Real Men Keep And Bear Arms
By James Crispino Canaan, CT
The shots "heard 'round the world" were fired when Captain Parker's militia company stood in the way the British march toward Concord to confiscate military stores. Although Parker's Minute Men fired the shots, they scarely halted the march of the foe. At Concord, however, militia units lined the rise overlooking the British line of march. Behind them stood a company made up of old men and boys. Still farther behind were citizens who removed the stores the redcoats had come to confiscate. Foiled in their mission, the British began the return march to Boston.
These men knew that if they allowed themselves to be disarmed, they would find themselves completely defenseless and subject to the every whim of the ruling monarch. They drew their line in the sand that day, and it was that very shot that is responsible for whatever liberty that we still enjoy in this great country.
Later, when the founders penned the Constitution of these United States, and subsequently, the Bill of Rights, they sought to insure that the people of this country would never have to fear finding themselves in the same predicament. Thus, they penned the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment, "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.", is written clearly enough for most people to understand. The subordinate clause "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" seems to be the section which imparts most of the confussion on the issue. Who is the "militia"? Let's ask the men who wrote it:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people , trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
James Madison, in the Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-44
"Large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark."
James Madison , Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812
"An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government."
James Madison , Eighth Annual Message, December 3, 1816
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms,"
Richard Henry Lee , Senator, First Congress
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason , during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. "
Patrick Henry , during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison , The Federalist Papers
"... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
Alexander Hamilton.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed, "
Alexander Hamilton
The arguments presented to the various ratification conventions ALL refer to the right to keep and bear arms as being a right of the PEOPLE, not the state. In fact, the state is granted the right to keep and bear arms by the PEOPLE! We decide whether or not our public servants can remain armed, not the other way around!
I always thought of Americans as being an extremely brave people. I have read countless stories of extreme valor performed under the most deadly circustances. In all cases where Americans were called upon to fight tyranny, throughout the world, they have proven themselves to be fiercest of all warriors! What has happened in the last 30 years to change this? Where are the real men? Why are they silent while a homegrown tyrant is destroying his liberties? Do they now shop at Victoria's Secret for their underwear?
Any man who does not exercise his right to keep and bear arms is a "liberty moocher"! He is placing the responsibility for the defense of his freedom, squarely on the shoulder of his neighbor who does keep arms. Under certain circumstances, this would be acceptable, but what is not acceptable is the fact that these moochers will not defend his neighbors right to keep and bear arms. In fact, in alot of cases, the moocher will oppose this God given right to the defend one's liberty. These moochers should be ashamed to call themselves men.
Recently, I read that we had better fight hard to keep our liberty, as this country is the last free place on earth, we have no where else to go. I suddenly had this feeling of hopelessness. Imagine, the land of the free and home of the brave being defended by men in lingerie!
Friday, December 27, 2002
Despite constitutional restrictions, the federal government maintains ownership of over 50% of the land in the U.S.A. and is, to this day, actively working to increase it's share. Most of the more recent land "acquisition" is accomplished using the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Land already owned by the U.S government, that for years had been accessible for logging and mineral exploration is being closed off to these beneficial uses by the millions of acres, also using the same Endangered Species Act. Thousands of jobs have been lost in the northwest, and other regions, prices of building materials and energy are forever increasing, and our dependence on foreign oil is at an all time high, and still increasing.
For what? To save an owl? A fly? A toad? That no one ever sees, or even knew existed?
That's what the federal government and a plethora of marxist eviro fanatic organizations would like us to believe, but the truth is more likely that private property is the scourge of marxism. Private property and private property rights are what empower Americans to live as free men. With private property comes the freedom of living as one sees fit. With private property, men have something worth protecting; worth fighting, and possibly dying for. Men with something to fight and die for are not easily repressed. Men with property are dangerous to would be dictators.
Men with property AND guns are the worst yet, that is why the assault against the 2nd Amendment is carried out with equal vigor, but that is another issue. For now, I'd like to concentrate on what I think is one of the keys to the marxists' success in the battle to remove our private property from us, piece by piece.
