Republicans Are Anti-Second Amendment, Too.

Karl Denninger at Market-Ticker.org has an article up titled Trump’s Gun Control (And Other Broken Promises): PA, but it’s really about Republican politicians at all levels voting against your right to protect your own life.

…The common rubric from the NRA and others is that one must vote “Red” lest the gun-grabbers get in power and do their thing.  Uh, no — the last 20+ years says exactly the opposite.  Even a Democrat majority in all three locations of the Federal Government was unable to do anything destructive to gun rights during Obama’s first two years.

Yet a Republican majority in all three houses plus in Florida has been extremely destructive in a matter of weeks and it was a Republican governor that signed that bill in Florida along with a Republican House and Senate that passed it.

It gets worse.  The Trump ATF is doing the exact opposite of honoring the Second Amendment.  In fact they and Trump literally just ripped up the entire Constitution including the 5th Amendment. Right here, right now.

Contemplate the entire “bump stock” thing folks.  These were sold as legal accessories for years.  Millions of dollars changed hands for them, people were employed and now they’re in the hands of individuals.  A formal legal ruling was issued by the BATFE that these were legal accessories; the manufacturers and buyers didn’t assume, they asked for and obtained a written declaration that these devices not only complied with the law they didn’t require any sort of labeling, serialization or other form of control (such as a background check) as legally they were nothing more than piece of plastic.

The government is, of course, entitled to be wrong and repair that error which is what they’re claiming they’re doing now.  What it’s not entitled to do, however, is turn you into a felon if you don’t destroy or turn over a thing you were explicitly told, in writing, was legal and nothing more-nefarious or subject to regulation than a plastic box.  At absolute minimum the government is required (under the 5th Amendment) to pay you for the current fair market value of that device plus all your costs (e.g. sales tax) associated with same and to pay the manufacturers the imputed value of their facility, inventory and forward foregone earnings (and employee salaries) that would have been generated but for their error.  They could also ban the things on a forward basis (limiting any 5th Amendment claim of “taking” to the manufacturers) and leave alone anyone who already owns one.

Instead they claim to be able to retroactively declare anyone who has one of these a felon and then shoot them if they refuse to either turn them over or report to prison for 10 years after having given written confirmation that the device in question is lawful to own, possess, use and sell without any permit whatsoever...

Read the entire article by clicking here.

The Market Ticker: Editorial on Free Speech

Source: Kart Denninger at Market-ticker.com

To The Press, The Pols And The Rest

Let me say this just one more time:

That someone is a Neo-Nazi, a White Supremacist, KKK member or racist does not render them bereft of the First Amendment.  Just as being a member of BLM or the Antifa does not render them bereft of the First Amendment.

It is not acceptable, legal or excusable to meet speech by any such person with violence.

Period.

To suggest, state, or advocate that such is the case, or to promote the premise that violence is an appropriate remedy for speech you find vile and outrageous is to declare civil war, because there are others who will likely find your speech vile and outrageous and by your statement you have made the claim that just punishment for speech you deem vile is to be found at the hands of a mob.

The press and now lawmakers are openly advocating for the complete breakdown of civil society — they are stating by the droves that violence in response to mere speech that one finds offensive yet has the protection of the First Amendment is not only worthy of said violence the person uttering same is not worthy of having their assailants prosecuted or the protection and investigation of the police forces to interdict violence intended for or served upon them

Continue reading by clicking here