Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Revising a classic liberal bumper sticker.


Sunday, February 03, 2013

Open Letter to the Washington State Delegation on Gun Control Legislation,


Open Letter to the Washington State Delegation on Gun Control Legislation,

The cause de jour in politics is to enact some form of new gun legislation.

This is both unwise and unnecessary, all of the propose legislation will only infringe upon the inalienable rights of law abiding individuals, will not produce any increase in children's safety, and is based on untruths, about the extent of the problem, and about firearms themselves.

First it is the Right of The People to keep and bear arms. This right is to defend our lives and our liberty with arms when and if necessary. This is an inalienable right, and our government is proscribed in the Constitution from infringing on this Right.

For a complete discussion of our inalienable liberties I refer you to It Is Not About Guns... It Is About Libertyhttp://correspondencecommittee.com/Entry.aspx?ID=7329.

Joe Biden has said gun legislation is necessary if it will “save one child” this is hyperbole at best, and blatant lie at worst.


Some numbers from the CDC:
219 children died from firearms in homicides.
62 children died from accident discharge of firearms.
17 children died from undetermined intent, by firearm.

CDC puts the ages 15-24 years into one group. This grouping is highly problematic, and often the victims in this group are included as “the children” a 19 year old is not a child, nor is a 21 year old bank robber shot and killed by police. This age group is heavily weighted by gang activities. The majority of firearm homicides occurs between 15-34 years of age, a total of 7,220, 65% of all homicides occurs in this age group. In urban areas the FBI estimates 63% of homicides are gang related. Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems - http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

Looking at the CDC data further.
738 children died from homicidal violence other than by firearms, the majority of this category is abuse by a parent or care giver.
4,147 children died from other types of accidents.

Disease kills far more children than anything else.

All of this is to show that if the goal is to save the lives of children there are other, more effective ways to accomplish that goal without trampling The Rights of law abiding citizens by passing new legislation turning them into criminals.

I would think better enforcement and application of existing laws in the area of gang activities would have better results sooner in reducing the numbers of young adults and children dying by homicidal violence.

The event of Sandy Hook is what prompted the current hysterical push for new gun control legislation.

20 children and 6 adults; teachers and staff died in a hail of bullets, at the hands of a deranged mentally ill individual who broke multiple laws BEFORE he even got to Sandy Hook.

When the shooter broke into Sandy Hook the question I keep asking and so far have not received an answer to, is this:

Why were the teachers and staff at Sandy Hook DENIED BY LAW the means and ability to exercise the INALIENABLE RIGHT to defend their lives and the lives children in their care?

In the 20 minutes it took law enforcement to arrive, during that 20 minutes the teachers and staff were PROHIBITED BY LAW the one TOOL that could have made a difference.

In the last 50 years, every mass shooting save the Giffords shooting occurred in an area called a “gun free zone”. A place where individuals are DENIED BY LAW the tools to mount an effective defense against a deranged shooter.

Instead of denying more people, MORE CHILDREN their RIGHT to be defended. Let the parents and school districts decide the best means. Instead of declaring to all deranged shooters, there are defenseless children here, take down the gun free zone signs, and let it be known “there may be armed defenders here”.

It may be trite, but it is true. It takes an armed good person to stop and armed bad person.

It is simply magical thinking that a “gun free zone” sign will protect our, my children.

I would now like to turn my attention to the mythical beast, the “Assault Weapon”.

That term is merely a scare tactic, with no basis in reality.

In 2010 the FBI says of all firearm homicides 358 were committed with rifles, “assault weapons” are a sub set of rifles. 17 times the number of homicides were committed with handguns.

Furthermore what defined “Assault Weapon” in the 1994 ban legislation, in Diane Feinstein's bill, in any of the proposed legislation is merely cosmetic. None of the defined features affect the rate of fire, the velocity or size of projectiles fires, cosmetic features have absolutely zero effect on the lethality of a firearm.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) had no effect, during its tenure homicides did not drop, Columbine occurred while the AWB was in effect. In fact after the AWB expired in 2004 crime did drop.

