Because who would even consider bearing arms to defend the homeland? Obama Removes “Bear Arms” Clause from Citizenship Oath – “The climax of the process is taking the oath of citizenship. This is the point where an individual becomes a full-fledged member of American society. For anyone going through the process, it is a momentous occasion. While it is a joy to do this, it does not come without a certain responsibility. In the citizenship oath, a person must, as part of the pledge, maintain a willingness to bear arms on behalf of the United States in defense of the homeland; certainly no small responsibility. However, the Obama administration is removing this clause from the oath, and is thus taking away a huge part of the responsibility associated with being a citizen.” This should surprise precisely no one.
Finally, someone’s doing something meaningful about “gun violence.” Andrew Cuomo’s Display of Solidarity Much Bigger Than Bill de Blasio’s – “’We made the decision yesterday,’ Cuomo spokesman John Kelly told Gawker in an email. The governor’s office coordinated with the Port Authority and the Durst Organization, which manage 1WTC. The mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about when they made their decision to light City Hall orange. We can only applaud the governor and the mayor for setting aside their differences to engage in this bilateral display of solidarity.”
Browning Ammunition introduces the BXC Controlled Expansion Terminal Tip, which is designed specifically for use on Big Game like mule deer, elk, moose and bear. The Controlled Expansion Terminal Tip and bonded bullet design allows for deep penetration through thick hide and bone. The aluminum tip and heavy bullet weight are integral components to delivering precision accuracy, maximum downrange velocity and long-range, on-target performance.
What if we regulated drugs the way we regulate guns? – “The gun lobby’s logic is fatally, and tragically, flawed. By the same reasoning, we should stop requiring drug prescriptions because most people don’t abuse drugs and the system does not entirely prevent drug traffickers from selling powerful pharmaceuticals. This is, of course, pure madness, especially when you consider the methamphetamine epidemic involving nonprescription drugs and the recent crisis around the abuse of prescription painkillers.” Anyone have a Xanax?
These Members Of Congress Used Campaign Funds To Buy Guns – “More than a dozen Republican members of Congress used campaign contributions to buy guns, ammunition or tickets to gun-related events, a public interest group said Wednesday.” What’s wrong with the rest of them?
How can he even do that? Citizenship is literally under the control of Congress. Deferring is one thing, but how can he change the verbage of the citizenship oath? Did Congress give away that power to a committee too?
He could rearrange the main elements and how they’re expressed, but section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act sets forth the elements which that oath must contain.
The “law” and The Constitution say lots of things. The government has ‘interpreted’ them as they pleased for a very, very long time.
The simple answer is they didn’t. What did happen, in July 2015, was that DHS issued a policy alert clarifying the religious exemption/waiver for that part of the oath. At the time in Summer 2015 it got picked up on the Internet, as well as by several Republican officials such as Governor Jindal, and spun into the form as presented in the article linked to above. The reality is it just clarified and updated what to do with that portion of the oath for someone who is becoming an American citizen, but who’s religious convictions would make them a conscientious objector. Apparently its making the rounds again, despite it being pretty well covered and the outrageous claims debunked by, among other stalwarts, the Christian Science Monitor at the time.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0722/Why-some-naturalized-US-citizens-swear-a-different-Oath-of-Allegiance
Here’s a link to the policy alert from DHS and the text of the memo:
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Updates/20150721-OathModifications.pdf
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Office of the Director (MS 2000)
Washington, DC 20529-2000
July 21, 2015 PA-2015-001
Policy Alert
SUBJECT: Modifications to Oath of Allegiance for Naturalization
Purpose
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing policy guidance in the USCIS
Policy Manual to clarify the eligibility requirements for modifications to the Oath of
Renunciation and Allegiance for naturalization.
