Category Archives: Second Amendment

When We Look At Ted Cruz, We See the Alamo

the_alamo
The Alamo Today

It was not until the last 24 hours, after 13 days of siege, that a real battle ensued. In the battle, the Alamo defenders fought valiantly and nearly all were killed including Jim Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davey Crockett.

The defense of the Alamo allowed General Sam Houston to build a large enough army to route Santa Anna and his men. “Remember The Alamo” was a constant battle cry at the Battle of San Jacinto, six weeks later. In the battle that lasted only 18 minutes, roughly 630 Mexican troops were killed and 730 captured while only 9 Texans died. Three weeks after being captured, Santa Anna signed a peace treaty, paving the way for the Republic of Texas.

The men who fought and died in Texas were ordinary people who took up arms to defend a great country. With the threat of death hovering above them for 13 days, they refused to leave their post (yes, a very tiny group did) and surrender. Even Davey Crockett, a man who already served as a United States Congressman, took up arms to defend Texas. Nearly all politicians today can learn a very big lesson from the men who lost their lives. There is a greater good besides your own self-interests. Politicians need to stop their petty differences and make the correct political sacrifices even if it costs them their career. They must be able to stand up to the political correctness without worry about what the consequences might be.

Ted Cruz is a Texan, and he acts like it. He is not afraid of demonizing his own party and possibly sacrificing his career in order to bring our country back to what the founding fathers fought for. The American people have had enough of the political correctness that has been drowning this country and holding us back from the being the great power we used to be. Washington should mark this day, March 6, as National “Remember the Alamo” day in honor of those who gave their lives and the selfless sacrifices they made.

Read it all.

The US Constitution Is As Plain As the Federalists (Who Wrote It)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES FOR the individual a right to keep and bear arms to preserve the security of a free state. A plain and solid reading of the language our forefathers fought and died many of them to leave us as our greatest American inheritance is not solely a restriction on the federal government. It is a restriction on ALL governing bodies. As one will note upon reading it, there are no local, state, federal or UN qualifiers. This amendment fears and contradicts ALL levels of government.

"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."

Arguments about the Second Amendment are always exercises in etymology, and turn on lynchpin definitions of a single word or another. We should point out that the Federalist concepts would only allow the phrase "well regulated" to mean, and thus it still means simply—prepared and quickly ready for action,—not to be confused with some knee jerk variation of half-blind power-seizing heavily controlled by a government deconstuctionist's impulsive reworking of the term. What would be the point in that?

A "free" state standing is the form of government established by the Constitution as it was originally written and intended. If not, pray tell, what on earth were they trying to establish? Many have noted that the Second Amendment makes itself plain as to where the right to keep and bear arms resides: It is a right of "the people."

We must agree. For we notice that the writers acknowledged three different entities when describing to each the powers that are called into existence with the ratification of the founding document of this nation.

The entity designated the states is not the primary issue in the Second Amendment. Enumerated elsewhere are the powers of the states. The same holds true for any specified powers the governing bodies of the United States of America are called to exercise. So let's be clear. This specific power of the right to bear arms is given specifically to The People all within the sensibilities informing the federalist republic the founders struggled to invent.

Man is bestowed by God the Creator of Natural Rights the primary right to defend himself, his family, and his community against aggression to the quiet enjoyment of these rights, even against an unjust government, foreign or domestic, as it infringes his own natural liberty. And when utilized as an effective tool in the sporting conservation of natural wildlife while providing food for the tables of tens of thousands of numbers of families, it defies common sense to consider abridging this very sacred right, a right when infringed is the very definition of social oppression.

The people of this country are guaranteed quiet enjoyment of their liberties with the responsibilities they command. We are taught, or at least, we once were taught never to sacrifice liberty for some temporary security, for he who does deserves neither liberty nor security.

The Second Amendment reinforces the principle the Declaration of Independence embraces wherein it was recognized that We the People have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to resist by a show of arms when specifically an oppressive government has breeched the peaceful call of liberty incumbent to a Free State.