I'm not sure if there was ever a song more popular with the marxist public (re-)education system in the U.S than Woody Guthrie's "This land is your land..." We've all heard it a million times, sung it a half a million times in public school, and in some schools, it is even preferred over the Star Spangled Banner. It sounds harmless enough, and even patriotic if you don't listen to the message too carefully, but what is it really saying to our kids?
To answer that question, one has to have an idea of what Woody was really trying to say with that song, and to discover that, one has to know ALL of the lyrics, not just the carefully selected lyrics that are most commonly sung. One particular verse is conspicuous in it's absence from the readily known version:
As I went rumbling that dusty highway
I saw a sign that said private property
But on the other side it didn't say nothing
This land was made for you and me.
It's fairly obvious from that verse, that Woody was not a big fan of private property, but this next verse tells me a little more:
In the squares of the city by the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office I saw my people
And some were stumbling and some were wondering if
This land was made for you and me.
What is he saying? That because some people have fallen on hard times, the more fortunate have somehow "stolen" the land from "you and me"? If that's the case, then the "you and me" he refers to all through the song, are not the you and me that have worked hard, and earned what we have, but rather, the "you and me" that are less fortunate, and therefore deserving of whatever the rest of us own. The only way they can have what we own, without themselves becoming us, is to help the government take it from us, and own it for "you and me". I guess that is marxism in a nutshell.
Why are these lines always ommitted from the version heard almost daily by many Americans? Was the message to clear? Does the rest of the song echo these sentiments more subtley? Can this subtle message sung for America's school children every day be one of the reasons that more and more Americans are actually believing that the land is better off in the unproductive hands of the federal government? Was this LAND really made for you and me? Or was this country founded for you and me, so that we might someday own a piece of it for ourselves?
I know, I seem to ask more questions than I answer, but my goal has always been to spark though and debate, not answer questions. :)
(Unfinished draft, to be completed any day now)
Sunday, September 22, 2002
Originally published by Sierra Times
Another David Defeats A Goliath
Jim Crispino 07.27.01
The relatively small group of protesters which gathered at the U.N. Plaza on Saturday, July 14th, 2001, to protest the UN's conference on small arms, had an international impact, when the conference was forced to approve a non-binding Program of Action, minus two key paragraphs which U.S. delegates refused to approve. One would have required the U.S. "to seriously consider legal restrictions on unrestricted trade in and ownership of small arms and light weapons." The other, would have us agree "to supply small arms and light weapons only to governments, or to entities duly authorized by governments." Both appear to set the stage for a government monopoly on firepower, which is contrary to the founding principles of this country.
The protesters, numbering about 500, loudly proclaimed throughout the day, that the U.S. needs to get out of the UN, and that the UN needs to get out of the U.S. Speakers continually aroused the group by expounding on the importance of U.S. sovereignty, and 2nd amendment rights. They even had a patriotic rock and roll band, Pokerface, for entertainment.
Did the U.S. delegates actually hear them? Probably not. But their presence was felt, to be sure.
To understand how this small group could have such international impact, one must understand the pro-gun culture in this country. The 80 million U.S. gun owners are consistently represented by a mere handful of activists at such gatherings. A typical turnout for a gun rights rally can be as little as 20 persons. It took the efforts of dozens of people, planning and promoting for 8 months, to get 200 people to show up for the March For Liberty in Washington, DC, in October, 2000. The same again for the March for Liberty II in October of 2001.
On occasion, the seriousness of a threat to freedom will motivate a larger group to attend, and usually, the results are dramatic. On Mother's Day, 2000, a 50,000 Mom March (Called the Million Mom March, but actually a concert) took place in Washington, DC, to insist that congress pass a slew of new gun control measures. Meanwhile, 5,000 pro-gun moms gathered nearby. The result? No new gun control measures made it through session.
This past spring, in Connecticut, gun owners killed a near fascist like "Assault Weapons" ban, by turning out 700 at the capitol in Hartford. This despite overwhelming control of the house and senate by the Democratic Party, known for favoring gun control legislation.
It matters little, the exact number of participants that gather. What matters is how that number compares to the norm. 20,000 left wing radicals tearing up a city is the norm for that group. 20 peaceful gun owners is the norm for the gun-rights group. When 2,000,000 left wing radicals tear up a city, they may get taken seriously. When 500 or 1000 gun owners show up, they DO get taken seriously.
The 20,000 left wing radicals represent almost their entire group. The 20 gun owners are representing 80 million others. That fact is not overlooked in Washington. They knew that the 500 in NYC on the 14th, meant that the 80 million are very very wary of the UN agenda. Agreeing to the two paragraphs which would erode U.S sovereignty and 2nd amendment rights, would have been political suicide.
Another factor is the huge e-mail and letter writing campaign which preceded the rally. If 500 gun owners show up, it probably means that 50,000 others took time to write their representatives.
Again, these numbers are relative. On issues of a less serious nature, a representative might receive ten or twenty letters at most. When he gets 500, he has to take notice, It means the gun "nuts" are serious about this one!
Gun owners need to wake up to the fact that they are a very powerful force in politics. If 500 can stop the NWO, at least temporarily, imagine what 500,000 could do? Constitutional restoration would no longer be a dream. It would be a reality.
posted by Jim 2:55 PM
Thursday, September 19, 2002
I spend a lot of time fighting the gun control crowd, both nationally and locally. Last year I had the pleasure of attending a legislative committee for public safety hearing, and present the following testimony:
Testimony of:
James Crispino
Canaan, CT 06018
Concerning S.B. No. 1405
Our declaration of rights, Article First of the Connecticut Constitution, begins with these words: "That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, WE DECLARE:"
Webster’s defines declare as "to make clear". The people of Connecticut declared their rights in Article the first, to make them CLEAR to our elected representatives. These are our individual rights. Individual rights cannot be lawfully taken away. We have declared these rights to exist with or without the legislature’s consent.
Article the first, Section 15, states that "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Was this not made clear enough for our legislators to comprehend? I have no trouble understanding this sentence. Section 15 makes it crystal clear that our right to bear arms is of a defensive rather than sporting nature.
The authors of the U. S. Bill Of Rights made a grievous error when they qualified the independent clause of the 2nd amendment which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", with the often abused militia clause. Still, any honest person understands that the words "the people" refer to the individual citizens of the several states, and not to the states, or to the national guard as some falsely claim. I think most of us here also understand what "shall not be infringed" means.
When I read the Connecticut Constitution for the first time, I was relieved to see that the authors used a more direct approach to firearms ownership. They penned a short and sweet enumeration of that right, which could never be misconstrued. Or so I thought.
I understand that the purpose of the bill is not to take away our sporting or hunting rifles, but rather, to ban those weapons of military value. But those weapons of military value are the exact arms that we declared a right to possess. If they propose to take away that right, then I find that right all the more indispensable, because they are acting in a lawless manner, and a lawless governing body is a dangerous governing body. Our legislators have either forgotten their oath of office, or willfully ignore it, otherwise we would not even be here in this room today.
The people of the State of Connecticut declared that we have a right to keep and bear arms for our personal defense as well as the defense of our state. We did not declare that we had a right to duck hunt or punch holes in paper. That was a given. If we had arms to defend ourselves and our state, we also had arms with which we could hunt and sport shoot.
If and when this bill becomes law, I will become a felon in this state without having to take any direct action on my part, because I will not ever register a single firearm, nor will I dispose of any that I currently own. I will simply disobey your silly law.
We won that fight last year, but each year, the commies haul out the same old tired and false arguments FOR gun control, and I have to take a day off from work and haul out my tired but VERY pertinent arguments against it. So far, the commies have been quiet this year. I suspect that has to do with 9/11/2001, and the fact that more than a few Americans woke up and realized that the nanny state is not going to save them from evil doers. Gun and ammo sales went through the roof, and record numbers of new hand gun permit applications were received and processed.
If nothing else good comes of 9/11, I hope the memory of all of those victims serves to keep these Americans awake. The cause of freedom received thousands of new recruits that day. I hope they remain vigilant so that we may begin to reverse decades of tyranical legislation. I know I will.
God Bless the Victims of 9/11/2001 and their familes and friends.
posted by Jim 6:14 PM
Sunday, September 15, 2002
Normally, I like to post my own rants, but this one says what I've been trying to say for a long time, but could never find the words to express. Fred Reed (Fred on Everything) has a way with words! Read on, you'll see!
