This Page

has been moved to new address

The Second Amendment & The Obama Administration

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: The Second Amendment & The Obama Administration

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Monday, March 30, 2009

The Second Amendment & The Obama Administration





Perhaps some of you have thought me strangely silent on many gun issues. To a degree, I do a very precarious dance every day.

My dance is this: I am not tragically far from retirement, yet, I still am an active peace officer for a very large West Coast department in Fornicalia. I have roughly 35+ years in law enforcement, ranging from the US Marshal to the FBI to state and local experience. My dance is the attempt to not conflict with my current employer whilst still managing to express a semblance of my thoughts. There are, clearly, official and unofficial views on most anything; I have to run this razor's edge daily. I've already been forced to eliminate one "work" blog entitled "Tales From The Cockpit" because it "conflicted" with the beliefs of a certain law enforcement union. I made the rather glaring error of pointing out a glaring error. They had the power; I didn't. One phone call and a "suggestion" was made. One blog eliminated. I'm sure you can read between the lines.

So I must be, to a degree, more, ahem, *careful* than I would if not so otherwise engaged.

The Second Amendment is very short and terse; I would tend to place it also into the category of blindingly obvious:

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.

And yet, in consideration of some recent horrendous and regretful events (thank you for said documentation and discussion, TF), there will clearly be another push to disarm America. And for that I cannot stand.

I disagree with the label on the YouTube video above; I do not believe Rahm Emanuel is a "Communist." I do believe, however, that he is well yet poorly educated and is possessed of Historical Alzheimers. He has been trained, philosophically-speaking, to lose sight of the obvious.

I would end the post this way, with a comment I made to Texas Fred:

You know — I hate to walk down paths like that. I hesitate to bring things like that up. But I can only see bad and dark things coming for us in our national future. And one of those things — of which I am completely CONVINCED — is a national desire, on the FEDERAL level, to disarm United States citizens except in very unusual circumstances. You don’t have to be a wizard, mesmerist or psychic to make that statement; many in the Obama Administration, INCLUDING Rahm Emanual, have STATED those things in public.

I still predicate my core and founding beliefs upon this fundamental: an UNARMED nation of citizens is a collection of persons upon which ANY egregious or freedom-removing action can be perpetrated by “their” government.

I am not and never have been convinced that GOVERNMENT has ANYONE’S best interest at heart save those very high-ranking officials IN government.

BZ

7 Comments:

Blogger TexasFred said...

Well, I AM retired, so screw em, the sons a bitches in DC, Rahm, Obama and Holder, are avowed gun grabbers and want nothing more than to take every gun OUT of the hands of honest, sane and responsible gun owners all over this nation...

They, for some strange reason, believe this will stop ALL the gun violence in this nation as well as the export of supposed LEGALLY bought weapons, AND EXPLOSIVES from flowing into Mexico...

Rahm, Obama and Holder are goddamned morons... The new 3 Stooges...

Mon Mar 30, 09:29:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Gayle said...

I agree with you, BZ, and with Fred too.

Do you really think they can pull off disarming the American public? Won't that push people over the edge? I mean, how far do you think they can go before they have a full blown rebellion on their hands?

Sorry for all the questions. I'm just amazed and horrified at what this administration is doing!

Mon Mar 30, 09:58:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

This is the time when, perhaps if you have a few dollars to spare, you really should be writing a check to the NRA. I just did. They're the only lobby sufficiently large to try to hold on to the 2nd.

BZ

Mon Mar 30, 10:06:00 AM PDT  
Blogger shoprat said...

Forewarned is forearmed. We need a network to announce "They are coming" when they finally decide to come for the guns. It was this that touched off the first battle of the revolution and those idiots in Washington seem determined to repeat that mistake. I would rather end it electorally in 2010 but the idiots know they will probably lose that election and so want to force people's hands.

Mon Mar 30, 12:06:00 PM PDT  
Blogger TexasFred said...

There are entirely too many of us, look, it took 7 years for the U.S. Army to bring Iraq to the point where they are still having attacks, still have all kinds of armed Sunnis and so forth, Iraq is the same size as Texas...

What in the hell can they DO with a full nation the size of the USA??

Very little that We, The People don't ALLOW them to do!

Grow a set America, these SOBs can't hurt us unless WE let them...

Mon Mar 30, 01:59:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Law and Order Teacher said...

BZ,
I understand your situation. It seemed when I was on the PD that I had a lot less rights than the scumbags I was arresting. That included supporting political candidates and being threatened with Hatch Act violations. Don't miss it.

Mon Mar 30, 05:56:00 PM PDT  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

The right to bear arms is not only personal but supports the Art. 1, Sec. 10 clause:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

For States to have the right to step away from the federal government in those instances, the people of the States have the right to bear arms so as to keep safety not only for themselves, but for their States. The founders were not fools and put in that clause so as to negate attempts of the federal government to disarm not only the people, but the States which depend upon their home militias *beyond* the organized reserve. The unorganized part, via the Dick Act, is recognized for all law abiding firearms owners and others with the knowledge of lethal arms. For the State to be able to call upon an armed citizenry, the citizenry must be armed - and for the States to be able to self-protect when the federal government is lax or unwilling to protect the States, this is doubly so.

I have some deep problems with the idea of the federal government telling the States what their citizens can and cannot have in the way of arms (any arms) as the ownership of all but crew-served weapons was a recognized right at the time of the founding in Britain. And even then you could own it, just keep it on your property... no trotting it out to the local town meeting... so, yes, individuals could own cannons and other heavy arms.

These are things that cannot be legislated away: the right to defend yourself is not a subject of the laws of man, but the laws of nature. Attempts to put the laws of man in that realm are tyrannical... those who push them seek tyranny.

Wed Apr 01, 06:09:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home