Freedom & Constitutionality

Latest

States On Track to Nullify Federal Gun Control

Believe it or not, not all government is bad.  Fortunately, numerous state legislatures have drawn a line in the sand and preemptively made bold statements to the federal government promising to refuse to enforce any new federal legislation or executive orders handed down from Washington on or after January 1, 2013.  Some states, including Texas, have gone a step further to make provisions in a bill to create a misdemeanor if any official attempts to enforce these federal restrictions, punishable by jail time. As of early March, here are the states that currently are considering or have already passed nullification legislation of gun control:  Texas, South Carolina, Wyoming, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, Oregon, North Dakota, Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, Alaska, Montana, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Georgia, North Carolina, and potentially others.

Even in historically and predominantly anti-gun states such as California and New York, local county sheriffs are coming forward publicly to denounce the federal encroachment and are guaranteeing their constituents that they will NOT assist federal law enforcement in any manner pertaining to the attempt to restrict gun rights to law-abiding citizens.

In Texas, Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has an excellent track record of representing Texans in court to protect their freedoms, has also promised that if the state legislation passes to nullify federal gun laws, he will fight in court to protect the citizens of Texas to prevent them from being charged with any crime for resisting this overreach. This protection would also include employees of the state, as well as any state law enforcement officials.

Some of the same states (including Texas) are following in Montana’s footsteps to pass legislation which would render federal gun laws or executive orders that take effect on or after January 1, 2013 to be null and void with respect to firearms manufactured wholly within the state. These firearms would not be subject to Congress’ jurisdiction, as Congress only has legislative authority on commerce that extends beyond state lines. Intrastate commerce, however, is a function of the responsibility of the state government to regulate, as provided for under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In other words, if a gun manufacturer made an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine entirely with parts found within Texas, and the assembly took place in Texas, this bill would exempt it from being subject to any so-called assault weapons ban. Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is what we call states’ rights, and the states that are standing up to the federal overreach are shining bright in this hour when America is on trial to determine if we will or won’t remain a free nation.

Advertisements

What Does Feinstein’s Gun Ban REALLY Say?

I’m sure you have heard a plethora of misinformation, just as I have, about Dianne Feinstein’s plan to ban assault weapons, “high capacity” magazines, pistol grips on rifles, as well as institute mandatory background checks for all citizens to purchase firearms, and implement a federal gun confiscation program.

But have you heard that this ban would also make it illegal to transfer your firearms to another private citizen, INCLUDING your own children? Instead, when you die, it would be required to pass on the firearms to none other than the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It is vitally important that if you live in California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, and Hawaii, you MUST write and call your Senators represented on the US Senate Judiciary Committee to tell them you oppose both Schumer’s gun control bill and Feinstein’s weapons ban bill.

For a list of the entire Senate Judiciary Committee, click this link:
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

All the Democrat members of the Committee want to take away your guns. Tell them you won’t give them up.

I recommend this article from the Orange County Register which sheds some truthful light on Feinstein’s intentions:

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/feinstein-497254-assault-weapons.html

And, as if it weren’t enough, did you know that Feinstein herself carries a concealed weapon? But yet she is the one who thinks it’s OK for the government elite to be armed but not the private citizen! Check out this article:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/01/09/hypocrite-dianne-feinstein-in-her-own-words-13817

Keep AND Bear

Far too often, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is construed to mean something that would make our founding fathers roll over in their graves.  This is what the cherished Amendment states: “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.”

The propaganda that mainstream media is pushing down the throats of millions of uninformed Americans is nothing but advertising, paid in full by the globalist elitists who hypocritically in one breath reason that disarmament of all American citizens is the entitled right of the federal government, but yet in the next breath will tell us that they themselves are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Our own legislators are living a double standard and essentially are an affront to the very foundations of our nation as one which guarantees that the people shall not in any way be subject to the tyranny of government.

It is no wonder that millions of people have been brainwashed into believing that the Second Amendment can be reduced down to nothing more than permission to duck hunt with a shotgun. Every tyrannical regime in history disarmed its people by convincing the people that the government is there to protect them from all evil, but all the while, it is none other than the government itself which committed the greatest and most horrific acts of atrocity. Only a superficial review of even recent history will reveal such plots by dictators such as Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and many others. Our own president’s policies are strikingly similar, and the liberal minions who are very well-proliferated throughout our government make no apologies in yanking the rights of the people, little by little, until they are gone.

A right un-exercised is a right lost. The Second Amendment is a codified guarantee of a natural, God-given right to the citizens of America, and we must exercise this right firmly but peacefully, and demonstrate to the naysayers that WE, law-abiding citizens, are NOT going to stand idly by and be the target of punishment and infringement of freedoms at the expense of the criminals’ who are not being prosecuted and imprisoned and yet will continue to break every new law that is ever enacted, because criminals do not have any regard for the law!

I don’t have my rights yanked because of a criminal who broke the law! This is a justice system at its worst! Since when is it a justified practice that an innocent person be punished for the crime that another committed? It is preposterous and must be stopped!