Jim
A Well-Regulated State
We tell ourselves that in America we are the Free People. I wonder whether we might not better be called the Obedient People, the Passive People, or the Admonished People. I doubt that any country, anywhere, has been so regulated, controlled, and directed as we are. We are bred to obey. And obey we do.
It begins with the sheer volume of law, rules, and administrative duties. Most of the regulation makes sense in isolation, or can be made plausible. Yet there is so much of it.
Used to be if you wanted a dog, you got a dog. It wasn't really the government's business. Today you need a dog license, a shot card for the dog, a collar and tags, proof that the poor beast has been neutered, and you have to keep it on a leash and walk it only in designated places. It's all so we don't get rabies.
Or consider cars. You have to have a title, insurance, and keep it up to date; tags, country sticker, inspection sticker, emissions test. Depending where you are, you can't have chips in the windshield, and you need a zoned parking permit. You have to wear a seatbelt. And of course there are unending traffic laws. You can get a ticket for virtually anything, usually without knowing that you were doing anything wrong.
Then there's paperwork. If you have a couple of daughters with college funds in the stock market, annually you have to fill out three sets of federal taxes, three sets of state, and file four state and four federal estimated tax forms, per person, for a total of twenty-four. This doesn't include personal property taxes for the country, business licenses, tangible business-assets forms, and so on.
Now, I'm not suggesting that all these laws are bad. Stupid, frequently, but evil, no. Stopping at traffic lights is probably a good idea, and certainly is if I'm crossing the street. But the laws never end. Bring a doughnut on the subway, and you get arrested. Don't replace your windows without permission in writing from the condo association. Nothing is too trivial to be regulated. Nothing is not some government's business.
I wonder whether the habit of constant obedience to infinitely numerous rules doesn't inculcate a tendency to obey any rule at all. By having every aspect of one's life regulated in detail, does one not become accustomed to detailed regulation? That is, detailed obedience?
For many it may be hard to remember freer times. Yet they existed. In 1964, when I graduated from high school in rural Virginia, there were speed limits, but nobody much enforced them, or much obeyed them. If you wanted to fish, you needed a pole, not a license. You fished where you wanted, not in designated fishing zones. If you wanted to carry your rifle to the bean field to shoot whistle pigs, you just did it. You didn't need a license and nobody got upset.
To buy a shotgun in the country store, you needed money, not a background check, waiting period, proof of age, certificate of training, and a registration form. If your tail light burned out, then you only had one tail light. If you wanted to park on a back road with your girl friend, the cops, all both of them, didn't care. If you wanted to swim in the creek, you didn't need a Coast Guard approved life jacket.
It felt different. You lived in the world as you found it, and behaved because you were supposed to, but you didn't feel as though you were in a white-collar prison. And if anybody had asked us, we would have said that the freedom was worth more to us than any slightly greater protection against rabies, thank you. Which nobody ever got anyway.
Today, the Mommy State never leaves off protecting us from things I'd just as soon not be protected from. We must wear a helmet on a motorcycle: Kevorkian can kill us, but we cannot kill ourselves. Why is it Mommy Government's business whether I wear a helmet? In fact I do wear one, but it should be my decision.
And so it goes from administrative minutiae (emissions inspections) to gooberish Mommyknowsbestism ("Wea-a-ar your lifejacket, Johnny!") to important moral decisions. Obey in small things, obey in large things.
You must hire the correct proportion of this and that ethnic group, watch your sex balance, prove that you have the proper attitude toward homosexuals. You must let your children be politically indoctrinated in appropriate values, must let your daughter get an abortion without telling you, must accept affirmative action no matter how morally repugnant you find it.
And we do. We are the obedient people.
As the regulation of our behavior becomes more pervasive, so does the mechanism of enforcement grow more nearly omnipresent. In Washington, if you eat on the subway, they really will put you in handcuffs, as they recently did to a girl of twelve. In 1964 in King George County, the cop would have said, "Sally, stop that." Arresting a child for sucking on a sourball would never have entered a state trooper's mind.
