Giving up on the Constitution

Back in December 30, 2012, Louis Michael Seidman wrote an editorial in the New York Times entitled Let's All Give Up on the Constitution. His thesis is that it is all too complicated, and with competing methods of interpreting it, originalist or living document, we will never agree on what it says, so let's give up the pretence:

Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president’s term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. Nor, finally, should we have an all-powerful president free to do whatever he wants. Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.

snip...

If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

Mr. Seidman's assertions sound more like whistling past the grave yard, hoping nothing jumps out to get him. For what Mr. Seidman suggests is that we can get along just fine without a Constitution because, well, we have this long tradition.  I fear Mr. Seidman does not understand to what lengths some people will go to obtain absolute power, or what they would do with that power once obtained.  What Mr. Seidman has also failed to acknowledge is that a written Constitution, providing the framework for how we were to settle our differences, and ratified by a super majority of States, is the only way to ensure that a government is actually legitimate, that is, has the consent of the governed. It is only because of sworn fealty to the Constitution that successive governments have been able to claim to represent the consent of the governed. Were our President and Congress ever to openly say they were not coloring within the lines of the Constitution, and enough voters heard and understood that, there would be open civil war.

Interestingly, we already have numerous examples of Congressmen and women mocking the Constitution, or outright admitting that they do not follow it or pay attention to it. Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House responded with this to a serious question about where in the Constitution Congress derived the power to order people to purchase a product they didn't necessarily want. Or here, a Congressman cites a non existent clause of the Constitution to defend his support for ObamaCare. There are others who have made remarks to the effect that much of what Congress does isn't in the Constitution. Which begs the question: Then why are they doing these things?  Congress has enumerated powers to act.  Everything else should be either left to the States, or to the People.  It also causes us to ask, in our hearts if not out loud, how many others feel the same way?

The President is supposed to be our Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of our armed forces.  A good chief executive has standard operating procedures in place that ensure that each action taken by the officials under him fully comply with the law and the Constitution.  President Truman's famous sign on his desk that the read "The Buck Stops Here" states a truth, that the President is responsible for each and every act taken under his watch.  While the President has not yet been personally charged for a number of illegal and unconstitutional acts by people working for him, his failure to find and root out such illegality becomes his responsibility.  In this light then, I cite the following:

Fast and Furious was a program in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed straw purchasers to buy weapons from dealers in the United States and run these guns across the border into Mexico to drug cartels there.  They then waited for these guns to show up at a crime scenes.  The purpose seems to have been create statistics to show our gun laws are too lax, and to implicate law abiding gun owners and thereby to gain support for reinstituting the Assault Weapon Ban, and to get a national registry of guns and their owners.  In the process, the ATF, with the approval of high officials in the DOJ, broke U.S. and Mexican laws.  Mexico has estimated that 200 people were killed.  At least 2 agents of the Federal Government were killed.  When the Congress got too close to Eric Holder, the President asserted a non existent Executive Privilege over the whole affair. No one who was responsible for hatching these crimes will ever be held to account for them.  The President should have been impeached.

The ATF is moving in at least the Seattle office, to copy the form 4473s contained in each gun dealers' bound books, thus being able to put together a registry of guns and gun owners.  This is in clear contravention to existing law.  Nothing besides a letter of inquiry from a Senator was done about this.

The TSA performs its tasks every single day on the basis that every traveler that wants to fly is guilty until proven innocent by having an agent ravish their bodies, and ransack their luggage.  Have we abandoned the rule of law that says everyone is innocent until prove guilty in a court of law?

In the early days of his regime, Obama decided to abandon the laws on the books for bankruptcy and literally take ownership of General Motors, hand it to the United Auto Workers and the Government, stiff the rightful bond holders.  He even appointed a political operative, who knew nothing about manufacturing or marketing of automobiles to be CEO.  The only reason for doing so was to pay back the unions who had supported his election.  Government Motors, for that is what they are now, "got well" at the expense of the taxpayers.  For this illegal act, he should have been impeached, but was not.

