Current Events - Page 21

Gov. Malloy is trying to make a public opinion point for awareness sake, that the NRA is being disingenuous with their promises. Obviously, a lobby of such size*, in doling out the money for their goals to protect gun rights, has commented on the relationship between rightful guns getting into the hands of those with mental health issues.  This is a phenomena that is current and devasting and there will be no end in sight, if, in the final effects, the NRA gets to agree to that, but is obligated to do nothing. Let Malloy ask, and make them prove it. If not, we get to call the NRA liars.

 

This proves my previous point. Where did the NRA (unless I missed something) promise to fund such an effort. There is "support", and then there is "support". What a terrible precedent would be set if the NRA actually did take on the responsibility of mental health care. Again, a right will never, ever, be contigent, period.   

"obligated to do nothing" - correct. That would speak to pervasive socialism. Wrong country.

Such things in the human condition are always "current", and therefore not "phenomena" at all. In that, there is indeed "no end in sight". Bad things happen, and even the worst of things. They will continue to happen. Some believe control is the answer, but that solution represents a stop in the cycle which preceeds something far worse, resulting in far more violence and loss -not conjecture, rather history, sociological theory, and even science. We are a short sighted lot, and easily fail to recognize the evils of the past and future for the ones in the now, despite their relative innocuity.

Difficult for some to understand or even believe, it is all about precedent, including Obamacare. Whether Obamacare fails miserably or not, it is considered a victory to have established such a measure of socialism. In the realm of mental health and firearms, the logisitical requirements necessary to accomplish almost nothing (because either mom purchased it, or because they are obtained illegally) would constitute an equally damaging precedent. Whether it is Obama and Holder utilizing the IRS to compromise opposing parties, the AHCA, or ATF functioning "above the law" ignoring court orders, our civil government is well on its way to establishing itself above the people. That, is not the United States of America.

State department loses 6 Billion under Hillary Clinton.

And she is going to run for President.

 

She should be in Guantanamo for Benghazi, much less holding an office of any kind. 

"She should be in Guantanamo for Benghazi, much less holding an office of any kind."

I couldn't agree more Carlin!

 

Okay, I agree with the principle that "rights" defined can not be contingent. Also, I will be thinking of a new word to replace "phenonmenon", or an adjective to partner with it, about what is happening today that didn't happen when Ben Franklin was alive. The sheer technology differences that didn't exist back then, is what I am considering.

As a politician working within the system, Dan Malloy would be insane to attack the "right to bear arms", especially in a state that is home to some famous manufacturers of arms and armaments. However, that right has been expanded to include the right to "overkill", when there are no restrictions on what one can accumulate for a personal armory. This is the debate then, must this be societies accepted consequence? Doesn't it go back to intent? The right of an individual's protection capability vs mindless massacres of obliteration?

Even if you are right and I am wrong, what then can a politician do, to satisfy the common sense desire of people to prevent the ease of death in seconds in our puplic places? Well, he courts public opinion to pass laws in response to a need. The studies and reports conclude:  guns and mentally ill people do not mix. So, while the second amendment is hallowed ground, diverting money and taxes will be what a politician can do. If the huge lobby power that moves our direction as a country can be called a liar and proven to be insensitive to the correlation of weapons/mass murder/mental health, maybe we can begin to question our trust in them. Maybe some will decide not to finance them? 

That Obamacare is setting a precedent for how to get things done, then attaching some kind of tax or fee to the arms industry, including the end users, is the natural thing to do.

 

 

the right to "overkill"

You can't link the right of the free with the transgressions of the few. Freedom has always come at a price. I would submit that one death is tragic in and of itself, but you'll not ever prevent such a thing. The idea that you could somehow "reduce" also seems futile, given that the means are always available to those who would ignore the legilation regardless. 

 

. So, while the second amendment is hallowed ground

 

The principles of freedeom and liberty are "hallowed", all of them. This a part of that. My right to protect myself is not to be superceded, particularly if we do live amongst a few loose canons. 

There is nothing new under the son. Mass murer is not on the rise, despite the demagoguery, thought the 24 hour news cycle would have you believe something different. Deviance is a part of evolution, arguably the most important part. If you could theoretically legislate away the consequences of "wrong" choices, what do you believe that paradigm would look like?

