Re-writing the Constitution to our demise … part II

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

A few days ago I wrote Re-writing the Constitution to our demise to address the latest attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who is 93, and I’m not sure if all his oars are hitting the water now that he’s retired, suggests the 2nd Amendment be re-written or amended to read …

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

Now anyone can understand what, if that were to happen, would be the result; immediate confiscation of privately owned firearms and disarming of the American public, ie.  anyone not serving in the ”militia”.  And then we have the highly intellectual far-left liberal who takes it a step farther …

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of any of the People who are members of an officially recognized militia, who are engaged directly in the business of an officially recognized militia, to keep and bear arms while engaged in duties pertaining to the performance of the mission and objectives of an officially recognized militia shall not be infringed – – but duck hunting and taking excessive advantage of “Stand Your Ground” laws is not included in the aforementioned definitions.

Asinine at best.

In Justice Stevens’ view the authors of the 2nd amendment were mostly concerned about oppression from a national standing army and were not concerned about the right to self-defense.

Think about what that intellectual giant is suggesting. If the authors were mostly concerned about oppression from a national standing army wouldn’t Justice Stevens’ re-write of the 2nd Amendment create that precise possibility? The “militia” would be the only armed people …  the oppression which concerned the authors of the  2nd Amendment is exactly what Mr. Stevens’ proposal makes possible.

Original Post: Cry and Howl

Share

Another Reason to NOT Vote for Obama: Gun Grabbers on the Supreme Court

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

In the next four years, one or two nominations will be made to the Supreme Court.  To emphasize the importance of this to gun owners, here are some comments by retired Justice John Paul Stevens…

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says your right to self-defense in your own home should be limited to a cellphone “at your bedside.”

Stevens, 92, served on the Supreme Court for 35 years before retiring in 2010. A liberal jurist, Stevens wrote the dissenting opinions on both the 2008 Heller ruling and the 2010 McDonald decision, both of which were 5-4 affirmations that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s civil right to keep and bear arms.

As the guest speaker during an Oct. 15 luncheon hosted by the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, Stevens offered a suggestion to millions of Americans who legally keep a weapon in their home for self-defense.

“Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using,” he said to laughter, according to an Oct. 16 article by Reuters. 
In addition to telling Americans to trade in their rifles for cellphones, Stevens said the Heller and McDonald rulings leave room for restrictions on the right to carry outside the home, bans on certain styles of firearms, elimination of carry rights in “sensitive” places and background-check requirements for private gun sales.

Note that both decisions were 5-4,which means that the legal status if many of our freedoms are hanging by a thread.  And, if Obama get’s to pick even one more justice, it is a safe bet that he or she will be a gun grabber.  So even if you’re a Democrat, your  rights are at risk.

Consider your vote wisely, because the court can allow the state to take your rights by reclassifying them as government granted  privileges.

Share

Angry Right-Wing Rhetoric Leads to Violence!

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Angry white men, bitter clingers, shoot at King George’s Troops Dateline April 19, 1775.  Ye Olde New York Times.

We here at Ye Olde New York Times have just received dispatches telling of an actual physical outbreak of violence between King George’s troops and angry militia members at Lexington and Concord in the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

We have long feared this moment and place the blame squarely where it belongs:  With the militia of the several colonies.

The angry, anti-government, unchristian rhetoric promulgated by those in the so-called opposition could only lead to further violence.  We here at Ye Old New York Times denounce the Adams’ of Massachusetts Bay and Patrick Henry of Virginia.

We ponder their words and actions and denounce them as traitors to His Most Liberal and Enlightened King George III.  We further ask our readers what sort of people are these in the so-called opposition?  We find that they are small, bitter men, clinging to their guns.

Yes, they cling to their so-called right to bear arms.

For what was the primary reason that the King’s troops marched out of Boston towards Concord?  They had orders to find and destroy guns stored by the Concord Militia.

We ask our readers why an enlightened and free people, protected by the most Liberal and humane government in Europe need to own guns?   There can be only one reason:  Violence!

We at Ye Olde New York Times ask His Majesty King George to respond to this crisis in an energetic fashion.  We ask him to curtail, if not outright prohibit, the private ownership of guns.  We also ask his Majesty to outlaw the militia of the several colonies.

For rights are not absolute. If the so-called right of free assembly and the so-called right to bear arms lead to violence they must be eliminated.  Our government cannot be allowed to become destabilized.  We further add that anything that curtails the power of the State is immoral.

Patrick Henry has famously stated, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Now that literal and not just figurative death has visited these shores we pray that the Angel of Death visit Mr. Henry and give him what he so desperately deserves!  We also pray that peace be restored to the King’s Dominions.

The Editorial Board of Ye Olde New York Times

Subscribe Ye now and get 20 articles a month for free!

Original Post:  Manhattan Infidel

Share

Media Matters Lies About America's Watchtower: I'm Jealous

Share

It seems that our good friend, Steve Dennis, of America’s Watchtower, was linked by Media Matters.  Apparently, they think Steve is pro-militia…

This was an interesting week “behind the scenes” here at America’s Watchtower: First, America’s Watchtower was linked in a post which was cross posted on Noisy Room, Trevor Loudon, and Gulag Bound; this brought in some extra and always welcome traffic. But later in the week, as I was checking out my referrers, I noticed a few hits coming from Media Matters so naturally I had to check it out. Why would America’s Watchtower be linked at Media Matters?

  Imagine my surprise when I learned in this post that America’s Watchtower (not specifically mentioned by name, but right there in the link) was a pro-militia website, because that is not how I would ever characterize this blog. Pro-military? Yes, as one can tell by my sidebar images; two of these images are meant as a tribute to all of those who serve or have served in the military and also those that have given the ultimate sacrifice so that we may remain free, while the other images are of two WWII heroes. Pro-second amendment? Absolutely.

So, Media Matters thinks that Steve is important enough to lie about him.  I only have one response…

CONGRATUFREAKINGLATIONS!!!!

Steve must have hit on something important if Media Matters chose to smear him.  It’s a badge Steve, wear it with pride.

I do, however, think some clarification is needed…

Perhaps Media Matters could benefit from a little fact checking of their own before they make an attempt to mischaracterize the content of another blogger in the future.

Media Matters EXISTS to mischaracterize other sources.  It’s their sole purpose, reason for existence, and why Spooky Dude sends them money.    Since they cannot win with facts, they resort to the smear.  They are a regressive propaganda outfit.  It’s what they do.

Congratulations Steve.  It couldn’t have happened to a better guy.  Keep on reporting stuff, and give them more reasons to “discredit” you.

Share