If you thought Demanding Moms were "teched," you may have been right

If you have ever thought that such leftists quests as "gun control" and "climate change" were...well...sort of neurotic,if not down right crazy (a technical term), you may have been on to something. Jeffrey T. Brown has an article today over at the American Thinker that makes that very case entitled Zero Tolerance, Evil Objects, and the Psychosis of the Left. And, if polls are to be believed, at least half of the population is like this, though I discount that fact. On guns, for instance, 55% want less strict gun control according to a Gallup poll, as reported by Katie Pavlich here. Still, 55% of the population that has figured out that guns do not just leap out of holsters and start shooting people on their own is a deplorably low percentage. That these people are immune to facts and logic, and can not largely be convinced by such is unfortunate. In any case, go read the article.

The Washington Times is just Noticing the Demanding Moms

A recent piece appearing in the Washington Times breathlessly tells readers that the gun grabbers have a new tack, to wit: Gun control groups turn to private sector to push crackdowns. I say "Hallelujah!" At last they understand what they are supposed to be doing, having supposedly given up on their favorite methods, namely getting government to make it illegal, or finding a judge who agrees with them to "reinterpret" the Constitution into saying what they want. They have tried suing gun manufacturers for the acts of third parties.  They have in some cases gotten legislatures to make concealed carry so onerous as to be impossible in practice.  Ultimately, these fail because when shown the truth, most people do not agree with them.  But if they can get a Starbucks or a Staples to post their stores as gun free zones, more power to them. A private business owner is the ONLY legitimate person to decide what patrons that business will serve.  We can equally point out to the management that as legal gun owners and carriers, we will not shop where we are not wanted, but will instead send our business to their competition.  it is up to them to decide.

For many years, North Carolina had a law on the books that a concealed carrier of a handgun could not carry into restaurants that served alcohol, despite a law that also said that a concealed carrier could not consume alcohol while carrying.  Interestingly, one could carry into restaurants that did not serve alcohol, yet such restaurants were not posted against carrying.  I am sure many concealed carriers went into such restaurants, many of which are fast food type places that attract parents with children in tow, but there were never any incidents due to concealed carriers.  They come in, like anybody else, order, eat, and leave.  The same with Staples, or Wal Mart, or indeed almost any other business enterprise.  There have been armed robberies of such restaurants, but these are usually committed by people who have a record of ruthlessly breaking the law, and thus can not legally possess guns anyway.  If a person is willing to obtain a firearm illegally, and intends to commit a crime (also illegal, in case anyone was wondering) do you really think he is going to be deterred by a gun free zone sign on the door?

Now that North Carolina has stricken the provision about restaurants that serve alcohol from the books, a group called 'Moms Demand Gun Bans er... Action' is suddenly trying to get businesses to post their businesses as gun free zones.  Fine.  Let them try.  But be warned that most businessmen and women will weigh the advantages and disadvantages to such demands, and will likely decide that going with State law is a good defense against potential lawsuits, not to mention that concealed carriers tend to be good customers.  Oh, and note to the Moms:  if a business doesn't give into your demands, please don't decide to post a "No Guns" sign on their door anyway.  That would be considered vandalism, a crime in itself.

Connecticut Police In A Squeeze

There are certain commentators that I like, and return to time and time again, because they often pose ideas in ways that force me to think about them again. Selwyn Duke is one such writer, and this week's American Thinker piece entitled Cop: I'd love to bang down your door and come for your guns is one intended to get police officers in Connecticut, who may be called upon to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, to think about where they draw the line in the sand.  I first confronted that question years ago when gun writers of all stripes began to see the outlines of a totalitarian state forming here at home.  As always seems to be the case,   those who first alerted us all to the danger were derided as kooks and John Birchers, but as time has gone on, a substantial minority has awakened to the reality of our position.

