Bill Of Rights/2A under Siege: Americans Prepare for Battle

The American Public has begun a steady, unstoppable pushback against recent antigun measures. The NYSAFE Act of 2013 was the first of these recent antigun measures. Others soon followed. Antigun zealots in Congress, the White House and in State Governments across the Country gave these abusive measures absurd and laughable titles, among them: “commonsense gun laws we need now;” “commonsense gun laws we can live with;” and “commonsense legislation to end gun violence.” But there is nothing “common” nor “sensical” about them. The slogans do not create enthusiasm for restrictive gun laws. They incense the Public, and rightly so. The Public has made clear it would squash the antigun zealots before it would quash the Second Amendment.The Obama Administration and the allied antigun coalitions are powerless to stop the juggernaut. They wish to do so but cannot. They cannot do so because they fail to understand it. Are they naïve? Perhaps there exists a more sinister and secretive force behind these antigun measures. Are these restrictive antigun laws a scheme of internationalists? We believe so. Is the United States to lose its unique heritage? Must this Nation join the New World Order?These internationalist schemers cannot or choose not to understand the American citizenry’s adoration for their Bill of Rights. They misunderstand the strength and resilience and steadfastness of the American psyche and soul. Nonetheless, they intend to break the American will. They use deception and tricks.These internationalist schemers befriend public leaders who share their goal for a one-world government and corrupt those who don’t. They are dismissive of the American Public. They tire of our resolve. The internationalist puppet masters control both the Obama Administration and antigun coalitions around the Country. These un-American forces are dealing with Public “obstruction” in several ways – through executive orders; through international pacts and treaties; through Statutes like restrictive gun measures that slowly whittle away our liberties.These anti-American forces seek to bypass the American Public, to bypass public accountability, to bypass the U.S. Constitution. They are keenly aware of and clearly fear the threat an armed citizenry poses to their ruthless and illegal takeover of power.Curiously, two U.S. Supreme Court Justices – one active, the other retired – attack the sanctity of our Constitution.A little over two years ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave advice to the Egyptian Election Commission. The Commission was drafting a new constitution for Egypt. “I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be,” she said, “because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world. . . . You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa.”Yes, Justice Ginsburg, our Constitution is old. Redrafting our Constitution destroys it. Once destroyed, our Republic dies. The founders knew this. They weren’t fools. They knew external change is unavoidable. But the Rights set forth in our Bill of Rights are Rights indestructible. These Rights exist for all time, not simply for the eighteenth century, or the nineteenth century, or the twentieth century or the twenty-first century. Our Rights are unalienable Rights. They don’t expire.Would Justice Ginsburg like to rewrite our Constitution? Would she use South Africa’s Constitution as a guide? There are dozens of sections in South Africa’s “Bill of Rights” – none of them remotely suggestive of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Would Justice Ginsburg omit the clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” in her new draft of a U.S. Constitution?Recently, as reported on AmmoLand, retired Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a book, titled, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” It’s due out in late April 2014. Among the “changes,” Stevens proposes elimination of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Did someone urge or even cajole Stevens at this late stage in his life into writing a recipe book, directed to undermining our sacred Bill of Rights? We believe so.The forces that crush are at work. They are feverishly at work. They are at work hatching plans to destroy our sacred Bill of Rights, beginning with the Second Amendment.These forces have in the past conducted oblique assaults. The American citizenry is of late facing direct frontal attacks. Antigun forces have grown anxious and frustrated. They have are weary of incremental steps to gain their objective. They now make no pretense of their aim: Get rid of the Second Amendment. The Public is repulsing the attack, and repulsing it hard.But can these forces lawfully deny through legislative or executive action? No! The Right doesn’t exist because the Founders wrote it down. It exists under “Natural Law.” The Second Amendment is simply a codification of the Right. The Right existed before the “Bill of Rights.” The Right is eternal.Why, then, did the Founders write down – codify – the Second Amendment? Why did the Founders view a codification of a natural Right necessary? The written text serves as a reminder. The Founders of our Nation etched the Second Amendment in stone to remind those vested with enormous power t own it. The real power is vested in the People.The Right to Keep and Bear Arms means the People have a natural right of self-defense at home and in public and against an overreaching Federal Government and its standing army. Privacy is also a natural Right. The Government must leave the People alone. These natural rights go together. Since the State does not and cannot grant them, the State cannot lawfully remove them. No one can. But the Government through the internationalist puppet masters still tries. “The king can do no wrong” is a maxim of English Common Law. It’s an anathema. The “king can do no wrong” – meaning the King can do whatever he wants and answers to no one – has no corollary in American common law or statute. The American Revolution was a direct facial attack on the maxim. “The king can do no wrong,” has no place in a free Republic. Our unalienable right to keep and bear arms is a threat to those who tacitly embrace the maxim, “The king can do no wrong” to subdue the masses.The American Public is rejecting en mass the sops fed it, to tame it – to crush it into submission. At the Arbalest Quarrel we point to anti-American forces at work who seek to destroy our Constitution. We discuss the strategies employed and we explain how they work. Take a look at all our posts.________________________________

Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

2/24/14 2/24/14

Should Americans Be Able To Carry A Concealed Handgun?

