Quote of the Day: Winsome Sears

Winsome Sears

From Lieutenant Governor Winsome Sears’ speech yesterday to the NRA Women’s Leadership Forum, alluding to the slaughter of innocents at Uvalde, Texas:

America is in a battle for her children. We weep for the breakdown of the family. We weep for fatherless homes. We weep for the lack of respect for fellow men. We weep over the countless Black men murdering each other. We weep at the onslaught against the liberty of thought and expression.

Indeed we have left goodness, gentleness, and kindness behind, only to be left loathing, crudeness, greed, and sloth. Every man for himself, we are easily offended. cruelty abounds. Forgiveness is a dirty word.

Yes, guns are part of the problem, and I’m open to the idea that tighter control over guns may be part of the solution. But the problem is so much bigger. Our society is disintegrating before our eyes, but many are blind to it — indeed, many are cheering it on. Sears speaks to the broader malaise. I cannot find a link to the full text of her speech online, so I replicate it below:

Update: The speech text has been posted here.

NRA Women’s Leadership Forum
May 27, 2022

Good morning.
Thank you for coming and exercising your rights to assemble and to speak freely. These are our God-given rights to be free in our great country. They are our first amendment rights.

We are here also to support our second amendment rights.
They did not want me to come, thinking you are monsters, that you are culpable in the murder of the children.

As you all know, the NRA was first established by Union veterans.
I look at you, and I see mothers, daughters, sisters, and grandmothers, YOU are the NRA. People. You are not this nebulous entity. How far we have fallen that we have labeled you monsters, our fellow law-abiding Americans?

This week, we Americans are once again grieving.
It is a time to weep.

Jer 31:15 tells us,
“ In Ramah, she hears the sound of sobbing, bitter weeping. Rachel mourns for her children but she refuses to be comforted because her children are no more.”
This time, we weep for the children of Robb Elementary School of Uvalde in this great state of Texas.

This should not have happened. Again.

America is in a battle for her children. We weep for the breakdown of the family. We weep for fatherless homes. We weep for the lack of respect for fellow men. We weep over the countless Black men murdering each other. We weep at the onslaught against the liberty of thought and expression.

Indeed we have left goodness, gentleness, and kindness behind, only to be left loathing, crudeness, greed, and sloth. Every man for himself, we are easily offended. cruelty abounds. Forgiveness is a dirty word.

Trust shouts that we are losing our way. She is our canary in the coal mine, telling us that America is running headlong into a dangerous abyss. Demonstrators run into churches and disrupt services.

People destroy each other on unsocial media, or destroy themselves with drug overdoses.
Our leaders tell their followers to “show up wherever we have to show up..in a restaurant, in a department store, ….push back on them…tell them they are not welcome anymore”.

We have proposed laws that say that a baby can be aborted up to the day of birth, yet we conduct surgery in the womb. Our language has degenerated such that F-bombs and even the startling MF bombs are spoken across our airways without so much as a gasp or even a clutch of the pearls, real or fake.

Virtue has signaled to us that we are to cease using her to destroy rather than build up. Especially when the self-appointed community deciders are no better than those whom they deem inferior.

Nina Simone sums our present-day woes in her song Baltimore, “Hard times in the city in the hard town by the sea. Ain’t nowhere to run to. There ain’t nothing here for free. Hooker on the corner, waiting for a train, drunk lying on the sidewalk, sleeping in the rain. The people hide their faces, and they hide their eyes, because the city is dying, and they don’t know why.”

Why?
Because we took prayer out of schools. We have so liberated our sexuality, that we are now informed that men can have abortions. This they say with straight faces, with certainty and arrogance, masquerading as indignation.

In seeking to right past wrongs, we wrong those who played no part.

We are so successful in our discombobulation that we free criminals in the name of justice to further antagonize us, even to the point of our death. We watch as criminals destroy our businesses and smash and grab and call it social justice.

Even though little Johnny cannot read nor write, we socially promote him in the name of preserving his self-esteem in the short term, only to destroy him in the long term. And the media are complicit. Indeed they are our modern-day sirens.

So what is to become of America?
Prov. 13:22 tells us that a good man provides an inheritance for his children’s children. We are told that guns are the problem but if we fail to identify the real problem, we come away with the wrong solutions. Because a determined mentally unstable person will try to find other means to their wicked deed – whether with a car, Molotov cocktail, or some other means.

Our society is hurting, yes. Our mental health is deteriorating because our families are disintegrating before our eyes. Suicides and overdoses are now epidemics in our country. Covid protocols and lockdowns didn’t help. During my prison ministry and homeless women’s shelter duties, one thing was clear – men were absent in raising young men. We have emasculated our men.

Here is where I am:
1. I support the 2nd amendment of our Constitution and your right to defend yourself. In fact, the fastest-growing demographic of gun owners is Black women. The first demographic to have their guns confiscated and denied 2nd amendment rights were Blacks. Regardless of political affiliation, gender, race, geography, age, or experience, the number one reason given for purchasing a firearm is personal protection.
2. Our mental health system is in desperate need of reform and appropriate funding. This MUST be a primary focus for leaders in our nation and our communities. We need a meaningful national dialogue for the specific purpose of significant positive change.
3. We need to ensure that every school has the resource officers and security measures to protect our children, teachers, and administrators
4. Defunding and defaming the police is not an answer. Clearly. There are bad apples in every profession – bad doctors, teachers, plumbers, police – and we will get rid of the bad apples as we remain safe.
5. Churches and communities need to step up. More government action cannot be the only answer. No, it goes deeper than that.
6. We need to invigorate the concepts of personal responsibility and accountability.
7. We must provide hope for our incarcerated by giving them a good education so that they will leave prison with the skills necessary to become productive citizens, the mommies and daddies their children need.

In light of the horrors against the children and teachers of Uvalde, Governor Youngkin and I will declare Tuesday, May 31, as a statewide day of Prayer for Peace in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We must move forward in love and unity.

America is known for second chances. Indeed, you gave my father a second chance at life when he arrived from Jamaica with only $1.75 in his pocket. And you gave me a second chance when I arrived at 6 years old, an immigrant.

Was it perfect then? No.
Is it perfect now? No.
What America gave me then and still gives me now is, in fact, perfect.
And that my fellow Americans are – HOPE.

I took Psalm 133 as my campaign motto: How good and pleasant it is when brothers and sisters live together in harmony.

President Lincoln talked to us about harmony in his Gettysburg Address when he said, Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived, can long endure.

We will endure. For the sake of our children’s children. Our children will not just survive, they will thrive. Because we will leave it better than we found it. Our children are depending on us. There is no other refuge like America.

Our people fight and die to preserve her. In a few days, we will celebrate Memorial Day, so that the men and women who died for liberty will not be forgotten. They did not die in vain.

We must preserve America – there is no utopia. Every country has its faults. If it’s not racism, it’s classism. Or color-ism. Or some kind of ism.

Sure, America has her faults. After every election cycle, some people say that if their side loses, they will leave America. But They Never DO.

We have a saying in church, I may not be what I’m supposed to be, but I ain’t what I used to be. And that’s America. Because, here I am, an immigrant, woman, Black, and yet, I am the Lieutenant Governor of the great Commonwealth of Virginia. I am 2nd in command of the former capital of the Confederacy. God has brought us a mighty long way. In fits and starts, she is getting there – America is getting there. As the Lord said, Rachel will weep no longer. There is hope for our future.

May God comfort those who mourn.
May God bless the United States of America.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

79 responses to “Quote of the Day: Winsome Sears”

  1. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    She is under-appreciated. Probably on purpose for not fitting the narrative…

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Hope somebody has thought to put the entire Uvalde PD on suicide watch. How ’bout that El Tee?

    1. Kathleen Smith Avatar
      Kathleen Smith

      My first thoughts as the news poured out yesterday. They will have to live with a judgement in which they thought at the time, minutes in hell, was best. Terrible situation. The press needs to leave it alone.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Oh no. Leaving alone isn’t the answer. Assigning responsibility where it belongs is the best answer for the blameless. A real investigation of the chain of command. The cop who sat following commands has to know it was not their fault.

        What was it, 5 Capitol Cops offed themselves and they fought with dignity and honor, if not well.

        1. Yet you fail to mention the teacher who started this heinous crime in motion —– for failing to follow security protocol and procedures and propping that door open.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It’s almost a given that the suicide capital of America may very well be Uvalde by year’s end.

        2. Matt Hurt Avatar
          Matt Hurt

          Unfortunately, it appears that SCOTUS has ruled that the police do not have a legal duty to protect us. The police are not there to save us, but to investigate and arrest the suspects after the fact.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/21/us-judge-says-law-enforcement-officers-had-no-legal-duty-protect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            If they are not there to protect, then they had no authority to prevent he parents to enter the school.

