Gunwalker and the Foundation of Liberty
It all comes down to this: Is there an inalienable right to self-defense? If there is, each man has indisputable, inestimable value, value that he may rightly preserve even if the life of another man is forfeit. A man may kill another in lawful self-defense even if the policy preferences of the state would prefer his death. If a right to self-defense actually exists, it is in a very real sense the highest law of the land and all lesser laws must pay it deference. It fundamentally defines the social contract, the nature of the relationship between man and the state.
But if there is no such inalienable right, the entire nature of the social contract is changed. Each man’s worth is measured solely by his utility to the state, and as such the value of his life rides a roller coaster not unlike the stock market: dependent not only upon the preferences of the party in power but upon the whims of its political leaders and the permanent bureaucratic class. The proof of this analysis surrounds us.
Irony abounds in that England, the cradle of the common law and of our doctrine of self-defense, has utterly done away with even a government-condescended privilege to self-preservation. Not only have the English allowed themselves to be virtually stripped of firearms, British politicians have made attempts with varying degrees of success to ban knives. Attempting to protect the self or others from brutal criminal attack can and will lead to lengthy jail sentences in jolly old England — for the victims. Attacking criminals often go free, and often successfully sue their victims for daring to harm them in the process of depriving them of property or their very lives.
In the recent riots in Britain, we see America not far into the future if the progressive worldview is much further advanced. Contemporary England is a nation that spends a great deal of time and energy ostensibly caring for “the people,” yet cares not a whit for the life of any individual, particularly when that life is threatened or taken by a member of a favored political class or victim group, criminals included. This attitude and practice is a foundation of socialism.
At an earlier stage of glorious socialist evolution, we find the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, murdered by cartel gunmen wielding rifles walked across the border in the gunwalker scandal. As reported by Fox News, the family of Terry requested crime victim status in the case of Jamie Avila, charged with purchasing the guns that reportedly killed Terry. Victims with such an obvious and compelling connection to a criminal case are routinely granted this status by prosecutors, but not in a government fundamentally changing itself into a socialist state.
U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke has opposed the family, claiming that the victim of Avila’s crime was “society in general” rather than any particular persons. It should be prominently noted that it is Burke’s office which has been intimately involved with Operation Fast and Furious and the gunwalking scandal which flourished under that larger operation. At stake is the right of the Terry family, under the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act, to work with prosecutors and to be heard at Avila’s sentencing.
The Obama administration is, to put it mildly, in a panic over the fallout and potential damage to Mr. Obama of Gunwalker. As my co-blogger Bob Owens recently reported, the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation are planning lawsuits against the Justice Department’s administrative mandate that border gun dealers report the sale of two or more long guns within a five-day period, primarily on the grounds that Congress has expressly forbidden the ATF (or the DOJ through the ATF) such power. Continuing revelations such as former Phoenix ATF Agent in Charge William Newell’s repeated discussions of the gunwalking case with a White House National Security functionary, and a multitude of embarrassing e-mails which clearly indicate that the basis for gun walking was a political desire for restrictive gun control policies unattainable through the legislative process, are also very much a thorn in the Obama administration’s collective posteriors.
The Terry case adds a very large and painful additional thorn. Avila is one of only 20 arrests made in the entire case, a case which the DOJ and high-ranking federal law enforcement officials foolishly may have thought would lead to the downfall of drug cartel kingpins. No doubt the Holder Justice Department is furiously struggling to make these 20 arrests of bottom-of-the-criminal-barrel straw purchasers appear as significant as possible. If Burke is attempting any kind of a deal or anticipating any kind of political spin, having the Terry family making contrary demands or statements at an emotional sentencing would be clumsy at best for the Holder DOJ. This would be particularly so if the Terry family files a wrongful death action against the government, as expected. It is not outside the realm of possibility that prosecutor Burke could find himself in a very uncomfortable position in that sort of case.
“Irony abounds in that England, the cradle of the common law and of our doctrine of self-defense, has utterly done away with even a government-condescended privilege to self-preservation.”
-from Power Line, on topic and worth a look:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/malcolms-moment.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/malcolms-moment-revisited.php
under holder there IS no doj. only a doij. that SLIMEBALL and the SLIME ball over him along with the entire current regim of SLIMEBALLS NEED TO BE TURNED OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE AND PROSSECUTED FOR THE crimenals they are, this is the most corrupt administration in the history of the world,
Excellent analysis Mr. McDaniel.
“It fundamentally defines the social contract, the nature of the relationship between man and the state.”
