Gov. Terry McAuliffe this morning will sign an order that effectively restores the civil rights, including the right to vote, of more than 200,000 felons in Virginia.
Read more at the Richmond Times-Dispatch
Read More......
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Friday, April 22, 2016
Friday, February 5, 2016
People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules
In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's prohibition on what the court called "the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens" amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.
Read more at thebaynet.com Read More......
Read more at thebaynet.com Read More......
Friday, July 3, 2015
Why I’ll Celebrate The Fourth Of July Differently This Year
“In America, the streets are paved with gold. You can buy any fruit you want any time of the year without standing in line. You can be anything you want to be.” These were things my parents told me to lull me back into submission whenever I had reservations about coming to America. Even after we came, if I complained about living here, the response was: “Would you rather be back in Iraq where your dad would be forced to go to war, possibly get killed? Would you rather not have school options?” The land of justice. The land where Christians don’t get hurt. The promised land. A land flowing with… everything supersize.
Read more at The Federalist Read More......
Read more at The Federalist Read More......
Monday, February 16, 2015
Civic Ignorance On Display
Many stories have already been written about CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s embarrassing historical gaffe when he told a judge: “Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man.” Of course, American governing documents state exactly the opposite.
But what has not been adequately covered is why Cuomo might make such a statement.
Read more at the American Family Association Read More......
But what has not been adequately covered is why Cuomo might make such a statement.
Read more at the American Family Association Read More......
Sunday, January 11, 2015
America’s Provocateurs Are at the Mercy of the Barbarians
To the foreign or uninitiated visitor, it must appear somewhat peculiar that the most prominent, recognizable, and provocative public figures in all of these United States spend the majority of their time in cities that are indifferent toward their security. Taken together, Washington, D.C., New York City, and Los Angeles host almost all of the more controversial media personalities in America; and, taken together, these cities have some of the worst self-defense laws in the country. Had Charlie Hebdo been an American publication, it would most likely have been located in Brooklyn or in Silver Lake or in Columbia Heights — positioned, in other words, in precisely the sort of place in which attacks on its employees would have been most likely to succeed. This, as the French might say, is “absurde.”
Read more at National Review Read More......
Read more at National Review Read More......
Thursday, December 11, 2014
NYT: Poll Finds That More Americans Back Gun Rights Than Stronger Controls
Two years after the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn., a majority of Americans say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than for the government to limit access to firearms, a Pew Research Center survey conducted this month found. The center said that it was the first time in two decades of its surveys on attitudes about firearms that a majority of Americans had expressed more support for gun ownership rights than for gun control.
Read more at the New York Times Read More......
Read more at the New York Times Read More......
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Patriot Day Screening in Corvallis: Last Ounce of Courage
Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Showtime: 7:00 p.m.
Theater: Regal Ninth Street 4 Cinemas
1750 N.W. 9th St.
Corvallis, OR 97330 (Map)
Phone: 541-928-7469
(Holiday, Drama)
Rated PG, (101 minutes)
Nationwide Release date: Sept. 14th
Theater: Regal Ninth Street 4 Cinemas (Corvallis)
Showtimes: 1:15pm, 4:00pm, 7:00pm, 9:40pm Read More......
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Political rights distinct from natural rights
AMERICAN THINKER, 4/3/2010 by Geoffrey P. Hunt - Who Will Guarantee ObamaCare Rights When the Duty-Bound Refuse? [...] Since the post-WWII period, duties as the enabler of rights have been conveniently and deliberately dismissed or harnessed only to a fading minority. The most expensive newly created rights have been of the social contract entitlement variety, imposed by unelected judges, executive orders, or one-party votes. ObamaCare is the latest, most dramatic expansion of rights-centric social contract provisions for beneficiaries who shoulder none of the burdens. These newly created health care rights with sweeping social welfare giveaways for a few are also accompanied by diminished rights for the many -- most acutely, confiscation of property, loss of due process, and diminished personal liberty. Read more at American Thinker...
Read More......
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Truth About the House Health Care Bill
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry
Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney, reviews House Health Care Bill (Hat tip: Jean Nelson/via email)
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in th e Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_ri ghts_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas Read More......
Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney, reviews House Health Care Bill (Hat tip: Jean Nelson/via email)
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in th e Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_ri ghts_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas Read More......
