I answered someone just the other day when they demanded smaller gun magazines, that the continued creation of gun free zones and gun control measures was doing what in limiting gun violence? Even a close, lifelong friend suggested to me that perhaps it was time to limit magazine capacity. Former V.P. Dick Cheney suggested it and hoards of gun haters, and not so much gun haters, are “compromising” to say it’s reasonable to restrict gun rights in this fashion because………well, why is it?

The strongest argument I have heard, which is weak at best, is that if we limit magazine capacity fewer people will get killed when a deranged bastard decides to annihilate masses of people. There actually may be some substance to such an argument but let’s consider the truth, if only for a moment.

The first question to ask is how many lawful citizens that you know of kill people randomly? The Tuscon massacre was a planned out event. Do you honestly believe that Loughner would NOT have been able to get his hands on a 30-round magazine if they were deemed illegal to own?

But, I’ve been down this road a thousand times before and you can discuss the ins and outs of what restricting magazines would accomplish, if anything. However, in everything that is discussed about guns and gun restrictions, remember that owning and possessing arms is a constitutional right.

Now, back to the idiot who coined the phrase, “all rights come with restrictions”. Why do all rights come with restrictions? Most hide behind the argument that it’s for public safety or for the public good. The most overused example is that of free speech – you can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater, when there is no fire.

So let me ask you this question. Is making it unlawful to yell “fire” in a movie theater, defined as a restriction on free speech, provide for a safer experience watching a movie? Jazz Shaw, in a post at Hot Air, asks, “Shall we cut out all of our tongues to ensure they are not used maliciously?” One might think doing such would eliminate movie theater chaos. People with a deeper understanding would know that a person bent on creating the chaos would find another way to do it.

Would restricting gun owners to smaller magazines, result in fewer people killed? In reality, we have no way of knowing that. In this instance of gun rights limitations, the result of implementing such a restriction is minimal as far as public safety may be concerned but detrimental as far as the incremental chiseling away at Second Amendment rights. If not a 30-round magazine, then what? 20 rounds? 10 rounds? No rounds? Where is the line drawn? A line that was forced to be drawn because people actually thought limiting magazine capacity would limit crime.

An argument to limit magazine size is inane. To help explain that, let’s make some comparisons that most people would laugh at. First, let’s list out a bunch of things, in addition to guns, that are used, whether intentional or not, to kill people: cars, knives, baseball bats, drugs, golf clubs, chemicals, beer bottles, rope, razor blades, electricity, and you can add to this list all you would like.

Like the idea of limiting magazine size, we should then consider limiting certain things with these items readily used to kill people. With automobiles, we have done many things in an attempt to protect passengers in a car. We all know the saying – speed kills. Shouldn’t we then, using the same rationale as the magazine limitation, restrict motor sizes in vehicles? Or perhaps equip them all with a governor that presets a maximum speed? Limit the number of passengers? Create a 30-day waiting period before you can buy a car and by all means let’s limit ownership to just one?

Knives should then be either made with shorter or duller blades, made of material that can’t be sharpened or made jagged. Baseball bats should have limits on length and size, no more than 2 to a home or Little League team; drugs containing smaller doses; chemicals in smaller containers, beer bottles all made from non shattering plastic; razor blades can only be purchased one to a pack, and electricity in reduced amperes that would limit the killing power to say, just five people. Isn’t this all just silly? What are we doing about the sick individuals who want to hurt people?

The absurdity can never end. We’ve looked at Second Amendment and one right in the First Amendment, speech. Think of the others guaranteed in the First, i.e. religion, press, assembling, petitioning. Granted there are always cries under certain situations to place restrictions on all of these rights. Most are quickly rejected, so far, by the majority. But, do we treat these guarantees in the same fashion as the right to keep and bear arms?

For those who believe a reasonable compromise on gun restrictions would be to limit magazine capacity, let me leave you with this comment I found on the above Hot Air column I linked to:

Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.

LawDog

Tom Remington

The city of Chicago threw together a gun ordinance after McDonald v. Chicago, which is nothing more than an in-your-face scoffing of the United States Supreme Court, much the same way that Washington, D.C. did after District of Columbia v. Heller. Why wouldn’t Chicago do similar things? D.C. has not really been tested as to the Constitutionality of their restrictive gun laws. After all, District of Columbia v. Heller only ruled that the District’s gun ban was unconstitutional. It did not define what can and cannot be used for gun restrictions.

