The Weekly Sedition

Friday, 15 January 2021

‘No One Wants To Take Your Guns,’ v. 06-24-2019

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Self-Defense — mikewb1971 @ 11:10 PM

This one is an oldie (dated Monday, 24 June 2019) but a good one, as it puts the victim disarmer attitude up front, where we can see it (and ridicule it!) —

H/T “Gun Talk, how not to be a moron 2” Facebook page — Friday, December 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM

YEP. I’M COMING FOR YOUR AR15

You heard me. No apologies. The same reason you don’t need a lion to protect your home, is why you don’t need a rifle that shoots at 3X the speed of sound and splits concrete like ice. It’s an unreasonable risk.

End the mass shooter era in America

11:29 PM ⋅ Jun 24, 2019 ⋅ Twitter for iPhone

But wait, there’s more!

Just about every time one of the DNC-affiliated victim disarmers spouts off with this sort of nonsense, there’s a “conservative” Republican who chimes in to offer support

Replying to @Nate_McMurray

As unpopular as it may be with my fellow conservative Republicans, I’m kind of with you on this.

I want us to always have the right to bear arms, has to be some limitations. I don’t want people to own hand grenades, or AR15’s with a bump stock and 100 round magazine.

10:54 AM ⋅ Jun 25, 2019 ⋅ Twitter for Android


NOTES

  1. Reposted —
    1. KCUF Media — Facebook page / Spreely page
    2. Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus — Facebook page / Spreely page
    3. “No one wants to take your guns”Facebook page / Wimkin page
    4. Stupor Bowl Sundae Feetball Shoot — Facebook page / Spreely page
    5. The Old Drunken Old Irrvelivents — Facebook page / Spreely page
    6. Vote Dumpster Fire — Facebook page
    7. Vote the Air — Facebook page
    8. Wood Chipper — Facebook page

Copyright © 2021 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.

Monday, 21 September 2020

[Letter to ABQ City Council] Please OPPOSE O-19-82 AND O-19-83

Filed under: Politics, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:28 PM

From: Mike Blessing
To: Councilor Lan Sena <lansena@cabq.gov>, Councilor Isaac Benton <ibenton@cabq.gov>, Councilor Klarissa Peña <kpena@cabq.gov>, Councilor Brook Bassan <bbassan@cabq.gov>, Councilor Cynthia Borrego <cynthiaborrego@cabq.gov>, Councilor Pat Davis <patdavis@cabq.gov>, Councilor Diane Gibson <dgibson@cabq.gov>, Councilor Trudy Jones <trudyjones@cabq.gov>, Councilor Don Harris <dharris@cabq.gov>
CC: Policy Analyst Diane Dolan <ddolan@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Rachael Hernandez <rmhernandez@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Susan Vigil <susanvigil@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Sean Foran <seanforan@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Abigail Stiles <astiles@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Aziza Chavez <azizachavez@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Laura Rummler <lrummler@cabq.gov>
Date: September 21, 2020, 11:42 AM MST
Subject: Please OPPOSE O-19-82 AND O-19-83

Dear Councilors:

I am writing to you in order to speak up against two pieces of proposed legislation scheduled to come before the Council today, O-19-82 and O-19-83.

Ordinance O-19-82 will attempt to mandate secure storage of firearms.

Ordinance O-19-83 seeks to create a city ordinance out of Keller’s questionable order banning firearms on city owned or leased properties.

Both ordinances would violate the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, Article II, Section 6, which states:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

A recent attempt to pass a non-binding resolution to repeal this seciton of the state Constitution failed in the council 5-4.

Let’s make no mistake about it these proposed ordinances are in no way, shape or form about “gun safety” or “gun control”.

True gun safety and gun control stem from the four safety rules, the seven fundamentals of marksmanship, and knowing what is and is not a legitimate target.

If the people backing “Everytown for Gun Safety” truly care about firearms safety, then why aren’t they chipping in towards firearms safety training, as does the group they list as their archnemesis, the National Rifle Association?

If Michael Bloomberg and the other multi-millionaires behind “Everytown for Gun Safety” truly cared about gun safety, they would put their millions behind the construction of MORE shooting ranges, and the maintenance of existing ones. They would chip in for the creation of DVDs and online video shows that provide instruction on the safe and proficient handling of firearms.