For many years I have attempted to explain to many why my simple litmus test for cantidates of any office is to gauge their stance on the second amendment. I have had varying degrees of success, but you put it in a nutshell very nicely.
I hope you do not mind if I use that, crediting you of course.
The following statements
It fundamentally defines the social contract, the nature of the relationship between man and the state.
But if there is no such inalienable right, the entire nature of the social contract is changed. Each man’s worth is measured solely by his utility to the state, and as such the value of his life rides a roller coaster not unlike the stock market: dependent not only upon the preferences of the party in power but upon the whims of its political leaders and the permanent bureaucratic class.
used to define the difference between the Republic and fascist states but now this difference seems to be on the verge of disappearing.
Wake up America.
Dear Suthenboy:
Thank you for your kind comments, and by all means, please spread the word.
Right-oh Suthenboy
If a politician has courage to look the MSM in the eye and say “no” to their “assualt weapons” horse-shit red herring, he’s USUALLY straight and sensible enough to trust on other matters, too.
Put another way, if they believe (and agree) that we are armed for no other other purpose than to act as a deterrence to their greed and ambition, their greed and ambition is bound to be is less than, say, a rabid gun grabber like Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, etc etc etc.
Mr. McDaniel,
Your words, succintly, put my sporadic and wandering thoughts into text. I feel you have, “Nailed” what most of us are trying to express to the opposition. I will share your article with friends and co-workers to display the looming “Black Cloud” on the horizon that AG Holder is trying to perpetrate with the “Stacking of the deck” with his legal team at the DOJ.
I have followed Christian’s and Hans’ commentary on the malfeasance that is taking place in this DOJ. Thanks much to Judicial Watch for prying the information, from the DOJ, by way of the FOIA request (grudgingly submitted).
I feel it will be an arduous fight with and uncertain outcome. But with people like you, Mr. McDaniel, most of the obstacles will be cast aside and truth has a fighting chance.
Thank you for your patriotism, sir!
“Attempting to protect the self or others from brutal criminal attack can and will lead to lengthy jail sentences in jolly old England — for the victims. Attacking criminals often go free, and often successfully sue their victims for daring to harm them in the process of depriving them of property or their very lives.”
This is how revolutions begin. Trust me, even in England people will have enough of this nonsense. And if the recent riots didn’t convince the people that self-preservation should be high on their list of “Things to discuss,” then even more people will die in the next set of riots. Because these thugs now know that they can get away with this and they will return, especially if the economy gets worse. The British people will not sit back and take this forever. At least I don’t think so.
Almost 20 years ago, my wife and I visited London for a few days, while traveling in Europe. I knew I could not travel with a handgun, but I routinely carried a good lock-back folding knife everywhere (even on the plane), and innocently unsuspecting of any legal problem, I carried it on the street in London as well. We spent most of the first night in London listening to hours of seemingly endless screaming and fighting at the pub below our hotel window.
This went well until we visited Buckingham Palace, and were confronted with metal detectors at the entrance. My Benchmade AFCK, a treasured gift from my sons, was confiscated by the security staff, and I was advised that if I were an Englishman, I would be going to prison!
On return to the USA, I wrote an indignant letter to the Queen, recalling to her that it was an old tradition of her ancestors that when a man was freed from slavery, the event was hallowed by handing him a sword – that the hallmark of a free man was the freedom to carry a weapon. I received a courteous reply from the chief of palace security, suggesting politely that I go to hell, and refusing to return my knife.
Over the last 20 years, the English have sacrificed essential liberties to the utopian fantasy of safety guaranteed by the State, and they now are experiencing the chaotic outcome of surrendering their liberty to the State. Ultimately, as the totalitarian process advances, it is not only true that “each man’s worth is measured solely by his utility to the state”. In fact, the value of that man increases with the depth of psychopathy of which he is capable: those valued most highly in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR were the men who undertook to murder many millions of their fellow humans, not on the battlefield, but in the gas chambers and gulags, for the sake of the State, while the mob stood and watched, and sometimes cheered.
England has thoroughly prepared itself. She now awaits only the advent of a new charismatic monster, and the next holocaust will begin. In the USA, Progressives are obliviously toddling along behind Obama, in the same direction and toward the same goal.
“Trust me, even in England people will have enough of this nonsense.”
Says the fool who is convinced a majority here can be persuaded to vote for Obama instead of Palin by the MSM.
You honestly have more faith the Brits will rise against their own government violently than that we will overthrow Obama for a conservative peacefully.