Arbalest Quarrel Wants To Know What You Think: Should the average law-abiding American citizen be permitted to carry a handgun concealed?

[vc_single_image image="2057" css_animation_delay="100" img_link_target="_self"] [vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Download the flyer here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

2/23/14 2/23/14

NYSAFE Advocate and Gun Hypocrite Ferguson: Is the Story Over? Not by a Long Shot!

The Basic Facts in the Ferguson Case

We all know what happened. Officials at Harvey Austin Elementary School, located in Buffalo, New York, received an anonymous tip. A person had entered the school with a gun. The police were alerted; a SWAT team responded, and the school was “locked down.” Scouring the school, the police eventually traced the weapon to a dubious source: Dewayne Ferguson. Ferguson, 52 years old, father of three, operator of a printing press, who worked as a security guard for community events, was caught. He had carried a gun into a school building. At no time, during the police sweep of the building, did Ferguson inform the police he had a gun on him. What was Ferguson doing in the school? He isn’t a teacher. Still, Ferguson had a legitimate purpose for being at the School, but that purpose did not extend to his having a gun on him.The Buffalo News said that “Ferguson is not employed by the Buffalo School District but was working in the 21st Century Community Learning Program, an after-school academic enrichment initiative that tutors disadvantaged students.” The police arrested Ferguson and he was charged under the same law he fought to pass – the NYSAFE Act. According to WGRZ-TV, a Buffalo news station, Ferguson pleaded not guilty to two weapons charges. WGRZ-TV also reported that prosecutors asked the Court to set bail at $10,000.00, but “City Court Judge Jeanette Ogden released the activist on his own recognizance, citing his community involvement and the fact that Ferguson has no prior run-ins with the law.”Ferguson, a proponent of NYSAFE, is a friend of “antigun” zealots who promoted it. As reported by The Buffalo News, “he was among local activists who stood with Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes last year lobbying for a law that would make possessing a gun on school property a felony.” Ironically, Ferguson was charged under the same law he advocated for.The facts as presented here are not in dispute but disturbing questions remain.

Many Questions Loom

Beyond the salient facts, many questions about Ferguson loom. The mainstream media and local news sources are not asking them. So the Arbalest Quarrel will. They are important. Who alerted the school and why? Was the tip truly anonymous? Why did the tipster fail to mention Ferguson by name? If the tipster knew a person had brought a gun into a school, presumably the tipster would also know who that person was. Why wasn’t Ferguson immediately forthcoming to the police about the gun he had on him? When finally confronted by the police, why was Ferguson noncommittal about the gun he had on him?Ferguson claimed he did not know he had carried a gun into the school building. Is that assertion credible? If so, does Ferguson suffer from memory lapses? According to The Buffalo News, Ferguson’s friend, Rev. James E. Giles, says the incident is an “unfortunate mistake.” But what is the unfortunate mistake here: Ferguson bringing a gun into a school at all or the police finding a gun on him? Did this unfortunate mistake happen once or has it happened before? Did Ferguson carry a gun into Harvey Austin Elementary School on previous occasions? If so, perhaps this unfortunate mistake has happened many times.Does Ferguson always carry a gun into Schools? Did Ferguson carry a gun into Harvey Austin Elementary School on every occasion? Does Ferguson carry a gun whenever he is out in public. Was Ferguson carrying his gun during the time he was among local activists who stood with Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes last year lobbying for a law that would make possessing a gun on school property a felony? Should we forgive Ferguson his unfortunate mistake? Should we forgive Ferguson all his unfortunate mistakes? And, if so, should we not forgive similar unfortunate mistakes of others? Once again: does Ferguson carry a gun whenever he ventures out in public?Ferguson has a valid New York State license to carry a gun. But how did Ferguson qualify for his license? They are difficult to obtain as any New York resident whoever tried to acquire one knows.Did Ferguson meet the “need” requirement for a “carry” license? What are the licensing procedures in Erie County, New York? What kind of gun did Ferguson carry into the school? Is the gun Ferguson carried into the school an “assault weapon” as defined by the NYSAFE Act? How many rounds did the gun have? How many guns does Ferguson possess? Ferguson apparently “patrols” shopping malls and streets. Did Ferguson carry a gun while patrolling shopping malls and City streets? If so, is Ferguson also a licensed security guard?Carrying a Weapon into a School Building is IllegalKnowingly carrying a gun into a school is a felony. Ferguson must be aware of that. After all, he is a vocal supporter for NYSAFE. And, as we have seen, Ferguson particularly supported laws criminalizing carrying a gun into schools. Section 41 of the NYSAFE Act is titled, “Criminal Possession of a Weapon on School Grounds.” Section 41 of NYSAFE is codified in Section 265.01-A of the New York Penal Code. Section 265.01-A of the Penal Code reads in pertinent part: “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes. . . . Criminal possession of a firearm is a Class E felony.” Ferguson had a loaded gun on him when the police arrested him in an elementary school. That is a fact. That fact is not in dispute. But Ferguson claims he did not “know” he had a weapon on him. That issue goes to Ferguson’s state of mind. That is a critical legal issue. Since the Ferguson story has now become the Ferguson case, the Arbalest Quarrel will monitor the case against Ferguson, closely.How will the case against Ferguson proceed? Will the case settle out of Court? If so, what will the nature of that settlement be? If the case proceeds to trial, what new facts will come out at trial? What will the defining legal issues be? And, if Ferguson is found guilty, what will his punishment be? The Public should know. The Public has a right to know. These are critical questions to ponder as the Public sees how NYSAFE applies to individuals and to circumstances. Will some people feel the full brunt of NYSAFE while others get a free pass? The Ferguson case is an important test case. The Arbalest Quarrel will keep you apprised of developments in the case.

Why Isn’t the Ferguson Story Pursued by News Sources?

The mainstream media never reported the Ferguson story. To the MSM the story does not exist. The story never existed. Local news sources did report the story but dropped it. The story simply died. Why is that? The news media’s lack of interest in this story raises its own issues. Surely the MSM had heard of the Ferguson incident as first reported by local news sources. Why didn’t the MSM carry it? And the local news outlets that broke the story know a criminal case is pending against Ferguson. Why aren’t these local news sources pursuing it?We know the MSM reports with machinelike precision all unlawful shootings and unlawful possession of guns. So, the failure of the MSM to report the Ferguson gun incident is suspect. This is an instance of selective reporting. The MSM reports what it wishes to report about guns to create an illusion. The MSM seeks to create the illusion that shootings are prevalent. Yet, in relation to the millions of guns in circulation in the United States, the prevalence of shootings is insignificant. And the vast majority of those shootings are traceable to gang related activities and other criminal conduct. Law-abiding citizens, apart from the police, do defend themselves with guns, but those happenstances are underreported if they are reported at all. The MSM does not want the Public to know that, often enough, a shooting can be and is prevented not by the absence of firearms but through their singular presence. And, if a lawful shooting does occur and if an individual is killed, the MSM prefers not to acknowledge that the innocent life saved through the shooting of a pathological criminal was the better life preserved than the one by necessity taken. The MSM can have none of that. Governor Cuomo and the drafters of NYSAFE will have none of that because the ludicrousness of the rationale behind NYSAFE would then be plain for all to see.The MSM seeks to sway Public Opinion in one direction: toward gun confiscation and away from gun possession. Weighted news accounts of unlawful use of firearms when not offset by news accounts of lawful use of firearms amount to carefully postulated and promulgated propaganda. So, the failure of the MSM to report news can be as suspect as the news that is reported. The Ferguson story draws unwanted attention to NYSAFE. The MSM supports NYSAFE. The MSM is a major proponent of NYSAFE. Individuals who support NYSAFE should not be carrying guns – and they certainly should not be caught carrying guns in school buildings. Antigun zealots who possess guns are, then, not sending the correct message to the Public. Antigun zealots, like Ferguson, who possess and carry guns convey a mode of thought and action that may confuse the Public. Such antigun zealots who possess and carry guns convey an attitude about guns and promote conduct toward guns inconsistent with and antithetical to the goals, aspirations and strategy of the antigun movement. The MSM does not wish to confuse and must not confuse the Public on matters pertaining to guns. The MSM wants its messaging about guns to be clear and categorical and unambiguous. Duplicity cannot be admitted. So the MSM does not report the Ferguson story. The story does not receive national attention. The story does not exist. News stories that reflect badly on NYSAFE and that cast understandable doubt on the character of those who support it and create confusion in the mind of the Public cannot be reported. Those stories must not be reported. So the Ferguson story must not be reported. The Public must not know NYSAFE has flaws. And the Public must not know that some – perhaps many – supporters of NYSAFE are flawed individuals because they want to possess guns and because, knowingly or not, they happen to break the very laws they so fervently support.NYSAFE cannot be presented to the Public in a bad light. A myth is created. Nothing about NYSAFE can be reported that reflects badly on it and nothing about NYSAFE can be reported that reflects badly upon the lawmakers who drafted it and upon those who support it, like Governor Cuomo. The Governor apparently has aspirations for higher public office. Were he to succeed to the National Stage, he would likely bring NYSAFE along with him to that Stage. Were that to happen, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be effectively repealed among the several States, not simply in New York.With all this in mind, local news sources that broke the Ferguson story are told to kill it. And the local affiliates always obey their masters. But the Arbalest Quarrel will not ignore the Ferguson story even as the MSM and local news sources and news outlets do ignore it. We will not let it lie dormant or dead. We intend to resurrect it.

