Tag Archives: Second Amendment

Trust-edited/added

The added in part will be marked in case you’ve already read this. But it was so applicable it just feel compelled to include it.

I’m having trust issues. I am beginning to think the government both state and federal doesn’t love U.S. or have our very best interests at heart. Since it’s Saturday night, I think some movies might be in order! Most of the clips are 2-3 minutes. The longer ones are the one about the DMED with Attorney Tom Renz testifying, it’s a hyperlink and about 7 minutes long. He so rocks. The final one by Dr. Lawrie is 4 minutes.

For example, we’ve been pounded that the experimental gene therapy injections were safe and effective and if you didn’t take them you are putting the entire planet at risk. And one MN Senator is still chirping “Safe and Effective”

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

For example

https://twitter.com/i/status/1638176559881416704

Or if you like data more than a point blank reason for why all the mainstream media aka #FakeNews keep pimping for them. Edward Dowd Presents Irrefutable Evidence Vaccine Mandates Killed & Disabled Countless Americans

There is this

America Had the Most COVID Deaths in the World: “It’s Hard to Understand Why Anthony Fauci Is a Hero”

What? There’s a conflict of interest with the NIH and Pfffftizer?

But apparently the death dart (developed and deployed by the DOD) is just the warm up. Demoncrats are standing at the ready. Probably waiting for the WHO pandemic treaty to be signed in a couple of months.

In addition to the data bases being fiddled with, it’s easy to claim safe and effective if you fire the people trying to report the injection adverse events. Cuts down on paperwork you see. Physician Assistant Fired for Reporting COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events to VAERS

And they are already smacking their lips at the thought of what they can get accomplished with the next round.

Bill Gates Plots a Global Pandemic Prison State as NY Governor Kathy Hokum says “Yeah let’s do this thing!” NY Governor Demands Court Authorization to Detain Citizens in ‘Quarantine Camps’

Redfield: Gain-of-Function Research Will Cause Next Pandemic, Which Will Be ‘Much’ Worse than COVID

It’s almost like Fauxci has some other plan in place, right? I’ve tried to start this at 3:40 in so you won’t be subjected to any more Fauxci than necessary. But I found this part interesting. Also interesting that we taxpayers pay for Pravda Broadcasting System.

Edit/Add in:

If you had always wondered about how the country came to be locked down, the Brownstone institute just came out with an article on the time line and who was involved in convincing President Trump to shut U.S. down, because initially, he wasn’t going to do that. Typical bad actors like #PenceOfCrap, Fauxci and Birx, but it’s interesting. How They Convinced Trump to Lock Down

But this, this is the real reason I’m updating this column. I was happily listening to an Irish History podcast after I finished this article and had it up. Computer shut down for the night, supper finally awaiting me. This podcast was on the life of Dennis Doherty, a man who originally enlisted in the British army (he shoulda known better) to escape starvation in Ireland as many young lads did. He spent the next 45 years or so trying to escape prison. If you want to listen to the about 30 minute podcast I’m going to give the link. This podcast was done on May 12, 2013. Yes, it matters. Long before the rise of the cult Covidian. One of the prisons he wound up in was in Port Arthur in Tasmania. It’s what was known as a “model prison” with the goal of reforming the prisoners by breaking them down. Dennis had a penchant for trying to escape prison you see, what with a desire for freedom and all. But the treatment the prisoners received in the “model prison” was what dropped my jaw. This would have been somewhere between 1858-1863. No that’s not a typo, I mean well over a hundred years ago. The prisoners were kept in strict isolation. If they were allowed out of their cells they were to maintain 4.5 meters of space from everyone and they had to have their faces covered with a cloth mask at all times. Prisoners were only referred to by their prison number, not their name. The result? Many of the prisoners went insane. Isn’t that fascinating. This isn’t knew knowledge, they knew the results of these policies. This podcast is 10 years old. Not new knowledge. I hope ya’ll don’t mind this add in.

Here’s the 30 minute podcast if you’d like.

And what were some of the consequences of the seizure of citizen’s rights during the plandemic? Well, obvious one is freedom of speech. Doctors that tried to speak out and let people know there was cheap, readily available treatment that could have saved lives were muzzled and silenced.

If only Dr. Fauxci had watched Little House on the Prairie. I mean it was common enough knowledge to be in a TV show in what? The 80s?

See freedom of speech, even if it doesn’t concern health is a privilege for some, not for all.

A man may be going to jail because he made Hillary Clintoon memes. One must not make fun of Demoncrat royalty, doncha know.

Hillary Clinton Memes Test Limits of First Amendment in Online Speech Trial

Who else doesn’t have freedom of the press or the right to speak out? Today News Africa reporter Simon Ateba who was shut down when he asked a news question in the White House press briefing. How dare he. Cringe Jean-Pierre shut him down but quick.

If you are a conservative group like the Stanford Law School’s chapter of the Federalist Society and you invite a federal judge to speak, the spoiled children who don’t allow opinions other than their own will shout him down. Then the snowflakes can take over the room, wait for their diversity, equity and inclusion (who really don’t include much of anyone) dean to come in an harangue an invited guest. These are law school students. Defiant Stanford DEI dean doubles down, BRAGS about harassment of federal judge. So help me, if I ever need a lawyer again I’m asking them where they went to school. If it’s Stanford? Forget it.

What kind of “free speech” do the leftist loons that run our schools of higher education allow?

‘Diversity Day’ Speaker at Public School Shocks Students With Anti-Israel Rhetoric

Oh that kind.

So what’s the result of a poor quality legal education?

So what is a Brady motion? If only Xiden’s box checking candidate had gone to school with Vinny, right? Seems Xiden’s most diverse ever nominees and cabinet have an under represented demographic. The Competent. His SCOTUS nominee is so stupid she doesn’t even know what a woman is, and she is one. Of course the left are trying to get rid of women now, just like they’ve been trying to get rid of masculine men for ages now. But I digress.

Now knowing what a Brady motion is, “they have to tell you”. I think we can begin to see that there must be many Stanford graduates already in the legal system.

Judge denies Jan. 6 defendant access to Capitol security tapes made available by McCarthy

JUDGE DENIES Non-Violent January 6th Defendant Time to Review New Evidence Obtained by Speaker McCarthy – Trial For NYPD Retired Policewoman Starts Today DESPITE HER PUBLIC DEFENDER’S PLEA FOR MORE TIME

And this “Judge” says he’s never dealt with a Brady motion. Wow. As all those poor political prisoners are being held and denied their rights.

So as long as we’re on the Justice/Injustice system, the two tiered justice system we are dealing with, how’s about that? Seems like there are two sets of rules.

Memories of Pre-Dawn Raids at Gunpoint Haunt Pro-Life Activists, Friends, and Family

Ex-DOJ Official Has ‘Serious Doubts’ About Manhattan DA’s Case Against Trump

Michael Cohen’s Former Legal Advisor Calls Cohen a “Convicted Perjurer” – Reveals How Grand Jurors Reacted to His Testimony

But when the “Justice” department is dealing with a member of the Xiden crime family, well then.

James Comer shows that the Biden family business is corruption

Not only that, but apparently the FIB can’t count either. Researcher Alleges FBI Seriously Undercounts Armed Citizen Responses to Active Shootings, Real Number 3x Higher

It’s good to be a leftist.

The ATF as well has a two tiered justice system.

Guns are okay, for some people. Because some animals are more equal than others, right? National Pravda Radio, we’re financing them.

And the ATF isn’t even elected. Some are calling them on the actions they’ve taken on the stabilizer braces.

I think I’ve plenty of reasons to have trust issues. The last video I will leave you with is a reading by Dr. Tess Lawrie. Mistakes Were NOT Made: An Anthem for Justice (by Margaret Anna Alice; Read by Dr. Tess Lawrie) at 4 minutes long, it’s worth every one of them. Dr. Lawrie is one of the heroes of the Covid wars.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

If A Tree Falls In The Forest

You know the old saying, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Or something like that…

If a right exists but it is ignored or not acknowledged, is it still a right?

This is a long clip from Tucker Carlson from a few days ago, but it all applies to the Second Amendment, and almost equally as important is how it is being respected in America’s judicial system.

Or not respected would be more accurate.

