Read Lies the government told you for Free Online Page A

Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.” The Maloney court, desperate to preserve its own political agenda, utilized a translucent shield to protect this agenda. Courts rarely use precedent that is over 120 years old, which has not been ratified in later decisions and laws. For example, a court would never think to use the analysis from one hundred years before Miranda to determine whether a confession was properly obtained. Or if it tried, the outcry would be deafening. This is what the Maloney court did. The Supreme Court will hear an appeal of Maloney as well.
    Is this what the Founding Fathers imagined when they wrote the Bill of Rights, that the people’s rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical government applied only as to the federal government, and the state could be as tyrannical as it wanted? To be fair, there is only one sensible reading of Heller on the question of whether the Second Amendment restrains only the federal government, or all governments. By writing that the right to keep and bear arms, like the freedom of speech, precedes the existence of the United States, by characterizing it as “ancient,” and by describing its use against tyrants throughout history, the Supreme Court found and declared that the individual right to keep and bear arms is “fundamental” (meaning natural, not government created) and thus is immune from all government interference, absent a state interest of the highest order and due process.
    Historical Ignorance Is Not Bliss
    The philosopher Santayana once said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And it seems that we have not learned from history and we shall let the government lie to us once again. Currently there is a hue and cry about renewing the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. In 2007, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), a strong supporter of renewing the Assault Weapons Ban, spoke of the mass murders at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School to justify the need for a ban on high-capacity assault rifles. The guns used in those tragic events were not assault weapons, but a legal variety of firearm. Yet, the government will lie and lie again to serve its own ends until the general public supinely believes it. One should consider what the result would have been if one student present at either of these massacres had firearms training and was able to carry a weapon to take down the killers. How many lives would have been saved?
    President Obama has stated that he “has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hand of criminals . . . [and] [t]hus supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban. These weapons such as AK-47s belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. These are also not weapons that are used by hunters and sportsmen.” Such a short statement, yet so full of either mistaken beliefs or continuing government fraud.
    As John Lott points out: First, the Assault Weapons Ban did not, as discussed, ban fully automatic weapons; second, the firing mechanisms banned are the exact same as those in the semiautomatic weapons used by hunters and sportsmen. Third and foremost, the percentage of deaths attributed to fully automatic weapons is so miniscule that no person could attribute them to the high murder rate of any city. 27 As should be clear, we do not know any better and we have not learned that governments, no matter from which party, are adept at deception.
    Since, as noted earlier, there is no evidence that an assault weapons ban reduced crime in the United States, even when the research was compiled by bureaucrats in the Clinton administration who were assuredly searching hard, the federal government recently attempted to reinstate the assault weapons ban, this time claiming that it “will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” 28 In Mexico ? Apparently, even though the expiration of the ban has not had
an effect on overall violent crime rates in the