Background
In general, a naturalization applicant must take an oath of allegiance in a public ceremony, in
addition to meeting other eligibility requirements, in order to naturalize. The oath includes the
clauses to bear arms on behalf of the United States and to perform noncombatant service in the
U.S. armed forces when required by law.1 An applicant may be eligible for certain modifications
to the oath to exclude the clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious
objection. This guidance updates Volume 12 of the Policy Manual to clarify the eligibility
requirements for the modifications.
Policy Highlights
Explains eligibility requirements and standard of proof for modifications to the oath when
an applicant is unwilling or unable to affirm to all clauses of the oath.
Clarifies that an applicant may be eligible for modifications based on religious training and
belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.
Clarifies that an applicant is not required to belong to a specific church or religion, follow a
particular theology or belief, or to have had religious training in order to qualify.
Clarifies that an applicant may submit, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a
religious or other type of organization, as well as other evidence to establish eligibility.
Citation
Volume 12: Citizenship and Naturalization, Part J, Oath of Allegiance, Chapter 3, Oath of
Allegiance Modifications and Waivers [12 USCIS-PM J].
1 See INA 337(a)(5)(A) and INA 337(a)(5)(B)”
So anyone coming in this country can just claim their religion prohibits them from protecting Our Country. Yea i don’t see a problem with that.
We have always allowed immigrants who’s religious beliefs prohibit them from using force. A number of the Founders and Framers were Quakers, which prohibits such things. We also, as enumerated in the Constitution, do not apply religious tests. Just as we allow those with no religious beliefs to both become citizens and affirm the oath rather than swear to the Deity and just as we have traditionally allowed those from non-Christian religions who wish to take the oath to swear on their own religion’s holy book. Doing things like this is actually a sign of strength and character as it demonstrates that our civil space and society is broad and deep enough to encompass such diversity. It is also a good practical example of the unofficial national motto that the Founders and Framers provided: E Pluribus Unum/From Many One.
All of that said, this is an issue that resulted from litigation heard and decided by the Supreme Court in the 1950s. From the CSM article I referenced above:
“According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the clauses in the Oath of Allegiance referring to military service were added as part of the 1950 Immigration Act, several years after the Supreme Court decided that the promise to bear arms was not implied in the overall promise to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Modifications also exist for those whose religions proscribe taking oaths, as well as for the non-religious: instead of saying “I hereby declare, on oath,” naturalization candidates can choose to say “I solemnly affirm,” and the last phrase of the speech, “so help me God,” can be omitted upon request.”
Forget about defending the constitution or republic, it’s an obsolete abstraction…just vote Democrat you’ll be fine.
Import immigrants, give them government benefits your denied, new votes for democrats, decline to defend the country that helped your quality of life, then bitch your not getting enough.
I’m getting to old for this.
Nah, just old enough to require reeducation. Back to first grade for you!
Wearing the costume of your former country to a swearing in at the new one?
Oh yeah, you really want to be part of the US culture. Absolutely abhorrent. I have known many dozens of (legally) newly-minted citizens over the last few decades.
They want to speak American English well, they want to dress like an American (and that gives one plenty of choices), they want to leave their old culture behind (except the food) and actually blend in to this grand experiment.
If people can’t assimilate in these incredibly broad and un-restrictive ways, why the hell are we letting them in? They’re just here for a free ride.
I can’t blame them for not wanting to be part of the culture, I’m not sure I do anymore. Our culture gave rise the Kardashians, after all.
And worse, has accepted Obumers Kenyan, Indonesian, Muslem, doper culture.
Drugs should be regulated even less stringently than firearms are now. Nearly 100 years ago, we went down the prohibition road with alcohol. It took barely a dozen years to realize that the “cure” was worse than the “disease” and to repeal Prohibition. The War on Drugs began even earlier, in 1914, and the results have been similar but we still haven’t figured it out. A better solution is to legalize everything, put it under the FDA to regulate quality, and divert the money now spent on criminal investigation, prosecution and punishment to treatment of addicts seeking to quit.
Between anti-drug propagandists, the ‘enforcers’, the jailers, and the courts, the problem is that “illegal” drugs keep too many people suckling (generally to the tune of $80K+ a year) at the government teat. And they ain’t gonna give that gravy train money up.
Drugs very seldom kill people – even on the slight chance you get addicted, unless you’re poor. Meth, heroin, crack, are essentially recreational drugs for the overwhelming majority of those who sometimes use them. Just as it’s always been. We have basically the same addiction rates as we did when you went to the corner apothecary and got pharma pure morphine and cocaine over the counter.
“Drugs” ruin lives because for the poor soul who is prone to addiction, they’re incredibly expensive and of varying purity because they are illegal. That’s it. People died from booze when Prohibition was the law – for the exact same reason. Celebs almost always survive addiction because they can afford to have a problem, and stay alive until, like most addicts, they figure out they want to get clean.
A prime example is that woman whose son overdosed on heroin, and she asked Gary Johnson at the CNN Town Hall why he wanted to legalize heroin.
The proper response would have been: (1) he died of black market heroin which leaves its customers no recourse for shoddy goods, (2) he died of an illegal drug obtained illegally and used illegally; how would legalization have made it any worse? and (3) he made the choice, it’s called personal responsibility.
Whenever this discussion comes up it makes me nostalgic for those long weekends with a good eight ball, a couple of good hookers and half a case of Tanqueray. Those were the days.
The Oath is controlled by The Naturalization Act. Obama can’t change it — BUT the part about bearing arms can be modified for pacifists, religious objectors and others who would not be required to bear arms if they were natural born citizens.
Such objectors can swear to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces, or perform nationally important work under civilian direction, in each case when required by law.
Here’s a link to the Code of Federal Regulations that sets out the Oath.
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-32547/0-0-0-32553.html
Unfortunately, there’s no requirement to swear to allah that the oath taker won’t shoot up a night club.
Wait, you mean that gun owners are the constituents of certain members of Congress, and that they may do promotions to gain publicity with them? That’s a novel idea, lets go see who the Dems politics try to swoon:
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/
Interesting bit on fabbing up primers. That was pretty cool.
You and me both on the primers.
I can think of a coupla potential problems off the top of my head, though.
Shock sensitive: In a relatively rigid gun like a stout revolver, dropping it on a hard surface may get you an out-of-battery ignition.
The mix itself: I’ll have to experiment, but I’m concerned when ground fine, the surface area of the particles drastically increases, and if the mix is even slightly hygroscopic, those damp primers may not ignite.
I’ve had matches get damp on me here in Florida and crumble when struck and not ignite.
Clear nail polish should seal them fairly well, I’ll have to whip a few up and see what happens.
Might just be better to keep the raw materials well sealed in a heavy freezer ziplock bag with a fairly aggressive desiccant pack and mix ’em needed.
I’ll give it a go next time I make a batch of primer-only foam earplug rounds I use on the back porch to shoot flies with…
Man I miss seeing Ted Cruz every day. Wish he was still running (no I won’t write him in…).Trump or bust(the Republic).
Considering how much time the Terrorist-in-Chief spends playing golf, and given that he is not that smart, I suspect that he has a suggestion box in the White Castle that says: “Suggestions – How To F**k America. First prize – ambassadorship to the country of your choice!”
The Dems want to drown us in immigrants, and H1b and H2b visa holders. They want to import a permanent Democrat majority and they are making real progress with the project.
Yes Immigrants! Please come in. No. No need for you to defend this country – ever. Just come on in, reap the benefits, destroy our culture, and vote for totalitarian marxists as your representatives, once you have the majority, you can finish us off. Please – no need to thank us. Your welcome. This is our country – but please take it – it’s all yours.
Of course they shouldn’t take that part of the oath. They don’t mean it anyway, besides if they did take that part of the oath, how could they then commit their acts of terrorism? That would be lying after all!
Y’all may be interested in a very…neutral…article from MTV. It’s about the racist history behind gun control. I’m not sure what the point of the article was beyond being an essay, but I didn’t read that closely – I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop.
“…the recent crisis around the abuse of prescription painkillers…”
Doesn’t that “crisis” sort of undermine their point, since it illustrates that those who wish to circumvent the law regarding prescriptions (or any other law, for that matter) will just do so? Why is it so hard for these people to understand that words on paper do not prevent unwanted behavior, but merely provide a framework to punish such behavior after it has occurred?
Well, actually, the argument about drugs is a pretty good one, just not the way they meant.
All a doctor can do, really, is suggest you take drugs at a specified dosage. You might not be able to purchase them, right now, without a prescription, but once you have them you can do as you please – take them all at once, take none of them, take them according to the label. It’s your responsibility in the end.
So let’s say I’m on anti-cholesterol meds, and have been told plainly by my doc that I will be on them the rest of my life, most likely. Why do I need a prescription? Why can’t I get my own HDL and LDL levels checked via self-directed blood test (which costs a whole lot less than my ins. co payment, by the way), choose a decently researched statin, and just do what the doctor would have been doing anyway as far as checking levels and whatnot? Heck, I can even – and would – get the levels checked more often than once per year.
Second, the whole meth thing is a red herring. As I understand it, the chemistry to make it is dangerous due to the volatility but relatively simple in practice, and the raw materials aren’t exactly hard to get. On a guess, it’s more straightforward to make meth than to make a gun, and cheaper, if not necessarily safer. And also a hell of a lot more profitable to resell by unit weight, volume or dose. So how’s that analogy supposed to work again?
I’ve heard “hillbilly” meth is made from no-doze cold medicine tablets, ammonia, acetone, and the lithium strip from a battery. Personally I think this should not be used for human consumption. If you need to use such a mix to get high, you are either really desperate or your life must really suck.
If you need to use Meth or any other hard/addictive drug your life must really suck. And if it didn’t before you started using, it most certainly will afterwards.
As for the “Hillbilly Meth”, any body willing to put that in their body, for whatever reason, I got no problem with that. Darwin.
it’s quite similar to bill consolidation; you’ll be trading in all of your many problems for one really big one.
When will YOU piss-ant peasants get your head un-stuck from your ASS ? WE give CONSENT to be governed ………. Remember ? …. FFFF ..what laws they pass , or what lies they SAY …. REVOKE YOUR CONSENT ,, now.
‘It is Their Right, It is Their Duty, To Throw Off Such Government ‘
Is that an “individual” right or a collective right?
We are essentially being colonized by people from other countries. I wonder if these people will force us onto reservations when they are done.
Or worse yet, force us to go back to where they came from.
Not unless they have a lot of guns.
Since no one else pointed it out, How the F does putting an orange light bulb on a prominent building “do” anything about violence? Demoncrats and anti gunners are so self important, I bet they believe the sun and moon revolves around them too!
It raises awareness. Which is all most of this country is willing to do anymore. ACTUALLY doing something that affects change is hard, you know.
The “ice bucket challenge,” ribbons of different color, specific sayings in support of events…All are trite, attention-getting devices to bring attention to the person displaying the badge more than the cause. I see these displays of solidarity and “issue awareness” and cringe. “Look at me…Look at me…I support this cause. See my ribbon?” An effortless platitude that means nothing.
I wish they would buy more of these! Ted Cruz with M249
Ted for the Supremes 2017! Can we have a do-over for 2016?
How else can a non citizen, want a be dictator, Muslim screw the country that helped him so much, because the Illuminati want him to so they can enrich themselves at the citizens expense, and our demise, of course the paid traitor’s (democrats) go right along with because it puts money in their hind pocket! most of those feeble minded Democrats have been in Washington so long they have become permanent leaches, with the man haters and perverts , why not let the rest of the world destroy our country
Good. No one should be forced to fight, especially for an entity as feckless and evil as the federal government.