Meanwhile, over at the Supreme Court, the idea of the "Living Constitution" seems to have taken hold.  The "Living Constitution" has been defended with all sorts of high sounding, fancy rhetoric, designed to cover up the fact that Leftists couldn't convince the People to amend the Constitution to their liking, so instead they got judges to interpret it to mean something it was never intended to mean by those who wrote it.  They have cited the evolving standards of the People, without taking a single poll of the People to find out.  They have cited foreign law, while ignoring contradictory foreign law elsewhere.  A gross example is the decision in Roe v. Wade in which emanations from penumbras not mentioned in the Constitution were cited as an excuse. The problem is that the court failed to notice that they were giving official sanction to women all over the country to kill their unborn chidren without due process of law. Perhaps that is where this President derives his right to kill Americans who have been born without due process of law?  And now the Supreme Court has shirked its duty by saying that it isn't up to them to protect us from ourselves.  Perhaps not, but a long standing tradition says they should be protecting us from government excess.

I do not mean to cite here every instance of illegality and unconstitutionality.  Such a list would be hundreds of pages, and stretch back at least to the Teddy Roosevelt administration.  Such a long list of horribles, committed by people from both parties, who seemed to love power and prestige more than they loved protecting and defending the People, could perhaps cause one to pen a piece like Seidman's.  Here's the thing:  when the Constitution no longer binds the government, it no longer binds the people either.  When the law can be twisted at the whim of a government official to achieve an unwritten, and unvoted upon agenda, the law also no longer binds the people to obey it.  It is not legitimate, and the only way you have then to govern is by fear.  Fear works...for a while.  It only works for a while.  How long it works is up to the people.

For another way in which the government is acting unconstitutionally against people who hold different political views see here. David Codrea has been following this, and you can read his various reports at the War on Guns site. This is not the first time prosecutors have done this. But the reason they keep doing it is because there are no real consequences for it, even if theyare caught. Put some of them in jail for 20 years, and you will see this sort of abuse come to a screeching halt.

Wayne La Pierre Gets One Right

Actually, Wayne has gotten a lot of things right.  I have disagreed with the NRA, and Wayne La Pierre, (even so, I am a member) but on this particular topic, he is correct, and I am glad he is taking a no compromise stand. The Blaze has the story at Wayne La Pierre's Bold Claim about Universal Background Checks: 'That Registry Will Be Used to Confiscate Your Guns'. Right now, if you wanted to pass on a gun to your children or grand children, well, that is your right. It is your property, and you are free to dispose of it as you like. I hear from some that they are purchasing their M1911 style pistols as collectors items, putting them in the safe, and saving them for their kids. While I personally think that guns are tools to be used, people are free to do as the wish. I should also not that many of us got our first .22 rifle while in our youths, and learned safe gun handling early on from our fathers.   But under the Universal Background Check, in order to follow the law, and thus protect both yourself and your children or grand children, you must get permission from the Government first, before giving the gun away. This is yet another prior restraint on the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Its like a journalist having to get permission from the Government before he can publish an article.

Meanwhile, the felon in possession of a gun will not have to register that gun, or to obtain a Universal Background Check.  What, you say?  Yes, its true.  Because attempting to register his gun would subject him to prosecution, the Supreme Court has ruled that this would be a violation of his right against self incrimination. So, the very people of whom you want to have a registry, will not be required to register.  Only you and I will be required to register, the law abiding peacefully armed citizens.

Well, what about this notion that registering guns will lead to confiscation.  Nobody is talking about taking guns away, they just want to know who has them, and where they are. After all, if you had a fire at your house, say, wouldn't it be a good idea if the fire department knew that before they stormed into your house, only to have an explosion?  Well, theoretically, perhaps.  But such a scenario is rare indeed.  But confiscation is not. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JFPO) has an interesting graph showing the relationship between registration laws and confiscation of firearms, and later genocide of hated minorities in that country.  Can you imagine who might become a hated minority in future years?  Business men are currently being demonized, as are gun owners, Constitutionalists, and conservatives.

Steve Chapman is a big government guy, and I don't often cite his writings, but if the Democrats were truly interested in crime control, Mr. Chapman has some useful advice over at Townhall.com entitled The Right Way to Combat Gun Violence, and I would argue, any crime. Criminals start small. If they don't have any consequences from the small stuff, they move on to bigger and bigger crimes. Mayor Giuliani had it right when he started going after people who, for instance, broke windows. Nip it in the bud while its small. But, overall, national violent crime rates have been on a downward trend since around 1990, as shown by this WaPo article on Mayor Giuliani. More police, and especially, more effective policing certainly had something to do with it. During this time, shall issue concealed carry spread nation wide, and I believe had something to do with it. Noting that the AWB started in 1994 and ended in 2004, it seems pretty clear that that law had no discernible affect on crime at all. And, of course, we have not had a gun registration program except for machine guns, and yet, the crime rate has fallen. Maybe it is time to try something other than banning yet another inanimate object, that is if crime control is what this current gun control push is all about.  If its about something else, something the gun grabbers don't want to talk about...well...Molon Labe. 

Its Not Your Job...

I get ticked off when I hear people talking about doing things that, frankly, are not in their job description, particularly when the speaker happens to be elected, but also when they are busy-body citizens. Case in point, Dave Workman had an examiner article recently, entitled Story Reveals Deceptive Packaging of Gun Control in which this little gem occurred:

According to the Washington Post, MDAGSA founder Shannon Watts admitted to the newspaper earlier this week, “We’ve gotten a lot of feedback from stakeholders that ‘gun control’ isn’t the best term to use because it can be polarizing…We don’t want to be polarizing — we want to be a nonpartisan organization. We’re not about overturning the Second Amendment or banning guns, but we also don’t believe that we should arm every citizen.”

The emphasis is mine. I hear this all the time from hysterical anti-gunners who seem to believe that the Second Amendment seems to say that we, meaning society, should arm everyone, or give everyone an assault rifle at birth, or arm all the students, and so forth. You've probably heard them too. The Second Amendment does not force anyone to take any action whatsoever. It merely acknowledges a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. Individuals can decide for themselves whether to exercise that right or not according to their own consciences. It is not Ms. Watts job to arm anyone.

Last night while watching Hannity, I noted that the boy mayor, and former Congressman from Cleveland, Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, made a comment that (paraphrasing here): We must get people working, and we must create jobs. The "we" of course, that Kucinich, as a lifetime career politician meant, were his former colleagues in Congress. No Mr. Kucinich, that is not your (or their) job.  Indeed, if you would stick to making laws within the framework of the Constitution and exercising the power of the purse, that is enough.  Let the private sector handle the job creating.

When the government takes money out of the economy to spend in targeted areas to "create jobs," what they create instead is an example of Bastiat's seen and unseen.  What is seen are the jobs created because the legislators toot the jobs in the press hoping to be looked upon favorably when the next election rolls around.  What is not seen is that the jobs created often cost several hundred thousand of dollars per job, such that it often seems that more could be accomplished by just passing out a check to each person who supposedly benefits from the largess.  What is also not seen are the opportunities lost because the money was taken, at the point of a gun no less, from taxpayers who would use it more wisely, as they earned it.

Society seems full today of busy-bodies.  Busy-bodies seem to find meaning in forcing others to acquiesce to their behavioural code and so petition government to force it on the rest of us benighted fools.  No salt in restaurants, no big gulp beverages, no supersized meals, no smoking, wear your seat belts or else, child seats until your children are 4 feet tall, and of course, no guns.  There's more, of course; the list goes on and on and on.  There also appears to be no shortage of petty tyrants who are anxious to get into Congress and start enacting laws for the rest of us.

