Liberty's Teeth

"...allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network...But the bill is unclear about how broad the president's power is. And what's more troubling to some is the application of emergency responses used in other situations to an area that has never faced that kind of security test." [link]

I find it troubling that this type of legislation is floating around. It is just as troubling the vague language used. For example "critical infrastructure information system or network", couldn't that just as easily be read as "internet". Especially if you look at the internet as a tool for banking, purchasing, trading stocks, etc... Also, how many ISP providers are the local and/or regional telephone companies? Wouldn't the government consider those "critical infrastructure"? ISP service through satellite or cable providers "critical infrastructure" by saying these mediums need to be able to function in order to broadcast "news and information" in case of an actual emergency?

The case could very easily be made that this authority would indeed allow the president to order the shut down of the internet. Should we even consider the words of the new FCC czar, Mark Lloyd, "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.” [link]

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

"A DeKalb County schoolteacher carjacked early Sunday scored a measure of revenge against his attackers...Harper ran inside and grabbed his .380 pistol.

“I was waiting for them,” he said. Harper estimates he fired two to three bullets, which might have contributed to the driver crashing the van less than a block away. A small amount of blood was found inside the vehicle." [link]

Very simply bad guy commits crime, bad guy gets immediate consequences via a law abiding armed citizen.

"This is the last legal gun that you can have without registration in New York," Littlejohn said. "And yet Mayor Bloomberg is driven crazy by my flintlock gun - the one that won the American Revolution.

A police source says the war could end peacefully if Littlejohn applied for a permit with the NYPD handgun license division.

Littlejohn would rather fight. The Brooklynite says he's willing to sue for his rifle rights." [link]

I can't figure out if it is hilarious that these crackpots in New York are going after this man and his rifle, and that he could end it peacefully by registering with the "NYPD handgun licensing division". Or so outright infuriating that these people are so terrified of individual rights that they act this irrationally.

Sorry for the lack of new and exciting posts today, but in a very rare instance of several family members being off (on the same day for once) a trip to the range was in order. Well not really a formal range, but we are lucky enough to own some property where a good bit of shooting can be done. And that will probably be how I spend the 4th as well.

Nothing like doing a little shooting to celebrate the anniversary of America's Independence!

"A standoff with a gunman who barricaded himself in a room at a Detroit airport hotel ended peacefully after he turned himself in to police..." [link]

You see the vast majority of the time when confronted with force and other people (not just police) that are armed they will either give up peacefully or shoot themselves. This is especially true of mass shooters. Taking guns from the populace is not the answer.

Officials said Wednesday that starting July 17th, no guns will be allowed on Beale Street. All clubs and businesses will post signs notifying patrons of the ban.

Police officers and private security guards will use handheld metal detectors to search patrons before allowing them inside the famous street's barricades.

Merchants will have to cover the cost, but they say it's worth it to maintain Beale Street's reputation as one of the country's safest entertainment districts.

John Elkington of Performa Entertainment says he wants to offer tourists and other patrons the opportunity to visit Beale without the fear of encountering armed citizens. [link]

You can now count this place off my places in America to visit. It is a shame really, I visited Beale Street several years ago and it is truly a nice place. Good entertainment, good food, and a relatively family friendly atmosphere. However if you will no longer allow me to legally protect myself and my family then I will not be going. For those that request it though, will you provide an armed security guard or a police officer to escort people around?

How long do you think it will be before the criminal element realizes there is a massive victim disarmament zone full of tourists with cash?

"The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”

— Attacking the Pentagon

— IEDs

— Hate crimes against racial groups

— Protests

The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests." [link]

Very good backdoor way to start getting quite a few people to start thinking about things the way the government wants them to. This is also known as propaganda and it has been used for thousands of years to great effect by dictator and tyrant alike to sway the support of the masses one way or another.

"A California federal judge ruled Thursday that mandatory DNA collection for all individuals facing federal felony charges is constitutional, dealing a setback to civil liberties advocates.

U.S. District Court Judge Gregory G. Hollows upheld the DNA Fingerprint Act, a 2006 law which allows federal law enforcement officials to collect DNA from individuals "arrested, facing charges, or convicted" of federal offenses. " [link]

Is it any surprise that this ruling came from a judge in the "land of the left"? I can deal with the part about convicted felons having their DNA on file. What I cannot stomach is just having DNA on file for those only arrested or facing charges.

