DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES BRAZENLY ATTACK SECOND AMENDMENT DURING DEBATE

While it may seem a waste of words even to discuss the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential candidates’ positions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, some elucidation is in order since we can zero in on the current strategies each of the five Democratic candidates would employ for undermining the Second Amendment were that person elected to the Office of President. So, let us consider where each of the five candidates stand on the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as laid out during the October 13, 2015 Democratic Party Debate, held at the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas.Well, none of the Democratic Party candidates serve as a supporter, much less an exemplar, of the Second Amendment. That, we know. But, if so, how can an American -- any American -- claim to represent all Americans who does not vow to uphold the “Bill of Rights” of the U.S. Constitution – all Ten of them, not Nine or Eight of them?Now, some might argue that Jim Webb, who, as the moderator, Anderson Cooper, pointed out, had, at one time, at least, received an “‘A’ rating from the NRA,” is, in fact a supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, Cooper asked Webb whether Webb would agree that arming more people is Webb’s answer to a mass shooting. Webb did not take the bait but said that there are two fundamental issues involved in this discussion and that both need to be respected. The first issue, Webb said, goes to the question “who should be kept from having guns.” Webb said that criminals, gang members, and those who are mentally incapacitated should not have access to guns. The second issue, Webb asserted, goes to the tradition in this Country. Webb pointed out that people have a right to have access to guns to protect their families from violence since they do not have bodyguards as those in high levels of Government do. Now, these assertions might suggest that Webb is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment but, if you carefully analyze what he said, Webb qualified and effectively undermined his position by arguing for more “background checks,” and he clearly asserted that mental health practitioners should share their patients’ medical information with Government.The use of background checks as well as the introduction of measures compelling mental health practitioners to divulge medical information that is subject to the doctor/patient privilege serve only to destroy the inherent right to privacy. And both measures result in secretive Government registration lists – all part of “Big Data” for the benefit of “Big Government.” So, if you think that Jim Webb is a devoted protector of Americans’ Second Amendment Right of the people to keep and bear arms and, as well, protector of Americans’ Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, you better think twice. Many viewers of the televised debate were taken in by Webb’s pronouncements, believing that he supports the Second Amendment. At one time, perhaps he did. As a Democratic candidate for President, he most certainly does not.Anderson Cooper then asked Bernie Sanders to address his position on guns. Cooper, pointed out – among other things – that Sanders had, at one time, shielded gun companies from lawsuits. Cooper suggested, without explicitly stating, that Sanders supports gun ownership. In his response Sanders corrected Cooper, beginning with Sanders' point that he had received a “D Minus” rating from the NRA -- shamelessly boasting to the American public that the NRA does not approve of Sanders’ position on “guns.”To exemplify the import of the “D-Minus” Rating, Sanders said that he had, since 1988, supported a ban on “assault weapons” – this coming from a man who also remarked that Vermont has virtually no gun control laws -- a curious addendum to Sanders' statement, indeed.Sanders also said that he has, through the years, supported instant background checks and that he ascribes to “doing away with this ‘terrible’ gun-show loophole.” He also said that we have to deal “aggressively" at the federal level, with straw man purchases. Finally, Sanders said that people who face mental health crises must get mental health counseling immediately.Anderson Cooper pressed Sanders on whether he wishes to shield gun companies from liability. Sanders replied, “of course not.” Sanders added that he does not believe that a gun shop owner who had legally sold a gun to a purchaser should be held accountable if a crime is committed with that gun. But, he added, where a gun shop owner or gun manufacturer had knowingly sold a gun to a criminal, then that gun shop owner or manufacturer should be held accountable.As with Webb, Sanders is arguing for mandatory mental health care intervention and the sharing of private medical records – even if this is only tacitly stated. Is this such a bad thing? Yes, it is!Since the distinction between non-serious mental health problems and serious mental health issues is nebulous at best, those Democrats, and Republicans, too, for that matter, who are jumping on the mental health care bandwagon, are essentially setting the stage for a gun ban impacting a tremendously large