Talon’s Point of the Day – June 26th, 2015 What Happens When There Are No Rules That Apply To You?

John Robert TransLegislator

What happens when there are no rules that apply to you? You can justify your previous wrongs by simply becoming your own rule maker. Thank you Chief Justice John Robert! I’m sure we’ll all get to make our own rules now, right?

Talon’s Point of the Day – June 16, 2015 No Pity Parties

When you’re tempted to engage in a pitty party contemplating all the the things you’ve lost over the years just remember the most humble abode in heaven is more amazing than earth’s greatest mansions. Save your pity for the lost. There are no parties in their future.

Talon’s Point of the Day is meant to be concise yet thought provoking. If you are impacted feel free to share the point with others, with or without citation.

Talon’s Point of the Day – May 25th, 2015 Memorial Day

Today is the day we give special honor to those who gave all for the freedoms we have taken so for granted that we have granted our government the power to take them away. The day will come when our government will use said military to control its own citizens.

In the mean time I honor the gift given to me by the fallen soldiers of the past and all who served honorably. Yet I also grieve for what I know is coming.

Talon’s Point of the Day is meant to be concise yet thought provoking. If you are impacted feel free to share the point with others, with or without citation.

Mother’s Day Gold

Talon's Point:

Happy Mother’s Day – 2015

Originally posted on :

Happy Mother’s Day ladies.

I wrote and posted this elsewhere a couple years ago. Thought I’d share it with you here. God bless you all.

Mother’s Day Gold

As you wake to this Mother’s day in which we honor our mothers, some of you will find a card and some shiny trinket, symbolizing our affection for you. Others may awaken to something simpler, yet far more valuable, such as a handmade card from your young children (misspellings and all), a call from a grown child confirming their gratitude for your years of faithful service to your family, or the warm embrace and softly spoken words “Happy Mother’s Day” from the grateful heart of a loving husband. This is my little gift to all of you wonderful mothers and mothers to be this year;

The gold you may find in a little box this year has been shaped, cut and polished…

View original 457 more words

Colonial Firearms Regulation: An Honest Account

Colonial Firearm Regulation
Author: Clayton E. Cramer
Recently published scholarship concerning the regulation of firearms in Colonial America claims that because Colonial governments distrusted the free population with guns, the laws required guns to be stored centrally, and were not generally allowed
in private hands. According to this view, even those guns allowed in private hands were always considered the property of the government. This Article examines the laws of the American colonies and demonstrates that at least for the free population, gun
control laws were neither laissez-faire nor restrictive. If Colonial governments evinced any distrust of the free population concerning guns, it was a fear that not enough freemen would own and carry guns. Thus, the governments imposed mandatory gun ownership and carriage laws.
.
Clayton E. Cramer is an independent scholar who took the leading role in exposing the Michael Bellesiles hoax. His website is:www.claytoncramer.com
.
I.THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF COLONIAL FIREARM REGULATION TODAY
In much the same way that an understanding of the limits of free speech in Colonial America may provide insights into the intent of Congress and the states when they adopted the First Amendment, so an understanding of colonial firearms regulation has the potential to illuminate our understanding of the limits of the right protected by the Second Amendment. What types of firearms laws were common, and might therefore have been considered within the legitimate scope of governmental regulation? In the last several years, widely publicized scholarship by Michael Bellesiles has asserted that the English colonies strictly regulated the individual possession and use of firearms. While acknowledging that the English government ordered the colonists to own firearms for the public defense as a cost-cutting measure, he asserts:
At the same time, legislators feared that gun-toting freemen might, under special circumstances, pose a threat to the very polity that they were supposed to defend. Colonial legislatures therefore strictly regulated the storage of firearms, with weapons kept in some central place, to be produced only in emergencies or on muster day, or loaned to individuals living in outlying areas. They were to remain the property of the government. The Duke of York’s first laws for New York required that each town have a storehouse for arms and ammunition. Such legislation was on the books of colonies from New Hampshire to South Carolina.
i. This assertion that the Colonial governments distrusted their free people with firearms, and closely controlled their possession in governmental hands has began to appear in court decisions concerning the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms provisions contained in the U.S. Constitution and 46 of the state constitutions.
ii. Then as now, laws were not always obeyed, and were sometimes indifferently or unequally enforced. The evidence from contemporary accounts, from probate records, or even from archaeological digs (which could suggest something about gun ownership levels by recovered artifacts), might provide us with evidence for evaluating how often those laws were followed. Under the best of conditions, however, analysis of this type is
complex, and differing interpretative models may come to differing conclusions as to whether those laws were generally obeyed, generally ignored, or perhaps were somewhere in between. By comparison, evaluating the claim that Colonial governments passed laws that restricted firearms ownership and use (regardless of how those laws were actually enforced) is fairly easy. An examination of the Colonial statutes reveals that, contrary to Bellesiles‟s claim of distrusted and disarmed freemen, almost all colonies required white adult men to possess firearms and ammunition. Some of these statutes were explicit that militiamen were to keep their guns at home; others imply the requirement, by specifying fines for failing to bring guns to musters or church. Colonies that did not explicitly require firearms ownership passed laws requiring the carrying of guns under circumstances that implied nearly universal ownership. None of the Colonial militia statutes even suggest a requirement for central storage of all guns. None of the Colonial laws in any way limited the possession of firearms by the white non-Catholic population; quite the opposite. Most colonies did, however, pass laws restricting possession of firearms by blacks and Indians. In a few cases, in a few colonies, whites suspected of disloyalty (including Catholics) were also disarmed. As the statutes demonstrate, colonial governments did not hold that firearms in private hands, “were to remain the property of the government.”