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Heritage Foundation: Property and the Pursuit of Happiness
Recommended article by Representative Michele Bachmann (R-6th District of Minnesota), U.S. Congress:
Property and the Pursuit of Happiness - The words life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness embody the spirit of the American founding better than any others. They evoke images of American patriots taking a sacred oath to lay aside their own rights as patrician property owners to give birth to a nation in which everyone would have such opportunities, regardless of birth or station." ∴ It may seem passé in this age of Twitter and texting, but a brief examination of these first phrases of our founding document is worth doing now more than ever. Read more HERE...Read More......
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
CNET, 8/28/2009 - Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. ∴ They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. ∴ The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. Read more at CNet...
Read More......
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The New Republic: America's Future Recap
GLENN BECK, 8/24-28/2009 - All week on radio and TV Glenn asked the tough questions -- because our republic is being transformed before our very eyes. The time for silent dissent has long passed, and now the hard questions need to be asked. Maybe there are perfectly logical explanations for Obama's 'Civilian National Security Force' he wants funded as well as the military. But what is it? Who are the radical Czars in the White House, and why are they there? Does the President actually listen to Communist ideas? Here is the ENTIRE RECAP of this weeks shows -- the monologues, the questions, the amazing interview with Rush Limbaugh and more. Please, read it and pass it around to all of your friends. These questions need to be asked and answered. Get started! Read more at GlennBeck.com...(videos included).
Read More......
Sunday, June 7, 2009
NRA: Gun bans upheld in Illinois courts
The National Rifle Association sued the City of Chicago, Illinois and Village of Oak Park, Illinois so citizens could protect themselves with handguns. ∴ We lost. Gun ban won. The word came down June 2, 2009. ∴ These two municipalities ban the possession of most handguns. But you are probably thinking we won in Washington, DC with the Heller case didn’t we? Didn’t that clear the right to own a handgun to protect yourself? ∴ No. Here is why:
The courts felt that Washington, DC and the Heller case dealt with law enacted under the authority of the national government, while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of state. ∴ In short, courts are deciding the Constitution of the United States and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the entirety of the United States of America.
Beware:
ADVERTISEMENT
What is your response? Will you join the NRA so we can keep fighting these fights? I know you will never give up your guns but will you allow the government to take away your right to own them? If so then America’s firearm heritage will be destroyed in one generation. Haters of Liberty 1, Freedom Fighters 0 - Don’t let it happen. Read More......
The courts felt that Washington, DC and the Heller case dealt with law enacted under the authority of the national government, while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of state. ∴ In short, courts are deciding the Constitution of the United States and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the entirety of the United States of America.
Beware:
- This decision will be used around the country to ban you owning a gun.
- Courts will decide that the 2nd Amendment will only apply to long guns because they better serve the intent of the Founding Fathers in that guns are for a citizen militia and long guns serve that purpose. Therefore handguns are unnecessary to the security of a free State according to the language of the Amendment.
- States will argue that they are independent of the federal government and can ignore the Bill of Rights, as they successfully did in Chicago.
ADVERTISEMENT
What is your response? Will you join the NRA so we can keep fighting these fights? I know you will never give up your guns but will you allow the government to take away your right to own them? If so then America’s firearm heritage will be destroyed in one generation. Haters of Liberty 1, Freedom Fighters 0 - Don’t let it happen. Read More......
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sotomayor's Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash
Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states. Read more at FOX News...
Read More......
Thursday, April 30, 2009
ASOSU: Gun resolution involving concealed carry not approved
Important request for letters/emails from the President of the OSU College Republicans!
Hi everyone,
Well, last night [4/28/2009] we had a decision in the ASOSU Senate (student government here at Oregon State), and in a 14 for, 15 against, 12 abstain vote, the motion to pass Resolution 2 failed. First it tied, and then the Chair voted no on it, saying that Resolution 1 already covered what I was trying to say in Resolution 2. Resolution 1, as a reminder, recommended that the University abide by all state law. Resolution 2 went further, suggesting that the University abide by ORS 166.170, which states that the Legislative Assembly is the sole entity which can regulate the use and possession of firearms in the state of Oregon.
Absolutely no evidence was provided by the dissenters, and I am strongly confident that they voted the way they did because of their political bias. They voted to uphold an illegal and unjust university rule, and their votes were not derived from any evidence whatsoever. One even complained how nobody provided evidence against my case, and then voted no anyways (Senator Kleiber).
Evidence I provided: live testimony from Senator Brian Boquist, a statement from Benton County District Attorney John Haroldson, a Legislative Council Ruling, a petition signed by ~170 individuals, a signed statement from Representative Jim Thompson, wording of the actual law that was being broken, and more.
