[bassetman]

Kerry too Liberal for you? Tired of Bush's lies and defcit spending? Why not vote for a "real" conservative? One who will stay out of your personal life!

http://www.badnarik.org

Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target
If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. Allow me to point out some fallacies in the arguments frequently used by the anti-gun movement.

First, it is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a "community right", because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights.

Second, the phrase "well regulated militia" is frequently misconstrued to mean:
a) lots of government regulations; and,
b) only the National Guard is allowed to carry guns.


It is necessary to understand the definitions common in America during the time of our war for independence. "Well regulated" used to mean "well prepared". Every man was expected to have a rifle, one pound of gun powder, and sixteen balls for his weapon. He was also expected to be ready to USE that rifle within sixty seconds of the alarm being sounded. Hence the term "minute man".

It is disingenuous for anyone to promote the argument that "militia" refers only to the National Guard in light of the fact that the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, and the National Guard wasn't formed until the early 1900's. This argument is totally without merit, unless you want to imply that our founding fathers were able to predict the future.

I sincerely believe that statistical evidence supports the idea that crime increases exponentially wherever gun control is instituted as the governing policy. Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the strictest gun control policies in the United States. The cities with the highest murder rates are Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It doesn't take a PhD to be able to draw the proper conclusion from this evidence. England and Australia have recently instituted strict gun control measures, and both countries have seen the statistics on violent crime quadruple. In contrast, I am told that the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a municipal ordinance that requires homeowners to have a firearm available. Home invasions have dropped to less than 10% of their original rate, indicating to me that criminals value their lives more than they value your property.

I have no doubt that members of the anti-gun crowd would be happy to offer statistical data which appears to contradict the numbers I have just mentioned. Even if they could, their alternate statistics are not enough authority to strip me of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. My rights are non-negotiable. I don't care if someone else doesn't like it. I don't care if they toss and turn at night, anxiously worried about what I might do with my firearm. My rights are not predicated on whether or not you LIKE what I'm doing. You only have a complaint when I present a "clear and present danger", which is not the case if I have my firearm in a holster.

Repealing unconstitutional gun control laws will be one of my first priorities as President of the United States.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions---to give you answers that really work!

[bassetman]

Breaking News:


Crime & Corruption
See other Crime & Corruption Articles


Title: Oshkosh Police Conduct Door To Door Gun Confiscations
Source: http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/
URL Source: http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/
Published: Jul 26, 2004
Author: unknown
Post Date: 2004-07-26 02:58:53 by ChareltonHest
Ping List: *Bang*
89 Comments


OSHKOSH POLICE CONDUCT DOOR TO DOOR GUN CONFISCATIONS

Shooting of Oshkosh police officer results in knee jerk neighborhood gun grab

Oshkosh, Wis. -- Following the shooting of an Oshkosh police officer Saturday night, area residents were forced from their homes, their lawful firearms being confiscated by police.

The Oshkosh Police Department's Special Weapons and Tactics Unit responded to the area, with a K-9 police dog in pursuit of the perpetrator who was reported to have fled on foot.

Citizens' guns were seized through searches of area homes. The police promised to return the firearms after forensic tests proved they were not involved in the crime. The injured officer's name was withheld, but media reports indicate his condition is not life-threatening.

"The message is: Hand over your guns, now!" said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. "This is a blatant case of guilty-until-proven-innocent and an abuse of police power."

Still, residents in the area are furious about the home invasions by police and what they see as theft of their property. Although early reports are unclear, they indicate a search warrant was issued for two homes, yet additional home owners also had firearms confiscated.

"We want the perpetrator of this crime caught and brought to justice just like everyone else," said Graff. "But that doesn't mean the police should trample citizens' 4th amendment protections, steal lawful private property and enter the home without reasonable suspicion or warrant."

One homeowner in the area said his guns were taken by police, guns that hadn't left his gun safe since last hunting season. Another victim of the police searches -- an elderly women -- reported waking up to officers' searching her home in the early morning hours.

The Oshkosh Northwestern reported, "Residents were not being allowed to return to their homes by press time."

[Pacalis]

That's amazing. If the Oshkosh Police Dept. gets away with this, it will be a definite signal to where we are heading as a country.

[bassetman]

Yup!

Amazing too, that you can't find it (or much about it) on Google.
You have to go to google-watch.org

I'll see what else I can find out!

[bassetman]

Another link.

Something I've been told could never happen in the US!

[plschwartz]

I like this guy.

Rights of the Accused

Of all the infringements upon our Constitutionally protected rights, the most egregious in living memory may be the post-9/11 "detention" of individuals—American and non-American—in secrecy and without charges or access to counsel.

As someone who values all our rights, I do not make this statement lightly. Consider, however, the nature of the crime (and yes, it is a crime).

Under normal circumstances, if one's rights are violated, one may petition the government for redress of grievances, go to court to obtain satisfaction, or take some other action to regain the expression of the rights which were infringed upon.

People like Joseph Padilla, Yaser Hamdi and the hundreds—maybe even thousands—of individuals illegally detained by the federal government, both at home and abroad, have no such recourse. In many cases, the government doesn't even admit that it has them in custody. If they are tried, it may be by "military tribunal"—a kangaroo court from which there is no appeal and in which they may be denied the right to confront their accusers or to examine the evidence against them.

This is not how we do things in America. We do not kidnap people. We do not hold prisoners without charge or justification. And we do not operate or condone the equivalent of Charles the First's "Star Chamber"—secret courts with arbitrary and capricious proceedings and standards of evidence.

Among the complaints our Founding Fathers cited in their Declaration of Independence as justification for throwing off the British government, we find the following:

"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury ... For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences ... For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government ..."

Those same framers enshrined the rights that George III violated in the Constitution they created to replace his rule. They were right to do so, and their example must be followed.

In the case of "enemy combatants" and other "detainees," the choice is quite simple: They may be held as prisoners of war, with all the protections afforded them by the Geneva Convention (a treaty ratified by the Senate pursuant to its Constitutional Authority), or they may be held as accused criminals—with all the protections afforded them by the Constitution. There are no other lawful alternatives.

As your president, I will act swiftly to have all "detainees" properly classified.

Those charged with crimes will receive access to counsel, speedy public trial by jury, the right to confront their accusers, to examine the evidence against them and to produce evidence and witnesses in their own defense.

Those held as prisoners of war will, if a state of war obtains, be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention until such time as the war ends and they can be repatriated to their countries of origin.

Those who do not answer to either description will be freed, indemnified and offered the sincere apologies due them.

It's time for America to start being America again.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions—to give you answers that really work!

[LANMaster]

I like him too.
I'd even vote for him if he had a snowball's chance of winning.
Nader will get 10 times more votes than Badnarik.

It's too bad, too. I'd like to see the Libertarian party bend a little more to the right socially. I guess that's just not their way.

[Ciberblade]

I have alway's felt (strongly) that a vote is not wasted if you believe in who you are voting for. Bush earned my vote the first time. He comes across as being down to earth in person. Gore did not. This year has tested my confidence. I may not cast with Bush this time around, I would even give Kerry a chance if he would only ask for my vote by telling me what he stands for. We shall see how the next three months unfold.


damn shouldn't have said that, I will ruin my neocon image