Saturday, January 26, 2013

Demented Senator Wants To Kill The Bill of Rights

So OK, after publishing this, I've recieved a lot of e-mail asking me if I really think Senator Diane Feinstein is demented?

In my opinion, she is not thinking striaght.

Her cognitive functions are impaired. Yes, she is suffering from dementia, a loss of cognitive function. 

I really believe, it's just my opinion, that dementia is progressive condition (as Alzheimer's disease) marked by deteriorated cognitive functioning often with emotional apathy.

And yes, I see her being emotionally obsessed with banning guns while not thinking or caring about the lives, liberties, and the rights of other Americans. Yes, especially the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is a list of limitations to government power. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about. It was set up to keep the government in line and not become abusive of its position or powers.

That's correct! They were put in place to protect our natural rights of liberty and property from the government.

They guarantee a number of personal freedoms. They put limits on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.

While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789, formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.

The Bill of Rights plays a key role in American law and government, and remains a vital symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation.

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and, therefore, that protections were unnecessary.

Hamilton's critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different.

Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights.

They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. But this is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included.

Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of the Bill of Rights.

George Mason "wished the plan [the Constitution] had been prefaced with a Bill of Rights."

Roger Sherman argued against a Bill of Rights stating that the "State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution."

But George Mason then stated "The Laws of the U.S. are to be paramount to State Bills of Rights."

A fact that had to be spelled out in the 14th Amendment almost a hundred years later.

The Amendments

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Militia, Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Those are our basic rights as citizens, and they should not be tampered with. But now, right now, the Bill of Rights is under attack.

It is an attack not seen since the Democrat Party's filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Leading the pack of liberals and other anti-American liberals is a Democrat Senator from California, who in an act sure to divide the nation further now wants to eliminate the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights by rendering it powerless against a totalitarian federal government.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., released a summary of what she terms an "Assault Weapons Ban" but in reality is a ban of all weapons.

Her bill which calls for a ban of “sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing” of specific models of “120 specifically-named firearms.”

A list of 120 specifically naming rifles, shotguns, and handguns, which no one can find to see what is on the list. All too reminiscent of the ObamaCare bill where the Democrats wanted to pass it before Americans could find out what's in it - and now are paying the price as a result of such a hoax and folly.

As if demented, she is driven to behave irrationally due to anger and an inflated sense of distress over the horrible incident at Newtown Connecticut where 1 citizen out of 314,000,000 went on a killing spree and murdered 26 others.

As horrible as the crime is, the actions of one should not have repercussions on the other who are sane and not in some sort of delusional state. Because most believe this to be true, why allow the crazed state of one murder to dictate a change in the rules that would affect over 300 Million others?

It is insanity to meet dementiaoriginally meaning madness, the serious loss of cognitive ability, with more madness. And yes, in my opinion, that is what I see Dianne Feinstein doing.

She is meeting Adam Lanza's madness with her own different style of madness. Yes, it is a madness that goes to the heart of some megalomaniac - a person with delusional fantasies of power and omnipotence.

If not so, then why does she approach banning guns with a sort of psychopathological disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power and relevance.

Yes, she is obsessed with banning all guns. An obsession that comes from her belief that guns are at the root of all society's ills - while ignoring superior evidence to the contrary. And yes, while having her own gun for protection.

As for ignoring superior evidence, she dismissed many facts. But among the most blatant are these:
  • Violent crime with down at a 40 year low.
  • Guns crimes are at a 40 year low.
  • The previous gun ban did not accomplish anything toward bringing down crime.
  • Cities and States with the strictest gun control regulation in the US, those places making ownership and carry of personal protection firearms almost impossible, have the highest crime rates using guns. Chicago has the strictest gun control regulations of any city in America and it has the highest murder rate, California has the strictest gun control regulations in the entire United States and it has the highest murder rate of all the States.
  • Cities and States with gun regulation enacted toward allowing citizens the responsibility of their actions, and subsequently the right to protect and defend themselves and their families have the lowest gun related crime statistics in the Nation.   
So yes, in my opinion, I really believe Diane Feinstein has some sort of obsessive dementia that drives her bent on destroying the Bill of Rights. Yes, the freedoms and liberties of others starting with the 2nd Amendment. 

