Guns n' Poseur: Crime Stats by Reality Check (VIDEO)

Tweet

2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and the Freedom of Hypocrisy

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it."-Thomas Paine

If it's one thing I cannot abide, it is hypocrisy. We see a lot of it in America though, particularly in politics. From top political leaders, to beltway pundits and radio jockeys, right on down to your dear old Uncle Frank. People claiming to hold certain values as inviolable, yet who will turn right around and toss those values on the garbage-heap when it suits an agenda. And more often than not, it is an agenda that the supporters themselves cannot really explain when pressed. They squirm and get angry when confronted with logical debate, but never reverse themselves even when they are exposed as total hypocrites.

It is truly frightening to see these partisan sheeple get that glazed look over their eyes as they begin to chant their party's rhetoric, when you expose the lie for which they stand. Even when you prove to them that they are flat out wrong, they still will not give up that position. No matter what evidence you provide, no matter what logical flaw in their argument you expose. Why? Are Americans truly so indoctrinated and brainwashed that they can no longer think for themselves? Right or wrong no longer applies, red or blue is all that matters. Elections are more like football games today, the issues mere cheerleaders on the sidelines or ignored altogether, while spin, rhetoric, media manipulation and big dollars have become the game. Or worse, the real game all happens now behind the scenes, in secret meetings, where Presidents and party leaders are SE-lected long before they are e-lected, while Americans are fed a steady does of politi-tainment propping up an illusion of choice.



As a Constitutionalist, and a centrist libertarian, I don't have much use for political rhetoric. I am no partisan. I stand by my beliefs, based on facts and sound logic, rather than political affiliations and propaganda. On some issues I may be accused of being a "liberal Commie" while on other issues I get flamed and labeled a "right-wing Fascist." So many folks simply cannot fathom how I might agree with a Democrat on one issue while agreeing with a Republican on another. Always though, the Constitution is there as a basis for all of my values as an American.

So let's take a closer look at two topics which have been hot-button issues in the past year or so. Specifically, the 2nd and 4th Amendments of the Constitution.

With the debate still raging regarding our Right to Bear Arms, in the wake of several deadly mass-shootings, Republicans and the political Right have taken up the mantle of a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. While liberals have made an open and direct assault against the Second Amendment, conservatives have fired back with demands for even less gun regulations.

"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." -2nd Amendment, Constitution of the United States

On this issue, I believe in an unconditional right of every citizen to keep and use any man-portable small-arm that is manufactured. Any weapon which might be carried by an infantry soldier, should also be a weapon that can be owned and carried by a citizen. Simple as that, end of story.

Yes, that includes pistols, rifles, assault rifles, high capacity magazines for small arms, knives, swords, spears, hand-grenades, and even rocket launchers. The only restrictions I might place on owning any of these weapons would go along the lines of proficiency, and safe storage. In other words, I would agree to a permit requirement to show that you know how to use something like a grenade launcher, or even a semi-auto pistol as examples, before you can own one. I might also agree to certain permitting requirements for the safe keeping of weapons. That in order to purchase a pistol you also have to purchase a gun lock for it, an assault rifle, a proper gun safe, a truckload of hand grenades, a proper explosive retardant bunker.

Short of that, I really don't see any reason why a person who might just as easily use and have access to these weapons while in military service, should not also be allowed to own these weapons themselves personally. Soldiers are no more "trustworthy" than you or I. In fact, history shows that soldiers are just as often the oppressors of the people, as they are the liberators of the oppressed. History also shows that a people who can resist by force, may defeat a would-be oppressor. The very basis of the Second Amendment was never to protect your right to hunt, or to protect your home from burglars. It was, and always has been to protect you from your own government. 

Chuck Schumer

Democrats and the liberal-Left have exposed their own hypocrisy on this "gun-control" issue. Many of the top political leaders who are pushing for the disarmament of citizens are in fact gun-owners themselves. For politicians who pride themselves on being more "connected" to the people, less aloof, they sure have missed the mark here. It seems clear they fancy themselves, "special" and that they should enjoy special privileges while the "peasants" are unworthy of our Right to Bear Arms. Not to mention the fact that the politicians also enjoy the benefit of taxpayer funded armed guards at their disposal, wherever they go.

A liberal media outlet has suddenly turned to hiring private guards armed with machine guns, after shooting themselves in the foot so to speak, in a shameful ploy to sell newspapers by printing the names and addresses of legally permitted gun-owners in New York State. Thus, in just a few quick examples, we see the hypocrisy of the anti-gun-liberals in this country.

Republican-conservatives are often thought of as, and even fancy themselves as, the protectors of the Constitution. The good-sense traditionalists who stand as the rock which progressives must slowly chisel away at in order to advance their leftist agenda. Sadly though, this is not really the truth, and the political Right are at least as much the hypocrites that the Left are. So while I stand with the conservatives on the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms, I suddenly find myself at odds with my Right-wing friends when it comes to the Fourth Amendment.

You see, as I already stated, I am a Constitutionalist. A strict and true Constitutionalist who will not be swayed by social agendas, party politics and propaganda. Even if it means I must suffer the betrayal of my Right-wing friends who stood with me to defend the Second Amendment, I will remain true to the Constitution, and stay the course to defend the Fourth Amendment as well.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -4th Amendment, Constitution of the United States

One cannot pick and choose which rights and which portions of the Constitution they will support at any given moment, simply to support one's own personal political agenda or biased beliefs. You either believe in the Constitution, or you don't. Even when it comes to seemingly more difficult interpretations, there really isn't as much ambiguity as we are taught to think. Not so much room for interpretation, as shady political leaders and the Supreme Court have led us to believe.

