The Citizen's Duty

Scenes from a day in the political life...

Merrimack Valley Porcupines July meeting at Murphy's Taproom, Manchester, NH; and the Coalition of NH Taxpayers' Annual Picnic, Hopkinton Fair Grounds, Hopkinton, NH, 7/5/2008

To Heller in a handbasket

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
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.

The ill-considered, Constitutionally inconsistent, downright nonsensical rantings of the lunatic statists, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court's Heller decision on the D.C. gun ban, prompted me to collect some of my thoughts on their various hysteri-- er... historical arguments:

** There was no such contemporary thing as firearm registration or licensure at the time of the Revolution. Such infringements on inherent rights would have been considered "unreasonable" restrictions had they even occured to the Founders. Indeed, they would likely have precipitated a revolution.

** The Bill of Rights' exclusive intent was to protect individual rights (considered to be necessary because the States expected the concepts addressed in the 9th and 10th [arguably the one expanded exception, but we'll get to that in a moment] Amendments to be ignored even then), by enumerating merely a few unalienable examples.

** Everywhere else it's used in the BoR (1st, 4th, 9th, 10th), "the people" refers to individuals, not to "the collective." Indeed, the 10th Amendment draws a very clear distinction between government (explicitly broken down even further into federal and state) and "the people." "The people" is most decidedly not "the state."

** "The militia" referred to all able-bodied men & boys, not to government military, the reiteration of whose authority was not the subject of the BoR, anyway (being instead the province of the Constitution proper).

** The subordinate clause concedes that since a free society needs occasional defending to remain so -- perhaps even against its own government, the government now claimed to somehow have a "right" to superior arms -- it's indeed in that society's best interest of securing said freedom that its citizens are not forcibly disarmed for the eventuality that their participation is needed. It's offered, yet unnecessary justification for the expressed right, even for the nominal statist.

** What part of the declarative "shall not be infringed" is unclear to even the public school-trained rational mind?

** A total ban has not improved, e.g., D.C.'s violent crime rate. To attempt to argue that to revert to relatively Constitutional pre-prohibition access would somehow result in worse statistics than ever -- without evidence, no less -- is, to be kind, ineffective.

** Perhaps most significantly, the notion that the 2nd Amendment intends that government's right to arms "shall not be infringed" is simply beyond ludicrous. The BoR addresses limitations on government, not authorizations. Additionally, government is expressly granted only "authority" (again, in the Constitution proper, not the BoR). It does not enjoy "rights," let alone of a "protected" variety. Specific, enumerated (oh, if only...) powers are granted to government by "the people," and any of them may be rescinded through the conveniently provided Amendment process (assuming they are, in fact, legitimately granted in the first place, of course, and not simply commandeered, in which case...). So "shall not be infringed" does not -- CANNOT -- refer to government. Any strained alternate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment turns this intended concept on its head, and leaves its advocate wide open to charges of inconsistent reading comprehension. Or a profound preference for unlimited, unopposable government. Just be honest. That's all I'm asking. Well, it's all I can hope for...

** The 2nd Amendment limits the "allowed" relevant tools to those available contemporary with the Constitution as much as does the 1st Amendment. I.e., no cable news free speech, no internet free speech, no religious freedom for Jehovah's Witness, no on-line assembly, no electronic or on-demand publishing. In fact, no electricity.

Better get your Gutenberg press revved up if you wanna keep pontificatin' there, Keith. And somehow I bet you'd be singing a different tune were King George to declare martial law. I can hope, anyway... (btw, between his Heller tirade and his flip-flop on FISA just because Obama did, late June, 2008 is when Olbermann officially jumped the shark as a self-proclaimed defender of the Constitution)

NH State Constitution: Part First, Article 2-a
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Really. How much clearer can it get?

From the creator of 'Firefly' (yippee!)...

What's all this, then?


And here's more...

Envision an end to eminent domain abuse

FIJA Demonstration, and non-arrest

Contrary to portended, a thankfully uneventful midday FIJA
demonstration at the Court House in Concord, NH, 6/18/2008.

Hit these relevant links for further intel on the demonstration and the anticipated arrest of Kat Kanning.

