The Thune Amendment:

Millions of people would be put in danger if the bill passed, said Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is quite possibly the third most oily snake to ever set foot in the modern Senate.*

And what is this terrible danger that would put the lives of millions in obvious peril? Is it the Yellowstone caldera, which could blow at any moment?

No.

Is it the San Andreas fault line, which could start its violent quaking at any moment?

No.

Are the "terrorists" parachuting in from above, or coming up out of their vast tunnel labrynth underneath the Mid-West?

No again.

The terrible danger that was threatening the lives of millions is that people who choose to exercise their right to conceal and carry their pistol on their person wanted to be able to cross state lines with their firearm.

They still want to be able to protect themselves and their families with their concealed pistol without worrying about going to jail for possessing an "illegal" weapon or for some other trumped up charge of trafficking weapons.

The completely absurd part of the entire debate actually isn't the fact that under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights there is no such thing as an "illegal" weapon, for the 2nd Amendment is an absolute that protects the unalienable right of every single living human being that is an American to arm him or herself; no, the truly absurd part is that the Democratic party (specifically: Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Durbin, Menendez and Lautenberg) reached a new level of perversion and hypocrisy by declaring that the amendment infringed upon states' rights.

It is maddening. Absolutely maddening.

No state has the authority to regulate firearms. There should be no need for the Thune Amendment, because the right to keep and bear arms does not diminish one iota when a person moves across a state boundary. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of every person to own a firearm and carry it with them wherever they may go in this country. If a person uses their firearm to inflict bodily harm upon another, or uses it while committing a crime, then that person will be put before a jury of his/her peers and judged accordingly. If the person is found guilty, then he or she will go to jail.

People have always killed people. If there were no guns, people would kill people with knives. If there were no knives, people would kill people with rocks. Every single person has the inherent right to protection, and the best way to insure your own protection is to carry a pistol at all times.

But back to the Kings and Queens of hypocrisy.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the biggest proponent of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban, invoked states' rights when calling for the defeat of the Thune amendment multiple times. Well Diane, what about the rights of the states under the Federal "Assault Weapons" Ban? Did they have any say about what weaons their subjects could own? No. Not one bit. And Diane, when you proposed another ten year extension to the '94 ban, did the States have any say in the matter then? I think not. Not to mention you violated your oath of office and should be impeached (for many, many things obviously) for your support of the "Assault Weapons" Ban.

But this is not about States' rights, and it never has been. Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Menendez, Durbin, Lautenberg, etc., could not care one bit about the rights of any particular state, including their own. Rather, they care simply about increasing the powers of the central government, under their all powerful and "benevolent" leader.

But freedom loving people (and make no mistake, there are still millions of them out there) despise authoritarian, arrogant dictators. But the chains of the Constitution were broken long ago, and they no longer bind down the various abhorrent regimes who have ruled over us. But their is still one chain which has held through thick and thin. But this one chain, although still somewhat intact, has been chinked, beaten up, and abused. It has been bent severely, but it has never outright broken. This chain is the 2nd Amendment, and it is the only thing separating the United States from outright totalitarian control.

So when we think about people like Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin, we should realize, and remember, that these people would not have wanted the six million Jews who were murdered by the Nazis to be allowed to own firearms for their own defense. They would not have wanted the Cambodians to be armed. They would not have wanted the people of Leningrad to be armed, so as to defend themselves during the terrible purges in the '20s, and in '37, and all the other years. They would not have allowed the Tutsi's the ability to defend themselves either. Why?

Because only the State is allowed to have a monopoly on force. Only the agents of the State, such as the ATF, the DEA, the FBI, the CIA, state and local law enforcement, etc., are allowed to carry their weapons with them across our country. The subjects are certainly not to be entrusted to own arms, or to transport them across one state line into another.



*There are just so many. Second would have to be Jay "the internet needs to be regulated by the Feds" Rockefeller. Somewhere in there has to be Al "my daddy tried to scare people so we can regulate the world with a hoax about Global Cooling, I try to scare people so we can regulate the world with a new hoax about Global Warming" Gore. But the number one snake has got to be Chris "I got hooked up on my mortgage" Dodd. His dad just happened to put through the most restricting gun law in American history, the '68 GCA, which was copied word for word in some parts from the Nazi's '34 act which disallowed certain "undesirables" from ever owning weapons. Again, only the State can have a monopoloy on use of force.