2009 – Page 62 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Media to Gun Owners: Lighten Up

Because heavens forbid we take the Bill of Rights seriously, and all. Â In this case they are complaining because pressure got Mayor Tautznik to leave the organization, on the premise that it’s not really a local issue, and not something he really wanted to focus on. He couldn’t be more right. How would Masslive feel if we were to redo this issue in a First Amendment context rather than a Second Amendment context?

Mayor Against Illegal Speech support the First Amendment rights of Americans, and is only against illegal speech, like libel,child pornography and and spam. To that end, they propose modest restrictions on the number of e-mails people may send in any given month, in order to combat spam. Â Background checks on allowing people to buy computers and digital camera equipment at public shows to ensure they don’t fall into the hands of peddlers in child porn. Naturally, we need a code of conduct for vendors who sell internet service, to ensure that they keep records on what their customers are downloading.

What we also need is for the government to keep a secret list of people suspected of being child abusers. Those people should not be able to buy internet service or computers. Too bad for the folks who happen to share a first name with someone who’s suspected to be a child abuser, or got himself on the list for hanging around public parks too much looking “creepy.”

MAIS also supports identifying information being placed in every packet of data transmitted on the internet, so that government agents can easily track information back to the source. MAIS is also very much against laws that make it easy to transport computer equipment across state lines, and sensibly rejects laws that override local laws on obscene materials.

Does the media still want to argue that we need to “lighten up?” Â Does it seem clearer now how an issue no one supports, in our case criminals getting guns, and in the First Amendment analogy, spammers and child pornographers, can be used to sell a sinister agenda for weakening an important constitutional right? Â If First Amendment advocates were combating our fictional MAIS group, would they need to be told to “lighten up?”

MAIG Media Campaign Hits Texas

Richard Ward, the Mayor of Hurst, Texas, wants everyone to know that he’s an NRA member, and a proud member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. In it, we see familiar language:

Unfortunately, the NRA has spent the past month attempting to bully mayors, including me, to drop out of this effort to have a consensus discussion about guns. They have sent hundreds of thousands of misleading postcards stating this coalition is “anti-gun” and is seeking to “regulate gun shows out of existence,” along with several other untruths and misleading statements.

Where have we heard that before? Unfortunately, not all these mayors are going to see the light and bow out gracefully. Many of them will need to be forced to leave MAIG by forcing them to leave office. I wouldn’t worry too much about getting a pro-gun activist mayor to replace your MIAG loving incumbent — really all we need is someone who agrees to leave the issue alone. Because of preemption in most states, guns are not generally a local issue. In fact, I would consider using that against the mayor. Find local issues people care about, and question why the mayor is spending time and energy on an issue that’s more of a state and federal issue, rather than what’s important to your town. Back to Mayor Ward:

I fully support the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment. What I donâ€™t support is criminals getting their hands on guns. The coalition is for enforcing existing gun laws, increasing penalties for gun criminals and closing gaps in the gun background check system.

No one supports criminals getting guns. We have a system of laws in place that make criminals obtaining guns unlawful already. MAIG isn’t just recommending closing gaps in the background check system, they are supporting a bill that will effectively shut down gun shows. Â Have you read it, Mayor Ward? Are you aware MAIG supports rationing guns to law abiding citizens? Is that the kind of measure Texans will support? Are you aware that ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police are against the measure MAIG supports to open up trace data? Are you aware that Mayor Bloomberg has interfered in the prosecution of actual criminal gun traffickers because it served his political purposes.

Mayor Ward includes an e-mail address at the bottom of the article. Â Perhaps some of my Texan readers can respectfully ask him whether he’s really thought about this issue.

Just Got A Wii

Because Nintendo slashed the price of the Wii, Bitter and I decided it was time to get one. Who knew you could blog on it? It’s tedious but doable. Now to play.

UPDATE: I’m a fan of the Wii Play tank game. Bitter and I were also having fun with the boxing game, which gives opportunity to say “I’m going to beat you like I don’t want guns anymore!” Nintendo Wii, making domestic abuse a fun game since 2006!

