One very quiet and very important point: “Supreme Court Asked to Clarify What it Means to ‘Bear’ Arms”

Jefferson the Use of ArmsFrom the Wall Street Journal Law Blog:

By Jacob Gershman

You might think the question would be settled by now, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to opine on whether the Second Amendment right to “bear” arms for self-defense extends outside the home.

We may soon get an answer. Lyle Denniston, writing for the Constitution Daily, reports about two gun rights cases that may get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases, dealing with restrictions on the ability of minors to possess weapons in public, hinge on the difference between the right to “keep” a gun and a right “bear” one. The National Rifle Association thinks the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review. The justices are expected to discuss the cases next week and may then decide whether to grant review.

And yes, trust me, there is a massive arguable difference between “keep” and “bear.”  You may think this is slight, but it may become the Crux of the Biscuit.

The point seems as this:

The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means.

WITHIN THE HOME.  My quite specific emphasis.

Does that right extend outside the home?

And yes, that is a major question that needs reaffirmation.

The NRA says you can’t really ‘bear’ something in the privacy of your home.  I submit, when the issue revolves around any firearm: the founders meant to “bear” a firearm in the defense of your investment surrounding and outside your home.  Most everything but.

NRA lawyers say:

“The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear’ arms would mean nothing if it did not protect the right to ‘bear’ arms outside of the home, where the Amendment already guarantees that they may be ‘kept.”

Facts in evidence, assisted with clarity and logic.

Which is why this point is challenged.



You may ask: why is it that I have been focusing on the Second Amendment so much these past few days when there are other, more allegedly immediate topics of interest to discuss with my readers and the nation?

An easy answer: because this nation will explode.  There is an astounding erosion of the standard “rule of law” in this nation by the current White House occupant.  It is on a death spiral that cannot be recalled, no matter how hard we want it or wish it or “hope” for it.  Hope is for idiots.  Preparation is for the intelligent.  I’m certain you’re quite reading between these lines.  I’m simply suggesting.


Now legal in New York:

AR-15 Legal In NYVarious laws in New York ban firearms upon what amounts to appearance.  From the NationalReviewOnline:

by Charles C.W. Cooke

Pass a stupid law, get a stupid result. This, Clash Daily reports, is a remodeled AR-15, and it is legal in New York despite the state’s “assault weapons” ban.  (see above)

Now, from the

HISSY FIT: The New AR-15 Design is Compliant with “SAFE Act” and Has Gun Control Activists Pouting

by Jonathan S., Guns-n-Freedom

Prototypes for the newly designed AR-15 are hitting gun shops across New York, as gun shops and machinists have designed a rifle that complies with the anti-gun law. At least one gun shop has received a letter from state police saying that the new AR-15 style rifles should be legal in the state as long as they don’t have some of the features that the law prohibits.

The new gun law bans all kinds of semi-automatic rifles that have been labeled with the “assault” term even though these are very common rifles and are no more powerful than the average hunting rifle.

Once again, proving that Leftists predicate all their actions but upon emotions.  “Assault rifles” look mean — they look “bullying.”

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, is it not?




Obama continues to LIE: the Bill O’Reilly interview on Super Bowl Sunday

Obama LiesOn Super Bowl Sunday, in an interview with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, Mr Barack Hussein Obama continued to LIE, and in a bald faced way, to the American public.  His SOTU last week was the lowest-rated in years due to its empty rhetoric.  He was unimpressive last week and he was unimpressive with O’Reilly — but, at least, was consistent in his insistence on lying to the American Taxpayer.

Obama doesn’t “prevaricate,” he doesn’t “shade,” he doesn’t “hedge,” he doesn’t make a “falsehood,” he doesn’t “invent,” he doesn’t “fictionalize.”  He LIES.

Throughout the interview, Obama consistently tried to overtalk O’Reilly again and again and again.  Mr Obama possesses no cogent argument other than to push the issue back into the face of Fox and make it personal and the responsibility of a media network and not the President of the United States.