Hypocrisy in Politics

The Ferguson story must remain on the radar because it exposes hypocrisy. It reveals hypocrisy in politics. And it reveals hypocrisy in politics on a vast scale and in high Public Office. The Ferguson story, in particular, raises a question about the application of NYSAFE. Does NYSAFE apply to some persons and not to others? Are some individuals de facto exempted from the rigid requirements and penalties of NYSAFE?The MSM isn’t interested in answering these questions. The MSM does not wish to investigate these questions or to resolve them. This is not surprising. The MSM supports NYSAFE. It wants embarrassing questions to go unresolved, unanswered. But the Ferguson story cannot be laid to rest. The Ferguson story is a test bed for application of NYSAFE. How will the provisions of NYSAFE be applied? Does due process and equal protection under our Nation’s laws apply to some and not to others? The Arbalest Quarrel will follow the Ferguson case to conclusion.

Is The Arbalest Quarrel Being Vindictive?

Some persons may argue the Arbalest Quarrel is vindictive toward Dewayne Ferguson. That is not true. Yes, we detest Ferguson, but we do not detest him because he happened to bring a firearm into a school building. The Arbalest Quarrel detests Ferguson because he is a hypocrite. The stance of the Arbalest Quarrel on hypocrisy is clear and unambiguous. We detest hypocrisy and those who practice it. Why do we detest hypocrisy? We detest hypocrisy because we detest the practice of lying. Hypocrisy is the practice of lying. We detest liars. We have taken as our motto a statement from the philosopher, Saint Thomas Aquinas: “As a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest the truth.” As a matter of honor, one American citizen owes it to another to manifest the truth.” Do you believe America’s political leaders and spokespersons for America’s political leaders manifest the truth toward the American Public? We don’t believe they do. And, if not, they do not honor the Public.A person who lies does not honor his fellows. No one should lie as a matter of practice. But those who know their words affect the lives of millions of others should be especially mindful of the impact of their words. Those who impact the lives of millions of people through lies are particularly heinous individuals. They do not honor their fellow man. And by failing to honor their fellow man they themselves are not honorable and are not worthy of honor.When a person lies, he or she fails to honor the recipient of the lie. Worse, when a person lies, he or she shows contempt for the recipient of the lie. Dewayne Ferguson does not honor his fellow Americans because he actively supports laws averse to the Second Amendment but apparently exalts the Second Amendment for a few people only – among those few, himself. The Second Amendment applies to all American Citizens, not to a few special folk. Dewayne Ferguson does not honor his fellow Americans because he actively supports gun confiscation but carries a gun. Ferguson is in a position of power and influence. His words and conduct have weight. He portrays himself as a pacifist. That position is antithetical to carrying a firearm. He calls for more restrictive firearms measures – this, in a State that, prior to NYSAFE, had among the most restrictive gun laws in the Country.

NYSAFE is Gun Confiscation.

NYSAFE is gun confiscation policy. How do we know this? The answer is plain. Read the text of the Act. An entire category of firearms is outlawed. NYSAFE defines many firearms as “assault weapons.” If a gun is defined as an “assault weapon,” it is a banned firearm. If a New York resident purchased an “assault weapon” lawfully, prior to enactment of NYSAFE, he can keep it but only if he adheres to stringent new requirements that NYSAFE requires. The New York gun owner’s ability to transfer an “assault weapon” to another is also constrained. In fact, a firearm defined as an “assault weapon” cannot be transferred to a family member. Do not be deceived. Lawmakers will define ever more firearms as “assault weapons” under NYSAFE unless this unconstitutional restrictive firearms Act is either struck down in its entirety by the Courts or repealed outright. If NYSAFE is not struck down or repealed, eventually all firearms will be banned as illegal “assault weapons.”Do not be misled. NYSAFE is not legislation to curb crime. How do we know this? Simple. No scientific test was conducted prior to enactment of NYSAFE to establish whether implementation of it would help curb crime. NYSAFE was not enacted through an intention to combat crime. That wasn't the reason it was enacted. It was enacted to restrict and constrain possession of firearms, period. That's how NYSAFE operates. Its provisions are directed to that end. Yet, NYSAFE, like all restrictive gun measures, is heralded as something it is not: a means to curb crime. Crime prevention is always presented as a salient purpose of these laws. Restrictive gun laws are never presented as laws designed to infringe upon the Second Amendment although that is their unstated intent. These laws are presented in a false and innocuous light: to prevent crime; to protect society, to curb violence. They are directed toward a seeming general utilitarian good. What is right and good and proper for the individual isn't a factor in that equation. And the Public is told to take all this on faith. We are supposed to accept the truth of the pronouncements absent supporting evidence. We are expected to accept and many individuals do accept the pronouncements as certain and as immutable as the laws of nature. The true purpose is thereby successfully cloaked: gun confiscation and gun elimination and quiet disassembling of the Second Amendment.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Animal Farm, an allegory, by George Orwell

