THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 722, May 26, 2013
The sad thing about [WW-2] is that it was not
a conflict between good and evil, but between
differing brands of fascism. Fascism won.
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
This is an open letter to some Democratic members of the Colorado Senate.
You know who you are.
So do we.
It says here that, infuriated by the failure of fifty-five of the state's county sheriffs to accept the outrageous Bloombergian gun laws you and your toy governor recently crammed down Colorado's throat (me, I wonder what's wrong with the other nine) some of you are tweeting accusations that the fifty-five good sheriffs are "siding with criminals".
Because they're suing you.
It must really burn that some of the sheriffs suing you are Democrats.
At the same time, some of you, of course, are being recalled, as you richly deserve. According to an article published May 21, 2013, by ColoradoPeakPolitics.com, your lovely and talented Senate President John Morse, of Colorado Springs characterized as "notoriously thin- skinned" and and "locked in a fight for his political life", is nearly apoplectic, and has responded as high-mindedly as we have learned to expect from Democrats. Last week, the Morse launched radio ads claiming that those gathering signatures to place him on the recall ballot were "criminals convicted of forgery, fraud, and even sexual assault," something that the news media "embedded" somewhere up the anatomy of the Democratic Party, are trying to laugh off as "a few low blows". Similar ugly slanders are being spread about those attempting to recall State Senators Evie Hudak, Angela Giron, and like-minded gun-grabbers.
Dave Perry, for the Aurora Sentinel, unaware that the object of his paranoia is a weak and timid giant, recently called the National Rifle Association and its members "terrorists". Curtis Hubbard, of the rapidly-failing Denver Post, clearly as ignorant of English history as he is of the law, asserted that the sheriffs are not representative of the people and that police chiefs are who voters should listen to—despite the fact that there were sheriffs a thousand years before the first police department was ever created, and that sheriffs are duly elected, whereas police chiefs are unaccountable government toadies.
Any way they slice it, Constitutionalists are criminals.
Your sad claims are pathetically absurd on at least two counts. In the first place—and it's no good to deny being aware of this fact—no matter how painful it may be, you know as well as I do that since the 70s, when massive federal support for local law enforcement abysmally failed and a sort of self-defense revolution sprang up in Florida, violent crime rates in this country have plummeted in double digits.
I know you know, because the so-called "Saturday Night Special" is no longer the object of liberal obsession that it was in the bad old days of Mario Biaggi, Howard Metzenbaum, and Thomas Dodd; by now everybody understands how small, concealable handguns are making this country's streets safer than thousands of cops and billions of dollars were ever able to. Guns in private hands being bad for criminals, and sheriffs being for guns in private hands, the sheriffs can hardly be accused of being for criminals, or did you miss that lecture in Logic 101?
In the second place, the real question isn't "Who's siding with criminals?", it's "Who are the real criminals?" I know, and so do an overwhelming majority of the individuals you have betrayed and are attempting to oppress. But I'll explain it here, in the simplest language I can manage. You can find somebody to read the big words for you.
A "crime", I learned in a Criminology class a long time ago at a land grant college not far away, is the violation of a written statute.
When the people of your district were miguided and deluded into electing you, the law required that you take an oath to uphold and defend the constitutions of the United States and the State of Colorado. The national document forbids you, as an office holder, to "infringe" the right of the individual to own and carry weapons. "Infringe" means to sneak up on and violate even a little bit at a time.
Which includes limiting the magazine capacity of guns the Founders had uppermost in mind: those capable of keeping government in line. It also includes keeping any records at all of the sale or transfer of new or used weapons or checking the backgrounds of those who exchange them—if government knows who has the guns, it defeats the whole purpose of the Second Amendment, something you know perfectly well. Could Thomas Jefferson have passed an Imperial British background check?
You have clearly violated that part of the Constitution—which happens to be the highest law of the land—and that makes you a criminal. If you meant to push for gun laws even before you were elected and sworn in, that adds perjury to the list of chargable offenses. The Colorado constitution goes further, forbidding you to call that right into question. Then there are your blatant violations of federal civil rights legislation under Title 18, Sections 241 and 242.
Your antagonists are simply, and dutifully, keeping their oath.
As a sheriff of another generation may have put it, "You in a heap o'trouble". You might check with a lawyer and see if you can undo your crimes in three steps: 1) repeal the laws you just steamrollered through; 2) repeal all other Colorado gun laws, every one of which is illegal in itself; and 3) then resign and never seek public office again.
State Representative Rhonda Fields of Aurora is a special case. Holding a Master's degree in Psychology, she nevertheless needs to be removed from office for reasons of diminished capacity. Some thug murdered her son and his fiancée to keep him from testifying in a drug case. Now she wants to punish everybody in Colorado who didn't shoot them.
The sheriffs aren't all angels. Arapahoe County's Grayson Robinson, asserts that deciding which laws are constitutional should stay out of the hands of Colorado's sheriffs. One would ask, then, how a sheriff is to know if he's faithfully fulfilling his oath. Robinson probably wouldn't answer. The Arapahoe County Sheriff's office has always been notoriously anti-gun; one sheriff, Pat Sullivan, was once a national star for victim disarmament. Now, convicted of using and selling crack, and using and selling teenage male prostitutes, he's dying of AIDS.
But hey, look on the bright side. Colorado's fifty-five sheriffs merely want to sue you. A great many other Coloradoans—and they are far from the fringe minority you've striven so hard to convince yourselves they are—would rather put you in jail for what you've done. They know, and so do you, that "gun control"—more accurately termed "victim disarmament"—is the demented, malicious, morally bankrupt position that it is better to see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her pantyhose, than to see her with a gun in her hand.
Likewise, it is politicians like you, who seek to outlaw "assault weapons" on the equally stupid, evil, and insane assumption that it's somehow better to see six million innocent individuals rounded up by uniformed storm-troopers, herded aboard cattle-cars, and hauled away to be starved, worked to death, or gassed and incinerated, than to see them safe in their homes, with adequate means to prevent such an atrocity.
Let's be frank: the only reason you want to take our guns is so that you can do something to us that you couldn't do if we had our guns.
To me, as to anyone else with a dozen working gray cells, that's criminal.