TSA claims they find 4 to 5 guns in carry-ons every day

LMFAO. As. if.


WASHINGTON -- Government screeners every day confiscate four to five guns -- some of them loaded -- packed in carry-on luggage at the nation's airports, a sign that travelers "are not focused on the security protocols," the head of the Transportation Security Administration said Wednesday at a Senate hearing.

Hey, look, another loaded gun!

TSA Administrator John PIstole testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs about the state of aviation security 10 years after the TSA's creation in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. He confirmed the daily weapons haul in response to a point raised by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the ranking Republican on the committee, who noted a loaded gun was found Tuesday on a passenger at Bradley International Airport in Hartford, Conn. "We face a determined foe," she said.


TSA officers have prevented more than 940 guns from getting on board planes at checkpoints nationwide this year alone. Pistole did not specify whether people caught trying to bring guns aboard aircraft did so with ill intent, were unaware that guns were prohibited, or had forgotten they had packed them.


"Your people are finding four or five weapons a day, and not in checked bags," said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who chairs the committee. "Just think about what could be done to the other passengers. So what the TSA officers are doing is for the protection of the general public."


Emphasis added. Read the rest.


Ok. Joe Lieberman is a disgusting fearmonger and statist, but I knew that before I read this article.


"We face a determined foe"
Note how there are no specifics. The first paragraph actually only references travellers, not terrorists.
How many were legally owned by permit holders? How many were known criminals with no intent?
How many were terrorists? What background does each have?


Uh, that knife I had to throw out in Fort Lauderdale airport, because I had no time to mail it home, late for the flight...I forgot it was in my pocket....


Am I in the statistics as someone stopped at security with a knife?


On critical analysis, this testimony is typical fed.gov obfuscation to keep up the illusion that Das Blauen Hemden, er, I mean, the Blue Shirts are necessary, doing a bang-up job, and most importantly, deserve their budget.

Herman Cain, gun rights, state's rights, and the Constitution

Herman Cain: Gun Control A “States Issue.” Huh?

Doug Mataconis   ·   Wednesday, June 8, 2011   ·   18 Comments

When I saw Herman Cain’s interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday afternoon, this immediately jumped out at me:

BLITZER: How about gun control?

CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.

B: So what’s the answer on gun control?

C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…

C: Yes

B: Yes?

C: Yes.

B: So the answer is yes?

C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

Transcript via Jazz Shaw

This is, of course, entirely incorrect. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment, and its protections as had recently been defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. While the decisions in McDonald and Heller do leave unanswered the question of what forms of firearms regulation would be Constitutionally acceptable, it is fairly clear that the protections of the Second Amendment are applicable to the states.

Now, it’s possible, as Jazz Shaw suggests, that Cain simply misspoke under  Blitzer’s rapid fire barrage. The other possibility, though, is that he’s one of those “Constitutional” conservatives who rejects the entire idea that Federal Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. Ron Paul believes this, and it’s one reason I’m not entirely a fan of his. Is this Cain’s position? Does he believe that, not just the 2nd, but also the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments shouldn’t apply to the states? Some clarification on this issue would be most helpful.

link

------------------------------------

I believe that the Federal government and the States have no authority to regulate the sale, licensing, or barter of any firearm.  I believe that this is a right reserved to the people, but usurped by the post 1865 National and State governments (mostly a 20th Century phenomenon, after a fascist shift occurred in this Nation).  It would behoove a state, however, to keep a database of convicted felons and psychiatric patients with specific diagnoses prone to impulsive, psychotic, sociopathic behavior, etc. And approve or disapprove purchase of firearms for those individuals on a case by case basis (I have mixed feelings on this type of regulation;  one of the mandates of government is to protect persons and their property.  However, it is a fine line between not encroaching and encroaching on the 2nd amendment right of an individual.  If you give a government an inch, within a few generations, the inch has become a mile...).

I have a problem with using the 14th Amendment to assert gun rights, because it legitimizes the Federal authority, which is unconstitutional and illegal, all the moreso because the authority came through force of arms and persists because of force of arms.

While I am a big State's rights supporter, I support State's rights insofar as they have reserved the right to exercise authority (under proper representation of the people) in passing local laws. Specifically, States have broad authority not specifically delegated to the Federal government in Article I, Section 8.

The pre-1865 amendments to the Constitution/Bill of Rights are inviolate; they are outside the bounds of the Federal or State governments to encroach upon.

That the pre-1865 amendments are superceded by more modern amendments, and rights eroded to the point of being occasionally granted privileges is a testiment to the woefully inadequate assertion of Popular sovereign power, and the bitter fruit of the defeat of the Confederate States of America.

Intriguing law proposed for South Dakota; mandates purchase of firearms

 Quoted verbatim, article from Argusleader.com in Sioux Falls, SD, via Drudge.

"Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said."

---------------------------------

Intriguing approach to demonstrate that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.

I agree everyone should own a firearm.  Every person should invest in their own self defense.  Ultimately, each of us has a moral obligation to do so.

However, although I am a really strong believer in self defense, the 2nd Amendment, unlimited firearms ownership and safety training, etc., I am an equally strong believer that Federal and State authorities cannot infringe on individual Liberty by mandating anything.

Better that South Dakota should completely remove local gun ownership restrictions, and nullify the Federal firearms acts, than to propose a dog and pony show bill as an intellectual exercise.

Quote of the Day 1/16

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."


Cesare Beccaria, Italy, 1738-1794, author of "Of Crimes and Punishments", widely read by the founders of the United States.

This is the position of modern 2nd amendment proponents.  It has been demonstrably true for centuries.  Laws primarily affect those who obey them.


There are always people who are not deterred by threat of punishment, no matter how many laws are on the books.