Tuesday, January 5, 2016

The "Bitter Clingers"


No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

  Today on the news I heard Obama say that the gun lobby may control Congress but it will not control the American people. I hate to tell you Barry but the American people are the gun lobby. This is why gun sales have doubled since you have been in office. It is sad that a "Bitter Clinger" like myself has to lecture a supposed constitutional lawyer on the constitution. First of all in a state of nature man was totally free. However total freedom leads to chaos and men gave up some of their rights in order to secure most of their rights. This is when they decided to form a government. Man was the creator of government. If man is the creator of government it is also in his power to alter or abolish it. The constitution acknowledges the rights of man that already exists. Some of the Founding Fathers were afraid to add a Bill of Rights.  James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued that even the act of enumerating the rights of the people would have been dangerous, because it would imply that rights not explicitly mentioned did not already exist. The rights that Wilson was afraid to enumerate were inalienable or God given rights. Only God can grant them and only God can take them away. The Bill of Rights dictates what governments cannot do. They cannot take away your freedom of speech. The freedom of the press or the freedom of a person to worship as he pleases. The right of a fair and speedy trial, etc. etc. The 2nd Amendment affirms the inalienable right of self defense and the right of the citizen to alter or abolish their government if it usurps these rights and becomes tyrannical. 

  The government can hold a gun to your head and force you to comply with unjust law. However law that doesn't recognize a person's inalienable rights is not legitimate law. When I was Chief Shop Steward at Colonial Baking Company, in the 1970's, people would sometimes tell me that the company could not fire them because they were protected by the Union contract. I would tell them that yes they could be fired. The company could fire them because they possessed the power to do it. The company wouldn't even have to have a reason. However after months of arbitration the company could be forced to rehire you but until then you are fired. Government on the other hand has the power to ignore your inalienable rights, imprison you, tax you or whatever it may decide to do until you can in some way force a redress of grievances. This is where the right of self defense and rebellion comes in. The Founding Fathers sought a redress of grievances from England but each time England would not change their policy toward the colonies. At first the Founding Fathers were not ready to take the radical step of revolution. They sought a suitable compromise. Eventually it became evident, to the majority of the Founding Fathers, that revolution was the only solution.

  Obama is getting ready to pass an illegal executive action supposedly closing gun show loopholes and giving doctors the power to inform the FBI if they think a gun owner is mentally ill. The government will have the power to define and redefine mental illness. A case can be made that mental illness runs in my family. Will my guns be at risk? If I am suffering from depression I am not going to seek out medical help because a doctor can turn me into the FBI and they can confiscate my weapons. A war veteran suffering from PTSD can have his weapons confiscated. If I am sitting on the fence about buying a gun this action will probably prompt me to go out and buy the weapon. Obama and Hillary say there is a connection between anti- Muslim rhetoric and ISIS recruitment but they refuse to see a connection between anti-gun rhetoric and gun sales. I don't know at this point what impact that these actions will have on gun owners but I don't trust Obama on anything. Major new research: Do Background Checks on Private Gun Transfers Help Stop Mass Public Shootings? Social Science Research Network ^ | January 2, 2016 | Crime Prevention Research Center Posted on 1/5/2016. Abstract: Persistent claims have been made that expanding background checks to include any private transfers of guns would reduce mass public shootings. Yet, this is the first study to systematically look to see if that is true. In fact there is no evidence that these laws reduce the risk of these attacks. Examining all the mass public shootings in the US from 2000 through 2015, we find that states adopting additional background checks on private transfers they see a statistically significant increase in rates of killings (80% higher) and injuries (101%) from mass public shootings. There is not one mass public shooting that occurred over that period where these checks would have prevent from occurring.


  Obama's actions are not something that has happened overnight. It is something that has been in the works for a long time. As usual liberals exploit tragedies in order to put their agenda into action. To the uninformed these actions on the surface appear to make common sense. For the sake of argument, even if they make sense the way they are being enacted is unconstitutional. A president can only sign executive orders to enforce law that already exists. Obama does not possess the authority to create new law. This is the role of Congress. Setting this precedent has the potential to work against the liberal. A conservative president could enact executive actions that could hurt liberal causes such as abortion or same sex marriage among other things. Barry claims that polls show that the American people are with him on this. When has it mattered to him in the past what the American people think? He didn't care that they were, and still are, against Obamacare. Nor did he care that the American people did not want same sex marriage or amnesty but he shoved this stuff down our throat anyway. Barry say's that his action on gun control makes common sense. Is it common sense to allow anybody and everybody into this country, including thousands of Syrian refugees, without vetting them? Is it common sense to have a twenty trillion dollar debt that robs our children and grandchildren of their economic future? Is it common sense to divide people by race, sex and class? Is it common sense to decrease the size of our military in the face of a growing military threat from China, Russia and Middle eastern terrorists? Is it common sense to create a vacumn by pulling our troops out of Iraq too early and creating ISIS? Is it common sense to destabilize the Middle East by propping up and supporting radical Islamic governments? Is it common sense to declare climate change as the number one problem facing the world? Is it common sense to go after gun owning Americans rather than radical Islam? Barry, don't talk to me about common sense. You wouldn't recognize it if it slapped you in the face. 

  We all shake our head in wonder at the things Obama does. However our enemies are not his enemies. His main enemy is the gun lobby, aka the American people. The bitter clingers like myself. Those of us who cling to our religion, guns and heritage. He not only hates us, he fears us. We are the ones who understand what he is about. I don't need to explain the constitution to him. He knows full well what the constitution means. The "Bitter Clingers" and constitution are his worst nightmare              

No comments:

Post a Comment