Here is more on the Arizona court case Tucker referred to, the one decided by an elected swamp dweller named Emilio Velasquez, the “judge” who isn’t even a lawyer. UPDATE: The Disturbing Details in Case of Illegal Alien Allegedly Killed by Arizona Rancher they also mention the illegal alien had been deported multiple times.

Tucker talked about how “Go Fund Me” a leftist social justice site that helped bail out anti-American activists from antifa and BLM to allow them to continue to burn down private property, public property and attack remote and disinterested parties. But absolutely will not allow funds to be raised for the elderly rancher who defended his family and property. Because….wait for it….violence. Leftist hypocrisy at it’s finest. They are the same piece of crap group that stole the money raised to help the Canadian truckers. They’re the left, they steal, that’s how they roll.

Tucker didn’t mention it, but there is another, more responsible, fund raising group out there, it’s called “Give Send Go”. They have several campaigns running right now by people trying to raise money to help the man. https://www.givesendgo.com/site/search?text=George+Alan+Kelly

I’m hoping family and neighbors are helping the poor wife out. That poor poor woman, my heart hurts for her. Perhaps since illegals aren’t an issue for the “Honorable Emilio G. Velasquez” 2160 N. Congress Drive Suite 2100 Nogales, AZ 85621, may I humbly suggest to Customs and Border Patrol I’ve found a couple of new places to park illegal aliens to be processed, the other is his house as the left has shown us that people hanging out around judge’s homes these days really isn’t a “deal”. I bet the Judge would be delighted to help process a few million illegals, maybe put them up for a few nights with his family, till their paperwork is processed.

He might want to consider adding an addition to his house…

Nicaragua has freed 222 political prisoners and sent them to the U.S.

The government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has released 222 political prisoners and put them on a flight to Washington, D.C., officials in both countries said Thursday.

My buddy in Nicaragua said basically they are emptying out the jails. The above report is from npr, so take it with a 50 lb block of salt, I imagine they are sending lots of other prisoners here who have no connection to opposing Ortega. But being npr, they wouldn’t speak about that.

Tip of the Stetson to my buddy Steve for the info.

A recent report from Michael Yon Heart Dump From the Frontlines speaks about the invasion force already in the US, and on it’s way courtesy of Biden and the Demoncrats.

This is an obvious invasion force. Most of them likely have no idea yet. As a former Green Beret, and having spent many years in many wars and conflicts, and an equal time with nose in history books — this all is amazingly clear.

My estimation: They will later be armed with phones. Many will be assembled in camps within USA. Most will be left to the wilds.

They will be indoctrinated to hate white folks — including Asians, and anyone else seen as ‘white’, such as blacks who are not wildly racist against whites. When Stalin did similar in Ukraine before and during the great famine, this phase of genocide was called “kulakisation.” They labeled people they wanted to exterminate as ‘kulaks.’ Jews will be familiar with the process. Historically speaking, this is common. In America, you are labeled racist.

These terms generally are fuzzy and made to velcro onto anyone for anything. People who were weaponized against kulaks, Jews, and so many others in history, are made to hate the target group. And they are armed and without rules. After they are ready and armed, their food will be cut off.

I doubt it’s just me that thinks Mr. Kelly in Arizona had darn good reason to shoot the many times deported illegal alien. And if the Biden crime regime had done their work, he’d be alive as he wouldn’t have been back in the U.S. I won’t even get into (at least in this column) what else is coming in. But I’ll just give one word, Haitians. The ones the Dominicans build walls against.

Meanwhile in Israel, with the election of more candidates from the right, the country might take a turn for the more logical, survivable pathway. Police Chief Rabbi: Rabbis should advise congregants to carry legal firearms on Shabbat

The Chief Rabbi of the Israel Police penned an open letter on Tuesday addressed to rabbis throughout Israel urging them to advise their congregants to carry legal and licensed firearms on Shabbat.

In his letter, Rabbi Rami Brachyahu said that this measure was necessary in the wake of the recent terrorist attack in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Neve Yaakov in which seven people were murdered outside of a synagogue where most did not carry arms because of the Shabbat..

5 suspects tied to Jerusalem synagogue massacre

Jerusalem terrorist’s mother, uncle, and three others arrested after deadly shooting suspected of being involved in the attack.

Deport them, to Jordan the day after they are convicted. They do not go home, they do not collect their $200 and they do not pass go. Their home is destroyed and their entire families (extended) are deported with them. Do this for a couple years, just give it a shot, then we’ll see how things are, shall we?

I think National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir is the best thing since chocolate and peanut butter mixed.

Ben Gvir after attack: I ordered Operation Defensive Shield 2 in eastern Jerusalem

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir on Friday afternoon said he had instructed the Commissioner of Israel Police and senior officials in the Jerusalem District to prepare for “Operation Defensive Shield 2 in eastern Jerusalem” starting on Sunday.

“The purpose of the operation is to fight and root out terrorism, to reach the terrorists’ homes and to stop terrorism before it comes to carry out attacks,” said a statement issued by Ben Gvir’s office.

The statement, which was published just before the start of Shabbat in Israel, followed the deadly terrorist attack in the Ramot neighborhood of Jerusalem, in which two people were murdered and five were injured.

Not backing down: Ben-Gvir determined to launch operation in eastern Jerusalem

National Security Minister Itamar repeated his intentions on Saturday evening to launch a significant operation in eastern Jerusalem to quell terrorism.

“I am determined to launch ‘Operation Defensive Sheild 2’ in Jerusalem. To those officials who are speaking against me: the police have the authority to demolish illegal houses, arrest over 150 suspected terrorists, raid houses, stop the incitement in the mosques, detain those who owe taxes, and more. The security cabinet is important, and I will request additional things there, but governance is crucially important, and I will make sure it stays that way,” Ben-Gvir wrote on social media.

Ben Gvir reprimands police district commander after violent Jerusalem protest

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir on Thursday evening summoned the commander of the Jerusalem District of the Israel Police to reprimand him in the wake of what he described as “the loss of control of the police in the capital city to a group of anarchists”, during a protest of left-wing activists led by the Crime Minister movement.

“The Jerusalem Police lost control over the anarchists. An incident in which burning tires were set on fire near the Prime Minister’s Residence, Highway 1 was blocked, and light rail traffic was blocked – these are all extremely serious incidents in which police and security forces were on the scene, but were explicitly instructed not to enforce the law and not to confront the rioters,” said Ben Gvir.

Sic ‘em Itamar!! The left is having hissy fits over Ben Gvir. I think I’m in love.

For too long decent men and women in law-enforcement, and yes I think there are some, have been told to yield the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens to the mob. The people just trying to get to work and home are made to suffer so the left can virtue signal, threaten and intimidate. The people paying taxes are made into a slave class. They finance the very government that turns against them, their safety and their rights.

What were those law enforcement officers standing against the wall thinking as elderly Mr. Kelly asks to be able to speak to his wife? Why are there so many of them in the room? Why aren’t they out rounding up illegals so the landowners don’t need to worry about the safety of themselves, their families and their livestock? Nope, those young men are safe inside a nice building watching a elderly man they failed who used his G-d given rights, his rights acknowledged by Arizona. His rights ignored by a piece of crap named Emilio Velasquez. But here’s the thing Emmy, I can call you Emmy right? Life has a way of making things right, sometimes, not always, but sometimes.

Our Parsha yesterday was Yitro, Exodus 18:1-20:23. Yitro is Jethro, Moshe’s father in law, who was a very learned man. There is a teaching that says when Pharaoh decided he wanted to thin out and kill off part of the Jews he was unsure of which course of action to take. Pfizer didn’t have a shot available yet, so he turned to his trusted advisers. Three of them actually. Balaam, Job, and Yitro. Balaam recommended genocide, said he could put in a call to Fauxci for him if Pharaoh liked? A very evil man. Job was silent, he remained silent in the face of evil. Yitro said “No only NO, but HELL NO!! This here is flat evil and I’m not having any part of it!” And he fled to Midian. Balaam is later killed in a war with Israel. Job, was punished for his silence with his many trials and tribulations later. Yitro later became Moshe’s father-in-law and was a very righteous man who’s search for G-d ended when he found the G-d of his son-in-law. Great Midrash (teaching) isn’t it??

Are you following this Emmy? Life has a way….

