This time, I hope I really mean it about being back in the blogging business. I apologize for just shutting down for so long without a word--just a bad case of burnout, I guess. Anyway, I do still consider those who would disarm Americans to be enemies of liberty, and I am eager to get back in the ring with them.
Today we'll talk about Mayor Bloomberg's support (and that of his fellow tyranny enablers of Mayors Against Illegal Guns) for Senator Lautenberg's S. 1273 (which I have mentioned earlier, here, here, and here). This bill would grant the Attorney General the enormous (and enormously dangerous) power of stripping citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, without any semblance of due process, simply by declaring them to be terrorist suspects. That, of course, is a terrifying amount of power to grant to one person, even if that person were an elected official, which the AG, of course, is not.
Representative Peter King (R-NY), the sponsor of the House version of the bill (H.R. 2074), had this to say:
It is unfathomable to me that we knowingly allow the transfer of firearms to these individuals. Changing this policy should be a no-brainer. Our role in Congress is to create laws that protect the American people, not to uphold those that give terrorists the right to bear arms.Actually, Pete, I do agree with part (a small part) of that--this bill is definitely "a no-brainer"--making you the perfect kind of guy to push this abomination. The right to keep and bear arms is not "given" to anyone by any laws, or even by the Second Amendment--the Second Amendment guarantees that basic human right, the existence of which is not dependent on any document. Furthermore, your oath of office, swearing to uphold the Constitution, applies to the entire Constitution--not just the parts you happen to think are worthwhile. Finally, you seem to be confused about the difference between terrorists, and people on the terrorist watch list. I'm sure there is a bit of overlap between the two groups, but they can hardly be considered one and the same.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not thrilled about the idea of Ted Kennedy having a gun, either--but (unlike you and your ideological allies, apparently) I revere the Constitutional rights of all Americans (even those Americans for whom I have no personal respect).
Stumble it!
9 comments:
Welcome back, buddy! I thought you had dropped off the face of the earth! Good to have you back and blogging again.
I posted a link to this on today's Second Amendment News Roundup.
Hope you are well.
Martyn
Wow--you're quick--I don't think I had today's post up for more than five minutes before your comment.
I appreciate the welcome, and I always appreciate the link.
Yeah, I got an early start today, and I just happened on to your post shortly after you published it.
Red's Trading Post is under seige again from the ATF today...so, I felt I needed to jump onto it and get the news out quickly.
Yeah--I saw (at War on Guns) preliminary mention of a new wave of ATF stormtroopers at Red's--are there any details yet?
Good to have you back in the fight, Super!
No details yet on the Red's siege. But I am monitoring the blogs to see if there is an update somewhere.
Welcome back my friend, you were missed.
Great post to get back into the action with.
Once again you have looked at this from a view most of us overlook and should not. We often argue the facts and debunk the myths these people spew, but you remind they are not permitted to push an agenda antithetical to the constitution in violation of their oath of office.
That is, I think, a much more effective rejoinder than we make most of the time. We are so used to knowing it that we sometimes go directly into battle against the obvious errors they pronounce and forget to hold them to or remind them of their duty.
Way to go. Glad you are back.
It's good to have you back, I get burnt out once in a while myself and I take time off it helps.
Post a Comment