Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Friday, October 26,2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Hillary Clinton remains the face of the Democrat Party
Hillary has been running for president since she was in college. It’s her life’s ambition. She married Bill as a means to get started and she was ‘co-president’ during his two terms. Her two failed runs at the presidency hasn’t deterred her in the least. What, she’s supposed to retire? Not in her nature. She’s like a shark who must continually move forward to stay alive. Hillary must constantly move forward toward another nomination—and she will get it, too. She has the money and the mainstream propaganda media behind her. Another rigged nomination awaits her. She won’t stop until she’s dead.
It’s time for Hillary Clinton to “wave” goodbye as she is marched into prison!
THE LIBERTY DAILY
The Conservative Alternative to the Drudge Report
President Trump Orders Mattis to Send Almost 800 Troops to Border to Stop the Foreign Invasion Caravan of Illegal Democrat Voters
President Donald Trump said he plans on “bringing out the military” to stop the thousands of people in the migrant caravan headed to our border.
Another report stated that Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis “is expected to sign deployment orders as soon as Thursday that could send 800 or more troops to the border.”
Trump has repeated threats to send the military to the border to defend it against the mostly Honduran migrants who continue to march to the border. The number of people within the caravan has fluctuated, but USA Today reported that the Mexican government has determined the number has fallen to 4,500 as people have either stopped or asked for asylum in Mexico:
Mexico’s Interior Ministry said immigration officials have received 1,699 asylum claims, while 495 Hondurans have asked to be returned to their country of origin. The Central American migrants come mostly from Honduras but also includes those from Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala. The status of about 500 other migrants is unclear. United Nation officials estimated Monday there were more than 7,200 migrants in the caravan.
Sarah Sanders responds to CNN chief's criticism after bomb scare: 'You chose to attack and divide'
BY BRETT SAMUELS
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Wednesday night hit back at CNN over the network president's criticism of the Trump administration's rhetoric toward the press following a bomb threat at CNN's New York City office.
"[President Trump] asked Americans 'to come together and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message that acts or threats of political violence of any kind have no place in the USA' Yet you chose to attack and divide. America should unite against all political violence," Sanders wrote on Twitter, following Trump's rally in Wisconsin that evening.
Sanders referenced remarks from Trump on Wednesday afternoon at the White House, in which he called for unity and pledged a full investigation, but did not mention any of the people targeted by name.
The press secretary did not reference more recent remarks Trump made at his campaign rally in Wisconsin, where he called for "peace and harmony," then suggested the media and his critics were to blame for the hostile political climate.
Sanders's response came hours after CNN President Jeff Zucker specifically chastised her and Trump for showing a "total and complete lack of understanding... about the seriousness of their continued attacks on the media."
"The President, and especially the White House Press Secretary, should understand their words matter," Zucker said. "Thus far, they have shown no comprehension of that."
CNN was evacuated Wednesday morning after a suspicious package arrived at the network's New York City offices. The package turned out to contain an explosive device similar to ones addressed to former President Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and billionaire philanthropist and
Democratic mega donor George Soros.
Authorities also fielded suspicious packages on Wednesday addressed to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and former Attorney General Eric Holder. Each of the intended recipients has been criticized explicitly by Trump during his presidency.
None of the packages detonated before they could be intercepted by law enforcement.
Republicans and Democrats alike widely condemned the threats, but pointed fingers at the other party for contributing to the current state of discourse.
Trump has had a tense relationship with the media dating back to his presidential campaign and extending into his tenure in the White House.
The president often derides negative coverage as "fake news," and has, in recent months, repeatedly labeled the press the "enemy of the people." He typically singles out the press at his raucous campaign rallies, which has resulted in crowds jeering reporters and chanting "CNN sucks."
The relationship between CNN and the Trump administration has been particularly contentious.
Sanders and White House correspondent Jim Acosta regularly spar during White House press briefings, including a particularly intense clash over the administration's separation of migrant families.
The White House banned CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins from attending an open press event in July after she pressed Trump over his relationship with his former attorney Michael Cohen during a meeting with the head of the European Commission.
"[President Trump] asked Americans 'to come together and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message that acts or threats of political violence of any kind have no place in the USA' Yet you chose to attack and divide. America should unite against all political violence," Sanders wrote on Twitter, following Trump's rally in Wisconsin that evening.
Sanders referenced remarks from Trump on Wednesday afternoon at the White House, in which he called for unity and pledged a full investigation, but did not mention any of the people targeted by name.
The press secretary did not reference more recent remarks Trump made at his campaign rally in Wisconsin, where he called for "peace and harmony," then suggested the media and his critics were to blame for the hostile political climate.
Sanders's response came hours after CNN President Jeff Zucker specifically chastised her and Trump for showing a "total and complete lack of understanding... about the seriousness of their continued attacks on the media."
"The President, and especially the White House Press Secretary, should understand their words matter," Zucker said. "Thus far, they have shown no comprehension of that."
CNN was evacuated Wednesday morning after a suspicious package arrived at the network's New York City offices. The package turned out to contain an explosive device similar to ones addressed to former President Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and billionaire philanthropist and
Democratic mega donor George Soros.
Authorities also fielded suspicious packages on Wednesday addressed to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and former Attorney General Eric Holder. Each of the intended recipients has been criticized explicitly by Trump during his presidency.
None of the packages detonated before they could be intercepted by law enforcement.
Republicans and Democrats alike widely condemned the threats, but pointed fingers at the other party for contributing to the current state of discourse.
Trump has had a tense relationship with the media dating back to his presidential campaign and extending into his tenure in the White House.
The president often derides negative coverage as "fake news," and has, in recent months, repeatedly labeled the press the "enemy of the people." He typically singles out the press at his raucous campaign rallies, which has resulted in crowds jeering reporters and chanting "CNN sucks."
The relationship between CNN and the Trump administration has been particularly contentious.
Sanders and White House correspondent Jim Acosta regularly spar during White House press briefings, including a particularly intense clash over the administration's separation of migrant families.
The White House banned CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins from attending an open press event in July after she pressed Trump over his relationship with his former attorney Michael Cohen during a meeting with the head of the European Commission.
-
-
This Bengal tiger pictured at the Arignar Anna Zoological Park in Chennai, India is part of one of six subspecies of endangered big cats, researchers say
-
This Bengal tiger pictured at the Arignar Anna Zoological Park in Chennai, India is part of one of six subspecies of endangered big cats, researchers say (AFP Photo/Arun SANKAR)
Tampa (AFP) - Six different subspecies of tigers exist today, scientists confirmed Thursday, amid hopes the findings will boost efforts to save the fewer than 4,000 free-range big cats that remain in the world.
The six include the Bengal tiger, Amur tiger, South China tiger, Sumatran tiger, Indochinese tiger and Malayan tiger, said the report in the journal Current Biology.
Three other tiger subspecies have already gone extinct: the Caspian, Javan and Bali tigers.
Key threats to tigers' survival include habitat loss and poaching.
How to best conserve the species and encourage both captive and wild breeding has been a matter of debate among scientists, in part because of divisions over how many tiger subspecies exist. Some say there are two types, and others believe there are five or six.
"The lack of consensus over the number of tiger subspecies has partially hindered the global effort to recover the species from the brink of extinction," said study author Shu-Jin Luo of Peking University in Beijing.
Researchers analyzed the complete genomes of 32 tiger specimens in order to confirm they fall into six genetically distinct groups.
Although tigers are believed to have roamed the Earth for the past two to three million years, the current population traces back to about 110,000 years ago, "when tigers suffered a historic population bottleneck," said the report.
Researchers found very little evidence of breeding among different tiger populations.
This low genetic diversity indicates that each subspecies has a unique evolutionary history.
It also sets tigers apart from other big cats like jaguars, which more commonly intermix across entire continents.
"Tigers are not all alike," Luo said, noting that key differences include body size and fur color.
"Tigers from Russia are evolutionarily distinct from those from India. Even tigers from Malaysia and Indonesia are different."
Reversing the decline of tigers means "maximizing the efforts to preserve the genetic diversity, evolutionary uniqueness, and potential of the species Panthera tigris," concluded the study.
The six include the Bengal tiger, Amur tiger, South China tiger, Sumatran tiger, Indochinese tiger and Malayan tiger, said the report in the journal Current Biology.
Three other tiger subspecies have already gone extinct: the Caspian, Javan and Bali tigers.
Key threats to tigers' survival include habitat loss and poaching.
How to best conserve the species and encourage both captive and wild breeding has been a matter of debate among scientists, in part because of divisions over how many tiger subspecies exist. Some say there are two types, and others believe there are five or six.
"The lack of consensus over the number of tiger subspecies has partially hindered the global effort to recover the species from the brink of extinction," said study author Shu-Jin Luo of Peking University in Beijing.