All manners of public airing and effective redress of grievances become ineffective or unavailable in the case of an immediate threat against our life, liberty, and property, regardless of what Karl Marx or Mao Tze-Tong believed. This is the argument in a nutshell. One does not have a viable "right" unless he also has the ability to protect and defend it. We must agree, emphatically, as Americans, as rationalists, as seekers of liberty—the anti-constitutionists of whatever political persuasion have no standing until a greater power arrives.

Doesn't the recent Norwegian tragedy with all its ready-made hyperbole and suspicious evidence of the killer's ideological pedigree prove our point, all the more plainly, one more time. Norway's population has no access to guns, not even the police. And yet...

Allegory: the Cave of the Mama Grizzly

palin_fair1
Palin strikes perfect pitch in a crowd of Republican voters...

Into the midst of all this pent-up political need steps up the Mama Grizzly named Sarah Palin, and she hails from resource-rich hinterlands of Alaska. "I so admire Taranto," writes Clarice Feldman of the American Thinker, "and I think that of all the good explanations I read this week of the hatred directed at [Sarah] Palin and the derangement respecting her views and conduct, his comes the closest to the mark.

"Yes, many liberal women irrationally hate Palin, but I think they hate her because her very life is dragging them into the sunshine, where they have momentarily lost their way. Right now, Palin's very life is an affront to them—she's beautiful, powerful, and the center of a large family—and most of them are not.

"It will take these people some time to see that it is their own views and conduct, not Palin's, that is responsible for the distinction. Moreover, I think liberal women are not alone in this temporary mental disordering. I think others at first will hate Palin for taking them into the blinding light, but that with time and more media stunts like last week's, they and the Times and USA Today readers, the present consumers of the medias' distortions, will get some glimpses of life outside the cave and come to realize the distinction between truth and reality on one hand and projected lies and make-believe on the other."

As someone posted earlier on a different thread, (perhaps it was you, Clarice?), "my dad always said, dogs don't chase parked cars."

Meanwhile, Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City, an unrepentant liberal, this week has published an article defending Sarah Palin against the continued crriticism his own party levels at her:

In the 2008 presidential race when Sarah Palin's name was first offered to the public by John McCain as his running mate, I said at the time that she "scared the hell out of me." My reference was to the content of her remarks, not to her power to persuade voters.

It was McCain who lost the presidential election, not Palin. Since that time she has established that she has enormous power to persuade people. A self-made woman who rose from PTA mother to Governor of Alaska, she is one of the few speakers in public life who can fill a stadium. Her books are enormous successes. Her television program about Alaska has been a critical and economic success. When Sarah Palin addresses audiences, they rise to their feet in support and applause. She is without question a major leader of the far right faction in the Republican Party and its ally the Tea Party. She is Mama Grizzly writ large.

Ed Koch
Ed Koch, former NYC mayor

I repeat my earlier comment that she "scares the hell out of me." Nevertheless, she is entitled to fair and respectful treatment. The fools in politics today in both parties are those who think she is dumb. I've never met her, but I've always thought that she is highly intelligent but not knowledgeable in many areas and politically uninformed. I don't believe she will run for president in 2012 or that she would be elected if she did. But I do believe she is equal in ability to many of those in the Republican Party seeking that office.

Many women understand what she has done for their cause. She will not be silenced nor will she leave the heavy lifts to the men in her Party. She will not be falsely charged, remain silent, and look for others—men—to defend her. She is plucky and unafraid.

While I disagree with her and I am prepared to oppose her politically, in the spirit of longed-for civility I say, Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance.

Sarah Palin is the right person, at the right time, in the right country. . . our country the great United States of America.

What Makes a Good Shotgun?

OR RATHER, WE MIGHT PUT IT THIS WAY, what makes a shotgun good?