Assault is defined in the dictionary as an action by person or persons against other people. Assault is not an attribute of an object. This extends in principle to all firearms, a firearm is a tool, an object, it has no intrinsic morality. It is the individual who picks up a firearm, who uses it one for good or for ill that has morality. A firearm can be use to facilitate a rape, or a murder. A firearm can also be just as easily be use to stop a rape or murder. The most conservative estimates available tell us that firearms are more often used to STOP CRIMES than commit them.

All the proposed gun control legislation is based on false definitions of weapons, aimed a controlling a vastly overstated problem which does not, will not, can not address the real problems, and while the legislation misses the mark it will infringe on the inalienable rights of millions of law abiding, responsible gun owning American citizens.

You as legislators, can do better, your constituents expect better than false, misleading, misdirected legislation that will disproportionately and Unconstitutionally impact the citizen.

I believe your time and efforts should be concentrated on an areas that effects all children, in this generation and for generations to come. The debt, deficits and uncontrolled governmental spending.

Sincerely,

Thursday, January 10, 2013


It Is Not About Guns...
It Is About Liberty



Minuteman

Originally posted at Correspondence Committee.



Since the horror of Sandy Hook politicians especially liberal politicians have been in an up roar about the “gun issue”. The first day of the 113th Congress 10 new gun control measures were introduced. Obama has indulged in magical thinking with “never again” statements. Statements from the White House indicate the possibility of Executive Orders with firearm regulations. All this is to be expected from the left.

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA came out and gave a very defensive “gun rights” speech, and offered some proposals, mainly putting police officers in schools.

They all are off target, the liberals in going after the guns, and the right in being defensive and apologetic about the guns.

What we are really talking about is our Liberty.

The left is trying to steal from us our Liberty, and many on the right being far too defensive and apologetic about our asserting our Rights, our Liberty.

The gun is an extrinsic, inert, object incapable of doing anything at all with out a person to willfully put it into use.

Liberty on the other hand is an intrinsic, vital, an organic aspect of our being as individual persons.
Our Founders, and the Framers of our founding documents based the concepts of Liberty from Locke, Burke, Montesquieu and others. That an individual intrinsically possesses a Right to their life and to live that life free of encumbrances imposed by a government or other persons. This Liberty is not infinite, it is bounded by the liberty of other individuals. To manage the confluence of liberties between individuals, the individual can and should consent to a form of governance that both respects and protects the individual's Liberty. These concepts of individual liberty, ordered society, and consent of the governed are defined in the concepts of Natural Law. While the Founders and Framers deemed our Rights to be endowed by our Creator, recognizing Rights under the concept of Natural Law only requires that individuals are intrinsically, by existence of being, imbued with these Rights. That an individual's Rights are not bestowed or granted by any man, human agency or potentate. Individual Rights exist, because the individual exists.

The Right for an individual to resist the taking of their life, to defend their own life, even to defend the life of another has long be recognized, even enshrined in laws. Self defense is no crime, even lethal self defense in the face of a deadly threat is justified.

Locke and others justified defending life, liberty and property. They in fact defined “life” as the most intrinsic “property” an individual could possess, that we have property in our life, we have property in our Liberty. Property to them was not just the proceeds of a person's life, lived freely, producing goods. Property broadly defined was life, liberty and then all that an individual created and produced.
This broadly defined property, is therefore as righteously defensible as life itself. An individual not only has the right, they have a duty to defend their property, all of it. Individuals unwilling to defend all their property only give encouragement to the tyrants, both small and large, and put everyone's property at risk.

Defending all of an individual's life, liberty and property was not only understood and embraced by our Founders it was in fact most emphatically employed. This defense of Life, Liberty and Property was the core of our Revolution. The Revolution was nothing less than this Right of Defense of individual Liberty in action against a tyrannical government.
Once our Liberty was secured, the Founders and Framers further placed the defense and maintenance of this Liberty in the hands of The People. This is evident in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

We determine our government, The People have a government, in our system the government does not rule the people. Abolish does not necessarily mean by force of arms, by revolution. It can and does mean by elections, sending to all the offices individuals who know, understand, and will support and protect the founding principles, and removing those who will not, or do not honor the oath of office. That is preferable in all regards, yet WHENEVER it becomes necessary, not for light or transient causes, it becomes NECESSARY to maintain our Liberties then it is within the power of The People to affect such a change.

