Mediaboss Marketing

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

Weapons change, but the man who uses them changes not at all.Gen. George S. Patton

It seems that a segment of the shooting population pines for the old times, and actually believes things were better way back when. Guns were in .30 cal and .45 ACP, the uniforms were pressed to a razors edge, and Mitsubishi was a thing only known for being shot out of the sky. Back when the ships were made of wood, and the men were made of iron. But the truth is, weapons evolve. And you either get with that evolution, or you go extinct. To borrow a quote from my favorite humor website Cracked.com, showing up to fight iron age enemies with bronze age weapons, you might as well have been carrying a breadstick. GUNS AMERICA

The prevailing thought on the gun control political left is that times have changed but technology has no reason to. That is, while a man had the right to defend himself using a single shot musket in 1791 against an attacker using a single shot musket, a man in 2017 using a five shot revolver has no right to defend himself against a perp with a 30 shot semiauto AR. Or a variant: the home owner with a 30-round AR has no right to use his repeating firearm against four attackers using a 10 shot semiauto pistol, a crowbar, a butcher knife, or a runaway truck. For the left, self-defense is unfair to begin with, and for all self-defense cases the left has a pat answer: The Founders Never Gave Americans the Right.

Justice Scalia did.

For the left. equality is everything. Self-defense by its nature discriminates against the attacker who may not be as well-armed. What they would prefer is for the perp to have the 30 shot AR, and for the home defender to have a replica single shot musket, or better yet, an Obamaphone with which they can call 911.

As you can see in the linked video, the victim has plenty of time to make the call. And wait for the police to show up. And too, that a single shot firearm would have sufficed.

As in all things, the left takes a logical point illogically to its logical conclusion: meaning that in the 18th century when the Bill of rights were composed, man used mostly muzzle-loading single shot muskets. When the founding Fathers wrote the constitution, the gun controller will posit, they never had in mind repeating firearms for use by civilians

David Deming - - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 Washington Times

For decades the federal judiciary has been trying to interpret the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. It is, as Sanford Levinson has termed it, an embarrassment to an elite class of legal scholars that finds firearms to be unusual and repulsive objects. Now the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared that the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle is not covered by the Second Amendment, despite that fact that is the most common rifle sold in the United States. This execrable decision is the latest outrage in a long series of disingenuous judicial contortions.

The courts have never come to terms with the fact that any intelligible reading of the Second Amendment requires an interpretation that acknowledges and reconciles its two clauses. The operative clause speaks of the right of the people, while the prefatory clause justifies the operative clause by professing that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Prior to the Heller decision by the Supreme Court (2008), for 60 years or more the federal judiciary almost unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right. The militia mentioned in the prefatory clause was taken to be the National Guard. Thus, the right described in the operative clause was interpreted to be the right of states to maintain militia. This interpretation was never credible because it excised the Second Amendment from its contextual and historical underpinnings.

The Obama-appointed left-liberal circuit courts, their predecessors and leftist media had the nation convinced that the 2nd Amendment ratified in 1791 actually meant the National Guard established in 1903. You see, not only are the political left Time Travelers, being delusional with uncontrollable tyrannical tendencies to rewrite law, they also live in the fourth dimension where $8000 deductibles actually mean AFFORDABLE Health Care.

The factual argument is that all firearms were designed for the military or police at first and came into general use later (and here I except fully-automatic small arms and artillery for what should be obvious reasons). Everyone belonged to the militia - as all able-bodied Americans legally do today unless they are prohibited from membership by law.

The militia is defined as all able-bodied non-trans-gendered Americans who used to be able to pick up a 12 lb. musket in 1791, but have trouble picking up a 6 lb. AR today that can fire 30 times as many rounds as the musket. Military and civilian small arms have operated in the same fashion (select auto fire is the exception, and have not been available to the general public since the 1930s.)

David Derning:

What weapons are excluded? Those not in the common use by an individual citizen, such as poison gas or large artillery pieces. The phrase used in Heller, dangerous and unusual, is properly understood to refer to weapons of mass destruction.