Here's an idea, why don't you busy bodies and petty tyrants instead get an honest job and stop bugging us.  We survived all those years without you.       

Michelle Malkin Takes Down Rep. Joe Salazar

Yesterday, I happen to catch that moron of a Democrat Legislator, Rep. Joe Salazar of Colorado,making statements that said, in essence, that women shouldn't have guns for self defence because they were just too hysterical to understand if they were being raped or not. This is demeaning, paternalistic, and execrable. If he feels that way about the women in his life, what does he think of women police officers, or women in the military? Does he trust a female mechanic, or are machines just too complicated for the little lady to wrap her brain around?  That attitude hasn't prevailed in the United States since the 1920s.  Under what rocks have such knuckle dragging Neanderthals been hiding?

Michelle Malkin takes on Rep. Salazar and others today at Townhall.com in a piece entitled The Anti-Choice Left's Disarming of the American Woman. I always advise women, when the topic comes up, to get a gun, get some training, and to carry that gun wherever it is legal to carry it.  Michelle Malkin notes that in order alternatives to a gun, women are offered that following:

In a quick survey of campus tips for women, Twitchy.com editor Jenn Taylor notes that at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, women are also told that "passive resistance (vomiting, urinating, telling the attacker you're diseased or menstruating) may be your best defense." The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh tells girls to "(c)ry or create a scene of emotional or mental instability." Instead of a Glock, the school prefers students take a page from "Glee." Yes, ladies, when you fear for your lives, it's time to engage in theatrics by faking a "faint" or "seizure." And at Oregon State, female students are advised to tell sexual predators they are "sick or pregnant," because guns and knives are banned on campus.

May I recommend a website to you? The Cornered Cat is a good website, that expresses the self defensive nature everyone should be striving for:

When a cat feels threatened, she gets away from the danger as quickly as she can. She doesn’t care what damage she inflicts on her way to safety, but she’s not interested in fighting for fighting’s sake. She does only as much as she needs to do in order to escape. She doesn’t deal in revenge. If she feels threatened, she simply leaves. Efficiently.

Until she needs to use them, her claws stay sheathed. She doesn’t go around threatening to maul people. She’s cuddly, she’s cozy, she likes to curl up next to a crackling fire on a cold winter’s day. She’s great company. But don’t try to trap her in a bad situation.

More than that though, it is a site that projects a woman's perspective on self defense situations, not all involving a gun mind you, that may show the woman in your life that there is a need, and that others are there to support her.  Frankly ladies, I don't care what color your gun is, but I do hope you are comfortable with carrying and using it.  I might need backup some day!

Update: Katie Pavlich has a powerful rebuttal to Joe Salazar here. Amanda Collins was raped while having a concealed carry permit. The problem? The campus was one of those gun free zones. As Collins notes, she was in a safe zone, but the rapist didn't care. She was 50 feet from the campus police station, but it was closed. Go read Pavlich's piece, and watch Amanda Collins' interview with Cam Edwards.

No Justice, No Peace

Democrats in Missouri have proposed a bill that would force gun owners to surrender their weapons or destroy them according to Townhall.com's Leah Barkoukis. While we have known, and reported to you the real goals of the gun grabbers, such legislation clearly shows for it for anyone willing to look. Meanwhile the Colorado House of Representatives passed four gun control measures including a measure to ban concealed carry on public college campuses. Of course, the fall out from the passage in New York State of an expanded "assault weapon" ban making magazines with a capacity of more than seven rounds illegal has many people in that State vowing to ignore the bill. As the letter from the Saratoga County Deputy Sheriffs Police Benevolent Association states, this law, passed in the dark of night without public hearings or input from anyone else, makes instant criminals of ordinary peaceable citizens.