But Yitro was more than a man in search of the one true G-d in our history. Yitro had a huge impact on the future legal system. From the Second reading of the Parsha for last week:

13It came about on the next day that Moses sat down to judge the people, and the people stood before Moses from the morning until the evening.

14When Moses’ father in law saw what he was doing to the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing to the people? Why do you sit by yourself, while all the people stand before you from morning till evening?”

15Moses said to his father in law, “For the people come to me to seek God.

16If any of them has a case, he comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor, and I make known the statutes of God and His teachings.”

17Moses’ father in law said to him, “The thing you are doing is not good.

18You will surely wear yourself out both you and these people who are with you for the matter is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone.

19Now listen to me. I will advise you, and may the Lord be with you. [You] represent the people before God, and you shall bring the matters to God.

20And you shall admonish them concerning the statutes and the teachings, and you shall make known to them the way they shall go and the deed[s] they shall do.

21But you shall choose out of the entire nation men of substance, God fearers, men of truth, who hate monetary gain, and you shall appoint over them [Israel] leaders over thousands, leaders over hundreds, leaders over fifties, and leaders over tens.

22And they shall judge the people at all times, and it shall be that any major matter they shall bring to you, and they themselves shall judge every minor matter, thereby making it easier for you, and they shall bear [the burden] with you.

23If you do this thing, and the Lord commands you, you will be able to survive, and also, all this people will come upon their place in peace.”

G-d gave us a beautiful world, he gave a contract, that if followed, we could live in harmony with each other and he will dwell among us. The left hates that, they want the worship due to G-d and they want to push him as far out of his world as possible.

But these rights? They still come from G-d, they left may act as though they give and take them, but that’s not how it will end up. They can ignore our rights, they can act as though they don’t exist. But G-d gave them to us, their opinion does not nullify his gifts.

Even if I had a crystal ball, it would probably look more like a shaken snow globe right now, things are so crazy, but here, here is one thing I know. There are elements within the legal system in Israel that are starting to stand for the rule of law, there are elements of the legal system within America and I think the good people of both have about had their fill of being used and abused by a corrupt legal system. Emmy the non-lawyer is an elected official. I hope the people of Arizona can do better. I’d like to see Emmy removed from office, tomorrow. You know, in the Second reading above, God fearers, men of truth, who hate monetary gain, I’m very curious, who paid for Emmy’s campaign? Does Emmy have any other source of income? See, there is a reason Yitro said that. We already know Emmy isn’t worried about G-d. So, monetary gain?

But no matter what, corrupt legal system or no, rights come from G-d. אין עוד מלבדו

There is none but him.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Is an UNenumerated Right?

Trigger Warning: The referenced column is written by a left-wing whacko acting professor at the People’s Republic of Kommiefornia’s UC-Davis, and is published in The Atlantic.

I don’t know what constitution Aaron Tang — who purports to be a “Constitutional law & education law prof” — teaches, but he should bone up on the United States Constitution. If he taught anywhere but the University of California – Davis, I’d call that fraud. But he’s par for the anti-rights course there.

What If the Court Saw Other Rights as Generously as Gun Rights?
Both gun-rights advocates and educational equity activists use similar legal strategies. Why does the Supreme Court treat them so differently?

Probably because the right to keep and bear arms is specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and education is not. check for yourself; no mention of education, learn, teach, school, university, college, or anything else education-related. (While we do speak of an Electoral College, that term doesn’t actually appear in the Constitution; only “electors.”)

If the courts treated education the same “generous” way they do Second Amendment rights, you might need a license to go to school, minors wouldn’t be allowed to go to school, you’d need to pass a background check before every class, you might be allowed one class per month, and you’d be limited to a low-capacity tenth grade education. The Department of Education could arbitrarily ban knowledge of algebra and imprison you for knowing it. You might be allowed to go to college, but only after paying $200 for the permission slip that would come eight or nine months later, and local law enforcement would be informed. Depending on your major, even with the permission slip you would not be allowed to attend a college or university established after 1986.

Spearheaded by new leadership at the NRA in the late 1970s, gun-rights activists engaged for decades in an effort to persuade the Supreme Court to recognize an individual Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense at home. The Court ultimately enshrined that right 12 years ago in D.C. v. Heller, displacing a long-standing consensus to the contrary.

Tang clearly didn’t read Heller, or he’d have seen Scalia’s many, many citations of Supreme Court cases, law, and history supporting the individual right. The Supreme Court has been recognizing an individual right of the people since at least 1857.

At first glance, the gun-rights movement and the pursuit of educational equity seem to have little in common. But they in fact share an approach: Both promote arguments that rely on what are called “implied” or “unenumerated” constitutional rights.

Oh, really?

Article II: 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.

Article II, Two, 2. Numeral. Enumerated.

The argument for a constitutional right to train at any shooting range is far from obvious. The Second Amendment speaks of a right to “keep” and “bear” arms, but says nothing about a right to train or practice.

I’ll grant that the words “train” and “practice” don’t appear, but please note that “well regulated Militia.” What did “regulate” mean when that was written?

regulate: 1. to adjust by rule or method 2. to direct

What the heck kind of well regulated, ordered, prepared, methodical militia is untrained, unpracticed? Certainly not the sort specified by the Second Militia Act of 1792 which required militia members (each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years) to arm themselves with militarily suitable firearms and equipment.

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Further note that government officials and employees were not included in the militia; dispensing with the common violence-enabling victim-disarmer argument that the militia is the army and national guard (a point the Supreme Court noted in 1990, which for numerically-challenged people like Tang is many years before Heller).

But see that “exercise”? That isn’t talking about jumping jacks and sit-ups. A /militia/military exercise is training and practice.

And just in case Tang is as hazy on law as he is the Constitution, the militia is still codified in 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classe. And yes, government officials and employees are still exempted.

Aaron Tang is clearly at UC-Davis because the heads of every other law school in the country were smart enough not to hire the ignoramus.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Dependent On Militia Membership? Part 1

The entertaining Greta

My opposition to Red-Flag laws has been steadfast countenancing no exceptions. Until now. Liberal Time Magazine’s Girl, er um “Person”1 of the Year’s trembling quivering rage-filled Greta Thunberg, who should be starring in H. P. Lovecraft inspired movies, could be that one exception. Ghostwriters and Handlers, please, do not allow Greta near sharp objects or anything that goes bang. Perhaps parents should be scheduling counseling sessions rather than enabling Greta’s delusions of imminent human extinction. Scandinavia once gave the world Vikings. What happened?2

From the Great Depression, mass starvation, to man-created global warming, the Left needs crises with which to menace people. Only through scare tactics terrifying the masses can they evoke reaction based on emotion rather than reason. People who have lost their minds seldom make good decisions. Since the Second World War, the Left, either through ideological compatibility or supreme naïveté, has promoted notions the way to deal with adversarial nations (Communist dictatorships) and people is through non-violent appeasement. Leftists are moral relativists rejecting concepts of good and evil. Therefore global and personal conflicts result from misunderstandings not malevolent intentions. Because people have “issues”, not problems, conflicts can be resolved without anyone having to accept blame or facing consequences. All Stalin needed was a couch, a good listener, and a hug. Today, if the puny underweight wretched victim of bullying stands up to his tormentors, school administrators suspend him along with the thugs. Through its evangelists teaching in public schools, the Left has indoctrinated Americans to reject notions of self-reliance and taking responsibility for their own safety. Lockdowns, shelter-in-place, hide under your desk or in your home…Hence, they grow up to despise the Second Amendment. They are aghast at the idea citizens can own guns and decide when and where to use them in self-defense. Appearing on Fox’s Martha MacCallum Show in response to the Fort Worth Texas church shooting, Democrat strategist Doug Schoen argued people are not competent to carry guns for personal defense. This he added, should be left to the police who, coincidentally, were not there.3 The Left hates the Second Amendment for two reasons; first, it exposes their unwillingness to stand up to bullies and criminals whether on American streets or as heads of State. Think, Justin Trudeau. Second, it is an obstacle to the Great Project.