Chicago’s continued gun ban ordinance – because that’s what it is – requires everyone to register their guns. The city has 120 days in order to process an application (in six months that is reduced to 45 days). A person cannot purchase and register more than one gun every 30 days and there will be restrictions of the type of guns allowed. But this “gray” area concerns me.

Guns deemed “unsafe” because of safety recalls or poor quality can’t be registered.

A safety recall on guns might be a bit more clear cut but who is going to make the determination that a gun is “poor quality”? By many people’s standards, there are a lot of “poor quality” guns readily available to purchase. This reeks of manipulation. Also don’t be fooled by this statement. If a gun cannot be “registered” it cannot be purchased and possessed within the city.

So, for those living in Chicago, once you’ve jumped through the hoops of registering your firearm, which will take up to 6 months to do, you can keep it in your house but not be allowed to have it outside, including on your porch or in your garage.

So, tell me what you think. Do you think the McDonald v. Chicago ruling provides that states cannot create any gun laws that exceed those of the Federal Government? Obama and his administration are suing the state of Arizona claiming that Arizona does not have the authority to eclipse the immigration laws of the Federal Government. Does this also mean that Illinois and specifically the city of Chicago, doesn’t have the authority to transcend Federal gun laws?

If and when this all gets sorted out, will it be determined that the Federal Government determines what gun laws will exist? And will this open the door for Federal Government to intrude further into our inalienable rights and craft stricter gun laws?

How does this all align with those states pushing back against the Federal Government in attempts to reaffirm state sovereignty?

Such may be the case with radio talk show host Michael Savage, re. The Savage Nation. If you are not familiar with Savage’s ongoing battle with the United Kingdom, it may be because the media and most bloggers, radio talk show hosts and virtually every person who makes a living exercising their freedom of speech have refused to cover Savage’s story.

Savage has been banned from visiting the U.K. because he was placed on a list with murderers and terrorist because of being accused of saying bad things that might incite “intercommunity violence”. World Net Daily reports it this way.

In a legal complaint against Smith, Savage noted the home secretary’s office said in a press release that the “controversial daily radio host” is “considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence.”

Smith was the head of the U.K.’s Home Office who placed Savage on that list. Savage has since been embroiled in a legal battle to clear his name. The new government of the U.K. announced that they will leave Savage on the list.

Much of this is very troubling and should tatter the fabric of every person who embraces liberty – in this instance, freedom of speech. Who cares which side of the aisle Savage might sit on? Why should those of us who adore liberty care if Savage is a libertarian, a republican, a conservative, a liberal, black, white, green or purple? What has happened to Michael Savage in the U.K. shows us the evil that exists in the world and within the boundaries of one of our greatest democratic allies.

Why hasn’t American Media jumped to help Savage? Should it really matter? Savage walks his own walk and as often as he might ruffle your feathers, he speaks his mind. Love him or hate him, he loves liberty, as we all should.

Savage is no murderer! He’s not a terrorist either! The U.K. has cherry-picked fragments of things Savage has said in order to demonize the man and get his name on this famed list. But why? Once again, World Net Daily gives us extremely troubling evidence that perhaps Savage has become a victim of the U.K.’s use of political correctness to protect themselves from appearing bigoted toward Muslims.

Savage has documented his battle over the U.K. ban in his book “Banned in Britain,” which includes official correspondence, released under the U.K.’s freedom of information law, that reveals a decision was made at the highest level of government to use his name to provide “balance” to a “least wanted” list dominated by Muslim extremists.

“We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists,” reads a draft recommendation, marked “Restricted,” that was obtained as part of Savage’s libel lawsuit against the government and Smith…..

Can this be true? Did Savage become the target of political correctness in which he was added to a list of banned people in order not to make the list contain only Islamic names? Think about that for a moment. Is this the equivalent of adding a Catholic, a Jew and a Protestant to the list of terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center, in order that this list not include all Muslim extremists? Is this also a matter of the U.K. showing it’s fear of retribution by their own Islamic communities should they put out a list “dominated by Muslim extremists”?