iii. Indeed, the evidence is largely in the other direction that colonial governments were often reluctant to seize weapons for public use. When driven by necessity to do so, they
compensated owners of those guns. Colonial regulations that limited the use of firearms were usually for reasons of public safety. These regulations were similar in nature, though generally less restrictive in details, than similar laws today.
II. FIREARMS AND CIVIC DUTY
The laws regulating firearms ownership adopted by the American colonies bear a strong resemblance to each other. This is not surprising, since by 1740, every colony bore allegiance to the English crown, and the laws reflected the shared heritage. The similarity in laws is especially noticeable with respect to the English duty of nearly all adult men to serve in the militia, and to bear arms in defense of the realm.
A. Connecticut. Among the Colonial militia statutes, Connecticut’s 1650 code contains one of the clearest expressions of the duty to own a gun: “That all persons that are above the age of sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare arms…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have
in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service, and allowed by the clark of the band….”
iv. A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741.
v. Fines varied between two and ten shillings for lacking firearms or for failure to appear with firearms “compleat and well fixt upon the days of training….”
vi.
B. Virgina. Virginia provides another example of a militia statute obligating all free men to own a gun. A 1684 statute required free Virginians to “provide and furnish themselves with a sword, musquet and other furniture fitt for a soldier… two pounds of powder, and eight pounds of shott….”
vii. A similar 1705 statute required every foot soldier to arm himself “with a firelock, muskett, or fusee well fixed” and gave him eighteen months to comply with the law before he would subject to fine.
viii. There are minor modifications to the statute in 1738 that still required all members of the militia to appear at musters with the same list of gun choices, but reduced the
ammunition requirement to one pound of powder and four pounds of lead balls.
ix. A 1748 revision is also clear that militiamen were obligated to provide themselves with “arms and ammunition.”
x. The 1748 statute, however, did acknowledge that all freemen might not be wealthy enough to arm themselves, and provided for issuance of arms “out of his majesty‟s magazine.”
xi. By 1755, all cavalry officers were obligated to provide themselves with “holster
s and pistols well fixed….”
xii. C. New York. Another typical colonial militia statute is the Duke of York‟s law for New York (adopted shortly after the colony‟s transfer from the Dutch), that provided, “Besides the Generall stock of each Town[,] Every Male within this government from Sixteen to Sixty years of age, or not freed by public Allowance, shall[,] if freeholders[,] at their own, if sons or Servants[,] at their Parents and Masters Charge and Cost, be furnished from time to time and so Continue well furnished with Arms and other Suitable Provition hereafter mentioned: under the penalty of five Shillings for the least default therein[:] Namely a good Serviceable Gun, allowed Sufficient by his Military Officer to be kept in Constant fitness for present Service” along with all the other equipment required in the field.
xiii.

Tend the Garden

Talon's Point:

And more of us than probably would care to admit probably acted a bit the pokeweed in our youth

Originally posted on Storyshucker:

A longtime friend commented during dinner that her next door neighbor’s son was on the path to nowhere and constantly in trouble. She thought herself clever referring to him as “a weed in the garden of life”. Although an avid fan of barbed words and wit, I found her comment harsh directed at a kid who was barely a teenager. He was dismissed and labeled as worthless. A weed.

“But maybe he’s a pokeweed!” I said in a positive tone.

She rolled her eyes. I recognized the look of resignation on her face. The look many of my friends have when I spit out a puzzling one-liner and they know a story is coming. She sipped her drink and grinned, arms crossed in silent permission for me to proceed.

Years ago I had a yard packed with plants. It was full of boxwoods, azaleas, and geraniums surrounding a dogwood centerpiece…

View original 611 more words

Talon’s Point of the Day – April 17th, 2015 Relax, It’s Just Another Sin

As a follow up to yesterday’s point You Don’t Deserve Salvation…THANK GOD!!! I wanted to add the following:

Just as there has permeated the modern Church the view that Jesus died for you because you were worthy of him doing so, the secondary view that once Jesus died for you, and once you accepted him as your Savior, that there is no longer anything required of you in relationship to your salvation has also spread through the body like a virus. In other words “Jesus died for ALL your sins so relax and don’t sweat it. It’s just another sin.”

This view, in my humble opinion, is counter to the Word, and as Christ is the Word made flesh, this view is counter to Christ himself.