Which brings us to an ominous observation. America is absolutely capable of totalitarianism. It won't be the jackbooted variety, but rather a peculiarly mindless, bureaucratic insistence on conformity. What we call political correctness is an American approach to political control.
Our backdoor totalitarianism has the added charm of being crazy.
Think about it. Confiscating nail clippers at security gates, arresting the eating girl on the subway, the confiscation from an aging general of his Congressional Medal of Honor because it had points, the countless ejections from school of little boys for drawing soldiers of the Trade Centers in flames, playing cowboys and Indians, for pointing a chicken finger and saying Bang. This isn't intelligent authoritarianism aimed at purposeful if disagreeable ends. It is the behavior of petty and stupid people, of minor minds over-empowered, ignorant, but angry and charmed to find that they can push others around. It is the exercise of power by people who have no business having any.
And we obey.
We are the obedient people.
Buy Fred's new reprehensible book,Nekkid In Austin! Barnes and Noble has the sucker. Another collection of Fred's collected outrages, irresponsible ravings, and curmudgeonry from Fred On Everything and some innocent magazines that foolishly published him. Put Fred Reed in the search thingy at B&N and the book will pop like mushrooms on a decaying stump. On request, they may ship it in a plain brown wrapper marked "Sex Books" so your neighbors won't suspect.
posted by Jim 5:06 PM
Friday, September 13, 2002
6/22/02 - Union members - the ultimate capitalists? Or Marxists? Or both?
I ran into a Sportster related website owned by a union member today. It had a page dedicated to bashing President Bush which doesn't really bug me, as I'm not a big Bush fan myself. Based on the webmaster's writings, I presume him to be a Gore man. That baffles me. How can one appreciate the freedom of being in the wind, AND want to destroy that same freedom by voting Marxist?
Anyway, surfing his site, I found his "union" page. On that page, he made it a point to completely trash capitalism. Again, how can a Sportster lover hate capitalism so much? Wierd!
But the whole thing got me to thinking... yeah, I know, I'm dangerous when I think... what are unions and union members, if not the same type of capitalist that they abhor? How can unions and union members be so dead against capitalism?
What is capitalism anyway? Capitalism, to me, is privately producing and selling goods and services in a free market, for whatever price the market determines it will pay for those goods and services, unhindered by government regulation.
Unions simply organize workers in an effort to squeeze the highest wage possible for the services that the workers provide. Is that not, in itself, capitalism at it's finest? Most union workers recieve compensation packages that more than double those of non union workers. It sure sounds to me like the capitalistic system has been very very good to them. Why do they hate it so?
Unions almost remind me of a virus, really. A virus invades the host, feasts on it, and then makes every effort in it's power to kill it. Once the host is dead, so is the virus, but that doesn't deter the virus.
Unions despise capitalism, yet capitalism is essential to their survival. They would not exist except for capitalism. They cannot subsist, in a free country, without capitalism.
What it boils down to, is that unions are Marxist entities. They do not believe in liberty, and free enterprise. They want to put an end to the free market. They believe that socialism is the answer for America, despite the 100 years of failed Marxist experiments throughout the globe, and despite the millions upon millions of people that Marxism has killed in this world. They somehow believe that here, socialism will be different. I call that "magic thinking". Some how, some way, human nature will not prevail in this country. Some how, some way, we are immuned to the evils of socialism. Some how, some way, our dictators will be nicer than eastern Europe's and Asia's dictators.
The only thing that may save us, if the unions get their way, is that the American way requires that we choose only between liberty and death. Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" inspired a revolution. May those words also be our inspiration in resisting the trend toward Marxism in America.
In liberty,
Jim
posted by Jim 6:05 PM
I want a bazooka!
I live behind enemy lines, in the Peoples' Republic of Connecticut. Every year, when the legislature is in session, I cringe. What are the Marxists going to try and ban this year?
Last year, it was a "New and Improved" assault weapons ban, to include the dreaded .50 caliber "sniper" rifle, and all of the "assault weapon" look alikes that have been produced since the defective, old assault weapon ban. Several of my sport utility rifles would have been affected.
I spent several days at home making calls, writing emails, etc, and a couple of days at the capitol lobbying the commies to prevent the passage of this bill. Eventually, we won out, and the only thing added to the old bill was .50 caliber armor piercing and incindiery rounds.
