Home

Minnesota joins the sovereignty sideshow….blah, blah, blah

1 Comment

 

All the legislative saber rattling by successive states, declaring sovereignty, is less than meaningless.  With the exception of a little huffing and puffing by New Hampshire, these resolutions, laws or whatever they are suppose to be, fall by the wayside just as quickly as they appeared.  There is no follow up, no statement of position on any issue and absolutely no intention of actually asserting states rights over the federal government. 

 

On February 19, 2009, in what was an outright partisan piece of grandstanding, twenty Republicans in the Minnesota House co-sponsored yet another of these absurd declarations.  Although this declaration is worded to sound as if these sponsors were really concerned with federal creep and encroachment, this newly created declaration stopped short of specifying just exactly what the state of Minnesota would not participate in, subject itself to, or would reject on constitutional grounds. 

 

In fact, not one state issued any specifics or any statements of what these declarations would be used to avoid. 

 

Personally, I would think states making declarations of this kind would be not only newsworthy, but, I think they would also merit some little piece of acknowledgment, some little sign either from congress or the president that some kind of paradigm shift was occurring and they were aware of it.  Last nights speech from President Obama somehow omitted any reference to these declarations and not one congress person in the Washington District of Criminals has made one statement or reference to their own respective states declarations of sovereignty.  Not one.

 

In fact, not only is no one in the federal government even remotely concerned with these faux declarations, the D.C. political mafia is moving ahead with long planned expansions in government, more regulations and control, and more intrusion into the ordinary lives of people whose greatest mistake was electing these same individuals time and again and failing to boot out the majority of them in either house.

 

When I see declarations from any state that includes specifics on what the state will not comply with or what it will actually prohibit the federal government from mandating, I’ll be impressed.  As it is, I don’t see anything but meaningless gestures with no intent to back them up.  What’s the point?

 

© 2009 Marti Oakley

 

 

 

Supreme Court Upholds Gun Grabbing

4 Comments

In its first major ruling since the so-called Heller “decision,” in which the Supreme Court said that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms “within reasonable limitations” (with what is “reasonable” left to the government’s interpretation), the court ruled seven to two in favor of continuing to block access to firearms by so-called “domestic abusers,” a ruling that, according to this article from an anti-gun source, was applauded by the anti-gun crowd.

The Supreme Court’s decision, on Tuesday, basically overturns a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the so-called Lautenberg amendment, which would have supposedly “greatly expanded” the ability of people convicted for or arrested for “domestic abuse” to own a gun. The Supreme Court is, basically, saying that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Lautenberg isn’t stringent enough.

The original Clinton administration law that criminalized gun ownership by anyone even arrested for a domestic abuse complaint removed the possibility of these people arming themselves against a fascistic government and, that, of course, is its real intent. By chipping away, little by little, at who may own a gun, the government disarms the population by legislative fiat, saving the trouble and expense of sending armed thugs out to collect guns.

This Supreme Court decision makes it quite clear that the court’s intent in the Heller decsision was to open the door to further regulation of gun ownership, not to “protect” gun owners from confiscation, as so many have stupidly believed the court intended. Government never relinquishes its power willingly and the two main powers it guards most jealously are the power of the purse and the power of the sword (powers that it didn’t have a monopoly on under the original constitution, which was the Articles of Confederation). With the ability to control the economy and our ability to defend ourselves, the government can do with us as it pleases.

The Second Amendment is quite clear. It does not specify who may be armed and who shall not be and any attempt by the government to tell us otherwise is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

The Constitution is clear, also. It says that we have a right and a duty to throw off and replace an oppressive government. How much more oppressive does the government have to be when it is deliberately gaurding its power over us by denying the Constitution is the law of the land? The government’s legal limitations are what the Constitution describes. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people; it acknowledges and protects our existing rights, including the right to defend our lives and property against a despotic government. That the government has, for over 75 years, sought to limit our Constitutionally protected ability to protect ourselves from its incursions into our lives says, quite clearly what its true intentions are.

%d bloggers like this: