You'll Have No Rights without 2nd Amendment

It is the very linchpin of American Democracy.

Do you think you would have the right of assembly? Or the right of being safe in your home and among your effects? The right to really say what you want?

You see, no other country does.

France? Nope! Great Britain? Nope! Canada? No! China? Hahahahaha! I make joke!

These governments have a right to walk into your home, tell you that you can't rally or tell them to go to HELL without consequence. And sometimes dire consequence.

Europe even brands speech as "Hateful"!

Can you imagine? And they call us in the U.S. "Uncouth".

The early British invaders of the North American continent took over the place because they had guns and the Indians, for the most part, did not. Now it is said that this still might not have been enough had it not been for European diseases that the indigenous population had no defense against but one has to believe that having guns helped a great deal.

Guns also helped win the United State's independence from Great Britain. The significant part about this was that the British had flintlock smooth-bore muskets and the new Americans had...flintlock smooth-bore muskets. The British had cannon, lots and lots of cannon. The Americans had cannon too although not nearly as many but the SAME KIND of cannon and many of an equal size.

The armaments that both sides possessed at that time were, allowing for the disparity of economies and quantity, were essentially of equal technology.

And in this crucible of rebellion the reason for the 2nd Amendment was forged.

To insure that there isn't a disparity of arms of the people in contrast to the government.

Now lets face it, back in the days of the very crude flintlock non-rifled musket, it wasn't all that easy a thing to shoot someone. To avoid a flint splinter in the eye, soldiers often aimed and then turned their head to fire. Also, without "rifling", the spiral grooves gun makers later cut into the inside of a rifle barrel to make to bullet go straight, the bullet could go lots of places other than it's intended target. My theory on why the young George Washington wasn't killed at the opening of the French and Indian war at Fort Necessity, where he was a sitting duck, is that the French were probably AIMING at him.

Now here we are today with the most accurate armaments time has yet to bestow. Guns are now capable of killing a number of people quickly. But the disparity between what the citizen has access to vs what the military has at their disposal has widened considerably. 

But that gap hasn't widened to the tipping point as long as we still have access to semi-automatic weapons.

So it isn't a surprise that these are declared enemy number one even though they've been around since 1885. Yes, it's a part of our history but it's not SETTLED history. The fight to keep the right to bear arms is the fight of the people vs the government itself. Not for armed revolution, but to always have the option.

The U.S. Constitution would not have been ratified by the people without the inclusion of these rights since suspicion of a federal government was high. And knowing what we know and seeing what we've seen...

There's still plenty of reason to be distrustful. 

Young Autobots March on Washington

For these young activists, there is no alternative; guns have to go. But not all guns, just the "bad" ones and in this pursuit they have been given valuable access to national media channels.

Ignoring all facts connected to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, the missed opportunities of law enforcement to arrest the shooter and have him evaluated, the cowardice of the people who have taken a vow to serve and protect and so are paid a princely sum to do just that and the failure of people who failed to act, these people still blame the gun for the crime of the man behind it and the failure of the people put in charge to stop it.

So there must be more to this.

The Political Left's agenda is not to arm teachers so the kids don't want to arm teachers. The Political Left's agenda is to ban "Automatic" and "Assault" weapons so the kids want to ban these too. Never mind that they don't know what an assault weapon really is. Most rifles and 95% of all pistols sold are "Automatic" which is really Semi-Automatic. So most everything out on the market can be technically considered an "Assault Weapon".

Of course, what's in a name, right? You could just as easily call them "Defense Weapons" since plenty of people use them for that also. I guess that name won't stick for the media's political purposes.

So the demands by these young people are rigid, just like the Mentors who are advising and directing this latest campaign to take guns away from the law abiding citizenry.

Yes, we're sick of the shootings and the carnage but trying, again, to take the guns away isn't going to solve the problem so resisting the idea of having SOMEBODY who is armed in the school to protect the students should be approached with an open mind. It's the way things are moving and only requires legislation at the local level. Trying to get Congress to pass a restriction of any sort would come in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

The real practical approach would be to bring back mental health facilities that were closed down in the 1980s. That was money well spent in light of having to deal with the aftermath of the mentally ill getting their hands on a gun.

Also it is apparent that we must re-impress upon our law enforcement establishment just what their job really is. It's not to put 40 rounds into an unarmed man in his grandmother's back yard. It's to protect us from bad people. When people are more concerned with police shooting them than a mentally deranged killer, things have gotten a bit out of hand.

So mass shooting training for all schools and place an armed person in the schools, either a volunteer teacher or armed guard. You'd think teachers would want to carry a gun given the chance since it's their neck on the line in the event of a shooting also. Who actually desires to be a human shield?  Grab a gun and make the other guy a human shield for Christ's sake.

Let's face the facts; despite the "Never Again" signs, this is going to happen again so it's best to be prepared for it the best you can and carping on yet another gun ban that has failed repeatedly in the past isn't the best way to do so.

President Trump hasn't said much other than banning the ridiculous bump stocks and thats fine. That is not a restriction to access. I also don't think Congress has the focus or the time to be trifling with an unsustainable ban that would foster only a strong counter-reaction that would shift focus away from the economy and put it squarely on the fight to overturn the law.

And there will certainly be a fight. Although this issue is never ultimately settled, the last definitive ruling was in 2008 when the Supreme Court re-affirmed that people have the right to posses a gun for personal protection.  We will just end up re-living the whole episode over again with more money and time being wasted.

People can try to muddy the water by knocking around what a "Militia" really is but since the Federal government pays to support the National Guard in each state and can order them to war regardless of that the governor of that state thinks, one cannot seriously conclude that they are really the "citizen soldiers" the 2nd Amendment refers to. They are regular army.

Nope, nope, nope, the people are the militia and they have a right to own a gun. And not a pop-gun either, they have the right to own a gun that chambers a bullet that our very own government uses.

So here we are.

What we are witnessing is a guided display made to convince us that these students and the nation is fed up and now all of one mind on gun-control when that certainly isn't the case. This will always be one of our great internal battle in these United States.

For what freedoms we have to remain, we too must remain ever vigilant.

No Such Thing as Hate Speech, Mayor Khan

The term "Hate Speech" is just a veneer the Stateists hide behind when they encounter bad press.

Witness the latest call by an elected official who doesn't like what he's reading. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has an issue with people not saying nice things about him. Of course in Great Britain there is no right to free speech so it's not a stretch for a Londoner to want to stop such open discourse. It's just not...proper.

Well this BOOK BURNER, Mayor Khan, has a problem. The people who are saying terrible things about him are beyond his reach on Facebook. So he wants to have the government pass laws governing what speech is allowable.

This is all under the guise of "protecting people". You see, if they hear something bad about Mr. Khan or themselves on the Internet, this could damage their delicate self esteem.

Yes, it's all for the CHILDREN! Can't you see how sincere Mr. Khan is?

You see, the Mayor of London just can't stand the THOUGHT of such things. In fact, it's these THOUGHTS he is hoping to stop from manifesting. We should all just be nice and keep our stupid opinions to ourselves on the Internet. If we should have hateful thoughts about the Mayor or about other stupid politicians like him then we should be restricted from expressing these thoughts and that nobody should be allowed to read them.

So Mr. Khan wants something to be done to detect and report "Hate Speech" on line. Which brings to mind a question:

Who will be the one to determine what "Hate Speech" really is?

It's easy really, Hate Speech is something YOU don't like.

Perhaps we could get a nice socialist mayor of a big city to be the judge.

Problem solved!

I think Mr. Khan will gladly become the arbiter of all things Hateful. HE will be the one to determine what should be said on the Internet. Can you blame him considering his background?

Although I see a big problem since here in the United States, we do have a written Constitution and a Bill of Rights that, first and foremost, guarantees the right to say what you want to say. Oh, there are a few limits but I would hardly equate sending hate notes to Mayor Khan, an outspoken lightning rod of a public figure by the way, to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

I'm sure this egomaniac Mayor Khan would disagree.

And imagine the outrage if someone were to tell the honorable mayor that if he would only watch what HE was saying, perhaps he wouldn't trigger so much "Hate Speech".

But the right to say what one wants must only apply to him. YOU don't get the same opportunity because YOU don't count for BEANS in Mayor Khan's book and only your speech should be restricted. Such things do not apply to a man of his high stature.

Gee, I guess Mr. Khan is British after all! He does seem to possess that arrogant regal swagger of self-importance that emanates from that island nation. Britain did ban American talk radio host Michael Savage from entering the country even though he had no intention of ever going there.

I get a kick out of people who go on about having a right not to be searched. Or they have a right not to incriminate themselves. In fact I hear many people go on daily about their rights. Yet these same people have no qualms about restricting the same for others. They're all for the police kicking down doors or searching motor vehicles at random stops to get "criminals" but scream bloody murder when it's their door that is booted in or their car tossed for no visible reason. Go figure.

There is plenty of evidence that its the British government itself that has no problem with such issues as written laws protecting speech, privacy and to be secure in your personal effects and property. It was THEY who tapped into international communications lines, the British spy agency, the GCHQ, and collected personal data on American Citizens and then gave the information, literally data on millions of unsuspecting people, to our own NSA. All without the pesky problems of a warrant or reasonable cause. So who really are the criminals in all this?

Do you want the government, ANY government, to tell you what you should be seeing and hearing?

Give up the right to own a gun and you will.