Then in the preamble to the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our government's express purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty”, We the People, form a government to SECURE LIBERTY that we already have, the Liberty we possess. The government does not have a people, it does not not provide liberty to the people. The People Secure our own Liberty.

The Second Amendment lays out the means for this defense.

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 Militia is necessary for a free State, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms belongs not to the militia, but to The People. The militia in the supporting writings of the Founders is in fact the body of armed citizens, not any State or Federal military unit.

The Fifth Amendment says that property cannot be confiscated without just cause, or compensation.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Since Liberty is intangible property, and Liberty is a foremost protected Right and The People's liberty in no way, shape or form affects the ability of the limited and Constitutional government from conducting business there is therefore no possible justification for confiscation of Liberty. Furthermore what would be just compensation? What price would you put on your Liberty?

The Ninth Amendment further enforces the rights of The People.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Individual Rights don't have to be expressly enumerated, even if a Right is not expressly shielded from the government, it still cannot be infringed.

The Tenth Amendment then states than unless a power for the Federal Government is limited.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the power is not enumerated in the Constitution it belongs to the States. Unless I missed the enumerated power for the regulation, restriction, or confiscation of Liberty or firearms there is no such enumerated power.

What of the States power to regulate? If you take the Bill of Rights to be broad and incorporated, as I do, and such a view is supported in the Heller and McDonald decisions. Then a Right of the Individual is still protected at the State level from the States. Incorporated Rights means a State or Local government is barred from interfering with, or infringing upon the Right of an individual to defend Life and Liberty, or any Rights of an individual.

All of the power, all of the control belongs in the hands of The People. Government, especially the Federal Government ought to be and by law is very limited. Those limits are widely violated, those violations are a whole other discussion. However violation, denial, infringement, restrictions or any form of regulations upon the Right of The People, individually or as the citizenry that would diminish the ability to defend Liberty is a line which cannot be crossed. We The People cannot allow it to be crossed.

Our Life, our Liberty, our Property are all inalienable Rights of the Individual, this is the clear intent and very purpose of the founding of this Nation. When you take the totality of the philosophy, writings and very founding documents it is absolutely unquestionable that all an individual has, can be rightfully defended. No property can be confiscated, especially property which the government would have no interest in, or use for, especially the property we have in our Liberty. This property, this Liberty can be defended, individually or as The People. This Right of defense includes the right to disband or dissolve the government should the government violate these Rights.

When taken in full context, the philosophical underpinnings the Founders and Framers used to craft our founding documents,the notes from the Constitutional Convention, the letters and arguments they put forth in writing, all the communication with each other. The clear intent was to put all means necessary for the defense of Liberty in the hands of The People.

Our Liberty is sacrosanct, put outside of the realm of governmental jurisdiction for all time, these Rights are protected from restriction and infringement in our highest laws. No method for such restrictions are enumerated. Confiscation, limitation or infringement is expressly forbidden. Where there is no enumeration, there is no authority to act. When government does attempt such actions, our Right to speak out is guaranteed in the First Amendment, and as a last resort the means to resist tyranny and restore Liberty is preserved in the Second Amendment.

The debate is not about guns, the debate is about the preservation of the Liberties of The People, and the ability and means for the People to restrain, and limit the government.
We do not need to be defensive or justify our Right to Keep and bare arms. We need to be affirmative and aggressive in asserting our inalienable Right to Liberty. Defend our Liberty, when we do that the right to keep and bear arms naturally follows.

Thursday, October 04, 2012

wood bits

Friday, June 29, 2012

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

  • Google News
  • Powerline
  • Google News
  • Orbus
  • “How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

    Ronald Wilson Reagan

    “It is a worthy thing to fight for one’s freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man’s”

    Mark Twain

    “History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.”

    Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY, to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    Ben Franklin, the correct citation.