John Longenecker-The Citizen Is Sovereign
Aug 22, 2009 11:13:58 GMT -5
Post by 2ncrca on Aug 22, 2009 11:13:58 GMT -5
www.examiner.com/x-2323-LA-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d21-Answering-the-LA-Times-that-some-are-Gunning-For-Trouble
Answering the LA Times that some are 'Gunning for trouble'
August 21, 10:34 AMLA Gun Rights ExaminerJohn Longenecker
The opinion of the Los Angeles Times is that Americans are volatile and dangerous. As an American, my opinion is that anti-liberty-nuts are defamatory and ignorant, abusing their first amendment rights.
The Friday, August 21, 2009 edition of the Los Angeles Times has the editorial Gunning for trouble. The mistaken idea (ignorance) is that the subject of the armed citizen is even open to debate. Newspapers depend entirely on an amendment to the constitution which is far from absolute, and apply (abuse) their right to attack another’s right which is absolute. The First Amendment has reasonable restrictions – you may not lie under oath and call it freedom of speech. You may not threaten people, falsely advertise, commit mail fraud, conspire to commit a felony, or falsely advertise, defame others, or even deal in bad faith and then hide behind the First Amendment to the Constitution. I can remember media screaming bloody murder when their 1A rights were judged, and it’s not even absolute!
But the Second Amendment is absolute, because it is the lethal force which backs our authority as the sovereign in this country. In any nation, the sovereign has the monopoly on lethal force, and here, it is us, not the government. Leftist writers do not forget this, they work to undermine this.
Gunning for trouble attacks the citizens of Arizona who showed up to a town hall meeting armed. I have been to Arizona, I have been legally armed, both open carry and concealed carry. I have had dinner, snacks, conversations and lectures with others who have open-carried their revolvers and semi-automatics in plain view on their hip. Nobody looked twice, including the police. In Arizona, you can carry a loaded gun. The majority of states has similar laws affirming citizen rights this way. How does a majority of states affirming the armed citizen bug the Administration so? This is a clue of a sort.
In describing how town hall attendees showed up armed in a right-to-carry state (Arizona), Gunning for trouble becomes, itself, belligerent. The editorial attacks a safeguard of the United States.
Gunning for trouble remarks, "There is a chilling effect on public debate, to say the least, when one side is carrying weapons of mass murder." Not in Arizona, there isn’t. And not in new Hampshire, either. I bet it wouldn’t chill debate in Alaska, Vermont, Montana, Nevada, and several other states where the armed citizen is as common as anything else. Stating that it would is to confess publicly that the paper is out of touch. Most of the times guns are used as ‘weapons of mass murder; is in locales where the citizenry has been disarmed. Places such as Mumbai come to mind. Not Arizona or New Hampshire.. Emphasis on disarmed as in Victim Disarmament Zones and Gun Control.
Furthermore, "Police monitoring the situation reported that no threats, physical or verbal, were made by or toward the armed demonstrators." And why not? It was Arizonans — armed and not armed – who were there, each fully aware that being armed was not a distraction the Times makes it out to be. Who’s making trouble here? Who’s out of touch here, Arizonans or the Times and the Administration?
I think the Left is scared and showing more signs of it with every speech and editorial. The left is not scared of armed citizens, they are afraid that the concept that they are not needed will spread. The armed citizen is a symbol of Independence, reasonableness, respect for law and the reasonable expectation of it in others, and that includes the critical analysis of how much the government is needed or not needed for so many things. Armed citizens are not anti-government, they are simply for putting government in its proper perspective and function, and utilizing, invoking and abiding by governance we determine, not servants. We get the first and last say so, not the government, and that is what this is really all about.
Gun owners -- on the increase now approaching some 90 million in the U.S. --- are not anti-government; the abusers of authority are anti-government by working outside of due process, while the armed citizen utilizes and even summons due process. The idea that officials are not as needed as they would like to be is frightening to them, and it is at the root of this entire debacle.
Gunning for trouble goes on to say that an armed citizen ‘protester’ who was ‘skulking’ outside President Obama’s New Hampshire town hall meeting was only exercising his second amendment rights while Obama was exercising his first amendment right is just a little abusively critical. The fact is that people in Arizona – and citizens around this country including New Hampshire – do not need permission to show up armed, and certainly do not need to explain anything to officials when it comes to why they exercise their rights. The Constitution doesn’t limit our rights, it limits government. The Times – and the Administration – are gearing up for Americans to do both: soon having to explain their case to bureaucrats and soon having to get permission.
No thanks. It’s time to stop describing righteous indignation, objection and protest as volatile. It’s time to respect our involvement now as the sovereign over the servants. It’s time to expect our supervision of government and to drop government’s supervision of us.
Finally, Gunning for trouble adds this backpedaling barb: "If Obama were discussing gun control at these events, this [being armed] might actually make some sense, but what's the relationship between guns and Healthcare Reform?" To quote President Reagan, "Well, now there you go again." As if there weren’t one. See my previous series on just what that relationship is.
In the final analysis, The Electorate says what that relationship is, expressing its apprehension and suspicions, and when we suspect and mistrust officials as we do now, then the answer is No. If the electorate even suspects skullduggery in Health Care Reform – such as gun forfeitures for some health reason, or invasions of privacy of even non-gun owners which databases officials should never keep to begin with – then the matter is closed until Americans know for a fact that officials cannot do what they promised they would not do. Right now, officials have blown it, the electorate suspects that assurances are worthless, and that officials will say anything and cannot be trusted.
