Cite.

by baldilocks

Today, everyone is talking about the op-ed penned by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Emphasis mine.

Nice of Mr. Justice Stevens to dispense with the mealy-mouthed lie that many gun control advocates use: that “we don’t want to take your guns away.” His bluntness — a characteristic often found in senior citizens who have retired – is very refreshing.

The justice doesn’t offer much argument here; just a blurb on 2A history, summary information on related court rulings and a short mention of his dissent in DC v. Heller.

And, of course, no gun control op-ed is complete without a ritual denunciation of the NRA.

[Heller] — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

Something I’ve been thinking about recently. What if the NRA just upped and decided to disband? They’d give all the money back to the donors and members and then :::poof::: They’re gone. Do these people think that gun owners would just give up? Stop buying, selling and making firearms and ammo? Hand over all the handguns to their local LEO? Beat all their AR-15s into plowshares? I guess this is what the sliming of NRA is supposed to accomplish. Short-term thinking at its finest.

And it’s so cute that Justice Stevens makes no mention of the other probable outcome of a repeal of the Second Amendment: a nation-wide bloodbath. And I’m not even talking about those who would take up arms against the government and its various levels of agents.

The criminals among us – from which persons like a retired justice of the Supreme Court would be well-protected – would have an open field.

And that’s what the Organized Left is hoping for. A 2A repeal would be a signal for the Nikolas Cruzes, the Omar Mateens, the Dylann Roofs, the drug cartel kingpins from Mexico — and Hezbollah — and countless lesser-known felons that America is ripe for plunder. Go forth to steal, kill, rape, and destroy.

Justice Stevens is speaking for the The Organized Left; following orders, I suppose. And the OL is still looking to execute – if you’ll pardon the pun – the Fundamental Transformation.

They want full control of the citizenry and your guns are standing in the way. Never forget that.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

by baldilocks

I did not watch last night’s debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. For the record, I didn’t watch Monday Night Football either; I had a third option.  The specifics of my option do not matter, but that I had more than two options with respect to how I chose to occupy my time is glancing commentary on the election itself.

And here is some commentary that does more than merely glance: “we” managed to pick two candidates—one from each party who are willing to violate the Second Amendment.

I won’t even bother quoting Mrs. Clinton’s stance on the right to bear arms, but here’s an example of Mr. Trump’s position with respect to the topic. From the debate:

The back-and-forth between Trump and debate moderator Lester Holt about the legality of New York City’s now-defunct stop-and-frisk policy is irrelevant. That Trump wants to take guns away from “bad people” is what matters.

Who are the “bad people” and how does a law enforcement agency determine the alleged badness of “bad people?” By how they look? That sounds like the evil, dreaded profiling to me.stopanfrisk_590_356

What about probable cause and the fourth amendment? I know that it’s likely that I’m speaking a language that is foreign to Mr. Trump.

What was that bon mot about liberty versus security? Oh, yes…

They who can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There’s some doubt about whether this is an actual Benjamin Franklin quote, but that doesn’t matter. And, in reality, whether a given set of people deserve liberty and safety or not is also irrelevant. (‘Deserve’ is one of my least favorite words.)

What needs to be faced is that we have no major candidate for president who is a true proponent of the freedom of self-defense. Whether we deserve freedom or security or we don’t, both are in grave danger.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>>baldilocks

by baldilocks

I’ve been away from the Internet most of this morning and in the afternoon up to around 3PM PST. Earlier this morning, all the political talk was about the fact that Seddique Mateen, father of the Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen, appeared in privileged seats at a Hillary Clinton rally in Kissimmee, Florida—not far from Orlando. Mateen was interviewed by WPTV. The conversation is surreal (autoplay).

When I returned home, I figured this would still be the talk, but it isn’t. This is.

Donald Trump on Tuesday said “the Second Amendment people” may be the only way to stop Hillary Clinton from getting to appoint federal judges if she wins the presidential election in November.

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” he said as an aside while smiling. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”

hillary-clinton-seddique-mateen
Clinton and her red-hatted special guest. Wouldn’t it be fun if it were a “Make America Great Again” cap?

Now, what he’s said is true, but I question the timing. Why? Because it isn’t the first time that Donald Trump failed to capitalized on some startling revelation about Hillary Clinton and, instead, overshadowed the revelation by saying something jaw-dropping of his own. Mr. Trump knows that most Big Media entities would prefer Clinton as president and are always looking to cast him in a bad light…or at least he should know that. (By the way, the Mateen appearance is the second unfavorable revelation about Clinton in as many days—though the one about her health is about six months old.)

It seems to me that Mr. Trump seems to have trouble going for Mrs. Clinton’s political jugular. And with his 2nd Amendment comments, he seems to make her a sympathetic figure and to demonize himself and proponents of the 2nd Amendment just in time to obscure the Mateen incident. One wonders why.

More at my blog after I get up to speed.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game (click on left sidebar image), was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>>baldilocks

 

 

 

Or at least not young moms in Oklahoma who just lost their husbands to cancer on Christmas day, unless getting shot to death is your idea of a good time.

When seconds count, the police are only 21 minutes away.  Or rather, in twenty-one minutes, the police had not arrived, but our armed-to-the-teeth mamma grizzly shot the armed SOB who broke into her house twenty-one minutes after he started threatening her from outside her home.

As a conservative feminist, I can’t help but wonder at women who are “scared” of guns.  Honey, you’re 5’2 and men out there who are a foot taller and 150 lbs heavier than you are may one day want to beat the living daylights out of you, and, unless you have a gun or can hire someone with a gun, he’s going to succeed.

Sarah McKinley is fortunate enough to live in a state that does not demand that she retreat from her own home, would arrest her for shooting the guy, or would have made it impossible, if not outright illegal (pre-Heller, at least) to own a firearm.  When Justin Martin started to harass her, she acted thusly:

Martin returned on New Year’s Eve, but this time with another man, and armed with a 12-inch knife. McKinley could hear the two intruders pounding on the door, and knew she had to think fast.

First, she pushed a couch in front of the front door.

Then, she grabbed her son and “walked over and got the 12-gauge, went in the bedroom and got the pistol and put the bottle in his mouth and then I called 911,” she told ABC affiliate KOCO.

Liberals: should a young mother with a nursing baby and a husband recently in the grave be denied that choice to save her own life?  You people think that she should be able to kill her own child with taxpayer money – why not an attacker with a gun she bought herself?