Duke makes the point that mindlessly saying that "Others make the law, I only enforce it" doesn't really cut it.  He alludes to the Nazi genocide, without saying as much, and to the Nuremberg trials, where following orders was not enough to save many defendants. Duke points out that by using discretion on whether or not to enforce things like traffic laws, you have made clear that you can decide to not enforce certain laws.  The question becomes which laws will you enforce, and why?  Duke writes:

Even good people can live lives of contradiction and entertain ideas that simply aren’t true. For instance, if you’re a cop, it’s easy to justify an action by saying that your job is only to enforce the law, especially since, on paper, this is certainly so. But the implication that you enforce every law, across the board, every time, without discretion is absolutely untrue and you, I and everyone else knows it. You don’t ticket everyone driving 31 in a 30 zone, and many times even more egregious law-breakers get off with a warning. Some laws aren’t applied at all, such as a parking law in my town an officer told me was on the books but that “we don’t enforce.” You use discretion all the time.

As for legislation such as Connecticut’s new gun restrictions, ask yourself this question, guys: If I caught my brother, sister, father, mother, son or daughter with some legally acquired but now illegal 30-round magazines in his car trunk, would I slap him in cuffs, haul him in and put him in the system? Let’s face it, you know the answer. And, well, the person you would haul in and arrest for this newly minted “crime” would be someone else’s brother, sister, father, mother, son or daughter. Of course, this argument could justify refusal to enforce most any law, since family will virtually always receive special treatment. So is there a sound rationale for refusing to enforce a law across the board?

Any sane person agrees that no one can simply follow orders blindly, that, at some point, a command itself can become criminal in the moral sense. For instance, would you enforce a law stating that all members of a certain racial or ethnic group were to be rounded up for extermination? Yes, this is an extreme example, and I don’t pretend that the new Second Amendment violations even approach such wickedness. The point, however, is that everyone draws a line -- it’s just a question of where. And I’d certainly hope that you, my friends in law enforcement, would take a stand somewhere below genocide.

Of course, that leaves the person who decides not to enforce an unconstitutional law in a quandary. If one enforces such laws, in the short term there will be no consequences, but in the long term there may be serious consequences, as the defendants at Nuremberg discovered. If one chooses not to enforce such a law, against explicit orders to do so, one may be disciplined or fired. One may then find it difficult to obtain work to maintain one's family. As Thomas Paine wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." Many of the founders lost their fortunes, and even their lives, in the struggle, yet were ultimately vindicated.

Leaving aside those people who know the Constitution, and what the Founders meant when they wrote the Second Amendment, there are people who are genuinely confused about the true intent of the amendment.  I sympathize with such people, but at the same time, the writings of George Mason and others make abundantly clear that the Second Amendment was intended to ensure the people had access to, and possession of the small arms commonly in use by the armed forces of the our nation.  This today would mean fully automatic, select fire weapons, not semi auto look alikes with a limited 10 round magazine.  The standard capacity of even many handguns used by police for personal defense exceeds the 10 round limit imposed by the law.  The ruse used to impose these new restrictions is that it would make crimes less lethal.  But there is no evidence that this is true, and much evidence that more liberal gun laws are actually more protective of the public.

I can offer no rational way for you to decide whether or not to participate in rounding up peoples' property.  My only advice is to let go and let God, if you believe in a higher power than the State. Your legislature has forced you to take sides, and you are in the thick of it. You obviously want to be on the right side, the winning side. I understand.  Unfortunately, the two may not coincide. Again, I urge you to pray on it, leave it up to God, and do whatever he says is the next right thing.

The Democrats Iron Gauntlet

Today at the American Thinker today there is an article I hope readers will pay attention to entitled Democrats Unleash the IRS Tyrant by Karin McQuillan.

McQuillan is correct about Republicans slow rolling this.  Speaker Boehner and the "Republican establishment," I am convinced, do not like conservatives or TEA party types any more than their Democrat friends.  They are embarrassed by conservatives and conservative ideas, and their TEA party members have embarrassed them by breaking ranks and going a different way on some major issues.  The TEA party has forced the Republicans to show some backbone, and they don't like the mocking that the Senate Majority Leader delivers from the Senate floor; a place where he is immune from slander charges for his outrageous lies. The main difference between the Democrats and the Republican establishment seems to be that the Democrats want the iron gauntlet of fascism around the necks of the common citizen, the Republican establishment want the iron glove to be covered by velvet.  If there is any other difference, I have yet to see it.

