Just Because They Say It…

Free speech is a wonderful thing, a natural, God-given right of all Americans protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. But with free speech, you inevitably get people who ignore reality and make up their own fantasy world. This is what we face when anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment politicians start talking about guns and “gun violence” in the United States. Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it’s true. 

In a recent speech in Brazil, our 44thPresident made the following comment: 

“Some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon any time —without much if any regulation, they can buy it over the internet, they can buy machine guns.”

Our former President of course knows better, but as an ardent foe of the Second Amendment protected right for individuals to keep and bear arms, he gets to make up his own imagined world where only he, his government and other elitists can have firearms. 

Anyone who has actually purchased a firearm knows he is full of the worst kind of BS. The vast majority of firearms are purchased from FFL (Federal Firearm Licensee) dealers who must run a background check before delivering a firearm. And while it is true you can purchase a firearm over the Internet, the part he’s leaving out is unless you are a FFL, it has to be sent TO a FFL to do a background check, just like any other firearm purchase. If you are a felon, domestic abuser, convicted drug user, adjudicated as a “mental defective”, illegal alien, dishonorably discharged from the military or have renounced your U.S. citizenship, you cannot be sold a firearm.

Can you buy a machine gun? Yes, but thanks to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Hughes Amendment in 1986 there are a finite number of legally transferable fully automatic firearms available in our country. Those examples run in the 10’s of thousands of dollars and require an ATF tax stamp and extensive background checks and notifications, a process that takes many, many months.  

Yet if you take our former President’s statement at face value, it sounds like anyone in the country can log onto Amazon, order a fully automatic firearm and have it delivered to their home in two days, presumably for free if it’s Prime. 

It’s not like our former President hasn’t made up his own reality before. He’s infamously said “… this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” Of course, you have to keep in mind when they compare worldwide “gun violence” rates; they pick and choose the countries to include so as to make the US look far worse in comparison. They preface their comparison list by referring to it as the list of “advanced” countries.  As an example, our southern neighbor is not on this list. However, if you look at worldwide violent death rates, Mexico ranks 15th and the United States ranks 85th out of 172 nations. Remember, if you are setting up your own gun control reality, adjectives matter.

California’s current governor / wannabe dictator recently added his half cent to the debate following a horrific incident and decided to perpetuate the former President’s myth by saying “Recognize and reconcile that we live in the only country in the world where anything like this happens.” 

Very sadly, neither of these men is telling the truth. Violence, mass violence, so-called “gun violence” and worse atrocities occur at a daily rate around the world. Simply putting on blinders and making up an argument that our nation is the most deadly place in the world as a pretext for eliminating your Second Amendment rights is quite simply a lie. 

It is rather interesting our former President chose to make his latest comment in Brazil, a country with one of the highest murder rates in the world. It could be because Brazil’s new President is making good on campaign promises to ease his nations draconian gun control laws on firearm and ammunition purchases.  During the latest decree signing, he said, “it is an individual right of the one who may want to have a firearm or seek the possession of a firearm… obviously respecting and fulfilling some requirements”.  

More lies and more useless gun control laws that only limit the rights of law-abiding citizens are not the answer. But when you have no interest in solving the real problems that cause crime and violence, it’s the perfect scapegoat to get what you really want – total civilian disarmament and control. 

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #JustBecauseTheySayIt, #GunControlLies, #Brazil, #Hypocrites, #BeKindMyEditorIsOnHoliday, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Sanctuary

The concept of sanctuary dates back thousands of years. Sanctuary was usually in the context of a religious organization providing a place of safe refuge for someone accused of some type of crime. Throughout the years, the legal significance of sanctuary within the walls of a place of worship diminished, however the concept mutated to political jurisdictions where sanctuary is granted against allegedly unjust laws. As you might expect, you can only support sanctuary for a politically correct cause, otherwise you’re just a criminal.   

Sanctuary cities in the United States got their start in San Francisco, California in 1985 with the “City of Refuge” resolution. It was followed by an ordinance prohibiting the use of city resources to assist federal immigration enforcement.  In the eyes of supporters, so-called sanctuary cities are better off when residents are not in fear of being deported. There are now more then 500 such sanctuaries across the United States.

