republicans can pretend it includes “due process.” The only folks giving anything up are the people they screw over.
“Due process” is not being allowed to beg for reconsideration after you’ve lost a human/civil right by bureaucratic decree by being placed on a secret list that has never resulted in the capture of a terrorist. For pretty much any reason, or none.
To learn what due process actually is, one would have to refer to the Bill of Rights, with which these oathbreakers regard as a to-do list of things to be trashed.
“…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
They have to go through the “process” first,to establish the alleged necessity. An ex post facto “hearing” in which you may not be allowed to challenge or even see supposed evidence against you does not count.
When many people go to Israel, the want to see the historical sights. I do as well, especially military museums. There will most likely be a column on that. A lot of people want to eat the fabulous
food. Yes, me too. They want to shop, I’m SO there, especially when you talk about Yafo. They want to swim, did that. But what I really, really, really, really wanted to do, was interview Moshe Feiglin. At
which most tourist are probably saying “Excuse me?” But that was one of my very highest hopes for this trip. And I was successful.
I first learned about the former MK (Member of Knesset) when in response to something I had written my wonderfully kind team mate Y.B. sent me a portion of a Torah Thought from Mr. Feiglin. I loved it! I asked for more info and Y.B. told me who had written it and who he was. I did online research and signed up for the Manhigut Yehudite newsletter and was soon getting my own copies of Torah Thoughts included with each newsletter which I very much looked
forward to receiving. Each newsletter included Torah and politics. Does it get any better? Well, also a Dry Bones Cartoon. That’s pretty good too.
Last year I got to interview Mr. Feiglin by phone, and it was a great interview. This year it was in person. I feel very blessed.
So why my fascination? My respect first blossomed when he was writing articles calling for the Israeli government to make it easier for everyday Israelis to get weapons permits. Gun Control? Or Citizen Control?
With all that has been going on in Israel, I had a lot of questions for Mr. Feiglin. Especially since he along with the support of a lot of everyday people have founded a new political party. Zehut, which means “Identity”. Zehut is unusual in that they also allow people from places other than Israel to join. And with that I tell you I am a proud card carrying member. Well, I will be when my card gets here, but I am.
My first question was why form Zehut? Was it in response to the betrayal of leadership in politics? They campaign on one platform and then when elected turn and go another direction?
Feiglin: The average Israeli feels disenfranchised from their Jewish identity and the concept of a Jewish state. (I believe he said in a recent poll that 80% of Israelis identify as Jewish first, and as an Israeli second). The disenfranchisement started with the Oslo accords and now takes the form of things like a Judge appointed to the High Court who refused to sing HaTikvah, the Israeli national anthem after being sworn in. It shows in an army which is now refusing to allow soldiers to grow beards, “too much Jewish”. And very sadly when a Yad Vashem guide pointed out that the murder of Gil-Ad Shaer,16, Eyal Yifrah, 19, and Naftali Fraenkel,16 had occurred in Gush Etzion because they were Jewish. (That would seem evident to
me, but I guess political correctness can run amuck anywhere). Israel is a Jewish democratic state, but 10% controls the power and it is eroding Jewish values.
I have a few questions about everyday Israelis being allowed to carry weapons. Why are there areas where people are not allowed to have carry permits? A buddy moved from Jerusalem where he could carry, to Tel Aviv and now he can’t. He’s no less qualified in Tel Aviv. Yafo which suffered a terrorist attack is certainly within walking distance of Tel Aviv, I’ve done so! Why aren’t the military allowed to carry off duty, and why after people are out of the military can they not automatically be allowed to carry a weapon? As it turns out, the answer to all these questions are the same. Mr. Feiglin is very good at seeing the big picture and summing it up.
Feiglin: Because the concept of freedom is wrong. It should be the concept that the right of self- defense is G-d given! In Israel they believe that the right is given by the state. And if the state can give you the right to self defense, they can take that right away. In America they had the right concept, although they are losing the mindset. They believed anyone should be allowed to own guns unless they showed they were not to be trusted with them. (I pointed out that the UN does not believe self defense is a human right at all. Considering how anti-Israel the UN is, that is really not a good
combination). Zehut believes in planting in the Israeli mind the concept of true freedom. That everyone is responsible to defend their life, that of their family and the nation. Of course, there are those that oppose this. When I was in the Knesset I fought for more people to be allowed to carry. There were 150,000 people licensed to carry. But the Knesset wants to decrease that till terrorism decreases. You have the state as “Big Brother”.
