The "O" Word
Conservative by Nature, Christian by Choice
Wait!  Where's the pictures?  They're supposed to be right here!  I swear, you can't find decent help these days...

Sunday Morning, Musing

April 30th, 2017 . by Cary

Apparently the dogs don’t care about Sunday morning either.

In most cases of gun laws, however, there is usually not a majority of people clamoring for the law. THere is usually a very vocal minority (Moms Demand Action, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the State of New York, the State of California, the City of Chicago, the City of Baltimore) which gets listened to and suddenly no one is “allowed” to own firearms. The Second Amendment is very clear in this regard:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order for a government to pass a law, they must first have jurisdiction over the area to be regulated. Assuming this authority without actual jurisdiction is called infringement.

verb (used with object), infringed, infringing.
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object), infringed, infringing.
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don’t infringe on his privacy.

Once the law is passed, without the consent of the governed, it is very difficult to repeal the law. It becomes a normal part of everyday living. Passing a new law to override the old law is still assuming authority in the area of question.

The solution is to repeal the restrictive law. Do not pass new laws covering this topic, simply repeal the old. Once repeal is complete, then there is no legal standing for the action of prosecution for the formerly illegal activity. A new paradigm must be instilled, in that the enforcers of the law cannot continue to enforce the law which is no longer there; and must, from that point forward, reset their thinking to the point of not having jurisdiction in that area. IN other words, not only stop enforcing anti-gun laws, but stop thinking they CAN be anti-gun without a legal basis for such thinking.

Now, for Baltimore: the reason you have so many murders is because you have made it impossible for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. The criminals don’t care about laws, that’s why they are criminals. If the citizens had a means of defense, and the criminals were aware of that, the murder rates would be much lower – more in line with the rest of the nation (with the exception of those ares with restrictive gun laws, where the murder rates are higher than those areas without restrictive gun laws). In other words, let the citizens be armed, even the odds, and watch the murder rates drop along with the recidivism. Statistics show that criminals who are fatally shot in the commission of a crime have a much lower repeat offense rate.

Chat ya later…


Thanks for stopping by, In GOD We Trust, and Wear Red on Fridays!

Just Sayin’ …

October 7th, 2009 . by Cary

I love a good conversation. I love having a civil debate with level-headed persons. I enjoy debating the Second Amendment. I am a firm believer in the 2A, and believe that without it this long slide into socialism would have happened a lot faster.

That being said, I wish I could tell you about a stimulating conversation that a few of us bloggers are having over at Texas Fred’s. I say I wish I could, but the truth is, it’s the usual – conservatives ask questions, liberals dodge the question and attack the questioner. The conversation started with Fred himself posting about the Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization. One mayor in the state of Texas (at the time) was signed on to this piece of liberal gun-grabbing crap, the Mayor of Hurst, Texas – a man by the name of Richard Ward. Mayor Ward was not impressed with the simple and straight forward question posed by Fred. In a very professional and politically correct return e-mail, Mayor Ward said (and I quote):

Texas Fred,
You are as ugly as you are dumb.

Hey, Hurst, Texas! That’s YOUR tax dollars supporting this guy!

In a typical liberal response to being asked a direct question about a straight forward subject, the so-called “professional” politician launched an unfounded personal attack against the one asking the question.

I’ll let you go over and follow the thread.

You know me – I had to put my two cents in. I sent an e-mail to Mayor Ward, telling him a little bit about myself, where I was coming from, and then asked him a point-blank question. “I ask you, Mayor Ward, why you would belong to a group that, on the surface, would appear to be unnecessary. The only group of people I can think of that would be in SUPPORT of illegal guns would be criminals themselves.”

The Mayor’s response to my direct question?

“Where are you from, Gary?”

That’s all there was to it – “Where are you from?” Like that’s going to answer the question I had.

Mayor Ward:

Where I am from is not germane to this conversation; however, suffice it to say that I am a very proud American citizen and a veteran of the United States Marine Corps.

Your inability to give a straight answer is troubling.

And my name is Cary, not Gary.

One more time, Mayor Ward – why do you feel it is necessary to belong to an organization that is illogical in it’s foundation? If you feel it is not illogical, please tell me how many people YOU know who are FOR illegal guns.

Thank you.

And, his response:

Cary, (my son’s name, I cannot believe I missed that.) Perhaps the attachment will help, but why do I think you will just try to find every little thing wrong with it that you can and not read it with an open mind?????