For the record, there are over a half million fully automatic firearms in the hands of specially-licensed American citizens and collectors and they are never used in the commission of crimes.

THE REPEATING FIREARM EXISTED IN PRE-REVOLUTIONARY AMERICA

David Koppel of the Volokh Conspiracy, Washington TImes:

The first repeaters to be built in large quantities appear to be the 1646 Danish flintlocks that used a pair of tubular magazines, and could fire 30 shots without reloading. Like a modern lever-action rifle, the next shot was made ready by a simple two-step motion of the trigger guard. These guns were produced for the Danish and Dutch armies. Brown, at 106-7.

30 rounds, just like the modern AR-15 - exactly the kind of firearm the Founders had on mind when they referred to Shall Not Be Infringed.

David Kopell continues:

Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America.

Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment

One of the men to credit for why repeating arms became much less expensive during the 19th century is James Madison, author of the Second Amendment

To function reliably, repeating firearms must have internal components that fit together very preciselymuch more precisely than is necessary for single-shot firearms. Before President Madison and Secretary Monroe started the manufacturing revolution, firearms were built one at a time by craftsmen.

THE REPEATING FIREARM IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHER HAD IN MIND

Koppel: What kind of repeating arms were available before 1815, when the Madison-Monroe mass production innovation program began? The state of the art was the Girandoni air rifle, invented around 1779 for Austrian army sharpshooters. Lewis and Clark would carry a Girandoni on their famous expedition, during the Jefferson administration. The Girandoni could shoot 21 or 22 bullets in .46 or .49 caliber without reloading. Ballistically equal to a firearm, a single shot from the Girandoni could penetrate a one-inch wood plank, or take an elk. (For more on the Girandoni, see my article The History of Firearms Magazines and Magazine Prohibitions, 88 Albany L. Rev. 849, 852-53 (2015).)

Liberals who neither know history, civics, understand law, or how to count, may be surprised to find that 1779, just like the existence of repeating firearms, came before 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified. Conservatives dont find any of it surprising.

The first repeaters had been invented about three centuries before. The earliest-known model is a German breech-loading matchlock arquebus from around 1490-1530 with a 10-shot revolving cylinder. M.L. Brown, Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology, 1492-1792, 50 (1980). Henry VIII had a long gun that used a revolving cylinder (a revolver) for multiple shots. W.W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, 81-82 (9th ed. 1910). A 16-round wheel lock dates from about 1580. Kopel, at 852.

Production of repeaters continued in the seventeenth century.

The only factor for repeating firearms not being common in the Revolutionary War was cost. They were prohibitively expensive to manufacture with any precision - and it was specifically precision that was required to manufacture firearms capable of self-reloading.

THE AR-15 - THE BARBIE DOLL FOR GUYS

Designed a half-century ago, the AR-15 was the later of many self-loading repeating firearms that came before and now are in common use for over a century. It is common and for that reason is validated by the Heller decision to be legal for all. It is popular because it is a universal, it is light and maneuverable, it is user friendly and fast, and it is a capable firearm free people demand for its varied purposes.

Andrew G, BenjaminAll Rights Reserved

David Kopel is Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, D.C; and Adjunct professor, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He is author of 17 books and 100 scholarly journal articles

Andrew G. Benjamin is a real estate and tax specialist, equities trader, a former economic advisor to New York city mayor Rudy Giuliani; serving on the transition teams Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget. Benjamin also wrote extensively about intelligence, economic issues, the Mideast, terrorism, technology, high end audio and transnational politics.

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban. -- Follow these instructions on registering:

Original post:
SECOND AMENDMENT PRIMER Part II - Canada Free Press

Gun rights can be a touchy topic, especially considering Virginia Techs past. I would like to start off by saying that when I advocate for gun rights and against gun-free zones, I do not seek to neglect the horrific mass shootings that have taken place on college campuses and around the United States.