segment of the American population – a population consisting, conceivably of tens of millions of Americans. Moreover -- and it bears repeating -- the requirement that mental health care practitioners must share medical information with government officials absolutely destroys the sanctity of the doctor/patient privacy privilege and destroys, as well, the import and purport of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Anderson Cooper, obviously providing a leg up for Hillary Clinton, then asked Clinton whether she felt that “Bernie Sanders is tough enough on guns.” Hillary must have gotten a pleasant jolt out of that question, thinking to herself, “thank you Anderson Cooper.” She responded, “no, not at all!” Clinton pointed out that we lose ninety people a day to gun violence and that this has gone on for far too long. Clinton didn’t trouble herself to support the assertion with evidence. Clinton never does. Nor did Clinton bother to explain what groups of people are responsible for the gun violence. Clinton, as always, is notoriously vague. So, was Clinton referring to criminals as the source of gun violence or was she referring to law-abiding citizens? Anderson Cooper, obligingly, never bothered to ask Clinton for clarification.Clinton – now on a roll – she must have loved that Cooper brought up the issue of "guns" – said, “it is time the entire Country stood up against the NRA.” Clinton got a large round of applause for that last remark. Clinton is always at her best when posturing to her audience who are satisfied receiving choice sound bites from her – never demanding cogent, comprehensive, coherent, intelligent arguments in support of her positions -- assuming she has a firm conviction about anything, apart from her singular lust for securing the Office of the Presidency.Clinton in her remarks is essentially asserting that the NRA is something other than the millions of Americans who compose it and millions more who derive benefit from it – whose interests the NRA represents. Is Clinton suggesting that tens of millions of Americans – stand up against themselves – against their own interests? Once again, Anderson Cooper didn’t trouble himself to ask Clinton to expand upon her bald, bold pronouncements. Rather, he allowed her to bask in the limelight of her mesmerized devotees, who hang on her every empty and, often, inconsistent word. Clinton then unleashed another volley of ludicrous assertions that -- one might reasonably suspect -- she expects the public to take for profound aphorisms. She blurted out that the majority of Americans support background checks and even the majority of gun owners do. Oh, really? But, instead of quizzical gazes from the audience, she gets another round of applause.Clinton then attacks Sander’s record on guns. She said that Sanders voted against the “Brady Bill” five times and that, according to Clinton, since the passage of the “Brady Bill,” more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented. If true, one must wonder that, if the “Brady Bill” were so successful, why are the Democrats proclaiming the need for yet more restrictive gun legislation?Oh, and now that Hillary is on a roll, more nonsense gushes forth. She asks: Did you know that the gun manufacturing industry in America is the only industry immune from lawsuits? She further asserts that gun manufacturers are the only manufacturers who are not accountable. Clinton would have you believe that this nonsense is just common knowledge rather than vacuous remarks, devoid of any legal or logical substance.Sanders responded that we need to expand background checks, do away with the “gun show loophole,” deal with mental health issues, and do away with straw man purchases. This all boils down to: limit as far as possible the number of Americans who can possess firearms, and make sure that those few remaining law-abiding Americans, who can and do lawfully possess firearms, register them so all governmental bodies know who those Americans are -- which makes confiscation of firearms, then, a relatively simple task.Not to be outdone, Martin O’Malley blurted out his own righteous indignation. O’Malley referred to a lawsuit that was filed by a couple against a person who sold several thousand rounds to the individual who killed their daughter in a “mass shooting” in Aurora, Colorado. O’Malley said that the game was rigged against this couple. The case – we’d all like to have the citation to it – was thrown out of court. Worse, according to O’Malley, the couple were “slapped with $200,000.00 in court fees.” And, who was responsible for this alleged perversion of justice, according to O'Malley? The proverbial Bogeyman! The NRA of course. The NRA, according to O’Malley, gets its way in Congress and “we” – whoever “we” refers to – take a backseat. O’Malley concludes his rant with: “It’s time to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation in this Nation!” More applause.Sanders and O’Malley then get into it – as egged on by Cooper. Clinton, for her part, standing calmly between the two – nods her head knowingly, and smiles vacantly, demonstrating seeming composure, as Sanders and O’Malley exhibit a very un-presidential loss of control.Finally, Cooper deigns to give the lost black sheep of the herd, Lincoln Chafee, a couple of