You’re a funny old bird, Liberty. A bird in this world.
The only oath the members of the Federal Administration take, from Obama to Holder on down, is an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which includes its Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) and all subsequent Amendments. A secret or not so secret intent to undermine, discredit or effectivley repeal the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution without pursuing the legal amendment process is consistent with that Oath exactly how? And when you kill Americans in Uniform as a result of your attempt to undermine a key element of the Bill of Rights (placed there for the benefit of Americans!) what would be the proper remedy? A Call for Impeachment I say is the only proper response of those who want our Public Servants’ Oaths to be upheld, and our Constitution as written to be upheld and defended as well. Period. Full Stop.
“what would be the proper remedy”
Reminds me of an altrnative Monty Python skit, like the interrogation of a Witch
“What would be the proper RRRRRRemedy…
Lets sound this out phonetically, shall we?
Treason sounds like “tree” and “reason”…
Trrrreason.”
Tree? Tree!
A PEACH tree! ImPEACHment them!
No, no, no , think again…think…..
Phonics, phonics!
“We could build a bridge out of him!”
Could you not also build a bridge from STONE?
“STONE THEM!”
No, No, no, Listen….
If the “RRRRReason” is “Trrrrreason”
The only HOPE is…….?”
“THE ROPE!”
The Remedy for TREASON is a TREE and a ROPE!”
(a hush falls over the crowd)
“Who are YOU, who is so wise in the ways of politics?”
I am Arthur….King of the Brownings
Master of Amendment 2, Possessor of the Belt Feed,
Knighted in the Holy Trajectory of sub M.O.A…
and I am on a Sacred Quest….
Impeachment the ONLY proper response, Mr. Burke? I say the crime is far worse than any other impeachable offense we’ve witnessed thus far. Remember Aaron Burr? What was HIS crime? And punishment? The present circumstances, thus far revealed, are far worse than Mr. Burr’s offenses. Not only have they led directly to the unwarranted death of a good Federal Law Enforcement Officer faithfully dischargning his duties, they are treasonous at the root. From Holder on down in the Department theoretically charged with the administration of justice in this nation, everyone in authority is guilty of treason for their attempts to subvert the Constitution. And my conviction is, as more rocks get kicked over, the rotten truth will eventually slither out from the slime and reveal our resident kenyan is equally complcit. Thus far, no one has explained his real meaning as he informed Sarah Brady that “we’re working on it, but under the radar” in response to her queries of “what are you doing about gun control?”. So, he wants more gun contorl? Fine.. start talking to the Congress and get THEM to make it the law of the land. Good luck on that one, though.
This level of treason deserves appropriate treatment. I hope and trust the COngress will continue their probe, and then take appropriate action. Don’t the Congress approve the President’s appointments to chief cabinet positions? If so, they also have the authority to de-appoint, and shoud do in this instance.. at the very least, beginning with that rotten Mr. Holder.
The 2nd is the only thing that has teeth in it in our Constitutional Republic.
The tyrants among us understand this crystal clear.
Why is it so difficult for millions upon millions of Americans to understand?
It is going to, incredibly unfortunately, come down to 3% of Americans who will stand their ground and not back up, not back down, even if it means their lives, to defend the patch of ground beneath their feet, while the remainder of America either does not care, or has its collective finger in the wind, or cooperate willingly with what is unquestionably a tyrannical federal government and its lickspittles. It happened this way during our nations founding against the tyranny of King George.
Only 3 percent chose to defend what is God given unalienable fundamental Liberty to freedom.
What say you?
>>Why is it so difficult for millions upon millions of Americans to understand?
Here’s an explanation. Not a defense necessarily, but an explanation:
Guns just don’t play a role in the daily lives of most Americans. Most Americans feel secure. Most have never had to defend themselves with a gun. Most have faith that we can accomplish change and preserve our liberty with ballots, not bullets. As much as I detest the Obama administration, I don’t foresee federal agents hauling me away for posting at Pajamas Media.
The problem is, most Americans ask, “Why would you want to have a gun?” I think the key question is, “Why would the government want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens?” When you get to thinking about that question, the answer can only throw a chill over you.
the guns kill mantra has permeated their souls.
they find it easier to blame a hunk of metal for a death since it can’t actively defend itself against the allegations.
its harder to blame a human since they can claim all sorts of societal issues that made them kill thereby making people feel guilty for placing them in that situation.
people who think like this are many, and they are mentally weak.
they disgust me.