Indeed, the criminalization of ordinary, peaceful armed citizens who have had nothing to do with any of the gun violence supposedly being stopped by these laws is one of the injustices delivered by those supposedly making society better.  Yes, some who still have respect, even for laws they know the State has no right to passes, will obey.  But such people have never been the problem.  Meanwhile, if a person has decided to commit armed robbery, rape or murder, or to invade houses and take whatever they want, such people are hardly likely to surrender the tools of the trade just because someone in the State capitol wrote some magical incantation on a page somewhere.  But of course, these people are the problem.  I recommend you read the letter.  It is long, six pages, but there is a lot of valuable information there.

Meanwhile, the problem of over criminalization got a boost recently when Glenn Reynolds, Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, and the Instapundit, published a paper entitled Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process when Everything is a Crime. Prof. Reynolds illustrates the problem of over criminalization by telling about a game prosecutors in the U. S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York:

As Tim Wu recounted in 2007, a popular game in the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York was to name a famous person – Mother Teresa, or John Lennon -­‐-­‐ and decide how they could be prosecuted.:

It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you'd see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like "false statements" (a felony, up to five years), "obstructing the mails" (five years), or "false pretenses on the high seas" (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: "prison time."6

The law has become so complex, so convoluted, and in many cases so obscure, that nobody, including lawyers, can be expected to know every law for which one might be charged. This has resulted in lawyers specializing in certain phases of the law. It is humorous to discover that your lawyer, who does wills and handles estate matters can not effectively represent you in a criminal case. But it also become tragic when an ordinary citizen, going about his business trips over one of these laws. In May, 2010, the Dollarhites tripped over one such law when the USDA accused them of selling more that the law allowed of bunnies for pets. It turns out you don't need a license to sell rabbit meat, but there are strict limits on the number of bunnies you may sell in a year without obtaining a license. If this makes sense at some level, I can not for the life of me see why. Even more tragic is that the Dollarhites were hit with a $4 million fine, while only selling $5K worth of rabbits. So is this justice?

More and more Americans are becoming aware of the long train of abuses that have built up throughout the "Progressive" era.  The Democrats seeming do not care about the Constitution, which they refer to only with contempt.  The Republicans give it lip service only when they want to calm people on their side of the aisle.  The lawless President continues to grab for power and shred the Constitution, while the Supreme Court shirks its duty to the People under a Constitutional Republic.  History has shown that sooner or later, the people will begin to say where there is no justice, there can be no peace.

Paul Valone, Grass Roots North Carolina, Speaks Out

Paul Valone of Grass Roots North Carolina, to which I belong, sent out an alert recently with a YouTube video attached entitled Out of the Mouths of Leftists. I urge you to watch it, and send it around to your friends and family. The debate features Paul, of course, and several gun grabbers "debating" current gun control issues.

The following are excerpts from Paul's alert that give you a flavor for how he perceived the debate to go. First, why he is worried:

Held in the ritzy “Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art” by WXII-TV, what GRNC volunteers found when we arrived was a cabal of limousine liberals, aging hippies, and hard-core “community organizers.”

When WXII created the panel, producers did their best to stack the deck in favor of gun control, but we knew that going in and we certainly didn’t expect to win them over. We did it to show you exactly what you face; the lengths they will go to and the lies they will tell in order to take not only your guns, but your freedom. Make no mistake: They want to control you!

snip

When I noted that facts should underpin rational public policy, I was branded a “hater.” When a pro-gun panelist tried to make a point, he or she was shouted down not by one, but rather three of the opposition. When I pointed out that the “facts” they used to support their arguments were, in reality, fabrications, I was told: “You are the exact reason I worry about these firearms.”

When a panelist pointed out that guns owned by law-abiding citizens are not the problem, Gail Neely, director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence bleated: “They’re law abiding ‘til they’re not.”

You see, Neely considers you a ticking time bomb. Because you own a gun, you could “go off” at any time. What she won’t say is that no number of “reasonable gun laws” will change that: As long as you own a gun, you’re a threat. And whether Neely is self-aware enough to realize it or not, the only solution to that “threat” is a complete end to private gun ownership.

