listen here

Patriot Broadcast From the Trenches Schedule 

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny

Prepper Podcast Radio Network – by James Smith

“‎Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

– John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address: Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, Feb. 1st 1867


The events in Newton, CT has led to a cacophony of cries begging for the elimination of firearms within the United States. Gun control, they believe, will stop mass murders and make their streets safer. Sadly, on the exact same day, a deranged man in China killed 22 children with a knife. That is two more than Adam Lanza killed with a firearm. Over 2000 children a day are killed in the United States by abortion. And there is no outcry by the media to stop that.

But do those that demand “safe streets” have any hope in removing firearms from the hands of the average citizen. Never mind the number of laws, written on paper, that Lanza broke on that fateful day.

Actually, they don’t. You see there is something called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that protects gun ownership. In the case of Heller vs. DC, an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, “the Court held that the right to own a gun is not connected with service in a militia; rather, it is a personal right to own a firearm for “traditionally lawful purposes” such as self-defense within the home.”

Let us substitute one legal object with another, and see how that fared almost 80 years ago.

Alcohol.

It was a legal substance that could be bought and sold according to the free market principles. It was taxed and generated revenue for local and state governments.

And then came the 18th Amendment, sometimes known as the Volstead Act, after decades of work by the Temperance groups. It stated that:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The ramifications of passing such a Constitutional Amendment was devastating. Wikipedia states it the best:

Following the 18th Amendment’s adoption, prohibition effectively resulted in a public demand for illegal alcohol, making criminals of producers and consumers. The criminal justice system was swamped although police forces and courts had expanded in recent years. Prisons were jam-packed and court dockets were behind in trying to deal with the rapid surge in crimes. Organized crime expanded to deal with the lucrative business, and there was widespread corruption among those charged with enforcing unpopular laws.[9]

Court cases challenged the enforcement of the 18th Amendment as violations of rights guaranteed under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The 21st Amendment was passed a few years later, restoring the right to manufacture, posses, and sell alcohol.

This highlights two things:

  1. It requires a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the possession of lawful object at the Federal Level
  2. Good intentions can have devastating results.

Now let’s change not the object, but the Constitutional Right that people should repeal. Let change it to the First Amendment – in particular, the Freedom of the Press.

It is frequently the talking heads on TV that demand gun control. The reporters on the street find people to ask their opinion. If they find a person who supports the 2nd Amendment, are you sure that person was put on the air to express their opinion, or only those that support the reporter’s (allegedly neutral) beliefs in gun control?

The Media should be aware that the product they put forth is a weapon. If the media was not such a great tool at behavior control, why did Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and others use it to advance their ideals to the masses? Interestingly, those tyrants that demanded gun control also held an iron fist over the media.

Consider the following:

The media should only be those that have passed courses in Neutrality, agree to avoid hyperbole, similes, metaphors, and adjectives. They must only state the facts and never an opinion. Further, the Media should be licensed and controlled by the State. Should the fail in the above conditions, they could be banned from reporting any news for life.

Is this concept wrong? As once pointed out by .” Edmund Burke (January 12, 1729 – July 9, 1797) was a statesman who is often regarded as the father of modern conservatism in a letter to Richard Burke:

A very great part of the mischiefs that vex the world arises from words.

The media is keen to point out how a firearm was misused, but are shy to report on their own criminal acts.

One of my favorite journalist, Matt Drudge, quoted in 1998 during the Press Club Dinner. From the Speech:

“Well, that’s a good question. … One of my competitors is Salon Magazine Online, which I understand is the president’s favorite website. And there’s a reporter there, Jonathan Broder. He was fired for plagiarism from the Chicago Tribune. And I read that in the Weekly Standard. But do I believe it? Because, as much as I love the Weekly Standard, they have had to settle a big one with Deepak Chopra, if I recall. I heard that from CNN. But hold on. Didn’t CNN have the little problem with Richard Jewell? I think Tom Brokaw told me that, and then I think Tom Brokaw also had to settle with Richard Jewell. I read that in the Wall Street Journal. But didn’t the Wall Street Journal just lose a huge libel case down in Texas, a record … $200 million? I tell you, it’s creative enough for an in-depth piece in the New Republic. But I fear people would think it was made up.”