Dewayne Ferguson promotes gun confiscation because he is a fervent supporter of NYSAFE. He spoke for it. Now, Ferguson happened to have a New York State pistol license that permitted him to carry his weapon concealed. You and I would never have known about that if Ferguson had not blundered. Ferguson carried his firearm into an elementary school. That is not something Ferguson wanted the public to know. But, we found out anyway. Should this be dismissed as an unfortunate mistake as a friend and apologist for Ferguson argues? Or is this behavior so brash it cries out for justice? Is Ferguson confident he is above the law? How many other Fergusons, proponents of NYSAFE who argue against possession of firearms, walk the streets (and, perhaps, the schools) wielding guns? Are they just as confident? Just as haughty? We are all equal under the law. But, are some people more equal than others? Still, Ferguson was caught. Now he has a little explaining to do. He has to explain to the City Court why he brought a gun into a school in contravention to and in seeming defiance of the Act he fervently supports. Ferguson did so anyway. As an advocate for NYSAFE, Ferguson should explain to the Public why firearms confiscation is good for us but not for him. Ferguson should also explain why his life is worthy of preservation and ours, apparently, less so.Ferguson lobbied for NYSAFE. He, along with Governor Cuomo and State Legislators who support NYSAFE, says NYSAFE reduces gun violence and crime. That is a dodge. That is a lame rationale for the real purpose of NYSAFE: elimination of firearms. NYSAFE is a tactical move toward de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. NYSAFE is an incremental step toward total firearms confiscation. But some individuals will obtain dispensation – special individuals such as Ferguson. After all, Ferguson is more trustworthy than you and me. And his life is worth more than yours or mine.

The Public is Tired of Lies.

A movement is afoot across America. The American Public demands responsive and responsible representation from its Country’s leaders. The Public yearns for and deserves the truth. The Public is tired of being lied to. Lies are concomitant with politics today. Hypocrisy is widespread. There are many practitioners of it – too many. They consider hypocrisy acceptable practice in public discourse. Some even consider hypocrisy commendable practice. Politicians and the mainstream media certainly do. The “Arbalest Quarrel,” though, does not. Hypocrisy must stop.The Public demands the truth in all matters impacting upon them. The Public has a right to the truth in all matters impacting upon them. The Public demands the truth from its elected leaders. The Public’s political leaders and spokespersons are not forthcoming with the Public. They are never forthcoming with the American Public. They operate deviously and underhandedly. This must stop.The Arbalest Quarrel has much to say about truth and hypocrisy. See our recent Article on the subject, posted on February 18, 2014: “Truth and Hypocrisy: ‘Bill of Rights’ Betrayal” on this Blog.

Unwelcome Attention and Embarrassment!

The Ferguson story has drawn unwelcome, embarrassing attention to the lies surrounding NYSAFE and to the deceitfulness of those who promote it at all levels of the political spectrum. Local and National news sources are banking on the Public’s short attention span. So, the story has died a quiet death. From the perspective of the MSM that chose never to report the story, the story doesn't exist and never did exist. But the story does exist. And for those who have thought the story died, the Arbalest Quarrel has resurrected it.

Lies and Betrayal

The importance of the Dewayne Ferguson matter goes beyond Ferguson. We are dealing here with lies and betrayal on an order of magnitude never before seen. Consider Federal and State Statutes, International Pacts and Treaties, Executive Orders and “Signing Statements.” Most are prepared in secret and all in the absence of Public debate. This is true of NYSAFE. These Federal and States laws, pacts and treaties, executive orders and signing statements are thrust on the American Public in absolute contradistinction to and in defiance of the Bill Of Rights. The Public is told these restrictive Federal and State laws, international pacts and treaties, executive orders and signing statements are needed to “curb violence,” to “fight terrorism,” to “preserve the financial system,” to “create jobs,” to “restore confidence.” Clichés are thrown at us. We are presented with politically orchestrated drama. The Public is spoon fed this Pablum – this moronic nonsense on a daily basis.The Federal and State Governments operate in secret. The Public suffers a constant campaign of disinformation, non-information and misinformation. The expression ‘national security’ is bandied about ad nauseum. Do you know what ‘national security’ means? The expression is never defined. It is spoken so often, it has no meaning. But, we accept it as a moral imperative. The expression has become the excuse for ever more secrecy in Government policy. The founders of the Republic abhorred secrecy.Our Government is an open Government, at least as originally contemplated by and designed by our Founding Fathers. No event, no circumstance can be so dire the Public should not be told. But these proponents of secrecy are rewriting our history. Our Bill Of Rights shall be a thing of the past – a quaint curiosity of a bygone time. Why? The Bill Of Rights demands openness. Openness in Government is integrally tied to our Liberties. Those concepts are inconsistent with present Government plans for repression of ideas. And an armed Public is a danger to those who seek further curbs on freedom of expression.