When asked what the Framers intended in drafting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Neely replied: “To prevent insurrection.”

snip

Now look what happens when I call out Gail on the phony statistics she is spouting (and which she failed to corroborate): First, “community activist” Ric Marshall calls me dangerous, and then he puts it all out there when he replies: “We have a government to protect us.”

As even liberals in the audience laugh at the absurdity of Marshall’s assertion, we see liberalism stripped of its camouflage: Marshall looks around the room like a deer in the headlights, utterly baffled why anyone would find this funny.

But, Valone is also energized. Here's why:

The lesson we need to take from this is that no amount of reasoning or education will dissuade them. They don’t care what the truth is. In their twisted minds, they are the anointed and society – including you – must, as Marshall opined during the debate, “be saved from itself.”

That leaves one clear alternative: You must beat them at their own game. You must beat them in the editorial pages, on public forums and, most importantly, in legislative chambers...

One problem with this particular debate is that it was held on the Leftist turf in that fundamental principles were not discussed, but instead it was a debate between utilitarian arguments, and whose facts do you believe?  Fortunately, the facts and the principles line up in the gun debate, and both are on our side of the debate.  But since principles are so seldom brought up, people are not aware of them.

For instance, our legal system presumes the innocence of everyone until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as judged by a jury of the defendants peers.  But the background check system is in fact a prior restraint on buying a gun that forces you to prove your innocence, as judged by a faceless bureaucrat, before you may buy a gun from a dealer.  It would be like a journalist having to submit an article he wrote to the government, and getting its approval before he may publish it.  The existence of private sales with no background check makes this, if not acceptable, at least tolerable since you have a choice.  I have bought guns both ways.  And if a felon doesn't have to register a gun in his possession because that would require him to self incriminate, forcing him to submit to a background check does the same thing.  So a felon who wants a gun won't get a background check and will instead seek a gun through the black market.  There is always a market for things in demand.  Furthermore, if a crazy individual tries to buy a gun, and is turned away by the background check (a dubious thing given recent history) he can also seek out a weapon on the black market.

Many feel that having a national registration scheme is necessary to mandatory background checks.  Never mind that we already have a virtual registration system in the form of the 4473s that must be filled out and kept by the dealers.  According to Rev. Paul, the Seattle office of ATF has been going around copying all of a dealer's 4473s.  A little magic with a Neat Desk Organizer, and voila, a searchable database. Of course, even if they copied and scanned every 4473, that still wouldn't take care of those guns that were in existence before 1968, which is why they want national registration. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your perspective, there has never been a registration scheme that has not eventually resulted in confiscation. Its like night following day.  Many will resist of course, and many fellow citizens will be killed for possessing an inanimate tool.  So, in the name of keeping blood out of the streets, the government will then be making blood to run in the streets.  It is worth getting an answer to the question: "How many of your fellow citizens are you willing to see killed to bring about your so called Utopia?"

Leftists like to pretend that they don't know why the founders wrote into the Constitution the protection of the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.  Pretending to be confused on this issue allows them to ban so called "assault weapons."  If they admitted to an understanding of the Second Amendment, they would be forced to actually allow fully automatic M4 rifles and such, as these are the modern equivalent of colonial muskets and long rifles.  But true assault rifles, like the M4 are already effectively banned, so that what we are actually talking about are semiautomatic rifles, of low caliber and limited power, that look like scary assault rifles.  They are the equivalent of the repli-racers in the motorcycle world, but they are very popular weapons for hunting small game, varmints, and target shooting.  Since these weapons are only used in about 1% of crimes, the likelihood that the ban will be effective in stopping criminals is practically nil.  What it would do is take guns that are seen as scary, and set a precedent for eventually banning all guns.   That is the real, but often unspoken goal.  Instead, they wrap their rhetoric, their falsehoods and lies in the name of making everyone safer.  But gun control has never made anyone safer.  Indeed, gun control only controls the law abiding, and thus makes everyone less safe.   

