Sunday, April 14, 2013

ARE YOU TOO CRAZY TO BE ALLOWED TO LIVE?


Have you noticed the new emphasis on mental health in the gun control debate?  It’s usually framed as something like, “…common sense approach, such as keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.”  Sometimes, they substitute “bipartisan” in place of “common sense,” but the bottom line is the same:  anyone the government thinks is crazy can’t have guns.

Does my phrasing in that last sentence give away my position?  As much as anyone, I am against lunatics having guns, but like all other government programs, one must ask how would it be accomplished, and what difference would it really make?

I have never really trusted the government to make such decisions, and the present government is orders of magnitude less worthy of our trust.  (For the record, I lump most Republicans in with the Obama administration.  This is not a matter of party affiliation.)  We have seen directives to doctors to report any patient who has guns.  We have seen schools asking children to fill out questionnaires about their parents’ habits, including guns in the home.  We have seen “assault weapon” registration rolls in California used to put ambulances to the curb while SWAT teams went ahead and cleared the home of weapons, while an injured child lay under the tree from which he’d fallen.  We’ve seen the VA reporting veterans who have gone there for help with feelings of alienation, anger, or depression, and those same veterans being denied purchase of firearms.  We have seen parents arrested for posting photos on Facebook of themselves with their children holding guns.
 
Let us not make the mistake of selling short the impact of such rules.  There are certain circumstances under which a person’s only hope of survival is the skillful and timely deployment of a firearm, and a firearm with sufficient power and capacity to do the job.  While most citizens will never find themselves in that position, the odds of it happening to any of us are increasing, especially among those in the border states, where foreign gangs – “armies” is not too strong a term – grow increasingly bold.  To deny any citizen access to an appropriate firearm is to say, literally, “If that ever happens to you, you’re screwed.  You and everyone you might wish to protect are hereby declared nonessential.  We’ll bury whatever pieces we find.”  Liberals have chanted, “If it only saves one child…” but are willing to say, in the most flagrantly callous way, “…except for the children of people of whom we don’t approve.”
 
 
Under certain circumstances, being unarmed is a death sentence.  Period.  This is what we are talking about.  Not hunting.  Not sport shooting.  Not gun collection.  The right to live.  Period.  Yes, if an armed person chooses to commit murder, others may die unless they are armed and prepared, as well, but – BUT – are we qualified to say who lives and who dies, based on... what?  On the opinion of some graduate school hack who is up to his eyeballs in debt to the government?
 
 
Not I.


There is absolutely no way in the world I trust our government or anyone under their control to make valid, objective psychological evaluations of any citizen’s worthiness to defend himself.  Why, I’d bet you a dollar to a donut there are liberals right now thinking, “That crazy sonofabitch Rodgers needs to be at the top of our crazy list!”  Now, I may be crazy, but I’m not keen on being so judged by people with a political axe to grind.  I see horrendous potential for abuse of power and the 4th and 5th Amendments, at least, and it concerns me deeply.

Obamacare has established unprecedented governmental control over all aspects of the health care system.  There is no way any doctor will stay in business while refusing to comply with the rules, and the rules are so vaguely-written as to practically demand abuse.   
 
So much for the “how.”

Would such a law do any good?  I don’t think so. It's been proven beyond any doubt that it is impossible to keep known felons from getting guns.  It would be equally impossible to keep “unstable” persons from getting them.  If there are guns in America, felons and wackos will get them.  There’s no way to prevent it. This, of course, leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the ultimate Federal goal is the total disarmament of the American people, but even that won’t work.  The genie is out of the bottle.  The gun is just too useful to fade away.  Take the guns we’ve got, and by the time you bury your dead, we’ll have more.  Guns are easy to make, and I’m not talking about zip guns; I’m talking about high-powered repeating arms capable of battlefield accuracy. 

So, in point of fact, the idea of keeping guns out of ANYone’s hands is a myth – a warm, fuzzy, incredibly dangerous delusion.  Add to that the fact that, especially in the case of “mental health,” our criteria are so pathetically vague and primitive, and you have what amounts to a scenario right out of the movie, “Minority Report.”  We are talking about prior restraint – antecedent judgment (called “prejudice” in some circles) – being found guilty, not merely before being tried, but before a crime has been committed!

Are you really prepared to live in a nation in which the government can deprive you of your right to own anything based on what you MIGHT do at some point in the future?  It doesn’t matter whether we talk about guns or bubble gum, the principle is the same.  And if you like the Obama administration, remember that you are not giving this power to Saint Barack; you are giving it to the presidency.   Would you be comfortable giving this power to George Bush?  I wouldn’t be, and I liked him up until the last two years of his second term.