            “To Deflect and Swerve — 911”

          2. Matt Hurt Avatar
            Matt Hurt

            We agree.

  3. Fred Costello Avatar
    Fred Costello

    Maybe gun purchases should be limited to mature adults. These days, adults reach maturity around age 35. 🙂

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      So young…

  4. SudleySpr Avatar
    SudleySpr

    Maybe don’t give the crime a 24/7 spotlight? Sure, there will always be one rogue news outlet that highlights it, just like there will always be a rogue criminal with a gun.

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      Rogue news outlet? Perhaps we need to have nothing BUT such news until we cry out “enough” and then set about to do something about it.

      Something is drastically wrong when a civilized (are we still?) nation has more guns than people.

      Perhaps not only guns but also ammo need a rethink and fast. Nor do I purport to have the answer, but we are not even really, really acknowledging the problem here.

      Pious platitudes and hand wringing are not doing enough to incise our cancer.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        Or we could actually try to find some common ground. One side could acknowledge that the Second Amendment recognizes the right to own and carry arms is personal. The other side could acknowledge that this right, like every other right except the right to abortion, can be subject to some regulation under certain limited circumstances.

        Just reaching this position would be a huge step forward to finding constitutional regulations. For example, a narrowly tailored “Red Flag” law can allow family, friends or law enforcement officials to present probative evidence that a gun owner has significant mental or emotional issues that present a clear and present danger to the person or to others. After reviewing such evidence, a judge could then issue an order directing the police to enter the individual’s premises and seize the weapons. But this needs to be followed up with notice to the individual and an opportunity for a full hearing with the right to present evidence and cross-exam witnesses.

        Query, since so many on the left think we should pay for lawyers to help illegal immigrants enter the U.S., shouldn’t we also provide the affected gun owner with paid counsel?

        Background checks at gun shows and for Internet sales are reasonable.

        Now as to a longer waiting period to purchase a firearm, one must square that with the holding of some judges that any pre-abortion waiting period is unconstitutional. Emanations and penumbras.

        I’m not here to argue against abortion but as an attorney and thinking person, the idea that something protected by Justice Douglas’s science fiction receives greater protection than something documented in the Constitution and 600 years of English legal history to be absurd. And, yes, the historians who filed an amicus brief in Heller lied about history. They ignored both the Assize of Arms and the Statute of Winchester.

        1. John Harvie Avatar
          John Harvie

          Agree, especially with your first paragraph. I just hope it comes in my lifetime which at age 93+ is not assured.

  5. Deborah Hommer Avatar
    Deborah Hommer

    America would do well to examine the reasons previous empires have fallen. Using Rome as an example, in 2018 Defend Europa wrote an article “Lessons from Rome; Moral Decay and Corruption.” The article mentions some of the institutional rot that America and Europe has – corruption of money and wealth, the widening gap of money possessed by the elite and the commoner, change in land ownership, the decay of virtues, inflation, corruption of entertainment, losing taste for historical birthright and heroism, the encouragement of elite of debased behavior, the elites’ lust of power, corruption of borders – ” weakness at the borders, disguised as benevolence towards those who attack you, is a deadly cocktail for every society.”

    And the article concludes: “Although Moral Decay, corruption and distractions can not be found in the ground, one wonders if that is a valid reason for them to be ignored as serious signs that a society is collapsing. After reading much about the fall of the Roman Empire, I see many parallels with our current situation in the EU. We too have an Elite class which wants to enrich themselves and their friends at our expense. They too use inflation as a tool to keep us poor. We too have an Elite class who control the organs of entertainment and uses this to steer us into the right direction, and we too struggle with barbarians at our borders who are not to be stopped and who have to be appeased. But oh well, a new sportsball match is on in a huge round arena, better focus on that and be happy than to worry too much and try doing something about it. ”

    Both Lt. Gov. Sears and this author has some insight that are worth considering.

    https://www.defendevropa.com/2018/culture/history/lessons-from-rome-moral-decay-and-corruption/

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      2018? I read the same crap in 1968. It was on a Nixon campaign bumper sticker.

      1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
        Deborah Hommer

        Just curious: Can you define what a woman is? Can a man birth a child? I need to know whether you have any credible metaphysics?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          A man can write his name in the snow, higher up the wall, and put out campfires (don’t. It smells). There. Happy?

