Update: Here’s a much more civilized version of what’s written below: http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/EDITORIAL/4070332
Well, I got all agitated over a very bad idea from some very good folks, and sent a response to several people. So I might as well air it out here. In case you don’t know, Indiana HB 1065 acknowledges anti-constitutional “federal” and state firearms restrictions as law as it attempts to legalize what’s already legal by the clear wording of both state and federal constitutions. It also, not incidentally, pushes aside property owners’ rights.
It’s of course intended to be a positive step toward individual gun rights, but it’s yet another “incremental,” and “pragmatic” step backwards. It is, in other words, why the good guys are losing, and why we’re quickly reverting to our ancient, crude and ruthless authoritarian default state. Anyway, here’s pretty-much what I wrote a few days ago:
Indiana’s HB 1065 is a good example of everything bad…with us.
If we would only insist upon the constitutions, as written, then why in the world would we allow such a thing as HB 1065 to weaken the constitutional mandate? Have a look at Article I, Section 32 of our state constitution (https://wedeclare.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/indiana-constitution-book.pdf).
It is crystal clear:
“The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”
Why water that down? Why not insist upon it?
We vote for friendly demisocialists like Mitch Daniels because we’re idiots (today’s note: I have nothing against Mitch; it’s the people who voted for him that bother me). We rally around anti-constitutional bills as though they’re our friends because we’re idiots. We cast aside those who’ve been right for those who’ve always been wrong, and we throw away the best laws ever written for blithering nonsense that’s never worked.
Do we really think that new laws are better because they’re new? Why do we think future politicians will pay any more attention to them than to the foundational law that is the very basis of the lawmaking process…and to which they already swore an oath of support?
There are no shortcuts. Either we return to the constitutions as written (even if we have to write new ones), or we’re done…as a nation and as a free people.
Words must mean what they say. We must mean what we say.
We must know what we want, and say what that is…
People who promise to obey a flag and then step on the constitutions are not just stupid idolaters; they’re marauding oppressors.
I’ve personally seen an angry mob fire a mayor and city council. I’ve seen angry letter/email/phone call-wielding people pass bills, defeat bills, and even overturn laws. Having twice had 2.5 million people tell me to buzz off and take my constitutions with me, I know where the real power lies.
I’ve met the enemy, and it’s us. …Not our ideological foes…us.
We who claim to love liberty need no other enemies as long as we oppose what’s already been done on our behalf.
We can fix our problems anytime we want to. But we apparently don’t want to.
We rally around half-@$$ self-destructive nonsense and refuse to unite over what we really want.
Sigh… I tried.
But it’s not up to me.
I can only watch as otherwise intelligent people do the same dumb things over and over and say that it’s the only way to go. As we plunge headlong into failure and oppression, the rallying cry is “that’s just the way it is!”
The law is already written that would make you free. If you compromise, you can only lose.