What about the shooting in Hevron? (Sheila’s article on this incident) WHY is this soldier being prosecuted? Didn’t the fact that the video came from B’Tselem raise suspicions? This produced a wealth of information. This is so much more to this than a simple case of Katie Couric media malfeasance. I really think you should go read Moshe’s whole article on this topic, but here is what we covered.
Feiglin: This is a war of Israelis and Jews. It’s the soul of the Israeli, for what comes first, a concept of citizen or Jewish state. It’s been going on a long time. For the Israeli (in this comparison, sounds to me like your typical “enlightened” leftist who doesn’t have good sense about how this will play out) it’s the citizen, not Jewish state or identity. It was certainly evident when the Eichmann trial took place in Israel in 1961. A Jewish writer Hannah Arendt wrote a book, “Eichmann In Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,”with basically the premise that Eichmann was just there, wrong place, wrong time. Can’t blame him, can’t blame anyone but Hitler. Anyone would have acted the same. Apparently some Israeli “intellectuals”
felt the need to agree. This kind of thinking is evident in the IDF today. The former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon recently said that “If someone rises to kill you, kill him first” is not the IDF’s strategy. The Deputy Chief of Staff equated those who subscribe to that value with Nazis. He would rather lose soldiers who protect citizens than kill terrorists. There is no difference in the value of the life of a person just out doing their shopping and the terrorist that comes to kill them. Certainly had nothing to do with ideology, right? But yet today some Arabs want to kill any Jew, soldier, civilian, man, woman, child or baby, it doesn’t matter. It IS the ideology. When Arafat was sick in Ramallah I had a sign on my car that said Hurry up and kill him before he dies. For someone that had that much blood on his hands to die in his own time is immoral. For terrorists to go to trial is immoral. A healthy Jewish response is you kill the attackers. You kill the terrorists that have
declared their own war on Jews. After the soldier killed the terrorist, the stabbings stopped. He did more than all the speeches.
What about the Temple Mount, Har HaBeit? Why are the Israeli police so quick to remove Jews? One young boy was even recently removed not for saying anything but because he had tears in his eyes. And for those that wonder, yes I did express my opinion of Moshe Dayan’s decision.
Feiglin: It has to do with losing identity. We must let Jews have their identity on the Temple Mount. There are those replacing Jewish identity, and they fear what Israel will become with it’s Jewish identity. Arabs do not really have an identity so much as filled with hatred. It’s in their textbooks, their schools, mosques, social media and how they are raised. If Israel disappeared from the map, there would be no more “Palestinian”. Their reason for being would be gone. The first Zionists were colonialists from Europe, and they just wanted to be one big happy family. They didn’t understand the Arab mindset. Most Israelis are Jews first, Israeli second but they are being led by a minority that doesn’t have that mindset.
What about the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) or as I call it (BS) movement? Has it had an effect? Is it just plain anti-Semitism in increments?
Feiglin: BDS is about the delegitimizing of Israel. When did the holocaust start? (He did ask me this, and I thought for a second and answered “the night Hitler was conceived”) That was the correct answer. When Hitler spoke again and again against the Jews it had it’s effect. In 1939 or 1940 when Jews ran to their neighbors to hide, they were killed. It was about eliminating the right of Jews to exist. Israel has to attack Iran, there is a real danger of Jewish history being written in Jerusalem. Not Warsaw. It’s needed to make a moral point. There is a correlation between the speeches made in Iran 12 ½ years ago by Ahmadinejad and the delegitimization of Israel, and it’s growing.
My last question to him “We’ve had a possible Kenyan as a president, at least someone not really raised as an American, I think we should try having an Israeli for a President, would you run?”
Feiglin: I’ve been asked about the current election. My answer is it doesn’t matter which one wins. If Israel will do what is best for Israel, then all will be better.
I started this interview by telling him that I felt like I cared more about Israeli lives than some Israeli politicians did.
After talking to him, I am quite certain that is not how it is when it comes to Mr. Feiglin. He has a very sound political platform based on a Jewish identity in THE Jewish state, living by Jewish laws and principles. Laws that will protect the innocent, laws that will allow every citizen living their daily lives be it in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Be’er Sheva, Judea and Samaria to know their lives are worth defending and giving them the means to do so. It will allow the IDF to return to being the fine army it was meant to be and not a social experiment.
Zehut is a party based on knowing who we are, and what we are, and where we belong. And embracing it!
Honestly, I think there is a lesson in this for Americans as well. Because I’m very, very tired of having values that the majority of U.S. believe in being derided and told “that’s not who we are”.
Yeah, it is. And as the politicians and their compatriots in the media crank up to hype another round of gun control tripe, we would do well to remember it. It makes me think so much of “You can live
by G-d’s law or die by man’s.
I want to thank three wonderful people, Aryeh Sonnenberg who is the international director of Zehut and so warmly welcomed me when I joined. He put me in touch with Shmuel Sackett (who I got to talk with on the phone, really) who set the meeting up with Moshe. Shmuel also writes excellent articles. And I very much want to thank Moshe Feiglin for giving me an hour of his very valuable limited time. And since I often like to close with a video, this one is perfect!
It appears that all the politicians are jumping on the idea of a no-buy list based on terrorist watch lists. It’s not merely a “bipartisan” enthusiasm for violating your rights, it’s downright nonpartisan.
Obama certainly loves him some no-buy, thinking anyone who disagrees with him must be crazy. Which could conveniently get them added to the standard prohibited person list for a NICS check.
Clinton, of course, has long been committed to the destruction of Second Amendment-protected rights, and sees this as another in a long line of rationalizations for victim disarmament.
Trump is not only embracing the no-process idea, he’s asking the NRA to join and help him. Perhaps he momentarily forgot he’s no longer a Democrat.
If all these principled and brilliant people think a no-buy list for terrorist suspects is a good idea, maybe we should look at it more closely. Could those flaws I see actually be features?
That’s going to be tough to say, because a no-buy list of terror suspects doesn’t yet exist. What’s been introduced in Congress will be debated, amended, and marked up in assorted committees. We’ll have to guess, based on what does exist.
The starting point is that persons in the Terrorism Screening Database would be added to the prohibited persons list under 922(t)(1)(B)(ii).
Note that the bill would flag such threatening people in a NICS check. Sale denied.
Scenario 1: Joe Terrorist wonders if they’re on to him. He strolls into his local Black Rifles R Us and tries to buy heat-seeking–bullet-piercing-bulletbullet-hose of a weapon of mass destruction. He gets denied. Since he knows he has a clean criminal and mental health record — but also knows he’s a secret terrorist — he figures out the obvious and goes on the lam. So much for that investigation. I’m sure the FBI will be happy.
Hmm. Maybe they’ll amend that to allow the sale, but will immediately notify the FBI so they can go pick him up in a timely manner.
Scenario 2: Omar Asshole buys a gun, and a few days later, before the feds show up, he goes on his rampage. Whoops. I’m sure that’ll be noted in someone’s annual performance evaluation.
Scenario 3: Billy Bob Hunter gets a downcheck on NICS. While he’s scratching his head puzzlement, the feds come and drag him in for questioning. Probably because his name shared too many common letters with a suspected terrorist. Or was a small government advocate, peace activist, senator…
Remember: this is based on the same source used to assemble the no-fly list that has enabled the TSA to capture exactly zero terrorists in nearly fifteen years.
But don’t worry, Billy Bob. If you’ve incorrectly been denied, you can always appeal to correct the record. Someday. Maybe. In the interim, what’s a violation of basic human/civil rights compared to terrorism? That’s what DC congresscritters call “due process.”
Something else to remember: Roughly 95% of NICS denials are false positives. If you believe that adding a known-corrupted list to that broken system will make it work better, you’ve never had to work with a legacy computer system.
But let us pretend it all works.
Scenario 4: Syed Jihad suspects they’re on to him. Following the lead of the majority of firearm-toting criminals, he has someone else buy his gun for him, or gets it on the street. FBI becomes aware of him when turn they on cable news the next morning.
If we take Feinstein et al at their word that this terrorist addendum to the NICS check is to stop terrorists then the best case scenario is that 1) a known terrorist 2) consciously chooses to purchase his weaponry via an FFL, 3) actually gets flagged, and either 4) is then stupid enough to delay his attack long enough for the feds to get off their butts and investigate (this assumes the sale proceeds to avoid tipping off terror-boy), or 5) gets denied and yet doesn’t opt for another technique like mowing down pedestrians with his car on his way home from the gun store.
Feinstein and King would have you believe that their little attack on basic freedoms would have stopped the Orlando Asshole‘s attack…
…even though he had no criminal record, and was not on the watch list, and acted faster than do the feds typically investigate denials.
A buggy system? Only if stopping real terrorists is the purpose. On the other hand, a watch list that allows individual immigration officers to ban their wives from the country with a simple fake data entry is made to order for listing those pesky “Oath Keepers, Other Liberty Groups” and taking away their tools of liberty. Instant prohibited persons. Objecting to a congresscritter who doesn’t properly represent your pro-freedom views in DC might be enough to get listed. So much for those calls to contact your representatives.
Yes; those are features. If your goal is a totalitarian police state with no meaningful constitutional protections for the subjects. It looks like Feinstein has finally found a way to force Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them all in. By nonjudicial, bureaucratic decree. This time with at least the passive backing of the Republican and Libertarian Presidential candidates, and the National Rifle Association, along with the Democrats.
Obama Slams ’Crazy’ Gun Rights Activists After Terror Attack In Orlando
“The fact that we make it this challenging for law enforcement, for example, even to get — to get alerted that somebody who they are watching has purchased a gun, and if they do get alerted, sometimes it’s hard for them to stop them from getting a gun, is crazy. It’s a problem,” Obama said in the Oval Office today.
That’s so irrational on so many levels. Notifying the feds of a prohibited person trying to buy a gun from a dealer is pretty easy… since the feds are the ones doing the background checks. But if the person isn’t prohibited, how is anyone supposed to know he’s double-secret prohibited? Of course, this is a set up for a secret “no-buy” terrorist watch list, similar to the no-fly list to which people get anonymously added for the darnedest reasons.
But let’s say they inflict no-process presumed guilt on America (more so, I mean, and the Orlando Asshole strolls in to buy a gun…
…and walks out with it because he was notunder investigation, and hadn’t been for years. Possibly he should have been, but that’s hardly the dealer’s problem.
All right, all right. We’ll pretend he was under investigation and was on the nonexistent (fingers crossed) no-buy list. He gets rejected, the feds are notified…
And they do nothing. Except maybe curse about how the suspect now knows he’s being investigated. So we’ll leave out the part where our sexually confused protagonist gets notified. To keep the secret, the dealer will have to complete the sale. No doubt the feds will schedule him for a pick-up in a few days, and take that gun.
So tell us again, Barrycade, exactly what are you proposing to prevent another Orlando?
Moving on:
Obama complained out that the shooter was able to purchase weapons legally, even though he had been investigated by the F.B.I. for connections to radicalization but didn’t have a criminal record.
“It appear that is one of those weapons he was able to just carry out of the store, an assault rifle — a handgun, a Glock, which had a lot of clips in it,” Obama said.
Now that Glock stuffed full of clips… Having used a variety of Glocks, including the Glock 17 that Ass-boy is reported to have possessed, I can attest that they run very,very poorly when stuffed with junk. Typically, you get the best results when you inserted a single loaded magazine. A bunch of paper clips, tie clips, stripper clips, whatever, will jam it. Possibly that’s why the scumsucker apparently only used his MCX.
No, we aren’t “crazy.” We simply note that the Orlando murderer wasn’t a prohibited person.
We note that the no-buy list doesn’t yet exist (fingers still crossed), and would would work about as well as the no-fly list, which hasn’t helped the TSA catch a single terrorist for going on 15 years.
We note that we allegedly still have constitutional rights, like RKBA and due process.
For that matter, private sales happen. Perfectly lawfully, since — again — the perp in question wasn’t prohibited. That would go through any list. Want to mandate universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks? That’ll work about as well, since criminals most often obtain their guns through extra-legal channels anyway. I suppose you could require the prohibited persons to report themselves for checks…
No. We are not crazy. But either the President is, or he has other plans that would magically prevent a cold-blooded killer — with a clean record, not under investigation — obtaining any one of the hundreds of millions of firearms already in the country. Sounds like a post-constitutional total police/surveillance state, or total confiscation attempts followed something close to civil war.
Here’s the deal folks, we all can see the black cloud(s) on the horizon, that is why most if not all of us are here reading this blog in the first place, so the question we all are asking ourselves what can we do when EVERYTHING is so screwed up and I mean EVERYTHING btw
Well it’s sure is depressing and I have friends and family who have just about given up; but me being the Stoic as I am finds me always trying to look at reality as reality and accept what I can do or not. First; all things will come to an end (unless of course you believe in life after death that is) and the Republic or Empire called the US of A is getting there, IMHO the only question in my mind is how & how fast. If you accept that reality as I have than also IMHO it will make it easier to plan your next step and what to do, being that for myself I ain’t one to just take things lying down, that is.
The premise of the book is the same premise that I teach in my Auxiliary and Support Operations Course: surviving the Decline of Empire is not about “saving” the empire, nor is it about “restoring” the empire. It’s about ensuring the survival of those cultural values that made the empire worthwhile in the first place, and the best people to surround yourself with, in order to ensure that, is by looking at the people who you already know share your values. Who is that? Your family, friends, and neighbors.
The problem that often arises, within the preparedness and survivalist communities however, is that everyone wants to create a “group,” whole cloth, out of the thin air of “like-minded” people that they probably don’t even know. Who do you know better, and who, should you trust? The dude you met at the Oathkeepers Rally, who showed up wearing a Multi-Cam soft shell parka, with lots of III% and Gadsden Flag velcro patches, or the cousins and siblings you grew up with, and their offspring?
“But, John, my family is full of sxx%heads that don’t care about the Constitution, or the Bill-of-Rights, or Capitalism. They all support Bernie Sanders, for crying out loud!”
Really? So, you were just a fluke of nature, and nobody in your family shares your values, at all? Where did your values come from? Granted, it CAN happen. I’ve met people who developed values in college or the military that seemed to be diametrically opposite of what their families believed. It’s pretty fxx%ing rare though. Even then, you—presumably—have friends that you’ve had for some time. THOSE people share your values, at least on some level, or they would not be your friends, right?
So what if your family and friends don’t share your concerns about the Decline, right now? If you’re willing to do the hard work, and think introspectively, you CAN find a way to approach them, through your shared values, in such a way to help them understand the importance of preparedness. You can, to borrow a quote, “instruct, especially in fundamentals or rudiments;” in fact, doing so, is “to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point-of-view, or principle.” See, recruiting and indoctrination is THE most important task the auxiliary fulfills in the UW doctrinal model. It doesn’t matter if the auxiliary is providing food, if there’s nobody to eat the dx%ned slop. It doesn’t matter if they’re procuring weapons and medical equipment on the black market, if there’s nobody to shoot the weapons, or that will need to be patched up.
The idea of “winning hearts and minds” is often derided today as unrealistic political bullsx%t, conceived by feel-good politicians with their heads in the clouds, and a total lack of understanding about how to win wars. While it HAS often been misused, and IS often misused, the old meme of “grab ’em by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow,” is just as foolhardy. While it’s demonstrably not true that “you can’t kill your way to victory,” as the bleeding hearts like to whine, it IS demonstrably true that if you start killing people who are not yet dedicated to killing you, you WILL create MORE enemies, in their families and friends.
The fact is, committed foes, who have voiced or proven their willingness to use violence to achieve their aims, are not—generally—going to be convinced by anything outside of overwhelming violence-of-action, to alter their behavior. Those people can only be “fixed” by chopping off their heads, and sticking them on spikes to scare their compatriots. The greater mass of people however, who may hold some egregious views on things, that can be educated as to the error of their ways, absent chopping off heads.
Interesting reading folks (if you can handle the cussing), even with the heads on spike thing there is a time and place for everything IMHO, I hope that time is not in my lifetime but methinks it will be in the lifetime of some of my descendants so the very least of what I can do today is start laying the groundwork to better help their survival when that day comes (& if it comes in my day well at least I will have a leg up on that too & maybe not let my Kilt or Kin find my head on the bad guys spike who ever they may be, you know they have to be bad if your head is on their spike, don’t you).
Well that is where my focus is today and you know something it does make me feel better that I am doing something IMHO constructive and not just being depressed about how EVERYTHING is so screwed up around me and there is nothing much that I can do about that.
It is my plan to attend some of John’s upcoming classes too, which you can find more information about on his website.
Onward and upwards!
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
In the wake of Some Asshole murdering and wounding more than a hundred people, the Pope is blaming guns*, while Prezzie Barrycade is attributing the tendency to do horrific violence on information on the Internet.
So, you see, it wasn’t the fault of a sick, racist, homophobic, violentperson. That “assault rifle” (which wasn’t) was browsing websites, got hypnotized by machines dispensing jihadidomestic rhetoric, loaded itself up, picked up a pistol, grabbed the car keys, and drove to the night club.
By that “logic,” they should have tried the machine guns, gas chambers, and ovens at Nuremberg.
As a nation, we’ve seriously lost our way. We used to understand that there are bad individuals who do bad things by choice. We held the people responsible for their actions. Not the inanimate objects, the tools.
Now, craven “leaders” would rather avoid alienating a potential voting block, and attack “access to guns” instead of a violent ideology. All in direct conflict with reality: The night club was a gun-free zone. The law-abiding patrons were disarmed for the convenience of the mass killer; something we’ve seen all too often.
If the Obamas and Francises of the world have their way, we’ll keep seeing it.
And the useful idiots like Takei, Cher, Rock, and Moore can pretend all they want. But some day, they’ll be forced to look back, and echo the words of an elderly German man, haunted by guilt, who told me:
“We knew. We told ourselves we didn’t know, because we didn’t want to know.
I’m virtually certain that our regular readers know about the current lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook families against Remington/Bushmaster. Their odd little legal theory — and seemingly bought by the judge — is that Remington is liable for the actions of Some Asshole because the company improperly marketed a military weapon to civilians (and precognitively knew that regions that buy guns may see thieves stealing them from honest folk).
Sensible people with some grasp of the law know that suit should have been immediately dismissed with prejudice under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA protects firearms business from imaginary liability for the misuse of a weapon by some end user…
…so long as the company obeyed all the myriad rules, regulations, and laws that govern the manufacture and sale of firearms. Companies are still liable for defective products and unlawful actions.
These misinformed moneygrubbers claim that marketing an arm commissioned by the military to civilians is “negligent entrustment,” another exception to PLCA immunity.
We could note that the military didn’t exactly “commission” the weapon design. It was marketed to the military some years after it was designed, and it was a heck of an uphill battle for the military to finally adopt it. So to speak.
In fact, the military variant, the M16 family, is not the same as the AR family of semiautomatic arms sold to civilians. The military version has some specified modifications not in the original AR, and is is fully-automatic (legally speaking; some variants fired bursts, which the feds still class as “machine gun”).
Every time some ignorant, victim disarming crime-enabler calls semi-auto ARs weapons designed for soldiers in war theaters, I ask them to show the army that deliberately chooses to generally arm its troops with semiauto AR-15s instead of assault rifles or battle rifles.
And every time… –crickets–
Back to the lawsuit. Part of the plaintiffs’ claim is that Remington deliberately marketed ARs to teenage boys. (This ignore the fact that The Asshole didn’t buy the AR he used. He murdered the lawful owner, an middle-aged woman, and stole her gun.
Nonetheless, a moronic Yalie thinks she can prove that claim.
A centerpiece of this effort was the company’s boy plan. Winchester prepared a letter about the .22 caliber rifle to send to boys between the ages of ten and sixteen. They asked retailers to send a list of the names of boys in their towns, so the company could send the letter to them under the retailer’s name. The company intended to reach precisely 3,363,537 boys this way.
Yes. You read that correctly. TL;DR: The Sandy Hook Asshole was driven to murder, theft, and more murder by the fact that nearly a century ago Winchester did market firearms to boys (back when it was perfectly legal for boys to buy guns, generally unlike today’s legal environment.
Since children cannot purchase firearms from FFLs, it would be silly for Remington to spend millions marketing to them. In 1920, it made sense, but no longer. Much better, more profitable, to market to parents.
Once upon a time, Remington lawfully marketed to a profitable demographic. Now they don’t because that demographic is no longer lawfully accessible.
Can you think of an industry whose products are being provided to children legally too young to use the products as intended? And who is doing it?
Hint: Condoms, and other birth control products. By schools. To children below the age of consent.
I guess it’s OK to protect victims of statuatory rape from the consequences, but not right to allow them to defend themselves against the rape in the first place.
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
You’ve heard that “polls show that 90% of Americans want…” garbage; usually universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, but often any other infringement of your human/civil rights the gun grabbers can dream up. And you’ve wondered where the heck they found that many idiots.
In New Hampshire, the claim by UNH was 93% in favor of UPPYI checks. But I could never find a single person who would admit to participating in the survey. At all. Responding pro or con. The university refused to release their raw polling data. Actual voting (as in electing pro-gun politicians) doesn’t reflect that claim.
In Washington, the Bloomberg Ban Bunnies trotted out the same 90% claim. Granted, when it went to referendum, the infringement passed.
By slightly under 60 percent, as I recall. So where did the the other 30% disappear to?
Yes, the 90% claim has consistently been shown to be low-grade, poorly composted bovine ejecta. Real “polls” — votes — don’t support the numbers, so…
[Digression: By that logic, the Bloomberg BBs represent — maybe — a few hundred people, so 99.999999999% percent of Americans must want everyone to be heavily armed at all times. -psst- Couric; I’m not NRA, but I’m pro-RKBA.]
See that? Now that the polls are clearly biased, manipulated, and maybe in the NH case, where no data exist, even made up, they have to fall back on the “silent majority” who huddle fearfully under their beds, refusing to voice what they truly want. A silent majority that can’t be verified because they run and hide form pollsters. But who transmit psychic emanations to Couric so she can discern their hidden desires.
Well, that got weird and creepy pretty quick. But that “silent majority” obviously has a thing for submission.
There’s the BBB playbook: Fake the polls; when that doesn’t work, lie. When that still doesn’t work, claim you’re speaking up for those who won’t speak up, or vote, for themselves.
How convenient.
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
In Part One of this series, I have discussed in broad terms the flaws of the present Constitution, link HERE.
Part Two discussed the specific shortcomings of the US Constitution, and there were a number of thoughtful comments that added significant value. Link HERE.
Part Three covered suggested steps to be taken and touched on the importance of ENFORCEMENT of the Constitution as the highest law of the land. Link HERE.
This installment is about making the myth of the Constitution real, about how we can go about actually enforcing the Constitution.
The idea of Constitutional enforcement has been an undercurrent in American politics for a long time, almost as long as the Constitution has been in force. Lysander Spooner in his essays entitled “No Treason” was not the first person to point out this issue, nor was he the last. Yet after over 200 years of increasingly obvious issues with the Constitution, we still have no enforcement clause.
Moreover, very few people are discussing what I consider to be the single most egregious flaw in the Constitution. Neither Michael Farris in his push towards an Article 5 Constitutional Convention nor Mark Levin in his book “The Liberty Amendments” promote Constitutional ENFORCEMENT, preferring rather to propose adding still more unenforceable amendments to an unenforced, and unenforceable Document. The only person I know that pushes the idea of enforcement of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the highest law of the land is Neil Smith. Despite endless lip service about Constitutional Government, few people out of government, and nobody at ALL in government seems to actually want to enforce The Document. Why is that? Cui Bono?
Well, not having an enforcement clause sure makes looting the taxpayer a lot easier, and it also makes it a lot easier to “enact a multitude of laws and eat out our substance.” A country like ours, where over half of the people working actually work for one governmental agency or another, either directly or indirectly, does provide considerable incentive for those folks to vote in favor of keeping their jobs funded. Enacting an enforcement clause is going to be damned difficult to do; enforcement of the Constitution will break lots of rice bowls. Both the Demopublicans and Republocrats see significant benefit in maintaining the illusion of legitimacy provided by the present myth.
Oddly enough, however, given the things the ruling oligarchy in this country have recently done, like having our military parade in red high heels and importing large numbers of 7th century barbarians in the hope that Western civilization will benefit therefrom, I’m hopeful that the right combination of stimuli can make the average American politician vote for damned near anything, as long as the carrot of re-election is dangled temptingly enough in front of them. But in any case, before we get hung up on the “how,” let’s think first about what an enforcement clause ought to look like. So what should an Enforcement Clause do? I have been thinking about this over the last two years, and here are my thoughts:
One of the problems we have with the current legal system is that it is a form of guild socialism. That is, if you do not belong to the appropriate guild, and pay the guild tax, you do not get to work in that profession. Guild socialism was common in medieval times, and was an early version of merchantilism, acting to restrain market entry and limit competition. American exceptionalism was due in part to getting away from those medieval ideas, and allowing anyone who wanted to enter the market to do so. Unfortunately, the lawyers managed to maintain their guild after the Revolution, and it still rides us today. As an aside, the last time I checked, I believe that there are only a few states that still allow people to read the law and take the Bar exam without having graduated from an accredited law school, one of which is the Commonwealth of Virginia. (see links here and here.)
With regard to the broader issue of Constitutional enforcement, the problem is that it is totally impractical, (in reality not possible,) for a non-attorney at present to act to strike down an unConstitutional law, and the only way to gain ‘standing’ is to break the law and place yourself at risk of conviction. Given that the overall conviction rate for Federal indictments runs in the high 90% range, why would any sane person do such a thing when the deck is so obviously stacked against the common citizen? The 1934 GCA which led to the case of US v. Miller, where the Federal Government won on appeal because the plaintiff failed to show up at the Supreme Court, is just one example of such issues; there are probably tens of thousands. If we are to have true enforcement of the Constitution, we have to be sure that access to whatever mechanism is developed is not restricted to the privileged class of lawyers, and that people who perceive an infringement on the Constitutional limits on Federal authority do not have to place themselves at jeopardy to seek correction. Any American must have the right to challenge the acts of every level of government which purports to have jurisdiction over them.
The second issue I see is that Constitutional issues get bumped up the ladder, taking years of time and gobs of money before the Supreme Court rules on the matter at hand……or doesn’t, in which case confusion reigns for another stretch of time, and the poor suffering taxpayer who got screwed by the government in the first place gets ignored. There needs to be a process that provides PROMPT relief. “Justice delayed is Justice denied,” right? If the determination is made at the local level that there has been Constitutional infringment, or if there is any significant delay, there needs to be immediate action to provide relief from the unConstitutional law or regulation, which according to precedent is now void, but which in practise never goes away. That stay or injunction ought to restrict the government, at whatever level the action is brought, from acting until the issue is finally resolved at whatever level it ends up being resolved. Moreover, if the case is appealed, and the higher court finds in favor of the plaintiff, the stay should be required to be extended to the entire jurisdiction of the court holding in favor of the plaintiff. This puts some teeth into enforcement, and ought to help correct the present tendency of Federal attorneys to do the legal equivalent of the “Rope-a-dope” and to draw out the proceedings and attempt to bankrupt the plaintiff by appealing any time they get an adverse ruling.
The third issue is that nobody is held responsible. There is no personal accountability on the part of any of the myriads of Federal, State, or local governmental elected or appointed officials, agents, or employees for their misfeasance or malfeasance. Those who violate the Constitution do so with impunity. That DEFINITELY needs to change, and those convicted of unConstitutional activity under color of law should suffer for it, both civilly and criminally. On the civil side, the costs of the legal action should be assessed against the person or persons involved in the infringement, personally, and they ought to be discharged from their position and stripped of their wealth, as well as salary, benefits and pension, and any other assets they possess.
On the criminal side, deliberate infringement of the Constitution ought to be a felony, and any such infringement resulting in loss of life, directly or indirectly, ought to be punished severely. One could argue that such subversion of the Constitution and violation of rights under color of Law ought to be treated as treason, with the death penalty available, but in any case, any governmental employee, representative, or agent should be liable for their actions.
So there is my conceptual list of what an Enforcement Clause for the Constitution ought to do. Constitutional Enforcement ought to:
Be available to any citizen of these united States;
be resolved promptly, with the presumption in case of delay in favor of the plaintiff, and with stays or injunctions against the unConstitutional law or regulation required;
Those who promote or enact such rules or legislation should be held accountable for the damage they cause and the costs required to address the issue.
Next time, I will discuss how this might be accomplished. In the mean time, thoughts or constructive criticism of the above are welcomed.
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
