This couple is so phobic about guns, they are freaking out about their daughter having a pistol safe for securing her diary from a snooping brother.
The problem: The black box turns out to be a gun safe! (A friend of my husband told us.) We’re not worried that she has a gun; she helped organize a school rally to tighten our state’s gun laws. But she refuses to give up the safe, and we don’t want it in our house. Help!
Pathological.
One of the big talking points of the left these days is that the founders were racist, misogynistic slave owners who wrote a flawed constitution. Therefore, they claim, the entire nation needs to be rebuilt. Among their grievances (copied and pasted from a blue check):
The entire list is the leftist/Communist wish list. You can see where anyone who would oppose them would be, right? You are deplorable and should be eliminated for the good of the planet, because you are evil and can’t be reasoned with.
This is why our constitution is so important. It’s also why I refuse to be disarmed.
The Hill is claiming that state law should protect the rights of homeowners by having ‘no carry’ gun defaults on private property. AWA over at GunFreeZone agrees. Here is one of the few times that I disagree with the lads over at GunFreeZone. In the interest of full disclosure, this is what he said:
I believe in both our right to self defense and our property rights. I personally have a rule that on our property if we are having a gathering of people that are not all gun people that concealed carry is allowed but open is not. We have some friends that are to scared of firearms to even look at them in person. That’s fine.
If a business wants to limit firearm possession in their place of business to criminals only, that is their choice.
Let me explain why I disagree.
When I was in high school (many, many years ago) my football coach used to explain to us the difference between involvement and commitment:
When you eat breakfast, the chicken that provided the eggs is involved, but the pig that provided the bacon is committed.
Coaches, especially in the south, have a way with words. Although it is a bit outlandish, my coach’s words reveal an important truth: it is easy to be involved with something, but it takes a lot more to be committed to it. So it is with liberty and rights.
When a company opens a location, the owners of that company risk very little. They have only risked a relatively small amount of money in the endeavor, and are insulated from any personal risk by the very nature of corporate law. If anything should go horribly wrong, the only thing that the nominal owner stands to lose is his investment cash. In other words, stockholders are chickens that are only involved with the business.
It is for that reason that companies make decisions that affect only the bottom line. After all, they are there to protect the owners’ interests, and the only interest the owner has is to get his investment money back with a little extra for his risk. It is this truth which allows government to use the law of unintended consequences to control a business without seeming to.
Let’s apply this to gun laws: As a government entity, I pass a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons, but I place a clause in the law allowing a business owner to opt out of the law. Many property rights people will applaud this law, and think that property rights are protected.
The problem is in the law of unintended consequences. Other laws hold a property owner liable for any act that they allow to take place on their property, but hold them harmless from those acts as long as the property owner has taken reasonable steps to prevent that act. You see the position that you have just placed a corporation in, don’t you? The business is now liable for the actions of any concealed carrier that they allow onto their property, and held harmless for the actions of armed killers, as long as they post a sign that says “no guns.”
The right of property owners has already been shredded. No property owner who wants to avoid a potential multi million dollar lawsuit would allow concealed carry.
Decision making process:
Will I be held liable if CCW shoots someone? Yes
If I prohibit carry, will I be held liable if a criminal kills my customers?
No
Post signs prohibiting carry
Back to our breakfast analogy: The corporate business owners, wanting to protect the only skin they have in the game are our chickens. The business posts the signs banning CCW. The public who frequents that business is now at the mercy of the armed criminals who know that they are now safe to practice their trade, and the business is safely insulated from all liability when it happens.
Congratulations, guns are now banned in public, and you have just cheered them on as they used your rights to make bacon.
I have been making that case for over a decade. That is why I have ignored these signs.
There are those who say that the person could always choose to shop elsewhere, but since the law is the law everywhere, there is no real choice. Very, very few business owners will choose to take the chance of facing a multimillion dollar award.
After SCOTUS declared Maryland’s AWB and magazine ban unconstitutional, the Marlyand AG has refused to comply.
Democrat Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh was defiant: “Military-style firearms pose grave risks to public safety, as recent mass shootings in other states have made clear. Despite the Bruen ruling, the state’s law remains in effect. Marylanders have a right to be protected from these dangerous weapons.”’
Three of the four boxes have failed. The government is refusing to comply with its own laws. What else is left?
The MSM is claiming that Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in today, making her the “the first Black woman to serve as a justice.”
Since she testified to Congress under oath, claiming that she didn’t know what a woman was, claiming to be one means that she should be impeached for lying to Congress. Isn’t that the standard now?
So the court just shot the latest sacred cow of the left with the decision on West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency by limiting the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions.
The money quote comes from page 19 of the decision:
Agencies have only the power given to them by Congress, and enabling legislation is generally not an open book to which the agency [may] add pages and change the plot line.
The left, as I am sure you are aware, is pissed:
I wonder how long it will take for one of these assholes to shoot a SCOTUS justice. I think things will get spicy after that.
Larry Correia has an interesting take:
I’m with Larry in recognizing that this decision will be far more impactful and wide ranging than the decision striking down Roe. The left is so busy being pissed off about abortion that they haven’t noticed that bureaucrats just lost a lot of power with this decision.
The Democrats can’t decide if they would rather molest kids, or kill them. This week, they are looking at killing them. First, Elizabeth Warren suggested that the Federal government allow Planned Parenthood to set up abortion clinics under tents in our country’s 63 National Parks.
The Pentagon has said that they can’t do anything with regards to abortion, due to the Hyde amendment, which Democrats conceded on back in February.
So the Democrats are demanding that SCOTUS be gamed by packing it. In the meantime, I await the November election. This election will tell the tale: if a President with a 35% approval rating expands his party’s hold on Congress during a midterm election, we will know for sure that the election process has been compromised.