Regardless of how extraordinary all of this has become for Savage, the most perplexing matter of contention, is the lack of action from Savage’s fellow media people who should be climbing the walls to clear this man’s name. This same savage act of barbarism to destroy our inalienable rights can just as easily be cast upon any one of us who use the pen or speak with words.

It matters not whether you like or dislike Savage. The man is unique and speaks from his heart. This certainly doesn’t make him a terrorist who incites violence in other people. Is there no longer responsibility of self, that we simply blame others for what we choose to do?

I could compile quite a list of people who write and talk that I dislike immensely and some I disagree with but it is far from my thoughts that I would seek to shut them up or ban them from coming to my town. Regardless of who the person is, we should never squander our liberties for personal or political reasons.

I am just a little guy in the big scheme of Media but it is my desire that Michael Savage can get this issue resolved. I believe it would have been concluded months ago, had Americans, including our own Secretary of State, Congress and Media voiced outrage toward the United Kingdom for conducting acts so antithetical to the liberties Americans and Brits died to protect.

Tom Remington

Michelle Malkin declares the McDonald ruling “good news, bad news”. The good news of course being the Supreme Court ruling against the Chicago gun ban. Malkin states that with the NRA withholding a position of opposition against anti-gun Kagan, the bad news and surely it is. Why the hesitation? Kagan clearly is not a supporter of gun rights. Isn’t the NRA’s mission to promote and protect Second Amendment rights?

The NRA never opposed the nomination of now Justice Sotomayor until after members of the NRA Board and heads of state NRA affiliates signed and mailed a letter opposing Sotomayor to NRA management. As if there was some question about Sotomayor’s position on gun rights, that was clarified yesterday in her dissenting vote in McDonald v. Chicago.

Some point out that Kagan’s known work reveals an even greater support for strict gun control and yet we still see the NRA not officially opposing her nomination. Instead they have issued a public position stating they are “carefully reviewing” Kagan’s record and working with key Senators to make sure Kagan is “aggressively questioned”.

We see from what is found in the Malkin piece that the NRA management prohibited any NRA Board members from testifying or coming out publicly in opposition to Kagan. This is troubling and seems to mimic the same tactics this Obama administration uses in censoring anyone in opposition to his positions.

While Americans for the preservation of gun rights applaud any victory in court that supports the Constitution, we should not be willing to achieve those victories by compromising the very principles for which the Constitution itself was founded. When political wrangling, which is the norm in Washington, becomes a part of the NRA’s policies, it can only be expected that something will be given up in order to get.

Which brings me to wondering what the NRA gave up in order to get themselves an exemption in the DISCLOSE Act? Was it that they could have the exemption if they promised not to oppose the Kagan nomination? Who knows but the reality is that when you play these games, questions remain and speculation takes over.

Tom Remington

I’m sure it began long before our obsession with self-esteem. So consumed we became with making sure our kids’ feelings were never hurt, we lost all reason and understanding and began teaching that exceptionalism wasn’t “fair”. (Oh, there’s the four-letter word that should be banned.)

Was it diversity? We were being indoctrinated that diversity was admirable, that some was good and more was better. Lost in all this was the importance of retaining identity, for without identity how can a child’s self-esteem have a foundation?

I’m afraid it all began a long time ago. Little by little we lost the focus of what made America great.

Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison and Edward Rutledge, are only a few of the exceptional people who signed our Declaration of Independence. One trait that made them exceptional was their desire for and understanding of freedom. They didn’t want to be like England or any other. They wanted to be like America.

John Adams at a very young age wrote of his dreams that someday America would be the greatest nation on earth, not to look down on others but to draw them up unto this country’s greatness. Adams’ dream came true. America did become the greatest nation on earth, doing more to help other people than any other nation. It came from liberty, the freedom to excel, the desire to be the best of the best. It was called exceptionalism. It is what made America a magnet that draws others to come here. Why do we want to extinguish the magnetism?

As I sat yesterday and watched the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderone, stand at the stage of the greatest legislative conclave on earth, the symbol of liberty and everything great, and ridicule America while members of that Congress stood in applause for such treasonous, anti-American sentiments, I wondered if the above mentioned exceptional men had been sitting in that audience, what their reaction would have been.

As President Barack Obama stood outside the White House with Calderone, in what certainly appeared to be an affirmation from our President of his hatred toward America, I pictured George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson gathered amongst the bushes of the Rose Garden, standing in utter disbelief.

