Keep us free weblog

There's licenses for everything nowadays, from marriage, to adding a bathroom in YOUR house. Speeding tickets and speed limits make us "criminals" for going 66 in a 65 zone, even if nobody else is on the road. Motorcyclists and bicyclists get tickets and fines for not wearing a helmet, and then there's seatbelt laws... We've become a society of laws that force people's "good ideas" on everyone else, regardless of constitutional freedoms. Here, we'll discuss our freedoms and how to keep them.

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;
like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
- George Washington - founding father, general of the continental army
in the war of independence, first president of the United States, and
framer of the Constitution.

To all who cry "peace at all costs":
"NO WAR" you say? We tried that.
Fifty-five million people died.
It was called World War II.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

One victory, and two validations of the right to bear arms

Recently it was reported that the US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia ruled against the city officials of Washington DC, and struck down their handgun ban. City officials (like typical liberals, claiming the collective state has more rights than the individual) claimed that the right to bear arms only applied to state militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia." Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority on Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense." {SCORE!!!} Someone finally gets the constitution.

And, the winner of the biggest idiot of the year award, coupled with the "worst excuse in history award", we congratulate Judge Karen Henderson, who dissented, because she says "the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it is not a state." Um... DC is LESS than a state, it's given less power than a state, so... um... Anyhow, let me explain... Now, you all understand the constitution. The constitution is written such that God gives power to Man who gives power to Government. So government has no privledges unless Man gives them to government. And our constitution is such that Man gives power to the States, which give power to the federal government. Basically meaning the federal government has no power that the states don't give it. And Washington DC is NOT a state, it is the territory wherein our federal government resides, and is the only federal property in the country (besides military bases, federal parks, etc...). So this judge basically said something similar to "My boss isn't powerful enough to do this, but I'm more powerful than my boss so I can..." Anyhow... see the full story here.

Second, there's been two (that I can remember) recent shooting rampages by some crazed lunatic. There was the one in Utah I think it was, and was just another one I think yesterday in Manhattan. Now, we all know that if someone wants to get a gun, no gun control law in the world is going to keep it out of their hands, they'll get one somehow. So, with that understood, the end of these rampages is what gives validation to the right of the ordinary citizen to keep and bear arms. Both of these shootings resulted in the deaths or serious woundings of numerous people, but they would have been far worse if something didn't happen. In both instances, an off duty police officer happened to be near, and the off duty officer in both situations pulled out their gun and shot the person who was going on the rampage. Now, it's not an ordinary citizen who stopped it, but if there were no off-duty officers, and instead there was an ordinary, trained citizen with a firearm, he or she could have done the same thing and put an end to the mess. But worst of all, what would have happened if there were strict bans of the posession of guns in those cities, and there was no off-duty officer near? We just might have forty, sixty, eighty, maybe a hundred dead people as a result of one crazed idiot going on a rampage in a busy section of town.

And so, I hope you see the folly of gun control laws, they serve to endanger the general public much more than they ever could hope to "protect" them.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home