The people of the United States have the right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which states: 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. Many politicians, specifically politicians on the left, seem to believe that this amendment needs to be updated or interpreted differently. As former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once said, The Constitution is not a living organism, it's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

As citizens, we know how inefficient and unorganized our government can be, so why should we trust our politicians when they say that we will be safe, if not safer, without our own personal protection? Personally, I would rather be in control of my safety, especially if it comes down to a life or death situation.

One of the ways the left is trying to take away gun rights is by passing an assault rifle ban. Not too long ago, I did not see a problem with banning assault rifles, as I assumed it meant militaristic rifles that the everyday American has no logical use for. However, I later found out the term assault rifle can mean whatever a politician wants it to mean. Politicians, primarily on the left, are misleading the American people by using terms that have no concrete meaning.

Another way the left has tried to take away gun rights is by implementing gun-free zones. A gun-free zone is exactly what is sounds like; its a place where citizens are not legally allowed to carry guns. In a fairytale, perhaps this would be a great idea. No one carries a gun, no shootings and no robberies, right? Wrong. The people who commit gun violence are not law-abiding citizens. If you havent noticed, murder and assault are already illegal. The law does not act as a deterrent for any of the people who have committed or wish to commit such acts.

The only people who truly abide by gun-free zones are the people who respect the law and have no intent of using their gun to harm an innocent person. These zones unarm the good guys and have no impact on the bad guys, essentially making citizens in a gun-free zone sitting ducks. Many gun-free zones are advertised as such. By advertising that a place is a gun-free zone, one is in turn announcing that those inside are defenseless, and therefore an easy target. Edmund Burke once said, The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Politicians on the left are making it so that good men have no option but to do nothing.

The gun does not pull the trigger, just like a spoon doesnt make someone overweight. People make themselves overweight and people choose to pull the trigger.

Now that I have established that theres little logic behind creating extremely rigid gun laws, lets look at the lefts record of accomplishment, or in this case, the lack of such. Illinois is one of the top ten states with the strictest gun laws. Chicago, one of Illinois major cities, had 762 gun-related deaths in 2016 alone. This is the highest number of gun-related deaths the city has seen in 19 years. Detroit, the city with the second highest murder rate in the country, also has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. In 2016, Detroit had 302 homicides.

These two cities not only have some of the harshest gun laws in the nation, but they also have some of the highest murder rates in the United States. A list of a few countries and regimes that were or still are gun-free zones include Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and now the struggling socialist country of Venezuela. These draconian gun laws are ineffective and illogical as shown by their inability to keep those residing inside safe and secure.

Our government should be promoting gun ownership rather than placing powerless laws on them. A great example of more armed citizens decreasing crime is Switzerland. In Switzerland, every man who is a citizen serves in the Swiss national military and is obligated to keep their rifle and ammunition in his home. As of 2010, Switzerland only had 0.5 gun-related deaths for every 100,000 citizens. As a conservative, I am not supportive of the government mandating that every U.S. male in the military own a personal gun, however, I do think politicians and citizens on the left need to realize that by un-arming themselves and other citizens, they are in fact creating more victims to gun-related deaths.

Another flaw in the gun control debate is that leftists fail to recognize the personal responsibility of the shooter. The gun does not pull the trigger, just like a spoon doesnt make someone overweight. People make themselves overweight and people choose to pull the trigger. The shooter makes a cognitive decision to pull the trigger and harm another person. If a student misspells a word on a spelling test should the teacher ban pencils? Of course not, so why should our government ban guns when someone misuses one? They shouldnt; a gun, like a pencil, is a tool. Theres no logic nor facts supporting that banning guns will work or has worked. As Ronald Reagan once said, We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

Continued here:
Gun regulation: A shotty violation of Second Amendment rights - Virginia Tech Collegiate Times

Europe

13:29 30.05.2017(updated 13:31 30.05.2017) Get short URL

Earlier this month, the EU parliament and the European Council formalized a long-awaited visa liberalization agreement withUkraine. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko dubbed the decision 'historic', saying that it was Ukraine's final goodbye toits Soviet and Russian 'imperial past'.