There's been a fair amount of debate here amounting to "My shotgun can whip your shotgun". Maybe some dialog on what we want and expect from our shotguns is in order. This can apply to both "Serious" and recreational shotguns. Here's my [set of] opinions, none graven on Tablets of Stone. A good shotgun should be....

Reliable. A failure rate of LESS than 1/200 rounds is minimal.Most modern US made repeaters qualify.

Durable. A use life of upwards of 35K rounds. Again, most modern US made repeaters can do this, some with a bit of small parts replacement.

Comfortable to use. This means fitting the shooter, of a weight consistent to the Rule of 96 with the load of choice, and capable of being shot many times in a short time period w/o pain. Ergonomics fit in here, and so does a clean, light but safe trigger.

Appropriate to the mission. 410s should not be used for pass shooting geese, nor 10 gauges weighing 12 lbs lugged through alder thickets for woodcock.

Appropriate to the shooter. That 10 gauge in pixie hands is punishing to use.

Affordable. Either on base price or per use. A $1K gun that lasts 50K rounds may be "Better" than a $500 gun that barely makes it through 25K.

Esthetically pleasing. This is completely subjective.

Capable of quick and effective deployment. Most shotgun usage, from crisis management to quail hunting, takes place in short time frames. The weapon, in the hands of THAT shooter, must be fast but sure.

Uses commonly available ammo. No 24 gauges. No 2" chambers.

That's about it. What do YOU think?

Thanks to Big Dave McCracken for the perfect shotgun theory detailed above, as he adds, "It's the pianist, not the piano." Works for me, as well.

SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI

ACTING ON BEHALF OF A GEORGIA resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.

The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD. The altercation was observed by a police officer, who arrested Schrader, then an enlisted man in the Navy, stationed in Annapolis. The man he fought with was in a street gang that had attacked him for entering their "territory," according to the complaint.

Schrader was ordered to pay a $100 fine and $9 court cost. He subsequently served a tour of duty in Vietnam and was eventually honorably discharged. However, in 2008 and again in 2009, Mr. Schrader was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection. He was advised by the FBI to dispose of or surrender any firearms he might have or face criminal prosecution.

"Schrader's dilemma," explained SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, "is that until recently, Maryland law did not set forth a maximum sentence for the crime of misdemeanor assault. Because of that, he is now being treated like a felon and his gun rights have been denied.

"No fair-minded person can tolerate gun control laws being applied this way," he added. "Mr. Schrader's case is a great example of why gun owners cannot trust governmentbureaucrats to enforce gun laws."

Now, more than ever, we need your commitment to fight the war against unlawful gun enforcement. The lawyer's bills are mounting. Fighting for freedom is not inexpensive. Help us raise the amount we need to stop the anti-gunners dead in their tracks.

Support from patriots like you will help us make sure what happened to Jefferson Wayne Schrader doesn't happen to you.

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care. We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will
stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Of Gun Laws And Purse Strings

ONCE AGAIN, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT has left the black community defenseless against armed gangs and thugs who terrorize and plunder law-abiding Americans.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban. Gun rights groups hailed the ruling as a seminal moment in their ongoing fight to roll back restrictive gun-control legislation. As far as the National Rifle Association (NRA) is concerned, McDonald settles the matter once and for all: "This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period." Be that as it may, the McDonald decision is really a victory for and about black Americans. At least it should be.

Read it all.

Offensive To Aggressive Leftists

No Left Turn Signage
Just Get 'er Done
"I have a habit of comparing the phraseology
of communiqués, one with another across
the years, and noting a certain similarity
of words, a certain similarity of optimism
in the reports which followed the summit
meetings and a certain similarity in the lack
of practical results during the ensuing years."

Margaret Thatcher

"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading
as a contest of principles. The conduct of
public affairs for private advantage."

Ambrose Bierce

WITH REGARD TO THE RECENT UPROAR in Davenport, Iowa, where the town fathers in their mid-western wisdom decided to rename the traditional Good Friday to Spring Holiday, thus causing local and national outrage, columnist Dennis Prager has offered up a concise summation of what is a self-evident trend now creeping across America.

