Category: Constitution

“Dear criminals…”

Dear Criminals –

All law-abiding people in Albuquerque New Mexico will no longer be allowed to carry firearms for their defense or the defense of others. So no more crime in Albuquerque, OK?

Best regards,

Her Royal Highness,

Gov. Michelle Grisham

PS: Even though all the law-abiding citizens of this town are now disarmed, please don’t shoot them. 

Governor announces statewide enforcement plan for gun violence, fentanyl reduction – Plan includes 30-day suspension of concealed, open carry in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County

Let’s be serious: this is simply a thinly-veiled local attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment by the two-term Democrat Governor of New Mexico, conveniently disguised as a “public health” order. I wonder why she didn’t do this during her first term… oh, that’s right – she’s now term limited and doesn’t need to worry about the next election! Let’s also be serious on this decree’s possible impact: disarming law-abiding citizens (the only group likely to follow this decree by Grisham) will only get them killed by criminals now emboldened by the thought of defenseless victims.

Note, too that Grisham cited several shootings as justification for her unconstitutional ban, including this one (from a US News and World Report article):

Last month, 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego was fatally shot while asleep in a motor home. Four teens entered the mobile home community in two stolen vehicles early on Aug. 13 and opened fire on the trailer, according to police. The girl was struck in the head and later died at a hospital.

Now tell me: How is the decry by Grisham going to stop teenage hoodlums in stolen cars from shooting up a mobile home?

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, had this to say about Grisham’s order:

“If it saves one life, then it’s worth doing,” Viscoli said.

But what if it costs a life, Miranda? What if a law abiding citizen, prevented from carrying their self-defense firearm as a result of Grisham’s order, is killed by a criminal perpetrator during the commission of a crime? Would it be worth that life to further your political agenda, Miranda?

Laws restricting concealed carry of firearms only impact law-abiding citizens who have already gone through a significant national background check. Criminals who want to carjack and murder people simply don’t care about such laws – they can’t legally carry firearms for criminal purposes anyway, so why should they worry about Grisham’s new order? And, really – do you think they are worried about a gun charge (in this case, a civil gun charge) when they are going out to murder or rob someone? Are you kidding?

Good luck, Albuquerque. You’re going to need it.

PS: I can’t understand the idea of disarming law-abiding citizens as a way to combat gun crime. It is more likely that gun crime will increase when citizens are disarmed. Think of it: prior to this “public health” order, using a gun in criminal activity against law-abiding citizens might get you shot; it was a risk. Now, however, using a gun while committing a crime  in Albuquerque is no longer a risk – it is instead a just a solid advantage over your prey. And even if a criminal is caught with a gun during the “no-carry” period proclaimed by Grisham, the law calls for a civil – not criminal – penalty. With this in mind, do you think that the use of guns by criminals will increase or decrease as a result of this “public health” order?

It may well be that the Democrats want more gun crime, and know that this will occur as a result of their disarming the law-abiding population. More gun crime might garner support among democrats for their argument that the 2nd Amendment must be abolished altogether to bring peace to the streets of America (since gun laws – well, Democrat gun laws, anyway – will not have worked).

But it’s not that gun laws don’t work; it’s that gun laws passed by Democrats disproportionately impact law abiding citizens rather than criminals. If we want gun laws to work, such laws must disproportionately impact criminals instead. For instance, instead of a a ban on concealed carry for the next 30 days levied against law-abiding citizens, how about for the next 30 days we add 10 years of prison to the sentence of any criminal convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime? Which of these two options is more likely to reduce crime-related gun use in Albuquerque?

Only when gun laws punish criminals – rather than law-abiding citizens – will our streets be safe.

PPS: A day after this story broke, I searched both NPR and MSNBC web sites for any mention of this story. Guess what? I could not find a single one. I’ll let you figure out what that means…

It’s not a democracy (you idiot!)

Stephen Colbert’s right. We don’t live in democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. And if we had more charter schools, Stephen, our citizens might actually understand the difference and significance of our form of government over a pure democracy.

Stephen Colbert declares ‘we don’t live in a democracy’ as right-leaning SCOTUS considers abortion case

F*****g moron.

Instead of insulting Supreme Court justices (“He knows it’s his job to interpret the Constitution, right?”), try reading the Constitution yourself, Stephen. Oh, and their “job” is NOT to interpret the Constitution according to the will of the majority – if that were the case our Constitution would be worthless and we’d be just another banana republic (which we very nearly are now thanks to morons like you, Stephen).

And, by the way, I don’t give a damn if a majority of the people “want” something – it’s NOT the domain of the Supreme Court (or its justices) to provide it. The reason we have a Constitution is to protect us from the tyranny of the such “majority” whim. Without the Constitution protecting our INDIVIDUAL rights over the demands of the masses we would all be at the whim of whatever morons happened to make up the majority at any given point in time. Think about that for a moment, Stephen, before you start whining about not living in a democracy.

Any why aren’t you blaming Congress, Stephen? All that would be required to put an end to this political charade (and charade it is; the only purpose behind abortion and gun control laws is to punish the opposition) is for Congress to pass a law legalizing abortion. That’s it. Call your congressman and complain instead of blaming the Supreme Court, Stephen.

