December 19, 2012 - 12:41 am
- Benghazi’s Back — Sort Of, by Roger L Simon. The elephant is still very much in the room: Who told Susan Rice to lie about these events and why did they do it?
- Air Marshals, Armed Teachers, and Gun-Free Zones: Are You Consistent? By David Steinberg. Most of the U.S. supports the air marshal program, fewer support “school marshals.” Is this rational?
- The Assault Weapons Ban: How Silly Was It? By Bob Owens. Revisiting the comically incompetent law which President Obama wishes to reinstate.
- Power Hungry: Teachers’ Union Wants To Administer Standardized Teachers’ Test, by Mike McDaniel. Cloaking a union power grab in the conservative language of “accountability.”
- Food, Manners and Unrequited Love: What Every Visitor to Israel Needs to Know, by Kathy Shaidle. Prepare to gain a few pounds when you visit Israel. And don’t be surprised that “Palestinian” “refugees” live in houses bigger than yours.
- Obama Reelected, Women, Minorities, ‘Progressive’ Talk Radio Hardest Hit, by Ed Driscoll. Ad revenues are down on lefty stations, leading to at least one closure. For profit-hating OWS-types, that’s all good news, right?
- A Premium Rush of New Blu-Ray and DVD Releases Leads Final Week Before Christmas by Jonathan Sanders. With the music industry already on vacation, DVDs pick up the slack. Plus: Great holiday gifts for the last-minute shopper.
As a general comment on the current gun-control craze–as a general principle, rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not depend on whether or not someone else sees a need for them; they simply exist as fundamental givens. Negation of the right must come through the amendment process, and that alone. Therefore, Chuck Schumer’s or anyone else’s opinion regarding anyone’s “need” for this or that is irrelevant, for the blunt fact is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it is clear by the context, as well as the entire two hundred years of English history previous to adoption of the Second Amendment, that they may–and should–be military-grade arms. Thus, the argument is not what may be banned–you can’t–but what measures may be put into place for *reasonable* assurances regarding the conduct of those possessing them, on an *individual* basis, not a mass basis. One cannot deny free speech to all because of libel by a few. So it is with the Second amendment.
The Second Amendment is this: you *cannot* prevent the peope from keeping and bearing military-grade arms, you may only impose–if you choose–some reasonable organization via the militia. But you cannot ban. You must allow the *keeping* and *bearing*. Of arms. Military-grade arms. Period. You have no other choice, and if you wish one, I refer one to the amendment process.
As a codicil–it is already known how often military and police departments undergo weapons qualification trainng, currently. Attempts to get around personal ownership (“keep”, “bear”) of military-grade arms by the yeomen citizenry via onerous restrictions simply aren’t going to cut it. What the police have, the people will have. Some states will be more, others less, restrictive.
But it cannot be prevented. This is a legitimate grounds, though one I do not propose action upon.