When considering these questions, consider how they’d be implemented, and what it would take to make them effective.  In the case of the proposed mental health standards for firearms ownership, there is no way to make them work, at all, under any circumstances, and most certainly not without gutting the Bill of Rights like a carp.

Obama and the fascist leadership are fully aware of what I have warned you of.  The Republicans who have sold their souls and support the fascists are probably too stupid to understand it.
 
 
Rebsarge

AND FROM MY OTHER SENATORIAL VERIMIN

THIS IS MARTIN HEINRCH'S RESPONSE TO MY LETTER:

It's no secret that I have always believed that law abiding citizens should be able to own firearms for both sport and self-defense. Like many New Mexicans, I own guns for those very purposes.
 
However, as a parent, I couldn't watch the events at Sandy Hook last year and not be deeply affected. Too many of us have had friends or family touched by senseless shootings. We owe it to the American people to take real action to reduce the violence in our communities.
 
The Senate voted today to begin debate on and consideration of the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. This bill includes pragmatic public safety measures that the vast majority of Americans-including gun owners-can embrace. I've said that I'll base my support for any legislation on whether it can realistically reduce the violence while still protecting the constitutional right to bear arms. This proposal meets that standard.
 
Keeping guns out of the hands of people legally prohibited from having them is a common-sense way to prevent violence without punishing law abiding gun owners. That's what background checks do, and having been through the background check process myself on numerous occasions, I know it is not an unreasonable burden on responsible gun owners. There is no reason that firearm sales made on the internet or at a gun show shouldn't meet that same common-sense standard.
 
I also support cracking down on illegal gun trafficking. If you buy a firearm in order to pass that firearm on to a criminal, you should face federal prosecution.
Prioritizing mental health services is another key component to keeping our families safe. I'll continue working to ensure that our schools, families, and communities have the tools they need to support the mental health of our kids.
 
 
 
AND MY RESPONSE, WHICH IS SLIGHTLY EDITED FROM THE ONE TO UDALL:
 
I asked you a very specific question:  how do you propose to make “universal background checks” work without utterly repudiating the Bill of Rights.  You responded by invoking the recent mass murders, especially of children, clearly in the belief that it gives you absolute free rein to do anything you wish, as long as it “…saves even one child.”  Then you went into the familiar litany about commercial sales at gun shows and undocumented internet sales. 
Here’s a newsflash for you, Senator:  all commercial sales, at gun shows and otherwise, have been subject to background checks for years.  I have purchased guns at shows, and I assure you, I went through the background check.  As for internet sales, they have been illegal for decades, along with mail order sales, thanks to the Democrat frenzy over Lee Harvey Oswald’s mail order purchase of a rifle he could have had at any hardware store for $30.00. That was in 1968, I believe, and we all know how effective it was in combating crime.
At every opportunity, you equate crime control to gun control, with phrases like, “common sense,” and “bipartisan” thrown in, evidently under the impression that such phrases grant absolution to your misbegotten ideas.  Well, Sir, they do not.  Common sense is getting more rare by the day, and I guarantee you the common sense of murdering gang-banger on the border is not the common sense of a homeowner who might be facing him in a gunfight.  As for bi-partisan, don’t make me puke.  Today’s Republican party is as filled with traitors and quislings as is the Democratic party.  Bipartisan just means you got a bunch of other snakes to go along with you.
Will you answer my question, Senator?  How will you implement universal background checks without eliminating most of the Bill of Rights?
 
By the way, Sir, I noticed that you did not vote for the UN arms control treath, and for that, I most sincerely thank you!  I believe a vote for that treaty would have been an act of treason.
 
 
REBSARGE
 

EXCHANGE WITH SENATORIAL VERMIN

TOM UDALL'S RESPONSE TO MY LETTER OF LAST WEEK...