The Outlaw Josey Wales, Gun Control, and the Regime

For those who wonder why I have been concentrating on guns of late, this piece by Jeffery Folks at the American Thinker yesterday entitled Exchanging Liberty for a Pittance lays out the reasons. Remember the Obama phone "lady"? If that woman was to be believed, she was willing to trade her liberties for a telephone that she could buy for a few bucks at any WalMart. More interestingly, so many people were buffaloed into voting for Obama because he promised that their health care costs would be paid by "the rich" rather than themselves. Now the IRS says that a typical family of four will be paying $20K for health insurance. That strikes me as being a lot more than the $5K cost that people were complaining about before the election. But the real cost is the loss of freedom to chose for yourself the best way to deal with medical costs.

Indeed, the real cost is the loss of freedom to chose pretty much everything in your life. Mr. Folks:

When I lived in communist Yugoslavia, I saw firsthand what Djilas describes in The New Class. I saw sumptuous suburban enclaves where only the ruling communist elite were permitted to enter. For the elite there were special stores overflowing with luxuries, including imported goods of every kind. For the masses, there were gray apartment blocks and state stores with empty shelves. While the communist rulers traveled in black limousines, hidden from view by dark glass and drawn curtains, the masses rode to work jammed into airless trams and buses. I remember it well, because I rode with them.

Is America headed in the same direction? In our own country, Obama continues to seize control of health care, financial services, education, energy, and every other sector of the economy even as he demands higher revenues and the right to redistribute them. He does so by dividing rich and poor and by pretending that he is acting in the interests of the poor. Marshal Josip Broz Tito did the same in Yugoslavia, just as Lenin did in Russia, Mao did in China, Kim Il Sung did in North Korea, Fidel Castro did in Cuba, Hugo Chávez did in Venezuela, and every other Marxist dictator has done without exception. All of these leftists concentrated power in the state, rewarded themselves and their associates with regal powers and privileges, and stripped the masses of their freedom and economic opportunity.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has said it isn't his job to protect Americans from their own asinine mistakes, which upsets the whole notion of a Constitution. The Constitution takes certain rights and prerogatives of the individual off the table. These rights, are not supposed to be up for discussion. But now John Roberts says "Ain't my job." The Congress has said, in essence, that anything they can get away with is Constitutional. Meanwhile, the regime seems to be shredding the Constitution and breaking the law on an almost daily basis. It seems it is left to those who still value freedom over the promise of free stuff to save us from ourselves. For those who wonder why I have been concentrating on the gun issue of late...well...we just might need those guns, you know, "for squirrels and such.*"  Or to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government bent on imposing unconstitutional governance on this land, for we will not give another inch.  The last election has shaken my faith that we can even have fair elections in this country again, but I have notgiven up entirely on the electoral process.

Following on to Folks' piece, and amplifying it to a degree is William A. Levinson's piece at AT today entitled Armed Citizens are Responsible Citizens Here is Levinson's point:

This is not to say that all people in big cities are cowards. Dozens of New York's emergency responders died on 9/11 when they tried to rescue people from the Twin Towers. These were, however, what Lt. Colonel David Grossman calls society's sheep dogs: men and women who join the Armed Forces, or become police officers, paramedics, or firefighters. They perform relatively low-paying jobs that involve the protection of their societies. There are far more "sheep dogs at need" than professional sheep dogs. A sheep dog at need is somebody who is not a soldier, sailor, or emergency responder, but who will take responsibility for himself, herself, and possibly others during an emergency. This can range from returning lost property, calling the police, stopping to assist an accident victim, or even using deadly force as shown in the examples. Some people in the Twin Towers did try to help others escape.

I, and many others are "sheepdogs at need," in that we are willing, and able in times of trouble to help others. But the sheep don't get to ask the sheepdogs to give up their weapons. That's not how nature works.