Let me be clear. Yes Jesus died for all our sins, past, present, future. No I don’t think that just because we falter that we have lost our salvation. However, to think that we can feel relaxed about our sin because the price has been paid is to risk making light of sin and when we cross that shallow Rubicon of seemingly warm gentle water we have entered a place where God does not reside.

While I could easily provide dozens upon dozens of verses to uphold this point I know I’m steering toward the turbulent waters of the “Once Saved Always Saved” debate that I’m hesitant to venture off into on this post. However I will add this which I’ve said in the past:

“Christ was not faithful, even faithful to a cross, so that we could live comfortably in our sin without consequence” – Talon

 

Talon’s Point of the Day is meant to be concise yet thought provoking. If you are impacted feel free to share the point with others, with or without citation.

Let Them Eat Cake – The Right of Discrimination

Earlier today Capitalist Pig portfolio manager and media personality Jonathan Hoenig took to twitter with the following:

Jonathan Hoenig discrimination tweet

While I’m no fan of discrimination or the false claims thereof (more on this in a moment) I cannot agree more with Hoenig. Though I cannot speak for Mr Hoenig this makes neither he or myself racist. In fact I’m pretty sure Mr Hoenig services customers of all colors and creeds as do I. What it does make us is two of the few who recognize that to protect liberty of all, we must protect liberty of those who will sometimes act on those views in ways we might personally disagree with. It’s not that discrimination is necessarily right or justifiable. It’s that the empowerment of government to prevent marketplace discrimination (not connected to direct survival) inevitably results in stripping someone of their personal liberties, and we are all “someone.” This empowerment of the agents of force to prevent actual (and now perceived) discrimination sounds good to the weak minded, but in reality it empowers those who feign lamentations of “discrimination” in order to enact control over the free will of those whose views they find offensive, thus turning government into a tool of discrimination against the free exercise of liberty itself.

Now let me clarify, there are in my opinion a few critical limitations, or better said “clarifications,” to this view. Our right to personal liberty ends when the act of engaging in our personal liberty brings actual harm to others. While I do not agree with how our federal government addressed the civil rights movement, there is no doubt in my mind that certain protections had to be provided to America’s blacks, at least in certain areas, so as to allow the simple right to life itself and liberty. In other words, the personal liberty of racists (whites in our example) to be racist is sacrosanct under our Constitution so long as the practice of their racism does not extend to the safety or basic survival of others (blacks in this case), through denying or impeding access to public safety services, hospitals, food, public schools, and other govt subsidized services (a discussion for another day). Beyond that the best solution should have been to allow market forces to eventually bring repercussion on racists who used their businesses to generally inconvenience blacks.

The consequence of empowering government to use strong arm tactics to “right a wrong” is now being seen in the metastasized cancer of “gay rights” intimidation tactics by what has been dubbed “Gaystapo” activists and their mindless lackies in the media, and elsewhere. The refusal to provide a non critical service for religious reasons has now conveniently been painted as racist by the Gaystapo because of the observations of “successful” past misuse of government force during the civil rights era. But where has freedom gone? Have we so devolved intellectually that the refusal to bake a sugar laden coma inducing confection is automatically assumed to be “hate?” And even if it could be proven as “hate” how is the person refused service actually harmed and worthy of government intervention on their behalf? Are there really anorexic homosexuals so in need of calories that they must use government force to assure their survival because only Christian operated bakeries, and now pizza restaurants, can provide the critical sustenance they need? Of course not. In our materialistic consumer driven society where the dollar is virtually worshiped there is simply no limits on where any of us can get a cake made, a hot pizza served, pictures taken, food catered, a dress made, or facilities rented, etc ad nauseam.

We’re not talking about denying emergency room services here. We’re not talking about denying fire department services, police services, publicly traded (more in a moment) businesses operated residential rentals, public utilities, and banking services, education, or food. I’ll grant there are gray areas consisting of clothing and transportation fuel, perhaps a few others, but even in these cases we are at a place in our society where the market will likely provide to anyone with the money to pay everything they want, let alone need, even in a small market. There is also the issue of business activities of publicly traded companies. These companies are arguably required to serve anyone regardless of the views of their controlling entities due to legal fiduciary responsibilities. Aside from this we all are better off protecting the rights of privately held businesses to make the likely poor business decision of “discrimination,” especially as they seek to compete with much larger publicly traded businesses who will be tapping the market of blacks, or in this case homosexuals. If these privately owned businesses make decisions the public at large deems unjustifiably prejudicial, the public will punish them by taking their dollars elsewhere and the business will either adjust, or accept it’s diminished market share, reserved only to those who agree with their publicized views.

So let them eat cake whomever they are. But let the market decide who puts the dough in their oven, including those who decide they don’t want the job.

 

Follow up: Mark my words supporters of ISIS and other Islamist terrorists living in the U.S. (they exist by the thousands) are watching how this plays out and soon will publicly force patriotic Americans to provide materials expressing this support.