If You Can't Beat Em, Take Away Their Rights And Call Em Mentally Unstable

image003

WTF? If you can’t beat them by the usual means, just take away their rights completely, right? That’s essentially what is being proposed in the state of Washington right now with “initiative 1491.” In essence, something is being proposed that would make it nearly impossible for a person to buy a gun if family members think they may be mentally unhealthy.
Read my lips, er words, if you take away someone’s right to the Second Amendment until they can prove they’re stable enough to buy a gun, you take away that person’s due process. Therefore, you don’t just take away their 2nd Amendment rights, but also their 14th Amendment rights.
A partial reading of the 14th Amendment says:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


So, if this “initiative 1491” is passed, they would essentially be denying that person of life, liberty, and property for a period of one year, during which time they can present their case to have their rights restored.
While I’m clearly just a gun nut, and not an attorney, after doing some research, the word “liberty” in this Constitutional Amendment is defined as ‘rights and privileges’. If you weren’t sure, the 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. And, if you take away a citizen’s right to self-defense with a firearm, their life could be taken away from them, if they ever need to defend themselves but aren’t properly suited to do so.
Finally, denying that person the right to a gun before any crimes are committed, is also denying them property. This last one is a bit fuzzy, because some interpret it as property already owned—nevertheless, it’s still a violation of a basic right.
Personally speaking, I’m not sure what’s going on in this country where governments feel like it’s okay (and that they have the right) to violate the supreme law of the land. And, I’m not just talking about one law, but multiple laws from the Constitution.

One thing that is abundantly clear, is the simple fact that laws like this are always proposed by gun-control groups, or anti-gunner types and are usually intended to fulfill the agenda of control.
Finally, in a round about sort of way, this also has a negative effect on the First Amendment’s right to free speech. If a law like this is passed, impacted people in may be unable to voice their concerns over their government for a fear of being labeled mentally unstable. If the wrong person hears such grumblings, would they get turned in as someone willing to do others harm?
Let’s not forget that the reason why the Second Amendment was written down was to provide a means for the people to take the power back from a corrupt government. We have a right to speak such things with the first, and the right to change things with the second. While on the subject …

In all honesty, I believe that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the rest of the founding fathers, would have been shooting by now. They tried a peaceful means with Great Britain, but to no avail. At some point, they realized that what they were asking for wasn’t going to be fulfilled, and they began to fight back.
So, what’s the difference? Why are we content with allowing our government to break the very laws that they wrote hundreds of years ago? We love our cell phones and our computers. We love our way of life and aren’t willing to forfeit our comforts, our McDonald’s, and our cars.
Sadly, as we sit comfortably on our tablets and devices, our rights erode by the hands of the power hungry until they reach the breaking point when we’ll be slaves, once again.
Do you agree? Let us know in the comments below. Have you like our Facebook page yet? Do it, now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

[email]
[email]