The court will be packed by March of 2023, and the USA will be clinically dead.
A man with 14 convictions for dealing drugs left his gun in reach of an 8 year old, who then used it to shoot a pair of small children. One of the children died.
Then leftists predictably leave out the drug dealing part and try to blame the gun.
Roderick Dwayne Randall, who is a 14 time convicted felon, left his sleeping girlfriend and the young children in a motel room. Randall’s 8-year old found the gun in a closet and fired a shot. The bullet struck and killed a 1-year old girl and injured a 2-year old girl. He then fled the room with his drugs and gun before returning.
Randall was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, two counts of culpable negligence, tampering with physical evidence, and failing to store or leave firearm in a required manner.
Imagine my surprise to see that his is black. Another criminal in a race that is filled with them. The sheriff said he has 129 pages of criminal history, 28 previous felony charges and 14 felony convictions.
I suggest a few more charges. First, the girlfriend. She should be charged with child endangerment for living with her children in a dive motel with a convicted drug dealer and his drugs. Get the remaining child away from her, where it will have a chance at a decent life.
I, as a responsible gun owner, am not taking the blame for some drug dealing scumbag’s criminal actions. Democrats are sitting here passing red flag laws, while they can’t even keep dudes with 14 felonies from owning guns. Tell me how gun control works so well.
One of the big complaints of the left is that SCOTUS is not reinterpreting the Constitution to suit the modern desires of the American public. Politico writes an extensive article, complaining that originalism is a new invention of the court:
Should a 21st century society really interpret its Constitution by the standards of 1787 — an era before the introduction of semi-automatic weaponry, steam power, penicillin, automobiles, trains, electric lights and indoor plumbing?
Using Politico’s logic, we could easily ignore the First Amendment by claiming that it doesn’t apply to electronic communication. Nothing could be further from the truth. Allowing the courts to simply redefine the meaning of the Constitution to suit whatever their beliefs are at the time makes those nine robed justices into a ruling committee with a lifetime appointment, a sort of American Politburo. Such a setup is pure nonsense.
The founders of this nation recognized that situations would arise with the nation that would require that the Constitution be rewritten, then there is a process for that: write an Amendment.
The amendment process is difficult, and purposely so. The first step is to propose an amendment. That requires a two thirds vote of both houses of Congress. (Or the legislatures of two thirds of the states) That means 290 representatives and 67 senators must vote to propose the amendment. Once that amendment is proposed, it goes to the states for ratification. Three fourths of the states’ Legislatures must then approve the Amendment. That requires 38 states’ legislatures’ approval.
If you can’t get that level of approval, then obviously you don’t have a mandate. If you can’t get a mandate, what makes you think that you can start and win a civil war?
Nevertheless, Politico goes on to try and discern the founders’ intent in writing the Second Amendment and offers this as proof:
James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, twice introduced state legislation in Virginia that would impose penalties on any individual who “bear[s] a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty.”
What they fail to mention is that the proposed law that Politico claims Madison attempted to introduce was not a gun control law. It was a hunting regulation, and the prohibition on the carrying of arms was a penalty for hunting deer out of season and not a general prohibition for the bearing of arms. Let me quote it for you:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that it shall not be lawful for any person to kill, hunt, or course any wild deer whatever, not being more than twelve months old, or in any year called bissextile or leap year; or to kill, hunt or course in any other year, a wild buck, after the first day of December, and before the first day of August, or a wild doe, between the first day of January, and the first day of October following, unless such deer, at the time, be found within the inclosed land of such person, or be wanted for food, on the westside of the Alleghany ridge of mountains. Whosoever shall offend against this act, shall forfeit and pay, for every deer by him unlawfully killed, twenty shillings, one half thereof to the use of the commonwealth, and the other half to the informer; and moreover, shall be bound to their good behaviour; and, if, within twelve months after the date of the recognizance he shall bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty, it shall be deemed a breach of the recognizance, and be good cause to bind him a new, and every such bearing of a gun shall be a breach of the new recognizance and cause to bind him again.
A Bill for Preservation of Deer, 18 June 1779, James Madison (emphasis added)
So what Madison was promoting was actually a form of what we today would call probation. Instead of Politico’s point, I would argue that this actually makes the opposite point. The person who was caught poaching deer would be penalized by not being permitted to carry weapons outside of his own property for a period of one year, unless for military duty. This indicates to me that the remainder of the time, a person is free to carry arms off of their own property when not in military service.
If one wanted to dive deeper into Madison’s feelings on democracy, you would only need to read his essay, “Vices of the Political System,” detailing the flaws of the Articles of Confederation. Madison’s wrote that one of the largest problems with the Articles was that tyrannical majorities in the states passed unjust laws violating the rights of numerical minorities. Especially vexing was the oppression of religious dissenters in Virginia, which caused Madison to become the leading advocate for the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
As a result, Madison drafted the Virginia Plan. The Virginia Plan was a framework that was a population weighted state representation plan that became the basis for our entire system of government. (Of course, we destroyed that when we passed the 17th Amendment.) The reason why this is important is to illustrate that Virginia would NEVER have joined the Union if the Bill of Rights hadn’t been passed. Madison felt that the Second Amendment was central to prevention of the tyranny of the majority.
The article by Politico is an out and out lie about, well, everything. There is no point arguing with someone who is lying about the facts. This is an indication that they are not arguing in good faith and are taking their position with the intent of ruling over you.
Now New Yorkers are resurrecting the old “blood in the street, gunfights over parking spots” argument- you know, the things that they always say, but never seem to happen. We in Florida have been hearing all of that since 1989, and it just doesn’t happen.
An armed society is a polite society. When you know that you may have to pay for your words and actions with your life, you tend to be more polite.