Wives were threats. Girlfriends were threats. Women who talked too much were threats. And women who held public office and wouldn't shut up were the scourge of the land.Joan Burbick is so impressed with her own ignorance, she's positively authoritative about it.
To believe her, you must believe that men who wish to see you armed and trained think it will make you easier to beat. And as for rock salt being a superior home defense weapon than maneuverable military pattern firearms, I guess the foremost experts in the world--the guys who defend the world's most famous house*--need to reassess their choices.
There's no recognition that sometimes false charges are vindictively filed, no indignation over denial of rights without establishment of guilt, no admission that, sometimes, it is the women who find themselves legally restrained and disabled for life--over incidents as trivial as tearing a pocket, or throwing down some keys.
And for the record, Ashcroft's Justice Department, through Solicitor General Ted Olson, filed a brief defending the disarmament statute:
ROBERT COTTROL: Well, the Justice Department is charged with enforcing the law, which includes defending the constitutionality of federal statutes. You have the Emerson case in the 5th circuit where the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that although the second amount is an individual right, that it is nonetheless reasonable regulation to prevent individuals who are under a restraining order because of domestic violence issues from owning guns. Dr. Emerson, who was the defendant in the case, is appealing that to the Supreme Court and it is, of course, up to the federal government to defend the statute.
The position of this Administration is that of the 5th Circuit, namely that the law is constitutional, because although this Administration supports the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, it sees the statute as reasonable regulation. So this is within the normal processes of the Justice Department defending a federal statute.
UPDATE: Oh lookee--gun ownership is also "a white male political power play."
BuzzFlash said it, I believe it, that settles it.
I think Joan the Authority has some hostility issues.
-------------------
[*I got the White House example from Ed Monk]
5 comments:
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed.
in·fringe
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
You can plainly see that there is NO Constitutionally legal way to enact 'laws'. It is made crystal by use of 'SHALL NOT'.
The government was STRICTLY forbidden from enacting ANY laws that contravene the right.
In reality what gov. has done is use perverse forced misconstructions to negate a God-given, Pre-existent and Natural Right. As pointed out by this knowledgeable gentlemen:
"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."
- James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792
(Signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice).
Mr. Wilson has some impressive credentials, yes?
The reason that government has got away with it, is because of the fear of the people. They have become masters of fear by playing on the emotions of the people. And the people have readily lapped up all the tyrannical measures supposedly enacted for 'safety'.
I actually wasted my time reading that Buzzflash interview. (Buzzflash is run by the same guy who brought us "GunGuys.com")
She wonders why they wouldn't let her in? Maybe because they could tell she was pre-destined to write a book about "white male power plays."
The guard should have said, "You are a reporter. Therefore, you are the enemy."
"And to me, that’s a form of mimicking political action. One is left only with a gun in one’s closet. One has not changed or affected the government at all. -- Joan Burbick"
Purchasing a gun is a genuine political act, specifically the exercise of the Second
Amendment right to do so. A gun in the closet is a threat to the government's absolute authority - that's why the government finds it so irksome that they want to do away with it.
Joan's self-serving psychobabble is nonsense.
Out of all the anti-gun stuff I have read in my short lifetime on earth so far, this has to be absolutely the worst piece of garbage I ever had the misfortune of reading.
"The symbolic meaning of owning a gun is to reclaim political power, demonize minorities, distort the issue of crime in America, and distract Americans from the real issues of democracy"
- Hmmm. I really do not care about politics outside the 2nd amendment ; someone being in LA mugged is still someone being mugged in LA regardless of whether I am armed or not ; I do not see how selling firearms to a demonized minority like myself furthers the "idea of a a white male political power play" agenda ; and we SO need to get back to IMPORTANT issues of democracy like the Mark Foley scandal.
Post a Comment