Instead, all they do is lobby and agitate for more restrictive laws upon the pre-existing civil, Constitutional, human individual right to own and carry weapons, as supposed to be guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico.

Rather, the legislation in question (O-19-82 and O-19-83) is more properly called “victim disarmament,” in that the people most likely to be affected by it are the people who have the most reason to own and carry firearms for self-defense — the little old lady or the paraplegic who lives alone in a bad neighborhood, the five-foot-nothing 100-pound woman being stalked by a six-foot 200-pound deranged ex-boyfriend.

The bad people (the criminals, terrorists, and violence-inclined mental defectives) whom the proponents of this legislation say will be disarmed by it most likely will not be affected in the least. If they want access to a firearm, they will have it, by hook or by crook.

You see, the bad guys have found this massive loophole in the existing restrictions on private civilians’ rights to own and carry weapons called “breaking the law.”

There are already 20,000 to 25,000 existing restrictions upon the pre-existing individual, civil, Constitutional, human right to own and carry weapons, which are supposed to be guaranteed against State infringement by the Second Amendment and Article 2, Section 6 of the State Constitution. None of these anti-liberty statutes has stopped a bad guy from obtaining a firearm when they want it.

Laws already exist that prohibit felons, domestic abusers, foreign terrorists, incurable drug abusers and alcoholics, and mental defectives from obtaining, owning or carrying firearms.

Laws already exist that prohibit the use of firearms (and other objects) to harm other people (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.).

I think it’s safe to say that all these laws have done is keep honest people honest, the same way locks on doors do.

Those who propose further infringements upon individual liberty aren’t truly looking to improve the human condition at all, but seeking more power over others for whatever reasons. No good will come from these infringements — no good has ever come from these sorts of laws, and no good ever will.

As for the phrase “gun violence” —

Why are not criminal stabbings or slashings with knives ever referred to as “knife violence” ?

Why are hit and run murders done with cars or trucks never called “automotive violence” ?

Why are attacks using baseball bats, pry bars, hammers and pieces of steel rebar never referred to as “blunt object violence” ?

Look, no one is trying to take your government away. We just want to have an honest, open, adult conversation about common-sense restrictions on government. If we can save just one child from government violence, it will be worth it.

Mike Blessing

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should — you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer — what’s the question?


RESPONSES FROM THE COUNCILORS [2]

From: Bassan, Brook <bbassan@cabq.gov>
To: Mike Blessing
Date: September 21, 2020, 11:48 AM MST
Subject: Re: Please OPPOSE O-19-82 AND O-19-83

Good morning,

I agree with your statements. I do not believe we should impose more regulations especially at a municipal level and when they appear to work in opposition of the United States Constitution while possibly putting more innocent people at risk. I do not plan on supporting these Ordinances.

Thank you for reaching out.

Brook Bassan
Albuquerque City Councilor
District 4
Office: 505-768-3101
Fax: 505-768-3227
Email: bbassan@cabq.gov

From: Jones, Trudy <trudyjones@cabq.gov>
To: Mike Blessing
Date: September 21, 2020, 11:56 AM MST
Subject: Re: Please OPPOSE O-19-82 AND O-19-83

Thank you for your comments. I do not support this legislation.

Trudy E. Jones


Copyright © 2020 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.

Saturday, 19 September 2020

Messing About with Article II, Section 6

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 9:00 PM

A few weeks ago, Albuquerque City Councilor Diane Gibson has gotten herself some no-charge campaign advertising, courtesy of the lamestream snoozemedia [1], on account of her calling for a State-level Constitutional Amendment to change Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico from its current text:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

— to something that gives municipal and county governments more leeway to enact victim disarmament statutes:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Considering that the sorts of victim disarmament statutes desired by Gibson and her hoplophobe cronies only disarm those who need to own and carry weapons the most — the five-foot, hundred-pound woman who’s being stalked by her crazed six-foot, two-hundred-pound ex-boyfriend — and don’t actually disarm the criminal and terrorist types one bit, those of us who support and exercise the individual, civil, Constitutional, human right to own and carry weapons for “…. for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes ….” would prefer that IF Article II, Section 6 must be amended, that it should read like this afterwards:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Albuquerque Journal — New vote sought on firearm provision