          Of course there are many cases of animals that are capable of changing sex, or animals, such as a seahorse where the male broods the young. Perhaps it is we who are late to the evolutionary table.

          1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            nope, not happy. Speaking of the human being race. Can the men of this race beget children?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Beget? Biblically speaking?

          3. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Nope, you’re inaccurate. Seahorses do not change genders. They can change colors to blend with its surroundings. They carry the eggs in their pouch. Different. You’re telling me after 6,000 years where man was man and woman was woman – yet there were those that were transvestite and homosexuals; but people understood that every cell in a person’s body is either male or female – that suddenly those cells are mistaken (biology) and they’re the other. That’s delusional.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            “or animals, such as a seahorse where the male broods the young. ”

            I didn’t say seahorses can change sex. The male seahorse has a pouch and he broods the young.

            https://linedseahorse.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/0/8/17081226/_8944040.jpg

          5. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Well, then they have a different role, not a different sex.

          6. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            and you literally did say, “Of course there are many cases of animals that are capable of changing sex, or animals, such as a seahorse where the male broods the young.”

          7. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            “OR”. Keyword.
            Some animals charge sex
            OR
            Animals, such as the seahorse, where the male broods the young.

            In the seahorse, the fertilized eggs are held in the brood pouch of the male. He bears the young live. HE.

            Reading comprehension, not just a good idea, a necessity.

          8. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Fair enough on that one point.

  6. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Gun control is “part” of the problem? How dismissive. This kid was able to buy two assault style rifles just after his 18th birthday (but not a handgun) and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. He had seven magazines of 30 rounds each. I’d also like to skip the Lt. Gov.’s platitudes. It was tacky for her to show up at the NRA confab.

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      But some would argue he could have signed up for body altering surgery without parental approval for several years.

      An intelligent society would try to bring some level of uniformity to how we address the age of majority and its duties and privileges.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Tacky, but predictable. She’s not well grounded, shorts to neutral at the outlets.

    3. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      As tacky as Beta O’Dorke? Or the instant usual suspects Dem politicians? Wellstone funeral much? Give me a break. Who said “Never let a crisis go to waste”?

    4. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      He was able to purchase 2 semi-automatic rifles after he turned 18. There is no such thing as a assault-style rifle, no matter how many times you repeat it. Cosmetic features do not make a weapon anymore dangerous than those without it. Select fire weapons are regulated and have been so since the NFA 1934 and more regulations via GCA 1968.

      30 round magazines are std issue for an AR platform in .223 / 5.56 caliber. It wouldn’t have mattered if he was using a bolt action rifle when he was engaging children.

      If you want to address the problem, it starts with mental health and the sealing or juvenile records, not mention his parents ignored the signs.

      1. Merchantseamen Avatar
        Merchantseamen

        One of those long guns cost over $2000. Reports say that he had equipment totaling some $4000. Where does a wacko 18 year old working part time at Wendy’s get 4 grand to go on a buying spree. Does not make since.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          “Merchantseamen 3 hours ago
          One of those long guns cost over $2000. Reports say that he had equipment totaling some $4000. Where does a wacko 18 year old working part time at Wendy’s get 4 grand to go on a buying spree. Does not make since.”

          Daniel Defense firearms are expensive and I have no idea.

  7. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    I can’t disagree with her remarks but she stopped short of challenging the NRA to become part of the solution instead of being a big part of the problems. No Amendment to the Constitution is sacrosanct and the Second Amendment was not written in stone like the Ten Commandments.
    The National Fire Arms Act prohibits and strictly controls ownership of machine guns which are defined as fully automatic weapons. We should add “assault rifles” which are weapons of war.
    Historian Jon Meacham observed earlier this week that the gun used in the Robb Massacre was more lethal than the rifle his father carried in Vietnam. Can anyone really make a convincing case for why any citizen should have such a weapon?
    She could have also called for gun registration and the requirement for a registration card to purchase ammunition. A law doing those few things could be short and unambiguous.
    Ronald Reagan is known for referring to America as the shining city on the hill. We can no longer claim than. There is too much cultural rot and self serving, dysfunctional behavior.

    1. Please document a single legally owned machine gun used in the commission of a crime since the 1930s.

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        There is a prohibition to owning fully automatic weapons since 1986.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          False, there is no prohibition on owning select fire weapons since 1986. You simple cannot acquire one that has been manufactured post 1986.