Researchers analyzed the complete genomes of 32 tiger specimens in order to confirm they fall into six genetically distinct groups.
Although tigers are believed to have roamed the Earth for the past two to three million years, the current population traces back to about 110,000 years ago, "when tigers suffered a historic population bottleneck," said the report.
Researchers found very little evidence of breeding among different tiger populations.
This low genetic diversity indicates that each subspecies has a unique evolutionary history.
It also sets tigers apart from other big cats like jaguars, which more commonly intermix across entire continents.
"Tigers are not all alike," Luo said, noting that key differences include body size and fur color.
"Tigers from Russia are evolutionarily distinct from those from India. Even tigers from Malaysia and Indonesia are different."
Reversing the decline of tigers means "maximizing the efforts to preserve the genetic diversity, evolutionary uniqueness, and potential of the species Panthera tigris," concluded the study.
Vatican Cardinal: Pope Francis Has ‘Natural Sympathy’ For Communists
By PAUL BOIS @PAULBOIS39
Vatican Pool / Contributor / Getty ImagesIf the acceptance of a hammer/sickle crucifix was not enough to convince people that Pope Francis has a soft place in his heart for communists, then perhaps his recent deal with the Chinese government will.
In a recent move seen by many as a capitulation, the Vatican under Pope Francis gave the communist, anti-Christian Chinese government a prominent role in selecting bishops, even though only the Pope can select bishops. The move hearkens back to the late-Middle Ages and the Renaissance, where political figures in certain countries played prominent roles in the selection of the Church hierarchy. At least then, however, the motives were nationalistic and not all appointees complied with the state (see St. Thomas Becket); in China, the motives are purely for political control.
Writing in The New York Times, Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong says flatly that "The Pope Doesn’t Understand China" and that he capitulates to the oppressive government due to a "natural sympathy" for communists because he views them as a persecuted class.
"Francis may have natural sympathy for Communists because for him, they are the persecuted," Zen writes. "He doesn’t know them as the persecutors they become once in power, like the Communists in China."
Zen makes no concessions to the deal inked by Pope Francis and declares it a colossal misstep. Given Pope Francis' track record of showing sympathy toward communist priests (he celebrated one in Bolivia) while dishing out flippant statements like "the communists stole our flag," Cardinal Zen makes a fair point when he accuses the Holy Father of "not understanding communism."
"I went back to China in 1974 during the Cultural Revolution; the situation was terrible beyond imagination. A whole nation under slavery. We forget these things too easily," Zen recalls of communist treatment of Christians in China. "We also forget that you can never have a truly good agreement with a totalitarian regime."
Zen goes on to lament how Vatican relations with China have increasingly become more naive and optimistic without any evidence to support that attitude since 2002, when a "young Italian with no foreign experience" began the work of "legitimizing official Chinese bishops too quickly, too easily, creating the impression that now the Vatican would automatically second Beijing’s selection."
"Today, we have Pope Francis," Zen decries. "Naturally optimistic about communism, he is being encouraged to be optimistic about the Communists in China by cynics around him who know better."
"I was among those who applauded Francis’s decision to appoint Pietro Parolin as secretary of state in 2013," Zen continues. "But I now think that Cardinal Parolin cares less about the Church than about diplomatic success. His ultimate goal is the restoration of formal relations between the Vatican and Beijing."
Indeed, the fix was in China's favor from the very outset. Earlier this year, when China and the Vatican began entering negotiations, Archbishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo of Argentina (where Pope Francis hails from) visited the country and gleefully declared the oppressive regime a bright, shining example of the Catholic social doctrine.
"You do not have shantytowns," Sorondo gleefully stated. "You do not have drugs, young people do not have drugs. There is a positive national consciousness. They want to show that they have changed, they already accept private property."
Defenders of the deal say it will bridge a gap between the underground Church and the communist Church, but detractors say it will likely demoralize the faithful while emboldening the government to suppress authentic faith. Zen agrees with the latter and believes the deal is a "major step toward the annihilation of the real Church in China."
"The Vatican’s deal, struck in the name of unifying the Church in China, means the annihilation of the real Church in China," he says, adding that he would "draw the Holy Father on his knees offering the keys of the kingdom of heaven to President Xi Jinping and saying, ‘Please recognize me as the pope.’"
Zen concludes his piece by advising the good bishops in China to stay true to the faith and not let the darkness destroy them.
"Go home, and pray with your family," he says. "Till the soil. Wait for better times. Go back to the catacombs. Communism isn’t eternal."
