Wrote both my senators about Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be SecDef:
Please reject Sen Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense. The Advice and Consent clause of the Constitution is to ensure that the senior managers of the federal government serve the People of the United States. Obama is not a king. He does not get to surround himself with a royal court loyal only to him. Hagel’s nomination is Obama’s insult to the military. His nomination [appointment*] would just be salt in their wounds.
* crap. I have to write my notes to my senators here first so I can proofread them.
My reply to Sen. McCaskill’s reply to my comment:
Thank you for replying to my previous note.
1. The issue is not gun violence or gun safety. The issue is all violence and all safety. Nobody’s last thought when they are being strangled by an unarmed assailant is, “At least I wasn’t shot.” More people are killed by unarmed assault in the US than by guns. Yet the record of countries (Australia, UK) and cities (Chicago, Washington, DC) show that restricting gun rights increases overall violence, including ironically, gun violence. How many people were shot in Chicago today? Obviously banning guns isn’t the answer, which makes one suspect that gun violence is not the problem.
2. We do not need to find middle ground. If the middle ground is always between where we are and where the Confiscators want to take us, then the road will lead inexorably to the Confiscators’ victory. This is unacceptable. If current laws are inadequate, maybe it is because they are completely misguided and wrong to begin with. The issue is not the legal ownership of firearms. It is the presence of the twisted and deranged who desire to do evil to others. Try outlawing them.
3. The proof of the lie in Sen Feinstein’s gun bill is that it exempts the political class from its restrictions. If gun ownership is bad it is bad for all. Disarm the Capital Police and Secret Service and put “No Gun Zone” signs outside the Capital and White House. If politicians can protect themselves with machine guns and the citizenry cannot, then the issue is not about safety. It is about power.
Please reject Sen. Feinstein’s gun ban legislation. It is a dishonest attempt by the Confiscators to eliminate the 2nd Amendment one little step at a time.
I sent a note to Sen. Claire McCaskill indicating my opposition to Sen Diane Feinstein’s proposed gun bill. To her credit, she responded (I have many issues with her but she does reply to her constituents most of the time.)
January 26, 2013
Dear Mr. Howard,
Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control policy and gun safety. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the fundamental right to bear arms. I strongly support legal and safe gun ownership by law-abiding citizens and have consistently voted to uphold this constitutional right. I welcomed and supported the recent Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case that made clear that the constitutional right to gun ownership is an individual one.
At the same time, we have to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of individuals who should not have them. We should have sensible, constitutional controls on gun ownership that address safety in our communities, like preventing the mentally ill and criminals from possessing guns.
Recent tragedies, such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrific events in Newtown, Connecticut, have made it clear that our nation’s current gun laws should be reconsidered. Efforts to close the gun show loophole, provide for universal background checks on all guns sales, and to ensure that those with court-determined, dangerous mental health diagnoses do not get access to guns are being considered. While I want to closely study any proposal before I vote on it, I welcome these initiatives, because they represent sensible steps to keep our communities safe while respecting gun ownership rights. Importantly, legal experts believe each of these steps is consistent with the Second Amendment.
Knowing that those responsible for some of the most prominent mass shootings in recent history have suffered from mental illness, it is equally clear that we must also consider mental health services available to our citizens. A more robust mental health care system may help identify and treat individuals who need help before they resort to violence. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare,” will substantially expand important mental health coverage when it is fully implemented in 2014. I am hopeful that efforts to repeal these vital expansions in mental health care will come to an end, while new efforts will be undertaken to expand access to care.
Importantly, I firmly believe that an attempt to promote appropriate gun safety measures can be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens’ right to own firearms or unduly burdening the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri.
You may be interested to know that, in the past, my commitment to respecting the Second Amendment has led me to vote to permit residents of the District of Columbia to own and purchase firearms and to prevent funding for any international organization, including the United Nations, that places a tax on any firearm owned by a United States citizen. I have also opposed other inappropriate measures related to gun ownership rights, such as forcing Missouri to accept other states’ firearms laws.
While the debate over appropriate gun control measures is divisive, I believe there is middle ground here. This nation can come together to support sensible laws that prevent the mass murder of innocent citizens — especially innocent children — while we continue to respect our constitution and its Second Amendment rights. Please know that, as your United States Senator, I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress considers gun-related legislation in the months ahead.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at http://mccaskill.senate.gov.
Sent through the Senate web site:
Please reject Sen Feinstein’s proposed Gun Bill. There is no part of it that would make the country safer. There is nothing in it that will keep a crazy person from just finding another weapon and commit evil anyway. The issue is not “Gun Violence”. It is “All Violence” and countries that ban guns see huge increases in all violence, including ironically enough, gun crimes. The United States should not go follow the failed policies of other countries.
Many people have heard of Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ speech. Most people don’t know where he was going with it. The common understanding was predicting the division of the country. Actually he specifically stated that, “…a house divided cannot long stand…” did not mean that the house would fall. What he predicted was that that the house would have to resolve its difference and become either all free or all slave. In 1865 it looked like the decision was made to make the country all free. But the slave masters were allowed to persist. Reconstruction. Jim Crow. Lynchings. Segregation. The works…were all attempts of the slave masters to subdue the former slaves again. Slowly, progress was made against the slave masters.
But in the early 20th Century, the wanna be slave masters found a new tool. “Progressivism”. For 100 years the “Progressives” have worked to impose their will on the country. “Progressivism” has been described as, day one, the “Progressive” makes up their mind. Day two, they make up your mind.
Looks like once again we are faced with a house divided between free and slave. The slave masters are moving to make the country whole again, but this time all slave. The issue is gun control and the “Progressive’s” move to disarm all of the country, except of course, themselves.
