thedrifter
05-13-05, 04:52 AM
Thank You, Secretary Rice.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated publicly her position on Liberty that encourages the spirit of the nation.
In an interview with Larry King this week, Dr. Rice addressed boldly issues that are critical not only to reiterating U.S. History, but also to certain unchanging truths which need reiteration of their own.
Secretary Rice said, "We have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important." She's right. Because in those days, they experienced what we're beginning to experience now: intrusion and over-reach. It's a disease that comes over some officials. You recognize them by their deafness and disconnect with our realities.
Secretary Rice said that if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other Blacks would have been able to defend themselves.
This implies properly, of course, that had they known where the guns were, those guns wouldn’t have remained there in private hands for much longer. The fear of a defenseless populace – make that a disarmed populace – where only the government and the criminals have the guns is not unfounded, and it is generations old, as Secretary Rice’s remarks indicate. This reasonable apprehension persists in 2005.
Little by little, over the last forty years, it’s become harder and harder for honest citizens to obtain, own, operate and utilize guns. For the criminal, it's as easy as ever.
As an individual right, as found by the U.S. Department of Justice, [visit: http://presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21479~2651751,00.html ] this is very important if you are the head of a household.
For instance, in Kalifornia, in 2005, the Legislature wants to laser-engrave ammunition. [AB 352 expands the definition of "unsafe handguns" to include semi-automatic pistols that are not designed and equipped with an array of microscopic characters, which identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched into the interior surface or internal working parts, which are then transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired. Senate Bill 357 would require serialization of handgun ammunition. The manufacture, transfer, and possession of non-serialized handgun ammunition after July 1, 2007 would be considered a crime. ] This will fight crime??
This is unworkable as the expense of tooling up will bankrupt those manufacturers who supply both civilian and military needs. It further criminalizes lawful activities of law-abiding citizens, and has positively no control over black market entry of ammo for criminal purposes. If criminals can get a gun in spite of 22,000 guns laws, they can get the ammo in spite of another ammo law.
Criminals don't obey laws, no matter what you write.
As I mention in my earlier piece, The Arizona Minutemen IV: The Governator, it is not Governor Schwarzenegger, but the Democrats who put the K in Kalifornia. This is yet another example of their backward thinking (or outright hostility) in disarming law-abiding citizens with another law that will never reach the criminal. Not ever.
(My theory is that violent crime is a mistress of officials, to be kept comfortable in the style to which she is accustomed, and this is an example of why I believe that. I also have my own theory on what motivates Liberals in general to do things backwards.)
Not only would engraving ammunition fail miserably, but the idea of engraving ammunition is another method of knowing where the guns are. There is only one purpose for that. See the Philippines, South Africa, the U.K., Australia . . .
Government has no need to know where the guns are, especially with the law-abiding, anymore than they have a need to know where all the books are. Government simply has no rights: only individuals have rights. Government has only the authority we give them.
Secretary Rice said the Founding Fathers understood ". . there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."
Ain’t knowledge of our history great?
Of course. Attorney/Author Richard W. Stevens, in his book, Dial 911 and Die - The Shocking Truth About The Police Protection Myth [available at www.jpfo.org] points to 54 jurisdictions in a well organized case-study format where courts have held against plaintiffs suing for failure of police to protect them. No constitutional right to police protection. That would apply to law enforcement everywhere.
It’s not workable that they do. Police can only respond to the law we, the electorate, give them. Some authors have reminded us that police are about 5% pro-active and 95% re-active, authorized to investigate crime and to enforce law. But to protect beforehand.. No.
Every gun-owner knows it, police officers know it, lawyers know it, and the courts know it. Now you know it.
Finally, Dr. Rice adds, "I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution...The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment."
As I said, they don’t need to know where the guns are any more than they need to know where the ideas (books) are.
The blowback from this resentful, endless, useless intrusion and over-reach into the lives of the honest should be severe, courageous and lasting.
Because authority is like funding: if you can’t use it properly when it's given to you, you ought to have less until you show that you know how to handle it.
____________________________________
John Longenecker is author of The Battle We Fight - Battling Potomac Fever To Recapture Our Homes And Communities. His e-mail is John@Nationwideconcealedcarry.com and he welcomes all correspondence.
