Thursday, May 13, 2010

No fly/No buy

It is real easy to yell rights violation when it is your rights being violated. But if it is someone that we don’t know then most people tend to be mum on voicing decent against any violation of rights. Just take a for instance the Time Square dumb ass I mean Bomber, Many are saying that we should forgo his rights to anything because he is a terrorist, others are harping on a no buy for people on the no fly list.

Some are trading some freedom for a little bit of self-perceived protection just to ease their minds. In the case of the Time Square bomber, he was not on the no fly list so he could fly; buy guns and ammo, along with other things. So just what good does taking rights away have to do with this guy. Nothing because he was legally entitled to all freedoms and rights that we all have.

Now that POS bloomberg wants to make anyone on the no fly list a criminal with out due process of law. Just so he can deny Second Amendment rights to another group of American citizens without just cause. Many on the no fly list are common names that match a lot of people. So by denying rights to anyone on that list it will deny innocent people their rights because they have the same name as someone who is a person of interests.

If you are a hard-core terrorist hoping for your 72 virgins, and you are not part of the no fly list then I guess you can get anything you want. This will make no deference to the outcome of your attempt to visit Allah in person. Unless bloomberg and his other sheep are proposing we should racial profile people to insure they are on the no fly/no buy list. That may have had some effect on the bomber if he was on the list to start with and it was a no fly/no buy list. Though he still could buy propane, gasoline, fertilizer, and other components for bomb making. He just would not of been able to buy a gun, which he did not use.

The soul purpose of the no fly/no buy list is to deny law abiding Citizens their rights to buy, own, and use firearms, nothing more. If you speak out against one or more of osamaobamas policies or maybe tend a Tea Party rally then by Homoland Insecurity you are a person of interest and can be placed on the no fly list. When you actually did nothing to even closely relate to the need for your name to be added to the list.

This list is so secret that even a judge has no authority to call forth the list to see who is on it, nor do they have to prove justification for putting your name on the list. If you file a suite all that Homoland Insecurity has to do is tell the judge that they have reasonable cause for your name to be on the list, without providing anything to the courts.

This list is a grave injustice to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but the reason they get away with it is because the people will not stand up against it. A lot of sheep are saying well it is for the greater good, so we just have to put up with it, which is until they want to fly some place and find their names are on the list. Then we also have names that should be on the list are not like the known terrorist friend of osamaobama “ayers”. This POS can still fly anywhere he wants to and yet he is a known terrorist.

People need to get a set of balls and start flooding the legislature and white house with their disapproval of this injustice of American rights before it really is to late to do anything about it. If we allow any rights violations by this government then they will not stop and shall end up violating all rights of everyone who is not an elite.

The clock is ticking away and with every passing minute we see more violations of American rights. Soon it will be to late to stop the blood bath that is coming. The time to act is now not tomorrow. Pass this on to everyone you know and have them start writing those that believe they are our taskmasters. Make a stand for what is right and not for the elite slave owners (the government) in America.


Monday, May 10, 2010

What part of illegal do you not understand?

It is not illegal immigrant, but rather illegal alien. One does not immigrate illegally, this implies the lack of legal procedure, and/or respect for a countries laws. If one is immigrating then it implies going through the proper channels and laws to achieve the desired results.

If you are here in this country illegally then you are a lawbreaker and should be thrown in jail to serve time then deported. If you come here through legal channels and try to be legal then good, and I say more power to you.

The only way to stem the illegal tide of aliens is for them to get a backbone and arm themselves to take back their country. Once they remove the corruption then they can start to look for industry to help the unemployment. Instead of relying on handouts from other countries that go into the pockets of the elite, then they can start to use that money to rebuild their own country and make it something.

Just as with many countries though mexico is lazy and does not want to risk their own lives to secure freedom and safety. They would rather sponge off other countries and let someone else do the dirty work for them. If the American military formed up and rolled across the boarder to clean out the bad guys in mexico they would all cheer until it was done then they would demand us out of the country.

None of the illegal aliens would lift a finger to help secure their country, why should they? Sense they get free handouts here and don’t have to do anything but vote for the social-ists who will give them more.


Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Do you Really support the Second Amendment Part 2

Rifled barrels = Actually dates as far back at the 15th century but was not really produced until the 18th century. Due to the complexities of producing the rifling. During the revolutionary war for independence we saw the first real use of rifled barrels in muskets. Where marksman (snipers) was given rifled barreled muskets to use against the enemy.

Flintlock = dates some place around 1635 where the need for faster and reliable firing of weapons had a need.

Percussion cap = 1842 where again the need for faster and more reliable firing of small arms was needed.

Metallic case cartridges = was introduced around 1845

Revolvers = has a related history dating as far back as 1597 with the revolving arquebus produced by Hans Stopler, but the real leader in advanced forearms design was Samuel Colt with his 1836 patented designed revolver which enjoyed a lot of new innovations over the years sense.

Lever action rifles = actually dates back to around 1848 but saw no real popularity until right around 1860

Semi automatic weapons = can be dated back to 1885 with Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher’s Model 85 semi automatic rifle which spurned other designs and innovations in shot guns, rifles, and handguns.

Full automatic weapons = Actually are dated back to 1862 and are directly related to the Gatling gun.

SURPRISE full Automatic weapons were never against the law for individual citizens to buy, own, and use and still are not against the law. Though in 1934 congress passed the National Firearms Act, effectively placing a tax on manufacturing and transfer of certain firearms and full auto weapons fell under this bogus attempt at restricting personal ownership.

Just what is this about you might be saying? Well it has to do with a train of belief in many circles where some people believe that our founders had no insight into the advancements of modern weapons. You see they were smart men, some were very educated, and most had the foresight to know that weapons would advance in function, design, and lethality.

At no time in our history until the 1934 was there any restrictions place on buying selling, owning, and/or using any small arms by the citizens of this country. I had a copy of and link to the actual minutes of the meeting in congress back in 1932 where they were trying to figure out how to ban ownership, and use of private owned weapons. The Unites States Attorney General then shot down ever conceived scam to ban guns for civilian ownership based on Constitutional grounds except the taxing of them under the interstate commerce clause. Which is technically not a ban but it gave the BATF the authority to deny you the tax stamp on certain weapons they felt one should not own.

Even at that meeting of congress in 1932 one of the reasons for the ban on private gun ownership was racist in nature, where one congressman stated and it is on record, that the worst thing we can do is to let a black man (ni_ _ _r) have a pistol and a bottle of whisky on a train.

Up until the usurping of the governments power over constitutional gun rights in 1934 one could order a full automatic Thompson sub-machine gun or even a BAR right from the Sears and Roebuck catalog and it would be mailed right to you. Many general stores had them on the shelf.

Most of the fears of gun ownership stem from the government fearful of the populist. They use any and all excuses to take from you a GOD given right, backed by our Bill of Rights. Hollywood is no friend to the Bill of Rights unless some restriction is directly placed on them but for the common citizen they support any attempt to deny you of something that was given by a higher authority then them, the government or mankind.

A lot of what we have today and basically sense the early 1900’s is a lack of belief in a GOD who granted us these rights. Where man is steadily renouncing even the thought of a higher being, who is more important and powerful then man himself, we are running into the train of thought that our Second Amendment rights was not granted by such a being but rather by the all powerful government and they can choose to take that right any time they want.


Saturday, April 24, 2010

Do you really support the Second Amendment?

When anyone says will I support the Second Amendment but…they are really saying that they do not in fact support the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment is unconditional not like the other rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here we have Amendment I, show me where it says that no one can restrict any of these rights? It plainly says “Congress shall not”, putting a restriction on a given federal government body “the Congress”. No restrictions on the state at all so we had to have a 14th Amendment to stop states from enacting laws denying the rights as recognized by our First Amendment.

Contrary to popular opinion the right to yell fire in a crowded theater is not a federal law, restriction nor even a mandate. But comes from state laws not actually restricting the actual speech but rather placing consequences for the words you utter that may cause harm to body or reputation (slander) of persons. Even here we must still use due process of law before we can find someone guilty of an offence of free speech, or any of the listed rights in the First Amendment.

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Amendment II

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.

The Second Amendment has no restrictions place on it, as does the First Amendment. It clearly states, “Shall not be infringed”, this alone is the most powerful statement in the whole of the Second Amendment. It does not say shall not be infringed “except”, it does not say shall not be infringed by Congress, nor just the brady bunch. It says “shall not be infringed” clearly restricting any infringement by anyone, except through due process of law.

The Second Amendment needs no protection of the 14th Amendment because it is automatically incorporated to any and all governing bodies. The Bill of Rights was created to restrict government from violating the listed rights and this included all forms of government in the USA unless specified other wise as is in the First Amendment.

Due process of law was always held to mean until sentence was served in full then all rights were restored fully. In the middle of the 20th century we seen the advent of new meanings calling some violations of law to be felony’s and the restrictions of life time punishment for the felony’s to continue well after the time was served.

Today we see some rights restored by the courts except the Second Amendment. Very few have ever had their Second Amendment rights restored even after a court ruled in their favor. The BATFU still holds the right to deny you the Second Amendment rights regardless if a court rules to give it back to you.

It was never once a felon always a felon, until the middle of the 20th century and the need of socialists to control the people of this country and for them to decide what rights you should have. Then we saw the corruption of the meaning and miss-interpretation of the wording of the rights so they could get people to believe it was all wrong for 200 years.

Then we saw the adding of some laws as felons this continued until today where almost everything is a felony, or can be made into a felony for convenience. The rights everyone had is slowly being eroded to a point where most people just shrug their shoulders and say it does not effect me or there is nothing I can do about it. Removing a right is simple today sense most people will not band together and stop it.

If you say, “I support the Second Amendment except,” you are leading more credence to the division of our power to stop further restrictions on rights. Once rights are gone it takes spilling of blood and/or dam near a miracle to get them back.