In the 2nd Amendment we are left with "...shall not be infringed" being interpreted as "so long as you abide by police-state codes dictating who can carry what where and when." The 4th Amendment's "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" has now been distorted to mean that so-called "probable cause" is the warrant, and that the actual warrant, often with little or no basis, is a mere afterthought or simply does not exist at all. The consequences have been catastrophic for freedom-loving people, as the 4th Amendment is torn asunder in the guise of national security, crime fighting, public safety...

Submit to Sexual Degradation at the Hands of Overlords

Police State of Mind

Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear?

After two tours in Iraq, Marine murdered at home by SWAT in front of family

Indiana Governor Signs Law Allowing Residents to Resist Illegal Police Searches

Checkpoint Gringo

Papers Please


... and of course, in the name of attacking the poor. Brazen class warfare has begun, where poor folks are to be openly denied liberty.

While many of my conservative friends may be open to discussion on some issues, there are two which I find they support universally, and without discussion. The first is, of course, the right to bear arms. The second, in completely hypocritical fashion, is drug testing of welfare recipients.

In one breath they support the Constitution unconditionally, in the next, they support the destruction of the Constitution, without question, based entirely on an irrational bias against the poor. This, I cannot abide. I am no hypocrite. And so, just as I stand to support the 2nd Amendment, I will also stand to defend the 4th Amendment.

For the government to demand a search of your bodily fluids, it is far more personal and serious than a search of even your home or your papers. It is also a direct violation of the 4th Amendment, when there is no warrant or reasonable suspicion that the person is guilty of any crime.

One might argue that welfare is socialism, that people on welfare abuse the system, that there are millions of jobs out there waiting for each and every person on welfare if they would just get off their lazy asses. One might even argue that drug abuse is the whole reason we have a welfare class in the first place, that everyone on welfare are drug addicted scum. Even if all the stereotypes were true, it still would not change the fact mandatory drug testing is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Why Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients is a Bad Idea

Welfare Drug Testing, Give Me One Good Reason

It makes no difference if you choose to submit to a drug test at work. Welfare is not a job for one thing, it is a government service. So in that sense, saying that people on welfare should be drug tested is like saying that anyone who calls for a fire engine should be drug tested. Or that anyone with municipal garbage collection is also subject to random drug screenings. So you really can't compare the two. Secondly, just because you choose to work for some fascist company who demeans you and demands that you piss in a cup every month, doesn't mean that you can force your choice on other people. That twisted logic would be the same as saying that just because my job requires $500 in state licensing fees each year, that everyone should be forced to pay or the same license whether they need it or not.

No matter what reason you can come up with for drug testing, not one supersedes the Constitution. So, if you support the Second Amendment, while at the same time supporting drug testing on welfare recipients, you are a hypocrite, a tyrant, and a danger to Constitutional liberty.

For every reason that you can come up with why the 4th Amendment should not apply to the poor, those same excuses could be made to take away your guns, not to mention your own 4th Amendment rights. Because, make no mistake, once they start drug testing on welfare unchallenged, and the last vestiges of the 4th Amendment are swept aside, the floodgates will be opened to mandatory drug testing and then even DNA sampling of every last person in this country. 

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -Thomas Paine

 
People on welfare should give up their 4th Amendment rights and submit to a drug test, because they might be drug addicts. 

Gun owners should give up their 2nd Amendment rights because they might use a gun to go out and kill a lot of innocent people.

If I am going to be drug tested at work, people on welfare need to be drug tested too. 

If I am not going to carry a gun, you can't either.

People on welfare are druggies.

Gun-owners are violent people.

People on welfare should just go out and get a job. 

People should just call the police if they need help.

People on welfare abuse the system.

People who own guns put us all in danger. 

Welfare drug testing will force people to stop using drugs.

Banning guns will stop people from killing eachother.

There are ways to get help other than welfare.

There are better alternatives than owning a gun.

I was an addict, I never asked for help.

I have been robbed before, I didn't nee a gun.

People should be forced to go to rehab if they are on drugs. 

Gun owners should have to undergo extensive psych exams. 


If you want welfare, prove you are clean.

Prove that you need a gun.



Etcetera. I will add more one-liners there as I see them come up in discussions.

"All these things have followed from the want of a constitution; for it is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." ~Thomas Paine

Tweet

PhD's On Foodstamps (Infographic)

All too often, when I try to have a sensible discussion with my friends and debate opponents regarding poverty in this country, they try to punt the issue to a "work harder" sort of logic. As if the issues of poverty are caused by the victims of terminally flawed economic policy. The facts, however, do not stand up to blame-shift logic. Blaming the victims will not solve the problem, or hold the responsible accountable.

It's all too easy to put out a video of an ignorant black woman with 15 kids, and make her the poster child of public assistance. But that's like saying that some Ku Klux Klan skinhead is the spokesperson for all sensible gun-owners in America.

Usually when I get into a discussion about public assistance programs, the argument goes something like this.

Opponent: People on welfare just need to get a job. 

Six: There are no jobs for 3 out of 4 Americans who apply. (Nevermind the millions who are not counted as unemployed because their insurance has expired.)

Opponent: So then they need to go back to school.

Six: Why? So we can have better educated people on food-stamps?

- Please visit graphic SOURCE

“People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.” -Professor Jason Read, University of Southern Maine

Also check out these infographics:

Breadlines and Foodstamps

Wal-Mart: Lower Prices, Higher Taxes



Also see:

Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage

U.S. Workers Most Exploited in Developed World











Tweet

Did 'Seinfeld' Predict O.J. Murder Case?

From Seinfeld, Season 5 - "The Masseuse" (original airdate November 1993): Elaine wants her boyfriend Joel Rifkin to change his name because it's the same as a famous murderer.

This episode aired 7 months before the infamous Bronco chase, where football star OJ Simpson was pursued by police wanted for the alleged murder of his estranged wife.





Tweet