And if you really want to try living in a democracy where the majority (or at least the majority in power) rules, I’d recommend you try the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. I’m sure they’d appreciate your humor – right up until your execution.

F*****g moron.

Constitution 101

Tell me what you think of the following quote:

“The Constitution was intentionally written in broad, open-textured language. It leaves it to each generation to give meaning to these words.”

OK, so let that last sentence sink in a bit. The author appears to be suggesting that each generation is free to interpret the Constitution as they see fit by simply changing the definition of the words contained therein.

Yeah; I’m gonna have to call bullshit on that idea.

Here is the next sentence from the quote, which the author is attempting to use as justification but is in fact rebuttal:

“It is and was meant to be a living document.”

On this point I agree; it is a living document subject to change – by the people through the amendment process, not via reinterpretation by political operatives. Partial proof is in the Constitution itself: if reinterpretation were the intention of the founders then there would be no need for the Constitution to include a process for amendment. And what about stare decisis, the concept that what has already been decided should stand? Doesn’t stare decisis go right out the window with the concept of Constitutional “reinterpretation”?

So let me tell you why I’m bringing this up: the quote above is from an article discussing the Constitution and slavery with a well-known Constitutional scholar, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. The opinion expressed by Chemerinsky – that the Constitution should be reinterpreted by each generation (rather than modified though the designated amendment process) – is truly frightening; the fact that it comes from the dean of a prominent law school only makes it more so.

I cannot agree with Chemerinsky’s opinion, and I hope none of you do, either.

We the people…

How can our students, who only need a 1oth grade education to graduate high school, ever comprehend the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States when they require a 12th grade education to understand?

Readability of important english-language texts

Since the liberals have control of the schools (by a 2:1 margin, per this NPR article), could this be by design? One has to wonder…

Media bias… again

Here’s the headline from NPR:

3 Dead, 2 Wounded In Shooting At Gun Store In New Orleans Suburb

Here’s the Fox News headline for the same event:

Armed citizens halt shooting spree that left 3 dead, including suspect, at Louisiana gun outlet: sheriff

Notice how the NPR headline doesn’t mention that the shooter was stopped by armed citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment right to defend their lives and the lives of others using suitable defensive arms.

Interesting, no? Biased, yes?

No more 5th Amendment?

In an affront to the U.S. Constitution and longstanding legal tradition, House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin [D-MD] has taken the position that Trump’s refusal to testify at his impeachment can be used to infer his guilt:

Jonathan Turley: Impeaching Trump – House threatens to trash this core principle to ensure conviction

Minority opinion has been successfully silenced through the support of politically active social media companies (here’s yet another example), performing an end run around the 1st Amendment while at the same time giving voice to the world’s despots. The 2nd Amendment is on the chopping block, as demonstrated by the latest gun control bill that will all but eliminate legal firearm ownership in America. So is anyone really surprised that some also want to eliminate the 5th Amendment as it pertains to their political rivals?

Be careful what you wish for when you rub the magic lamp; the genie rarely cooperates when it comes to unintended consequences. Instead of getting what you want, it’s far more likely you’ll get exactly what you deserve.

ARGH!!

I hope she wasn’t a concealed carry permit holder. People like this make the rest of us look bad:

Ace Hardware employee accidentally shot by bystander: report

The suspect was fleeing. No one was in imminent danger. There was no need to brandish or discharge a firearm. To do so is reckless, dangerous and illegal in most municipalities – as the shooter will now discover.

I understand the desire to help, but if you find yourself in a similar situation (suspect fleeing, no one in imminent danger) please don’t. I’ll take my chances that a fleeing subject is no longer any danger to me.

You go, girl!

The ongoing assault on Republicans and conservatives continues, with the Washington Post leading the way:

Washington Post columnist slammed for claiming ‘many conservatives’ offended by Harriet Tubman on $20 bill

It’s general statements like this, unsupported by the facts, that are being used by the left to paint the right as racist and intolerant. Do I need to remind you (again) that it was Republicans who freed the slaves? That is was Democrats who fought against integration? The fact is that many Republicans would welcome an opportunity to honor a “…gun-toting Republican who fought for freedom in defiance of the laws of a government that refused to recognize her rights.”

Count me in!

Doesn’t anyone see the danger here?

Now possible Republican National Guard members – or, god forbid, Trump voters – cannot be trusted to honor their commitment to the Constitution. All of them must be vetted before they are allowed to protect the capital or President Biden:

Trump supporters in National Guard might ‘do something’ to Biden, Dem congressman says

Maybe Democrats will use this as a basis to develop their own, trusted military force of people vetted as loyal to them (rather than the Constitution). Maybe they’ll give this new force a cool name like “Select Security”, or “SS” for short. How about a cool insignia, like a double lightning bolt? Sound familiar?

The ongoing efforts by Democrats (and the media) to associate all who disagree with the incoming administration as a danger to society is troubling. It’s baseless claims like these, and politicians like Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) who promulgate them, that are the true threat to our democracy.