We know that the First Amendment's right to free speech/press were not made to cover the endless, non-stop stream of content across the various spectrums of media or the diverse opinions coming from every person in the country. It was intended so that the colonists could respectfully disagree with King George III. Reasonable, common sense measures need to be taken to safeguard the minds and emotional well-being of the American public, especially for our children.
Here at Nevada Carry, we believe the following steps should be taken:
Universal background checks: we need to ensure that everyone buying, reading, or receiving as a loan any sort of publication is legally able to do so. Do you want children buying 'Playboy' or a non-soldier reading books on war?
Full registration: the government needs to know who is reading/listening/watching what in order to keep us safe. But fear not! Even with registration, you can still read/listen to/watch whatever you want. Just like it's important that a parent pay attention to the media their child consumes, the government has a very real need to make sure that deviants and potential criminals and terrorists aren't reading the wrong things.
Testing: before you buy a book or periodical, there needs to be in-store testing to make sure you can read.
Book Fair loophole: did you know that there are tons of book fairs every year, even in schools? People can even buy books and videos through the mail, with no sales clerk interaction! What if a child is buying something too old for them? We have to end the book fair and internet loophole.
Capacity limitation: all books and magazines are limited to 10 pages and all videos/movies/TV shows are limited to 10 minutes or less, except for government, military, and police use. Standard capacity media is just too much; if you can't say it efficiently in a few words, it doesn't need to be said at all.
Banning certain features: the First Amendment was written in a time when things like YouTube, blogs, podcasts, the Internet, television, and radio simply didn't exist. The founders had no idea that mass media would spread to virtually everywhere a cell signal could be had. We had the first Amendment for nearly 230 years before we had YouTube; we'll survive. Most of the videos are just dumb stuff, trucks and guns, and cute cats anyway.
Restriction of 'offensive' materials: no one needs access to religious materials, such as the Bible or Koran, or potentially inflammatory literature, or satirical works, or pornography, or something that might hurt someone's feelings or scare somebody.
Silence the ignorant and mentally ill/disabled: why would we let someone who doesn't know what they are talking about or spewing non-sense/gossip/rumors and pollute our ears and minds? Dumb people cause a lot of trouble and no one wants to hear the crazy guy rambling on the corner.
Public speaking licenses: only those who have gone through elocution lessons, taken a speech class, have graduated from at least a four-year university and pass an FBI background check (to ensure they are not terrorists or inciting crimes) should be allowed to speak in public.
Safety: every work of fiction needs to have a disclaimer that it is not real and should not be imitated or taken as fact. Additionally, opinions need a disclaimer that they are simply the opinion of the speaker only, that the speaker has a valid "Right to Public Speech" permit, and that the viewer/reader/listener is free to form their own opinion. In homes with children, we also need pornography and adult-themed materials safes in every home and every computer and TV should be set with a content filter.
No free speech zones in schools: the children are impressionable and need to only learn and hear what is educationally approved for them. We also don't want students intimidated by potential offensive opinions of teachers, professors, and other students.
Free speech restraining orders: the police should be able to serve a restraining order against those who express 'dangerous', 'offensive', or 'unpopular' opinions, including those who make others feel uncomfortable, and take away any means they have to express that that opinion to society.
Now that nightmare is over, I remind you of this:
"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."
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty darn unambiguous, I think.
So yes, what if we treated the Second Amendment the same way we treat the first?
Bloomberg's background check initiative was certified, despite not being in compliance with the law. Secretary of State Ross Miller should be ashamed of himself for fraudulently certifying it. Let's hope that it can be defeated in court.
The Reno Gazette-Journal presented a very common sense article on background checks. As the informed reader knows, background checks are ineffective and easily avoided by criminals. Expanding them to private sales of firearms is merely a feel-good measure that does nothing except restrict the rights of the law-abiding. It's just the first step to slowly roll back American's 2nd Amendment rights.
Some salient quotes:
"This all sounds very common sense but when the plan meets real-world situations, it falls apart. For supporters to justify passage of the initiative, they need to show it would decrease the tragedies seen too often in the news.