Whether taking the name Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Central Planner, Democratic-Socialist, and so forth, Statists are determined to dismantle the Second Amendment either through abolition or redefining it out of existence. Until accomplished, it remains the single greatest impediment to The Project begun by 19th century American Progressives and European Socialists. Its central imperative is to bend the will of the individual completely to the volition of the State to plan, control, and regulate every aspect of human existence. And, the Left is the State. Because altering the Constitution has proven un-doable, the Left has chosen to redefine the Second Amendment as they did the Commerce, General Welfare, Necessary and Proper, and Supremacy clauses until they mean the opposite of their intent. For example they claim owning firearms is dependent upon membership in a federal (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines) or State (“National” sic Guard) standing army. This claim could not be more wrong.4

Proponents and enemies of the Bill of Rights have debated the Founders’ meaning of “militia” ad nauseam. Rehashing it here would seem superfluous. That is, if its enemies were not using mass media, popular culture, and public dis-education to peddle lies conjoined with an American public too intellectually lazy to read and think for itself. As a recovering public school teacher, I can attest to the pervasiveness of this mental lassitude.

Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken writes that the Founders’ idea of a militia was not one comprised of “unorganized amateurs”, called up by local authorities, to address insurrection or invasion. Instead, it was to consist of men between a certain age range, proficient in arms, possessing some degree of training in military discipline and tactics, a system of choosing officers, subject to call up by State or local authorities, and under civilian control.5 McMaken’s conclusion is problematic. In the 1740s, the French, perennially at war with England, established a large fort at Louisbourg near Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. From there the French threatened New England with invasion and provided safe haven for pirates and “cruisers” who raided its fishing villages and naval commerce. Finding the British unwilling to act, in 1744 New England raised an army of unorganized amateurs including commoners, farmers, merchants, fishermen, and so forth. With little or no experience, these New England boys executed a successful amphibious landing under difficult conditions, besieged the fort for three months, and forced the French to surrender.6 During the French and Indian War, the British could not have defeated the French without the assistance of colonial militia troops, amateur soldiers who fought as local units under American command.7

On 1 October 1768, in a lead up to what became the War of Independence, Britain dispatched 700 troops led by General Thomas Gage from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Boston. His orders were to suppress resistance to British commerce, trading, and tax laws.8 A month later (8 November 1768), King George III declared Bostonians to be in rebellion against English law and government. British political and military leaders drew up plans to subdue the insurrection.9 They employed their standard method of subjugation; round up, jail, and execute the rebellion’s leaders and door-to-door searches for arms and munitions in private hands. Colonials often stored gunpowder in storehouses outside of town due to its volatility. In order to prevent the Red Coats from seizing it, locals formed militias to guard them. In Virginia, Patrick Henry led the Hanover Independent Militia Company comprised of armed locals independent of the Governor’s control. They comprised the nucleus of resistance against British forces. Other colonies replicated this strategy.10

In 1774, British soldiers marched from Boston into the countryside to seize colonial supplies of gunpowder and weapons in Charlestown, Cambridge, Medford, and Salem. Forty thousand militiamen met the British, called “Bloody Lobsterbacks”, by locals, at Charlestown. These amateurs drove them back to Boston without firing a shot.11 British confiscation of private arms led to the “shot heard round the world”, the British march on Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts, to seize arms.12 Among the militiamen awaiting the British attack were farmers, craftsmen, mechanics, gentlemen, laborers, slaves, dairy farmers, and veterans of the French Indian War. Americans gave as good as they got forcing the British back to Boston.13

McMaken contends, “Gun Rights advocates fixate” on the latter part of the Second Amendment, “The people having a right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” as the rationale for private ownership of arms separate from militia membership. He asserts the Second Amendment’s purpose was to guarantee that States “would be free to raise and train their own militias as a defense against federal power and as a means of keeping defensive military force available to Americans while remaining outside the direct control of the federal government”.14 He is correct state militias are supposed to be outside federal control but his assertion the militia is the primary focus of the Second Amendment is incorrect. The Second Amendment clearly contains two independent parts that framers could have fashioned into separate amendments. In fairness to McMaken, his purpose was to demonstrate State Militias are to be independent of federal control and that the so-called “National” (sic) Guard is a standing army and a gross violation of the Constitution.

Drafters wrote definitions of a militia into State Declarations of Rights and later into the federal and State Constitutions from 1791 on. They typically refer to “the mass of ordinary citizens, trained to arms” who would be available for call-up by State or local authorities, and to which was often appended an age range for those subject to service. Founding Fathers from Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Adams to Thomas Jefferson made clear the purpose of the Second Amendment was “that every man” be armed.15 Was this not so that the people would be equipped for militia service if needed? True but only in part. The Founders clearly saw that as an auxiliary advantage. However, the stress was that all men possess the right to keep and bear arms and government in no way have the power to infringe on this right or disarm the people. During debates over ratification of the proposed Constitution (1788) at the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry declared, “The great object is that every man be armed…Everyone who is able may have a gun”. Zachariah Johnson added, “The new Constitution could never result in religious or other oppression because ‘the people are not to be disarmed of their weapons”. Not militias, people. At the Massachusetts’ ratifying convention, Samuel Adams stated, “That the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms”.16 Again, these rights, freedom of speech, religion, and arms belong to individuals, not states or any other form of organized political entity including militias.

Many States, including Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, and others specifically state people have an individual right to keep and bear arms and it is not tied to membership in a militia, military, or any form of security force.17 The Founders knew Americans opposed standing peacetime armies (as we have today) and that States were reluctant to cede any of their sovereignty to this new untried federal system of government. They also knew government, like an irresistible force of nature, attracts to it men of ambition, those craving power, and men with no moral scruples. Therefore, they added the militia phrase. States would retain the means to resist federal usurpations of their power and infringement against the liberties of people. Under the proposed Constitution, the federal government, facing a national emergency such as invasion or insurrection, could request the states call up their militias. Governors would send them to federal authorities who in turn would arm, equip, and organize them into a standing army. The States would retain the right to choose officers commanding their militia units. Once the crisis was resolved, militiamen would return to their respective states and mustered out of service. Constitution or not, efforts to “federalize” (actually, “nationalize”) State militias placing them under presidential control began almost at once just as so-called Anti-Federalists had warned.18 The individual right to possess arms was always a separate issue.

English philosopher John Locke’s Treatises On Government were widely read (1689) in the colonies. He argued man had a “natural” (G-D given) right to life, liberty, and property. Inherent in each is the right to the means of defending it.19 Under the supervision of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.20 Drawing on many widely held philosophical and theological roots; Jefferson wrote that all rights are individual and a gift from G-D. Among them are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property, wages, and the fruits of one’s labor). Rights imputed by Divinity are inherent in the nature of each individual’s humanity. People are born already possessing these rights. A right to life presupposes a right to the means of defending it.21

The Second Amendment employs the words “right” and “shall not be infringed demonstrating it refers to “a right that is already assumed to exist” (which comports with the Declaration). It does not say, “The people shall have a right to keep and bear arms.” The amendment recognizes but does not grant the right” [emphasis in the original].22 Requirements to join the military, a militia, or engage in a government specified activity in order exercise a right would negate that right. Any regulation, red tape, or hoops one must jump through before accessing a right is a gross infringement and, again, negates it as a right. Governments can in no way qualify a right. No vote by a majority of one’s neighbors to limit a right in any way is legitimate. In addition, people cannot through constitutions or laws, “agree to an infringement on their rights”.23 This is because of the inherency of rights. Only Divinity can alter or abolish rights divinely created. So why does the Second Amendment continue to confound people?

George Mason’s proposed draft of the amendment read, “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state”.24 Madison’s version read, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well-regulated militia being the best security to a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”.25 Madison, like Mason and other Founders, wanted it understood that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right separate from membership in any form of militia. For example, those objecting to military service on religious grounds, still possessed the right to keep and bear arms. This would not be true had the right been dependent on being in a militia. Madison’s intent “is clear not only from his wording, but also from his notes for his speech proposing the amendment”. He states it pertains to an individual right which his “colleagues clearly understood the proposal to be protective of individual rights”. Massachusetts delegate Fisher Ames wrote that among other rights, that of bearing arms “to be inherent in the people”. Writing under the name “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, Madison’s friend Tench Coxe argued that the delegates wrote the Second Amendment to “guarantee the right of the people to have ‘their private arms’ to prevent tyranny and to overpower an abusive standing army or select militia”. Madison read Coxe’s articles and agreed, the amendment pertained to an individual right.26

So much, did the Founders write about the Second Amendment; its meaning is beyond question. These documents and writings are available to anyone. On what basis can opponents of an individual right interpretation justify their position? Simple. The truth is unimportant. Only the Great Project matters. All narratives, including history, must be made to fit and support it. Like a starfish turning a clamshell over searching for a vulnerability by which to penetrate its defenses, so too do enemies of the Bill of Rights search for weaknesses. They find it in contemporary American’s unfamiliarity with grammatical construction.