While crazies such as Adam Lanza deprive others of life and liberty and happiness by using with guns to attack them, obsessed liberals try their damnedest to do it using legislation.

To disarm those who are legally allowed to protect themselves from either the criminal or the government is criminal in itself.

And no, there is no telling how many lives will be lost in the future if a citizen does not have the legal right to keep and use the guns they have. But honestly, I don't think liberals like Dianne Feinstein care.

You see, contrary to media claims that Feinstein wants to "reinstate" the 1994 ban for purposes of bringing down crime - her present bill will go much further toward her stated long-term desire of gun confiscation and imposing a host of absurdly broad definitions and burdensome restrictions.

According to the NRA, Feinstein wants to:

• Ban the sale, transfer, manufacture or importation of 157 named firearms. Presumably, these were chosen by looking at pictures, as Sen. Feinstein has said she did before introducing her first legislation on the issue in 1993.

• Ban all semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine. This is because the bill would ban any semi-automatic detachable-magazine rifle that has even one "feature," particularly a pistol grip—which is defined to include any "characteristic that can function as a grip." Other features that would cause a rifle to be banned include a forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or (as an absurd propaganda move) rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or a threaded barrel.

• Ban all detachable-magazine semi-auto pistols that have any of the following: a threaded barrel, second pistol grip, or magazine that mounts anywhere other than the grip. The bill would also ban any handgun that is a semi-automatic version of a fully automatic handgun.

• Ban all semi-automatic rifles and handguns that have fixed magazines that accept more then 10 rounds.

• Ban all semi-automatic shotguns that have just one of the following: a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; a pistol grip; a fixed magazine that can accept more than five rounds, a detachable magazine; a forward grip; a revolving cylinder; or a grenade or rocket launcher. As with the rifle provision, this could potentially ban any semi-auto shotgun, because all of them have "characteristics that can function as a grip." And of course, countless Americans have pistol-grip shotguns for home defense.

• Ban all belt-fed semi-automatic firearms, such as semi-auto replicas of historic machine guns - which right now take a Federal License to own.

• Ban all frames or receivers of banned guns, even though in many cases they are identical to the frames and receivers of guns that would not be banned.

• Ban "combinations of parts" from which "assault weapons" can be assembled. Read broadly, this could ban the acquisition of a single spare part that could be combined with parts you already own.

• Ban any "part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle"--a vague definition that could ban items such as competition trigger parts.

•Ban the sale or transfer of all ammunition feeding devices that hold more than ten rounds. Even those lawfully possessed before passage of the bill could never be transferred, even to your heirs through a will.

It is speculated that Feinstein will not require registration of currently. But make no mistake about it, what Feinstein wants will go far beyond the failed 1994 semi-auto ban by requiring background checks on the private transfer of any "grandfathered" firearm.

She, like Obama, now wants a National Gun Registration Database that would list every name of every registered law abiding citizen who is a gun owner.

And yes, this is really the sort of thing that should make Americans ask "Why? What for? What is the reason for this other than an infringement on our privacy?"

The problem is, no Democrat, not one, can give us an answer as to why the Federal Government needs to know who has guns - other than helping their confiscation efforts in the future.

There is not a National Database for Child Molesters or Rapists or Convicted Murders, so why should there be a National Database for law abiding citizen who own guns? 

No, neither Obama, Biden, nor Feinstein can answer why it is needed. 

In announcing the bill, Feinstein lied about the effectiveness of past semi-auto bans. For example, she claimed that Maryland's "assault pistol" ban had reduced crime. But facts prove her wrong!

Fact is that in Maryland, the murder trend after the state passed its ban on so-called "assault pistols" was far worse than in the rest of the country.

Similarly, in California, during the first five years after passage of the state's 1989 "assault weapon" ban, the state's murder rate increased 26 percent, compared to an 11 percent increase in the rest of the country.

During the first five years after California expanded the ban starting in 2000, the state's murder rate increased 10 percent, compared to a six percent decrease in the rest of country.

