Quote of the day—Tana Senn

Posted on by

I’ve never thought about it.

Tana Senn
Washington State Representative, 41st District
February 22, 2020
This was in response to the question, “What sort of gun law do you think would violate the Washington State constitution?”
[The Washington State constitution says:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

My guess is that she has never read it. Another guy at the town hall meeting asked a related question and she went off with something about the militia. Which, of course, might have been relevant if we didn’t have the Washington State constitution protection for the right to keep and bear arms clause and the Heller decision. The Heller decision, of course, making it very clear the militia clause does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to the militia.

I got the last question of the meeting and I decided to directly ask her to address the Washington State constitution clause. The QOTD above was the beginning of her response.

The rest of her response was about hunters, she has “no problem” with hunters—as long as they don’t use “military type guns” which are only for hunting humans. She was a bit more hesitant but also said she didn’t have a problem with people who wanted to have a gun to defend themselves.

But, of course, the Washington State constitution does not give lawmakers a “military type gun” loophole to write laws restricting individual possession and use of firearms.

I find her response very telling.

If she has never concerned herself with the limits to the power she has under the constitution this isn’t going to stop. Whatever restriction she and her type can get passed this year or next, or the year after is just another step toward the practical, if not literal, elimination of the right.

I was telling someone else about what Senn said and I got a surprising response:

Crazy must run in the family.

It turns out that Senn is is a first cousin, once-removed of former Washington state Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn. Deborah Senn had a reputation such that many people suspected she was a sociopath and perhaps had other psychology issues.

My live tweeting of the meeting:

This should be good evidence. I hope she enjoys her trial.—Joe]

Share

15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Tana Senn”

  1. Cognitive disconnect is a wonder to behold. Psychological archeologist are going to have a field day with this generation!

  2. Ignorance of the law is no defense, but they don’t care and are hellbent on implementing ‘democratic socialism’ whether the law allows it or we like it or not.

    They are living in the richest society of all times and they don’t like it, yet they have riches beyond the dreams of kings. Astonishingly they want to destroy everything so that they can rebuild to their liking. They are no different than the Reds in the Russian Revolution that felt they needed to destroy the factories and farms, and especially the managers and owners.

  3. I’m convinced that most of the people out there have bought the idea they live in a democracy and that the majority rules. I doubt most of them can even comprehend the idea that the actually live in a republic and that legislators operate with limited authority.

    • This is why I’m sure that she meant that as a variation on “I don’t understand you”, which is used as a euphemism for “I disagree with you.” As Justsomeguy says, they have no concept at all of Constitutional limits on their power.

  4. The very first Article in the Washington State Constitution states the only “just” (legitimate) purpose of government, and echoes the same “self-evident truth” expressed in the Declaration of Independence (“…to secure these rights, governments are instituted…”). This “truth” is the primary distinction between the democracy that so many wrongfully believe we have and the “republican form of government” that the founders established in the U. S. Constition (Art4, Sec4.)

    Washington State Constitution
    ARTICLE I
    DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
    SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    “…governments … are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

    ANY legislation that diminishes individual rights is repugnant to our Constitutions and is void and without legitimate force ab initio. (See Mayberry v Madison)

    • That is all very well and good, but there is left open the question; “What, exactly, is a right?”

      Every communist, socialist, Progressive, Marxist, papist, fascist, etc., who ever lived asserted “Human Rights” as a pretext for his crimes, going even so far as to claim “love” as his motivation. Even the garden variety criminal will typically justify his behavior based on some form of “rights” or “justice” angle he’s made up in his mind.

      The Early 20th Century Progressives of course wanted a “New Bill of Rights”, or an “Economic Bill of Rights”, etc., in which they could claim the “right” to a house, good food, a job, etc., etc. for everyone, even “entertainment”, via coercive redistribution.

      They see the original Bill of Rights as a “Charter of Negative Rights” which places “restrictions” on their efforts to make things “fair”. In other words, they assert a “right” to forcibly take that which belongs to others, usually claiming that no one (but the state, or the pope or course) really “owns” anything in the first place, that whatever you possess you possess unfairly at the expense of and to the injury of others.

      In the starkest possible contrast to every scintilla of the left’s world view, we have the Ten Commandments. Most poignantly in regard to property, we have the Eighth and the Tenth;

      #8; Thou shalt not steal.