minutes to chime in. Chaffee remarks that he has consistently voted for “commonsense gun safety legislation,” and that he has earned an "F" Rating from the NRA -- something to be proud of, apparently. Continuing to smile at seemingly nothing, as he has done throughout the “debate,” Chafee adds that “commonsense” gun safety legislation cannot be passed because the “Gun Lobby” comes in and tells the people, “they’re coming to take away your guns.” Well, aren’t "they" though?So, there you have it: the Democratic Presidential Candidates' policy positions and strategies for undermining the Second Amendment. Oddly enough, though, as each of the Democratic Party candidates for President denigrated “guns,” during the lengthy ten minute tirade, not one of them bothered to explicitly mention the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is really what the "gun" issue is all about, which the candidates talked roundabout, climbing over each other in their mindless zeal to excoriate.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

Subverting the Second Amendment: The Subtle Road to Injustice

Antigun proponents and zealots are quick to qualify their remarks about guns so as not to openly disparage American citizens who cherish their Bill of Rights – all ten of them. “Yes,” the antigun proponents and zealots chant over and over again: “we need ‘commonsense’ gun laws, and of course we respect the Second Amendment.” The obligatory parenthetical remark, “of course we respect the Second Amendment,” hangs at the end of the phrase, “commonsense gun laws,” like a puppy dog’s tail. The gun grabbers “wag it” in our faces as if to suggest that American citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should be “sensible about guns” – as if we aren’t and, so, must be made to be. Antigun proponents and zealots always have the Second Amendment in the cross-hairs, ready to wound it, eventually to kill it, even as they proclaim no such intention to do so.The fact of the matter is that the antigun movement seeks to end civilian ownership of firearms. The movement’s entire reason for being is focused on that end. Second Amendment adherents know or should know that more “commonsense gun laws” mean, ultimately, nothing more than “total gun confiscation,” except for those individuals who happen to fall into some “small, select, special, trusted, elite class.” The goal of all antigun proponents and zealots is omnipresent; it never changes even as it remains tacit, unspoken. The American public should be under no illusion about that. The antigun mantra – “commonsense gun laws,” – is ultimately meaningless, senseless, and even nonsensical. It echoes hollowly in the void.The gun grabbers use that meaningless, senseless, nonsensical slogan, “commonsense gun laws,” every chance they get. Just recently, as reported by The Associated Press through The New York Times newspaper, President Barack Obama – a staunch advocate for dispossessing Americans of their firearms – also used that familiar, wearisome, tiresome refrain when he spoke to the BBC (the British Broadcasting Corporation). Obama apparently does not understand, or simply chooses not to understand or, perhaps, is utterly incapable of understanding the import of the Second Amendment to Americans, which the founders of the Republic bequeathed to Americans, to us – to cherish, to treasure, to hold most dear. The issue of gun control, President Obama says, has left him “the most stymied” . . . [and, he] “tells the BBC he is ‘frustrated’ that the U.S. does not have ‘commonsense gun safety laws,’ even in the face of repeated mass killings.”The BBC is, as most people know, a major British news outlet. Great Britain does not have anything comparable to our Second Amendment. Indeed, Great Britain doesn’t even have one specific document that might be considered a written Constitution, let alone anything remotely like America’s “Bill of Rights.” In a land whose social structure is grounded on class distinctions, well-honed and solidified after hundreds of years of existence, the British royalty and nobility would not trust, and never have trusted the British commonalty, with possession of firearms. Apparently, the British commonalty doesn’t see anything wrong with that. True Americans, however, do. So, Obama preaches to the choir over there. And that choir would like to sing Obama’s praises over here. “What is the problem with Americans, the British ask?” “Why must Americans own and possess firearms at all?” And, if they must possess firearms, what do they have against “commonsense gun safety laws.” The British might reflect on American history before suggesting answers to those questions. And, President Obama, for his part, would have done better to reflect on the import of and impact of his ‘commonsense gun safety laws’ message on Americans before he conveyed that message, strangely as he did, to the British.Without firearms, America would still be under British rule, subservient to and paying homage, today, to the Queen of England; pledging allegiance to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, under the Union Jack, rather than to an independent Democratic Republic under the Stars and Stripes – having nothing to do with the United Kingdom.Clearly, Americans do not need another set of so-called “commonsense” gun laws. And the inclusion, now, of the word, ‘safety,’ into the phrase, doesn’t alter that fact. Thousands of federal and State gun “safety” laws already exist. Why have another slew of them? What does it even mean to think we need more? Indeed, what must it mean to even suggest the need for more restrictive, oppressive, so-called “commonsense” gun “safety” laws but that the Obama Administration and like-minded individuals both inside and outside Government – and like-minded individuals and groups both inside and outside this Country – seek to divest average, law-abiding Americans of their natural right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed to them under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?Lest there be any mistake about the intention of the antigun groups in this Country and those abroad, an article in a recent Sunday Review Section of The New York Times, makes plain the agenda of these groups. Mike McIntire, a reporter for The New York Times, asks, “What Makes a Shooter Do It?” That question – the title of McIntire’s op-ed – is rhetorical. McIntire answers his own question, when, toward the end of his article, he says: “What makes someone seek solace in a spasm of bloodshed is perhaps unknowable.” Because no one knows for certain – because no one can ever really know for certain – who might resort to violence, McIntire is making a not so subtle suggestion that the better approach is to get rid of the guns now, from as many Americans as possible – namely, and particularly, from law-abiding Americans – so that any temptation to commit violence with guns in the future – the mere possibility that a law-abiding American might, even if improbably, commit violence with guns in the future – is substantially lessened, if not altogether removed.What McIntire and those like him are opting for, then, is a “Minority Report” type of society in America.In the film, “Minority Report,” starring Tom Cruise, a police force called “PreCrime” arrests citizens before they commit their crimes of murder. “PreCrime” uses three “Precogs,” quasi-human beings whose dreams predict murders to come, along with the individuals who ostensibly commit them. “PreCrime” then locates, arrests, charges, and sentences those people for crimes of murder they never committed – and, at the time of their arrest, had no inkling they would ever form an intention to commit them – but, apparently, according to the “Precogs,” would have committed murder if they weren’t prevented from doing so in the first place. The people, so apprehended by PreCrime police, are duly and brutally punished, and in a novel and most bizarre fashion, even though they never actually committed crimes of murder.Notwithstanding the problematical philosophical and legal issues of arresting, charging, convicting, and sentencing an individual for a crime before a person develops the very intention to commit the crime, the true import of the film has less to do with drawing attention to the legal and philosophical implications and ramifications of damning a person for commission of a crime before the fact, which is simply a plot device, and more to do with the oppressive control exerted by the Security State over the individual, presumably for the sake of preemption and prevention of violence.Yet, as bad as a “Minority Report” society is, what McIntire and other antigun zealots envision for Americans is just as bad if not worse than a “Minority Report.” Consider: A call for an eventual, total civilian gun ban, which, for gun proponents and zealots is on the horizon, is based on the notion that a person does not ever have to commit an actual crime with a gun to be, in a sense, guilty of having committed a crime with a gun. That is to say, the mere possibility that a sane, rational, responsible, honest, law-abiding American citizen may – at some indefinable point in the future – commit a crime with a gun becomes the justification – the Cause Cèlébre of the antigun proponent and zealot – for denying a person access to a gun in the present. Antigun proponents and zealots seek to remove the logical possibility of a crime ever being committed with a gun. They seek to accomplish that feat by banning, outright, the mechanism for that violence from the vast majority of honest, sane, rational, law-abiding American citizens – millions of average American citizens – who have never acted out a violent crime with a gun and who never would do so.The rationale implicit in the antigun proponents’ and zealots’ call for ever more restrictive gun laws is that every American – including and notably, the average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen – is essentially, mystifyingly, bafflingly, ultimately, a cipher. Since no one can know for certain “who will go off the deep-end” at some indefinable point in the future – so their argument goes – it behooves the Government to suspect everyone of eventually resorting to violence. That, apparently, is the “safer” practice: the Government protecting people from people, themselves, and the Government protecting itself from the people.So, if one can harbor the intention to commit a crime, then one can feasibly act on that intention: preemption and prevention of even the possibility – however remote the possibility – of gun