What is the definition of the word “keep”? In my mind, I think of the concept of possession of private property. I have a right to keep, possess, store, hold, and use the property that I own. The Second Amendment is a contract between the people of the United States and the federal government of the United States guaranteeing that we shall KEEP AND BEAR our arms!

Free Markets vs. Controlled Markets

In the most rudimentary sense of the word, what connotations flash in your mind when you hear the word “market”?  In mine, it’s an African image of a boisterous, crowded legion of booths lined up on end, with tarps as roofs, makeshift benches as tables, and all sorts of perishable and non-perishable goods strewn for hundreds of yards, available for whoever may pass, and all the while, each vendor hopes that he may find the fortunate opportunity to exchange his value for the value of payment.  In one moment, the vendor selling sweet potatoes may in the next moment become the customer purchasing sweet potato plants from his neighboring booth, and the next passerby is on the hunt for bubble wrap to encase his ceramic pottery so that he himself can best suit his own customer.  This, in the most basic of descriptions, is a free market.

A free market, aside from the indispensable, fundamental building block of the nucleus family, is arguably THE most crucial foundation to any functional society.  It is at the core of such a society that one party’s needs become the other party’s opportunity to provide value to meet that need.  It is, in fact, the reciprocity amongst innumerable private citizens, who each specialize in a specific set of skills, service, or production of goods, that literally make our world go around. One man is free to peddle his goods or services to another, and vice versa.  Both parties come to an agreement of what is fair and valuable consideration which settles the transaction.  Thus, we have one of the foundational principles of economics.

It is when a third party is ushered in artificially that the free market devolves into something of a hybrid…part free, part controlled…market.  Or then again, is it?  How can there be a partially free market?  Is this possible?  What occurs when an artificial, uninvited party inserts himself into the middle of a transaction to dictate what he believes to be the fair grounds by which the transaction must occur?  This is what occurs:  instead of allowing the buyer and seller to determine their own terms of the transaction, we now have another entity which has essentially imposed itself from without, upon the pre-existing relationship between said buyer and seller, to influence the outcome of the transaction, including the net profits realized, and what can even be sold or offered at all.

This third party was just that…a third party.  It was not invited to the table to negotiate any terms whatsoever in the transaction, as simple as it may have been.  It matters not.  The principle that a third party is uninvited is by definition why this is no longer known as a free transaction.

But…what about regulation?  Who will make sure that the buyer and seller settle the transaction on fair terms?  Who will ensure that the buyer is not utilizing unfair or unethical measures of quantity or quality?  Who determines that the goods sold were manufactured in a safe manner that is sustaining to the environment?  Who is watching out to guarantee that those who do not have any goods to sell may also benefit from this transaction?  What about those buyers who have no valuable consideration or currency by which to procure goods?

Therein lies the problem.  None of these other “who’s” were ever invited to the table.  This is a private transaction between two parties already acquainted…between which a bond of trust is in place, and therefore the two parties are self-governed in their dealings.  It is not the responsibility of the mysterious “who” to invite himself to the table to decree what is and is not permitted.  Nor is it the privilege of a buyer who has no currency with which to buy to come to the table either to help himself to another man’s possessions.

Eventually, after enough transactions occur, in this free market, will not somebody be defrauded and taken advantage of?  Will not the shrewd and wise transactioneers continue to increase their profits and rise to the top and thus begin to enter into agreements with other vendors so as to employ their services in exchange for payment to them?  Of course.  It is the natural development of an economy.

What will happen to the buyers who were defrauded and sold goods that were rotten or devoid of value?  It depends.  In a free market, these buyers freely entered into an agreement with the seller to procure the goods or services, and upon being taken advantage of, there is now a choice and responsibility incumbent upon these buyers to go back to these fraudulent sellers to demand a return of payment, AND furthermore to promise to these sellers that the buyer cannot in good faith recommend this seller any longer, but in fact dis-recommend him.  Thus eventually, the seller will either no longer be profitable and must relocate, or he will change his ways because the going norm is that people are generally trusting of others’ word and thus steer clear of the dishonest dealings of fraudulent and unscrupulous citizens.  But let not the virtue of trust be diluted into a maze of bureaucratic nightmares, where we no longer know the honest from the dishonest, simply because we have become so accustomed to a third party seating himself at our table of transactions, hoping that this third party will take care of me the buyer and you the seller, to ensure a fair transaction is dealt.

Whoever gave this third party the authority and wherewithal to insert itself upon us?  Is it not within reasonable exercise of freedom for one man to enter into a contract with another man on his own accord without the permission of a third, unknown party?  How does a man know if this third party is in and of itself not a crooked criminal?  Is there not a higher authority to appeal to who can oust this criminal?

I submit that the third party is none other than our government as we know it today.  Rather than functioning as it was created, by the people, for the people, it now has devolved into an overreaching, uninvited alien third party entirely to the vast majority of private transactions that occur every day in our world.  Thus, for many years, we have not had a free market, but an artificial one, which is not only controlled in nature, but propped up by a system of monetary value which holds no intrinsic worth, other than that in which its own people muster in confidence in it.