2008: Gun Control Candidates Need Not Apply.
For the American electorate, candidates who commit to the concealed carry bills and who see them signed into law will show a deeper respect for citizens and the law of the land than gun control obsessives.
How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of. — Representative Suzanna Gratia Hupp (TX)
In national news, Sunday, February 11, 2007, Rudy Giuliani announced in a tour through Kalifornia that his gun control helped reduce crime in New York. (Gun control puts the K in Kalifornia.)
This is why several other Mayors are pulling out of NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s gun control scheme. Not only is it anti-liberty, but it just never works.
At this time, the DOJ’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is investigating Mayor Bloomberg’s sting operations and New Orleans Mayor Nagin is under a court order to return weapons stolen by officers following Hurricane Katrina. Guns are taken illegally. Gun control is illegal in the United States.
His Honor Mayor Giuliani believes that he has learned all there is to learn and doesn’t need to hear from the people about how wrong he is in bringing his ideas elsewhere. It’s a free country, but some ideas are just un-American and reflect a poor understanding of what we are all about. Self-rule.
Gun control contributes nothing to crime control anymore than delaying police contributes to crime control. It hurts innocent constituents by disarming the very people on whose authority police operate.
Think, Your Honor: Police operate on the authority of the people, so that when they arrive, they arrive with your appointed authority. Their badge is a sign of Official Appointment. You derive your authority from the people, and by law, the people’s authority is on scene when police arrive.
But when an armed citizen is on scene, the law is already on scene there, too. This is where gun control is breaking the law: you are disarming the authority of the people illegally. And therefore, you are not contributing to crime control, you are contributing to crime by disarming that lawful authority. [Officials obviously believe in non-police civil authority when they employ private armed guards or personal concealed carry for themselves.]
Individuals may legally stop a crime in progress, including in defense of another and certainly in de-escalating their own robbery, rape, or murder. With authority. And under our values system. Gun control does not legally frustrate citizen authority – it illegally bluffs people out of it and backs the bluff with legal force. This is abuse of process.
Any interference – yes, interference with this authority (such as gun control) — shows a poor understanding of our values, our societal dynamics and of course, crime. It shows an inflated opinion of oneself.
Admit it, Your Honor: New York City is no model for crime control any more than Washington, D.C. is, and even they are re-examining the idea of gun bans.
Anyone for gun control shows an ignorance of or refusal to respect the Bill of Rights and other backbones of our law of the land in that, in such an issue, no official can have an opinion or personal view of the subject against his oath of office, which is to defend and protect the big C.
Any of the 2008 candidates for office in favor of any so-called sensible gun laws exhibit a poor understanding of our system and believe that they have some wiggle room for creativity in governance. They do not. This is the objection of free peoples everywhere, not just here: assumption of powers not granted. It goes against self-rule.
In this country, individuals are already possessed of the legal authority to armed self-defense, without waiting for police. How does a rational person believe that someone already in authority must get permission from a public servant to act in what is already the law of the land – and without that permission, they must be at the mercy of the violent?
There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. – Daniel Webster.
Mr. Mayor: did you know that police have no duty to protect your constituents? The Mayors pulling out of the Bloomberg stings know this. Police have no duty to protect individuals. Many have dropped out of Bloomberg’s attempt to confiscate weapons from the sovereign authority in this country.
Praise to those Mayors who understand the wisdom of armed self-defense and authority at the moment it’s needed most. Thank you for your service.
The Second Amendment isn’t about guns or hunting anymore than the First Amendment is about typewriters, Mr. Mayor. It’s about concepts of liberty residing in the authority of the people since the inception of the nation and written to remain that way. The First Amendment is watchdog of government in various ways and is not absolute, and the Second Amendment backs our sovereignty by force and is absolute, which authority cannot legally be taken away.
Taking weapons is breaking the law because it challenges our sovereignty with abuse of process, itself backed by force. This is not leadership or governance: this is an illegal challenge to sovereign authority.
Candidates who oppose personal carrying of handguns lack the understanding to serve and have only the lust to rule. The first step is, of course, to outlaw the honest. It keeps the issue of violent crime alive while people die at the hands of it. Gun control never reduces crime, but endures as an immortal, evergreen issue.
Listening, 2008 Candidates?
They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters – with force, if necessary. It’s how 22,000 gun laws profoundly affect the non-gun owners in America: it challenges their sovereign authority, too.
Repeal gun laws and stop challenging the sovereign authority of the people: protect it and serve it.
______________________________
Crime remains a tool for the arrogant to disarm the honest in order to take more than guns – personal liberty, authority and independence – the safeguards against the ever-increasing forced dependency on officials. See www.TransferOfWealth.net
Â
| More from John Longenecker
Stumble It!
February 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Your comment on Chicago Bear Tank Johnson? He is charged with exercising his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In this case to arm Bears.
The problem is that he apparently neglected to fill out some paperwork with certain government authorities declaring himself a gun owner.
I do not believe we have that law here in the State of Washington. Here, only if you are convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor and have not had your right to keep and bear arms restored by a court order is it unlawful ro possess a firearm. Unless you want a concealed weapon license, you do not have to tell any government authority about your weapons ownership.
So I am appalled that Illinois has or allows such a requirement and prosecutes Tank Johnson for not meeting it.
I wonder if Louisiana allows or has such a reporting and registration requirement. That would explain how Mayor Nagin knew which citizens were keeping and bearing arms in order to seize them.
I still want to know how they were able to order the citizens to turn in their weapons without receiving the ammunition first and at high speeds!
February 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
“The Second Amendment isn’t about guns or hunting anymore than the First Amendment is about typewriters”
Excellent way to put it.
Much appreciate your regular posts, John.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:25 am
Quote of the day–John Longenecker…
…
February 14th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Thanks very much, North Central Idaho.
Roger, I think America needs to recognize that 22,000 gun laws profoundly challenge the authority of non-gun owners. They may not feel it, or perhaps they do and don’t recognize it as such.
You see it in family law as I see it, but homes don’t easily make the connection as a challenge to authority following disarmament (and intimidation and force).
This is why I write for the non-gun owners in America. To make that connection. Tho we may have 80 million gunnies here, we more profoundly have maybe an aggregate of 220 million adults who could make that connection. The rest of America are minors (I believe).
Thanks for your support, guys.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:28 am
[...] John Longenecker: 2008: Gun Control Candidates Need Not Apply [...]
February 16th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Quick Links…
I’ve got a busy day ahead and it’s starting early so rather than a series of posts, here’s some quick links for you to explore… From the LA Times, four new gun control bills proposed. Actually, I shouldn’t say they’re……