I Dunno Quite what to Make of This?
Two confessions: I don’t remember where I first saw this so I can’t properly attribute that source, and a cursory search suggests this is real but YMMV.
Myself, I can’t figure out if this a parody, satire, or the ravings of a lunatic? Still, as a paranoid, I have little doubt that this idea is high on the wish lists of many of our fine citizens.
Repeal the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Over the months since the Tucson massacre, not much has happened in Washington to address the problem, which is Too many guns, Too easy access. Inaction is understandable. They’re all afraid of the big bad NRA and the gun netherworld behind it. There is another reason: following Justice Scalia’s Supreme Court opinion in the Heller case, extended to all other jurisdictions under the McDonald opinion, all gun control is now in doubt. There is only one way to solve this problem and that is to take it head on: Repeal the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Mr. Barkley ESQ, says he is running for Congress in California. There’s link to his campaign(?) website in the above article.
Here we have a detailed plan to legally undo part of The Constitution. No more scatter-shot efforts here and there, but a head down charge.
On the plus side; it IS an open and public agenda. A clear target, if I may?
Regardless, I decided to put this ‘out there’ as a tentative heads up. Maybe one of the TAH readers can figure out if this is legitimate, or if I simply missed the punch line? Wouldn’t be the first time!
UPDATE: Mike Barkley (or someone claiming to be him) has confirmed this to be NO JOKE in the comments below.
Category: Pointless blather, Politics
I’ll give you one name: George Soros.
And, no. There is no punchline.
At least he is going to take on the charge honestly through the Constitutional process instead of continuing to try to legislate it to death.
@#2 Bobo:
No, he won’t. That’s not the way he works.
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=322
ezinearticles.com/?George-Soros-the-Socialist-Funding-US-Liberal-Think-Tanks&id=228292
How do you “repeal a right”? Last I heard these were inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator. I understand that there’s a process to amend the Constitution but still, how do you repeal a right?
I especially loved this:
Restore the name of Department of Defense (the ultimate “spin”) to “Department of War” / rename Department of Homeland Security to Department of Defense / require that for each dollar of funding for the Department of War a dollar be spent on research to cure disease and cure injuries
The increase of funding to NPR, PBS and the arts, along with “sweeping the Pacific for plastic and sweeping the oceans for Somali pirates” and increase of human right requirements for Israel were just icing on the cake.
#4 Jonn,
The inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. George Mason fought for our Bill of Rights as the means, outside of total reliance on G-d, to ensure our 3 inalienable rights.
It’s likely not a joke, and PN is correct: Soros is always between 1 and 3 degrees of separation on any campaign to strip Americans of their liberty.
Shit this off the wall idiot needs to hook up with this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaUOmT-nJCI&feature=youtu.be
Birds of a feather n all.
Molon Labe, bitches.
I’m with Old Trooper..Bring it. But frankly, I’d rather see the issue brought up to clarify #2; to amend the amendment so to speak, to further clarify that it is an INDIVIDUAL right not to be infringed vice the old ‘militia= nat’l guard’ crock.
Make it crystal clear so even a liberal can understand.
DaveO, I really prefer this version: “Life, liberty, and property.” “Pursuit of happiness” was basically the Revolutionary War’s version of “hope and change”; a pleasant-sounding/feeling phrase that did not and does not actually mean anything. The right to own property, to be master of the fruits of one’s own labor, however, was a well-defined and accepted right amongst the Founders and one inseparable from the concept of liberty and self-determination. Of course, if owning property is an inalienable right, exactly what business does the government have imposing income taxes, AKA punishment for laboring to produce said fruits; property taxes, AKA punishment for possessing those fruits; and death/inheritance taxes, AKA punishment for trying to determine to whom ownership of your fruits falls upon your passing? Heh, even sales tax could be argued to be an infringement on the right to property in that it is the government declaring control of the manner in which you may alter and dispose of your property.
Raven; for liberals to understand it, they would first have to pull their head out of their ass and get some oxygen going to the brain.
all of the amendments in the bill of rights are specific, enumetated rights.
If he wants to repeal the 2nd, he’s gotta face arguments for repealing the 1st, too. Or how about the 4th, 5th, and 6th?
Maybe for him, we could relama the 8th. I can think of some unusual punishments for stupidity on the level he espouses…
#10 Cortillaen,
I don’t disagree that propery is important – but possessing just claim to anything is the prime mover of enterprise, not freedom. My understanding of the Founders’ definition of pursuing happiness was ‘right to worship freely’ as faith and religion were seen as the founts of happiness.
“but possessing just claim to anything is the prime mover of enterprise, not freedom.”
I have to argue that point. My chain of thought on the subject is basically this: If you don’t own the product of your time and labor, then you don’t own the labor itself. People who’s time and labor are owned by another are slaves (as opposed to employees who own their labor and choose to sell it to their employer at a market-determined rate). Therefore, any concept of liberty or freedom must include the right to property.
#14 Cortillaen,
True, but shouldn’t ownership be found under Liberty, as opposed to Pursuit of Happiness?
I’m not sure I follow what you’re asking, Dave. Are you questioning to which concept, liberty or pursuit of happiness, the right to property is subordinate; if the right to property is subordinate to liberty, whereas the pursuit of happiness stands alone; or something else entirely?
Cortillaen,
Property is subordinate to Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness stands apart.
I’ll agree that the right to property is subordinate to liberty in that the latter requires the former. However, the pursuit of happiness seems like it would be in the same boat. It occurs to me that I should probably do some further reading on the subject, but the pursuit of happiness, either the religious freedom you describe or the right to undertake any endeavor and pursue any vocation so long as you do not infringe on others’ rights (the meaning I had associated with the phrase), strikes me as another matter of liberty. Really, I’m not sure anything could follow Life and Liberty without being a component of one of the two. I suppose it could even be argued that the right to life is a necessary component of, and therefore subordinate to, liberty.
Nonetheless, I still maintain that the right to property is more important than the pursuit of happiness. In your understanding of the phrase, the pursuit of happiness can only be partially infringed as no one can prevent the personal reverence of whatever power(s) a person chooses, whereas the right to own the fruits of your labor can be utterly crushed. Further, the right to property ensures the protection of any material trappings one’s faith might demand as well as a place of worship. In my understanding of the phrase, it is functionally akin to the right to property, and dependent upon the latter for meaning. Without the right to own the fruits of your labor, what good is the right to choose the task at which you will literally slave?
(Heh, I can almost imagine several of the Founders having this argument 235 years ago. I am curious about the precise reasonings, and likely compromises thereof, of the Founders on this subject. Anyone know of any good texts?)
Cortillaen,
Whereas the right to property can be crushed, so too can the pursuit of happiness, as I interpret it. While an inalienable right, it was frequently taken away. Within in the memories of the founders, and the memories of their parents and grandparents, the freedom to pursue religion was almost unheard of.
The Puritans in Plymouth, and the Roman Catholics in Maryland, had to escape from Great Britain where they were routinely put into dhimmitude, if not massacred or enduring pogroms outright. Same goes for dissenters from the Church of England; and for the non-British emigres, America was the only safe haven open to them. Europe’s wars focused on three themes: the games of thrones, repulsing Islam, and slaughtering the religious minorities.
Having so many different faiths residing in each of the colonies required Jefferson and the other writers of the Declaration of Independence to specifically include the pursuit of happiness (the freedom to worship freely).
“Whereas the right to property can be crushed, so too can the pursuit of happiness, as I interpret it. While an inalienable right, it was frequently taken away.” I’m not sure I see how you can have your right to revere the power(s) of your choosing totally taken away as you can the right to own property. Diminished, yes; the right to worship openly removed, yes; but no one has the capability (yet) to dictate another person’s heartfelt beliefs. Hence, the right cannot be fully suppressed. It’s kind of like trying to stop someone from thinking I’m a jerk. I can prevent them from saying it, communicating it in any way, or acting upon it, but I cannot prevent them from holding it to be true in the confines of their mind. Regardless, the vast majority of infringements upon the right to hold and practice one’s faith are also infringements on the right to property. Holy books, icons, places of worship, and all the other material trappings of a faith would be protected under the right to property. At most, a government truly enforcing a right to property while actively attacking religion could stop religious actions in public, while activities undertaken within churches, synagogues, homes, etc. would be largely inviolable. This is the principle reason why I hold the right to property to be of greater importance than the right to religion: The former is more vulnerable to government infringement than the latter and, in terms of overlap, the former protects a great deal of the latter while the latter protects very little of the former. Of course, all of this is based on the premise of having to choose one of the two and shouldn’t be taken as against a right to religion on its own merits. Also, do you have any sources regarding your understanding of “pursuit of happiness”? I haven’t had any luck finding sources discussing the phrase in regards to faith at all. If we’re going to get into the question of why Jefferson broke with Locke and substituted “pursuit of happiness”, not to mention what,… Read more »
Yes it’s real and no I do not know Mr. Soros, but his campaign contributions are as welcome as anyone else’s. Best wishes, –Mike
Mr. Barkley: Props for being forthright about your ignorant and disgusting campaign platform. It makes it so much easier to weed out the fringe candidates when they can just come out and say they oppose the basic human right to self defense.
Scott; maybe Mr. Barkley wouldn’t if some other rights were banned, like say the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, maybe the 10th?
Thanks for showing us your arrogant, tyrannical, and dictatorial ideology Mr. Barkley.