That this discussion, and others like it over the years, are occurring, tells you all you need to know.
If we were free, we wouldn’t be having discussions and arguments like this.
The government tells us that we are free, and we, in turn, spout the government’s propaganda, ‘We’re the free-est nation on earth!” At the same time, we make such declarations, we are subject to laws and regulations on every side, that restrict everythingw do and everything we say.
The fact that we are having such discussions and arguments tells you that we are not free men, at all.
Excellent article! The problem I have with most analysis on the blogs is that they always focus on noting the problems. Solutions? Not so much. All you have to do is review ALL the major riots in almost every country in the last 30 years and you see people complaining about the State using deadly force against the populace. If that were on video it would be discernable who was at fault but then the state would be subject to citizen review and analysis. No such luck. Isn’t it really time that the state be under OUR review? “Communicators” on all police! Ubiquitous video of state actions!
I believe that what Holder’s doing will explode in the administations face. In a sick kind of way, this whole “gunwalker” scenario is good. Good in that it will bring to light several issues that capture the attention of everyday Americans.
Gunwalker should go a lot further in undermining liberal credibility than it should in ultimately threaghtening 2nd amendment issues. I’m glad Holder is stupid. If he weren’t then we would be in much deeper trouble than we are now.
Arrogance seems to breed carelessnous. On Holders part, this will end up biting him hard. The whole issue is now (finally) starting to get some traction. I happened to overhear a conversation last Friday between two liberal”ish” women. They were upset that Holder would do something so “stupid” as to bring discredit to the liberal agenda. While I was sorely tempted to engage myself into the conversation, I thought it would, in the end, be a waste of time.
I predict that Holder will be ran out of office over this. I also predict that Obama’s accolytes will fall on their own swords before Obama becomes personally connected. To bad. The real prize however will be that Americans will be given a crystal clear and relevant example of corruption at work in this country. This will produce more than simple outrage. This is good.
I took an oath as a young man (over 30 years ago) to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”…I believe Obama and Holder (and much of the Democratic party) represent “domestic enemies”. I shall act accordingly.
The 2nd is the only thing that has teeth in it in our Constitutional Republic.
The tyrants among us understand this crystal clear.
Why is it so difficult for millions upon millions of Americans to understand?
It is going to, incredibly unfortunately, come down to 3% of Americans who will stand their ground and not back up, not back down, even if it means their lives, to defend the patch of ground beneath their feet, while the remainder of America either does not care, or has its collective finger in the wind, or cooperate willingly with what is unquestionably a tyrannical federal government and its lickspittles. It happened this way during our nations founding against the tyranny of King George.
Only 3 percent chose to defend what is God given unalienable fundamental Liberty to freedom.
In the larger scope of things to come 2012, lets hope a true leader of We The People, and I contend it is Sarah Palin, inspires and leads us to redress through peaceful positive means. It can be done, it was in our founding time.
I for one dread the specter of armed redress. It is fraught with disaster, it is a dirty nasty ugly business. nothing romantic in it, only the outcome if lawful armed redress is successful. It will cost the fortunes and lives of many. But it needs to be said, if it comes to it, as Patrick Henry said it so succinctly, that he knew not what others would do, but for him he “chose Liberty or Death”. Rightfully so. I’d add this caveat: I’ll be damned if I am going to allow others to fight and die for my Liberty.
What say you?
The government leaders responsible for the tragic mistakes of Operation Fast and Furious have a lot of explaining to do before Congress.
Operation Fast and Furious did not involve tragic mistakes. It was a series of deliberate and intentional actions taken by college educated members of the federal government who did exactly what they meant to do.
If they had meant to hit a Pinata while blindfolded but instead let guns slip across the border while they weren’t watching – that would have been a mistake.
It *actually* comes down to this: *who* decides on the value of a man’s life?
The man in question, or the State?
And when there should be fundamental disagreement on the matter, especially when the individual places value upon his life greater than the State’s estimation, there is no one to which to make an appeal, and the result can not be distinguished from a State of Nature.
The only remedy at that point is the remedy of the State of Nature, for the free man to assert his own value, enforcing it as best he can through whatever means he has available, be it persuasion, guile, stealth, deceit or even force.
The alternative is to yield unto another your very life, which is to be complicit in the most fundamental theft of all.
This comes around full circle to all things, even economics. In the words of another: If someone asserts I have a duty to pay for their healthcare, why not also to pick their cotton?