 Mass murer is not on the rise, despite the demagoguery

I will say more of my opinion, later. I just wrote two posts that evaporated on me, trying to post a chart from the article linked below.

Why wouldn't we, as a virtuous people, want to use what has been learned, as to what saves lives? Somewhere in the whom supercedes whom ideal, are some key auxillary points, I would image. I don't see then, why you don't have a stealth bomber in your backyard, already?

 

---

I hope this is good enough for using the same facts for this conversation, for later:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

There have been at least 67 in the last three decades—and most of the killers got their guns legally.

—By Mark Follman, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan

| Updated: Wed April 2, 2014, 11:55 PM EDT

Update (4/2/2014): A gunman went on a rampage at Fort Hood, Texas—the site of a mass shooting in November 2009—killing 3 people and injuring 16 others before taking his own life, according to the Associated Press.

It is perhaps too easy to forget how many times this has happened. The horrific mass murder at a movie theater in Colorado in July 2012, another at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin that August, another at a manufacturer in Minneapolis that September—and then the unthinkable nightmare at a Connecticut elementary school that December—were some of the latest in an epidemic of such gun violence over the last three decades. Since 1982, there have been at least 67 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Thirty of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006. Seven of them took place in 2012, and another five occurred in 2013, including in Santa Monica, California, and at the Washington Navy Yard. We've gathered detailed data on the cases and mapped them below, including information on the shooters' profiles, the types of weapons they used, and the number of victims they injured and killed.*

Weapons: Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines. (See charts below.) Just as Jeffrey Weise used a .40-caliber Glock to slaughter students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did James Holmes, along with an AR-15 assault rifle, when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater. In Newtown, Connecticut, Adam Lanza wielded a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle as he massacred 20 school children and six adults.

http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

 

Control is an illusion. Take China as an example, and this article citing "China's 9/11".  Not a gun involved.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/29/china-train-stabbing-kunming/6162803/

 

Why wouldn't we, as a virtuous people, want to use what has been learned, as to what saves lives?

 

Of course we would, but it begs the question in my last post.

I don't see then, why you don't have a stealth bomber in your backyard, already?

 

Because I lack the space for a runway. 

The ideological answer is one that is most involved, but I will begin by saying that the explanation you seek can be found in Federalist Papers.

2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants

June 28, 2013 By KrisAnne Hall Leave a Comment

King Barry the Waster, has his “gun ban list.”    As evidenced in  HR 1022 which was proposed in 2007, the Liberals are bent on disarming US citizens.  What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this!  Here is a little 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants.

Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788.  Lesson one comes from George Mason.  George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.”  Seems to me a good person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.”  Mason first explains the REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers!

    “Forty years ago, when the resolution ofenslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

In the words of the “Father,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government.  But Mr. Mason doesn’t end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and the answer will surely be a surprise to King Barry and his jester, Eric Holder.

    “Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has askedwho are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation?  I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations!

Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster.  Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.

    “Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”  Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

Even the dummies out there should be able to follow that.  Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?

    To prevent rule by a standing army;
    To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;
    To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;
    The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

Lesson number 3 comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring Independence).  This interesting explanation is guaranteed to make every liberal and even a “conservative” or two slip into a fit of convulsions.  Mr. Lee explains,

    “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”  Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.

Mr. Lee explains that it is our DUTY to not simply bear arms but to ALWAYS bear arms. Mr. Lee is probably rolling over in his grave at the idea that we have to ask permission of the government to carry a firearm.  How about that directive that we also must teach our children to bear arms?  I smell the smoke roiling out of the liberals’ ears.

Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry.  Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s duty to bear arms.  No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

    “Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

Well, there you have it, 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants.  Yet, perhaps King Barry and his court jesters DO UNDERSTAND the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  Perhaps that is why he is so intent on disarming the people, because he knows, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.

Just remember, the Federal government has no legitimate power beyond what its masters delegate to it.  The States are the final battleground against centralized tyranny.   We will defend our States, until we regain our nation.

    “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

KRIS ANNE HALL  - http://krisannehall.com/

 

Federalist #29 also has much to say this regard.

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?"

Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me capitalism. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the people. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense,"

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what dad had said.

Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed. The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now."

The father says, "Good son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about."

The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in deep poo."