It is important to keep in mind, of the Bill of Rights none refers to “States having rights”. Each refers to a right of the people. These are individual rights. To argue the Second Amendment applies only to members of a military organization turns it into a State not individual right. We have clearly seen that was not the Founder’s intention. If the Founders had intended military or militia membership dependency in order to own or possess arms, “Why would they say, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Madison and those who shaped the amendment’s wording “chose to put the militia reference into a dependent phrase” choosing “the weakest possible construction by using the participle (word formed from a verb) ‘being’ instead of writing say, ‘Since a well regulated militia is necessary…” The militia wording’s weak form demonstrates its framers listed it as a right of states. “The main independent clause” of the amendment reads, “The people’s right to have guns ‘shall not be infringed”.27

An independent clause is a stand-alone sentence dependent on nothing. The militia part of the Second Amendment forms a dependent phrase. It cannot stand alone by itself containing a subject, verb, and complete thought. Therefore, it is secondary in importance to the main independent clause. The words; “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” would mean what by itself? The words; “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” would mean what without the first part of the amendment? People have a right to keep and bear arms. By reversing this order, the amendment’s drafters made emphatic that the independent clause was its most important part. “The Founders correctly intuited that in a bill of rights (list), the last thing the reader should have ringing in his mind’s ear is the absolute prohibition on infringement of the natural right to own guns”.28

If the Bill of Right’s enemies read America’s founding documents and writings, they know the truth. None of that matters. What does matter to them is total disarmament of American citizens. The Great Project cannot culminate until that happens. Toward that goal, the end always justifies the means.

11 Unlike men and women since the dawn of time, those on the Left are stymied when it comes to determining their sex, of which, there are but the two aforementioned options.

22 As with the Marjory Stoned Man Douglass high school “useful idiots,” Emma Gonzalez, Cameron Kasky, David Hogg, et al, the Left cowardly uses kids as stooge props, their youth supposedly giving them and their terribly immature and uninformed rantings an unassailable immunity against critique. Isn’t this what Muslim terrorists do, hide behind children?

33 Martha MacCallum Show, FOX News, 31 December 2019.

44 Sheldon Richman, “Reading the Second Amendment”, The Freeman 2 (February 1998), 112.

55 Ryan McMaken, Mises Institute, 22 August 2018, “Why We Can’t Ignore The ‘Militia’ Clause Of The Second Amendment”, Mises Institute, at https://mises.org/wire/why-we-cant-ignore-militia-clause-second-amendment/

66 Marvin Olasky, Fighting For Liberty And Virtue: Political and Cultural Wars in Eighteenth Century America (Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, A Division of Good News Publishers, 1995), 93.

77 IBID. 97-98, 102-105, 107, 109.

88 Stephen Halbrook, The Founder’s Second Amendment (Chicago, Illinois, Ivan R. Dee Publisher, 2008), 13.

99 IBID. 17-19.

1010 Halbrook, 104-105.

1111 Willard Sterne Randall, Ethan Allen: His Life And Times (New York, N.Y., W. W. Norton & Company, 2011), 8.

1212 Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause, The American Revolution 1763-1789 (New York, N.Y. Oxford University Press, 2005), 272-274.

1313 Randall, 8, Halbrook, 76-79.

1414 McMaken.

1515 IBID.

1616 Stephen Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Albuquerque, New Mexico, University of New Mexico Press, 1984), 73-75.

1717 McMaken.

1818 Edwin Meese III, Matthew Spalding, and David Forte, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), 139-143.

1919 Gary A. Shade, “The Right to keep and Bear Arms: The Legacy of Republicanism vs Absolutism,” at http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/papers-shade/TheRightToKeepandBearArms.PDF.

2020 Clarence B. Carson, A Basic History of the United States, Volume I: The Colonial Experience 1607-1774 (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1987), 182-183.

2121 Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Lawrence, Kansas, University Press of Kansas, 1985), ix, 60-63. See also, Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration (Brentwood, Tennessee, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1989), 35-74, 117-118.

2222 Sheldon Richman, “Properly Interpreting the 2nd Amendment” Human Events (June 16, 1995), 16.

2323 IBID.

2424 Halbrook, Founder’s Second Amendment, 22.

2525 Shade.

2626 Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, 76-77.

2727 Richman, Reading the Second Amendment, 112-113.

2828 IBID.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Virginia: Trading One Right for Another

January 20, 2020 will be the VCDL‘s Lobby Day, and thousands opposed to the massive gun people control push by the Democrats are expected to turn out. Governor Coonman is so fearful of his constituents that he has declared a state of emergency and will make Capitol Square a “gun-free” zone. He’s doing that citing some “threats” which look suspiciously like false flags designed to give him that very excuse. But I’m cynical. Or realistic; you decide.

Capitol Square will be fenced off, with a single pedestrian entrance where everyone will have to go through a metal detector. Those who wish to enter for the purpose of exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government must surrender their Second Amendment rights.

It may be a little late to coordinate this, but I have a suggestion.

First, the rally will happen. It’s time for naysayers to be quiet; adults are talking.

VCDL has arranged for organizers for specific legislators. Attendees are already being asked to make contact with them. Good; do that. But those organizers should have sign-in sheets so they document exactly how many people are there to petition their legislator. Those sheets should be given to lobbyists who are actually entering the Capitol building to speak to legislators.

Those lobbyists are the only people who should go through the metal detector. They go in, wave their sign-in sheets, and tell legislators, “Look. I’m here representing these [insert count] people who oppose your unconstitutional proposals.”

All other attendees should refuse to enter Capitol Square, and simply surround the perimeter outside of the fence. Peacefully. Your presence will still be visible, making whatever point you wanted. And you’ll be making the additional point that you won’t be disarmed.

I would have preferred that this be a Virginian operation, with out-of-staters staying away. As is, the media will highlight non-Virginians to claim that VCDL had to import protestors because not enough real Virginians oppose these bills.

They have asked that people avoid a militant appearance, because for VCDL’s intent it’s bad optics. That’s good. I hope folks go along. Tactical gear, ARs and AKs, and scary militant slogans aren’t going to suddenly persuade the Democrat delegates, Democrat senators, and Democrat governor that, “Well, gosh. We were wrong; these are just peaceable, reasonable, nonviolent people who make an excellent point.” Militant appearance and behavior at a lobbying event reinforces their belief that mere citizens are too dangerous to be trusted with arms.

If I’d been planning this, I’d have set up the rally as a silent protest outside, with everyone dressed as neatly as possible in their everyday work attire, to drive home the real point that we are just ordinary citizens, not nutjobs.

And that would make the few actual nutjobs — and the inevitable false flag types — stand out so they could be disowned and dealt with properly.

I wish Virginia the best of luck on Monday. As is, they’re going to need it.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Hawaii: That’s not something you see every day

Some Hawaiian legislators have entered a most interesting bill.

Measure Title: URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AND ADOPT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO CLARIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Stripped to basics, it calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment, under the guise of “clarification.” Because…

“WHEREAS, under this “individual right theory”, the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Second Amendment RENDERS PROHIBITORY AND RESTRICTIVE REGULATION PRESUMPTIVELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL” (emphasis added)

Their argument is that the individual rights “theory” currently — and correctly — held by the Supreme Court makes all their gun control victim-disarming people control laws unconstitutional.

No kidding. All else aside, you’d think they’d have noticed the separate usage of “people” (when talking about… people) and “states” and “congress” in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps they’re public school graduates and were unaware that the first ten amendments were proposed and adopted as a single document.

I was also amused by their claim that the MILLER case declared the Second Amendment to be a collective right. Yep, gotta be public school victims.

No. What MILLER did was merely say that in the absence of evidence that sawed-off shotguns are useful militarily, they “cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

In fact, in describing militias, the Court specified that it is composed of individual civilians called up for service (and carefully differentiated the militia from government “troops” in regular service). What’s more, those called up for militia service are expected to appear with their own personal weapons. Which, by necessity, they’d have to own before and separately from militia service.

