Nice piece from Judge Napolitano - worth a read.


https://www.foxnews.com/opinio...ight-to-self-defense

Most of the mass killings by guns in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so. The government cheerfully calls these venues “gun-free zones.” They should be called killing zones.

After a while, these events cease to shock; but they should not cease to cause us to re-examine what the government has done to us.

We know from reason, human nature, and history that the right to defend yourself is a natural instinct that is an extension of the right to self-preservation, which is itself derived from the right to live. Life is the great gift from the Creator, and we have a duty to exercise our freedoms to preserve life until its natural expiration. But the lives we strive to preserve should not be those actively engaged in killing innocent life.

The Framers recognized this when they ratified the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court recently held was written to codify — and thus, prevent the government from infringing on — the pre-political right to own and use modern-day weapons for self-defense or to repel tyrants.

The term “pre-political” derives from the language of the Second Amendment, which protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The constitutional reference of “the” right to keep and bear arms makes clear that the Framers recognized that the right pre-existed the government because it stems from our humanity. That’s why pre-political rights are known as fundamental or natural rights.

Because the right to use modern weaponry for the defense of life, liberty and property are natural, we should not need a government permission slip before exercising it, any more than we need one to exercise other natural rights, such as speech, press, assembly, travel and privacy.

Yet since the Progressive era 100 years ago — ushered in by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and enabled by nearly every president since — the government has taken the position that it can care for us better than we can care for ourselves. So it has severely curtailed our rights and left us reliant on the government itself for protection.

The modern-day massacres are proof beyond a doubt that the government cannot protect us.

In the Orlando tragedy, for example, the man who killed 49 and wounded 53 used a handgun and a rifle. The handgun accepted magazines containing 17 bullets, and the rifle accepted magazines containing 30 bullets. The killer, using both weapons, fired more than 250 times that Sunday morning. That means he reloaded his weapons about a dozen times. Each time he reloaded, he stopped shooting, as it is impossible for any person to shoot and reload simultaneously.

We know from forensics that the killer was a poor shot. We can deduce from that knowledge that he was a slow reloader. One learns to shoot first and reload later. It is likely that it took between three and seven seconds each time he reloaded the handgun and longer with the rifle. In those time periods, any trained person carrying a handgun in that Orlando nightclub could have wounded or killed him — and stopped the slaughter.

Don’t expect to hear that argument from the gun control crowd in the government. It is the same crowd that has given us the killing zones. It is the same crowd that does not trust you to protect yourself.

Hillary Clinton called the rifle the Orlando killer carried a “weapon of war.” It is not. It is the same rifle that her Secret Service detail carries. Many of her acolytes have called it an assault rifle. It is not. It fires one round for each trigger pull. True assault rifles — not those that the politicians have renamed assault rifles because they have a collapsible stock and a bayonet holder (I know this sounds ridiculous, but it's true) — fire numerous rounds per trigger pull. They have been outlawed on U.S. soil since 1934.

What do we have here?

We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the U.S. where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters — as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents — over and over and over again.

We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the U.S. where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters — as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents — over and over and over again.

How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense? There are thousands of crazies in the U.S. who are filled with hate — whether motivated by politics, self-loathing, religion or fear. If they want to kill, they will find a way to do so. The only way to stop them is by superior firepower. Disarming their law-abiding victims not only violates the natural law and the Constitution but also is contrary to all reason.

All these mass killings have the same ending: The killer stops only when he is killed. But that requires someone else with a gun to be there. Shouldn’t that be sooner rather than later?

Adapted from Judge Andrew Napolitano’s monologue on Fox Nation’s “Liberty File.”

quote:

How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense?

They aren't dumb at all. Its not that they don't understand the need for protection, because they all have it.

They want you disarmed. They want you 100% dependent on the government to "protect" you. There is only one reason to disarm law abiding citizens, to make them subjects.

They want the American people impotent to stop tyranny.This the complete opposite views our founders had.

Just like they did to the people of Venezuela, and look how well that turned out for those people. They don’t give 2 flying shits about safety, they want the ability to run and rule everybody’s life. Ideally communism is their goal, with them at the top of the food chain.

quote:

Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:

quote:

How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense?

They aren't dumb at all. Its not that they don't understand the need for protection, because they all have it.

They want you disarmed. They want you 100% dependent on the government to "protect" you. There is only one reason to disarm law abiding citizens, to make them subjects.

Yup. The dumb one is Napolitano, if he truly believes the politicians are so dumb that they don't know what they are doing.

As many have said already, disarming America has nothing to do with protecting the people. It is about protecting an ever more oppressive government from he people.

If the government was being at all honest about guns and violence, it would openly examine how many “assault weapons”, as they like to call them, are now in the hands of private law abiding citizens in the US and are not ever being used in crimes. It is more likely that those numbers truly terrify those that would deem themselves our lofty betters. Millions upon millions of guns suitable for our own defense- from oppression.