    KRQE News — Albuquerque city councilors seek new vote on firearms provision

NOTES

  1. Submitted to the Albuquerque Journal — Tuesday, 18 August 2020 at 8:57 AM
  2. Reposted —
    1. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico — Facebook page / Spreely page
    2. A Bias Toward Liberty — Facebook group
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum — Facebook page / Spreely page
    4. Discordian Absurdist Party of New Mexico — Facebook page / Spreely page
    5. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico — Facebook group
    6. Gun Owners of New Mexico — Facebook group
    7. KCUF Media — Facebook page / Spreely page
    8. Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus — Facebook page / Spreely page
    9. New Mexico Dissent and Expose — Facebook page / Spreely page
    10. New Mexico Gun Rights — Facebook group
    11. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) — Facebook group
    12. New Mexico Libertarians — Facebook group / Facebook page / Minds group / Spreely group / Spreely page
    13. Resist Marxism New Mexico — Facebook page
    14. Sons and Daughters of Liberty New Mexico — Facebook group
    15. Split the State New Mexico — Facebook page / Spreely page
    16. Stupor Bowl Sundae Feetball Shoot — Facebook page / Spreely page
    17. The Old Drunken Old Irrvelivents — Facebook page / Spreely page
    18. Vote Dumpster Fire — Facebook page
    19. Vote the Air — Facebook page
    20. Vote the Air NM — Facebook page
    21. Wood Chipper — Facebook page

Copyright © 2020 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.

Saturday, 4 July 2020

“No one wants to take your guns,” v. July 3, 2020

Filed under: Media, Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 4:27 PM

From the Albuquerque Journal, Friday, 3 July 2020, p. A11 OP-ED (“SPEAK UP!”)

KUDOS TO the Santa Fe County Commission for passing on the purchase of AR-15 weapons for the Santa Fe sheriff’s department SWAT officers. . . . Instead of just waiting, as Sheriff Mendoza seems inclined to do because of “the current climate in the nation,” I recommend the funds be redirected to a buyback and destruction of this type of weapon from civilians who have no legitimate need for them. AW


Copyright © 2020 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.

Sunday, 31 May 2020

Meet Roofus Wolfinhousen, Self-Professed Ass-Kicker for COVID-19 Safety

Filed under: Politics, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 10:51 PM

While skimming Facebook, you can come across the most insane thngs —

Facebook — Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 7:09 PM

Going to Wolfinhousen’s Facebook profile, I found more of the same sort of . . . rhetoric.

Original post on Facebook — Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 2:34 PM

Here’s the text typed by Wolfinhousen at the top of that post.

Have Some Respect…
If Can Not Have Respect..
Then You Are Risking A Serious Ass Kicking..

How is that not a veiled threat?

It gets “better” as Wolfinhousen says that “What You Do To Them Next Is 100% Justified” [I’m guessing Wolfinhousen is referring to physical violence or property damage here.]

Original post on Facebook — Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 7:26 PM

Again, here’s the text at the top of that post.

Paying Attention ..
When Some Loser Politician, Or Even A Friend Of Your’s Tells You To Get Back To Work Before The Medical Experts Say That It Is SAFE..
What That Weak Ass Politician Or Friend Is Telling You, “Is That Your LIFE Has No Value To Them”..
They Neither Care About You Or Have Any Respect For You..
What You Do To Them Next Is 100% Justified..

Think about that for a second — “What You Do To Them Next Is 100% Justified.”

What else could Wolfinhousen be implying there besides physical violence?

As pitchmen Billy Mays and Anthony Sullivan would often say, “But wait, there’s more!” —

Original post on Facebook — Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 7:49 PM

If You See Any Of The Trumpy Squad In Public, Attack First…
Do Let The Maga’cowards Ambush Or Sneak You…
Hit Them First & Hit Them Hard..
They Are Weak Minded & Easy To Crush…

It should be noted that the Facebook system considers Wolfinhousen’s implied threats and advocacy of violence to be acceptable.

But just remember — no one needs a gun, and no one wants to take your guns away from you.


Copyright © 2020 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.


Saturday, 29 February 2020

“No one wants to take your guns,” NM v. 02-28-2020

Filed under: Media, Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:29 PM

From page A15 of the Friday, 28 February 2020 edition of the Albuquerque Journal, we have not one, but two “gems of wisdom.”

First, the writer labels anyone that owns or carries a firearm a “gun possessor,” and makes NO attempt to distinguish between criminal misuse of firearms and safe and proficient defensive uses.