Connecticut Gun Owners to Gun Grabbers, "Molon Labe"

According to Michael Schaus of Townhall.com, Connecticut gun owners are saying Molon Labe-Come and Get Them. Schaus:

Lawmakers in Connecticut have already threatened current gun owners with confiscation in accordance with the new regulation requirements. And despite a fraction of state gun owners deciding to comply with intrusive registration requirements, the Governor has accelerated his anti-gun rhetoric. (Colorado voters decided to hold recall elections… Connecticut gun owners have decided to take the Barack Obama approach: Ignore inconvenient laws.) Letters have been sent to “known gun owners” demanding registration, or the surrender of their “assault weapons”. The birth place of the Constitution, it turns out, is still home to armed students of human liberty.

Despite the strong rhetoric, and threatened legal action, citizens have remained stunningly unphased by the authoritarian nature of Connecticut’s gun registration scheme. In fact, Connecticut Carry (a decidedly pro-Second Amendment group) has even gone so far as to challenge the state to go door-to-door: Connecticut Carry calls on every State official, every Senator, and every Representative, to make the singular decision:

Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or repeal the 2013 Gun Ban in its entirety.

The gun grabbing legislature and the Governor's office in Connecticut have forgotten the basic rules for making sound laws: if you want the people to comply, they must first agree to the laws. Mike Vanderboegh explains it better than I have in this video. In this case, the people affected, gun owners, did not agree. The gun grabbers were operating on the premise that each owner of a banned gun would feel isolated and alone, and would not risk the personal loss of family and fortune that a Class D felony would entail by resisting the law. But something happened the gun grabbers did not expect. One of their own, Al Gore, invented something called the Internet, which allows like minded people to communicate with each other over vast distances, compare notes, and devise strategy. Then, another one of their own, Barack Obama, decided that the law doesn't matter. As President, he has flouted the law, or changed it to suit his purposes, at will. Unfortunately, when a sitting President does such things, it sends the signal that law doesn't mean much. It empowers the People to define those laws they will choose to obey, and those they will choose to ignore also. By choosing to obey only those laws that are convenient or expedient, or worse, choosing to outright flout the law as written by the legislature, the President has created a state of lawlessness, in which any citizen can be brought before the courts at any time he or she becomes troublesome, and put in jail or worse.  Some courts have been so anxious to serve an agenda that their court rooms have become little more than kangaroo courts rubber stamping the tyrants line.  Meanwhile, gun owners who are defying the Connecticut law are obeying the Constitution-the highest law in the land.  Thus, gun owners, not the State, are standing on the moral high ground in this case.

Now, why do I call the Connecticut legislature and Governor gun grabbers? Because their real goal is to ban all guns in their State. Of course, were they to write such a law, the people as a whole might revolt. Even people that do not own guns are sympathetic to owning them. Some harbor a desire to own them, but their spouses have put their feet down on the subject. Others have a live and let live attitude, and as long as their neighbors guns don't interfere in their lives, they could not care less. More, with the nationwide broadcast of every aspect of the Zimmerman trial, a lot of people became sympathetic with Zimmerman, feeling that he was being railroaded by progressives who made fools of themselves and the law on nationwide television.  They became vaguely aware that guns save lives.  So, the gun grabbers strategy was to narrow down the list of guns to a small enough minority of gun owners, that they might get the hunting crowd to say "Take their guns, just don't take my deer rifle." The urban carrier might think "They will never take my handgun. So what if they take those nutcases' guns."  In this way, they hoped to divide and conquer, pitting one group of gun owners against another. I hope we all have learned that if one gun owner is attacked, we are all attacked, and will respond appropriately:

Molon Labe: Come and take them!