Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts

Friday, March 13, 2009

The First Amendment As Understood By The Liberals In The Academia: Does Not Apply To The Second Amendment

From F.I.R.E - Foundation For Individual Rights In Education, a pro-free speech, Second Amendment rights article

Too Often, First Amendment Protections Denied to Second Amendment Speech

by William Creeley

March 10, 2009

The First Amendment protects core political speech - and, as should be obvious, that protection extends to speech regarding the Second Amendment. This means that students at public universities and private universities that promise the right to free expression on campus must be free to engage in unfettered discussion of the merits of federal, state and local gun policy in the same way that they are free to discuss, say, agricultural subsidies, diplomatic relations with Cuba, or last night's Daily Show.

But an unfortunate consequence of the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University is that students are increasingly facing punishment or investigation for engaging in any kind of gun-related speech. While FIRE of course understands the paramount importance of protecting students on campus, we have too often seen abuses of speech rights justified by weak allusions to these tragedies, as if advocating for or against gun rights on campus was an inherently dangerous act worthy of official reprimand. This is an absurd and untenable outcome.

FIRE has explored just how deeply regrettable this gun-speech hysteria is in previous writings. For example, Greg wrote an article for The Huffington Post entitled "What Can The Virginia Tech Tragedy Do For Me?", in which he concluded that "the simple fact is that some administrators have been using the campus shootings of the past two years as an excuse to justify cracking down on speech they don't like." Similarly, here on The Torch, Adam discussed how a recent court order in student Hayden Barnes' ongoing federal civil rights lawsuit against Valdosta State University should remind colleges that "simply invoking Virginia Tech or other incidents of severe violence on college campuses does not mean that a school can get away with declaring the most minor (or in this case nonexistent) references to violence some kind of actionable threat to campus security." Torch readers will remember that VSU cited the tragedy at Virginia Tech to justify expelling Barnes for a "threatening" collage he posted on Facebook.com.

But in light of Robert's scheduled appearance tonight on CNN, it's useful to review just how many incidents of overreaction to gun-related speech we've seen on the part of school administrators in the past several years. It's a long and shameful list:

  • At Central Connecticut State University, a student gave a presentation for his speech class about the safety value of concealed weapons on campus. His professor called the police, who subsequently interrogated him about where he was storing the guns that were registered under his name. This incident has already garnered national media attentionit was featured on the front page of FoxNews.com last weekand will be the focus of Robert's appearance on Lou Dobbs Tonight.
  • At Tarrant County College in Texas, a student chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus was prohibited from wearing empty gun holsters to protest policies that forbid concealed carry on campus. In addition, the group was only allowed to protest (still without holsters) in the school's tiny and restrictive free speech zone. An administrator said that the empty holsters were too threatening for other students to see.
  • At Colorado College, two male students were found responsible for sexually-related "violence" after they put up posters making fun of a feminist newsletter. Because the posters, which also parodied "guy stuff," made references to chainsaws and the range of a sniper rifle, administrators claimed that feminists on campus became afraid for their lives. The administrator who punished the students wrote, "I recognize that your intent in posting your publication was not to threaten but to parody. However, in the climate in which we find ourselves today, violenceor implied violenceof any kind cannot be tolerated on a college campus." Because of this miscarriage of justice, Colorado College is now on FIRE's Red Alert list, reserved for the worst-of-the-worst when it comes to liberty on campus.
  • At Lone Star College near Houston, the Young Conservatives of Texas distributed a humorous flyer listing "Top Ten Gun Safety Tips" at the school's "club rush." They were threatened with probation and derecognition, and the flyer was censored. The school's general counsel invoked the specter of the Virginia Tech shootings, suggesting that even a "mention of firearms and weapons" is inherently a "material interference" with the school's operations.
  • Yale attempted a similar maneuver after the Virginia Tech shootings, banning the use of any realistic-looking weapons in theatrical productions at the school. Under public pressure, Yale backed away somewhat from its original overreaction but still required audiences to be "notified in advance of the use of fake guns, swords and knives."
  • According to USA Today, a professor at Emmanuel College in Boston was fired "after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said 'pow.'" According to the professor, the five-minute demonstration included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood."

As always, FIRE will continue to monitor this unfortunate trend and to defend the rights of students and faculty to engage in fully protected speech on campuseven if that speech involves fake guns, empty holsters, or advocating for the right to carry concealed weapons on campus.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

The List Of Shame, The List Of Traitors

IHateTheMedia is taking a look at the US Senators who would like to impose a Stalinist control over the Constitutional right of Free Speech in America:

Which Senators voted in favor of censorship…uh…we mean the Fairness Doctrine?