The worst part is how the state senate tried, under cover of late night darkness, tried to sneak the bill into passage by the house, by taking a bill that almost all gun rights and sportsman groups had endorsed, striking the entire text, and replacing it with the ban bill text. The bill would have been called "A bill to create a single state wide pistol permit" and would have banned about 100 different rifles.
Luckily, the watchful eyes of the pro gun sector caught on, and we were able to make the deception known to the house members on our side. The house then worked out the compromise (I hate that. There is no compromise on a right.) which only banned the .50 AP and Incindiery rounds.
I guess our politicians are afraid we'll shoot them in their armored limos with a .50? I figure, if they do their job, and stay within the confines of the U.S. and CT constitutions, they shouldn't have to worry, right? :)
All of this reminded me of a quote I read on several occassions, but whose author is unknown to me at the moment. "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
I prefer liberty. You?
I want the buggers to fear me. I want them to weigh their every action against our possible reaction. I want them to worry that if they do this, we may just say "Enough is enough!" I want them to think that if they poke their noses any farther into our business, we just may shoot it off for them!
I want liberty!
I want a freakin bazooka!
Todays assignment: Read the 18 things that the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to do.
posted by Jim 6:03 PM
5/24/02
With Memorial Day just two days away, I want to reflect on what this day SHOULD mean to every American, and scold America for forgetting what our men fought and died for.
It is supposed to be a day to remember the sacrifices made by so many, in the name of FREEDOM. Millions of Americans have put themselves in harms way, and hundreds of thousands have died and been wounded so that America and many other nations could remain free.
To many Americans, it is just the third day of a three day weekend, and an excuse to party, and or take a trip. The beauty of the whole thing is that the sacrifices of so many are what make the party and the trip possible, because, after all, America is still SOMEWHAT free, and people still have the power to choose how to spend their holiday. That's not what really bugs me.
What bugs me is the phony patriotism and the phony talk of gratitutde on holidays like memorial day. In my world, gratitude is a verb, not a noun. While we're out partying this weekend, take notice of the DWI and seat belt road blocks. Do they belong in a "free" country? Do people who are grateful for their freedom elect politians that think it is just dandy to harass us on our way to and from, without probable cause?
Probable Cause. It is one of the things the revolution was fought over. It is one of the reasons millions of Americans have put their lives on the line. It is one of our most sacred rights, the right to not be harassed by the police without probable cause. There must be a reasonable suspicion that we HAVE committed a crime in order to detain us, even for a moment. Sure, the supreme court has held roadblocks to be constitutional if every vehicle is stopped, but to a freedom loving, and GRATEFUL American, this only means that we need a supreme court that can read and understand plain english. In order to get this supreme court, we need to elect politicians that can read and understand plain english.
I laugh out loud sometimes, when I think of all of the bureaucratic hoops we jump through every day just to do what we should be doing, uninhibited, anyway. We're like a bunch of idiots that have to prove to the head idiot that we are qualified to do this, or qualified to do that, when the head idiot can't even wipe his own ass without a committee to tell him it's OK.
I'm refering to the DMV or the building dept, or the occupational licensing dept, or the inland wetlands idiots, or the DEP idiots, or any number of other government backed idiot agencies.
Take my occupation for instance. I install and maintain security and fire alarm systems. In order to get my permission slip (license) to work for someone, without having a person with a permission slip working with me, I had to prove my proficiency to someone who obviously, by the questions asked on the permission slip test, never even saw an alarm systm in operation.
Then, in order to pursue my happiness farther, by venturing into my own business, I had to show proof that I had my first permission slip for two years, and then take another test written by another idiot to prove that I am once again qualified to do my work.
Now I've needed two permission slips to work. Funny thing about these permission slips though. I payed to apply for the test, I payed to take the test. Once I passed the test, I had to pay for the permission slip. A peace loving, reasonable American might put up with this crap just not to make waves, after all, who has time to fight city hall?
So why do I have to pay for a new permission slip (license) every year? I already proved to the head idiot that I'm a good idiot. Why do I have to keep paying the head idiot in order to exercise my right to work and pursue happiness? The reason is simple extortion. Pay or you can't work.