1. There really is a war against Christianity.

Leftism functions as a secular religion, and its adherents understand that the major obstacle to the dominance of leftist policies and values is traditional religion, specifically Christianity. With the demise of Christianity in Western Europe, leftist ideas and values came to dominate that continent. America, the most religious industrialized democracy, remains the great exception.

2. Why not abolish Christmas?

If a religiously diverse population and the separation of church and state demand abolishing government recognition of Good Friday, why not treat Christmas similarly and rename it "Winter Holiday"? This was asked of Mr. Hart, the Civil Rights Commission chairman. His response, in the words of ABC, shows the level of thought that is characteristic of the politically correct: "The commission, he said, discussed changing Christmas, but decided enough other religions celebrate Christmas, too. Hart, however, could not name one."

3. Civil-rights organizations are not about civil rights.

The ACLU and other left-wing organizations that have noble-sounding civil-liberties and civil-rights names have a problem similar to the one the March of Dimes had once polio was conquered: What to do now? Civil liberties and civil rights are extraordinarily well-protected in America. If the ACLU and the innumerable civil rights commissions ceased to exist, and a few smaller and politically neutral groups took their place, civil liberties in America would benefit. As is obvious from the Davenport example, these groups do not really function as civil-rights or civil-liberties organizations. They are organizations that promote left-wing agendas. And no leftist agenda is greater than minimizing the influence of Judeo-Christian religions, specifically Christianity, on American life.

4. Good Friday as an American holiday reminds Americans that this is a religious society.

Leftism opposes America's three great values—what I call the American Trinity (see, for example, my video on the American Trinity at prageruniversity.com) – "E Pluribus Unum," "Liberty" and "In God We Trust." The left uses diversity and multiculturalism to undermine E Pluribus Unum ("From Many, One"). It substitutes equality (of result) for liberty, and the powerful state for the powerful free individual. And it seeks, perhaps above all, to replace "In God We Trust" with a secular society and secular values. If it had a motto, it might be "In Science (or Secularism) We Trust." The elimination of Good Friday as an American holiday is just one more such battle in this war.

5. Non-Christians offended by Good Friday as an American holiday are narcissists.

The left tells us that non-Christians are offended by the government celebrating Good Friday. As a Jew, permit me to say that any non-Christian offended by Good Friday or Christmas gives new meaning to the word "narcissist." To seek to erase the name Good Friday is an exercise in self-centeredness and ingratitude that is jaw-dropping. We non-Christian Americans live in the freest society in human history; it was produced by people nearly every one of whom celebrated Good Friday, and we have the gall to want to rename it?

6. PC (Political Correctness) should be renamed OTL (Offends the Left).

Most Americans will characterize the Davenport attempt to rename Good Friday "Spring Holiday" as political correctness. That it is. But the term itself is politically correct. Like everything PC, the term itself hides its true meaning, which is leftism. Political correctness is invariably produced by the left. The term, therefore, should not be PC; it should be OTL, "Offends the Left." It is very unfortunate for America that it isn't. Americans would have much greater clarity as to the Second Civil War now taking place – from San Francisco to Boston to, yes, Davenport, Iowa.

Mr. Prager's six point firing line spotlights precisely why the Left remains so fond of Islam. Both ideologies consistently pretend to be easily offended while simultaneously playing the "superiority" and "victimhood" cards.

The American political scene and each of the thousands of well-documented Muslim sharia and jihadist atrocities spanning the globe by both US allies and US enemies that—under duress of policy—are routinely ignored by the so-called mainstream media, bear witness to this fact.

This dualistic morality is further corrupted when these players also exhibit absolutely no self-consciousness much less remorse at the outrage and the offense they level at those with whom they disagree.

If you doubt these assessments laid out against the backdrop of the recent FBI arrests of so-called Christian militia up in Michigan, I suggest we talk turkey.