A copy of the attachment (unaltered) can be found here. I read the document – the whole thing. I have several questions for Mayor Ward:

Mayor Ward:

Thank you for sending me the 1AAMAIG Information document. I did read the entire document, and still have to wonder, why MAIG feels it needs to exist? I know that the document outlines what MAIG plans to do, what it supports, and what it is NOT about. I still want to know WHY MAIG needs to exist?

You said: “I have had contact with many of the Mayors in the group and I have yet to hear one of them even mention the word anti-gun.

Well, no, they wouldn’t out right indicate that they are anti-gun. But when I read sentences like “That is why we have focused our efforts on helping law enforcement gain greater access to federal data on the origins of guns used in crimes … ” the anti-gun thought is the first thing that pops into my mind. Why? Because, unlike law-abiding citizens, criminals don’t fill out paperwork and wait for a background check before obtaining a firearm. Usually, they obtain the firearm through theft from a legal gun owner. “Greater access to federal data on the origins of guns” smacks of tracking and tracing ALL guns, ALL the time. Yes, even the old shotguns you have in the closet. Hmmm – a federal database of who owns what weapons… now, where have I heard of that before? Anyone? 1930s Germany? Naw – that couldn’t happen here.

I joined this group so that I could be a part of the group that does something about illegal guns and guns in the hands of criminals.

You are already a part of a group (Law Enforcement Officers) that does something about illegal guns and guns in the hands of criminals – or at least, that group is SUPPOSED to be doing something about them – that is, enforcing the laws already on the books, and making the lives of ordinary, law-abiding citizens safer in the process.

And the best part of your paper – the Statement of Principles that “… every mayor … signed … “. Good golly, does this mean that all of the mayors who signed the Statement are actually agreeing to do their jobs they were elected to do? For crying out loud, what the heck were all the mayors doing BEFORE they signed the Statement? Ignoring their job duties?

Back to my original question, slightly re-worded, Mayor Ward: Why do you feel that belonging to a group that has no LOGICAL reason for existing (who is FOR illegal guns? isn’t this organization just a duplication of effort for what the member should already be doing?) is necessary?

Thank you.

Cary Cartter
In GOD We Trust

Something I didn’t ask Mayor Ward, but will if he grants me an answer or even a reply to my question, is that part in the Statement of Principles that says:

Whereas: 30,000 Americans across the country are killed every year as a result of gun violence, destroying families and communities in big cities and small towns;

30,000 people in the US are killed by firearms every year? What about OUTSIDE the Beltway? (bah-dum-bump!) But seriously, what about the 435,000 people every year who die from tobacco related products? WHy not outlaw and track and trace all the tobacco? How about the 85,000 who die from alcohol-related issues? How about the 365,000 from poor diet and lack of exercise? How are you going to legislate THAT?

And then there is this little conundrum:

Thune Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment: Mayors successfully supported efforts to ensure that the federal government does not override states’ authority to decide whether to recognize carry permits from out-of-state residents who have criminal records or can not meet the in-state safety training requirements.

None of the coalition’s positions conflict with any individual’s rights under the Second Amendment.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, the right of an individual to bear (possess, own, carry, display) arms shall not be infringed. In this case, it is a Federal Right (correction, as noted by Just John – this is an inalienable right, and outlined in the Constitution. The government is not GRANTING this right, but acknowledging that we have this right). All other rights not enumerated by the Constitution are to be held by the states. Since the Federal Right says I can bear arms, then the State cannot abridge or infringe upon that right. States, cities, counties, whatever, cannot, by Federal Law, infringe on the right of the individual to bear arms. The Thune Amendment had it backwards – the Federal Government is the one granting the right, and the States (counties, cities, whatever) do not have the right to override that right. Any law that says a citizen cannot own a gun is trampling on the Federal Right of the individual. A Concealed Weapon permit issued by any state in the union is valid anywhere in the union, in my opinion. Any individual in the United States has the right to openly carry a firearm, according to the Second Amendment. Saying the coalition’s position does not conflict with the 2A after saying the Federal Right does not override the state’s authority (in direct contrast to the Constitution’s assertion that it gives the individual the right to bear arms, and since it is a right granted by the Government shall not be over ridden by the states) is a direct contradiction of of the enumeration clause.

Just a little food for thought.

See also Storm’n Norman, An Ol’ Broad’s Rambling.

Quick reminder – The O Word on BlogTalkRadio, Friday morning, 0700 Mountain Standard Time. Something tells me you might here a good part of this then, too.

Chat ya later…


Thank you for stopping by, In GOD We Trust, God bless you all, don’t buy or breed cats or dogs while homeless pets die (spay, neuter & adopt a pet, one by one, until there are none), Wear Red on Fridays, and support Warriors for Innocence!