So that's not bad enough, now, when I am fortunate enough to find someone who needs my services, I have to go see the town building inspector idiot, and apply to him for a permission slip to do my job. And I have to pay him. Now the town idiot has no clue what an alarm is supposed to look like, but he has to inspect wy work, and for that, he must be paid the permission slip fee.
In order that I might be able to drive to the job to do the work, I have to make sure my other permissions are in order. I have my drivers tax card (license) and my vehicle tax card (registration) and my emissions tax sticker, and oh yes, I should have my worker's permission slip number tattooed onto my vehicle.
I live in a free country, remember?
It gets worse, if you're a plumber. You have to make sure the toilet doesn't flush more than 1.6 gallons of water or the federal water police will get your ass!
I went to a national park to camp this spring. Quick quiz: Can anyone tell me which article of the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to own and maintain parkland, national forests and reserves? E-mail answer to jim1@mohawk.net. If you don't know the answer, you're the kind of American that I'm pissed off at, because you haven't taken the time to understand what those hundreds of thousands of people died for. And if you're one of those Americans that actually fought for our freedom, and you don't know the answer, double shame on you for fighting and not knowing what you were fighting for.
So I went to this park, and there are warning signs everywhere, "Bear Country! Be careful or they may eat you!" and right next to those are signs that say "No Firearms in Park". Hmmmmmm...
So a live bear and a dead human are more acceptible to the environazi idiots that run our unconstitutional park system than a dead bear and a live human?
What makes guns so scary to Americans that we can't even carry reasonable protection into dangerous places? Why have Americans become such pussies? Pussy. No, not you. Pussy! Pussy is the reason!
We men have to get pussy. In order to get pussy, we have to give in to the demands of the pussy. Our pussy is scared of guns, so we have to make them go away or we won't get any more pussy. So to get pussy, we must become pussy.
The poor souls that died at Bunker Hill, Valley Forge, Lexington, Concord, New Orleans, San Juan Hill, Fredericksburg, Manassas, Gettysburg, Batan, Iwo Jima, the Ardens, Normandy, Chosin, Lla Drang, Hue, Khe Sanh, and a thousand other places would be pissed off like a mother fucker to know that they got their asses shot off so we can give up our freedom for a piece of ass.
It's time to show our gratitude, and stop this freeking nonsense. Next time you pull up to a DWI or seat belt road block, ask the officer if you missed a turn off. Tell him that the last time you looked, you thought you were driving in America. Don't answer any questions and refused to be searched without a warrant. Refusing a search is not a crime, and not a reason for arrest. If you are arrested, sue the bastard personally for rights infringement.
I live on a main road. Last time they did a road block about 500 feet down from me, I made a sign, placed it by the road, informing motorists that they should buckle up before they get there. I eagerly awaited the arrival of the gestapo to tell me to take down the sign. :)
They never did get the balls up to do it, though one did drive by REAL slow once. I guess my reputation as a freedom loving trouble maker is known around here.
Never use words like license or registration. replace them with permission slip and tax certificate, because that is what they are.
Never use the word liberal, unless you know what it means. Today's "liberal" is nothing even remotely resembling a liberal. They are Marxists (Communists) and you should call them such. Today's assignment: Look up the word liberalism in the dictionary.
Thousands of us died to stop the spread of communism in the world. While they were doing that, communism quietly became the norm here.
Next time you hear a politician ask for free prescriptions for the elderly, know that he/she is a communist. Next time a politician asks for gun control, know that he/she is a communist. Any politician who believes that it is OK to tax us and give to another is a communist. That's what communism is folks. Taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots".
You see, America is a place where the "have nots" are supposed to have the freedom to be whatever it is THEY wish to make of THEMSELVES. We're not supposed to be forced to make something of someone else. We have a right to pursue hapiness, but not a guarantee of achieving it. Yet, even with all of the hoops we have to jump through, it is still the easiest place in the world to change oneself from a "have not" to a "have".
Thank a vet Monday. Vote like you mean it on that Tuesday in November.
Jim
posted by Jim 6:02 PM
|