So drug testing for welfare recipients, or as a condition of employment is unConstitutional and a violation of rights, but perfectly OK if you want to purchase a firearm?


Copyright © 2020 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.

Thursday, 27 February 2020

Summing Up the Hoplophobes and Victim Disarmers in a Paragraph

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:29 AM

Today’s Albuquerque Journal, fresh from the driveway, has the following in the “Speak Up!” section of the Op-Ed page (A13)

BACKGROUND CHECKS can help reduce mass shootings if they are combined with other strong measures. Close the loopholes and make purchases that are now legal, illegal. MY

If that doesn’t sum up the hoplophobe and victim disarmer mindset, I don’t know what does.

This is why I am not fond of the phrase “law-abiding” when used by right-to-own-and-carry-weapons advocates in relation to gun owners. The openly-stated intent of the victim disarmers is to make it more difficult and more expensive to own any sort of firearm in a legal manner.

Y’all do realize that calling yourself a “law-abiding” gun owner while simultaneously sporting any “I WILL NOT COMPLY” graphics or signage is idiocy. For the very essence of “law-abiding” is compliance with every little asinine, ridiculous, burdensome edict put out by the Political Classholes?!


Copyright © 2020 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.

Monday, 17 February 2020

Mike’s Birthday Fundraiser for Firearms Policy Foundation

Filed under: Networking, Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 10:43 PM


Monday, 20 January 2020

Politicians Need to Follow the Law, Too [ABQ Journal — Letter to the Editor]

Filed under: Media, Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 7:37 PM

In today’s Journal, I read an letter to the editor by Quay County Attorney Warren F. Frost [1] saying that the 29 county sheriffs who prefer their constituents’ individual liberty over Bloomberg-financed victim disarmament dictats from Santa Fe should resign or face the possibility of removal should they refuse to follow those dictats.

Frost cites Article XX, Section 1 of the New Mexico State Constitution [2] as his rationale on this —

Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.

Where in that clause do public officials, elected or appointed, reserve the right to blow off parts of the State Constitution that they don’t care for, as if those parts don’t exist?

In this case, I’m referring to willful disregard for Article II, Section 6, as repeatedly displayed by Governor Michelle Lujan-Grisham and the Legislature.

Article II, Section 6 reads as follows —

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

If the 29 of 33 county sheriffs who are opposed to the Bloomberg-financed victim disarmament campaign are subject to removal for refusing to follow its dictats, then why are Lujan-Grisham and her fellow victim disarmers in the Legislature not subject to removal for their refusal to abide by Article II, Section 6?


AS PUBLISHED

LEGISLATURE 2020

RED FLAG DEBATE

Look who’s blowing off the Constitution now

  IN (THE Jan.12) Journal, I read an letter to the editor by Quay County Attorney Warren F. Frost saying that the 29 county sheriffs who prefer their constituents’ individual liberty over Bloomberg-financed victim disarmament dictats from Santa Fe should resign or face the possibility of removal should they refuse to follow those dictats.

  Frost cites Article XX, Section 1 of the New Mexico State Constitution as his rationale on this.

  Article XX Miscellaneous, Section 1 Oath of officer reads that: “Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.

  Where in that clause do public officials, elected or appointed, reserve the right to blow off parts of the State Constitution that they don’t care for, as if those parts don’t exist?

  In this case, I’m referring to the willful disregard for Article II, Section 6, as repeatedly displayed by Governor Michelle Lujan-Grisham and the Legislature.

  Article II, Section 6 reads as follows: “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

  No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

  If the 29 of 33 county sheriffs who are opposed to the Bloomberg-financed victim disarmament campaign are subject to removal for refusing to follow its dictats, then why are Lujan Grisham and her fellow victim disarmers in the Legislature not subject to removal for their refusal to abide by Article II, Section 6?

MIKE BLESSING
Albuquerque


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. If you can’t enforce the law, resign by Warren F. Frost, Quay County Attorney (Albuquerque Journal, Sunday, 12 January 2020, page A11)
  2. Article XX Miscellaneous, Section 1 Oath of officer

Copyright © 2020 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.

Wednesday, 12 June 2019

Bernalillo County DA Raul Torrez, Idiot or Liar?

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:40 PM

In light of the past six months, I think that it’s rather obvious that Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez is functioning as a rhetorical sock puppet for the Big Victim Disarmament machine, with the hands of George Soros and Michael Bloomberg up his rear making his lips move —

Sock puppets — which one is Raúl Torrez?