*  The reference is to the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wales"  See   here for a transcript. It is a tale about the cycle of revenge and counter revenge. Eventually, the only way to live in peace is to finally let go, and get on with your life. As Josey Wales says, "I reckon so."

New York Rapes the Second Amendment

For those of you who have looked upon those stocking up on ammunition as "preppers," let the experience of New York be a lesson. You can read about it at the American Thinker, in New York's 'SAFE' Act: The 'Rape' of the Second Amendment by Michael Filozof. How much ammunition is enough is a personal decision, but having upwards of 1000 rounds per handgun doesn't seem so outlandish after you read this article, does it?  Nor does 5000 rounds per rifle or shotgun look quite as foolish either.  Mr. Filozof explains:

The new law prohibits the sale of any quantity of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed dealer and requires that such dealer perform a criminal background check on the purchaser and forward the purchaser's name, address, age, and occupation, and the quantity, caliber, and make of the ammunition, to a State Police database. Thus, the ammunition database creates a de facto universal long gun registry. A hunter who purchases a box of five 12-gauge deer slugs may think that his purchase is innocent enough; however, it will have the effect of informing the State Police that he owns a 12-gauge shotgun, enabling them to confiscate it in the future if they so choose.

You see, you don't merely need the rounds for shooting at game, but also for range practice. Handgun skills are notoriously perishable, and you must be practice to keep your edge. Sure, dry fire helps, but it also helps to put a few rounds down range now and then. This is why having a press, even a Lee Loader and a supply of reloading components is also helpful. Te more independent you are, the less likely you will be to become a victim of the government when that government turns tyrannical.

I don't know where this is going to go. I know of several retired police officers who point out that their carry guns have more than 7 rounds, and they are not going to reduce that number because some pin head in Albany says so. The so-called "wonder nines" all pack 10 or more rounds, with the common Glock 19 carrying a minimum of 16 rounds. Sooner or later one of these retired police officers is likely to be convicted, and then it starts heading through the courts. Frankly, with Justice Roberts current attitude that it isn't his job to spare us from our stupid electoral decisions, it is anybody's guess how the Supremes will vote.  After all, merely knowing where all the guns are is not the same thing as banning them.  But, of course, once they start banning them, it will all be too late.

The ammunition registration is crucial to the law's confiscation scheme. The law affirmatively requires that a person's firearms must be confiscated if any order of protection is filed against him -- no matter how bogus the complaint may be. It also requires that a "mental health professional" (including a physician) who believes that an individual is a danger to himself or others must report his diagnosis to the police for purposes of firearm confiscation. Such a diagnosis is highly subjective and could be easily politicized. (For instance, in the 1964 presidential campaign, a group of psychiatrists "diagnosed" conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater as insane.) But the law exempts such "professionals" from civil liability; thus, any "mental health professional" who believes that all gun owners are "nuts" could initiate the confiscation of a person's firearms, and the gun owner is forbidden to file a civil suit to challenge the "diagnosis."

Here is another area ripe for testing in court. Notice that merely the diagnosis by an anti-gun psychiatrist is enough to trigger the confiscation of your firearms. No finding by a court is needed. If you are a firearms owner, and your neighbor knows it...well...don't make your neighbors angry. That is always good advice, but now it becomes especially important.   One wonders when it will occur to them that if you are in possession of a gun, you are already a felon with a gun, no need to convict, just send you off to Sing Sing.

Molon Labe, Andy.

Larry Correia on Gun Control

Larry Correia, a prominent writer on guns, a gun instructor, former gun store owner, and...well...a real life expert, has written a very thorough article on why gun control will not, has not, can not work. He answers many of the anti-gun arguments you typically see. He also makes the case that arming those teachers and administrators in schools who are willing to confront an armed attacker is the most effective means of stopping mass shootings in the schools, and protecting our children. Finally, he exposes the politicians who exploit the latest mass shootings for their own ends. Just go read the whole article, An Opinion on Gun Control. Yes, this one is long, but well worth the time. I have nothing more to say.