          If you are an FFL undergo a background check and pay Uncle Sugar $200 a piece for a select-fire and or suppressor you can own one. That is if you can afford the $20k price tag for the weapon. However, those rules only apply to law abiding gun owners, they are quiet a bit cheaper for those who are less than law abiding.

          Furthermore, an AR platform rifle is not a weapon of war or “assault rifle”. It is a semi-automatic rifles and has similar cosmetic features to the XM-16, because the XM-16 is its progeny. A Mini 14 is the same exact firearm with a wood stock, that fires the same exact round with the same exact magazine size, yet because it doesn’t appear scary it is fine and dandy.

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            But there is a prohibition pre-1986. More importantly, you can say the AR platform is not a weapon of war presumably because it is semi-automatic but that is really a distinction without of difference. What legitimate reason does anyone have for owning such a weapon? Hunting? Give Bambi a fighting chance. Self defense? A shot gun would be more effective in dealing with someone breaking into your home.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            No, if you’re firearm is select fire it has to have been manufactured prior to 1986. If that is the case you can legally own it if you follow Uncle Sugar’s tax laws.

            “More importantly, you can say the AR platform is not a weapon of war presumably because it is semi-automatic but that is really a distinction without of difference”

            Again, incorrect. There are a litany of semi-auto firearms that are rifles today and you don’t consider them weapons of war because you base your definition from appearance only, not function or caliber.

            I realize that you’re understanding of firearms is minimal if not no existent but you don’t take a deer with .223. you take deer with .308 otherwise know as 7.62 fired by M-110, AK-47, M240B and a vast number of sniper platforms in use.

            A shotgun is a horrible idea for her defense Joe Biden it’s also liable to mane someone and not kill them. Furthermore, that’s a nice strawman you’ve generated because I mentioned nothing of home defense. If you want to stop and intruder, use a handgun with hollow points, they stop when they impact and don’t travel through walls into family members or bystanders.

            The legitimate reason for someone to own an AR platform form (again, since you’re scared or looks because the Mini 14 is the same rifle with a wood stock) is because they can and it’s none of your damn business. None one has to justify using their money if they are law abiding.

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            FYI: I have owned guns for over 69 years and have also hunted for much of that time. When the safety of a free society is put at risk because someone with mental problems can buy an AR-15 style high capacity rifle it is my damn business and everyone else’s. If you understood the Constitution as well as you seem to understand firearms you would know that. As for analyses, check out this–https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Well of you’ve owned guns for 69 years and hunted and you’re making the ignorant statements you’re making, you have no business owning or operating a firearm.

            An AR is a platform, it can be chambered in anything from 22 LR to 7.62. The physical characteristics of the rifle have zero impact on it being lethal. Furthermore, a 30 round magazine is std issue for that platform it’s not high capacity. A Marlin lever action 22 holds 12 rounds, a 22 will kill just as quick as a .223 because they are same diameter bullet.

            I understand the Constitution just fine, thanks for you concern. I also swore and oath to defend it for a vast majority of my life.

            PS:. Your link doesn’t work but I’m rather certain it says nothing against my arguments, as you’ve introduced nothing but emotional appears and or strawmen.

            Next time, don’t be a pompous uneducated ass

          5. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            That’s fine. Let’s just stop the exchange since you are only interested in scoring points; not engaging in a serious debate.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “William O’Keefe a few seconds ago
            That’s fine. Let’s just stop the exchange since you are only interested in scoring points; not engaging in a serious debate.”

            What points am I’m looking to score?

            I think it’s much more likely someone insinuating someone else doesn’t know the Constitution is attempting to score points, or be a petty individual.

            Mental health and sealed violent juvenile records are issues that can be addressed without impacting law abiding citizens access to firearms.

            Look no further than the comments made by his parents, who have pleaded with people not to judge their son. Because he had “reasons”. There exists no valid reasons to engage Innocents, children, adults or otherwise. That is not the thought process or a logical or sane person.

            So the next time you accuse someone or not wanting serious debate, step back and ask yourself if you know what you’re talking about, as you clearly don’t have a clue.

          7. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            You have made my point. In your rambling comments, you have made MarkTwain’s point–I am not troubled by all the things that you don’t know; just all of thing you know that just aren’t true.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Ad hom attack and thanks for proving Carl Sandburg correct.

