Monday, March 25, 2013

New York's 'SAFE Act' scores twofer in claiming its first victim

And oh, what a prize for the gun haters this first victim is. You see, not only is he a gun owner, and thus already an enemy in the "progressives'" culture war against Americans, our alleged "gun criminal" is also a war hero and former Marine--and thus doubly an enemy of the anti-gun left.


DC Wright said...

Mike, the victim in this case is and will forever be a Marine. A former or an EX-marine is someone like that dead lowlife, John Murtha.

Anonymous said...

Once again I slipped up and clicked on the link before I realized that it was another EXAMINER web site. Codrea needs to get a PAYING JOB so we won't be hammered by ADVERTISING every time there is something to read. I don't mind the Subway sandwich ad but the video & audio and popups just get in the way. When a pop-up covers up what I am trying to read I just LOSE IT.

Anonymous said...

I posted this article on a local forum and got the following 'response:

Wait, am I missing something? In the case of the second sale, the seller believed he was selling to someone he thought to be a convicted felon? If so, then, yeah, I don't have much sympathy for him.


And my reply:

Yeah, I'd say you missed something...

That statement about the felony conviction was a lie and part of a government entrapment effort. The policeman posing as the gun buyer presumably was not a felon so that particular offense amounts to one of the pretended variety that in reality doesn't exist. This instance is an example of the Orwellian nature of American criminal justice. That 2nd Amendment supporters are agreeable to such nonsense is beyond absurd.

Those Founding Fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence were immediately considered felons by the Brits, as were our ancestors who rose to the occasion of the British regulars advancing to take control of American arms and powder and such.

These gun laws against felons, especially non-violent felons are just silly and un-American.

What sort of person is OK with sending a felon to federal prison for many years for the sole offense-for example-of possessing a single round of .22LR ammunition?

Many make the error of assuming that the label 'felon' means a serious crime is at issue. Not so, very often in our 'modern' era.

There is the case of four businesspeople being convicted of a felony, sent to federal prison. The 'crime'? they imported lobsters 1/2" too short that were packaged in plastic rather than cardboard. The actual laws in question were Honduran, and the Honduran government provided testimony that the defendants had not violated their laws. 'Our' federal government proceeded with prosecution anyway. More Orwellian American 'justice'.

There are other considerations...

1) Once someone has done their time, paid the debt to society, there is no justice in continued denial of rights.

2) Only felons that are wanting to do right observe such restrictions while those intent on committing wrongdoing ignore them.

3) It is very likely that you as well as most other so-called 'law-abiding' folks-with the exception of the bedridden and comatose-have unknowingly committed many felonies, even on a daily basis, there being such an enormous catalog of felony offenses, many of which are simply ridiculous.

4) The American 'justice' system is such that felonies are nearly exclusively applied to the rabble, the rich and/or well-connected being practically immune (note that there have been zero prosecutions of high-level bankers and Wall Street types responsible for the recent financial shenanigans that nearly caused worldwide economic collapse).

5) High level government functionaries are nearly completely immune to the rule of law being applied to them for their criminal behaviors. Especially presidents, since Nixon escaped being prosecuted for his crimes, there has been no serious effort to hold the occupants of high office accountable. Each incoming president quashes any effort to investigate and prosecute the previous president for criminal behaviors, fully expecting his successor to do likewise.

Number 4 and 5 illustrate that the basic premise of the rule of law, that the laws apply equally regardless of one's station in life, no longer applies.

Obviously we've lost rule of law and its replacement is rule of men.

Particularly galling is the ruthless application of accountability of even the silliest of laws to the rabble, as well as the merciless draconian sentences handed out to the rabble upon conviction.