As far as I'm concerned, ASOSU is a joke. Apparently the 2nd Amendment isn't important to ASOSU. Here are all the names of the Senators that voted against Resolution 2:
-----------------------------------
25 + Senator- Roberta Bryan
Business Senator- Josh Harbolt
Engineering Senators- Kari Varin, Matt Baumgartner, Brice Plouse
HHS Senator- Courtney Clark, Sarah Ballini, D'Anna Piro
Liberal Arts Senator- Michael Miller
Science Senator- Alia Beyer
Graduate Senator- Douglas Van Bossuyt, Kandice Kleiber
Panhellenic- Cristin Childress
Women's Center Representative- Heather Nicole Christian
ASOSU Senate Chairman- Jerred Taylor
------------------------------------
Please, feel free to email them with your opinions. When I say feel free, I really mean 'please do this for me'! But please, keep it couth. The last thing we need is to look crazy and angry - crazy angry people and guns don't mix, so don't provide them 'ammo'. At the end of this email I provided a list of their emails, just copy-paste and send to all at once :-). I suggest saying something like 'I am extremely disappointed that you voted against ASOSU Resolution 2. Not only are you supporting an illegal rule, and thus, lawlessness, but you are supporting an unjust rule that is a violation of my civil rights.'
To those of you who are not students, I ask you to participate as well - because it is us, students in Oregon, who are the future of this state and this nation, and we cannot let my colleagues get away with injustice and lawlessness now, for if we do, they shall learn that they can get away with injustice and lawlessness in the future. "Where law ends, tyranny begins" (John Locke).
Thanks everyone,
RJ Friedman
President, OSUCR
818 585 9685
kleiberk@onid.orst.edu, bryanro@onid.orst.edu, harboltj@onid.orst.edu,
varink@onid.orst.edu, baumgarm@onid.orst.edu, plouseb@onid.orst.edu,
clarkcou@onid.orst.edu, ballinis@onid.orst.edu, pirod@onid.orst.edu,
millermic@onid.orst.edu, beyera@onid.orst.edu, vanbossd@onid.orst.edu,
childrcr@onid.orst.edu, christih@onid.orst.edu, tayljerr@onid.orst.edu
See article in THE BAROMETER, 4/29/09 Section: News by Shanna Woodruff: Censure, gun issues on ASOSU Senate's plate (p.2)
Censure tabled regarding sexual assault/harassment; gun resolution involving concealed carry not approved. Read More......
Hi everyone,
Well, last night [4/28/2009] we had a decision in the ASOSU Senate (student government here at Oregon State), and in a 14 for, 15 against, 12 abstain vote, the motion to pass Resolution 2 failed. First it tied, and then the Chair voted no on it, saying that Resolution 1 already covered what I was trying to say in Resolution 2. Resolution 1, as a reminder, recommended that the University abide by all state law. Resolution 2 went further, suggesting that the University abide by ORS 166.170, which states that the Legislative Assembly is the sole entity which can regulate the use and possession of firearms in the state of Oregon.
Absolutely no evidence was provided by the dissenters, and I am strongly confident that they voted the way they did because of their political bias. They voted to uphold an illegal and unjust university rule, and their votes were not derived from any evidence whatsoever. One even complained how nobody provided evidence against my case, and then voted no anyways (Senator Kleiber).
Evidence I provided: live testimony from Senator Brian Boquist, a statement from Benton County District Attorney John Haroldson, a Legislative Council Ruling, a petition signed by ~170 individuals, a signed statement from Representative Jim Thompson, wording of the actual law that was being broken, and more.
As far as I'm concerned, ASOSU is a joke. Apparently the 2nd Amendment isn't important to ASOSU. Here are all the names of the Senators that voted against Resolution 2:
-----------------------------------
25 + Senator- Roberta Bryan
Business Senator- Josh Harbolt
Engineering Senators- Kari Varin, Matt Baumgartner, Brice Plouse
HHS Senator- Courtney Clark, Sarah Ballini, D'Anna Piro
Liberal Arts Senator- Michael Miller
Science Senator- Alia Beyer
Graduate Senator- Douglas Van Bossuyt, Kandice Kleiber
Panhellenic- Cristin Childress
Women's Center Representative- Heather Nicole Christian
ASOSU Senate Chairman- Jerred Taylor
------------------------------------
Please, feel free to email them with your opinions. When I say feel free, I really mean 'please do this for me'! But please, keep it couth. The last thing we need is to look crazy and angry - crazy angry people and guns don't mix, so don't provide them 'ammo'. At the end of this email I provided a list of their emails, just copy-paste and send to all at once :-). I suggest saying something like 'I am extremely disappointed that you voted against ASOSU Resolution 2. Not only are you supporting an illegal rule, and thus, lawlessness, but you are supporting an unjust rule that is a violation of my civil rights.'
