There's some serious nonsense in the world.
You have probably heard of Dexter Taylor, who is being held prisoner (for 10 years!) by the New York rulers for manufacturing his own firearms in his own home. Something he and everyone else has a natural human right to do, regardless of the opinions of regional political criminals.
At Taylor's show-trial, "judge" and political criminal Abena Darkeh explicitly told his lawyer that he could not use the Second Amendment in his defense. She said, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.”*
My question is, when did New York secede? Because that's the only way a political criminal like her could truthfully claim the Second Amendment "doesn't exist" in New York. (Even if that were true, the natural human right would still exist just the same, as it does anywhere there's a human being. Rights don't hinge on a document recognizing them.)
And, aren't the other government supremacists always telling us that states can't secede because the question of secession was settled by Lincoln's war crimes? That the feds have F-15s and nukes to force the states back into the cracked "union", just like they can impose their anti-gun rules on individuals? I must have missed all the news about the secession of New York and the ongoing war to bring it back into the fold.
No legislation can erase the natural human right to own, carry, buy, sell, or manufacture weapons. Anyone who tries to pretend it can is a criminal of the worst sort. Worse than most mass murderers or serial rapists. Equal to the very worst of them.
That "judge" apparently doesn't know or understand the law. Or, if she does, she's willfully breaking it. Just to impose her authoritarian preferences on her victims. This "judge" is a criminal.
*This also shows that the "judge" knows the Second Amendment means what it says, and that she's breaking the law.
-
Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?
Leave a tip?
“This "judge" is a criminal.”
ReplyDeleteJust one of the many who rule with impunity in this criminal imperial police State.
No Rulers !
It's the status quo (or the statist quo).
DeleteA quick search on the judge in question in this case revealed several examples of those who regard removing her from the bench as an effort worth pursuing. Apparently they are laboring under the delusion that this belief is an aberration in the judiciary; or the other two branches of government rather than the commonplace that it actually is. This attitude that rulers determine the law and mere impotent ‘parchment barriers’ are not valid restraints upon their whims is also more the norm in 21st century US government than a singular error that can be corrected by one judges’ dismissal. It isn’t constitutions that protect liberty from tyranny but equal or superior power and authority wielded by those outside of the State that limit its abuses. And abuses are the inevitable consequence of authorizing and enabling any power and control of one man over another. No Rulers !
ReplyDeleteI'd like her to be removed anyway, but you're right- she's not unusual. The Supreme Courtjesters can't bring themselves to eviscerate ALL anti-weapon "laws" as they probably know, deep down, they have the obligation to do.
Delete