Friday afternoon at PorcFest '08

Sights & sounds from a lazy Friday afternoon at PorcFest '08, Gunstock Ski Area, Gilford, NH, 6/13/2008

Idle wanderin'



Speechifyin'

In Memoriam...

...of the Republic, dead with the 2008 elections. Sure, there likely won't be much of anything particularly earth-shakingly new following it (assuming King George doesn't declare martial law, of course). Simply more "fetid business as usual." It's not like this isn't the direction we've been headed for a while already.

But with the Presidential field now effectively whittled down to 2 not-an-inflated-dime's-worth-of-difference, more-of-the-same authoritarian collectivist choices, it's clear that the electorate is good with the trend, despite Ron Paul's best "Paul Revere" impersonation...

So, planted today, my memorial to the Republic: "Salix alba 'Tristis'," "Salix Niobe." Appropriately, the Golden Weeping Willow.

Bush/McCain=McSame, Huck/Clegg=Cluck?

"The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism..."
Mike Huckabee, 5/2008

Either he's ignorant, or he thinks the voters are. There's no third choice.

"Now the Democrats are beginning to come back to [the] center, and the Republicans are becoming libertarians. We're losing elections in a grand way."
Mike Huckabee, 5/2008

Not 'cause you're "turning libertarian," Huck. Sorry. Oh, if only...

In a May interview in Seattle (original post here, more commentary here), authoritarian theocrat VP hopeful Mike Huckabee saw fit to pontificate on the "cause" of the deeply troubling direction of the Republican Party in recent years. Incomprehensibly, he blamed the electorate's increasing rejection of the neocon-controlled GOP (whatever has taken it so long?) on...

...an unchecked incursion of libertarianism!

As if libertarians were running the joint. As if libertarian philosophy were finding any significant success in the Republican Party of any recent vintage. As if libertarians were actually the ones who've been earnestly and purposefully guiding the GOP into the toilet (how far they've fallen since '94, let alone '70s Reagan, eh?). As if he actually understood libertarian philosophy (or is he really just outright lying?). (BTW, go watch the "Change your life in 8 minutes" video just up there over to the right. That's it. Go ahead. I'll wait...)

Sadly, we're invariably "allowed" only 2 candidates, and the other one, conveniently enough, is always a 'D' (so no one ever has to worry about the distressingly severe handicap of battling a principled opponent). And so they're both completely -- and dishonorably -- free to misrepresent the thereby missing libertarian philosophy with impunity, of course. When they bother to mention it at all, that is. Hillary, say, would sound no less absurd than ol' Huck by asserting the same thing about that other (to be charitable) ethically challenged (theft is wrong, kids, even if you assign someone else to do it -- deal with it), philosophically bankrupt party.

With props to Dale Everett, it's the misdirective "libertarian bogeyman." With props to Joss Whedon, "These libertarians read minds and spin falsehoods! They're witches, and we must purge the devil from them. WITH FIRE!" (Yes, that's a 'Firefly' reference...)



It's instructive -- and heartening, I think -- that Huck apparently considers the libertarian movement so dangerous to the neocons, et al, despite such limited ongoing success. I mean, why say anything? Except to take the heat off oneself, of course (think the harmonized and choreographed "shoot-the-messenger, ignore-the-message" tactics employed, just most recently, against Scott McClellan). A convenient if nonsensical scapegoat. "It's not our fault. It's that guy's!"

Misrepresentation is to be expected from the politically dishonest. But it also requires a deeply cynical assumption that no one will notice the lies getting bigger and more bizarre. Consider the Bush administration. Or a McCain extension thereof. The GOP blaming libertarians for the state of their party is like old white Christians blaming Rastafarians for the abysmal state of our government and our liberty. It just doesn't fly.

So now authoritarian theocrat VP hopeful, The Huckster finds himself back in NH, June 8 and 9, 2008, providing the quid pro quo for retiring State Senator Bob Clegg (he of the vociferous REAL ID support, and free market-overriding, voluntary contract-eradicating "mandatory insurance coverage") in the latter's run for the GOP's 2nd District Congressional nod.

Got any questions...?

Outlaw Puppeteer: 3rd Time's a Charm?

Dave Ridley again attempts the downfall of western civilization, now including enlisting the help of the vulnerable homeless in his dastardly crimes. Wanna guess...? 5/25/2008