      Well, some would then say, Define “stealing”, for if I have a right to it for whatever reasons I can make up in my mind, then it isn’t necessarily “stealing”. So we need absolute clarification, which we find in the tenth;

      #10; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house (land, dwelling and other property) nor his manservant, nor his maidservant (employees, to put it in modern context), nor his ox (means of production), his ass (means of transportation, and thus together with the above; the right to engage in unfettered commerce), nor anything that is thy neighbor’s. (emphasis mine)

      See Exodus, chapter 20, but you’ll need the right Bible, because the left (under the tutelage of the papacy) has even gone so far as to edit and abridge the Bible. One of their versions says, simply; “You shall not covet.” Like everything else, they have to chip away at the Scriptures in small pieces, so this is part of a Progressive re-writing of the Bible, which has been on-going for many generations.

      In everything they say and do, the left attempts to nullify and re-define so as to violate each and every one of the Ten Commandments, same as with our U.S. and State constitutions. Furthermore, that seems to be their primary mission in life. They attempt to justify violating the Eighth and the Tenth Commandments by way of violating the Ninth; bearing false testimony (lying) about how wealth is properly created, accumulated and distributed.

      Of course, to really and truly violate all of the Ten, to the maximum degree imaginable (which, again, I assert, is the goal), they’ll have to implement disarmament. Disarmament of some kind is always and forever on the list, for as long as the authoritarian mind is allowed to exist.

      But it’s not our job to eradicate the authoritarian mind. That’s far beyond our capabilities, even if we were foolhardy enough to try. All we’re to do is stand apart from it, exposing it for what it is, showing that starkest of contrasts mentioned above.

      • “What, exactly, is a right?”

        A moderately famous (now former) lawyer is said to have responded to a question put to him while under oath with “That depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is.” Most people who mean to rule seem to see themselves as much cleverer than the average serf, while being, in fact, about as vacuous as Humpty Dumpty. We should resist the invitation to follow them through the Looking Glass into the Wonderland of their fevered imaginations.

        Words must have meaning, else how could we effectively communicate, especially over the chasm of time? If words were as malleable as your question seems to imply, no contract would be worth the paper it is written on. Generally, words take their common meaning at the time they were written. Often, as in legislation, they are defined specifically within the text. Contemporaneous utterances by the author and/or his colleagues and correspoindents are always a primary source of intent. Self-serving and illiterate speculation many years later..somewhat less so

        Thomas Jefferson, whose statement about the source and nature of the inalienable rights of individuals would have become a death warrant to its signators had they failed their attempt to separate from the most powerful martial force on the planet, defined rightful liberty thusly:

        “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

        That is fairly unambiguous and the spirit of this definition is reflected in the language of our state constitution’s preamble and very first sentence, written in plain English about a century later. I cannot comprehend a valid reason to follow a modern scheming statist’s “Yeah, but…” down the rabbit hole of what seeks to pass for an honest and rational mind.

  5. Crazy running in the family, and a cabal of family/relation promotion and protections rackets, is an idea that is supported by Q and many of the historical “conspiracy” theories. There comes a point where it is the simplest explanation, and is no longer “just a wild theory.” When you start seeing the family “dynasties” in government, it starts to look not only possible, but much more likely than not. They are loyal to themselves, and seek power. The ideas on paper called “The Constitution” is not even on their hard drive, let alone their own personal working memory. It’s likely never been in their L1 cash at all like it is for people like you and I.

    Cleaning the political Augean Stables will be spectacular.

  6. Oh – side note. My reps only do “phone” town hall meetings, so you can’t see who is there and gauge support. Their screeners choose the questions. It’s the definition of non-transparent. I hate them.

    • Yes, I noticed that in a local “debate” wherein the League of Women Voters were screening all the questions.

      In science, it was once said that the answers don’t necessarily matter so much as the questions being asked. That would seem to apply to pretty much everything else, too.

      It’s like voting. It doesnt matter so much who votes, but who counts the votes. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter so much who votes OR who counts the votes, but who picks the candidates (and also, who decides how and when to enforce which laws)!

  7. As long as I’m gettin’ all Biblical and stuff, here’s Jesus on the matter of the keeping and bearing of arms. When He was getting ready to be arrested, He was advising the Apostles that their mission was to take on a new phase;

    And He said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip (cash), and shoes, lacked you anything? And they said, Nothing. Then He said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors; for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords among us. And He said unto them, That is enough.