These are the same politicos who don’t want to build a wall along the southern border but do have nice fences and security perimeters around there houses...

I'm of the opinion that politicians are self-absorbed, narcissistic "one note Johnnies" ("me," "me," "me"). It is a mistake to personify "the government" as a huge, individual monolith.

No, I believe politicians are motivated first and foremost by the WIIFM philosophy ("what's in it for me?")

Listening to the news this morning, on the day the new Congress is sworn in, I can't help but think that the crop of politicians being seated is, as The Who sang, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Yes, these people don't realize they are supposed to [u]represent[/u] us, not boss us! They assume the role of master, not servant.

Hearing some of the "proposals" being floated by new legislatures, both local and national, I can't help but feel that these officials want somehow to punish us. What, for electing them?

The U.S. government is broken. It seems to me the only recourse is an Article V convention of the states.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
I'm of the opinion that politicians are self-absorbed, narcissistic "one note Johnnies" ("me," "me," "me"). It is a mistake to personify "the government" as a huge, individual monolith.

No, I believe politicians are motivated first and foremost by the WIIFM philosophy ("what's in it for me?")

Listening to the news this morning, on the day the new Congress is sworn in, I can't help but think that the crop of politicians being seated is, as The Who sang, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Yes, these people don't realize they are supposed to [u]represent[/u] us, not boss us! They assume the role of master, not servant.

Hearing some of the "proposals" being floated by new legislatures, both local and national, I can't help but feel that these officials want somehow to punish us. What, for electing them?

The U.S. government is broken. It seems to me the only recourse is an Article V convention of the states.

There are those who are as you said. But, don't think for a minute that there are not the types who want to be in power to impose their will on the peasants. Just take a look at the Bloomberg, and the de Blasio, and the Cuomo, then look up the dictionary for the word tyrant. You'll see their names.

I used to like Napolitano; he claims to be a libertarian.

Recently he has crapped in his hat on Fox and I am beginning to suspect that he is a liberal.

RMD

quote:

Originally posted by rduckwor:
I used to like Napolitano; he claims to be a libertarian.

Recently he has crapped in his hat on Fox and I am beginning to suspect that he is a liberal.

RMD

Completely agree. I suspect this latest article of his is simply a token bone he threw us conservatives, because he knew the several crappy stunts he pulled on Fox recently.

quote:

Originally posted by rduckwor:
I used to like Napolitano; he claims to be a libertarian.

Recently he has crapped in his hat on Fox and I am beginning to suspect that he is a liberal.

RMD

You nailed it it. Whenever he appears on Fox I switch channels.

quote:

Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:

quote:

How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense?

They aren't dumb at all. Its not that they don't understand the need for protection, because they all have it.

They want you disarmed. They want you 100% dependent on the government to "protect" you. There is only one reason to disarm law abiding citizens, to make them subjects.

Truth. It’s been said time and time again, leftist politicians don’t hate guns. Look at Bloomberg, he surrounds himself with guys with guns.

Leftist politicians don’t hate guns. They hate YOUR guns.

Every time the "Judge" opens his mouth, he's speaking against President Trump and if I never again hear another word coming out of his cake hole, that'll be just fine with me.

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
These are the same politicos who don’t want to build a wall along the southern border but do have nice fences and security perimeters around there houses...

And they are beholden to the same 'system' that ignores to act upon the red flags, sometime multiples of red flags, that pop up and are quite visible to the gubbermint, prior to these murderer's going out and committing their homicidal deeds.

Most of the murderer's involved in the high-profile shootings (and bombings) over the last 12 years or so were 'known' to the authorities.

quote:

Originally posted by Cookster:
Most of the murderer's involved in the high-profile shootings (and bombings) over the last 12 years or so were 'known' to the authorities.

It's amazing that there are now Red Flag laws that lets someone say something bad about you and you loose your guns for a year or so and need to fight to get them back in the legal system.

But the bad guys that have been "Flagged" and known by authorities seem to have more Rights then everyone else.

The Judge needs to bone up on NFA 1934. It did not make full-auto firearms illegal (because it was understood that was unconstitutional)--it just put a huge (for that time) tax on them and some serious paperwork requirements. It is true that a few states do not permit private ownership of Class 3 firearms, but they are in the minority (however, he probably lives in one).

flashguy

I've wondered how much of it is the fact that want us disarmed and how much is just pandering to the masses that are so afraid of guns and vote for them.

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
I've wondered how much of it is the fact that want us disarmed and how much is just pandering to the masses that are so afraid of guns and vote for them.

I think the powerbrokers know the S is soon to hit the fan. They know the public will know why the S is hitting the fan and will want to exact some kind of consequences on those powerbrokers. They do not want us capable of doing anything but suffering our conditions. JMHO

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Every time the "Judge" opens his mouth, he's speaking against President Trump and if I never again hear another word coming out of his cake hole, that'll be just fine with me.

Agree, He's all about getting his name recognition, a Media Whore.
Fox created him and he thinks he's Super Judge.