Thursday, December 27, 2018

Politicians And Other Scoundrels

Are we becoming the "New Jersey of the West?"

Oregon is joining the ranks of anti-Constitutional states by toying with the enactment of laws which defy the Second Amendment.
More than one lawmaker cried on the House floor while discussing the damage that a raging person can do with a gun. The chamber's bipartisan adoption of the bill coincidentally came one day after a gunman killed 17 people at a Florida high school.
Will Not Comply!

What's the issue?  Oregon Legislators are considering inflicting even more oppressive restrictions on firearms ownership by law-abiding Oregonians.

And Oregonians are ignoring our own elected representatives, on the grounds that they do not "represent" our Constitutional Prerogatives.

We're not the first state to find ourselves defending ourselves against our own elected legislators:  consider New Jersey:

Open rebellion? | The Price of Liberty:
...  perhaps as many as one million residents of New Jersey have failed to turn in “high-capacity” magazines by the statutory deadline of 11th of December, 2018. This requirement (turn-in or take out of state) is part of a law signed into law in June. The penalty for being found with a magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds, regardless of caliber, is a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and up to eighteen months in jail.  Having possession is a class four felony, which means that anyone convicted would permanently lose their right to own a weapon. 
Ex Post Facto Laws are those which make illegal an activity which was legal at the time the activity occurred.  buying a 15 round magazine They are odious because they impose a fine or other penalty upon the citizenry, and because they often require the citizen to relinquish previously legal possessions without compensation.

"Sometimes, the only way to win is not to play"

But even if compensated by the state, they are just one small step on the road to abrogating the rights of the citizen.   These laws are invariably political in nature and often unconstitutional ... as are the ban on "high-capacity magazines" in several states, soon coming to a state near you.

(Oregonians ... are you listening?)

If the Oregon legislature can impose a ban on "high-capacity magazines", they can impose a ban on the firearms which you purchased legally (which can
accept a high capacity magazine), which is a ban on the Second Amendment ...  which was enacted by the Founding Fathers of our country to protect the rights of the individual citizen against the hypothetical dictatorial government seeking to tyrannize its citizens.

Question:  if the Army can load a 30-round magazine, and you cannot ... how do you defend yourself against an Army which is tasked to undermine the Second Amendment?

That " Hypothetical Dictatorial Government" is here, now, and it's here to stay  ... unless you take action to protect your Constitutional rights in the face of a government, recently imposed by the Party which is becoming more powerful every day.

It is lead by "fearful people".

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the party in power will protect you; they will not.  They do not wish to acknowledge your rights, and they will undermine them until you have no rights at all, except those which are becoming increasingly inconsequential.

Such as the right to vote.

The party in power is not that which is elected, but that which counts the votes.

Don't you wish you had a voice in choosing who counts the votes?

Sunday, December 23, 2018


A scholarly thesis from 1990 addresses the negative public vision of firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens.

Essentially, it disputes the "common" thesis that people who own guns have anti-social tendencies:
GUNS, MURDERS, AND THE CONSTITUTION: As early as 1976, it was estimated that more had been written about "gun control" than all other crime-related topics combined.[2] Yet this pre-1976 academic literature was both fundamentally flawed and severely biased. The bias stemmed from the crusading zeal of academics who, by their own admission, could "see no reason ... why anyone should own a weapon in a democracy"[3] and who felt gun owners embodied an American soul that is "hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer."[4] Naturally, this bias led academic crusaders to discuss gun ownership as a social pathology rather than as a value-neutral sociological phenomenon. 
You may want to spend some time reading the entire study summary: I did.

I found that it supported the inalienable Constitutional rights which we currently enjoy. 

And if you want to discuss "Gun Control" with people who don't under stand why you wish to "own a gun", this may provide you with some useful talking points.

I don't now about you, but I soon tire of arguing my rights against the fears of friends and neighbors .. those who only read about one side of the issue.

This article talks about the "other side" ... our side.