Consider three of the biggest mass shootings in recent memory, none of which would have been avoided if this proposal had been in effect in the states where they happened."
"Nevada’s background check proposal may give the feeling that at least something is being done, but it is not a good use of time and money if the goal is to decrease gun violence."
Thursday night (12/4/14), a man walked into a Red Lobster near the Meadows Mall in Las Vegas with a gun and attempted to rob the restaurant. We don't know why he wanted to rob a Red Lobster; there probably are much better targets out there and live lobsters stuffed into your pants is something that just isn't going to work out well.
Now and intrepid citizen decided this would be a good time to fire a warning shot.
"However, a person in the restaurant pulled out a gun and fired off a warning shot in the air. Police said that caused the robber to take off. " Article here.
Not exactly brilliant. If you have cause to fire a warning shot, you likely have cause to shoot the threat. Warning shots can go wild and injure an innocent person. Not to mention hearing damage and scaring the heck out of other people who don't know what's going on.
This article details Bloomberg's plans in Nevada and across the country to steal our right to bear arms, one law at a time, by duping ignorant voters and spending money to spread his lies and propaganda.
McDonalds released an announcement on carrying firearms. Basically, they are relying on you to be an adult and follow the law in your area. Corporate stores do not have a policy banning open/concealed carry and individual franchisees may make their own policies (private property and all). Other restaurants ought to take note (I'm taking to you Panera Bread and Raising Cane's).
The group, Nevadans for State Gun Rights, is asking for the invalidation of the "Background Check Initiative" because of a failure to submit the signatures on the same day in each county, as required by law. Apparently, the signatures were submitted everywhere else on November 12th, the day after the November 11th deadline, but not until November 13th in Storey County. Also, there was a major oversight in attaching required affidavits to the actual signature pages submitted.
The actual request for invalidation can be found here.
There has also been questions raised about possible violations of Nevada state law regarding solicitation and signature gathering. As we know, 'Nevadans' for Background Checks, fueled by massive donations from elitists dedicated to trampling out liberty, particularly from billionaire control freak Michael Bloomberg. As Ammoland.com states:
"many of the paid, “volunteers” from [the Washington State I-594 campaign] were transferred to Nevada where some were reported to be paid as much as $5.00 per signature in the initiative petition effort. Local Nevada rights advocates – who actually live in the state and are true grass roots volunteers – say this looks like a violation of Nevada law. They point out that, while paying signature gatherers on an hourly basis is acceptable, paying them commissions per signature, makes the gatherers commission sales people, which is forbidden because it provides incentive for them to distort the intent of the petition. They also point out that Nevada law identifies any door-to-door sales activity – including commissioned signature gathering – as sales, requiring both a business license and a solicitor’s license. Neither the Bloomberg front group nor the “volunteers” had such licenses."
Why fight these battles of technicalities? We are being persecuted by a monster that uses money against us. They do not rely on fact or the true will of the people, but rather lies, obfuscation, and money to fuel their deceptions. They pay people to mislead voters into signing away their rights and they promulgate misleading commercials. 30 seconds of half-truths can sway a lot of uninformed minds.
Let us hope and pray that this battle in the warto strip us of our God-given right to self-defense is our victory.
20 armed men successfully stood as security for a store in Ferguson, MO, armed with rifles and handguns. Apparently, being ready for anything served to keep the store intact and the citizens safe merely by deterrence. Read the story here. Ever wonder why people today might need a 'high-powered assault weapon' with 'high-capacity clips' [sic]? Well, Monday night's total absence of the National Guard and a lackluster police response meant massive looting, arson, and vandalism. Imagine if the crowd was as hellbent on murder, mayhem, and outright terrorism as the pre-verdict hype predicted; those weapons and every advantage they give the user may have been sorely needed.
This is why we bear arms. Not because of race, not because of fun, not to make a statement, but because really bad stuff happens even in our 'civilized' day and age.
In Las Vegas, ABC 13 News (KTNV) aired a segment on how to protect your home against burglary.