That’s about as individual as it gets. And a strict read of MILLER suggests that those in the militia could be required to own military-grade firearms. (I don’t go that far, but only maintain they must be able to acquire them in time for a call-up.)

The collective right theory of the Second Amendment is a relatively recent invention of gun controllers. It has never been held by the Supreme Court, which always recognized it as a right of individual people. It even factored into the infamous Dred Scott case in 1856, with the majority maintaining that if Scott were recognized as a citizen then he — as an individual — would have the right to bear arms and all other enumerated rights.

I very much hope Hawaii passes this bill. Imagine anyone busted for breaking the state’s gun laws walking into court and declaring, “Your Honor, even the State says this is unconstitutional.”

Ah, but so long as we’re talking about MILLER…

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

TL;DR: Short-barreled shotguns can be regulated under the National Firearms Act because they weren’t shown to be suitable for military use.

I believe that is why the Supreme Court has never granted certiorari for a direct challenge to the NFA since MILLER. NFA items, under that ruling, are things that are not used by the military. Except… machineguns certainly are. And gun controllers whine about “military-grade” or “military-style” “assault weapons.” SCOTUS doesn’t really want to touch that.

Which is probably why the Court keeps granting extensions on the petition for cert in the Kettler NFA challenge. Their cert decision was due in February; they granted two extensions, making it — so far — due by April 22, 2019.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Carol Bowne Right to Safety Act

In 2015, Carol Bowne had a restraining order against an abusive ex-boyfriend. But she was wise enough to know paper isn’t a good shield, so she tried to lawfully obtain a defensive firearm.

She waited.

And waited. For New Jersey to deign to grant her permission to protect herself.

Carol Bowne was murdered while awaiting government permission to obtain a defense firearm.

The murderer killed himself later… with a firearm that he possessed unlawfully as a convicted felon. Unlike Carol, he simply ignored the government’s edicts; those just for honest people.

Carol Bowne tried trusting the government.

She died. “A right delayed is…” deadly.

Federal delays of human/civil rights can be just as deadly and state and local violations. National instant criminal background checks (NICS) inherently delay rights. Maybe for a few minutes, maybe a few days, or possibly permanently.

Millions of firearms transaction have been denied by NICS. The Bradys and the victim-disarming confederates brag about it. But 93% of those millions of denials were false positives; violation of rights without cause. The false positive rate may be as high a 99.8%, if you judge by the lack of prosecutions for the remaining 7%.

The government doesn’t track false negatives; those incidents where some prohibited person somehow passes his NICS check. Take a look at the 4473. With name, address, place of birth, date of birth, sex, race, ethnicity, and a physical description, NICS can’t tell a prohibited John Smith from a law-abiding John Smith.

If they even bother with NICS at all.

88-91% of guns used in crimes are stolen, thus bypassing background checks. Only 7% of guns used in crimes were obtained through lawful channels. Presumably because theft is easier and cheaper than buying from an FFL.

And while NICS is mandatory for us law-abiding types, who aren’t out there committing the crimes, the Supreme Court’s HAYNES decision says felons can’t be required to self-incriminate by reporting their attempt to unlawfully obtain a firearm with a NICS check.

NICS doesn’t work. And it only applies to the law-abiding; not simply because the law-abiding are the only ones who’ll bother, but because they are the only ones required to do it.

Kinda makes you wonder why the Brady Bill was pushed as an anti-crime measure, unless violation of rights was the intent.

18 U.S. Code § 922(t)
(6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages—”
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

Violating rights was the point from the beginning. Violators are specifically protected from any consequences of their unconstitutional acts (or inaction).

Let’s write that up formally.

18 U.S. Code § 922
(t)
Strike “(6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages—”
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

and replace with

(6) Any local government or employee of the Federal Government or of any State of local government, shall be liable in a civil action for damages—
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

Added: 18 U.S. Code § 922(t)
(7) It shall be a felony under 18 U.S. Code § 242 for any local government or employee of the Federal Government or of any State of local government to deny or impede the Second Amendment rights of any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District not prohibited from firearms possession under this section; and that offender shall be guilty as an accessory to the crime if the failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section results in a crime committed with the firearm.

It’s high time that those in government face consequences for screwing up, just as us little citizens must.

It occurs to me that someone might look up at the masthead at that, “No compromise” and think that I’m offering just that on preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restrain NICS checks. Read that proposed text again.

Permits and licenses (which criminals bypass) impede rights.

Waiting periods (which criminals bypass) impede rights.

“May issue” denials (which criminals bypass) deny rights.

I’m not compromising. I’m giving the Second Amendment the teeth it lacks. Consider the “accessory” provisions of paragraph (7): that can allow for Felony Murder charges for violators.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in 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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Doing the Social Scene

I remember reading a few years ago reading something along the lines of “We believe they are using suppression of the First Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment.

Considering when I tried to find who said this, for sure, most of what I ran across was debates and petitions to repeal the Second Amendment. I had a discussion with some friends a few days ago about how President Trump became President Trump. The media was against him, the deep state was against him, heck, even parts of his own party were/are against him. And yet, he bypassed all of them and went straight to the American people via social media. Many of those “tweets” which were so reviled by the “press” or “news media” HAHAHAHA, yeah I crack myself up, resonated with many ordinary, Americans. No, he didn’t say everything perfectly polished, but he did seem to speak from the heart. Something we haven’t seen in a long time.

Social media is a very effective way to get the word out when the normal channels have a massive beaver dam in the middle. Do you hear much in the msm about the massive number of defensive gun uses? Oh yes, sometimes the local media in that area will cover it, but that’s about it. Oh the history of how ordinary citizens used a gun to stop school shootings? We expect this sort of behavior from the likes of cnn and msnbc #FakeNews but even Fox’s tide pod chomping Julie Bandaras shines in ignorance. #Sad So the problem is two fold, they lie like rugs and they suppress the positive.

Has anyone in the media even pointed out little boss hogg is pushing and lobbying to take aways rights he isn’t even old enough to use or appreciate? I would point out he will never be old enough to appreciate them.

Which is why social media has become so important. And now they can’t let that stand can they?

Public speaking

 

 

 

And that’s why you see articles like the following.

EXCLUSIVE: Twitter Shadowbanning ‘Real and Happening Every Day’ Says Inside Source

Twitter Censorship: What Is Shadow Banning?

What Is Shadow Banning On Twitter? Former Employees Say It Exists

Watch Ex-Twitter Employees Brag About ‘Shadow Banning’ Political Opinions They Don’t Like

This next one is James O’Keefe and who doesn’t love him??

UNDERCOVER VIDEO: Twitter Engineers To “Ban a Way of Talking” Through “Shadow Banning,” Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions

More from James O’Keefe

Is Twitter Shadowbanning me?

Scott Adam’s follow up from Twitter contact

Of course when you read that last one, keep in mind that now we know Twitter lied about this.

And then you have things like who and what Twitter decides is a threat or objectionable.

Let’s take the case of IsraellyCool for example. Israelly Cool is a great web site, I learn very important things from Aussie Dave, who is now Ozraeli Dave.

Important things like:

Handy guide to who is responsible for your missing items:

Shoes=Mossad.

Socks= CIA

Car keys=MI5

Reading glasses=Illuminati

Sunglasses=NSA

The above is related to this little incident. But he is a very good pundit, he has serious columns as well.

So, why do I bring up IsraellyCool? He got suspended from Twitter. Why? He re-tweeted a virulently anti-semitic tweet and commented on it. And it wasn’t in agreement either. He did this four years ago. So he appealed. He thought perhaps it was some kind of AI that had flagged one of his 41,000 tweets/retweets. So he appealed. And got back a response

In other words, someone read over my appeal – in which I explained what I was doing with tweets like the above – and yet still decided to reject it. Furthermore, I stand to have my account suspended for good – I cannot, after all, find all such old tweets and start furiously deleting (I have tweeted over 41,000 times).

So four years ago he re-tweeted a anti-semitic threat, and he’s done this more than once and four years ago…..crickets. Now he gets turned in for it. Presumably the anti-semite who tweeted it is still doing fine. IsraellyCool is not the only one fighting anti-semitism that Twitter has suspended. They also suspended Canary Mission with 20,000 followers at the time. Their sole purpose is to out anti-Semites who proudly post death threats against Jews on social media so the whole world can see. One of them was a dental assistant. I really hope she doesn’t get hired. Yesh.