To those of you who are not students, I ask you to participate as well - because it is us, students in Oregon, who are the future of this state and this nation, and we cannot let my colleagues get away with injustice and lawlessness now, for if we do, they shall learn that they can get away with injustice and lawlessness in the future. "Where law ends, tyranny begins" (John Locke).
Thanks everyone,
RJ Friedman
President, OSUCR
818 585 9685
kleiberk@onid.orst.edu, bryanro@onid.orst.edu, harboltj@onid.orst.edu,
varink@onid.orst.edu, baumgarm@onid.orst.edu, plouseb@onid.orst.edu,
clarkcou@onid.orst.edu, ballinis@onid.orst.edu, pirod@onid.orst.edu,
millermic@onid.orst.edu, beyera@onid.orst.edu, vanbossd@onid.orst.edu,
childrcr@onid.orst.edu, christih@onid.orst.edu, tayljerr@onid.orst.edu
See article in THE BAROMETER, 4/29/09 Section: News by Shanna Woodruff: Censure, gun issues on ASOSU Senate's plate (p.2)
Censure tabled regarding sexual assault/harassment; gun resolution involving concealed carry not approved. Read More......
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
States' Rights & Sovereignty
In response to increasing federal encroachment, a growing number of states have passed and proposed resolutions to assert the Tenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Visit INFOWARS to see what other states are doing...
Read More......
Monday, December 29, 2008
Closer to reality than you think...
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
Received via email 12/29/2008 from Ken Real Read More......
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
Received via email 12/29/2008 from Ken Real Read More......
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Bearing arms for freedom
Corvallis Gazette-Times LETTERS, December 7, 2008
Bearing arms for freedom by Jim Farmer
The classic liberal response by Larry Padman of Corvallis (Nov. 30) to our rights was to turn the Second Amendment into a hunting or personal protection right. Larry, the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or personal protection, it is about the people having the right to bear arms in defense of liberty. It is the teeth to all our rights granted by God and enumerated by the Constitution. [Emphasis added]
Governments have a way of trampling our liberties especially socialist governments. We only have to look at India to see how the people were reduced to throwing rocks at machine-gun-wielding terrorist to understand how the rights of the people were taken away. I suggest, Larry that you practice with a pocket full of rocks after the new president steps into office.
The reasons to fear the new administration are obvious if you remember history. Most of the new appointees are Clinton people who have a record of extremist positions against gun owners. It isn’t the “change” promised, but then you can’t trust a politicion and that is why we have a Constitution, a lawful document that gives us the right to real “change” should our rights be trampled.
We are going through very bad times right now and none of us know where this will lead us. Both parties in government have shown us they can’t be trusted with our money or our liberties. We would be fools to give up our ability to effect real change should our government trample the Constitution. America is strong because our people have the rights to worship as they see fit, speak freely and back up our rights with the freedom to bear arms.
Gun control is really people control and that is what socialism is all about. Once you give up your guns, government can and will run every part of your life. Put a rock in your pocket and remind yourself of that.
Jim Farmer, Albany Read More......
Bearing arms for freedom by Jim Farmer
The classic liberal response by Larry Padman of Corvallis (Nov. 30) to our rights was to turn the Second Amendment into a hunting or personal protection right. Larry, the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or personal protection, it is about the people having the right to bear arms in defense of liberty. It is the teeth to all our rights granted by God and enumerated by the Constitution. [Emphasis added]
Governments have a way of trampling our liberties especially socialist governments. We only have to look at India to see how the people were reduced to throwing rocks at machine-gun-wielding terrorist to understand how the rights of the people were taken away. I suggest, Larry that you practice with a pocket full of rocks after the new president steps into office.
The reasons to fear the new administration are obvious if you remember history. Most of the new appointees are Clinton people who have a record of extremist positions against gun owners. It isn’t the “change” promised, but then you can’t trust a politicion and that is why we have a Constitution, a lawful document that gives us the right to real “change” should our rights be trampled.
We are going through very bad times right now and none of us know where this will lead us. Both parties in government have shown us they can’t be trusted with our money or our liberties. We would be fools to give up our ability to effect real change should our government trample the Constitution. America is strong because our people have the rights to worship as they see fit, speak freely and back up our rights with the freedom to bear arms.
Gun control is really people control and that is what socialism is all about. Once you give up your guns, government can and will run every part of your life. Put a rock in your pocket and remind yourself of that.
Jim Farmer, Albany Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