Now, the segment dealt mainly with making your home more resistant to burglaries of the unattended home daylight burglaries. Most of the tips provided courtesy of LVMPD’s expert were relatively simple and common sense, including: “Make noise when someone knocks...Plant hostile vegetation...Install a noisy alarm.” Probably just enough to get the average person thinking along the lines of making their home a hard target.
They interviewed a family whose home was burglarized in the middle of the night when their door was kicked in. No details were provided, but it was certainly not the daylight burglaries the report was focused on.
The one tip that truly would apply is asking who is at the door before opening. Challenging a potential intruder to identify himself before you open the door is essential to providing yourself vital seconds to react to an assault or keeping the intruder out in the first place. Every knock on the door should be answered. Most daylight burglars try the front door, usually with some pretext such as a lost dog, magazine sales, or asking trivial questions if the door is answered. Then they move on to their next target. Once they identify what they believe to be an empty home, they will usually make entry through a side or back door.
Since home invasion robberies (also known as burglaries) was not the focus of this report, I won’t be too critical on the lack of advice to have a gun handy and knowing how to use it. As it write this, my home defense pistol is out on my night stand, less than 5 seconds away from where I type out on the couch. Of course, when I leave, I secure the pistol in a quick-access safe and the rest of my guns in a cabinet bolted to the wall. Never leave a gun out when you are not home, especially as thieves or worse, children, may access it.
If a burglar is intent on victimizing you, your passive measures hardening your home will not stop a forced or violent entry. A weapon (most likely a gun) is your only defense at that point. You cannot count on the police to save you; most response times are about five minutes (if you’re lucky) or much longer if you are in rural Nevada. In a violent encounter, you can only depend on yourself and your skills. Have a gun, keep it where you can retrieve it quickly, and most importantly, have the will and the skills to use it.
Regarding the mass civil disobedience gathering to protest and violate the new draconian and unconstitutional background check/transfer initiative (I-594), the Washington State Patrol (state police) are refusing to arrest the demonstrators who will illegally transfer guns to one another (mostly because the bill was so horribly written).
Bob Watson said in the comments on The Truth About Guns article said:
“The point is the destruction of “gun culture”. This is the most ambitious piece of social engineering our political and economic elites have ever attempted. They spend tens of millions of dollars in a top-down, long term campaign to pass legislation that creates hundreds of thousands of new ‘criminals’. State by state, the numbers of law abiding gun owners are reduced and the numbers of ‘criminals’ who own guns are increased. In tandem, the number of prohibited persons who are classified as mentally ill or domestic abusers is increased.
“The elimination of a civil right presents a thorny problem. Massive efforts to enforce the draconian legislation passed in Connecticut, California, Washington, Maryland and New York would be counter-productive. It would produce a political backlash that would derail their plans. It is more effective to play a long-game with gradual increases in enforcement. In a decade or two, millions of citizens will no longer be able pass a background check and confiscation of firearms from criminals and prohibited persons will be common place.”
Couldn't have said it better myself, Bob.
We as Americans have a duty, based both in our God-given natural rights as well as a duty secured with the blood of our founders, to defend our rights. We must protest, we must speak against what the influence of blatant lies and money of the elite can do. Americans threw tea into Boston Harbor as a dramatic protest against unjust taxes, imposed by an arrogant and ignorant parliament, who incidentally was also far removed from the world of the common colonists.
Today they may come for your guns. Tomorrow they may take away your freedom of speech. Someday, they may come for you. Guns are our last line of defense.
The desire to trade guns freely without background check centers on convenience, not having to go to a dealer, wait, and pay $25, and also to avoid handing the government a paper trail that allows for de facto registration. Ever buy a gun from a dealer? It’s de facto registered. Read this pageto see how that happens.
Still don’t believe that registration leads to confiscation? Look at what the abhorrent, tyrannical state of New York is doing. It confiscates the legally owned guns of deceased persons, robbing their relatives of their possession. There is no justification for this. New York has deigned to designate some persons worthy of firearms ownership and others not. Since they know the guns are there, and they know the owner is dead, they come for them. Now what if they simply didn't want the owner owning guns? Replace ‘dead’ with ‘outspoken’. If the government knows about them, they can take them.