            “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

        2. James Kiser Avatar
          James Kiser

          if it isn’t capable of automatic fire it isn’t an assault rifle pal try learning and knowing what you are talking about.

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Hey pal, you miss the point. There is precedent for regulation of gun ownership and there was a previous ban on assualt weapons of which the AR-15 as used in Uvalde is one. I think that you should try to learn something about the subject you are commenting on. Can you cite a valid reason for citizens owning assault weapons?

          2. The Clinton ban was proven to have no effect on crime — see the FBI study.

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            The definition of an Assault Rifle is : any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire. also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire”. Now, who needs to know what they are talking about?

        3. Since the 1930s one has had to go through a much more lengthy and detailed background check, register the firearm, and pay an annual tax. It also requires you be open to inspection by the ATF.

    2. “Historian Jon Meacham observed earlier this week that the gun used in
      the Robb Massacre was more lethal than the rifle his father carried in
      Vietnam.”

      This is completely ignorant. Please explain how the fully auto M-16 is less lethal than a semi-auto AR-15 style rifle.

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        Ask Meachsm b

      2. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        There were several types of rifles carried by soldiers in Vietnam. Unless you know what kind Meacham’s father carried, your comment reflects ignorance.

        1. More lethal than an M-14, M-1 Carbine, M-1928 Thompson? Lethal means to ‘sufficient to cause death.’ Every rifle does that.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Mr. Meacham’s father carried an M16A1 with a 20 rnd magazine (this is illustrated by the triangle foregrip). It is a select-fire weapon chambered in 5.56. By definition was was more lethal than the AR used, because it was capable to full automatic fires.

          https://time.com/4941023/my-fathers-vietnam/

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            You should inform Jon Meacham that he misspoke. But I have to observe that I have never seen someone spend more time on a topic that is tangential to the thrust of the original blog.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            So an item you sourced as an appeal to authority, which is incorrect is now tangential? Perhaps you should’ve determined that before you invoked said quote.

            Your petty comments on this topic are what is not worth while.

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Then don’t comment on them.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Perhaps you shouldn’t make comments to begin with, since you can’t seem to take criticism very well.

          5. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            You must be talking about yourself. I welcome constructive criticism and find your’s amusing.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “William O’Keefe 28 minutes ago
            You must be talking about yourself. I welcome constructive criticism and find your’s amusing.”

            This conversation would indicate differently as well as point out your application of ad hom attacks as a means of “debate”.

          7. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            As a friend of mine says, tell your story walking.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “William O’Keefe 16 minutes ago
            As a friend of mine says, tell your story walking.”

            Statements like this and your previous ones make me regret ever defending you against Larry. As you’ve been conducting yourself in manners which are consistent as himself.

            PS:. Deb Talan says thanks for plagerism.

    3. Deborah Hommer Avatar
      Deborah Hommer

      What do you mean that “No Amendment to the Constitution is sacrosanct and the Second Amendment was not written in stone like the Ten Commandments?” Well in order to change the Constitution, you must utilize the 5th Amendment in order to alter the Constitution of the US. So many laws and statutes have evaded the commitment to alter the Constitution, but yet we need to go through the process to legally change our laws. Yet our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the US requires that the processes must be fulfilled in order to take away our natural rights. But yet we need to remember that all these rights are inherent and they precede the government, meaning the government does not have the authority to take away these God-given rights.

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        There is a big, big difference between taking away a right and regulating it. I am not suggesting taking away the right to own a gun but we have had a ban on assault weapons before and it needs to be legislated again. If you disagree, what is your argument?

        1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
          Deborah Hommer

          True, there is a difference between taking away a right and regulating it. First, let’s go back to the Second Amendment. It states, ” … the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Read that again “shall not be infringed.” Then look at both the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment due process clauses. No liberty can be taken away without due process of law. There is no due process for me or anyone else when I/we are deprived of the right to bear and keep arms. Now let’s fast forward to where the government has decided that they have the right to regulate the gun. You summarize their talking point well. Just because they claim that right doesn’t mean it’s justly or correctly claimed.

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Well, I am sure since 1934 there has been a lot of litigation. And, we can debate whether “shall not be infringed” extends to no limit on the type of weapon. Do you have any case law that you can point to. Even my favorite justice, Scalia, didn’t go as far as you want to go in Heller.