Ellie
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated publicly her position on Liberty that encourages the spirit of the nation.
In an interview with Larry King this week, Dr. Rice addressed boldly issues that are critical not only to reiterating U.S. History, but also to certain unchanging truths which need reiteration of their own.
Secretary Rice said, "We have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important." She's right. Because in those days, they experienced what we're beginning to experience now: intrusion and over-reach. It's a disease that comes over some officials. You recognize them by their deafness and disconnect with our realities.
Secretary Rice said that if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other Blacks would have been able to defend themselves.
This implies properly, of course, that had they known where the guns were, those guns wouldn’t have remained there in private hands for much longer. The fear of a defenseless populace – make that a disarmed populace – where only the government and the criminals have the guns is not unfounded, and it is generations old, as Secretary Rice’s remarks indicate. This reasonable apprehension persists in 2005.
Little by little, over the last forty years, it’s become harder and harder for honest citizens to obtain, own, operate and utilize guns. For the criminal, it's as easy as ever.
As an individual right, as found by the U.S. Department of Justice, [visit: http://presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21479~2651751,00.html ] this is very important if you are the head of a household.
For instance, in Kalifornia, in 2005, the Legislature wants to laser-engrave ammunition. [AB 352 expands the definition of "unsafe handguns" to include semi-automatic pistols that are not designed and equipped with an array of microscopic characters, which identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched into the interior surface or internal working parts, which are then transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired. Senate Bill 357 would require serialization of handgun ammunition. The manufacture, transfer, and possession of non-serialized handgun ammunition after July 1, 2007 would be considered a crime. ] This will fight crime??
This is unworkable as the expense of tooling up will bankrupt those manufacturers who supply both civilian and military needs. It further criminalizes lawful activities of law-abiding citizens, and has positively no control over black market entry of ammo for criminal purposes. If criminals can get a gun in spite of 22,000 guns laws, they can get the ammo in spite of another ammo law.
Criminals don't obey laws, no matter what you write.
As I mention in my earlier piece, The Arizona Minutemen IV: The Governator, it is not Governor Schwarzenegger, but the Democrats who put the K in Kalifornia. This is yet another example of their backward thinking (or outright hostility) in disarming law-abiding citizens with another law that will never reach the criminal. Not ever.
(My theory is that violent crime is a mistress of officials, to be kept comfortable in the style to which she is accustomed, and this is an example of why I believe that. I also have my own theory on what motivates Liberals in general to do things backwards.)
Not only would engraving ammunition fail miserably, but the idea of engraving ammunition is another method of knowing where the guns are. There is only one purpose for that. See the Philippines, South Africa, the U.K., Australia . . .
Government has no need to know where the guns are, especially with the law-abiding, anymore than they have a need to know where all the books are. Government simply has no rights: only individuals have rights. Government has only the authority we give them.
Secretary Rice said the Founding Fathers understood ". . there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."
Ain’t knowledge of our history great?
Of course. Attorney/Author Richard W. Stevens, in his book, Dial 911 and Die - The Shocking Truth About The Police Protection Myth [available at www.jpfo.org] points to 54 jurisdictions in a well organized case-study format where courts have held against plaintiffs suing for failure of police to protect them. No constitutional right to police protection. That would apply to law enforcement everywhere.
It’s not workable that they do. Police can only respond to the law we, the electorate, give them. Some authors have reminded us that police are about 5% pro-active and 95% re-active, authorized to investigate crime and to enforce law. But to protect beforehand.. No.
Every gun-owner knows it, police officers know it, lawyers know it, and the courts know it. Now you know it.
Finally, Dr. Rice adds, "I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution...The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment."
As I said, they don’t need to know where the guns are any more than they need to know where the ideas (books) are.
The blowback from this resentful, endless, useless intrusion and over-reach into the lives of the honest should be severe, courageous and lasting.
Because authority is like funding: if you can’t use it properly when it's given to you, you ought to have less until you show that you know how to handle it.
____________________________________
John Longenecker is author of The Battle We Fight - Battling Potomac Fever To Recapture Our Homes And Communities. His e-mail is John@Nationwideconcealedcarry.com and he welcomes all correspondence.
Ellie