Pope Leo XIII declared in his encyclical Rerum Novarum that "no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist." Since the Pope's declaration in 1891, the Catholic Church has consistently and emphatically denounced both socialism and communism as evil economic ideologies that deprive individuals of private property and the just fruits of their labor.
In a recent move seen by many as a capitulation, the Vatican under Pope Francis gave the communist, anti-Christian Chinese government a prominent role in selecting bishops, even though only the Pope can select bishops. The move hearkens back to the late-Middle Ages and the Renaissance, where political figures in certain countries played prominent roles in the selection of the Church hierarchy. At least then, however, the motives were nationalistic and not all appointees complied with the state (see St. Thomas Becket); in China, the motives are purely for political control.
Writing in The New York Times, Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong says flatly that "The Pope Doesn’t Understand China" and that he capitulates to the oppressive government due to a "natural sympathy" for communists because he views them as a persecuted class.
"Francis may have natural sympathy for Communists because for him, they are the persecuted," Zen writes. "He doesn’t know them as the persecutors they become once in power, like the Communists in China."
Zen makes no concessions to the deal inked by Pope Francis and declares it a colossal misstep. Given Pope Francis' track record of showing sympathy toward communist priests (he celebrated one in Bolivia) while dishing out flippant statements like "the communists stole our flag," Cardinal Zen makes a fair point when he accuses the Holy Father of "not understanding communism."
"I went back to China in 1974 during the Cultural Revolution; the situation was terrible beyond imagination. A whole nation under slavery. We forget these things too easily," Zen recalls of communist treatment of Christians in China. "We also forget that you can never have a truly good agreement with a totalitarian regime."
Zen goes on to lament how Vatican relations with China have increasingly become more naive and optimistic without any evidence to support that attitude since 2002, when a "young Italian with no foreign experience" began the work of "legitimizing official Chinese bishops too quickly, too easily, creating the impression that now the Vatican would automatically second Beijing’s selection."
"Today, we have Pope Francis," Zen decries. "Naturally optimistic about communism, he is being encouraged to be optimistic about the Communists in China by cynics around him who know better."
"I was among those who applauded Francis’s decision to appoint Pietro Parolin as secretary of state in 2013," Zen continues. "But I now think that Cardinal Parolin cares less about the Church than about diplomatic success. His ultimate goal is the restoration of formal relations between the Vatican and Beijing."
Indeed, the fix was in China's favor from the very outset. Earlier this year, when China and the Vatican began entering negotiations, Archbishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo of Argentina (where Pope Francis hails from) visited the country and gleefully declared the oppressive regime a bright, shining example of the Catholic social doctrine.
"You do not have shantytowns," Sorondo gleefully stated. "You do not have drugs, young people do not have drugs. There is a positive national consciousness. They want to show that they have changed, they already accept private property."
Defenders of the deal say it will bridge a gap between the underground Church and the communist Church, but detractors say it will likely demoralize the faithful while emboldening the government to suppress authentic faith. Zen agrees with the latter and believes the deal is a "major step toward the annihilation of the real Church in China."
"The Vatican’s deal, struck in the name of unifying the Church in China, means the annihilation of the real Church in China," he says, adding that he would "draw the Holy Father on his knees offering the keys of the kingdom of heaven to President Xi Jinping and saying, ‘Please recognize me as the pope.’"
Zen concludes his piece by advising the good bishops in China to stay true to the faith and not let the darkness destroy them.
"Go home, and pray with your family," he says. "Till the soil. Wait for better times. Go back to the catacombs. Communism isn’t eternal."
Pope Leo XIII declared in his encyclical Rerum Novarum that "no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist." Since the Pope's declaration in 1891, the Catholic Church has consistently and emphatically denounced both socialism and communism as evil economic ideologies that deprive individuals of private property and the just fruits of their labor.
Majority of Americans Call Abortion a ‘Sin,’ New Survey Reveals
Could this help pave the way for a restoration of protections for the unborn?
By Deirdre Reilly
In compelling news for those who value the dignity of human life at every stage, a majority of Americans — 52 percent — now believe abortion is a sin, a new survey released Monday revealed.
The 2018 State of Theology survey reported that the figure rose from 49 percent in 2016, noted The Daily Caller.
With a majority in the country believing abortion to be a sin, one pastor thinks these positive survey results call for needed protections for the unborn.
“For almost five decades now, abortion has been a central issue in the life of America,” Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. said, according to Ligonier Ministries of Sanford, Florida.
