One more indication that ‘Uncle Joe’ isn’t playing with a full deck.
The Paris Peace Accords was the 1973 treaty to end the Vietnam War.
Of course – it is hoped – he meant the “Paris Agreement” which is part of the U.N. Convention on Climate Change, but with him, you just never know. And he’s still the leading contender for the demoncrap nomination for President.

Students Demand ICE Agents Give 2 Weeks Notice if They’ll be on Campus. ICE Agents Laugh.

Michigan State University, commonly referred to as MSU by most of the student body, has quite the overzealous, and quite frankly, moronic club in its midst attempting to create campus legislation that would essentially make anti-ICE liberals feel good while basically accomplishing nothing.

The East Lansing, Michigan university, having been around since 1855, has managed to get so “progressive” that in turn they’ve started to become regressive from a logical standpoint.

The university’s student government recently passed a bill requiring the university to notify them anytime U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are going to be on campus. The irony is, ICE doesn’t really have an obligation to let the university know if they’re arriving in a capacity to fulfill their duties.

Total Permitless Carry in Oklahoma becomes active today.

House Bill 2597 was the first bill Governor Stitt has signed into law since he was elected Oklahoma’s 28th governor.

…………….except this section shall not prohibit:

6. The carrying of a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, loaded
or unloaded, by a person who is twenty-one (21) years of age or older or by a person who is eighteen (18) years of age but not yet twenty-one (21) years of age and the person is a member or veteran of the United States Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard or was discharged under honorable conditions from the United States Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard, and the person is otherwise not disqualified from the possession or purchase of a firearm under state or federal law and is not carrying the firearm in furtherance of a crime.

Keeping one’s eyes and ears open (intelligence gathering) for the crap-for-brains anti-gun/anti-civil rights BS in the media is a good habit.

The Indiana Daily Student (IDS) is an independent, student-run newspaper that has been published for the community of Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, so we see the quality of education the college students are getting these days. i.e. Leftist claptrap.

This is nothing more than a re-iteration of a racist smear on the people of the U.S. who choose to exercise a enumerated right.
Just to make it easy for everyone to send this fallacious letter to the trashcan:

Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights where “the right of the people” is used it is expounding on an individual right as ruled by the Federal courts.

That that author attempts to deny that the Second Amendments doesn’t protect an individual right when it has that exact terminology used is more than risible, it’s blatant redefinition and mendacity.
If true it would mean those other ‘rights of the people’, already defined as individual rights aren’t either.

Piffle.

the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 1

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment 4.

One point to make clear..No amendment in the Bill of Rights gives the U.S. citizenry anything, The document was demanded by “…the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” as a restriction on government. A “these are ‘hands off’ to you” .

The only ‘threat’ gun ownership poses is to those people- and their lackeys as seen here – who seek power and control over the free people of the U.S. That’s why you see these types of deceptive letters being posted.

It is necessary to understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment

The interpretation of the Second Amendment commonly accepted by many Americans is that the right to bear arms is necessary to maintain freedom against a tyrannical government. However, when looking back at the historical context of why the amendment was passed, it is painfully obvious this was far from the intent of the founders.

The Second Amendment’s original intent was the disbanding of standing armies because they were viewed as a threat to a stable government. Following a war, the army would be forced to disband, forming local militia groups in their states.

This actually served to protect the government against a hostile takeover by a standing army rather than to empower the people to fight against a tyrannical government, the exact opposite of how many interpret the amendment.

Militias were regulated by the states and southern militias were referred to as slave patrols. In Georgia, for example, all white plantation owners or their white male employees were required by law to join the Georgia militia, making regular inspections of slaves’ quarters to prevent uprisings.

The main concern at the time to many southern slaveholders like George Mason and Patrick Henry was that the proposed constitution’s general welfare clause (Article 1, Section 8) could be interpreted to eventually free the slaves.

The general welfare clause included giving the federal government the power the supervise and regulate the militias. This worried slaveholders due to the possibility that federal militias could absorb state militias, causing them to no longer be slavery-enforcing institutions.

There was precedent for thisconcept in the lead-up to the revolutionary war during which slaves were offered freedom in exchange for fighting for the British army.

To compromise with slave states, at the command of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison changed the original draft of the Second Amendment from reading “a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country” to “free state,” to be sure there was zero ambiguity as to the state’s right to regulate state militias.

So, to be clear, the Second Amendment was enacted to disband standing armies and to allow slave states to regulate slave patrols in order to enforce and maintain the institution of slavery. Nothing to do with fending off a tyrannical government.

Until the famous court case District of Columbia v. Heller, it was understood that the right to bear arms was primarily endowed to militias, including state defense forces and the National Guard.

This case redefined the right to bear arms to be expanded to individuals, interpreting “militia” to include all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to serve in one.

This controversial case was a turning point in how the Second Amendment was interpreted with regard to self-defense and non-military gun ownership rights, overturning decades of jurisprudence on Second Amendment cases.

Now that the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment has completely changed to individual gun rights, gun ownership has become a constitutional issue rather than a political issue like it had been previously.

Unfortunately, overturning District of Columbia v. Heller is extremely unlikely and would have little effect on gun legislation.

Now that individual gun ownership rights have been grounded in judicial precedent, there will likely continue to be the endless expansion of gun rights by gun anarchists in groups like the National Rifle Association.

The intention of the Second Amendment was never to bolster individual gun ownership rights, rather it was specifically passed to protect the federal government from a military coup and to prolong the institution of slavery.

By shifting the legal interpretation of the amendment to non-military gun ownership, this strays greatly from the main reasons the amendment was passed to begin with.

The U.S. today is plagued with substantial gun violence, and strengthening individual gun ownership rights and accessibility is proven to lead to more violence.

The U.S. cannot keep following this path of universal gun accessibility. It is a threat to public safety, and it was not the founders’ intention in the slightest.

Bob Janovick: Second Amendment guarantees the First

Dave Chappelle received the Mark Twain Award on October 27. He said, “The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn’t work out.”

I believe that he has an understanding of what is wrong with “universal background checks.” Such a system requires that all firearms be registered in order to work. That system carries with it the necessity to record the location of the arms.

Imagine the country if the First no longer worked. Is it beyond belief that the arms to enforce the First would already be confiscated per “mandatory buy back?” Which begs the questions: How does buy back occur when it was never OWNED by the government. How does $200 (or less) for an $1,800 firearm qualify as a buy back? Would not the phrase “mandatory confiscation” be more accurate?

I am not a fan of Mr. Chappelle. But I do agree with these sentiments by event attendee, rapper Common: “He’s always been a leader in thought and culture. He says provocative things, and … it creates some uncomfortable conversations we don’t want to have, but we need people like him because even if you don’t agree with them, it brings them up and then people have to discuss it. We need courageous minds like that.”

Take that, college demonstrators!

Not a fan of politically correct (censorship) nor bully tactics.

Bob Janovick,

NY Times: Refugees Needed to Fill ‘Void of Cultural Diversity’ in White Towns

When the editors of the NYT start housing refugees in their neighborhoods, I might start taking them seriously. Most now come from a predominately moslem culture that is inimical with U.S. Constitutional principles.

More refugees must be resettled across the United States to fill a “void of cultural diversity” in towns that are made up of a majority of white Americans, a New York Times report states.

As President Trump is set to lower refugee admissions for the third year, keeping his 2o16 campaign promise to significantly reform the program after almost four decades, the New York Times published a report this week detailing how Congolese refugees already living in the U.S. are looking to bring their foreign relatives to the country through the refugee resettlement program.

The New York Times reports:

To supporters like Mr. Engen, the Congolese are filling a void of cultural diversity in a town that is nearly 90 percent white. In the 1980s, Hmong refugees from Laos settled in Missoula. The children of immigrant families are usually the few students of color in city classrooms, while their parents work long hours at businesses eager for the help. [Emphasis added]

The New York Times has previously claimed that “nearly all white” states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine pose “an array of problems for new arrivals” to the U.S., as Breitbart News noted.