After all, why are they pushing so hard? So very, very hard?
Answering the LA Times that some are 'Gunning for trouble'
August 21, 10:34 AMLA Gun Rights ExaminerJohn Longenecker
The opinion of the Los Angeles Times is that Americans are volatile and dangerous. As an American, my opinion is that anti-liberty-nuts are defamatory and ignorant, abusing their first amendment rights.
The Friday, August 21, 2009 edition of the Los Angeles Times has the editorial Gunning for trouble. The mistaken idea (ignorance) is that the subject of the armed citizen is even open to debate. Newspapers depend entirely on an amendment to the constitution which is far from absolute, and apply (abuse) their right to attack another’s right which is absolute. The First Amendment has reasonable restrictions – you may not lie under oath and call it freedom of speech. You may not threaten people, falsely advertise, commit mail fraud, conspire to commit a felony, or falsely advertise, defame others, or even deal in bad faith and then hide behind the First Amendment to the Constitution. I can remember media screaming bloody murder when their 1A rights were judged, and it’s not even absolute!
But the Second Amendment is absolute, because it is the lethal force which backs our authority as the sovereign in this country. In any nation, the sovereign has the monopoly on lethal force, and here, it is us, not the government. Leftist writers do not forget this, they work to undermine this.
Gunning for trouble attacks the citizens of Arizona who showed up to a town hall meeting armed. I have been to Arizona, I have been legally armed, both open carry and concealed carry. I have had dinner, snacks, conversations and lectures with others who have open-carried their revolvers and semi-automatics in plain view on their hip. Nobody looked twice, including the police. In Arizona, you can carry a loaded gun. The majority of states has similar laws affirming citizen rights this way. How does a majority of states affirming the armed citizen bug the Administration so? This is a clue of a sort.
In describing how town hall attendees showed up armed in a right-to-carry state (Arizona), Gunning for trouble becomes, itself, belligerent. The editorial attacks a safeguard of the United States.
Gunning for trouble remarks, "There is a chilling effect on public debate, to say the least, when one side is carrying weapons of mass murder." Not in Arizona, there isn’t. And not in new Hampshire, either. I bet it wouldn’t chill debate in Alaska, Vermont, Montana, Nevada, and several other states where the armed citizen is as common as anything else. Stating that it would is to confess publicly that the paper is out of touch. Most of the times guns are used as ‘weapons of mass murder; is in locales where the citizenry has been disarmed. Places such as Mumbai come to mind. Not Arizona or New Hampshire.. Emphasis on disarmed as in Victim Disarmament Zones and Gun Control.
Furthermore, "Police monitoring the situation reported that no threats, physical or verbal, were made by or toward the armed demonstrators." And why not? It was Arizonans — armed and not armed – who were there, each fully aware that being armed was not a distraction the Times makes it out to be. Who’s making trouble here? Who’s out of touch here, Arizonans or the Times and the Administration?
I think the Left is scared and showing more signs of it with every speech and editorial. The left is not scared of armed citizens, they are afraid that the concept that they are not needed will spread. The armed citizen is a symbol of Independence, reasonableness, respect for law and the reasonable expectation of it in others, and that includes the critical analysis of how much the government is needed or not needed for so many things. Armed citizens are not anti-government, they are simply for putting government in its proper perspective and function, and utilizing, invoking and abiding by governance we determine, not servants. We get the first and last say so, not the government, and that is what this is really all about.
Gun owners -- on the increase now approaching some 90 million in the U.S. --- are not anti-government; the abusers of authority are anti-government by working outside of due process, while the armed citizen utilizes and even summons due process. The idea that officials are not as needed as they would like to be is frightening to them, and it is at the root of this entire debacle.
Gunning for trouble goes on to say that an armed citizen ‘protester’ who was ‘skulking’ outside President Obama’s New Hampshire town hall meeting was only exercising his second amendment rights while Obama was exercising his first amendment right is just a little abusively critical. The fact is that people in Arizona – and citizens around this country including New Hampshire – do not need permission to show up armed, and certainly do not need to explain anything to officials when it comes to why they exercise their rights. The Constitution doesn’t limit our rights, it limits government. The Times – and the Administration – are gearing up for Americans to do both: soon having to explain their case to bureaucrats and soon having to get permission.
No thanks. It’s time to stop describing righteous indignation, objection and protest as volatile. It’s time to respect our involvement now as the sovereign over the servants. It’s time to expect our supervision of government and to drop government’s supervision of us.
Finally, Gunning for trouble adds this backpedaling barb: "If Obama were discussing gun control at these events, this [being armed] might actually make some sense, but what's the relationship between guns and Healthcare Reform?" To quote President Reagan, "Well, now there you go again." As if there weren’t one. See my previous series on just what that relationship is.
In the final analysis, The Electorate says what that relationship is, expressing its apprehension and suspicions, and when we suspect and mistrust officials as we do now, then the answer is No. If the electorate even suspects skullduggery in Health Care Reform – such as gun forfeitures for some health reason, or invasions of privacy of even non-gun owners which databases officials should never keep to begin with – then the matter is closed until Americans know for a fact that officials cannot do what they promised they would not do. Right now, officials have blown it, the electorate suspects that assurances are worthless, and that officials will say anything and cannot be trusted.
After all, why are they pushing so hard? So very, very hard?