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislative efforts to reduce gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you, and your views are important to me.
The incomprehensible act of violence that ended the lives of innocent children and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School has left our nation with a profound sense of sorrow and questions about why these tragedies are occurring with increasing frequency. Congress has an obligation to pass sensible legislation in an effort to reduce the epidemic of gun violence in our nation. We can take logical steps toward that goal without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens and restricting the traditions of sportsmen in states like New Mexico.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as New Mexico's Constitution, secure the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. In 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual citizen's right to own a firearm, but said this right is subject to reasonable restrictions. For generations, many New Mexicans have exercised this right in a responsible way, and I believe they should be able to continue to do so. At the same time, our communities have an obligation to combat crime, maintain public safety and protect citizens from senseless gun violence.
Proposals for reducing gun violence have been put forth by President Obama and several of my colleagues in Congress. This week, the Senate agreed in a bipartisan vote of 68-31 to begin debate and consideration of S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013, a bill introduced by Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. While the bill has not yet been finalized, it does contain key provisions I support to expand criminal background checks, increase school safety and strengthen laws against gun trafficking and illegal purchases.
On April 11, Senators Joseph Manchin and Patrick Toomey introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act (715), which I plan to support during the consideration of this bill. It would extend background checks to all commercial sales conducted at gun shows and over the internet. However, it would not require background checks for transfers between family members or friends. The amendment also includes language that reaffirms the existing prohibition on creating a national gun registry in current law.
While making these sensible changes to federal gun laws is important, we must also give our law enforcement the resources they need to enforce these laws. As a former federal prosecutor, I understand how it can be difficult to prosecute firearm offences when resources are limited. Therefore, I also plan to introduce an amendment to S. 649 that will allow the Attorney General to hire additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys to focus on investigating and prosecuting gun crimes, including gun trafficking which contributes to violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Another important component is increased access to mental health services. To that end, I am a cosponsor of S. 116, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization of 2013, and S. 195, the Mental Health in Schools Act. These bills will help improve accessibility to mental health services for young people. I will continue to seek additional ways to improve our country's approach to mental health during the amendment process for S. 649.
There is much more serious work ahead and many other amendments are expected to be offered and voted on as we consider S. 649 -- including those to reinstate the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and to restrict high-capacity magazines. I will carefully evaluate each and every one of these proposals and cast my vote based on whether I believe they can effectively reduce violent crimes, meet Constitutional standards and work for New Mexico.
I remain hopeful that working together we will achieve sensible, bipartisan solutions to prevent gun violence and secure our communities. Please be assured that I will thoughtfully consider any legislation focused on preventing future tragedies, and that I will keep your thoughts in as the Senate continues to consider S. 649.
 
 
AND HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO UDALL'S BALONEY...
 
Senator, I received your letter on gun control.  It contains the same stupid, insipid, and ill-advised garbage that has been pandered by fascists for decades.
I asked you a very specific question:  how do you propose to make “universal background checks” work without utterly repudiating the Bill of Rights.  You responded by invoking the recent mass murders, especially of children, clearly in the belief that it gives you absolute free rein to do anything you wish, as long as it “…saves even one child.”  Then you went into the familiar litany about commercial sales at gun shows and undocumented internet sales. 
 
Here’s a newsflash for you, Senator:  all commercial sales, at gun shows and otherwise, have been subject to background checks for years.  I have purchased guns at shows, and I assure you, I went through the background check.  As for internet sales, they have been illegal for decades, along with mail order sales, thanks to the Democrat frenzy over Lee Harvey Oswald’s mail order purchase of a rifle he could have had at any hardware store for $30.00. That was in 1968, I believe, and we all know how effective it was in combating crime.
At every opportunity, you equate crime control to gun control, with phrases like, “common sense,” and “bipartisan” thrown in, evidently under the impression that such phrases grant absolution to your misbegotten ideas.  Well, Sir, they do not.  Common sense is getting more rare by the day, and I guarantee you the common sense of murdering gang-banger on the border is not the common sense of a homeowner who might be facing him in a gunfight.  As for bi-partisan, don’t make me puke.  Today’s Republican party is as filled with traitors and quislings as is the Democratic party.  Bipartisan just means you got a bunch of other snakes to go along with you.
If it only saves one child?  How about all the children who are saved by the parents  - and even themselves – who  use guns to save life and preserve virtue?  How many of them are you willing to condemn to death?  Yes, Sir.  How many death certificates are YOU personally willing to sign?
Will you answer my question, Senator?  How will you implement universal background checks without eliminating most of the Bill of Rights?
I also noticed that you voted for the UN gun control treaty. That, Sir, is an act of treason, and, if there were justice in America, you’d be in irons right now.
 
 
Rebsarge
14 April, 2013

Monday, April 8, 2013

LETTER TO MY SENATORIAL VERMIN, 8 APR., 2013

To Senator Tom Udall (F-NM) and Senator Martin Heinrich (F-NM)

Senator, I have question for you.  Just how will "universal background checks" work?  How can such a law be implemented?

I submit that you can not know if a gun has changed hands unless you know who had it originally and who has it now.  To achieve the first, you will have to register every gun in the United States.  To achieve  the second, you will have to grant government authority - presumably to the BATF or DHS - to do unannounced searches of the homes of every gunowner.

No?  Well then, how in hell do you propose to know when I have sold a gun?  And what if I don't tell you to whom I sold it?  The only way you can find that gun is to search every house in the nation.

Think about just  how laws will be enforced, and that will imply for our liberties and the lives of every man or woman you send to enforce such laws.




Sic semper,
Rebsarge