It is in this light that John Galt’s oath begins to make sense: “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”
There are three realms of Law: Moral Law or God’s Law, Natural Law and Civil Law. Each of these realms are separate but overlap and influence each other, but the basis of each realm cannot be overlooked. Moral Law is that law which instructs us on what is moral for oneself and the treatment of others, and is only recognized by the conscious, civil mind once it develops to that point that society can exist. Society comes from Nature’s Law in that when we marry and agree to set aside our negative natural rights and liberty to use them for the welfare of those we love, we then create a new law: Law of Nations. Civil Law is guided by our understanding of the need to restrict our Natural rights and liberties and act in accordance with Moral Law towards those we love and our fellow man.
These three, prime distinctions would come about in the wake of the Great Peace of Westphalia and understanding that Moral Law is to be determined by the individual, not mandated by the State. This separation for each man to decide on his own set the stage for the understanding that our liberties and rights are born within us, to be used by us and that we are to use our Natural rights and liberties to form civil society. Government is a mere organ of society, and it is neither the brains nor the heart, but much closer to the digestive tract to clear out the unwanted parts of society while keeping society as a whole safe.
This is not new material. You can find Samuel Pufendorf’s work On the Duty of Man and Citizen (1673) that takes an individual step-by-step through the Duties and Obligations of a Man to Moral Law, Natural Law and Civil Law and what the bounds and restraints are of each domain. When we forget that then we find that society decays as one holds more sway, and then begins to collapse society due to its burden, thus leaving Man with Natural Law alone as his only recourse to restart civilization and find, anew, the basis for these things which are self-evident in our nature.
“An armed society is a polite society.” Robert Heinlein
The British have a long-standing tradition of disarming populations in order to suppress rebellion, ensure compliance and destroy all possibility of resistence. The complete disarmament of Scotland in 1746 is just one example.
Readers here know more about this than I do, but I have no doubt this history played no small part in solidying our Founders’ commitment to ensure the rights of American citizens to bear arms.
“[T]o destroy the enemy means to disarm him or ‘deprive him of the power to resist,’ and does not mean to destroy every member of his forces physically.” Mao Tse-Tung
The right to self defense shall not be infringed.
That’s actually “a step further down the road” than we need to go. Ask rather: Does an individual possess any rights of any nature whatsoever?
A right is meaningless if the holder is forbidden to defend that right. For example, if you have the “right to life,” but lack any right to defend your life with force against someone who would take it from you, your “right to life” is empty. If you have a “right to your property,” but are forbidden to use force to defend your property against a thief, your “right to your property” is empty.
All rights, without exception, are rights to use force, which is why assertions of a “right to a living wage,” or a “right to decent housing,” are completely inconsistent with the Lockean rights to one’s life, liberty, and honestly acuired property. And a right to use force necessarily implies the right to the means required to do so.
Francis: The heart of the swindle is not so much that the holder of any putative right is forbidden to defend the right, but rather, is *required* to delegate the defense of the right to the State for its arbitration and enforcement, rather than act immediately on his own behalf.
I sense a business opportunity: Home Defense Insurance. Sign up with our new firm, in advance of a home break in, and in the unfortunate event that you should off the offender, we will help. Our expert team will remove and dispose of any awkward evidence and sweep the scene clean. That is, we will remove the body and all traces of their ever being there. (For an extra charge, we can remove all traces of their existence: birth certificate, dole card, the whole works.) No need to call the coppers. We would strongly encourage you to call promptly, and finish off all unwelcome intruders. If one should get away, that could be problematic. However, our portable pressurized device will cook the body at high temperatures in a caustic solution. What is left will look like fine sand, and will easily flow down the drain. No fuss, no muss.
You must sign up in advance, so we can screen your character. We don’t want any mushy informants. We’ll know how to deal with them as well.
Where do I go to sign up? You didn’t supply a link!
Ha!
Where do i sign up for a franchise?
“claiming that the victim of Avila’s crime was “society in general” rather than any particular persons…”
Not that the murdered man, agent Brian Terry, was even a particular person to this administration. But that was your point. In a statist society there are no particular persons whose lives are important, only the state, and those who are important to the state.
This is what left/libtards mean by “social justice”… even though the state serves no purpose except to defend the country. They want the state for their own purpose– self-gratification of their desire for power in order to feel good abou themselves for once in their miserbale lives.
“Each man’s worth is measured solely by his utility to the state, and as such the value of his life rides a roller coaster not unlike the stock market: dependent not only upon the preferences of the party in power but upon the whims of its political leaders and the permanent bureaucratic class. The proof of this analysis surrounds us.”
This is the foundation of a socialist or a communist nation.
This is the system under which we have lived for nearly one hundred years.
Most people have yet to admit to the problem. This why people experience so much frustration with current ly offered ‘solutions’ to our problems. Oftenm they deny reality and simply reject any valid, sustainable and permanent, solution.
If you will not recognise and identify the problem, you will never find a solution. If you refuse to recognise the problem, you will always reject the right solution.
You will keep doing the same things, over and over again, while expecting different results.
“You will keep doing the same things, over and over again, while expecting different results.”
Just look at Bonesteel. He’s spent years online demonstrating just this practice.
I’ve had more impact thany ou might think…
Among Conservatives and Republicans, that success has not been as limited as you might think.
Info Ops. Propaganda. Memetic Engineering and memeplexes. KLeeping well in mind that most of the theorists in those disciplines have little, real world experience.
All it takes is a whisper…or a blog comment in just the right place, at just the right time. An email, or a phone call, designed specifically for that target, at just the right time and in just the right place.
The next thing you know, you’ve got a T.E.A. Party…or even an Arab ‘Spring.’
In order to put it in the most basic perspective, the question of our Liberty would not be in such serious doubt, threatened by such a conscious effort to supplant The Rule of Law, with rule of men, if from the president on down, everyone involved in abrogating their oaths of office to God and country, every one of these traitors and tyrants, did not in effect wipe their arses with the Constitution of The United States every day.
Over 150 law enforcement officers of both Mexico and the United States have been murdered with the guns that Obama and Holder unleashed against these men; where is justice when its called for? Was this a “false flag” attack on the Constitution, with all the players involved haters of the 2nd Amendment you would certainly think so, they can deny it but the facts unfolding are proving differently. We have communists, progressives or what is now called Democrats in high places in this present ‘regime’ and they have little regard to the laws of this country, they lie, cheat, steal and extort with impunity it seems but there is a comeuppance in store for them, murder by illegal contrivance of law, of complicity in a felony leading to murder or a conspiracy against the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution; just who do these Democrat apparatchiks think they are?
Gods
How did western countries ever get to the point where they no longer have any idea of what is right and what is wrong? It used to be that anyone who invades another’s property, especially while armed, is the perpetrator and was dealt with as such. Now the property owner can be sued or jailed as the perpetrator should the invader be harmed or killed.
There is a big difference between murder and killing. The DOJ made it simple for drug cartel members to murder Agent Terry. There could have been more. There was a complete lack of morality or follow-through thinking when this failed sting operation was promoted.
We have people who scarcely know one gun from another or the business end from the other running these ops. It’s enough to make strong men weep.
>>The Obama administration is, to put it mildly, in a panic over the fallout and potential damage to Mr. Obama of Gunwalker.
I’d like to think so, but I wouldn’t go that far. All the actions and outcomes that you speak of, Mr. McDaniel, as well as others of any material consequence, have yet to take place:
1 – the NRA and NSSF lawsuits against the DoJ
2 – the Terry family’s wrongful death suit
3 – the appointment of a special prosecutor
4 – impeachment
5 – prosecution
I think the Obama administration believes, perhaps with some justification, that it can avoid or beat all of these.
I love gunners. The Government uses the Drug War against you (same as Alcohol Prohibition) and you guys fail to notice. Say. Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment anyway? Something I have failed to notice.
Hey, M. Simon,
“The Government uses the Drug War against you (same as Alcohol Prohibition) and you guys fail to notice.”
I’m over here and I’m not alone. The prohibition makes the money that fuels the need for drug dealers to protect their markets and collect their debts.
Sadly it may be too late for the repeal of Prohibition to defund these organizations. They’re already armed and they would use violence against any competitor, lawful or not, to protect their markets. Did the Cosa Nostra “fade away” when alcohol prohibition was repealed?
The present Administration is also quite content to keep the War on Drugs in place, it gives them powers to snoop, seize, detain, inspect, draw bodily fluids, and so forth.
We will have a 30 to 50 year hangover to be sure. As soon as we stop.
And this was a comment. Some gunners get it. Those that do should raise their voices.
This movie (free on the I’net) may help:
Guns And Weed – The Road To Freedom
I’m traveling to the UK on a business trip next Sunday. My wife is accompanying me. While I’m there to work, we do intend to take in the local sights as much as we can, including a weekend in London.