Banning guns to the law abiding doesn't stop gun crime. It only makes Americans defenseless!

Feinstein's new bill bans semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns, plus any firearm with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

She wants to bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

• 120 specifically-named firearms (but no one seems to know what they are!)
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic such as a pistol grip.
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds are also on her list.

And you might ask, who came up with this in the first place?

The answer is, Democrats and Liberals, all anti-gun, all anti-2nd Amendment rights. And yes, all who see their desires as being more important than our Bill of Rights, then the freedoms and liberties of others.

Feinstein wants to bring back and strengthen the expired 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
And while doing this, she is trying to placate Americans by telling us that her bill actually protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

But why doesn't she understand that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting?

Why do liberals like Diane Feinstein refuse to understand that it is about the last resort of protecting ourselves against the threat of government tyranny?

The answer is probably that she, like most liberals, don't see a problem government as a "supreme ruler."

Not governing, but ruling. No different than slave owner and master ruling over slaves, or dictators ruling over their subjects.

She knows full well, that she is attempting to render the American citizen helpless to defend any and all of the Bill of Rights and ourselves against an abusive government that may want to take away those rights.

She sees no need to protect yourself or your neighbor from an over-reaching government because she is that over-reaching government.

Besides, like other liberals, Feinstein refuses to believe the basic concept, the basic fear that was present when our founders wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights, that it is only the government that can take away our liberties and freedoms. 

Only the Government can take abolish the Bill of Rights!

By relegating Americans to only hunting rifles, muskets, antiques, and clubs, we would almost be completely defenseless to fight any sort of tyrannical government if the need arises.  

And friends, that is the Genesis of the Bill of Rights. It is the very reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment. It's all about protection against threats from those who want to do us harm, either from people or an abusive government.

It was stated plainly so that the government would understand that the people, whether it be American civilian or an American soldier, can and will have the ability to resist being enslaved by the government. 

Feinstein want to require that even so-call "grandfathered" guns be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

• Background check of owner and any transferee;
• Type and serial number of the firearm;
• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint just like criminals - but unlike what it takes to vote;
• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law meaning that every gun owner has to check in with the Police Department in the same way that a child molester has to check in to advise them that they are "a potential danger"; and
• She was dedicated funding for ATF to implement a National Registration. Yes, she even wants us to fund our own tyranny.

This is not something that Americans should calmly let slid by. This goes to the heart of our freedoms as Americans.

We cannot submit to this for reasons that we plague our nation in ways that many will not accept or understand.

If the government, by way of one insane Senator, can effectively eliminate our ability to stand up to government tyranny -  then what makes any of us imagine that the rest of the Bill of Rights is safe and can be protected?

If one insane power mad Senator can get away with killing just one Amendment, then the others are gone as if they meant nothing to us at all.

God forgive us if this happens. This will be the start of the end of the Bill of Rights and our Constitution will have nothing holding it together.

In the end, the federal government will be all powerful; the people will have little to no rights; and it will be because we didn't stand up to just one crazed Democrat who was willing to take away our rights that so many have fought to preserve.

Friends, I've seen horrors in the world. I've seen those starving and those in dire straits. I've seen totalitarianism first hand, and the fear in the eyes of those under such a state. I've see the deaths and the killing of those who refused to kneel. All are horrors.

I know full well that there are horrors committed every day in this world. And yes, the massacre in Newtown Connecticut was one.

But without sounding callous, as tragic as it was, it pales in comparison to the horrors that one insane Senator like Feinstein can bring down upon us all by effectively disarming all Americans.

If successful, Feinstein's recklessness of effectively killing the enforcement clause of the Bill of Rights, it can be of a magnitude that shakes America's foundation to its core. Yes, much more than the left truly realizes.

When describing the Bill of Rights, President George W. Bush said it best, "The true [American] revolution was not to defy one earthly power, but to declare principles that stand above every earthly power - the equality of each person before God, and the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all."

It is "the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all" and not allow one crazed Senator from California the ability to render Americans helpless by castrating the Bill of Rights.

Story by Tom Correa

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment.