Ask a Horse – Effect Of Decentralized Power

PI2013 #581 – Effect Of Decentralized Power


“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal”  ~ Janet Reno


September 11th, 2013

Liberty Lovers, Every American Taxpayer Now “Owes” “The (federal) State” $148,148, every citizen $53,483.

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” ~ Barack Obama

Two Personal Firearm Rectriction advocates have been recalled from Colorado’s State Senate.  Both rationalized their recalls as not reflecting ‘overwhelming’ numbers of Coloradans favoring expanded personal firearm restrictions.  Constituents voted differently.

“If someone is so fearful that, that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all!” ~ Representative Henry A. Waxman (courtesy an AAH reader)

We, the American People would be extraordinarily naivé to believe personal firearm restriction advocates would be satisfied with ‘common sense’ controls like increased background checks or ammunition capacity limits.

Decentralized Power Fortifies Liberty’s promise.  Despotism and tyranny thrive on centralized power and legal control over many by a select few.  Centralized power has its roots in oppressive law written to grant maximum authority to public officials, minimum to ordinary people.

“Democracy is defended in 3 stages.  Ballot Box, Jury Box, Cartridge Box.” ~  Ambrose Bierce

Liberty Is Self-Determination.  Self-determination is forever at risk when ‘government’ (“The State”) has power to restrict means of self-defense available to ordinary people while arming law enforcement with firepower deemed appropriate or necessary.

People Intending To Live In Liberty do not allow legislators – or other public officials within These United States of America, to interfere in business matters between private citizens in any way so long as those dealings are free of fraudulent behavior by all parties and do not encourage threats to national security by foreign powers or known enemies of the United States of America. They negotiate business matters on their own.

Let Freedom Ring


It’s your property, not “State” property.

Best Wishes,

Len Ritchey

ASK A HORSE commentaries are on Facebook,, and; they are considered public domain information. Readers are welcome to use commentaries as they like. Please advise if you do not wish to receive future ASK A HORSE commentaries.

According to President Obama, you “willfully lied” this week

2nd amend liar

It’s right there in his tantrum speech yesterday afternoon:

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill.

That’s right. When you stood up for transparency and the Constitution, you weren’t defending your principles. You were being dishonest. And your “dishonest[y]” helped the Senate stand against a possibly unconstitutional, rushed bill that would have done little to stop the kinds of shootings seen in Aurora and at Sandy Hook.

Of course, the politics didn’t end with calling you liars. Apparently, you ignored “the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers.” Never mind that FBI data indicates most homicides (the majority of which are committed with guns) don’t occur in white, suburban America. In reality, the majority are linked to drug-related crime and gangs in major metropolises. By skewing these numbers, the President and other anti-gun politicians only look interested in violence that agrees with their narrative.

Of course, the President says he stands with those who die from gun violence, as well as their loved ones.

One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres. And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand; if it could’ve prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try. And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.

In that case, why doesn’t the President tell the public that “the number of defensive gun uses far exceeds the number of violent crimes committed with guns?” Is he not looking at the data, or is he cherry-picking what he shares with the American people?

Lastly, if the President were truly intent on “action by Congress” that “could have saved one person, one child,” why did he have no comment when asked about the Gosnell trial in Pennsylvania – a trial where a doctor is accused of killing at least eight people, including one woman and seven children?

The President’s comments yesterday are those of a man who, as Allahpundit noted, is a lame duck President only months into his second term. He lost the trust of the American people when he decided to support the Beltway status quo of constitutional violations and a lack of transparency. If anybody’s honesty is in question, it’s his.

Dr. Coburn Offers Amendment to Replace Manchin-Toomey Amendment

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement today regarding his amendment #727 to replace the Manchin-Toomey amendment:

“Under my approach gun owners are treated as part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Instead of harassing gun owners with new taxes and other burdens, my bill gives law-abiding citizens the tools they need to make sure they aren’t going to transfer a firearm to someone who will be a threat to themselves or others. For example, under my plan the process of confirming a buyer is not on the NICS list of prohibited buyers – the ‘do not buy list’ – will be as simple as using a smart phone app or printing a boarding pass from your home computer.”

“The Manchin-Toomey amendment is an unworkable plan that is almost certain to fail even if it passes. The American people don’t have to settle for failure and more finger-pointing and posturing from career politicians in Washington. My plan has the best chance of making it to the president’s desk. If the Senate is serious about solving this problem, this solution is within their reach.

“Finally, every citizen should be rightfully concerned when Washington legislates in areas where the Constitution explicitly limits government intrusion, and they should hold their representatives accountable when guaranteed rights are infringed upon. Yet, the fact that my plan won’t be popular with special interest groups on either side, who tend to represent themselves rather than gun owners or the American people, is a sign of its strength.

“Groups on the left have prioritized record-keeping over safety while groups on the right are helping arm illegal aliens and criminals with their incoherent opposition to any solution that closes gaps in the law. I’m not intimidated by these groups, and neither should any elected official who is a Constitutional officer of the people. Unlike professional lobbyists and fundraisers, I have not just talked about Second Amendment rights, I have expanded them. If special interest groups want to defend a system that arms illegal aliens, pedophiles, spousal abusers, drug dealers, felons, mentally-dangerous persons and others on the ‘do not buy list,’ they are welcome to make that case with their members.”

Key provisions and principles of the Coburn amendment:

  • · Instead of rerouting all commerce through federally designated person that will charge a $30-$50 fee that creates a new de facto tax on guns, the Coburn amendment would allow the consumer portal and concealed carry permits to be used for verification, protecting law abiding gun owners’ freedom to easily and safely transfer firearms.
  • · Respects the 10th amendment by giving states the ability to take primacy of enforcement, implement flexible solutions, and create certain exemptions.
  • · Reaffirms the federal policy that there will not be a federal firearms registry, and places strict penalties for violation of this policy.
  • · Improves reporting of mental health records by states to the NICS system.
  • · Provides proper due process for veterans to prevent them from being unfairly deprived of their Second Amendment Rights.
  • · Includes a five-year sunset provision that will force Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of the consumer portal.

Lisa Nancollas,
Mifflin County Tea Party Patriots, Coordinator

Tea Party Patriots PA State Coordinator


Background check plan defeated in major setback for Senate gun bill

The Senate on Wednesday defeated a vital background check amendment seen as the linchpin to Democrats’ gun control bill, dealing a major setback to President Obama — who lashed out at opponents in unusually blunt terms during remarks from the Rose Garden.

“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” Obama said.

The vote was 54-46, with supporters falling six votes short of the required 60-vote threshold.

The failure of the background check proposal authored by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., now imperils the entire legislation. The proposal would have expanded background checks to gun shows and Internet sales while exempting personal transactions. The amendment was aimed at winning over reluctant conservatives, who were opposed to the more stringent background check plan in the existing bill.

It’s unclear where supporters will go from here. They could try to vote again, or craft an alternative piece of legislation. Four Republicans voted for the amendment, but five Democrats voted against it. One of those Democrats was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid — who only switched his vote to oppose it because doing so allows Democrats to call up the measure again. Other Democrats who voted against the measure for non-procedural reasons were Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.

The Obama administration has made the package, written in the wake of the Newtown school mass shooting, a top priority and along with its allies had applied heavy pressure to wavering lawmakers. Vice President Biden presided over the vote Wednesday.

Though the bill advanced on a key procedural vote last week, it would likely need to clear the 60-vote threshold once more — a very heavy lift without the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

In the run-up to Wednesday’s vote, Democratic leaders gave ever-changing assessments of where support stood.

Biden said Tuesday that Democrats would get the 60 votes, but then said later in the day that it could come down to one or two senators.

Manchin acknowledged early Wednesday that the bill was having trouble, but then released a statement saying he remained “optimistic and hopeful.”

Opponents needed just 41 of the Senate’s 100 votes to derail the Manchin-Toomey background check plan.

Thirty-one senators voted last week to completely block debate on overall gun legislation. Since last week, enough lawmakers who voted to allow debate switched to oppose Manchin-Toomey, in turn defeating the amendment.

Opponents, which included a few Democrats, voiced concern that the proposal would still infringe on Second Amendment rights by imposing a burden on those buying and selling guns. They claimed the proposed system would not have prevented Newtown, and would not stop criminals. They also voiced concern about the possibility that the expanded system could lead to a gun registry, though the amendment language prohibits this.

“I believe very strongly that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving, particularly in areas that could keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. At the same time, I cannot support legislation that infringes upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., one of those opposed, said in a statement.

Only four Republican senators committed to voting for the amendment ahead of time. The last was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who announced his support Wednesday afternoon. The other three were Toomey, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

The Senate gun bill would extend background checks to nearly all gun purchases, toughen penalties against illegal gun trafficking and add small sums to school safety programs.

Perhaps helping explain Democrats’ problems, an AP-GfK poll this month showed that 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. That was down from 58 percent who said so in January — a month after the December killings of 20 children and six aides at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school propelled gun violence into a national issue.

In a climactic day, the Senate planned to hold eight other votes Wednesday besides the one on background checks, all of them amendments to a broad gun control measure.

They included Democratic proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, which are expected to lose; a Republican proposal requiring states to honor other states’ permits allowing concealed weapons, which faces a close vote; and a GOP substitute for the overall gun measure.

The concealed weapons amendment, seen by advocates as protecting gun rights, was vehemently opposed by gun control groups, who say it would allow more guns into states with stricter firearms laws.

The votes were coming a day after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, badly injured in a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, tried galvanizing gun control support by visiting Capitol Hill and attending a private lunch with Democratic senators. Reid, D-Nev., called the lunch — senators said it included emotional speeches from lawmakers — “as moving as any” he has attended.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.