He added, “With a majority agreeing that abortion is a sin, we have a clear indication that many Americans want the state to restore protection to the unborn child. There would be considerable support for a Supreme Court decision reversing Roe v. Wade.”
He also noted the advances in technology that are helping the pro-life cause: “Ultrasound images plainly show the humanity of the child in the womb, and they are provoking the consciences of Americans. Christians are playing a lead role in providing counsel and practical care for those in need.”
Since 1973, about 60 million unborn babies have died as a result of abortion, LifeSiteNews reported — nearly 90 times the number of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in every war since 1775, the American Family Association pointed out.
LifeWay Research conducted the new survey; it’s a company that “assists and equips church leaders with insight and advice that will lead to greater levels of church health and effectiveness,” according to its website. The new study was sponsored by Ligonier Ministries.
Online interviews of 3,002 “demographically balanced” American adults were undertaken to obtain the results; the survey was conducted last spring, with a margin of error of less than or equal to 1.9 percent.
Seventy-six percent of Americans also want significant abortion restrictions, including making abortion illegal after the first trimester, a January Marist poll revealed, as The Daily Caller noted.
Only 12 percent of Americans think abortion should be available to a woman at any time during her nine months of pregnancy, that poll said.
Forty-nine percent of 18- to 34-year-old Americans would support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy if the policy were enacted in their state, a 2017 Quinnipiac poll revealed, said The Daily Caller.
Interestingly, the new LifeWay survey revealed that 69 percent of Americans agree “God is a perfect being and cannot make a mistake.” That’s higher than both the 2016 (65 percent) and 2014 (63 percent) surveys revealed.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans also agree with the statement “Jesus is the only person who never sinned.”
A majority — 54 percent — of Americans agree, “Hell is a real place where certain people will be punished forever,” the new survey also found.
See an intellectual argument against abortion in the video below.
LifeZette senior editor Deirdre Reilly can be reached atdeirdre.reilly@lifezette.com.
Don’t Rely On Justice Kavanaugh To Protect Gun Rights
The ballot box, not the Supreme Court, is where the fight for the right to keep and bear arms will be won or lost.
By Mark Overstreet
LifeZette senior editor Deirdre Reilly can be reached atdeirdre.reilly@lifezette.com.
Don’t Rely On Justice Kavanaugh To Protect Gun Rights
The ballot box, not the Supreme Court, is where the fight for the right to keep and bear arms will be won or lost.
By Mark Overstreet
Lest the title of this essay cause any misunderstanding, I’m glad that Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court. In terms of his judicial outlook, he’s more like justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas than like justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor.
All the better, Kavanaugh appears to have led an exemplary life for at least the last 30-odd years, as attested by scores of people who have known him best academically, professionally, and personally. Not surprisingly, then, the primary accusation against him during his confirmation process turned out to be full of lies and inconsistencies, and was refuted by the accuser’s supposed “witnesses.” Other accusations were even less credible, and some were so unbelievable that even the most vile and despicable Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee—Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, and Kamala Harris—wouldn’t vouch for them.
Furthermore, despite some Republican senators politely giving Sen. Dianne Feinstein the benefit of the doubt, I won’t be surprised if we eventually learn that she colluded with the first accuser and her lawyers to “leak” the accuser’s story, to bring about a nationally televised spectacle they hoped would destroy Kavanaugh’s stellar reputation. Unlike Harris and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Feinstein is a gentlewoman, but from my involvement in the fight against her 25-year crusade to ban rifles that are particularly suitable for defense of life and liberty, I know she, like they, can be fanatic.
Last, but not least, having been viciously attacked, Kavanaugh proved that he is a fighter, and a stronger one than the scoundrels who sought his destruction. I expect a guy to protect himself and his family. But I figure that a guy who will fight that hard for his nomination, enduring what he did to fulfill his obligation to the president and the American people, is probably a guy who will fight to protect our rights.
However, it is a mistake to assume, as one commenter recently did, that “Kavanaugh is the Supreme Court justice gun owners have been waiting for.”
The Supreme Court Can Be Full of Surprises
This is not to take anything away from Kavanaugh or, for that matter, any of the several other trustworthy justices on the court. The problem with the commenter’s assumption is that, as learned observers have warned us for years, you can never be certain what the court or any justice on it will do.