Why, you ask, does disarming the population imply that the slave masters are trying to make slaves of the American people. It’s simple. Free people are free to defend themselves and have the right to bear arms to affect that right. Slaves are never allowed to arm or protect themselves. Is the secret service going to give up guns when they protect the President? Are Bloomberg’s armed guards going to give up the weapons for the cause? It’s ever so interesting that the people who are the most vociferous about banning guns for the rest of us have no intention of disarming their own protectors. It’s obvious who they think the masters will be.
Sent e-mails to Missouri’s Senators (McCaskill[D] and Blunt[R]) through the Senate contact page. I said (paraphrasing since I always forget that I can’t save the message after it’s sent):
1) NO on any new gun control.
2) Any registration is a precursor to confiscation. We know it. Recent statements by Democrat pols let that cat out of the bag.
3) Registration lists will be used to harass innocent Americans for the crime of disagreeing with the Democrats on gun rights.
4) Registration would be performed by the agencies that gave us Fast and Furious (BATF and DoJ) that measure political success in body count and have yet to be made accountable for the people they’ve killed.
5) The “We need to compromise on ‘reasonable’ gun regulations.” line is a red herring. We have already compromised on ‘reasonable gun regulations’. The response to any proposed gun regulation, especially under the cloud of hate projected by people who should know better, is “No.”
McCaskill of course got a renewal of her political life thanks to Todd “Dick” Akin (and no, his middle name’s not Richard) and I’m not sure if she is going to pretend to serve her Missouri constituency or go in currying the favor of her masters in the Fascist wing of the Democratic Party. Roy Blunt? I don’t know what he does.
The purpose of gun control is not the control of guns. It is control of people. The political overlords who screech the loudest about banning guns surround themselves with guns in their employ. They have no intention of surrendering them. It’s the slaves who will be disarmed.
The deadliest thing ever created by humankind is government.
Sure guns are dangerous. So are cars, and ladders. But if you really want to rack up body counts in the tens and hundreds of millions, ya’ just gotta’ have a government.
So what do the good, gun grabbing Progressives offer us. More government.
What have gun grabbing pro-government “Progressive” sorts given us? Gulags and gas chambers.
What is the only counter to Murder by Government? An armed populace.
I used to work with an anti-gun fanatic. When I heard the news about the Newtown shooting, I figured the e-mail would show up in…3…2…1…”you have mail”. I try to keep discussion with him civil, so I didn’t point out that he had far more responsibility for the killing of those kids than the gun supporters do. If the gun supporters had been listened to, the crazy guy would never had made it to the classroom where the kids died. Instead, the gun haters had the school put up signs saying, “Open season on our kids!” It took 20 minutes for the police to show up. This guy could have done the dirty deed with a baseball bat. Do the gun haters care? No. They want more dead kids so they can ban guns and open up their gulags and gas chambers.
Umm. No. I don’t think they have the moral high ground. They present arguments based on hatred and ignorance and the world will be the worse for it.
An armed society is a free society. An unarmed society is a slave society. Freedom is messy. Slavery is unacceptable.
PS: Do you know that the origin of gun control in the United States was to keep blacks from arming themselves against the Ku Klux Klan in the South? If you are a gun grabber, you travel with a fine crowd. Chew on that.
Change the title of the Speaker of the House to the President of the House. Change the title of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to the President of the Supreme Court. Add Article 0, “The federal government shall consist of three separate and equal branches.
The head of the Senate is already the President of the Senate and I earlier recommended getting rid of the Vice President position so the President of the Senate would become a full time, real position now filled by the majority leader. It’s harder for the president to act like a king when there are four presidents in the government and the constitution explicitly states that none are subordinate.
And by that, of course, I’m actually referencing the movie of that name.
The premise of the movie is that the Founding Fathers laid out an intricate puzzle of clues all over the world leading to the discovery of a King’s Ransom on steroids. Yeah, they probably weren’t that smart. And even they in the 18th Century could probably have figured out that many of the structures that existed then may or may not stand long in a growing city. Of course, the movie use Revolutionary vintage buildings because those were the ones that weren’t torn down.
So do I think there is a Great Treasure sitting under my feet. Hardly. If I did, I wouldn’t be writing about it to my ones of readers. I’d be having a date with a shovel.
The Federal Empire, formerly known at the Federal government has become in frightening ways every bit the oppressive overlord that King George III was when the Founding Fathers said, “Time to move on.” Not sure what KG III was into? Try reading the entire Declaration of Independence. It’s only one page long. <cue Jeopardy music> I’ll wait </cue> Notice any similarities?
There have been various stories about different Founding Fathers being transported to the current day to see what they had wrought. I think it would be safe to say they would be blown away by the size and scope of the technological wonders. Cars racing down paved roads at speeds unknown in their day except by bullets and arrows. Buildings bigger than the pyramids. Airplanes. Smart phones.
But then there is the issue of what they would think of the size and power of the federal government. Any ambiguity they may have had about the benefits vs. the cost in liberties would probably be resolved after being fondled by the government appointed sexual predators of the TSA. Would they be shocked? Would they be despondent? Would they wail about how their experiment in self-government went so wrong?
I think not. First off, the Founding Fathers were not a bunch of weak kneed whiners. I think after the initial shock of the sexual assault, they would draw themselves up, recompose themselves, look at their hosts with some disdain in the knowledge that their hosts allowed this to come to pass in the first place and go, “So now what are you going to do?”
I don’t think they would be shocked because I think they suspect it would come to this…again. Governments accumulate power. That’s what they do. Trees grow. Birds fly. Fish swim. Governments become oppressive.
So now what are you going to do?