I’m never one to go looking for trouble. However, should someone attack me or my wife, I will defend myself to the best of my ability. If they want to arrest me for defending myself, well the old saying “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6″ comes to mind.
How can any country that prosecutes people for self-defense consider itself civilized? They’re elevating the rights of the thugs above the rights of the law-abiding. If they can’t at least try to maintain law and order, then what justification is there for a government in the first place?
But “all violence is wrong” and must be punished like left/libtards favor in school (of course punishing self-defense doesn’t work in school either and all folk there want is order… if the picked-on roll-over and quit, then it’s as good as the bully not attacking in the first place– the bully-ruled peace is just as good as any other for administrators, they have less trouble to deal with and can focus upon their careers).
I have been mulling over this Fast and Furious – Gun running – Weapon walking – Law breaking – crime spree of Holder and his Justice gang . One of many I know – but the coverage of this particular spree is heinous in its lack of coverage.
I wonder how the News Media would handle a rash of Justice Department Lawyers all beaten to death with oak cudgels – cudgels fashioned and carved in Canada – then smuggled across the border and distributed from honey moon gift shops in Niagara Falls – NY!
The so called original intent of operation ‘Slow and Ponderous’ was to get a headcount on corrupt – newly wedded drug kingpins.
The program was really aimed at doing away with Arbor Day and replacing it with a ‘Eric Himpton Holder Day !
After the raid on the Justice Department by the ‘Oaken Pummelers’ – the name of the day was changed to ’Remembering Eric Himpton Holder Day’- what a concept!!!
Edmund Burke, I agree with you sentiments; but impeachment isn’t removal from office. We don’t, as far as I know, have a legal method to actually oust a sitting executive from office.
How unfortunate.
This executive should be removed from office, and tried for conspiracy to commit murder, as should any government official who was involved in the conspiracy. With any luck, they’d be extradited to and tried in either Florida, Texas or Arizona…
“We don’t, as far as I know, have a legal method to actually oust a sitting executive from office.”
Impeachment and conviction. Read the fricking Constitution:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Impeachment is insufficient, which is why Clinton wasn’t removed from office. You need to impeach AND convict.
I and several million of my fellow Minnesotans have contracted an entity called “Blue Cross” to defend our lives. The right to do this is about to be taken away. The Second Amendment isn’t the only front in this battle.
This is why Reno should have been prosecuted for her criminal behavior when Bush took over, but that was never likely, especially when Jamie Garelick and her document stealing buddy were appointed to the 9/11 commission. Talk about stuck on stupid! Another reason never to listen to Karl Rove, et al, ever again. They’re so busy scratching each others’ backs, they can’t be bothered defending us from their ilk. What will Holder have to do to get a fighting response from the RINOs? I’m afraid nothing. He has set in motion a criminal enterprise using government resourches and power, resulting in a bunch of deaths. He should go to jail over this, not just lose his job. Somehow, though, I see him with a nice, fat paycheck for a job he never goes to, just like the rest.
And no more Bushes! Sorry, Jed.
One thing we share with the other animals in our kingdom is that our instincts boil down to one biological imperative: survival. Of the individual, of the group, of the species. The self-defense instinct can be overpowered by what most would consider a higher instinct (the parent who will sacrifice his own life for his child’s; the soldier who sacrifices self for his comrades), but it’s nevertheless still all about survival.
Even the suggestion that we have no right to defend ourselves and those near and dear to us is absurd on its face. It’s anti-Creator and it’s positively anti-Darwin. This business in GB defies any concept of logic, common sense or morality. I can’t even fathom the kind of mind that would require the individual to subjugate his own survival to some statist notion of relative value. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.
Holder LIED, people DIED!
You’ll remember a few weeks back Holder told a Congressional committee investigating Fast and Furious the first time he heard anything about Gunrunner was ‘in the press a few weeks back’.
He LIED. Here’s the headline, followed by link:
Holder bragged about Operation Gunrunner in 2009
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/holder-bragged-about-operation-gunrunner-2009
As suggestive as this clip is, it’s not the “smoking gun” we would like to find. It does indeed prove that operation Gunrunner was common knowledge. No surprise there as Gunrunner started under Holder’s predecessor and Bush. It was later under Tje current administration that Fast and Furious evolved into its deadly illegal phase from a legit beginning.
Keep digging Issa. We’re counting on you and the whistleblowers.
Gunrunner – we need to take down all official players!
Per DHS transcript of 3/24/09:
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1237930080517.shtm
Obama, Holder, Napolitano and Clinton were all quite complicit.
