Quote of the day—David Codrea

Where does anyone get off requiring a free citizen to get permission to exercise a right?

Who has legitimate moral authority to impose prior restraints on rights that, depending on your beliefs, are either “endowed by our Creator” or inherent to the condition of being human?

And where do they get off legally, since Supreme Court precedent acknowledges:

“This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed …”

The Cult of Statism is determined to impose faith in a monopoly of violence enforced by follower disarmament, even though all credible observations show its tenets to be superstitious nonsense. And we know what happens to non-believers, heretics, infidels…

David Codrea
September 6, 2017
Amish Photo Exemption Bill Raises Questions about Gun Owner Control Laws and More
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—David Codrea

  1. One answer, which you’ve used a lot, is that these people are pathological liars. For example, as Neil Schulman described, they quote only the first sentence of that Supreme Court decision, and then claim that the Court held that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect gun ownership.

  2. “Where does anyone get off requiring a free citizen to get permission to exercise a right?

    Literal answer to the literal question? Nowhere, and yet everywhere. Governments get off everywhere, violating the rights of citizens. Nowhere are they right in doing so.

    Wrong question then. A free citizen is not required to do any such thing, any more than a free citizen is “required” to submit to a mugging, robbery, extortion or rape. The question assumes a falsehood, and so it begs for horseshit as an answer. There’s always plenty of horseshit. It’s the wrong question in that the statist/criminal will always come up with an answer which only the criminal mind finds acceptable.

    The question you actually want answered is;
    What is the quickest and best way to bring to justice those enemy infiltrators in “public service” who deny, and violate, and seek to violate, human rights?

    The criminal class will of course come up with its own criminal horseshit answers to that question, as with any, but those who love liberty will seek to answer it truthfully. That’s a proper question directed to those who matter (if there be any).

    Part of the answer to the latter question of course is that the enemies of the Republic, while we’ve been busy seeking pleasure, have been allowed to occupy every corner of society, such that it will take a large scale war to root them all out and bring them to justice. Also, there’s not a politician alive who can, or wants to, make that happen. Another part of the answer involves taking up those words, “…our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

    Who then, really wants to answer that question, and so maybe it’s best you don’t ask it after all? How many of you (I’ll call you “the McCains”) are getting pissed off and sarcastic at me just thinking about it?

  3. Well the argument goes that you can exercise your right to keep and bear arms all you want, within the limits of local, state and federal law. And that those laws don’t actually infringe your right, they just are there to keep the public safe from harm. And that public safety actually is a valid reason to infringe your rights and the exercise of your rights. So you actually have the right to exercise your rights all you want as long as you don’t do so, because doing so is a public safety risk and that is not allowable.

    That a compelling governmental reason for infringement of rights can have such a ludicrous and non-provable basis amazes me.

    Don’t run with scissors, you’ll fall and poke your eye out.
    Better yet, you can’t have scissors.
    Because you’ll fall and poke your eye out.
    I don’t care if you need scissors.
    And stop asking for them.
    Or you’ll be punished for asking.

  4. Well the argument goes that you can exercise your right to keep and bear arms all you want, within the limits of local, state and federal law. And that those laws don’t actually infringe your right, they just are there to keep the public safe from harm. And that public safety actually is a valid reason to infringe your rights and the exercise of your rights. So you actually have the right to exercise your rights all you want as long as you don’t do so, because doing so is a public safety risk and that is not allowable.

    That a compelling governmental reason for infringement of rights can have such a ludicrous and non-provable basis amazes me.

    Don’t run with scissors, you’ll fall and poke your eye out.
    Better yet, you can’t have scissors.
    Because you’ll fall and poke your eye out.
    I don’t care if you need scissors.
    And stop asking for them.
    Or you’ll be punished for asking.

    On such a farcical basis, the state could decide to kill all the Jews, claiming they are a parasitical entity on the body of society, and courts would uphold the ruling.

    And only after the war would those judges be hung or imprisoned.

  5. Point of order. That statement “This is not a right granted by the Constitution….” is actually not part of the precedent set by the Court’s decision in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876). It is part of what is called the obiter dictum of that case. Obiter dictum is Latin that basically means “said in passing”. It just gives suggestions in how a court decided to rule in a case.

    It is only the point of law, expressed in its most abstract terms, that is used to decide the case which may create a precedent in appellate decisions.

    However dicta, as they are often called, can be persuasive. In this case, United States v. Cruikshank, this dicta proves beyond any doubt that in 1876 the majority of the SCOTUS believed that there existed a Natural Law that is of higher authority than any man made law from which we Americans not only derive our RKBA but all the other basic rights enumerated in the first eight amendments to the Constitutions as well as other unenumerated rights referenced in the Ninth Amendment.

    It is because the RKBA and all the other rights in the Bill of Rights are Natural Rights derived from Natural Law and not rights created by the Constitution that the SCOTUS in 1876 decided that the RKBA as well as all our other Natural Rights were not protected from infringement by State Governments under the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.

    They ruled that only rights of “National Citizenship” that were expressly created by the Constitution were so protected. Fortunately since then, one by one, SCOTUS has “incorporated” our rights into the Due Process Clause with the last one being the RKBA with the decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742. However, we are still waiting for the SCOTUS and the rest of the Federal Judiciary to take the last step and fully recognize the true extend of our Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

  6. One way to see how badly the courts rape civil rights is to look at the notion of “scrutiny” (strict, or not). Translated to plain English it amounts to “we think the government can violate your rights, in spite of the plain text of the Constitution, if they come up with a reasonably plausible sounding excuse”.
    Another one along the same lines is “balancing”.

Comments are closed.