          2. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Well, there’s plenty of scholars out there who have rightly criticized Scalia in Heller – from his retelling of history, his definition of “bear arms,” to his statement, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited[.] … [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

            Did you notice the part that the people who had longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. Think of the 5th and 14th Amendment Due Process Clauses. There was a process that determined these people have lost that natural right to bear arms. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens without due process is a violation of the Constitution. Period.

            Now let’s step back. In Ramos v. Louisiana even the liberal Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor subscribed to the originalist view of the Constitution.

            So let’s look at this through the lens of the originalist going back to
            the Constitutional Convention, founding-era documents, and the federalist papers. We do not strictly adhere to precedence as there are many decisions where the Supreme Court simply got it wrong. And to follow bad precedence would be a great injustice that in many cases we’d still be living under today – that’s not justice.
            List of bad Supreme Court cases:
            Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1883 Civil Rights Cases, Lochner v. NY, Hammer v. Dagenhart, Bowers v. Hardwick, Buck v. Bell, Korematsu v. US, Plessy v. Ferguson, Lucas v. SC Coastal Commission – you get the point.

            Now let’s go back to the Declaration of Independence where it describes our self-evident inalienable rights come before the government and the government was instituted solely to protect those rights. Then the Constitutional Convention happened and there was a debate at the end of the convention as to whether to add a Bill of Rights. Thankfully the anti-federalists won the debate and the Bill of Rights was passed during the 1st Congress agreeing that certain natural rights and civil rights going back to the Magna Carta should be documented.

            So this is where we begin to look at the debate of the 2nd Amendment.

            Some of our founding fathers had their own quotes:

            “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, VA Constitution, Draft 1, 1776.

            “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

            “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined.“ – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both Houses of Congress, January 8, 1790

            “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Papers at 184-188

            “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.“ – Zachariah Johnson, Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

            “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.“ – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

            “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.“– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

            “To disarm the people…is the most effectual way to enslave them.“ – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

            “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…. 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.”

            – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

            “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

            “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

            “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

            And that’s just a handful of quotes from the founders documented in founding-era documents and the federalist papers.

            So I double-down on my original point. Going back to the Bill of Right – in this case the 2nd Amendment – it clearly states, A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Reemphasize “shall not be infringed.”

            The right to bear arms goes directly to the right of self-preservation that even Hobbes agreed with. Locke (the founding fathers were greatly influenced by him) in his Second Treatise of Government emphasizes the people’s natural rights to protect themselves and their property. The ideas of right to life, liberty, and property, in addition to the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, comes directly from Locke, and those ideas are enshrined in our founding documents.

            As an aside, the Supreme Court also deserves criticism as it has taking a wrecking hammer to the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause limitations. The Slaughterhouse cases has eviscerated the 14th Amendment.

            If we are going to protect our way of life of liberty, we really need to understand history, philosophy, and our Constitution. If you knew this information, you wouldn’t be promoting taking away somebody’s rights without due process of law. That’s sacrosanct – need due process of law to take away rights.

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            You write like a well informed lawyer or historian. For me, TJ and Antonin Scalia are rock solid sluices of wisdom.
            Do you believe that the Second Amendment means that government cannot restrict the type of weapons citizens can own? What about bazookas?

          4. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            The Constitution simply says “shall not infringe” and the 5th and 14th Amendment states that in order to take life or liberty there must be due process. None of the founding-era documents nor the federalist papers has an asterisk excluding certain weapons. To the founding era weapons were used to defend yourself, your country, and to hunt. And in the case of a tyrannical government … and the weapons used … to protect life and liberty and our pursuit of happiness.

          5. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            I find your logic persuasive up to a point . You are an absolutist ; I am not nor do I believe that TJ was.

          6. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Well, let me see if I can put a nail in the coffin.

            I am kind of an absolutist on certain subjects. On others where there are qualifications, I will cede. For instance, it was Progressive Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., (no fan) who in Schenck v. U.S. (1919) stated that “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is not protected speech under the First Amendment. But why is the First Amendment not sacrosanct, not absolute? It’s because doing so could cause harm to somebody as they trample over people to get out. That’s the qualifier.

            That also goes back to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government where he essentially explains that liberty is living how you want so long as you do no harm. Even the definition of “common good” was such that the government was to act in ways for the common good; however, it the action taken hurts even one individual, the government is not to do it. Not a utilitarian at all. Let me give you a paragraph of his own words (I find them poetic):

            “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”

            Now the Founders knew that the Constitution wasn’t perfect and that situations could come up that the Constitution did not foresee and/or needed an adjustment. Article 5 does just that – it gives the People the ability to amend the Constitution. Now they made it difficult to amend the Constitution so that the passions of the People wouldn’t nilly-willy change the Constitution as often as they change their clothes. A good example of that is the 18th Amendment (prohibition). It was such a bad idea that the 21st Amendment repealed prohibition. My humble opinion is if the People understood the Constitution, they never would have ratified the 18th Amendment in the first place.

            So the Second Amendment could be amended to make distinctions of approved/not approved weapons. However, we would do that possibly at our – and/or future generations – own peril. Guns were primarily used to gain our independence and maintain the freedom we have; and who knows when/if our government would become so tyrannical that we would once again see the need to overthrow them?? And our government has experimented on us, the People, without our approval. Listverse lists the top 10, but I am of the impression that there are numerous. Our founding fathers understood history and that the government was not to be trusted, so they created a Constitution that would limit the powers of the government in order to protect the life, liberty, and property of the People.

            Now the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 10) was originally limited to “trade and exchange.” Well, the government (legislative and judicial branches) has over time whittled away at its original limited powers of interstate commerce to an incredible power grab that in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) it expanded the reading of the Constitution to increase the regulatory power of the federal government by now having powers over intrastate commerce. In this case an Ohio farmer Filburn was prohibited from growing more than 11 acres of wheat for his family’s personal consumption. He grew 23 acres instead. He was ordered to destroy his crops or pay a fine. That’s an incredible overreach. The consequences are severe: There no longer exists enumerated limited powers of the government as they have merged interstate commerce with intrastate commerce and can regulate how much you grow even though you’re not selling any food. Now they pay farmers not to grow food.

            Let’s look at the Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Sweeping Clause, the Elastic Clause) which is in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution. It states, “[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

            This clause was meant to address the shortcomings of the Articles of Incorporation within Congress’ enumerated powers (emphasize that it was only permitted “to make all Laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution all other powers vested, by this Constitution, in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof.”) Article 1 has 17 enumerated powers that the Congress may do – some examples, taxes, common defense, general welfare, borrow money, regulate commerce). Anything beyond that Congress does not have authority. In other words, Congress is to only exercise powers within its limited enumerated powers; there are powers they are not warranted to usurp. See the Constitutional Convention, the July 26, 1787 Resolution VI and the August 6, 1787, Committee of Detail’s draft. It wasn’t meant to be whatever the Congress decided it wanted.

            Well, of course, the ink is barely dried on the Constitution and the First Congress wanted to create a national bank. There are many documented discussions – the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Madison’s interpretations, Marshall’s interpretations – of The Necessary and Proper clause as to whether Congress had the ability to create a bank. The first case considered on this was U.S. v. Fisher (1805) where Chief Justice Marshall interpreted to give complete discretion to Congress. Then see McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) establishing a national bank. Randy Barnett has written extensively about this.

            To short-circuit this, the long-term consequences of Congress exercising powers not enumerated nor warranted is that we now have a leviathan of an administrative state that makes more laws than Congress. There are people within the bureaucracy to make laws that we do not elect and we cannot throw them out of office and that we have no say over all in violation of the separation of powers and the checks and balances. This also culminated in the Rational Basis Test which courts utilize to resolve constitutional quandaries. If the court see that a law rationally relates to a legitimate government interest, it is constitutional. What couldn’t you argue is rationally related? Bad decision as they can rationally take away any right under any guise of a “legitimate governmental interest.”

          7. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            I am fairly certain that Mr. Jefferson would be appalled at how the instant of the Constitution has been perverted and distorted to create an overregulating and over governing federal government.

          8. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            I concur

        2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          You are forgetting the rights that have been found while exploring penumbras and emanations. Those are sacrosanct.

      2. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        If you don’t like living in a society governed by the Constitution, you should move to another country.

    4. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      We also need to look at entertainment, both video games and movies. I was watching one of the Mission Impossible movies last night. The heroes were chased by bad guys with fully automatic weapons, dodging bullets. But we prefer to have entertainers testify and protest than hold their industry to responsible standards. Sauce for the goose!

  8. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    It is always interesting to see that people want to take rights away from those who have done no crime and yet the criminals like George Floyd (till he died resisting arrest) and the fbi and DC police go free.go free.

Leave a Reply