CeaseFire PA Coming to MAIG’s Defense

This is a PDF of an e-mail that was circulated by CeaseFire PA earlier in the week. It comes from a source I know to be reliable. Â It’s titled “Standing Up and Fighting Back Against the NRA.” Â Let’s take a look:

There’s only one way to confront a bully – stand up to him and speak the truth. That’s what CeaseFirePA and its allies are doing across Pennsylvania in response to a smear and misinformation campaign engineered by the NRA.

So here we have Joe Grace, Executive Director of the gun control group, CeaseFire PA, admitting to MAIG as an ally. Â Yet we’re constantly told by the media and the Mayors themselves that MAIG is not a gun control group!

I think it’s abundantly clear by this point that the emperor has no clothes. Now we’ve established a relationship between not one, but two gun control groups operating in Pennsylvania in conjunction with Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Â Do Pennsylvania MAIG Mayors want to continue arguing that they are not standing along side a group promoting gun control? Â Is this what defending the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution is in their book?

Brady Mailing to Help MAIG?

What this blogger is reporting would certainly seem to indicate that:

Through theÂ Brady Center I have learned about an organization of over 450 mayorâ€™s who are trying to rid their cities of illegal guns. Amazingly, the NRA is targeting many of these mayorâ€™s and spreading lies about the organization. All of the mayorâ€™s of Ohioâ€™s major cities belong to this group.

Except, as we’ve well established both here, and at our other grass roots site, it’s not a lie. They are Â gun control group, and we’re discovering new connections to the Bradys regularly these past few days. How is it irresponsible for NRA to point out to their membership that their mayor is a member of a group that promotes just about every issue the Brady organization does?

The Real Effect of AB962 in California

Arizona Rifleman summarizes how it’s going to affect ammunition purchasers in California. It’s not too late to call the Governator to ask him to veto this bill. It’s a good thing they got that ammo shortage in Reno squared away, because I predict there will be more ammunition moving throughÂ Donner Pass than was moving on the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the height of the Vietnam War.

Quote of the Week

From SayUncle, on discovering Qaddafi was allowed to roam around New York City with his heavily armed cadre of women:

So, in NYC, even tinpot dictators are like you and me only better.

But Bloomberg isn’t anti-gun. Â Just ask Mayor Baughman. He’s only against illegal guns. As long as it’s just your guns that are illegal. Qaddafi’s S&M guard, not so much.

Not Just Good Advice for Kids

Don’t talk to strangers. I don’t answer my door for anyone I’m not expecting. It’s not really a safety thing so much as someone showing up at my door unexpectedly usually isn’t someone I want to talk to.

Bitter on Cam & Company Tonight @ 9:20

Bitter will be on Cam & Company at 9:20 to talk about our investigative journalism into Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Â Tune in at NRANews.com or on Sirius Satellite Radio, Channel 144.

UPDATE: For those who missed Bitter, you can find the segment below. This is her first time appearing on NRA News representing Snowflakes in Hell. Â She has been on before representing The Bitch Girls, and using her real name for other interests, but I think she did very well representing my blog. Here’s the segment:

A Living Constitution & The Right to Bear Arms

The Pennsylvania Constitution is an interesting beast. Â Most of us are well aware of its right to bear arms provision, which is one of the strongest worded for an individual right. That’s what we will examine here, through the various revisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and there have been many:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been governed by five constitutions between 1776 and 1968. Before that, the province of Pennsylvania was governed for almost a century by four successive constitutions, referred to as The Frame of Government.

The first Frame of Government 1682, also known as Penn’s Charter, was written by William Penn while he was still in England, and was repudiated by Pennsylvania’s Colonial Assembly. In the preface, Penn stated his political philosophy on government: “Any government is free to the people under it … where the laws rule and the people are a party to those laws.”

None of the four Frames of Government that defined Pennsylvania’s colonial Quaker government had any right to bear arms provision. That had its start in the Constitution of 1776:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

In the Constitution of 1790, the right to bear arms provision was changed to:

Sec. 21. That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

The Pennsylvania Constitution would undergo it’s next major revision in 1838, slightly changing the wording by changing “citizens” to “the citizens”:

Section XXI. The right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

Move to the Constitution of 1874, you get some punctuation changes:

Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

That language persisted through the Constitution of 1968, which is the current constitution the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania operates under. Pennsylvania has a living constitution, and multiple generations of revisions and conventions have chosen to preserve the right to bear arms as part of it. I would think that to even a living constitutionalist, this has to mean something.