RANGER AGAINST WAR <

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Equal Rights



Everybody's high on consolation
Everybody's trying to tell me what's right for me
My daddy tried to bore me with a sermon
but it's plain to see that they can't comfort me 
--She's Gone, Hall and Oates 

Someone's gonna feel the pain
Hit the floor, she's takin' aim
Is it you - is it you, is it me - is it me
Who's the next in the line gonna be? 
--Hot Shot, Barry Blue
 ___________________ 

The complexion of gun shows is changing, and the most recent Tallahassee Gun Show was no exception.

  • The price of ammunition has skyrocketed, and people are acting crazy trying to buy it all up
  • Gun shows have become monthly extravaganzas; they used to be quarterly events 
  • The news media was crawling all over the event, and they seemed interested in speaking only to people wearing tree bark of those covered in tattoos.  Soundbites rule.

The flyer for the concealed weapons class (pictured above) indicates that the CCW permit is a "license".  One must pay for the class, fingerprinting, photograph, notarization, background check and for the license itself. Who determined that the exercise of the Second Amendment would be abridged in this manner?  Our freedom of speech or religion is not regulated in such a manner.  Our right to vote may not be constrained by poll tax, so why must the right to bear arms be sliced and diced?

Ranger understands the need for gun regulation (much as free speech is constrained), but not the requirement to pay the state for his right to exercise this individual right delegated to him by the Bill of Rights. We understand, too, that rights are a quaint notion and not an absolute possession when living in a social structure.  They are delegated, and as such, they are precious freedoms which must be safeguarded at all costs; a right given up to or usurped by a power structure is a right not likely to return.

If one right is fungible and frangible, then so too are all rights. We should not rush to throw away our rights by the fistful out of fear or coercion.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Million Man Permits


 Breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I needed money 'cause I had none
I fought the law and the law won 
--I Fought the Law, 
The Clash

Pancho was a bandit boy,
his horse was fast as polished steel
He wore his gun outside his pants 
For all the honest world to feel 
--Pancho and Lefty
Townes Van Zandt

 The right of the people to keep and bear...
arms shall not be infringed 
--James Madison
 _______________

Florida just issued its millionth Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permit, which means it has charged 1,000,000 people $135 each to exercise their constitutional right to carry a weapon.  

For that, they get a laminated card saying they may legitimately tote their guns (independent of the cost for the required class and fingerprints, which are also required.)

Is it even a right if you have to pay for it?  What is next -- Freedom of Speech permits?  CCW's create two classes of citizens -- those who can afford to exercise their constitutional rights, and those who cannot.  Members of one group may pack heat legally, while those in the other are in criminal violation of the law for doing the exact same thing.

If our vaunted Rights are accorded to all citizens, regardless of race, creed or economic level, then why are some rights abridged on any of those criteria?  How is this democratic?

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, October 16, 2011

What is It?

Lay down the law
Shout out for more

Breakout and shout day in day out

--Breakout
, Swing Out Sister

Don't take your guns to town son

Leave your guns at home Bill

Don't take your guns to town

--Don't Take Your Guns to Town,

Johnny Cash

___________________


When at estate or yard sales Ranger always asks, "Do you have any guns, guitars or military items?" The question results in some unusual responses.

Last weekend he received, to wit: "Nope, the family got all the good stuff!" Ranger replied, "I'm sorry for your loss." There are not too many
Zorba's who remain by their Madame Hortense, but there are many vultures out to swoop up the goods. This interaction was a pretty good summation of American life today -- "We got the good stuff." At least, some do.

We don't so much talk about the right stuff, however. Of the three stuffs that hold Ranger's interest, guns are the one most threatened today. The Supreme Court recently affirmed (McDonald v. Chicago) that gun ownership per the Second Amendment is an individual right; legally-owned firearms are a citizen's right.


However, since this ruling, several citizens have received prison sentences for having loaded firearms in their cars or on their person; in one case, the firearm was in a backpack. So how is it the right to own firearms not being infringed upon when citizens are still going to prison for
bearing arms?

The 2nd Amendment does not restrict our rights to the border of our households. Why doesn't the SC resolve this issue in a court decision? Why
are we allowing citizens exercising their constitutional rights to be turned into a new class of public enemy? Americans have always carried guns; whether that is a public or private good is an issue aside from the fact.

It just seems a little screwy
: The U.S. is involved in a
kinetic Phony War on Terror / Overseas Contingency Operations (PWOT / POCO ©) and we in The Homeland (™) are told the threat level is elevated, and we are to be "alert, but not afraid". But . . . what good is being alert if I can't be armed if my alertness spots a threat scenario? What good is it, Mr. President?

Ranger has a squirrel dog, Buddy, who barks incessantly until his master goes outside to recognize the ruckus. Sometimes there is actually a squirrel; sometimes, not. To reify Buddy's rantings, Ranger will ask, "What is it?" If it is a false alarm, Buddy will run tree to tree helter skelter, as if to scare up a threat.

That is what living in the U.S. 2011 has become: We are being trained Pavlovianly to look up when the talking heads bark, but what does all the sound and fury amount to? Without a shotgun, you have a man and a dog staring up at a tree at the caperings of a possible menace to the wires in his attic.

The question does not oppose RAW's opposition to the militarization of our lives and of the police. Individual arms have never stopped a terrorist incident since 9-11-01. While terror can't be stopped by guns, everyday crime could be. The late, great American city of Detroit suffers about one murder each day, but lawful citizens are denied the right to carry firearms to protect themselves from a real criminal threat. Meantime, police are armed to the teeth to fight a questionable terrorist threat.


This makes no sense.


Good safety posture come from correctly identifying the threat and arraying responsible deterrents and protection. For the average citizen, criminal recklessness perpetrated by another individual or group of individuals is his biggest threat. Within the context of current America, awash in a sea of guns, the question is: Do we want citizens to be able to protect themselves, or not?


Either we have gun rights or we don't.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, July 15, 2010

I Can Haz Guns


And when I feel my finger on your trigger

oh yeah!

I know nobody can do me no harm

oh yeah!

--Happiness is a Warm Gun,

The Beatles


Surely there shall not one of these men

of this evil generation see that good land
which I swore to give to your fathers

--Deuteronomy 1:35

We perceive an image of the Truth

and possess nothing but falsehood

--Blaise Pascal

________________

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that Americans in all 50 states have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense (
McDonald v. City of Chicago).

U.S. citizens now have a court-mandated right to do exactly what what our Federal government does in the name of defense: We have an inalienable right to shoot others. It's official: We now have a license to kill in in self-defense -- not a news flash to those who have seen Charlie Bronson or Clint Eastwood movies.
(It seems Afghanistan arrived at this moment somewhat in advance of us.)

This is an interesting decision as it removes the myth imposed on gun ownership since around 1940 that personal weapons were mainly for hunting purposes. This had became a national attitude following the gangster era and the sensationalized Valentine's Day Massacre.


On the wave of public outcry, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) disallowed the citizenry from owning military-type weapons, and U.S. vs. Miller (1939) was the first address by the Supreme Court of the Second Amendment. The "sporting function" of weapons was becoming institutionalized.


In order to reflect that sporting standard, assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and sniper rifles were officially frowned upon. But in truth, firearms laws mainly covered only the cosmetics of weaponry: No high capacity magazines, no bayonet studs, no flash suppressors. Non-sporting weapons were still legal, though suspect.


Now, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Founding Fathers by acknowledging that we can kill people with our firearms, be it rifle, pistol or shotgun; we may kill to protect ourselves. It follows that we are legally permitted to possess and carry non-sporting weapons.


Florida was avant-garde in this respect (though almost no others) when, under former Governor Jeb, we saw the passage of Castle Doctrine. This decision sanctioned the use of weapons against those who would trod uninvited upon a man's, um, castle.

You could shoot him, though the rules did not address whether one should shoot to kill. Nonetheless, he became fair game, changing the perception of fair game from those with feathers and fur to those lacking said cover.

It would be absurd to say that we have the right to defend ourselves via firearms unless we also have the right to bear those same arms.
The two concepts must necessarily co-exist to have practicability. This then has further ramifications.


If I have the right to defend myself with a firearm, how do the states justify forcing citizens to pay fees for their right to exercise their freedoms? Paying for the right seems alien to the concept of rights.


At least now I can legitimately own guns for the sole purpose of killing my fellow man, no longer having to justify the
rifle by my bed as a squirrel gun.
--by JIM

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 16, 2009

Let Freedom Ring


In my many years I have come to a conclusion
that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm,

and three or more is a congress

--John Adams


While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in
--It's Alright, Ma, Bob Dylan
________________

The Big Lie in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) is that our soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our freedoms. That is the official cover story, they're sticking with it, and we buy it every time. Except it is not true.

Here is a little story of un-freedom right here in River City (Quincy, FL). The owner of a local car dealership is an avid gun collector, who buys, sells and trades guns. He does not sell the guns at his car dealership, but as a collector at local gun shows.

This activity came under the rubric "freedom," until the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and congress started playing with the 2nd Amendment. As a result, a non-licensed collector is now arrested for his pastime of buying and selling guns.

Guns are now a hot-button topic, but the bottom line is: Are we free men or not, beholden to a Constitution which has served us well for over 200 years. The following facts argue against it --

  • Individuals must pay a $5.00 background check every time they legally purchase a firearm. (The background check in Florida is waived if one possesses a Concealed Weapon permit. Cost: $135 for the permit, and $130 for the required weapons handling course.)
  • All firearms manufactured in the U.S. pay a manufacture tax of 12%, which is obviously passed on to us Free Men. One wonders if the manufacturers of voting booths pay an equivalent tax.

A right is not a right if one must spend money to exercise that right. It is illegal to charge a citizen for the right to exercise his franchise, so why must we pay to exercise our gun rights?

Can you spell I-N-F-R-I-N-G-E?

Labels: , ,