Obama believes that he is clearly The Smartest Guy In The Room, no matter where he goes.  And that is a derailment factor.

Obama promulgates a pattern of deception and outright lies that I haven’t before witnessed from a sitting president in my 60+ years.

The ten minute interview is below; the transcript is here.

Excerpts from the interview:

O’REILLY: And I’m paying Kathleen Sebelius’ salary and she screwed up.


O’REILLY: And you’re not holding her accountable.

OBAMA: Yes, well, I… I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable. But when we’re…

O’REILLY: But she’s still there.

OBAMA: …when we’re in midstream, Bill, we want to make sure that our main focus is how do we make this thing work so that people are able to sign up?

And that’s what we’ve done.

O’REILLY: All right.

A LIE.  Obama holds no one accountable, least of all himself.

O’REILLY: All right.

Libya, House Armed Services testimony, General Carter Ham, you know, the general?

OBAMA: Yes. Right.

O’REILLY: Security in Africa.


O’REILLY: He testified that on the day that the ambassador was murdered and the three other Americans, all right, he told Secretary Panetta it was a terrorist attack. Shortly after Ham, General Ham, said that, Secretary Panetta came in to you.


O’REILLY: Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, it was a terrorist attack?

OBAMA: You know what he told me was that there was an attack on our compound…

O’REILLY: He didn’t tell you…


O’REILLY: …he didn’t use the word “terror?”

OBAMA: You know, in… in the heat of the moment, Bill, what folks are focused on is what’s happening on the ground, do we have eyes on it, how can we make sure our folks are secure…

O’REILLY: Because I just want to get this on the record…


O’REILLY: …did he tell you it was a terror attack?

OBAMA: Bill… and what I’m… I’m answering your question. What he said to me was, we’ve got an attack on our compound. We don’t know yet…

O’REILLY: No terror attack?

OBAMA: …we don’t know yet who’s doing it. Understand, by definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound…


OBAMA: …that’s an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened. So the… so the question ends up being who, in fact, was attacking us?

A LIE.  Obama did NOT characterize it as a terror attack the day after.  He and Clinton characterized it as an uprising from a video.

O’REILLY: …but I just want to say that they’re… your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out.

OBAMA: Bill, think about…

O’REILLY: That’s what they believe.

OBAMA: …and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.

Because, Mr Obama, that just happens to be the TRUTH.  And Barack Hussein Obama is the world’s best filibusterer and consistently refuses to answer questions that aren’t the most base of softballs.

O’REILLY: OK, so you don’t… you don’t recall seeing Shulman, because what some people are saying is that the IRS was used…


O’REILLY: …at a… at a local level in Cincinnati, and maybe other places to go after…

OBAMA: Absolutely wrong.

O’REILLY: …to go after.

OBAMA: Absolutely wrong.

O’REILLY: But how do you know that, because we… we still don’t know what happened there?

OBAMA: Bill, we do… that’s not what happened. They… folks have, again, had multiple hearings on this. I mean these kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part because you and your TV station will promote them.

And once again Mr Obama tries to bullshit his way out of being pinned down.  He LIES once again.

And the greatest, most bald-faced and blatant LIE of all?  See if you can get past reading this:

O’REILLY: You’re saying no corruption (about the IRS)?


O’REILLY: None? No?

OBAMA: There were some — there were some bone-headed decisions…

O’REILLY: Bone-headed decisions…

OBAMA: …out of… out of a local office…

O’REILLY: But no mass corruption?

OBAMA: Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.

No.  Not even a “smidgeon of corruption” by the IRS.  Not a molecule.  A LIE.  A HUGE LIE.

O’REILLY: OK. I got a letter from Kathy La Master, Fresno, California. I said I would read one letter from the folks, all right?

OBAMA: All right.

O’REILLY: Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?

OBAMA: I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation…

O’REILLY: But those are your words.

Another LIE.  How about a little video, Mr Obama:

Dana Milbank from the Washington Post recently took O’Reilly to task in an editorial, here.  He thinks Bill O’Reilly was disrespectful and rude.

But this time, O’Reilly gave only a passing pleasantry at the end (“I think your heart is in the right place”) and otherwise was hostile from the start. He leaned forward in his seat, waving his pen and pointing his finger at the president. He shook his head doubtfully at some of Obama’s answers.

Well boo-hoo-hoo, Mr Milbank, Bill O’Reilly actually stood some ground and at least attempted to acquire some answers — which Barack Hussein Obama deflected and filibustered.  O’Reilly waved a pen!  O’Reilly leaned forward!  Heinous!  Despicable!  Apparently you interpret journalists attempting to do what journalists do as rudeness.  Reverse the role.  Now insert GW Bush.  No objection from you, I’d submit.  Bush must pay!  O’Reilly as Dick Cheney!

Dick Cheney Can Kill YouI’ve already written about how Mr Obama lies about his lies.  Obama’s deceptive statements were deliberate and were intended to bolster his ability to get Obamacare passed in 2010 and get him reelected in 2012, according to aides cited in a Wall Street Journal article.

As I documented here and here and here and here and here, Obama lies and covers up his lies.  And the gullible and the idiots in American continue to sup up his dirty bowl of lies.

Various media forms are saying Bill O’Reilly was “rude” in his interview with Mr Obama.  I say that Bill O’Reilly was much more taciturn than I’ve seen him in a while.  I also submit that it was, instead, Mr Obama who was rude.  Note how many times Obama attempts to verbally steamroller over O’Reilly and interrupts him.

Obama was, once again, a petulant child in his interview with Bill O’Reilly.

And, once again, Obama spewed lie after lie after lie.



Obama’s State of the Union speech, 2014:

A comment from a journalist who happens to be black:

Obama Imperial TreeGreat Caesar’s Ghost
On the nauseating spectacle that is the State of the Union address

The annual State of the Union pageant is a hideous, dispiriting, ugly, monotonous, un-American, un-republican, anti-democratic, dreary, backward, monarchical, retch-inducing, depressing, shameful, crypto-imperial display of official self-aggrandizement and piteous toadying, a black Mass during which every unholy order of teacup totalitarian and cringing courtier gathers under the towering dome of a faux-Roman temple to listen to a speech with no content given by a man with no content, to rise and to be seated as is called for by the order of worship — it is a wonder they have not started genuflecting — with one wretched representative of their number squirreled away in some well-upholstered Washington hidey-hole in order to preserve the illusion that those gathered constitute a special class of humanity without whom we could not live.

It’s the most nauseating display in American public life — and I write that as someone who has just returned from a pornographers’ convention.

It’s worse than the Oscars.

Many times worse, I’d posit.  Because it’s not about a number of so-called “artistes,” but about ONE MAN.

Please read the entire article here.



Full text of the speech is available here.



Tami Jackson speaks the truth about guns:

Imagine this: a speech made by an individual — in Salem, Oregon — in front of a large audience, off-the-cuff, extemporaneously, with no TelePrompter, consulting no notes.  That in itself kicks Mr Obama to the proverbial Speech Curb.

And yet, in full view of her peers — the toughest audience of all — Tami Jackson kicks some major Second Amendment butt in front of the Oregon State Capitol.

With a semi-auto in hand.

Tami Jackson wishes to acknowledge the hard work and video skills of Dan Sandini, who has his own site here, at Daylight Disinfectant.  He has a YouTube channel here.  Mr Sandini has also done prior video work for Andrew Breitbart.  Dan Sandini

I recommend Tami Jackson’s commentary at the

She works on the 405Radio, with an internet radio show.

Tami Jackson is a substitute host on the Bill Post Show as well.

Tami Jackson simply speaks the Truth.