    So; they were ALREADY carrying swords while under the direct tutelage of Jesus!

    Apparently, the reason Jesus made it absolutely clear to them that He wanted them to carry swords is because it would mean that He would be “reckoned among the transgressors”. Interesting. We are reckoned as transgressors for the mere act of carrying “swords” today.

    So you may not know it but it looks as though you may be fulfilling prophesy. That Great Controversy of all ages, I submit, is the authoritarian system verses Judeo/Christian Civilization. In the Authoritarian system, the King, or the State, or the pope, is the ultimate authority, whereas in the Judeo/Christian system, God is the ultimate authority which no mere man, or earthly institution, can overrule.

    Furthermore, when one of the apostles ended up slicing an ear off of a Roman soldier that was attempting to arrest Jesus, Jesus told him to sheath that sword. I note that He didn’t tell him to break the sword in two and throw it into a ditch, or any such, but only told him to sheath it. It is in all the above context, alone, in which Jesus said the famous words, “He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword”.

    In other words, as I interpret it, the message is this;
    Carry a gun, by all means, and be reckoned therefore (wrongly, by the authoritarian alliance) as a “transgressor”, but don’t use the gun as the means to your sustenance (don’t be like the authoritarians, who use coercion as their means of survival), or even, necessarily, to save your own skin. As for hunting; in the Old Testament, animals (certain ones) were given as food after the flood in Noah’s time, so clearly, hunting is OK, and would not be considered “living by the sword”.

    It’s that “living by the sword” bit which is the difficult one. Unfortunately, when I’ve heard Biblical scholars talk about this subject, they’ve always ignored the “reckoned among the transgressors” qualification.

    For sure, there is a right, and more importantly a responsibility (apparently even a command), clearly stated in the Bible, to keep and bear arms. There can be no doubt, but the exact reasons why are still a bit cloudy for me. I’ve heard several plausible opinions, but they are just that; opinions.

    • ‘scuse me while I whip this out…. A quote from my book, “Heretics of St Possenti,” that is. https://www.amazon.com/Heretics-St-Possenti-Rolf-Nelson-ebook/dp/B077CVXWVP
      (a discussion between Mickey Finnigan and Bishop Cranberry about the “live by the sword, die by the sword” quote):