violence demand seizure of all weapons from virtually everyone. This is what the antigun proponents and zealots would decree; what they would ordain. And, this is the misguided philosophy of ethical consequential utilitarianism. The American citizenry would see ever more restrictions and controls placed on its movements, upon its actions. Surveillance becomes ubiquitous. The Government begins the process of dispossessing the American commonalty of its guns. The Government, through the mainstream media, controls the citizen’s thought processes. The mainstream media broadcasts, the same messages over and over again, in a hypnotic tone: “Guns are bad for you!” “You will hurt yourself with a gun!” If you see a gun report that immediately to the police!” If you see a family member or neighbor acting oddly, report that person’s actions immediately to the police!” “Stay tuned as we happily provide you with more commonsense safety laws.” This is a portrait of the “Minority Report” society that the antigun proponents and zealots seek to bring to fruition. This is the kind of society that the antigun proponents and zealots are working day and night on to manifest into Reality. If they succeed, the Bill of Rights, itself, becomes meaningless. It begins to crumble. One Amendment after another is formally repealed. The first Amendment to go is actually the Second, followed by the First. Everything the antigun movement seeks to accomplish in America is illustrative of totalitarianism. What they seek to do is the hallmark of the Security State, and it all boils down to suspicion of and paranoid preoccupation with an entire class of citizenry, virtually the entire citizen population, the commonalty of America. The apparent single-minded quest to quell gun violence hides, then, an insidious agenda: the alteration of our society – converting a free, Democratic Republic into a component of a unified international Socialist World Order. And, it all begins through subtle steps to dispossess the average, rational, sane, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen of that citizen’s firearms.But such massive undertaking cannot get traction – nor should it ever get traction in a Democratic Republic such as the United States. And it won’t gain traction, so long as this Country remains a Democratic Republic – a Democratic Republic in fact, not merely in name.At present millions of American citizens own firearms. They are sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding members of society. The number of people who actually resort to violence with guns – who are not, otherwise, from the get-go, either hardened, career criminals on the one hand, or psychopathic or psychotic killers, on the other – is virtually negligible. Yet, the antigun zealots, and the antigun Globalists, and the International Socialist elites – who see no saving grace for Americans’ Second Amendment in a future Socialist World Government – seek to impose ever more restrictive gun laws on millions of sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy law-abiding American citizens. And, if the antigun proponents and zealots, and like-minded groups and individuals such as antigun Globalists and International Socialist elites succeed, the Bill of Rights would be at its end.The Second Amendment is particularly problematic and vexing to antigun proponents and zealots, to antigun Globalists, and to International Socialist elites – to such people and groups both inside this Country and outside it. As they see it, the average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen must be controlled – just as much as the career criminal or the raving lunatic must be controlled if, for no reason, than that there exists millions of them. And, who knows when any one or more of those millions “will turn.”And, so, it is seen as necessary to remove the gun from that average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen American citizen before the fact so that the mere possibility of “acting out” a delusional violent fantasy with a gun – however remote that might be – will be impossible. And, as nothing remotely like America’s Second Amendment exists anywhere in the World today – nothing remotely like it exists that cedes such power to the average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen – that power must be constrained. The Second Amendment must be dismantled. Further, all memory of the Second Amendment must eventually be erased. That Amendment must be consigned to the dustbin of history. And the history behind it must be rewritten.Make no mistake. The dream of the antigun zealots in this Country and their many counterparts elsewhere in this Country and in the world at large would be a nightmare for Americans. If there is anything the law-abiding American citizen ought, rationally, to fear more than hardened criminals getting their hands on guns and harming someone or, if there is anything the law-abiding American citizen ought to fear more than a few paranoid lunatics getting their hands on guns and harming anyone, it is the presence of a powerful, paranoid Government operating without Constitutional restraint, clamping down on an individual’s every thought, action, and deed, imposing its will on everyone.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.