What the Arbalest Quarrel Wants.

The Arbalest Quarrel wants sanctimonious hypocrites like Governor Cuomo and those lawmakers who drafted NYSAFE removed from Public Office. They do not belong in Public Office; nor should they serve in any Governmental capacity. They do not represent the best interests of the Public. They do not support and defend our Bill Of Rights, Their statements do not match their deeds. Governor Cuomo forces an odd ideology down our throats. And he presumes to know what is in our best interests. He does not speak for the majority of New York’s residents. And he certainly cares not for the sanctity of and preservation of the Second Amendment. The majority of New York residents want NYSAFE repealed. Governor Cuomo, who signed NYSAFE into law, does not. His NYSAFE site sets forth, “this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns.” The assertion is blatantly false, but the Governor asserts it anyway.NYSAFE severely restricts the guns a New York resident may own and possess and places extraordinary constraints on buying, keeping, using and transferring guns. So, who is the Governor fooling? He is fooling no one except the ignorant. And whom does the Governor purport to speak for? He speaks for a small minority of New Yorkers who are fearful of their own shadows. He speaks for those who want and expect the Government to protect them from themselves. And he speaks for those inside the Country and outside it who want to make our sacred “Bill Of Rights” compatible with the Constitutions of foreign Countries. He speaks for those who believe our Constitution is too old and not in conformity with modern judicial and jurisprudential thought. He speaks for those who want to bring our Nation's laws into the fold of those other Western Nations, discounting, then, over 200 years of our unique history. He speaks for those who would like foreign laws to override those of the U.S. Constitution. And he speaks for those who would like to extinguish those rights and protections set forth in and mandated by our sacred Bill of Rights.We want and expect honesty and forthrightness from those in Office who serve in our name. These are not qualities most in public Office possess. Truth is not something they choose to give us. Truth is not something they would willingly give us. Truth in Public Office is a commodity in short supply these days.So, we want the Nation’s political leaders to know we can and will remove them from Office when they are untruthful to the Public. We want the Nation’s political leaders to know we can and will remove them from Office when they fail to uphold the Bill Of Rights. We want the Nation’s political leaders to know we can and will remove them from Office when they place their interests above those of the American People.

Your Help is Sorely Needed

Have you had enough of Government intrusiveness and Government lies and Government secrecy? We have.Together, we can defeat the Anti-American elements both within our Society and outside it that are working quietly but inexorably to dismantle our “Bill Of Rights.” We can begin to fight back through repeal of the Anti-American NYSAFE Act.Will you be a part of our Grassroots effort in New York? In the weeks ahead, the Arbalest Quarrel will provide you the steps you can take as we, together, work toward repeal of NYSAFE. New York may then proudly stand with Colorado as we take back our Country from the destroyers of our sacred “Bill Of Rights.” Keep abreast of the facts about gun laws. Check out our website often!________________________________

2/18/14 2/18/14

Truth And Hypocrisy: 'Bill Of Rights' Betrayal

Quid Est Veritas? (What Is Truth?)

The Search for truth, like the search for knowledge, is a unique trait of human beings. Knowledge and Truth are intertwined. Two thousand years ago the question – what is truth? – came up in a dialogue.“Pilate therefore said unto him, ‘Art thou a king then?’ Jesus answered, ‘Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.’ Pilate saith unto him, ‘What is truth?’ And when he had said this he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, ‘I find in him no fault at all.’” John 18:37-38 ~ King James Version.Some commentators suggest Pilate posed the question in jest – even mockingly. Others believe Pilate took Jesus at his word.Still, whether light-hearted, rhetorical, or heartfelt, the question has haunted philosophers for centuries. A specific area of philosophy is devoted to it: epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge: how we know; how we distinguish truth from falsity. So, we ask and ponder: what is truth?The search for truth is an eternal search. We as “sentient beings” immerse ourselves in it. As children in grade school we begin to acquire it. As adults we thirst for it. Physicists confront it. Language experts contend with it. Philosophers deconstruct it. Advertisers of goods and services trifle with it. The intelligence community manipulates it. Politicians mask it. News commentators adorn it. It becomes amorphous. We do not easily gain it. Once grasped, it slips away. It “illudes” and eludes us.The Mainstream Media bombards the Public daily with a barrage of half-truths and untruths and quasi truths. When caught, politicians admit to ‘mistakes in judgment.’ But if the speaker intends to assert a false statement, then let us call the falsehood a lie. ‘For a lie it is.’ We need not cloak the word ‘lie’ or soften it. A lie isn’t merely an ‘evasion.’ A lie isn’t merely a ‘falsehood.’ A lie isn’t merely an equivocation.’ A lie isn’t merely a half truth or ‘quasi truth’ or ‘pseudo truth’ or ‘untruth’ or – least of all – a ‘mistake in judgment.’ There is no mistake in telling a lie.A lie is a deliberate and callous and calculated act of deception. A deceiver is a liar. We should not mince words. We should not forbear hurting a liar’s feelings. After all, the liar intends to harm us – the receivers of his lies. The liar intends to affect our thoughts, emotions and actions for the liar’s nefarious ends.But, what is truth?One theory of truth holds a true statement must adhere – ‘correspond’ – to a fact. The statement, ‘it is raining outside’ is true if the statement corresponds to the fact: ‘it is raining outside.’ If the statement doesn’t correspond to the fact, the statement is false. “Simple enough,” you say. But consider moral imperatives. You should do this! You ought not to do that? Does truth apply to moral imperatives?The notion of 'truth' is both simple and straightforward and eternally baffling and complex. In political banter “truth” is anything but simple. Consider the notion of ‘time.’A boy asks his father, “What is time?” The father answers the boy: “It is a quarter past one.” The boy, visibly annoyed with the father corrects his father. “No,” says the boy. “I did not ask you for the time. I asked you: what is time?” The father clearly baffled struggles to recall bits and scraps of arcane knowledge he once learned in College. Frustrated, he says: “You can study the fourth dimension once you enter Princeton. Until then take a look at the clock; the clock provides all you need to know about time.”The notion of 'truth' can be equally daunting: at once disarmingly simple and decidedly complex. It helps to consider the presenter’s motivation behind a pronouncement.Unlike the notion of ‘time’ that affects us subtly but inexorably, the notion of ‘truth’ impinges harshly and constantly on our consciousness. The American citizen wages a constant battle with the Nation’s political leaders for the “truth.” The citizen rightly demands the truth. The Nation’s leaders wrongly deny the citizen access to the truth.The American citizen yearns for "the truth" as did Pilate. Pilate had no reason to disbelieve Jesus even if Pilate expressed puzzlement over "the truth." But the American citizen suspects something amiss as he listens to State and National leaders and to Government bureaucrats. They dispense a never-ending stream of lies and superficial nonsense. Liars deliver their lies fervently or dispassionately as dictated by the “puppet masters” who control them. And they dispense their lies like opiates to dull the senses of the masses. Despite the daily dose of flummery most Americans still yearn for “the truth.”I once happened across a book titled, “In Defense of Hypocrisy.” The author is Jeremy Lott. The book is still available should you wish to buy it. I do not recommend it. But if you come across it at your local library you still will do well to read it.Let me explain. I thought the book was satire. I thought Lott intended to mock those who practice hypocrisy. I was wrong. Oddly, Lott was serious in his defense of it. And he had much to say about it – his accounts perplexing at best; dubious and devious at worst.So, what does the word ‘hypocrisy’ mean? Contrary to Lott’s pronouncements and allusions and beguilements, the word ‘hypocrisy’ refers to a certain vile behavior. ‘Hypocrisy’ is a Greek word. What is hypocrisy? This: a person promotes a thought he knows is false but passes off the falsehood as true. That is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a sin. To the ancient Greeks hypocrisy was a cardinal sin. But understand: the sin does not rest in the untruthful statement itself. The sin rests with the speaker’s intent in uttering it. The teller intends to pass off as true something he knows in his heart and mind is false. The teller intends to deceive the receiver of the falsehood. The intentional untrue statement is the sin. The intentional untrue statement is the hypocrisy. Another word for hypocrisy is ‘lie.’ So, a hypocrite is a liar.Jeremy Lott argues, artfully, hypocrisy is not always a vice. He is an “apologist” for politicians who lie to Americans. Politicians lie to promote policies and positions contrary to the interests of the citizenry. Politicians disrespect the Public they claim to represent. Too many disrespect the Constitution they swear to defend.One need only substitute the word ‘lie’ or ‘liar’ in each instance where the term ‘hypocrite’ or ‘hypocrisy’ appears in Jeremy Lott’s book and his seeming persuasive argument in defense of hypocrisy evaporates. His argument in defense of hypocrisy is “sophistry.” The word ‘sophistry,’ like ‘hypocrisy,’ is a Greek word. Sophistry is the eloquent expression of falsehoods.We at the Arbalest Quarrel wish to make clear to you an important point: There is no cunning in the Arbalest Quarrel. We intend to hit you with the blunt truth. At times – if we cannot offer proof for our assertions we will so tell you. We will tell you an assertion is a “speculation” if not clear from context. Understand: “Speculations” are not necessarily falsehoods. Indeed speculations are often true statements. Well-reasoned speculations are extrapolations from what we know. Speculations placed in the Arbalest Quarrel are “extrapolations” from our own studies and constant reflection.Still: some speculations may be false. But speculations are not deliberate falsehoods. There is no intent to deceive in the mere offering of speculations. So speculations are not lies. They are not hypocrisies. Speculations are simply unproved statements. They may be true with evidence to support their truth.The Arbalest Quarrel will not avoid offering speculations on lies and liars. Those who lie hardly wish to make their aims known. For they wish to deceive. A liar lies to deceive. We seek to highlight the results of deceit. If we suspect deceit, we will inform you.We do not avoid speculating about the deceit of those whom we believe practice it merely because evidence of deceit is, at the moment, lacking. And in our own web posts we do not ever present as true something we know to be false. So we do not present, nor do we promote, lies. We are not liars. We are not hypocrites. We do not deceive. We detest hypocrisy and deception. And we detest those who make a practice of hypocrisy and deception.We detest those who lie to the American public. We detest those who twist vices into virtues. We will call liars out on their lies. The ancient Greeks – who coined the term – detested hypocrisy and they detested hypocrites. And we – unlike Jeremy Lott – do not and will not ever offer an apology for its practice. Hypocrisy is detestable behavior. Hypocrisy has been detestable behavior. Hypocrisy shall forever remain detestable behavior. Those who practice hypocrisy are detestable. Those who heap lies on the American public are contemptible. Hypocrisy can never be ethically or rationally condoned. Jeremy Lott would disagree with these assertions. We disagree with Jeremy Lott.So, unlike Jeremy Lott we do not apologize for hypocritical behavior. We will never apologize for hypocritical conduct on the part of anyone, much less praise it. We will not go through pedantic turns to rationalize hypocrisy in modern conversation. No excuse for hypocrisy exists or has existed or ever can exist.The Arbalest Quarrel does not agree with “apologists” for hypocrites. The Arbalest Quarrel does not sanction the practice of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the Opposite of truth. Hypocrisy is antithetical to the Arbalest Quarrel’s manner of operation and to its very reason for being. Our ‘raison d’etre’ is to express “truth.”Let us talk now about “truth” in the form of our sacred Bill Of Rights. The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct and inviolate. Our Bill Of Rights exists for all time. The Bill Of Rights is carved in stone. And so long as the Bill Of Rights is adhered to, the United States shall remain a Republic – a Republic in fact not merely in name.The Founders of our Republic were no fools. They knew that change would come about through time. They also knew that human nature does not change. Villains sought to exert power over others in our Founders’ time. Villains seek to exert power over us in our time.The Second Amendment is a robust protector of the other Nine Amendments that together comprise our sacred Bill Of Rights.The Bill Of Rights forbids, in express and clear and coherent language, Federal Government intrusion on individual liberties. Those who seek to exert control over our lives obviously have no interest in securing and preserving our liberties. They have no interest in securing and preserving our Bill Of Rights. Outright lies are excuses for evading the categorical imperative of the Bill Of Rights. So: let this be a warning to those who wish to take apart the Bill Of Rights: Do not trample on Americans’ sacred liberties!It is an outrage to deny our Nation’s sacred truth. But it is a mortal sin to betray our Nation’s sacred truth, embodied in our inviolate Bill Of Rights.We may forgive those who through innocence or through fear or through ignorance deny our sacred Bill Of Rights as Jesus forgave his Disciples their temporary denial of him. But, those who would betray our sacred Bill Of Rights, take warning! The American people will not suffer you among us. Those who would betray our sacred Bill Of Rights are not Americans. To betray our Bill Of Rights is to betray the People – who we are – our soul as Americans.The Bill Of Rights is a codification of natural rights. The Bill Of Rights represents a sacred promise between the Federal Government and the People: that the Federal Government will never tread on the Sacred Rights of the American people, embodied in the Bill Of Rights. The Government must respect and adhere to the Sacred Rights set forth in the Bill Of Rights. But, we know the Government no longer does so.The People created the Government. The Federal Government exists for the benefit of the People. The People do not exist for the Government’s benefit; nor does the Government exist to benefit a privileged few. Nor have the People requested – nor do the People need – the Government’s protection. Consider how far removed we are from the Republic that our Founders envisioned. Consider that it is not the Government that serves at the pleasure of the People. It is now the People that serve at the pleasure of and behest of the Government. The Government now determines what is in the People's interest -- what is best for the People.President Ronald Reagan made the pertinent point: “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” To wish for Government protection is to invite Government abuse. The “People” neither need nor desire protection from themselves.Ponder the words expressed here. Be mindful of the sinister betrayal of our Bill Of Rights. This betrayal destroys our Nation’s Soul. This betrayal is well underway. Once lost, America’s soul is lost forever. And with that loss goes truth._____________________________