      “Hmmmm… Not entirely sure where you’re taking this, Mickey.”
      “So he knows they are armed. The Apostles now know they will soon need weapons—his demand was urgent—but not what for. At the very least they will need to show it and demonstrate resolve. Then what?”
      “They go to the garden—”
      “—Where he tells them to not enter into temptation.”
      “Luke 22:40. Yes. So?”
      “Mark 33:25, too. But temptation to what? Temptation to use too much force in defending him, perhaps? He’s reminding them they would be wise to do his bidding, and Peter is a hothead. Healing an ear is one thing. Raising the dead is another…. That might screw up HIS context.” Finnegan chuckled while Cranberry’s brow furrowed in thought. “Then the bad guys show up. Not soldiers, but a well-armed rabble led by priests. The Apostles are uncertain. They don’t like the look of the mob. So they ask for instructions.”
      “Right. Luke 22:49, ‘Shall we strike with the sword?’”
      “Think about that a moment. ‘Shall we strike with the sword?’ We. Plural. More than one. Two at least were deemed enough in the circumstance, so Peter and another—ever wonder which one?—are packing heat in the garden, facing a mob. Then, before he can reply, Simon-Peter clears leather and lops off an ear. Zing! The rabble following the priests and officers know Jesus’s supporters are serious. But then Jesus calls Malchus to come forward and heals him. He then tells Peter—think about that. If he heals Malchus first and then talks to Peter, it means the Apostle with an attitude is still brandishing bloody iron… or maybe bronze. It doesn’t say what sort of sword he has—in Matthew 26:52 ‘Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish by the sword.’”
      “Like I said, Mickey, it sounds pretty clear.”
      “Is it? He’s God. He can’t be wrong.”
      “Of course!”
      “Peter was crucified.”
      “Well, yes, but…”
      “He just took up the sword and performed a high-speed ear-ectomy. He didn’t die with the sword. Or by the sword. So it must be metaphorical or an inadequate translation.”
      “And how can such a clear-cut thing be mistranslated?”
      “Simple. Participles and the aorist aspect.”
      “What? I… don’t recall anything in Latin about aorist.”
      “Because there isn’t.”
      Cranberry frowned and shook his head slightly. “Not following you. Again.”
      “The original is in Greek, right?” Thomas nodded. “I assume you are familiar with the ideas of past tense, present tense, and future tense?”
      “Yes, quite: he did, he is doing, he will do.”
      “Precisely, and good example. Don’t forget there is also: might have done, may be doing, might do, does all the time, sometime sort of does, and variations and shades of meaning of that sort. Does the phrase ‘he does’ mean that he is doing it right at that moment or that he does it regularly but maybe not at that exact moment? Or both, or either, depending on context? Not all languages have those either; others have more or less nuance. Active versus passive mode, completed versus ongoing, etc.
      “Looking at the participle in the original Greek, οι λαβοντες μαχαιραν, it is in an active mode present participle. It is not in the aorist aspect. The aorist is a sort of storytelling aspect, like a tense, that doesn’t imply future events, or incomplete action, or ongoing events or situation. Present and past-imperfect vs. the perfect. If the guy on the corner stands up and preaches one sermon to people walking by, that doesn’t make him a preacher; it just makes him a guy who preached once. If I wanted to say that in Greek, I’d likely use the aorist aspect to report about it. If you preach on the street corner every lunch hour and will likely keep doing it until you die, you are a preacher even if you are not ordained or doing it at that moment because you preach regularly. That would not use the aorist.
      “Similarly, if you pick up a sword from time to time or learn a bit about how to use it to defend yourself, that doesn’t make you a swordsman; it makes you armed and able to defend yourself.”
      “So, you are saying…?”
      “If he’d not meant it as a lifestyle, it would most likely have been written in the aorist aspect. It wasn’t. It’s a distinction that Latin and English don’t make but is clear in the Greek. If he meant it as a literal absolute, he was wrong. Well, unless it’s meant as a warning to not go down that path as a full-time gig or primary fallback position when things don’t go his way. Or else it’s a human transcriber error, which opens a rather large can of worms that I’m assuming you’d rather not open.”
      “But that can’t be right. He talked about soldiers elsewhere, and—”
      “And he didn’t use a word that means soldier in 26:52. Not in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Aramaic. There are a number of those, and none are used here. He’s warning about taking up the sword and using it frequently as a first choice or lifestyle, becoming a habitual or routine user of the sword to enforce one’s will, becoming a swordsman, duelist, brigand, or tyrant. It’s a much more nuanced understanding of the phrase. But at that moment, the literal is just telling Peter and the other unnamed and armed apostle—and maybe the rabble, too—to stand down.”

      • Thanks Rolf, That whole section of Luke has been so miss used it’s frightening.
        The way I read it. At dinner Jesus is talking to his disciples. All of us. Sale your coat to by a sword. (Better to be broke, cold and armed. Ready to be considered an outlaw. Than warm an defenseless.) And he was talking to us through the ages.
        Then off to the garden. Judas, with a hoard of temple police show up to arrest Jesus. Peter is ready to rubble. The temple cops are already nervous cause they’ve seen and heard what this Jesus guy can do first hand. (But the wife, kids, and pension, dude. it’s just a job.)So here they are.
        Peters already cutting off some guy’s ear. And things are going south fast. It’s not Peters time. It’s Jesus time. Peter has many things to do before his time to die. So, being a leader he tells everyone. “All that take the sword will die by it”. At which point all the temple cops hit the ground, and the disciples scatter. As you said, it was a command for the situation at hand. Not for a bunch of cowardly passivist to hide behind for eternity.
        For me, Jesus was the ultimate soldier. Following orders to the point of allowing his skin to being whipped from his body. And hung up to die one of the cruelest deaths ever devised. Knowing he could call down 11 legion of angels to stop it anytime. But that wasn’t the mission.
        He’s Master and Commander. He earned it. I’ll never bend the knee to anyone else.
        A side note, luck would have it. I wasn’t in his shoes at the time. About the 3rd. lash, u’all would be toast!
        That’s my .02 on it. Thanks for the book Rolf! Vox mentioned it. It seems a timely message. I will get a copy!

  8. Oh my… at first glance, I thought this was another person in attendance, not a Washington State Representative.

    This is where an honest judiciary would step in and request that the adults in the State House take charge as the children are attempting to pass legislation which is clearly in violation of the State Constitution.

    🙁

    Jeff B.

Comments are closed.