By now you’ve probably heard that the Senate approved an amendment a few days ago to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine.” Republican Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment passed by a comfortable margin of 87-to-11.

Although one would think it’s important to know which senators cast their votes in favor of censorship, we can’t find a single news report that calls out their names. So we’ll do it:

Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan (D-ND), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), and Whitehouse (D-RI).

In addition, Kennedy (D-MA) did not vote, but does anyone doubt that he would have joined them Infamous Eleven had his health been up to it?

Please note that there’s a “D” attached to ten of the eleven of the names. “D” as in Democrat. “D” as in unDemocratic.

I thought it would be interesting to go a step further and dig up some information from OnTheIssues.org in order to see how the unDemocratic Senators who would like to trample over the First Amendment are scoring on the Second Amendment: the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is what I found:

Bingaman (D-NM)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Conrad (D-ND)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

Dorgan (D-ND)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

Feinstein (D-CA)
* Licensing and federal registration of all gun sales. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

Harkin (D-IA)
* Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Johnson (D-SD)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)
* Rated C+ by the NRA, indicating a mixed voting record on gun rights. (Dec 2003)

Kerry (D-MA)
* Country less safe-terrorists can now buy assault weapons. (Oct 2004)
* Supports 2nd Amendment, but wants to ban assault weapons. (Sep 2004)
* Gun owner & hunter, but rights come with responsibility. (Mar 2004)
* Democratic Party shouldn’t be for the NRA. (Nov 2003)
* Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill. (Oct 2003)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Reed (D-RI)
* Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rockefeller (D-WV)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Sanders (I-VT)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Whitehouse (D-RI)
* Common-sense solutions to fight gun crime. (Jul 2006)
* Fight to keep guns off our streets. (Jul 2006)
* Strengthened penalties for armed criminals. (Dec 2005)
* Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

With the (marginal) exception of a single Senator, here is the conclusion: these low life politicians who want to introduce censorship and stifle free speech also want our guns.
Why?
Democrats want our guns because they know that as long we have the means to defend ourselves against the tyrannical government envisioned by them, they cannot and will not succeed to suppress free speech nor the rest of our civil liberties.
The only thing that stands between Democracy and Stalinism in America is the the Second Amendment and the guns we own as free citizens.
As for these despicable unAmericans, they deserve nothing but our contempt.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

New Hampshire Reclaims State Supremacy. What Will Obama Do?

I wonder what Obama will do if he will move on to enact new Federal firearms registration laws or another so called "assault" weapon ban after the New Hampshire legislative passes HCR6.
Will Obama order his Brown Shirts...errr... National Civilian Forces to invade New Hampshire and restore hope and change?


New Hampshire Reclaims State Supremacy

by Gary Wood (conservative libertarian), Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Leading by example the people of New Hampshire have boldly put the federal government on notice with HCR 6 - A Resolution affirming States' rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Can you imagine any state in today's economic turmoil putting the federal government on notice? Well, that is exactly what New Hampshire has done and all other states should follow their example. With their House Concurrent Resolution they've spelled out exactly what violations will no longer be tolerated. More over the resolution doesn't stop at a mere legislative warning but carries it to the executive and judicial realms as well. Listen to the language from the resolution; hear it echo in your mind.

------------------------------
Following this is a listing of actions which would cause the nullification. A caveat to the list is that it is not all limiting yet only an example of abuses which the federal government must no longer undertake. Clearly stating the consequences HRC 6 continues, "That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually."

Anyone believing they are alone in our struggle for a restoration of our foundational principles must now realize they are not. Here is a legislature willing to lead by way of active legislative resolution. Reading through the entire resolution anyone will be bolstered with pride who stands against the tyrannical course our immerging socialist democracy is currently on. As we see this level of resistance we can take heart in knowing our time of restoration is coming.

--------------------------------

Does your state have the integrity and intestinal fortitude to follow suit? I'm not sure mine does but we must at least make each of the other 49 states aware of this example and ask the question. If they do not then elections may take on a whole new meaning as we strive to continue our search for honorable representatives who embrace the core principles that gave birth to our wonderful country. Thank you New Hampshire, I for one salutes your stance for liberty and freedom!

In 1799 Thomas Jefferson laid out New Hampshire's right for this resolution when he said;

"RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy."

http://www.nolanchart.com/article5941.html

New Hampshire's HRC 6

Seems that those doggone Constitutionalists up in New Hampshire are pulling Washington's chain again with a piece of legislation called HRC 6. Basically, the New Hampshire bill would tell the federal government to take a hike on matters where power has not been given to the feds.

Specifically:

"That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the
Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.

Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State's legislature.'