Any time programs have the potential of spending $3 Billion 740 Million of taxpayers dollar$, signatures at very high levels are required. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
This has the ability to make Watergate look like a very minor incident, this one needs to be handled properly.
Decades ago there was a bestseller called A Covenant with Death. In it a man is wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to death. On his way to the gallows he struggles to free himself and knocks the hangman off the scaffold killing him. The real murderer who is present at the hanging confesses and the man’s conviction is overturned but then he’s put on trial for the hangman’s murder. The judge rules that the wrongly condemned man had the right to fight for his life and survival and dismisses the case. The story was told from the judge’s point of view and, as I recall, was a really good read with a lot of interesting legal argument.
I’m also reminded of the Amistad case in which SCOTUS ruled the Africans had been illegally kidnapped and were within their rights to use force to escape.
Right is right.
As much as it pains me to defend an obamanoid, I must point out the following…
If the Terry family are granted legal status of victim of the straw-buyer, where does the precedent take us?
If “A” steals a gun, sells it to “B”, and it’s subsequently sold on to “C, D, E & F” who eventually uses it to shoot “G”, is “G” a victim of “A”? This is, in essence, what’s being claimed here.
This would set an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent IMHO, *ESPECIALLY* considering that in THIS case “G” was acting in an official .gov capacity at the time of his murder.
Nobody would deny that MORALLY-speaking the Terry family are victims, but I believe the right LEGAL decision was made in this case.
$0.02…
DD
The straw-buyer isn’t the target. The government is.
They could have stopped the straw-buyer before they lost track of the gun in Mexico, but they purposefully didn’t. That’s willful negligence, and should be punished.
Holder, et. al. were accessories to a crime that resulted in deaths. They should be up on felony murder charges, at the minimum.
Dear Dedicated_Dad:
Laws relating to victim’s assistance are commonly broadly written because it’s obvious that the victims of the most serious crimes may not be around to receive their benefit. Therefore, it’s very common for family members of a deceased victim to be able to receive this status, indeed, most such laws are written to anticipate just that; they recognize the harm that the loss of loved ones to criminals will have on their survivors. We have conspiracy and aiding and abetting laws because we recognize that just because someone didn’t actually pull the trigger does not mean others don’t bear responsibility, nor are there fewer victims or their survivors left behind.
You are correct in that the straw purchaser was several levels removed from the people who pulled the triggers, but in this case, the Federal Government is also culpable, and my suspicion is that they are deny victim status to the Terry family not to make the correct legal decision, but to silence them and avoid more damaging questions and publicity.
Thanks for your 2 cents!
An excellent article!
Someone might suggest to Burke that he give Mike Nifong (Durham DA during the Duke Lacrosse debacle) a call. This kind of malfeasance can produce serious career damage. Nifong can help him.
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”
How about women and children?
A not-unreasonable question. But I believe we have progressed.
btw, y’all noticed that Sean Hannity did an hour-long special on Operation F&F on Friday night, right? A little more noise and the LSM is going to have to start answering. Fun’s around the corner . . .
Hard to believe that CBS actually broke the F&F scandal. They have done a decent job, all things being equal.
Yes. The ever-returning natural law. This is the heart of the matter.
I personally would rephrase the title to be “Gunwalker and the Corruption of Liberty”. Because Gunwalker is only one of the symptoms of the corruption inherent in the District of Criminals. Those of you who disagree with the concept and right of self-defense, speak up now and we can place you on the front lines to feed the hunger of those who use violence routinely. What, no volunteers? This, by the way, is why political speech from the pulpit has been encumbered by government, because they do not want anyone seeing the moralities . . . .
I fully agree that any politico that does not fully beleive in 2nd amendment freedoms is not fit to govern. However being sound on the 2nd amendment is not enough by itself. Far too many dems have learned to give up on their 2nd amendment hostility for political advantage, while continuing to screw us on other issues. That is one reason why I am incensed that the NRA endorses politicians like Harry Reid. They should not just have a 2nd amendment litmus test, but should consider the politicians stance on all freedoms. Anybody who is wrong on the 2nd amendment, should be opposed by the NRA, but being right on that issue, but still wrong on most other freedom issues, should not be enough for an NRA endorsement, especially if their opponent is right on the 2nd amendment, and also right on other freedom issues.
This statement is particularly interesting to me; “…which clearly indicate that the basis for gun walking was a political desire for restrictive gun control policies unattainable through the legislative process…”
I’ve been thinking about this idea quite often as of late.