Consider that former justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O’Connor, the late former chief justice Warren Burger, and the thankfully “borked” Robert Bork, all nominated to the court by Republicans, opposed the right to arms. Similarly, it was another Republican appointee, the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia, who, despite his brilliance in many other cases, wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
As I explained in a previous essay for The Federalist, Heller correctly concluded that the right to arms is held by Americans individually, but it also “laid out a rationale by which Congress, states, and courts could ban the private possession of many offensive and defensive arms today and all such arms of the future.”
Thus, even if sometime over the next six years President Trump gets to nominate replacements for retiring justices Breyer and Ginsburg, who oppose the right to arms, and Thomas, who supports the right but might decide to retire while a Republican president can replace him with someone 20 to 30 years younger, there is no guarantee that their replacements would turn out as hoped. That would be especially true if voters don’t increase Republicans’ Senate majority in the November 6 elections and retain or expand that majority in 2020 and 2022.
Our Votes Are More Important Than the Supreme Court’s
The electorate has swung back and forth between conservative and liberal presidents over the last 30 years and, as Mollie Hemingway recently reminded us, there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat. Bearing in mind that Ginsburg and others have indicated that they want to overturn Heller, because it recognizes that the right to arms is individually held, if in 2020 Americans elect any Democrat as president, a commitment to overturning Heller would be a litmus test for that president’s nominees to the federal courts.
But all of that is beside the point. If we have to ask the Supreme Court to overturn a law that infringes the right to arms—a law imposed by Congress and a president, or by a state legislature and governor, elected by the voters, thus presumably reflective of the voters’ desires—even if we win that battle, it means we are losing elections and, implicitly, the war for public opinion.
True, having a last-ditch option is better than having no option at all. But even if we muster five votes on the Supreme Court, five votes for what? The commenter who takes comfort in Kavanaugh’s joining the court says it will be five votes for Heller. Heaven help us if that is the best we can do.
Heller Is a Catastrophe in Waiting
As I explained previously, Heller, based upon an egregious misreading of the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939), coupled with an express rejection of the Second Amendment’s underlying goal, allows the prohibition of any arms that are not “in common use,” with “common” defined however legislators, executives, and judges see fit. Contradicting itself, Heller even expressly endorses a ban on the M16, the most common rifle in the organized militia (see 10 USC 311) for the last 50 years.
Furthermore, the malleable “common use” standard could be used as the basis for banning semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, today the rifle most “in common use” by the militia’s unorganized component and the rest of the citizenry, and the ammunition magazines they and semi-automatic handguns are designed to use. Potentially more importantly, it establishes a rationale for banning all arms of the future, especially those employing technologies not yet introduced, on the basis that they are not yet “common” by any definition of the word.
The commenter says Heller means “Americans have a right to keep and bear bearable arms, meaning arms that can be carried on someone’s person. That includes handguns, rifles, and shotguns.” However, that statement is not true, on multiple levels. First, as noted, Heller expressly endorsed a ban on M16 rifles and implicitly endorsed a ban on other firearms that government officials claim are not “in common use.”
More importantly, however, the notion that the right to arms is limited to not only “bearable arms,” but to only an artificial subset of them consisting of “handguns, rifles, and shotguns,” has no basis in the Second Amendment’s legislative history. Instead, it is an argument conceived several decades ago by lawyers fearful that asking the federal judiciary to recognize the full extent of the right to arms would result in rulings so adverse as to open the door for prohibiting some or all extant firearms, which could put some or all firearm manufacturers and perhaps one or another firearm advocacy organization out of business.
Gun hobbyists may be content with a combination of justices that might allow them to have guns for hunting and even for defending themselves against carjackers in a parking lot. But Kavanaugh will be the justice the Framers have been waiting for if he convinces at least four of his new colleagues that the right to arms is the right to all offensive and defensive arms without which defeating tyranny would not be possible, excluding only those that would give an individual a degree of power the Framers intended to be distributed among the people generally.
However, given that five of the highest officials in the federal government would likely take a dim view of the people possessing the tools with which to resist the federal government, gambling on the idea that the right to arms is safe because Kavanaugh or anyone else is on the Supreme Court is a gamble none of us should take. To protect the right to arms, vote like your life depends on it, because it might, and convince your fellow voters to do the same.
Mark Overstreet is a firearm instructor and author in central Texas. He retired in 2016 as the senior research coordinator of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, after 25 years with the organization. He is also retired from the Army Reserve, after 23 years including duty as a combat cameraman in Iraq. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the NRA or the Department of Defense.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/10/www_25.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment