Archives for posts with tag: infringement

Ladies and gentlemen of my readership, this is a disclaimer.  I intend to use a word that is not normally acceptable in social circles.  It’s foul and it is grotesque.  If bad words offend you, you may quit reading now and I won’t hold it against you.  However, if you chose to continue reading, please know that I intend to use the word cunt.  It is the only word in the English language…probably in any language that can be used to describe Diane Feinstein.  If you’re still here, I applaud your courage.  Thank you.

Yesterday, this shriveled up old cunt introduced legislation that completely destroys the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution promising that a free man’s (or implied woman’s) right to bear arms would not be infringed upon.  By specifically naming over 160 “scary black guns” that would be banned should this criminal act be passed, she is attempting to remove the tools which keep our country free from the men and women who provide that freedom.

Here’s why I think that it won’t pass and this piece of shit from the great state of California will crawl back to whatever cave she came from and die and finally leave us all alone.

In 1994, the Federal Firearms Ban was passed.  This law went by many different names including the Brady Bill, but it was the precursor to the ban in front of us today.  It was passed by a Democratic Senate and signed into law by a Democratic president.  The next election cycle, the Democrats lost the Senate and many point to that illegal banning of weapons as the reason why.

Here’s the thing, folks.  Even some Democrats, as backward as they can sometimes be, still own firearms.  Some of them even own these so called “assault weapons,” shotguns and hand guns that are on Feinstein’s list.  They don’t like having their rights fucked with any more than us sensible conservatives do.  And as was the case then, they showed their displeasure by replacing their senators with men and women who wouldn’t fuck with those rights.

“But Jason, won’t taking assault weapons off the streets eliminate school shootings and mass murder?”

I’m glad you asked that question, because Diane really wants you to believe that.  The fact is, there is no noticeable change.  There are plenty of tables and charts out there on the internet (thanks Al Gore) to look at in regards to the crime difference pre ’94 ban and post ’04 when the ban was lifted.  The most reliable, I think, is the FBI site on crime statistics.  It shows no noticeable difference in killings with these “bad” weapons than before they were banned.

The bottom line is, Clinton has warned the current sitting government of the perils of messing with peoples guns and their right to bear them.  He remembers what happened.  And let’s not forget, just because the cunt introduces a law, doesn’t automatically make it so.  There is still a process that has to pass before it’s signed.  There is still hope that our democratic process will win the day and restore a little bit of our faith to the system.

If you’re concerned, right letters to your congressmen and senators.  Demand an answer and demand they tell you how they intend of voting.  If their intention is to vote against your best interests, inform them of how you feel and let them know they can probably start looking for a real estate agent to sell their condo in D.C. because they’re gone in the next election.  This country was founded on Democracy.  Just because the current administration is acting tyrannical, doesn’t mean we have to accept it.  Rise up and fight these illegal actions with the weapon they CAN’T ever take away from us.  The Constitution of the United States!


So, as I woke up this morning and listened to the local radio guys yap about a whole lot of nothing, I decided I was going to write my blog about what a douchey, ungrateful prick Justin Bieber is.  Have you listened to this kid?  He’s an absolute Douche bag with a capital “D”.  I heard a piece of an interview this morning and he completely degraded the DJ interviewing him.  He’s self important, entitled and really, just gives Canada a bad name altogether.

Anyways, as I said, I was going to write my blog about this little shit, and then something else happened.  I engaged in a friendly debate with a friend of mine on Facebook regarding the government requiring an individual who is collecting welfare to drug test.  It was a good debate and she actually brought up a couple of points that made me take pause and think.  I thought I would share my views with you.

First, let me tell you that I absolutely believe that everyone who is receiving welfare should have to take a urinalysis once a year.  It should be administered by the state and the examiner should have to “watch the urine leave the body and enter the specimen collection container.”  Why did I say it like that and put it in quotes?  Because that’s what the U.S. military is required to do.  If you didn’t know, taking a drug test in the Air Force is quite the ordeal.  The proctor of the “whiz quiz” must actually watch the stream leave my body and enter the cup.  I’ve had some dudes so close to me, I felt like I was auditioning for a role in a “golden shower” flick.  Sorry…I digress.

Why do I think people who are taking welfare should pee to get their check?  Well, sorry to state the obvious but I want to make sure that people who are receiving a handout aren’t doing drugs.  “A ‘handout’ you say?  You insensitive prick!  How dare you label the downtrodden of this country as a bunch of losers who are a drain on our society.”

That’s actually not what I said.  However, taking money that you didn’t earn is a handout.  Granted, it’s a handout meant to get you on your feet and get you back to work, but it’s a government handout all the same.  That being said, government is the key word.  Where does the money come from?  Our taxes.  My taxes.  Your taxes.  It comes from us.  So, my logic is, I want to ensure that the person I’m giving my money to isn’t on drugs.  Stated simply, there it is.

Now…the biggest argument against this is that it violates your Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure.  My friend (who is a teacher) posted a link to a website.  This is the text from that link showing the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, there you go.  That’s what the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects you from, in case you didn’t know.  However, that website goes on to say this:

The police can not search someone’s person (body), house, papers, or effects (other things) without having a good reason. They can not take any thing from someone without a good reason.

Oh…the police?  We’re not talking about the police taking the list of everyone collecting welfare and going door to door with bottles of water and specimen collection cup. I’m saying that as a prerequisite to receiving a check from the U.S. government, you pee in a cup and prove that you aren’t a substance user/abuser.  Since I’m posting links from webpages, here’s another one.

Company Policy. Landrum Professional is a Drug-Free Workplace. As a condition of employment, all employees assigned to work for Landrum Professional must agree to take a drug test at any time such a test is requested by the Landrum Professional Human Resources Manager, or other representative of Landrum Professional management. It is the position of Landrum Professional that use of illegal drugs, misuse of prescription drugs or misuse of alcohol is destructive and dangerous, and can have a negative effect on job performance.

I just Googled “urinalysis condition of employment” and that was the first result that came up.  A business that requires a drug test as a condition of employment.  Hmmm…weird.  So you’re telling me that based on what I’ve read, over half the corporations in the United States require drug testing as a condition of employment, but our government, truly the biggest corporation of all, can’t drug test to ensure the free money it gives out isn’t going to drug users?  The hell you say.  I say, if you’re not doing drugs, what the hell do you have to be afraid of?  To test this theory, I went to the one person I knew has collected welfare in her life.  My mom.

When my parents first divorced when I was five, my mom needed some assistance from the government.  She needed a handout to get a leg up.  She was on welfare.  I called her tonight to ask her how she would have felt if the government told her she was required to take a drug test prior to receiving any aid.  Her response:

“I would have had no problem with that.”  (I hope I quoted you accurately, mom.)

So there you have it.  A quote from a person who has collected welfare and lived in government subsidized housing for a short period of time.  Of course, my mother isn’t the typical welfare recipient.  She was only on it for just over a year and as soon as she could pull herself up by the bootstraps, she did.  She got off it, we moved out of the ghetto (as it was in Great Falls, Montana) and she bought a house.  That doesn’t usually happen.  Generally, it’s once on welfare always on welfare.  I’m sorry to make the generalization, but prove me wrong.  You can’t, because I’m right.  But that’s not the point.  The point is, you leftish thinking folks think that it’s a huge infringement on the rights of the downtrodden to make them submit to a 15 second test to quickly prove they’re not on drugs.

The next point made to me earlier was: “what about social security? Should they have to take a test as well?”

This point actually gives my pause.  I say that only because it is money coming from the state.  However, my response earlier is still my response now.  No.  Social Security is kind of like a savings account.  At least that’s how I see it.  My parents and grandparents paid into their whole lives.  Granted, what they’re getting out of it doesn’t come close to what they paid in, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.  I’m paying into and will probably never see because they’re going to take it all, but that’s okay.

So to wrap it all up.  I don’t know if I’ve proved anything beyond the shadow of a doubt but that’s not the point of this.  I hope maybe you took pause and thought about my point of view (if you’re on the other side of the fence) or were at least entertained by the way I wrote what I had to say.  Either way, comment if you’d like, share if you think it’s worthy but above all, smile.  We’re too serious anyways!

Proposed U.N. Treaty Should Have Gun Owners Up in Arms

What a topic for my first real blog post.  Actually, reading this article and thinking about the implications are what made me decide to start writing this blog, so I suppose I should be thankful.  There a few things that come to mind.

First, whether you are pro-gun (like me) or anti-gun (like President Obama and Secretary Clinton), you must admit that allowing the United Nations dictate our country’s policies regarding controlling firearms or anything else is very dangerous.  We have a constitution that was written nearly 250 years ago.  Some of you may think that makes some of the provisions in it out of date, and that’s fine.  That’s an argument for another time.  But the fact of the matter is, I refuse to believe we will allow a body of other nations to police us.

Secondly, as you read further into the article, you must see that our country is headed down the wrong path.  You are going to take my right to own a gun?  What do you think would happen if a conservative took a liberal’s right to free speech?  What you’re saying here is that it’s okay to pick and chose which parts of the constitution we adhere to.  I mean, it’s not like the 2nd Amendment wasn’t part of the original U.S. Constitution.  It’s called the Bill of Rights for a reason.  But, I digress.

Another part of the article I found interesting was the passage in which Hillary Clinton claimed to be a supporter of gun rights.  Really?  I mean, she does understand she doesn’t have to lie to make friends.  She does understand that you can’t get all the votes, right?  She’s a senator…a liberal senator…from the kingdom of liberaldom.  She’s from New “effing” York.  Nobody is allowed to have a gun there.  It nearly takes an act of congress to make that happen.  I have family in New York (state, not city) and they have told me about the gun laws there.  Pure and simple, it’s about as close as you can get to a ban on legal firearms…outside of California which is a whole other animal.  Of course, there’s one place that’s worse than both of them together.  No…not Canada.  I’m talking about the great state of Illinois, and more specifically, the place the man we’re forced to callMr. President hailed from.  After he was from Hawaii.  After he was from Kenya.  Of course, that’s all dependent on what you believe.

Anyways…did you know that until recently it was illegal…illegal…yes, I said illegal to own a handgun in the city of Chicago.  That’s right.  The city that the great savior came from banned ownership (and I’m not talking about carrying) I’m talking about owning a handgun.  It was illegal.  And you think this guy wants you to have guns.  He’s probably smoking Newports with the U.N. general assembly right now, trying to get them to pass this law..or treaty…or whatever you want to call it.

I own a gun.  I intend on buying more…quickly by the sounds of it before an assembly of non-Americans decides that I can’t.  But know this:  The day that they come knocking on my door to take my guns, I’ll shoot for the head because they’re probably wearing body armor.