While there is some logic to the argument, the contention that these individuals haven’t broken any laws is completely invalid. Federal immigration laws exist for many reasons. Less the Native American peoples, we are a nation of immigrants and millions upon millions have jumped through the proper legal hoops to join our nation. 

The federal government, who is responsible for the security of the nation and to oversee immigration, is obviously not supportive of these sanctuary cities. Efforts to force them to comply with federal law have been mixed. Threats of withholding federal grants and funds to sanctuary cities have been met with lawsuits and injunctions, which are still winding their way through the courts. The cities and states that support immigration sanctuary call the federal government racists, the laws unjust and say they have the moral obligation to provide refuge. 

But what happens when a jurisdiction within a sanctuary state says they do not agree and decline to be a sanctuary area? You then see the state threatening to withhold state funds and grants, or those involved face prosecution if they do not comply. If this sounds a lot like the same ‘evil tactics’ the federal government is being accused of, you’re right. The only difference is it is the state imposing its will on the cities and counties. In other words, if you support the politically correct cause, you are okay. If you don’t, you’re a criminal. 

Left wing politicians call the supporters of sanctuary cities and counties in non-sanctuary states heroes for doing what is right for their counties and say the state should stay out of the way of these localities. 

Fast forward a bit and you now have gun control zealots in charge of many state legislatures. Their so-called “common sense public safety measures” tend to trample the Second Amendment to death. But, since they do this in the name of public safety, activist/politician judges have ruled these infringements acceptable and provide the legal stamp of approval.  This has given rise to a new type of sanctuary, the Second Amendment Sanctuary City/County/State.

Second Amendment sanctuaries have adopted resolutions prohibiting the use of city, country or state resources to enforce gun control measures that violate the Second Amendment. Much in the same way immigration sanctuary cities are refusing to cooperate with laws they see as unjust, Second Amendment sanctuary areas are refusing to cooperate with laws they see as unjust. And the movement is spreading. At last count, three states and many jurisdictions within 11 more have declared themselves as Second Amendment sanctuaries. 

As you might expect, the reaction within gun control states has not been favorable. Threats of withholding state funds and grants as well as prosecution for not following state laws are leveled at those responsible for declaring themselves a Second Amendment sanctuary. 

Left wing politicians call the supporters of Second Amendment sanctuary cities and counties in non-Second Amendment sanctuary states rogue politicians, sheriffs and police chiefs who are out of touch with their communities and the call for the state to force them from office or prosecute them for disobeying state laws. 

A little hypocritical? You betcha! 

On one hand, you have supporters of immigration sanctuary openly defying federal immigration laws they believe are unjust. They call the efforts of the federal government to deny them federal dollars illegal and immoral. 

At the same time, and most often the very same group of people, say there is no justification for Second Amendment sanctuary against the gun control laws THEY enacted and vow to withhold state dollars, as well as threaten Second Amendment sanctuary supporters with prosecution for defying them. 

To me this boils down to a single key concept: the lack of respect for the rule of law. 

Despite what many believe, this nation is a republic, a nation of laws. If we were a pure democracy, 51% of the population could vote to take away the rights of the minority 49% and it would become the law of the land. But our republic says you have to obey certain basic rights principles – the Constitution – from which our entire system is built. Even if 99% of the population votes to take away the rights of the remaining 1%, the 1% would be protected, as the law must still pass Constitutional muster. 

The Constitution and Bill of Rights aren’t optional documents. You don’t get to pick and choose the rights and laws you like, while ignoring the ones you don’t. You don’t get to implement your own interpretation of other people’s rights just because it better fits your social agenda.  And lastly, we seem to have forgotten the concept that nobody is above the law. If the law applies to one person, it applies to every person. Yea, I’m looking at you US Congress.  

I admire people who see an injustice and want to correct it. But you don’t get to do that by making up your own laws to follow, and then punish those who do the very same thing with the laws you are unjustly imposing on them. 

Perhaps we should choose our representatives a little bit more carefully. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #RuleOfLaw, #Sanctuary, #SecondAmendmentSanctuary, #Hypocrites, #BeKindMyEditorIsOnHoliday, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com