By Nathan Barton

Good morning: we’ve seen a number of interesting news stories this week regarding our God-given right to self-defense and the Tranzis and other haters of liberty and their work to steal that from us.

The FederalistPapers.org reports that Retired SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens recommends that we change the Second Amendment to remove ‘any limits’ on government power.” Stevens — who generally favored maximum government power during his 35-year tenure on the high court — proposes, among other things, changing the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that the amendment would read, “ . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms [when serving in the militia] shall not be infringed.”  As I recall, this man betrayed his oath to the Constitution from the very first day he served on the high court, but even for him this is blatant, and an indication that the haters of liberty are pushing even harder to steal our means of self-defense.  (By the way, what a contrast to the suggestion by ANOTHER Nazgul (Scalia, one of the Nine) that we may have reached the point of rebellion.  But that is another story!)

They want to steal our weapons even if that self-defense is NOT a firearm.  This story is a funny, satirical look at the “zero tolerance” of schools, which has gone WELL beyond the schools themselves and into the “law enforcement” standing army and Nazgul system.  It appears that too many judges are fearful of the uncertainty of continued employment and want to make sure that their jobs are secure.  Whereas cops seem to be ever on the lookout for more opportunities to lord it over the civilian population and to curse, threaten, beat, and kill anyone they can. Frankly, those cops and judges who claim that “our hands are tied” and apologize for their actions while abusing or allowing other cops to abuse “mundanes” are more disgusting than the open bullies and thugs.

But it is not just cops that are despicable and abusive.  JPFO discusses the abusive nature of hoploclasts and makes many good points about how more and more “political correctness” and fear of “offending someone” dictates our every action.  At the same time, we KNOW that some gunowners, however much they are on the side of liberty, are obnoxious and  as much “in your face” as the most vile of homosexual activists (if not as crude).  Anything, from preaching the Gospel to nursing an infant, can be done in a rude, disrespectful manner, and sadly we have too many lovers of liberty and supporters of our right to keep and bear arms that cannot see how their behavior, in JPFO’s words, “snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.”

It is interesting to note, in the context of all this fuss about a basic human right of self-defense, that in places where that right is denied, the bloodbath of innocents AND guilty continues: Easter Weekend in Chicago: 8 Dead, 37 Wounded, Including 6 Children. If only the parents of those children were allowed to be more than docile subjects of tyranny and allowed to defend their children and themselves.  I don’t know how many of the dead were gangbangers or aggressors, but if typical for Chicago and the inner cities of this sick Fifty States, most were innocent victims.

A recently published analysis is a fascinating look at hate crimes.  In particular, not just who is committing offenses against whom, but the amazing low incidents of such things.  Especially when you consider that hate crimes, by definition, are ordinary crimes against the people.  The “hate crime” part is nothing more than a Brave New World style thought crime.  Of course, when the potential victims of “hate crimes” or any other sort of crime are armed and trained to use their means of self-defense, this low number will drop greatly.  It is a point that JPFO, Second Amendment Sisters, and Pink Pistols all make, and it is proven daily.

California is proposing to ban members of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) from serving as judges because the Boy Scouts do not allow gay troop leaders, The Daily Caller has learned. This, of course, is a move with major legal implications. The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics has proposed to classify the Boy Scouts as practicing “invidious discrimination” against gays, which would end the group’s exemption to anti-discriminatory ethics rules and would prohibit judges from being affiliated with the group.  This would also reduce the number of judges likely to be friendly to our right of self defense, while increasing the need for Scouts and others to be protected from sexual predators. This reminds me of reading about the Kingdom of England in the 1500s and 1600s, when crossing yourself in the wrong direction (or failing to do so) would result in even judges being condemned to prison or the executioner’s hands.  Of course, I for one have to wonder how a judge in California (and many other states, much less the FedGov) can reconcile the ethics and obligations of Scouting (at least as it once existed) with wearing the Nazgul’s robes.

At the same time, in Washington State, a very liberal place, at least a few Scouts are standing up for the moral issues AND for the welfare of the boys, instead of creating conditions for abuse.  Of course, this just makes the effort in California (last item) more extreme and angry.  The MSM are livid, of course.  Now, if we could get the boys ARMED, then this might not be quite as important.  Except that even an armed 11-year-old Scout is at a disadvantage facing a human pedophile predator.

Mama’s Note: Don’t have time to research it right now (time to go to work), but I will come back to this by tonight. No idea if this has been studied rationally, even, but my gut feeling is that homosexuals in general are no more inclined to be “pedophile predators” than anyone else. The real problem is the lack of freedom. Freedom of association and freedom of choice.