Tom Remington

The truth is many of us can and do see only what we want to see. This is partially what defines us. God forbid we should all be so much alike that life would be boring. The black box above can represent anything you would like it to be and probably even some shrink would tell you that what you wrote would be a reflection of your inner being, perhaps even your suppressed fears, or hopes and dreams.

So much has been made of the Tea Party movement. From both sides we have witnessed the influence of the Tea Party. The Republicans, who seem to think they own the movement, got handed a rude awakening as we saw what happened in Utah with Bob Bennett. The Democrats as well, are dropping like flies as Americans in general are fed up with politics as usual.

If you don’t fit the mold of what the local Tea Partiers want, you won’t get their support. Why is this considered bad by some? Isn’t this exactly what American politics was supposed to be? A country governed of and by the people?

That black box takes on odd illusions I think for some. We have always had political organizations that put their support behind the candidate of their choice. But this Tea Party thing is grass roots and scares the living hell out of some people. As a result a person’s black box becomes a living nightmare for them.

Witness an opinion piece posted at Politico by Charles Postel, an assistant professor of history at San Francisco State University, about the Tea Party that he labels the “dark side of conservatism”.

For whatever reasons, in Postel’s black box he focuses on the main stream media and their insistence on calling Tea Partiers, “populists”. In case Postel hadn’t figured it out yet, the MSM is clueless when it comes to the Tea Party and they too are petrified of it. He spends much of his time wanting to paint the Tea Party, as he says, the “dark side of conservatism” by disproving the media’s contention that it is “populist”.

Here is a grocery list of the things Postel sees in his black box as what makes Tea Parties, “dark”.

1. Tea Partiers are conservatives
2. They repeat catchwords of Goldwater and Reagan
3. “echoes of a well-known grass-roots movement of the 1950s and ’60s — the John Birch Society”
4. Sound like the John Birch Society
5. Author views Obama as a moderate
6. Believes all TPers think Obama a communist
7. Tea Partiers have “angrily taken to the streets”
8. Tea Partiers “are boiling mad”
9. They are “punishing politicians”
10. Tea Partiers are “more concerned about possible inflation of the future than with the current ordeal of the unemployed.”
11. Tea Partiers don’t care about unemployment among blacks
12. Tea Partiers are like Ku Klux Klan members who want to protect their Protestant religion and white race from communism and immigration.
13. Sees Tea Partiers as “birthers”, opposed to immigration and against Mulims.
14. Tea Partiers, being “radical rights” have a “soft spot for bigots”.
15. Tea Partiers are “a movement of the haves and well-protected who” that since FDR, “have feared that their freedom will be lost” if government expands its powers and steals from the rich to give to the poor.

That’s a lot of things to see in a black box. The Tea Party is many things but “dark” is not one of them. It is unfortunate that Mr. Postel sees those who cherish the American dream and a return to following the Constitution as being “dark” and all the other nasty things he sees.

Makes you wonder what kind of a childhood he must have had. (snicker)

We learned yesterday that Kagan was “not sympathetic” to one man fighting for his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. According to Klukowski, as Solicitor General, Kagan did not seek oral argument time or even file a brief in the recent case of McDonald v. Chicago.

As Klukowski points out, Kagan should have at least filed a brief in this case as the crux of the entire appeal is to whether or not the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution incorporates the Second Amendment, an obvious federal issue. Instead, she remained silent. Was this a blatant attempt to stay “off record” on gun rights as Obama and Kagan had previously conspired to sterilize her record as much as possible so she could more easily fill a vacant seat on the Court? It would appear as such.

Also remember that Kagan was part of the Bill Clinton Administration that destroyed our Second Amendment rights through the Assault Weapons Ban in which they created lists of guns to ban that stretched even the wildest of imaginations as to what might constitute an “assault” weapon.

It is Klukowski’s contention that Obama intends to attack the Second Amendment right and destroy it through building a Supreme Court comprised of anti gun justices who will approve any kind of ban of guns. He was able to place Sotomayor there and we are all quite familiar with her past record on gun rights cases.

However, according to Bloomberg, her comments on District of Columbia v. Heller, were:

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,”

When people ask why it is that people question the personal views of nominated judges on subjects such as Second Amendment, or Roe v. Wade, this is why. The role of a law clerk, in this case what Kagan was doing in her job under Justice Marshall when she made her comment, is to advise the judge, supposedly based on law, about a ruling. When we hear of a clerk making reference that she is “not sympathetic” about an American citizen’s concern for the protection of his Constitutional rights, it now becomes extremely important as to whether this person should be in a position to hand down rulings. Can we be comfortable believing that she is interpreting the law or being sympathetic or unsympathetic?

Photo from fOTOGLIF

But liberty comes with responsibility, the restraint of exploiting our rights over those of others.

Our own Declaration of Independence tells us the truth of liberty is self-evident. In the struggle for independence, these brave people, as penned by Thomas Jefferson, understood that under the tyranny of King George III, some people were created more equal than others and that any liberties were those granted by the King. This stood in stark contrast to the written Word of God.

Jefferson wrote that “We hold these truths to be self-evident“, those truths being as I’ve described above, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

What is all too often lost in the recitation of the above, most common phrase from the Declaration of Independence, is Jefferson’s explanation of how to protect these rights. He further goes on to write that, “Governments are instituted among Men, driving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” He says that when any government “becomes destructive” of these rights, it’s the right of the people to fix it, even to the point of installing a new government, such as was the intent of seeking independence from England.

When our society progresses away from God and good sound morals, the entire foundation of the Declaration and Constitution, gets shaken, can crumble and fall down. And therein lies the ultimate destruction of individual Liberty.

God has blessed us with some of the most incredible beauty that can be found in the outdoors. I was raised in the country and find much peace and happiness in going to the woods, however the only lasting peace and happiness comes from within, that which is occupied by the love of God.

As much as I love to hunt and fish and just be in the outdoors, that Liberty does not trump another man’s Creator-endowed right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. My understanding of rights, shows me to respect the rights of others as much as my own.

I read somewhere a person’s “signature” they used on a message board. It went something like this: “The biggest threat to the outdoor sportsman is the outdoor sportsman”. It was quite ironic, as I recall, that the person using this signature seemed bent on being the dictator of which rights shall be bestowed on his fellow sportsmen, while chastising anyone who dared question his authority.

As the title of this piece reads, liberty is not this man’s or any other man’s to give or to take. To assume such authority it must be assumed that this person consider himself either above the power of the Creator or that they’ve “progressed” to a point that God is no longer or never was any part of their life. Quite unfortunate for them and the rest of us, I’d say.

It is a most arduous burden for some to tolerate the “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” of others and perhaps that task remains insurmountable without individual direction from God. Instead of illustrating the exact meaning of self-evident, Creator-endowed Rights in our behavior, we too often choose to dictate which liberties can be exercised.

Let me explain. Some fishermen believe that employing the use of “catch and release” in their favorite pastime, is a good way to preserve and conserve the species for the present into the future. I take no issue with that. If we “illustrate the exact meaning of self-evident, Creator-endowed Rights”, this fisherman who believes in his notion that such a practice is best, should exercise his rights and promote his epiphany in every positive way he can and support it with as much scientific facts as there are available.

When we “choose to dictate which liberties”, it takes on a very different tone. We can never accomplish what is right through negative behavior. Instead of the positive promotion of catch-and-release fishing, the tyrant rather opts to demonize those who choose to catch, keep and eat the fish they caught, even to the point of fighting for laws to prohibit such activity.

If catch-and-release fishing is the answer to all our conservation concerns, then it will stand firmly on its own merits. Dictating rights, steals from others and tells the rest of us that this person knows nothing of which they speak and are only interested in usurping others’ rights.

But it’s not just fishing. This general negative, dictatorial, rights-snatching behavior carries over into every aspect of our lives.

It is troubling to me that the President of a country, whose Declaration of Independence clearly states that it is self-evident, that our Rights are granted by our Creator, proclaims to the world that the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. Taking God and the Liberty he endowed us all with, out of our lives, our society and our government, is a dangerous direction we should not travel.

I do not have the right to determine who gets rights and who doesn’t. As a matter of fact no man on this earth has that right, although they have taken it. I may not like what someone with opposing views has to say but it is far from me to try to shut them up.

Exercise you God-given Liberties and revel in them. Taking others away does nothing to protect yours and will eventually end yours.

Tom Remington