Monday, June 25, 2007

Oh the Irony – Jesse Jackson Arrested for Anti-Civil Rights Protest

Granted, no one on the far left side of the political spectrum these days seems to recognize that the Second Amendment refers to “the people” just the same as the First Amendment. Jesse Jackson clearly falls into that same reading comprehension challenged crowd. Rev. Jackson is the first to bring up the “Civil Rights” card anytime someone is discriminated against on the basis of race, yet completely ignores the fact that the right to “keep and bear arms” is just as fundamental a human right as recognized by the U.S. Constitution.

Rev. Jackson and a priest from Chicago’s south side, Michael Pfeger, have decided that not only does the Second Amendment not exist, but they have the right to criminally trespass for the express purpose of disrupting the business of a Riverdale gun store, Chuck’s Gun Shop.

According to an article from the Chicago Tribune:

"It was the third consecutive Saturday that Jackson and his supporters rallied in front of the gun shop at 14310 Indiana Ave. Gun sales are banned in Chicago, but Jackson said suburban stores offer city dwellers easy access to firearms.

"'The suburbs have surrounded the city with these gun shops,' he said. 'Jobs are going out, guns are coming in.' 'Chuck's becomes the poster boy for this issue,' Pfleger added. 'We need tougher gun laws so the kids are not dying in the streets."

First, the city of Chicago is in criminal violation of the U.S. Constitution for banning gun sales. Could you imagine the outcry if Catholicism were outlawed simply because the Italian mafia was largely Catholic? Yet the city seems to feel it can overlook the Second Amendment because it’s inconvenient to their “vision” and “agenda”.

As to tougher gun laws and their effect on crime – hasn’t worked so far, has it Rev. Jackson? If you want “kids” (and by this he generally refers to Chicago gang members) to stop “dying in the streets” you have to change the CULTURE. The guns aren’t the problem. The real problem is South side’s lack of quality education, lack of opportunity, rampant drug use, rampant gang activity, glorification of the “gangsta” image, objectification of women, NEED I GO ON!?!?!!??!? In short, if you want the “kids” to stop dying, you need a return to the values of hard work, honesty, and integrity.

The owner of the shop sought to go through the process with Jackson and Pfeger:

"I was going to explain to Jackson and Father Pfleger how to get a gun license and explain to them how the laws work, basically go through a regular sale with them," Riggio said.

However, at that point Jackson and his supporters sought to effectively close down the business:
“Riggio said he then told them they had to clear the doorway and signaled to the police to intervene.

“The police told Jackson and Pfleger that if they did not stop blocking the entrance they would be arrested, police and witnesses said.

“’[They] again refused, and both were taken into custody and charged with one count each of criminal trespass to property,’ according to the Riverdale police statement.”

So there you have it – if you don’t like the Second Amendment – apparently you have the “right” to close down a legal place of business. Personally I think Jackson and Pfleger should be charged with violating the civil rights of all of the customers in the building. Based on the recent DC gun ban decisions, the Courts have finally woken up and realized that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and Jackson and his supporters want to prevent people from exercising that right. He lives in a world where it’s okay to discriminate against you because you want to exercise your right to self defense, isn’t that as bad as saying someone can’t go to school or vote because they’re black???

Until next time!

Friday, June 22, 2007

Yet Another Attack on the Second Amendment – S. 1237

This time the attack is supported by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It seems as if Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced a new bill – S. 1237 entitled “To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.”

Now don’t get me wrong – I think everyone can get behind the idea that we should not sell firearms to convicted terrorists, but exactly who defines who is classified as a “suspected dangerous terrorist”. Is that anyone who disagrees with whatever the current administration is at the time? Since when are “inalienable” rights subject to cancellation without due process of law? Apparently that’s the direction Lautenberg wants to take us.

The sad thing is that the Attorney General is going along with this travesty, but it seems like Gonzales will back anything that increases his power these days. It certainly seems like the President missed the boat in appointing Gonzales because he certainly isn’t standing up for Constitutional principles here.

The NRA has written a letter to the Attorney General and the Senate Judiciary committee urging them not to pass this bill. They note:

“As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word ‘suspect’ has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties. The American people have no idea how many individuals are currently on terrorism ‘watch lists’, nor the circumstances under which a person is added to or removed from these lists. Denying rights without legal justification, based on little more than ‘suspicions’ and ‘secret evidence’, is an affront to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

I urge everyone to contact their senators and communicate your opposition to this travesty.

Until next time!

Friday, June 15, 2007

The Brady Campaign is Nervous...

The forces of gun control know that they can’t stand up to a ruling that is actually in line with the Constitution. None of their laws, dicta, or legal mental gymnastics can compete with even a cursory examination of the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and the other Founders. An article on the NRA website details some of the palpable nervousness of the Brady Campaign:

"The announcement by D.C. city officials that they are considering appealing to the Court has sent the Brady Campaign into panic mode. Brady president, Paul Helmke, blurted out that "The D.C. law is an easy one to shoot at. Factually, it’s a tougher one to get behind and defend. Why is this the one we’re going to be taking up to the Supremes?""

So when you can’t win with the facts, apparently the Brady Campaign thinks that it’s okay to lie. They’ve created a website whose only purpose is to deceive, misinform, and obfuscate the issues and legal precedent surrounding the recent Parker V. D.C. decision that shot down the unconstitutional DC gun ban.

More from the same article:

"True to past form, Brady’s propaganda in this instance is a combination of lies, shameless spin-doctoring, and pointless and diversionary assertions. The gun-ban group claims "There is not a word to be found anywhere in the Miller opinion suggesting a right to possess arms outside of militia service." It’s an incredible claim, since Miller identified the militia as "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion . . . .all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. . . . [who] when called for service... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves."

"The Brady Campaign is livid over the Parker statement that "The [Second] Amendment does not protect ‘the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,’ but rather ‘the right of the people’ [and, thus,] the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias." But the Parker decision is right. As it pointed out, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court declared that the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

So it appears the Brady Campaign not only fails to understand the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but they fail to understand the concept of “inalienable rights” which forms the cornerstone of the American Republic. They seem to view Rights as something that can be granted and rescinded through political action. If that were true, they would not be Rights. They would be privileges granted under a far more totalitarian system of government. Well, I’ve got news for them; the RIGHTS of the People shall not be infringed. Regardless of how many mental gymnastics they perform to justify their laughable positions, they won’t pass Constitutional muster.

Until next time!!!

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Gangs Don’t Want Americans to be Armed

Simple logic tells you that criminals prefer a disarmed populace. It makes their “job” a lot easier when they don’t have to account for the possibility that their victims will fight back. Well, now they’re taking it one step further. “Reformed” gang members are creating anti-gun groups, and what’s worse, these groups are getting FUNDING from local governments.

Case in point, this recent article from L.A. Weekly News detailing the story of Hector Marroquin, the founder of the “anti-gang” group “No Guns.” Turns out that Hector was in public promoting an anti-gun agenda all while selling firearms illegally to gang members.

Some very telling excerpts:

“FEDERAL ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS AGENTS knocked first, then entered the Downey home of purported anti-gang activist Hector Marroquin on Wednesday, arresting him for selling silencers and weapons — including three assault rifles and a machine gun — to an undercover ATF agent.

“Marroquin, an alleged associate of the prison-based Mexican Mafia, has grown accustomed to such intrusions, having been arrested many times over the years while at the same time being the founder and CEO of No Guns, which has received $1.5 million from Los Angeles City Hall via the much-criticized L.A. Bridges program designed by the Los Angeles City Council to keep youth out of gangs.”

This isn’t the only failure of the L.A. Bridges program – from the same article:

“However, a report by civil rights lawyer Connie Rice and independent audits have stated that L.A. Bridges, which has funneled more than $100 million to programs like No Guns, cannot show that it has reduced gang activity, and the city council lacks any meaningful measures for determining success. Just last week, another purported gang-member-turned-good, 30-year-old Mario Corona, with a group called Communities in Schools, also a recipient of L.A. Bridges money, was sentenced to 32 months in prison for transporting a large amount of methamphetamine and being a felon with a gun.”

So it appears as if the Los Angeles City Council is either criminally naive or thoroughly corrupt. Not only do they seem to be willing to give money to anyone who will badmouth the Second Amendment, they’re willing to give vast sums of money to members of the most violent gang in America today, and the Mexican mafia to boot. I’m sure L.A. is at a loss to understand why crime is so rampant in their city as well.

Hint: Stop abridging the rights of law-abiding citizens. Because of the tight and Unconstitutional limits on an individual’s right to carry in the city, L.A. has become a fertile breeding ground for gangs, drugs, and other crime. When the law-abiding are helpless, the lawless prosper. Maybe one of these years they’ll get the clue.

Until next time!