On Monday, 10 June 2019, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office posted a bit of idiocy or fearmongering on Facebook —

Monday, 10 June 2019 at 1:16 PM

An Albuquerque teen arrested for selling the deadly drug fentanyl and military grade weapons on social media now being prosecuted federally.

Here are some photos from that post, with my own commentary in red.

Kid with FRNs fanned

Here El Chapo Jr shows off the fruits of his alleged business activities.

Oh, my — pills!

Beretta 92 type pistol with magazines

Yes, the M9 was and is patterned after the Beretta 92 series of pistols. That’s because Fabbrica d’Armi Pietro Beretta introduced it into the U.S. Armed Forces’ trials to replace the M1911, and the M9 was selected in 1985 as the winner of those trials.

Never mind that the Beretta 92 series has been available on the American civilian market since it was first made available by Beretta in 1975. And also disregard the non-Beretta clones of the Model 92 series available to American civilians — the Taurus PT-92, for example.

Similarly, there have been numerous civilian clones of the M1911 available on the American market for decades.

And recently, the SIG Sauer P320 was adopted as the U.S. military’s M17, with a civilian version of the M17 (“SIG Sauer P320 M17”) being offered by SIG Sauer.

And of course there’s the Glock, which gained notoriety after being adopted by the Austrian military and police as their service pistol in 1982, and has been subsequently adopted by quite a few other military and law enforcement agencies. (Disclaimer — I own two (2) Glocks myself, a G17 and a G22)

But wait, there’s more! (Apologies to Billy Mays and Anthony Sullivan) — Torrez & Co. want us to follow them deeper down their taxpayer-subsidized, Bloomberg- and Soros-directed rathole and swim with them in their sewer of hoplophobic insanity and idiocy: here’s more “evidence” of “military grade” “assault weapons” “on the street” —

Pic from behind AR-15 pistol (blurry)

My request for clear, in-focus pictures, of course, appears to have gone unheeded.

AR-15 pistol with drum mag in car (dated Wednesday, 5 June)

Here’s a picture from the related press conference, dated Wednesday, 5 June 2019 at 12:28 PM

Of course, the Albuquerque Journal added its no-charge PR help reporting (the KRQE “News” “team” was also complicit) of Torrez’s rhetorical regurgitation —

“Make no mistake about it, this young man had in his possession a weapon of war,” Torrez stated. The AR-15 pistol is small enough to be concealed on a person’s body and can be fired with just one hand.

But “seriously” (as if these idiots and liars should actually be taken seriously?!) — “weapon of war” ?

Maybe Torrez mistook the AR-15 pistol pictured here for an M231 Firing Point Weapon[1] . . . ?

Maybe the next item on El Chapo Jr’s shopping list was a Bradley Fighting Vehicle of some sort?

But seriously (for real, this time) —

What military or law-enforcement agency actually uses AR-15 pistols as pictured above?

Why would they use such neutered knock-offs when they can get AR-15-pattern weapons with similar-length barrels (this one appears to be about 10 inches) AND attached shoulder stocks (suppressors, too!) without having to fill out any Form 4s or pay the 200-per-weapon transfer tax.

That’s what the AR-15 pistols with exposed buffer tubes like that are — neutered knock-offs.

They’re marketed to those who want an AR-15 with a barrel shorter than 16 inches without having to complete a Form 4, pay the transfer tax, get fingerprinted and photographed, then wait six months to a year wondering if their federal weapon permit will be approved.

What Torrez and his fellow Political Classholes need is a reminder that the Founders wanted America’s private-sector civilians to have actual weapons of war in their personal possession, as opposed to neutered knock-offs —

The power of the sword, say the minority . . . , is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
Tench Coxe, Letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788

What Torrez and others of his ilk either forget or willfully disregard is that the Founders wanted America’s civilian population to have at least military parity with, if not supremacy over, the federal government, and probably the state governments, as well.

What is the specific war that we need such military weapons for, exactly?

Why, it’s the perpetual war for human freedom, of course.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Ian McCollum at Forgotten Weapons on the M231 Firing Point Weapon — Website / YouTube

    Wikipedia — M231 Firing Point Weapon

    Soldier Systems — “M231 Firing Port Weapon”

NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,025: 16 June 2019

Copyright © 2019 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq.

Older Posts »