Has anyone ever heard of due process, innocent until proven guilty, self incrimination? Judges that rule like this...well lets just say more oak trees need to be planted.

"A student who wants to form a gun-rights group at the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) has been threatened with disciplinary action for her efforts...administrators banned her informational pamphlets, ordered her to destroy all copies of them, and told her that further "academic misconduct" would not be tolerated."

So now exercising a perfectly legal right is considered misconduct. Handing out information on a college campus to those that voluntarily take said pamphlets is considered "academic misconduct". I always considered "academic misconduct" plagiarizing, cheating, breaking into professors offices to steal tests, etc...

"In April, CCAC student Christine Brashier created pamphlets to distribute to her classmates encouraging them to join her in forming a chapter of the national Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) organization at CCAC.

Brashier reports that she was also interrogated about why she was distributing the pamphlets, whether she owned a licensed firearm and had ever brought it to campus (she has not), whether she carries a concealed firearm off campus, and whether she disagrees with the existing college policy banning concealed weapons on campus." [link]

Rather reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels censorship in Nazi Germany isn't it? To think that our institutions of higher learning would chastise a student for doing on their own and learning first hand about organizations and how to run one is unthinkable, on the other hand I wonder how they would handle someone handing out ACORN pamphlets?

The 1st Amendment had a victory in federal court. All such victories of these rights that have been slowly stripped away from us should be celebrated every chance we get.

"Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said their decision will have a "minimal" effects on criminal defendants. "Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation," Scalia said." [link]

I am sure that anyone familiar with David Codrea and his "Only Ones" pieces are sure to find fault in this statement.

"Democratic leaders in Congress tend to support more restrictive gun laws but have yielded on the issue since a majority of their rank-and-file members increasingly side with the National Rifle Association (NRA) when votes involve the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." [link]

Do you think the MSM would understand a little better if someone actually read the Constitution to them? My thinking for as long as I can remember is why even have a bill go through Congress that even mentions limiting any sort of right. The only good gun legislation would be the lifting of all the un-Constitutional laws that are already in effect.

Geez...what a title for a post, anyway, had to get the point across, and on to today's Gun Rights Examiner Column!.

Ran across this and thought it was funny. I will give you a short preview of what is on the list.

"2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.
13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia."

You can see the rest of the list here.

By now many of you that keep up with my blog probably know about the passage of the concealed carry in national parks having been re instituted. What will probably surprise nearly all of you is that I was against this legislation!

Now before the flame wars start let me explain. First off this legislation was added as an amendment to another bill before congress. I have always thought that this was unethical and underhanded (even when it comes to the 2nd Amendment). Secondly the original bill was a bill that imposes restrictions on credit card companies. I believe this to be un-Constitutional. Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution forbids states from impairing obligations to contracts. However a pretty good argument could be made against the Federal government via the 14th Amendment and the due process clause.

Also notice that republicans (not true conservatives) in order to stand up for gun rights had to go against their own free market rhetoric (restricting credit card companies, a for profit business and industry). Granted nearly all of the credit card companies use aggressive tactics all of these changes in an individuals credit card fees are listed in the contract when they sign up for one, it is ones own responsibility to read the fine print.

Isn't it funny to watch republicans line up to vote for firearms at the expense of fiscal responsibility? Weren't they always the party that wanted the government to keep their hands off of what someone did financially?

Don't get me wrong, I am glad that concealed carry of firearms is "legal" but it should never have been illegal due to the 2nd Amendment.

"...The City of Chicago had suffered nearly twice as many fatalities as all American soldiers in Iraq over the same period...the City tallied over 500 homicides, 80 percent of which were caused by gunshot wounds. In total, the social costs of gun violence in Chicago are estimated at $2.5 billion. Despite the devastating impact on local communities, federal gun control has essentially been taken off the table as a valid issue due to concerns of its unpopularity in elections. To reinstate such an important and consequential dialogue, Democrats must re-frame gun control as a pro-security measure." [link]

I don't happen to see any mention anywhere in the article that gun ownership in Chicago is for all intents and purposes illegal. So wouldn't logic dictate that making something that is already illegal in an area illegal again have no effect, or would the double emphasis on being illegal make all the difference?

Also notice the strategy that has been put forth, that of "re-framing" the issue. I posted yesterday about the mastery of the left in using language as a means of winning support. They change the focus but everything else remains the same. This is a tactic that has worked for them in many areas and one that liberty and freedom minded people need to be more aware of if we wish to stop the encroachment of our liberties.

I have been very critical of the left in Washington since I started this blog and I am sure that quite a few people think that I am a hard line Conservative/Republican. However had I started this blog during the Bush years more than likely I would have been labeled as a hard line Liberal/Democrat. The reason for this is I would have just as loudly spoken out about the corruption and demolition of rights that took place under Bush. So in dubious honor to B43 I offer you a small sampling of the liberties stripped from the American people via the un-"Patriot Act":

Let's start with that pesky 4th Amendment, you know, the one about unreasonable search and seizure. Well the un-"Patriot Act" pretty much states that, the government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

That 6th Amendment really causes a lot of problems how can that be fixed via the un-"Patriot Act"? Answer: How about by monitoring conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes, and also, Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

And lastly how can the government subvert the ever deadly and dangerous 1st Amendment? Answer: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation they may also monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

You may find a full text of the Act here. It might also be interesting to note specifically Section 802 (B) i and ii which specifically states the definition of a domestic terrorist. I believe that by this definition both Bush and Obama would classify, along with a vast number of the members of Congress. Because when the economy started to head south, they both started with the doom and gloom projections and what would happen if the people did not "allow" the administration to act quickly.

"A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential “threats,” could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential “extremism.”

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159...permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any “known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is “appropriately suspected”...

Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being “dangerous.” [link]

This should scare the pants off anyone. Just imagine the government being allowed to curtail rights based on legislation that is based on loose interpretations. I am all for not letting known terrorist own weapons, the question needs to be asked though, if they are a known terrorist what are they doing running around free?

When you try to pass legislation based on fear you get..."The Patriot Act" (anything but), the massive "porkulus" bill, the bailout (can you say bankruptcy for 2 of the Big 3). These actions make no sense to start with, but start talking doom and gloom and straight to the presidents desk for the signature.

In studying the 2^nd Amendment and the history behind it, I as a pro-gun advocate have noticed several things, most of these have already been expounded upon in detail by other’s that support gun rights. I will merely mention them here as a background for this piece. The first one being that the people of the 2^nd Amendment are the same people as are referred to under the 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 9^th, and 10^th Amendments. Each of these other amendments have been upheld by courts to apply to individual citizens. That means the 2^nd Amendment is not solely for the arming of an army and/or National Guard force(s).

Secondly the Constitution was written in plain English (for the day) and would have been meant to have been easily understood by the vast majority of colonists to whom it would have applied. In fact the Constitution was not only circulated to large cities, but also to smaller hamlets/towns/settlements so that the colonists could read (or have it read) and discuss whether to approve it or not. Let us also not forget that at this point and time a sizeable portion of the population had at least one firearm in their homes to supply food, and aid in the town/settlements defense (remember, Indian attacks were very common at this time). Hunting at this time was not a “sport”, but rather a way of survival for a large part of the population.

From here you should have gotten the general idea, but I have one other point that is very rarely mentioned, or even brought up. We have all heard by now about the militia of the day and how each and every able bodied man was expected to take parts in the routine drills/exercises enough to be familiar with how a group of men fought as a group (at least in the military philosophies of the day). Each man was expected to provide his own weapon, but if he could not then one would be supplied for him.

Here is where things start to get interesting. What type of weapon do you think those that could supply their own brought along, a smooth-bore musket or a rifle? The vast majority showed up to these exercises with rifles, because the smooth-bore musket was not practical for everyday colonial life. The smooth-bore was the choice of the military because with large amounts of troops it was easier to reload and fire volleys than was the rifle. However, it was severely inaccurate as compared to the rifle. Hence a case could be made that the rifle in a way was far superior to the smooth-bore that was in common military usage. Therefore the founders by their wording of the 2^nd Amendment intended for the people to be able to arm themselves with firearms superior to those of the modern military, at least as far as accuracy is concerned.

"The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions." [link]

That's nice let's just kick off a bigger Police State Party. Let us not forget some of the wonderful insights into how much the "Only Ones" will actually respect a decision of someone not to talk and other travesties they will attempt to pull off because they feel they can hide behind a shield.