The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right

There is a left and a right in this country.
The platform of the left is anti-gun.
The platform of the right is pro-gun rights.

Not every leftist is anti-gun and not every rightist is pro-gun. Nevertheless, it is "liberal" to be anti-gun and "conservative" to be pro-gun.

Furthermore, I can think of no public official that was ever elected as a member of the anti-gun or pro-gun party. If you want more gun rights, you can attempt to persuade dems, but more often that not, it means electing republicans. And in a place like MA, where you think you might try to find pro-gun dems, you can't find many and you're actually disgusted to find that a lot of republicans get failing grades from the NRA.

I actually agree, sort of.


What I am aiming at, what I am trying to build, among my associates, compatriots, etc. is that pro-gun is equal to pro-freedom.

My Father, "pretend God" rest his soul, whom I dearly loved and deeply respected in many ways, was finally brought to anti-gun-control by one argument: when guns are outlawed, only the FBI will have guns.

This argument brought someone who was deeply anti-gun and deeply socialist, to the the idea that gun control was inherently evil.

I could bring him to the fold, if ever so flutteringly, then there's almost no one who's unreachable.

To me, this is the central argument of the 2nd amendment. It's not just about personal protection, it' about protection from government.

Forgive me if I infringe on the traditional/Limbaugh definition of left/right, but in my book, the Emma Goldmans of this world were at least as concerned about the infringement of government as the Rockefellers. In fact, probably a great deal more so.
 
Screw left and right. There's not enough difference between the two for me to concern myself. The only real difference is between people who want more control over people's lives and those who want more freedom from such control. The problem that both the left and the right almost always seem to slip into in their quest for more government power to do the things they want to get done, is the implicit assumption that they or those of like minds will always be the ones exercising that power. It's only when they realize that it might be Barak Obama rather than George Bush, or Richard Nixon rather than John Kennedy, calling the shot that they start to rethink their ideas about government power. Gun control, of course, is simply the most direct and obvious example of government power.