Other such “evil acts” have been done at the hands of “qualified” journalists exercising poor judgment with their First Amendment Rights”

  • In 1999, writer and television commentator Monica Crowley allegedly plagiarized part of an article she wrote for the Wall Street Journal (August 9, 1999), called “The Day Nixon Said Goodbye.”
  • New York Times reporter Jayson Blair plagiarized articles and manufactured quotations in stories, including stories regarding Jessica Lynch and the Beltway sniper attacks.
  • Long-time Baltimore Sun columnist Michael Olesker resigned on January 4, 2006, after being accused of plagiarizing other journalists’ articles in his columns.
  • Boston Globe columnist Mike Barnicle was forced to resign when it was revealed that amid other allegations, his Globe column dated August 2, 1998 contained ten passages lifted from Brain Droppings, a book published in 1997 by George Carlin.
  • In an October 2007 column for The Sun-Herald, Australian television presenter David Koch plagiarized verbatim three lines from a column in The Sunday Telegraph. Koch stated to Media Watch: “… it has since been pointed out to me that these 3 sentences look as though they came from a similar story in another newspaper. While that was not obvious in the research brief it isn’t an excuse and I take full responsibility for the mistake.”
  • In August 2008, Slate Magazine’s music critic Jody Rosen accused The Bulletin, an alternative weekly published in Texas, of numerous instances of plagiarism.
  • In May 2009, Maureen Dowd was accused of copying an entire sentence from a Talking Points Memo blog.
  • In 2012, it was reported that Jonah Lehrer self-plagiarized several works he submitted to The New Yorker.

So clearly, we should eliminate the Freedom of the Press because they can’t stop themselves from damaging the reputations or from stealing content from of others. So let’s go back to the issue at hand: Gun Control

Burke also pointed out some very important aspects of laws and tyranny:

  • Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. Speech at Bristol Previous to the Election (06 September 1780).
  • The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Speech at a County Meeting of Buckinghamshire (1784).
  • The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny. Letter to Thomas Mercer

Christiaan Neethling Barnard (8 November 1922 – 2 September 2001)

The problem with gun control is very simple: It’s not the gun that is at fault, it is the person. Evil is as evil does. Give a madman a scalpel and you have Jack the Ripper. Give it Dr. Christaan Barnard and you have the first human heart transplant.

Take four people: Fireman, Police Officer, a drug addict, and an ex-con. Can you spot the evil one? Has the Police Officer been suspended for excessive force for beating a man with a baton and “slammed” his head into the ground, or did the firefighter set four buildings on fire? Perhaps the ones we think are “evil” such as the drug addict, who failed to cope after her husband died in the 9/11 attack and turned to drugs. The ex-con, such as Charles S. Dutton can change and do good

Guns come in many different “flavors”. They are like spoons. You have teaspoons and tablespoons. You have spoons for your jam, spoons for your gravy, spoons for your soup, spoons for mixing and stirring, and spoons to rest your mixing spoon on your stove.

Guns are like that.

You have handguns that are either semi-automatic or revolver. Then there are long guns such as a hunting rifle or shotgun. And then comes the tactically fancy-shmancy looking “assault rifle” like the AR-15 that is truly a long gun but has the cosmetic appearance of a true assault rifle, like the AK-47. It is against the law for any firearm to be fully automatic, unless you have a license from the Federal Government to possess a fully automatic weapon. Each weapon has it’s own particular use. A handgun is for personal protection. A long gun is for hunting. An assault weapon is what helps protect us from Tyranny.

Tyranny? Of course. The 1984 movie “Red Dawn” to some people’s opinion is about government tyranny. And that includes the writer, John Milius. When Milius was interviewed about the movie, Milius says, “People ask, ‘What’s that movie about?’ And I say that movie’s not about the Russians; it’s about the federal government.”

There is a scene in that movie that should scare every American. The scene in the movie is the one where the Cuban leader of the enemy forces orders his men to go to local sporting goods stores to take all the Form 4473s so that they can confiscate all legally purchased firearms from the citizens.

Given Mr. Obama’s track record, would you expect anything less?

So Media, if you want to take the guns from honest people, fine. But remember this: You said nothing when our Constitutional Rights were violated. We can’t protect you when they come to take away your rights.

Find this at Prepper Podcast Radio Network Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny | Prepper Podcast Radio Network http://www.prepperpodcast.com/bad-laws-worst-sort-tyranny/#ixzz2GAvyj7XL
Follow us: @Prepperpodcast on Twitter

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
1484
Don't forget to answer the Security Question before you post comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What is 15 + 3 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)