The agreement, expected totake effect June 11, will allow Ukrainian citizens withbiometric passports toenter Schengen Area countries (except forthe UK and Ireland), forup to90 days inany 180-day period visa-free. During entry, travelers will be required toproduce a return ticket, proof ofa hotel reservation or an invitation fromrelatives living inthe EU, proof ofmedical insurance and atleast 45 euros foreach day they plan tospend onSchengen Area territory.

AP Photo/ Virginia Mayo

Speaking toRadio Sputnik, Russian political scientist Vladimir Shapovalov explained why Europeans' concerns are justified.

"These fears are well-founded. Notwithstanding the fact that the EU has adopted special regulatory measures aimed atpreventing the influx ofguest workers, it's obvious that many Ukrainian citizens will attempt touse the visa-free regime tostay inEurope," the analyst said.

"Today, there are already hundreds ofthousands ofUkrainians looking forwork inEU countries, and it's obvious that the introduction ofa visa-free regime strongly stimulates the aspirations ofUkrainians looking toget intoEurope."

"And these aspirations are understandable," Shapovalov added. "The Ukrainian economy is facing a grave crisis, exacerbated bypolitical problems and those related tothe [war ineastern Ukraine]. In this situation, working abroad is not just a decision taken ona whim, buta real opportunity toavoid the tremendous social problems and poverty which are typical forUkraine."

Sputnik/ Mikhail Voskresenskiy

Shapovalov suggested that the problem ofpossible illegal labor migration toEU countries is only compounded bythe fact that Kiev is actively seeking todiscourage Ukrainians fromcoming toRussia towork.

An estimated 2.1 million working-age Ukrainians are estimated tobe living and working inRussia. They send home hundreds ofmillions ofdollars-worth ofremittances totheir home country each year. If these migrant workers are squeezed outof Russia, they will need tofind somewhere else togo tofeed families.

"It's no secret that there are millions ofUkrainians working inRussia. If the Ukrainian government creates a regime banning citizens fromworking inRussia, Ukrainians will have nothing left todo butdash fromthe east tothe west, that is, toseek work inPoland, Germany, France and the UK. This is the result ofthe policy being pursued byKiev and, indirectly, the EU," Shapovalov concluded.

More:
Migrant Crisis Part II: EU Braces for Flood of Illegal Ukrainian Migrant Workers - Sputnik International

The Bay States U.S. attorneys office has launched a media blitz on the immigration front, firing off a torrent of press releases touting his offices work as the Trump administration pushes prosecutors to prioritize illegal immigration cases.

The newfound flood of attention comes weeks after Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a memo to the countrys 94 acting U.S. attorneys, telling them to focus on aggressively prosecuting such offenses, including those tied to gang and drug cases.

Acting U.S. Attorney William Weinreb acknowledges his office is still ramping up its immigration caseload, which aides say so far is similar to the roughly three dozen or so cases it had prosecuted to this point last year under then-U.S. Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz.

But the offices promotion machine has been in full gear. During the last month, Weinrebs press office has sent 12 separate press releases on cases of previously deported defendants being charged, convicted or sentenced for illegal re-entry, a common immigration offense. Just last Friday, it sent three news releases in seven minutes, spotlighting cases that carry a maximum sentence of two years.

Under Ortiz, the office sent 10 press releases on such charges over her final five years.

I think in the weeks or months to come, youre going to see those numbers increase, as well the numbers of other kinds of immigration crime, Weinreb told the Herald, adding that hes designated a prosecutor to handle illegal-re-entry cases as part of adjustments within the office. We do make sure we publicize our efforts so the cases that we do bring will have a deterrent effect.

Nearly five months after Ortiz resigned, President Trump has yet to name any permanent U.S. attorneys.

But Weinreb insisted his push to highlight the offices efforts on immigration is not a bid to curry favor with the Department of Justice and win the post.

We dont bring cases for the sake of publicizing them or publicizing them for any reason other than to deter others, Weinreb said. Were a public service agency. The community has the right to know what were doing. They have a right to know whether or not we are pursuing the DOJ priorities.

Making good on a Trump campaign promise to more strictly enforce immigration law, Sessions wrote in his April memo that illegal-re-entry cases should be a priority, particularly in gang cases.

In Massachusetts, Weinreb said, that will include tacking immigration offenses onto a charging docket when appropriate, even if it already includes far more serious drug or violent offenses.

Michael Sullivan, a former Massachusetts U.S. attorney who has made recommendations for the next U.S. attorney to the White House, said hes not surprised by the heightened focus on immigration cases, given the priorities Trump set.

Messaging is important, especially if you want to change behavior. You put them on notice, Sullivan said. I think (Weinreb) is doing whats expected of a U.S. attorney.

Brian T. Kelly, a former federal prosecutor under Ortiz who is now in private practice at the firm Nixon Peabody, said the Boston U.S. attorneys office has always prosecuted illegal re-entry cases, suggesting there may be a change in press policy rather than law enforcement policy.

A new administration with new priorities, he wrote in an email.

More here:
Illegal immigrant cases on docket | Boston Herald - Boston Herald

Gov. Mike Pence talks about how Jesus would want him to forgive Donald Trump (Screen cap).

Vice President Mike Pence is about to embark on a cross-country summer campaign tour just weeks after filing paperwork to establish his own campaign committee. He has claimed it is just about fundraising for loyal Republican candidates in 2018 but many speculate whether its about building his own war chest.

Pence is bouncing around Midwestern battleground states and conservative footholds like Georgia where a special election has Republicans running scared, according to Politico. But the trip comes as his boss is being crushed under the weight of scandals.

He has an appetite to fight so hes going to get out there and fight on the presidents behalf, longtime Pence strategist Nick Ayers told Politico.

It is not unusual for vice presidents to campaign while the president is leading the country. Former Vice President Joe Biden famously traveled to every corner of the country to raise money for Democratic candidates. However, few vice presidents serve under a leader navigating a significant influx of investigations.

We are in for a turbulent campaign cycle, as nearly all parties in power face during a new presidents first midterm, said George W. Bushs deputy political director Scott Jennings. But the question is, do you shrink in the face of a tough cycle or do you fight like hell to hold on. And Pence is going to fight like hell, it seems, which will hopefully embolden every candidate out there.

Politico nails Pence as a quiet and loyal foot soldier, calmly working behind the scenes to accomplish a right wing agenda. But that kind of behind his back work that makes President Donald Trump nervous. But thus far, Pences speeches have been about defending Trump to conservatives, not promoting himself.

Everything that has been done has been done to advance the presidents policies, Ayers explained.

On the left and in the media, some are diligently plugging away to show that Pence had to have known about campaign ties to Russia. MSNBCs Rachel Maddow has done deep dives into the Russia scandal, specifically showing the evidence stacking up against Pence.

Either they were criminally negligent or they werent and they knew, Maddow said in March.

Its something to pick someone manifestly unfit for the job of National Security Advisor to be National Security Advisor, thats one thing, she a few weeks later. It is another thing when you bring somebody on board to a top national security position while theyre also on the payroll of a foreign government! And you either dont notice or you dont care.

Politico claimed that Republicans are desperate for someone to fill a political void while Trump questions the loyalty of a party hes spoken out against.

Pences team swears hes not promoting his own agenda or candidacy. One Pence aide even evidenced the claim by swearing the first donation from Pences committee would be a hard money contribution of the federal maximum of $5,400 to Trumps reelection campaign. Staffers swear Pence will be a top tier surrogate that every campaign will want to have help raise money.

All of this will help him build relationships nationally that he barely had the time to create while on the ticket for four months last fall, said Republican strategist from Ted Cruzs campaign, Jeff Roe.

Political pundits on Morning Joe have alleged that Pence will be done by the end of the investigations into RussiaGate. They attribute it to retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn telling his own story.

See the rest here:
Mike Pence begins cross-country campaign tour as RussiaGate investigation zeros in on Trump - Raw Story