Ken
 
Um, no, you're a f***ing loon. You seriously think Obama was not a "natural born citizen of the United States?" Do you have the slightest f***ing clue what "natural born citizen" means? Got a law degree? No, didn't think so!
Oh I know what a natural born citizen is in terms of the laws of our Constitution and in terms of the immigration laws of 1961. But it is clear to me that you don't "have the slightest f***ing clue" But you might actually get a "f***ing clue" if you bothered to do any meaningful research. But hey! You can just continue to fawn on every eloquent lie that Marxist snake oil salesman is blowing up your ass while he continues deficate on our Constitution. The Constitution that you took an oath to defend against all enemies both foreign AND domestic!
Yes, this places you clearly and distinctly into the lunatic fringe, to be consigned to same hole as the f***ing nut bags that were all convinced that the UN black helicopters were all about to confiscate all U.S. guns in the 1990's.
There you go again with those black helicopters. Have you noticed that the only person talking about black helicopters is you?[slap]
I don't give a rat's ass whatyour husbandhas done. I have personally flown into more dangerous situations in uniform than your fat ass has likely done and I'm not claiming any Goddamn medals for it, so you can kiss my skinny White Ass.
I think somebody needs a hug. Pay attention, Bill. Go back to your post where you first brought up the black helicopters as an example of what you perceived as my paranoia. Then read what I wrote as a rebuttal. It was not an attempt to brag about my husband's service, you moron. It was an example as to why I'm not worried about any helicopters, "black or otherwise." It was an attempt to make you understand just how useless your "black helicopter" rebuttle was to the conversation. You provided NO thoughtful remarks. You provided NO intelligent insight. You provided NO cogent arguments. The ONLY thing you offered was a personal attack, because what I wrote made you mad. You had a temper tantrum, Bill. This current response is no different. You were having another one when you wrote it. It's very dramatic, which makes for very entertaining reading. But! You still haven't offered anything of substance beyond your temper tantrums and your silly name calling.
When you make a nut bag claim, like a claim that evern the Republican Party has not made, nor any creditable source FROM THE RIGHT has made, you get called a nut bag. Deal with it! I suggest you grow a sense of skepticism. I didn't credit the crap equating Bush=Nazi and in fact condemned it in no uncertain terms. I suggest you grow the same sense of proportion, else be condemned to the same fires of Hell with International ANSWER and MOVE ON.ORG. There is not difference. It's just different sides of the same partisan coin. [iwojima]!
And I suggest that you do more research. Google, Obama-Kenya-Odinga, Google Obama Indonesia, Google American immigration and naturalization laws of 1961, Google US citizen's passport and travel restrictions to Indonesia 1980, Google Obama certification of live birth-photoshop-court certified forensic document specialists, Google Obama-Indonesian passport. You know what? I'll make it easy for you. The following was written by a recently retired Homeland Security/Immigration-Naturalization agent. It is probably the most cogent explanation I have yet to read. When you finish reading, let me know if you think he's a also a "paranoid" "nut bag" from the "lunatic fringe" who's hiding in his "bunker" from those "black helicopters."
Re: Re: Re: U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari and Application for Stay of the Presidential Election by John Sampson on Sun 02 Nov 2008 02:39 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link So much has been debated about whether or not Barack H. Obama II is or is not a Natural Born US citizen. The problem is that so many people are totally uninformed as to the law as it existed in 1961 as it relates to the transmission of citizenship to a child born outside the US or its Outlying Possessions (OLP). In an effort to clear the air, to get the FACTS out so people can clearly see the issue without opining or guessing as to the legalities, allow me to pontificate a bit. For the record, I am a recently retired Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, with more than 25 years experience. Part of that experience is understanding and comprehending immigration and nationality law which is at the center of this issue. In short, I know a "little bit" about what I speak of. In 1961, as opposed to TODAY, Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA) required the following: A child being born to one alien parent (ie. Non Citizen) and one citizen parent in a marital relationship, required that the sole US citizen parent to have resided in the United States for a period of ten years, five of which must have been over the age of 14. Today's version of the law has somewhat different residency requirements for the US citizen parent. But the law, as it applied on August 4, 1961, required ten years presence, five after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama I (dad), was a citizen and national of Kenya. He was not, nor had never been, a United States citizen. Ergo, he is the "alien" parent in this scenario. Stanley Ann Dunham (mom) was a US citizen by virtue of having been born in the US. At the time of Barack Hussein Obama II's birth on August 4, 1961, Ms. Dunham was 18 years old, having been born in November of 1942. As such, if Barack Hussein Obama II was born outside the US or its Outlying Possessions, on August 4, 1961, then Ms. Dunham could not transmit her citizenship to her son because she failed to have accumulated the necessary physical presence requirements that the LAW (that pesky and inconvenient thing that oftentimes gets in the way of "change") demanded. The earliest in which Ms. Dunham could have transmitted her citizenship to a child born outside the US would have been when she was 19 years of age, which was in November of 1961 and NOT in August of 1961, when Obama was born. It's that simple. If he was born in Kenya, or anywhere else for that matter, other than the US or its OLP's, then he is not, nor can never be, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America inasmuch as he does not, nor never can, fulfill the requirements of Article II, Clause V of the Constitution of the United States. It's not an optional thing, regardless of whether or not someone thinks it's fair or not. It's the law, that pesky, recurring inconvenience that seems to get in the way, time and time again. Now, the question remains to be answered if he was born in Kenya or not. The State of Hawaii has weighed in and states that there is a record of Mr. Obama's birth on file in the Department of Vital Statistics. However, THAT is not enough. There are two entirely different and distinct birth documents issued by the State of Hawaii. The first is a Certificate of Live Birth which is the traditional birth certificate we all are familiar with for children born IN Hawaii. Then there is a different document entitled Certification of Live Birth, which is issued to children born OUTSIDE of Hawaii but whose birth is registered in Hawaii pursuant to a quaint and scarcely known Hawaiian law, Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8. This law allows for the registration of a birth in Hawaii for a child who was born OUTSIDE Hawaii to parents who, for the year immediately preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their principle place of residence. Dunham and Obama Sr. both resided in Hawaii for the year immediately preceding Senator Obama's birth. Ergo sum, his birth, even if it occurred in Kenya, could legally be registered in Hawaii, and a Certification of Live Birth could have been issued, giving the uninitiated the impression that he was born in Hawaii when in fact, he was not. It is misleading when the State of Hawaii states that they have examined Obama's birth record and it is valid. It could very well be the case. The ISSUE however, is whether or not he was born in Hawaii as he claims, or if he was born in Kenya. There is of course, a plausible scenario in which he could've been born in Kenya and yet have his birth recorded in Hawaii as having been born in Hawaii when in fact he was not. It's quite simple actually. His mother could have lied. That's right. Ann Dunham could have given birth in Kenya, brought Obama back with her to the US and then fraudulently registered the birth in Hawaii. Is it likely? Who knows? Is it possible? As Sir Aruthur Coynan Doyle has written: Once you have eliminated what is impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, is possible. In this case, anything is possible. And it's so unfortunate that all but one relative on Ms. Dunham's side of the family are deceased. His maternal grandmother, who he conveniently just visited in Hawaii, is the one living relative that could possibly shed light on this subject. A simple question asking her if her daughter went to Kenya prior to Barack's birth would end the speculation, assuming of course, her response is truthful. And therein lies the rub. With so much fraud being perpetrated by the DailyKOS, Stop the Smears, and others, it's difficult to believe anything at this point. And isn't it oh so convenient that Obama goes to Hawaii on October 23, 2008 and the Hawaiin Department of Health, after his visit to Hawaii, issues the statement that the document they have is legitimate. The wording of their statement leaves a lot to be desired. It's a non answer to a question. Yes, the document is valid. And? Was he born in Hawaii?????? Silence. The now infamous document posted on Stop the Smears and the DailyKOS, which has been determined to be a forgery by no fewer than three court certified Forensic Document Examiners, was a Certification of Live Birth and NOT a Certificate of Live Birth or Birth Certificate. However, in an effort to obfuscate the issue, the term "Birth Certificate" has been used interchangeably with "Certification of Live Birth". Assuming that Mr. Obama has a legitimate Certification of Live Birth, the question must be asked: "Why post a forgery?" The answer is as follows: A. There does not exist a legitimate, authentic birth document for Obama showing birth anywhere in the US. OR B., He does have a legitimate Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii. However, that document shows his place of birth as being in Mombassa, Kenya and NOT in Hawaii as the forged copy claims. What is troubling and frustrating is that Obama can, and has had the ability to do so for quite some time, resolve this matter by simply providing a certified copy of his authentic birth document. The only reason that is reasonable for his failure to do so is that he simply doesn't have a document that shows he was born in the US. His documents all show birth in Kenya. As to his Indonesian passport, that, in and of itself, is problematic for Obama. In order to have obtained Indonesian citizenship, which is the only way one legitimately gets an Indonesian passport, he must have renounced his US citizenship, assuming for a moment, that he was, in fact a US citizen at any time. The fact that he renounced his US citizenship in order to obtain citizenship in Indonesian also makes him ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Clause V of the Constitution of the United States. Look. The facts and the law, are just that, the facts and the law. Wishing it wasn't so, being upset that the law is the way it was in 1961, wishing that people wouldn't bring that pesky inconvenient issue of the law, won't change a thing. Mr. Obama, like it or not, whether you think it's fair or not, if born outside the US, is NOT, nor never can be, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Period. End of discussion. IF, in fact, he was born in Kenya, as it appears he very well was, then his continued candidacy and the acceptance of campaign funds and donations, is a fraud. Furthermore, this issue is likely to throw this country into a Constitutional crisis, the likes of which we have never seen, making the elections of 2000 and 2004 look tame by comparison. And don't you think Obama knows whether or not he was born in the US or not? He wrote a book entitled "The Audacity of Hope". Perhaps it should have been entitled "The Audacity of Ambition".
Looking forward to reading your well researched rebuttal to Mr.Sampson's explanation of immigration and naturalization laws as they applied at the time of the Usurper's birth.............in Kenya! Let's see if you're capable of offering anything other than the liberal pabulum you've been spoon fed.
 
Screw left and right. There's not enough difference between the two for me to concern myself. The only real difference is between people who want more control over people's lives and those who want more freedom from such control. The problem that both the left and the right almost always seem to slip into in their quest for more government power to do the things they want to get done, is the implicit assumption that they or those of like minds will always be the ones exercising that power. It's only when they realize that it might be Barak Obama rather than George Bush, or Richard Nixon rather than John Kennedy, calling the shot that they start to rethink their ideas about government power. Gun control, of course, is simply the most direct and obvious example of government power.

Ken

I see no difference at all between the two parties and I really don't care about either of them. The ONLY thing I care about is protecting the legacy of freedom and liberty that our Founding Father's secured for us. The ONLY thing I care about is protecting the most magnificent document ever conceived and written by man---the United States Constitution. EVERY American should want to protect it, whether left or right, far left or far right. Politics is secondary to preserving that document and the freedom it brings us. It is the ONLY thing that stands between liberty and servitude.
 
micra.jpg


http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/09/atf-leatherman-tool.html


And complete control over Executive Branch regulations. Don't over look the "always think forfeiture" guys.
 
I see no difference at all between the two parties and I really don't care about either of them. The ONLY thing I care about is protecting the legacy of freedom and liberty that our Founding Father's secured for us. The ONLY thing I care about is protecting the most magnificent document ever conceived and written by man---the United States Constitution. EVERY American should want to protect it, whether left or right, far left or far right. Politics is secondary to preserving that document and the freedom it brings us. It is the ONLY thing that stands between liberty and servitude.

Love it! You have just hit my own personal thoughts 100%. Can only hope there are enough of us to make a difference.
 
Screw left and right. There's not enough difference between the two for me to concern myself. The only real difference is between people who want more control over people's lives and those who want more freedom from such control. The problem that both the left and the right almost always seem to slip into in their quest for more government power to do the things they want to get done, is the implicit assumption that they or those of like minds will always be the ones exercising that power. It's only when they realize that it might be Barak Obama rather than George Bush, or Richard Nixon rather than John Kennedy, calling the shot that they start to rethink their ideas about government power. Gun control, of course, is simply the most direct and obvious example of government power.

Ken

+1. Rep points awarded!
 
Back
Top Bottom