Twitter apparently has trouble with telling good from evil.

Peaceful not Peaceful a primer for Twitter staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shall we discuss Facebook facial recognition programs?

Facebook is using billions of Instagram images to train artificial intelligence algorithms

Facebook is starting to tell more users about facial recognition

Facebook facial recognition faces class-action suit

How to Turn Off Facebook’s Face Recognition Features

Who owns your face? Weak laws give power to Facebook

Beijing bets on facial recognition in a big drive for total surveillance

Tracking anyone?

A Facebook employee asked a reporter to turn off his phone so Facebook couldn’t track its location — and it reveals a bigger problem within the company

Facebook’s Tracking Of Non-Users Sparks Broader Privacy Concerns

Facebook Is Tracking You! Here’s How to Stop It

One way to stop Facebook from tracking you and serving you creepy ads

Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again

Mozilla Launches ‘Facebook Container’ Extension To Block Facebook Tracking

Facebook was tracking your text message and phone call data. Now what?

And how about Facebook suppressing conservative news?

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Report: Facebook Suppresses Conservative Outlets, Amplifies ‘Black Lives Matter’

Facebook curators say site suppresses conservative news

Former Facebook staffers say conservative news is deliberately suppressed

So, have you hit techie overload? Don’t get me wrong. I love my technology. I’m playing with putting Linux on a hybrid laptop, again. Still. Whatever. But I want technology to work for me, not against me.

So what to do, what to do. They are the big guys, they do get to run their show their way. We however, are Partisans. Do we give up? Oh HECK NO! If there appears to be a big beaver dam standing in our way, we can go the back roads around it or, blow the dam.

So, we have added to our social media choices. If you feel that you are not seeing as many stories from The Zelman Partisans, you might want to get an account at Gab.ai or Mewe.com Actually, you might want to anyway.

First I’ll tell you about Gab.ai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) Gab

This is from their preamble

Gab’s mission is to put people and free speech first. We believe that the only valid form of censorship is an individual’s own choice to opt-out. Gab empowers users to filter and remove unwanted followers, words, phrases, and topics they do not want to see in their feeds.

What a concept, huh? You can find us on Gab at https://gab.ai/TheZelmanPartisans

TheZelmanPartisans no spaces in between the words.

Then thank you to our wonderful Jo Ann, we have an account on mewe.com and there are some news clippings on what they are about.

Fox news interviews Mark Weinstein CEO and Founder of Sgrouples (it sounds like “scruples” when you say it) — World’s Private Social Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmw3S-HIjo

And this comes from a review of the mewe platform

MeWe is a social networking site that remains to need lots of improvements and updates. However, despite of glitches, it is still a very promising platform that values user privacy and offers a wide variety of privacy options for everyone.

In conclusion, MeWe is a safe social networking site that you should check out and try especially if you are interested in sharing and communicating with your friends and loved ones without compromising your personal privacy.

You can find us on MeWe by searching for The Zelman Partisans. This time there are spaces between the words.

Both platforms are free to join and privacy and free speech seems to be what they want to be known for. Yeah, I’m good with that! #WayCool.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Nurses for Tyranny

Another weasel-worded call for repeal of the Second Amendment.

Gun rights — Constitution needs to be amended to protect the lives of our patients
We are nurses who have a vested interested in the health of the public. Each of us has many years of experience working in practice, and in teaching public health, mental health, and women’s health. Gun violence touches on all these areas.

We agree that there’s a need for gun violence research but we also think about the root cause. By definition, there would be no gun violence if there were no guns.
[…]
For us, as nurses, we notice that when we are discussing gun violence it is critical to note that gun ownership is a constitutional right — specifically enumerated and clear as clear can be.
[…]
To protect our patients, we as nurses are rising to an important recognition that the time has come to follow a constitutional approach to address gun violence. The reality is that the Constitution needs to be amended to protect the lives of our patients. And we, as nurses, believe that the time to act is now.

We need to recognize that the Constitution needs to be at the center of our conversations surrounding gun violence.

Guns are the root cause of gun violence? That’s a complete failure to differentiate between cause, effect, and method. As a more rational nurse said, “In a nurse, that’s f*****g serious.”

I hope none of those idiots are ever my nurse. Hearts are the root cause of heart disease. By definition, there would be no heart disease if there were no hearts.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Are You Cultured?

Cultured, lots of things are. Yogurt, viruses, pearls, and other gems, and, people. When we were younger and growing up we wanted to be cultured because it meant we had manners, that we had education and knew how to handle ourselves in a variety of situations, depending of course on what the situation called for. Or, as my Aunt would jokingly say “Act like we had some druggin up”. I suspect most parents have hopes for how their children will turn out, they have certain standards that they teach us and hope we will adhere to, such as if we see an older person on a walker we would assist them in crossing the street as opposed to whacking them over the head and robbing them. That’s the culture I grew up in, you be kind helpful and nice if the situation calls for it. Serve proper sweet tea, appreciate fried okra, take care of your horse before you take care of yourself and don’t lie, stand up for those weaker or being picked on, and other than younger siblings (I am SURE this was in the handbook somewhere) don’t be doing the picking. These are parental and cultural expectations. Perhaps yours are similar, perhaps not. I’m guessing within most of the United States, the majority of these would be somewhat recognized.

Is this something to be appreciated and prized?

Those on the left, globalist, multiculturalists and the media, but I repeat myself, would disagree. From them we are told the joy and beauty of “multiculturalism”. How it enriches the county that is invaded enlightened. So, the government is currently shut down because the Demoncratic party is refusing to budge unless they are allowed to grant amnesty and citizenship to the DACA “children”. So let’s look at that a bit. First, the Demoncrats are perfectly willing to allow the armed forces to go without pay to bring more criminals into the United States. Ok, so they were children when the came, and while that tugs on everyone’s heartstrings let’s look at some reality. For me seeing some “dreamers” burning a United States flag or flipping it off does not inspire confidence in me that they love this country. So let’s look at the cost.

First, how many of these children, up to age 31, are we talking about? Well, that depends on which act we are talking about. Whether it’s obama’s illegal DACA or the piece of crap put out by Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham. Just How Large of an Amnesty Are We Talking About?

In additional to the number of actual “dreamers”, there are other numbers that will be added in. Expert: DACA amnesty to increase illegal population to 14 million, cost billions

“According to the most reliable research, recent immigrants have sponsored an average of 3.45 additional relatives,” said Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.

“I estimate that if 700,000 DACA beneficiaries receive lawful permanent residency status under an amnesty, then they can be expected to sponsor at least an additional 1.4 million relatives over time,” she told Congress this week.

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she added, “In this scenario, the award of LPR status would result in a second, de facto amnesty for the parents of DACA beneficiaries — the very individuals who brought their children to settle here illegally, creating this policy dilemma. Ultimately, an amnesty for DACA beneficiaries likely would produce more than two million new LPRs over 20 years.”

Yep, the very parents that illegally came and brought the kids will likely get amnesty as well.

This just has the makings of a future “Falestinian refugee” crisis doesn’t it?

And if you enjoy myth busting on the same, here you go. Some very juicy ones in here. Myths & Facts

And the numbers do matter. Because of obamacare for one thing. Nightmare: DACA Amnesty DREAM Act Will Cost $115 Billion Thanks to Obamacare

The numbers are striking. The DREAM Act of 2017, the most likely vehicle for extending DACA protections and making them permanent, would raise federal outlays by $115 billion dollars, according to a Breitbart News analysis. Nearly all of that would be paid for by additional deficit spending……

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a single person living in San Jose, California with an income of $32,000 would be eligible to receive a premium tax credit of $1,048 in 2017. The numbers vary by geography because health insurance costs vary widely by geography. A single person in Brooklyn with $32,000 of income would be eligible for an annual tax credit of around $2,666. But San Jose is likely more representative due to the high concentration of DACA aliens in California. Using the San Jose figure, current DACA aliens alone would likely be immediately eligible for around $838.4 million in Obamacare subsidies this year…….

The Dream Act of 2017, however, extends legal residency to far more aliens than the current DACA program. If we include 79 percent of the 1.8 million immediately eligible, the cost would rise to $91.5 billion over a decade. Including that share of the larger 3.3 million figure would push the 10 year cost of Obamacare subsidies to the DREAM households to around $167 billion.

You really should read the whole thing, but this gives you an idea of the monetary angle.

Then we have Truth on DACA: We’ve Already Granted Amnesty to These Illegals . Mr. Duke points out yes, they’ve been caught as criminals but no one is prosecuting them. They aren’t going to jail, nor are we forcing them or their parents to reimburse the country, county or city for the education or medical services or any other services from which they have benefited. He points out it is like coming home finding someone in your house chowing down on your dinner because his dad broke in and told him it was ok. You don’t call the cops, you feel bad for him, you just tell him to leave. Where upon your next door neighbor Rachel Madcow calls up the local #MSM #MediaBias TV station and rails you are a racist because you won’t continue feeding him and paying for his toothpaste. Ok, I paraphrased that last bit.

Contrary to this assertion, however, DACA recipients have considerably lower educational attainment than do American citizens. Almost a quarter are functionally illiterate, 73 percent live in low-income housing, and only four percent complete college, according to certain studies. Allowing DACA individuals — who range from high-school age to middle age — to stay, “is really the importation of an additional underclass,” as American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson puts it. (It’s also the importation of future Democrat voters.)

I wonder in how many languages classes have to be taught in California, and how does that affect the regular American students in the class?

If we can return to my example for a moment at the top about the dreamers who burn the flag and flip off things they don’t like, turns out, that isn’t so very bad a yardstick. While it is no doubt politically incorrect to point out that not all the dreamers/schemers are angels it is worth knowing the threshold they must cross to be considered a “criminal”. DACA: Granting Amnesty to Dreamers Committing Crimes While Abandoning Their Victims

Thus, the DACA guidelines give illegal aliens committing multiple felonies and significant misdemeanors a total pass as long as they have not been convicted of their criminal activity. This means that Dreamer gang-bangers, Dreamer identity thieves, Dreamer sexual predators, Dreamers who haven’t paid income taxes, and Dreamers committing a wide range of other crimes all qualify for DACA status as long as they haven’t been convicted of their crimes.

Huh, how about that. Shades of Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv activist: Suddenly the Supreme Court isn’t good enough Seems there are other places that the average citizen that is just living their life is forced to pay a high price due to social engineering.

So the U.S. is not the only country under invasion enrichment. How is it playing out for them?

Report: Immigration Crisis Causing ‘Unprecedented’ Shift in Italy’s Demographics

If current trends continue, the report states, by 2065, first- and second-generation immigrants will exceed 22 million persons, or more than 40 percent of Italy’s total population.

‘Nations Substitution’: Witnessing the ‘Biological Extinction’ of Europeans

Some European countries, namely Italy, Germany, France and the UK, are facing the so-called “substitution of nations,” where the national ethnical majority is disappearing physically and biologically, and is being substituted by migrants, according to a recent report. Sputnik Italy discussed the issue with Daniele Scalea, the author of the report.

Italians Will Become The Minority In Italy By 2080

The number of indigenous citizens in Italy is declining at an astonishing rate. According to a Eurostat forecast, within the next 60 years, or sooner, 50% of Italy’s population will either be of African or Asian descent. This figure is due to the diminishing number of migrants from other European countries and a prolonged economic crisis in Italy. Italian and European authorities are attempting to execute a re-population program in order to solve this issue.

Another source The Incredible Shrinking Population: By 2080, Italians Will Be A Minority In Their Own Nation

I hear it now. But Sheila, don’t be such a xenophobe, they will just become “Italians” “English” “French” “Swedish” “Canadian” “American” that came from __________. Really? Not necessarily. Remember I started by talking about wanting to live with honor, to be cultured? What got me started on this was a show I saw not long ago. Now I don’t watch a lot of television at all. But this one just floored me. This was on a series of deaths in Canada. The Shafia family lost three of their beautiful daughters and their nanny. The Shafias were from Afghanistan. You can read up on it, it really was quite horrific.

Inside the Shafia killings that shocked a nation

Shafia family sentenced to life for four counts of first-degree murder

Appeal dismissed in Shafia family murder convictions

Right, the girls were killed by their parents and their brother. They had brought shame and disgrace to the family by dating and wanting to be Canadian. They wanted to integrate into the society in which they lived. And the nanny? She was the father’s first wife (not ex-wife, first wife, still wife) who couldn’t have children. So they treated her horribly but kept her around. And I guess she really was good with the children by second wife and murderer. So she was a bonus kill. Remorse?

“My conscience, my God, my religion, my creed aren’t shameful,”Shafia told the others, back inside the van. “Even if they hoist me up onto the gallows, nothing is more dear to me than my honour. Let’s leave our destiny to God and may God never make me, you or your mother honourless.”

“There is,” he said later, “no value of life without honour.”

Guess that is a “no”. Compare that with how Susan Smith behaved when she drowned her children. Her society did not support that and call it honor, she knew she had done something wrong. Now, the Shafias knew they had done something illegal, they just didn’t think it was wrong.

It’s honor of a whole perverted notion according to American, or pretty much Canadian standards. Although it probably fits right it with the idea of honor in France, the U.K. and Sweden now. Their “Acid Attacks” are due to “mental instability”, not religion, of course.

From the always wonderful Daniel Greenfield The Acid Attacks of London’s Muslim No-Go Zones.  A splash from the acid test of multiculturalism

And in case you don’t know what victims of acid attacks look like, here are photos

MUSLIM ACID ATTACKS soar in countries like the UK, Europe, and even the U.S.

It’s THEIR culture. To them THAT was honorable. In the last few weeks on Twitter there have been a lot of pictures of women taking off their hijabs and waving them in defiance. Yep, while Linda Sarsour is over here convincing liberals it is “liberating” to wear them and the obliging liberals don them and smile at the camera in their enlightened embrace of “multiculturalism” women who have been forced to wear them since Jimmy Peanuts did his thing are taking them off and waving them.

A brave Iranian woman waves her hijab

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then they go missing. I don’t blame her for it though, I think she is amazing. I never did get an answer as to when Linda Sarsour was heading over there to support her oppressed sisters.

THIS is the traditional attire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

These hashtags have been running on Twitter. #ForcedHijab #Where_Is_She #IranProtests #Iranprotests #FreeAllProtesters

Some lady responded to some of these that the hijab protects them. It protects them from men behaving lasciviously towards them like western men do towards women. I actually answered her that not all western men act that way towards women and that it may be partly due to some western women being armed, willing and able to defend themselves from such. Of course I may be blocked from Twitter now.

So will it ever reach this in the United States? Well, probably not all of the United States. California maybe. New California Law Will Automatically Register Illegal Aliens to Vote add in the vote fraud and who knows, maybe?

And that is a big part of the draw of DACA for Demoncrats, new reliable Demoncratic votes. To heck with the American citizens that pay their salary, they will use the money and power granted to them by American citizens to betray them and favor the illegal immigrants.

The Demoncrat draw

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently that isn’t even okay with some Californians. Golden State conservatives seek to form ‘New California’

“After years of over taxation, regulation, and mono party politics the State of California and many of its 58 Counties have become ungovernable,” the movement declares on its website.

Preston and Reed say the citizens of the state live “under a tyrannical form of government that does not follow” constitutional requirements.

Do you think the people coming from these countries are going to cherish our Second Amendment? Do you think they will see the value and the freedom it brings? They are coming from mostly corrupt or oppressive countries. I said mostly. But enough of them to tip the voting scales? Who know, add in vote fraud, and who knows. Do you think they will cherish our life and proper sweet tea? Who knows. It’s not working out so good in Italy, the UK , France or Sweden. No, they don’t all want to kill us, but if I show you a picture can you tell me the ones that don’t? Probably not. Even if none of them want to kill us, will it change the culture? How much? Can’t you just hear barry sotero saying “If you like your culture, you can keep your culture”?

So if we in America are going to look for a change in the culture, let it be something like this

New Gun Owners California guns

Women CCW permits Riverside CA

Number of women involved in shooting sport increases 200%

May I just point out Hanukkah was only a little over a month ago, and that the point of Hanukkah was to prevent the eradication of Jewish culture by the Hellenist Demoncrats of their time? Culture really does matter.

Because I can never see this enough.
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail