Gun control has never made any sense to me. I don’t understand why anyone is willing to depend on Law Enforcement to protect them. This is not an insult to those in Law Enforcement; it is just a statement of a fact. Law Enforcement cannot walk around with each person 24/7. It’s just a numbers fact. Not only can they not be there, do you really want them to? Think about it, do you really want a police officer hanging out in your home all the time? Owning a firearm is like owning a fire extinguisher. I am not a firefighter because I own a fire extinguisher. If a fire breaks out I want to be able to fight that fire. Who knows maybe I can even put it out without involving the fire department. Even if I call the fire department, it takes them several minutes to respond. So if I have a small campfire that jumps the campfire ring, should I grab a fire extinguisher and put it out before the fire catches the whole woods on fire? Or should I leave it to the professionals and let it get out of control? A firearm is the same principle.
A bad guy breaks into my house. I used my firearm to stop the burglary and call the police. The situation has stopped and no one (except for the bad guy maybe) is hurt. When the police arrives in twelve minutes (if you are lucky its that quick) they arrest the bad guy.
So here is the thing, if you don’t believe in protecting yourself with a firearm, throw away your fire extinguisher, and first aid kit, all your tools. Leave all those jobs for the professionals!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Will Barack Obama and Rev. Rick Warren Violate the First Amendment?
I read an article today about President-elect Obama’s choice, Rev. Rick Warren, for the inaugural prayer. There has been a small but vocal opposition to his choice. Besides the issues Rev. Warren has stood for, the emphasis is on what he may say. The AP writer showed concern that lawsuits would be filed for invoking the name of Jesus or Christ in the prayer. Does invoking the name of Jesus violate the First Amendment of the Constitution, or is it protected by it?
A couple of years ago I was taking a Critical Thinking class in college. The instructor gave us a list of topics to choose from for our projects. I decided to be bold and write about ‘One Nation under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. I soon found out that not only was I the only one who argued that it was constitutional, but I also had a lot of fun defending it. I often wonder what our founding fathers would say if they faced the same arguments today.
During the Critical Thinking class, I learned how hostile individuals are when it comes to religion. The first thing from their mouths were the words, “that is unconstitutional”. My classmates would argue that “Under God” was an establishment of religion. Michael Newdow sued to have “Under God” taken out of the pledge for that very reason. My question to them was, “How did it establish a national religion?” They never gave me a good answer. Their answers were based on feelings.
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers #84, made the argument that there was no need for a bill of rights because they were stipulations between kings and their subject, and there were examples of rights already given in the articles of the constitution. He said, “It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification (Magna Charta, Petition of Rights, and Declaration of Rights), they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.” In other words, free men already possessed the rights granted by the Bill of Rights.
Let’s see what The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The section of this amendment that has had the greatest controversy is “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”. The congress, under the Articles of Confederation, had been working on the constitution with fresh memories of the Church of England. The king or queen was the head of the church. Whether they were Catholic or Protestant dictated what religion their subjects belonged to. The intent was not to take church out of the state, but to keep the state form heading the church.
The bill was a direct order to the congress that had the power to write laws. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines established as “to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement”. In other words, congress cannot create and control a permanent national religion. The Head of the Church of England required the English people to attend and pay tithes to the church. They were persecuted if they practiced any other religion.
The second part stated: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof”. Congress is prohibited from stopping anyone from exercising their religion. With this in mind, how does a prayer, or any INDIVIDUAL religious action, violate the First Amendment of the Constitution? It does not. The phrase “Separation of Church and State”, as it is used today, is in direct violation to the First Amendment. The correct phrasing should be, “The Protection of the Church from the State.” If there was a “Wall of Separation” between the church and the state, than it would have been written into the bill.
I was disappointed when my Critical Thinking class was over, but the lessons I learned were valuable. On January 20th an invocation will be delivered. Our soon to be president, Barak Obama, has enacted his right to choose Rev. Warren to pray during his inauguration. I hope, for our sakes, that the First Amendment will be used to protect our rights and not trample them. Do not look at the First Amendment as a control on the church. But, look at it as stipulations between congress and the people. The Declaration of Independence was written on behalf of the people to the King of England. In the same way, the Bill of Rights was written on behalf of the people to the Congress of the United States of America.
A couple of years ago I was taking a Critical Thinking class in college. The instructor gave us a list of topics to choose from for our projects. I decided to be bold and write about ‘One Nation under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. I soon found out that not only was I the only one who argued that it was constitutional, but I also had a lot of fun defending it. I often wonder what our founding fathers would say if they faced the same arguments today.
During the Critical Thinking class, I learned how hostile individuals are when it comes to religion. The first thing from their mouths were the words, “that is unconstitutional”. My classmates would argue that “Under God” was an establishment of religion. Michael Newdow sued to have “Under God” taken out of the pledge for that very reason. My question to them was, “How did it establish a national religion?” They never gave me a good answer. Their answers were based on feelings.
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers #84, made the argument that there was no need for a bill of rights because they were stipulations between kings and their subject, and there were examples of rights already given in the articles of the constitution. He said, “It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification (Magna Charta, Petition of Rights, and Declaration of Rights), they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.” In other words, free men already possessed the rights granted by the Bill of Rights.
Let’s see what The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The section of this amendment that has had the greatest controversy is “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”. The congress, under the Articles of Confederation, had been working on the constitution with fresh memories of the Church of England. The king or queen was the head of the church. Whether they were Catholic or Protestant dictated what religion their subjects belonged to. The intent was not to take church out of the state, but to keep the state form heading the church.
The bill was a direct order to the congress that had the power to write laws. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines established as “to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement”. In other words, congress cannot create and control a permanent national religion. The Head of the Church of England required the English people to attend and pay tithes to the church. They were persecuted if they practiced any other religion.
The second part stated: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof”. Congress is prohibited from stopping anyone from exercising their religion. With this in mind, how does a prayer, or any INDIVIDUAL religious action, violate the First Amendment of the Constitution? It does not. The phrase “Separation of Church and State”, as it is used today, is in direct violation to the First Amendment. The correct phrasing should be, “The Protection of the Church from the State.” If there was a “Wall of Separation” between the church and the state, than it would have been written into the bill.
I was disappointed when my Critical Thinking class was over, but the lessons I learned were valuable. On January 20th an invocation will be delivered. Our soon to be president, Barak Obama, has enacted his right to choose Rev. Warren to pray during his inauguration. I hope, for our sakes, that the First Amendment will be used to protect our rights and not trample them. Do not look at the First Amendment as a control on the church. But, look at it as stipulations between congress and the people. The Declaration of Independence was written on behalf of the people to the King of England. In the same way, the Bill of Rights was written on behalf of the people to the Congress of the United States of America.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
But Obama said he wouldn't?!
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Dumbama says he supports the Second Amendment, but does he? The above is straight from the new & improved www.whitehouse.gov . Soooo what is wrong with it you may ask? How about its just a flat lie.
First Tiahrt Amendment does not restrict local law enforcement from trace data. If a firearm has been used in a crime any law enforcement agency can access that data to investigate a crime. What it does do is prevent lawyers from accessing the data to create huge law suits against gun companies. It also does not allow anyone random access to go fishing for something to charge you with. It is like a door on your house. Do you want anyone from the government just randomly wandering through your house to see what you can be charged with? It is the exact same thing. Again when a firearm is used in a crime any law enforcement agency can access the data.
How about keeping guns away from children that seems like a good measure right? Except if protecting children is your goal, you would be more effective if you went after swimming pools. That’s right swimming pools. More children are killed in drowning accidents every year than are harmed by firearms, according to the Center for disease control. The fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible. Since they are responsible, they teach their children gun safety.
Gun show loopholes is next. What loophole? If a dealer sells a gun anywhere, gun show, store, or even your backyard, he has to go through the same process. Fill out all the forms, a federal criminal background check, and any other local regulations. So where is the loop hole? There are none. What is really at work here is the private transfer of firearms. I have a shotgun that has been handed down through about three generations in my family. The shotgun will go to my son and his son after that. This so called loophole will stop that from happening. Can you imagine not being able to hand down a family heirloom?
Last but not least is the Assault weapons ban. This targets the most popular rifle in the country, the Armalite model 15 or AR-15. (AR stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle) This rifle is NOT used by the military. The military use an M-16 that has a selective fire switch. The AR-15 is a family defense weapon, hunting rifle, and plinking rifle. It is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. It is the most popular weapon being sold right now. Every manufacturer of this weapon is back ordered. So why ban it? Cause it looks dangerous? I see people walking the streets all the time that look dangerous, do we allow the police to lock them up for looking dangerous? How about for looking stupid? (Although the argument could be made to lock up stupid people.)
During the ninety’s we were subjected to a ban on certain types of guns. We must ask did it accomplish anything. Well the answer is, NO! As a matter of fact the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006 said that not a single Law Enforcement Officer was killed using an “Assault Rifle”. The FBI said Law Enforcement was more likely to be killed with their own handgun. Finally when the ban was lifted what happened? Nothing! There was not an increase in gun violence. There were no gangs of raping & pillaging running through the streets. The only thing that has happened is the price of these weapons came more to a market price, instead of the inflated ban price.
So there you have it. The truth about dumbama and his support for the second amendment. You have to ask yourself if he is this wrong on something so clear, how can he be clear on anything?
Dumbama says he supports the Second Amendment, but does he? The above is straight from the new & improved www.whitehouse.gov . Soooo what is wrong with it you may ask? How about its just a flat lie.
First Tiahrt Amendment does not restrict local law enforcement from trace data. If a firearm has been used in a crime any law enforcement agency can access that data to investigate a crime. What it does do is prevent lawyers from accessing the data to create huge law suits against gun companies. It also does not allow anyone random access to go fishing for something to charge you with. It is like a door on your house. Do you want anyone from the government just randomly wandering through your house to see what you can be charged with? It is the exact same thing. Again when a firearm is used in a crime any law enforcement agency can access the data.
How about keeping guns away from children that seems like a good measure right? Except if protecting children is your goal, you would be more effective if you went after swimming pools. That’s right swimming pools. More children are killed in drowning accidents every year than are harmed by firearms, according to the Center for disease control. The fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible. Since they are responsible, they teach their children gun safety.
Gun show loopholes is next. What loophole? If a dealer sells a gun anywhere, gun show, store, or even your backyard, he has to go through the same process. Fill out all the forms, a federal criminal background check, and any other local regulations. So where is the loop hole? There are none. What is really at work here is the private transfer of firearms. I have a shotgun that has been handed down through about three generations in my family. The shotgun will go to my son and his son after that. This so called loophole will stop that from happening. Can you imagine not being able to hand down a family heirloom?
Last but not least is the Assault weapons ban. This targets the most popular rifle in the country, the Armalite model 15 or AR-15. (AR stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle) This rifle is NOT used by the military. The military use an M-16 that has a selective fire switch. The AR-15 is a family defense weapon, hunting rifle, and plinking rifle. It is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. It is the most popular weapon being sold right now. Every manufacturer of this weapon is back ordered. So why ban it? Cause it looks dangerous? I see people walking the streets all the time that look dangerous, do we allow the police to lock them up for looking dangerous? How about for looking stupid? (Although the argument could be made to lock up stupid people.)
During the ninety’s we were subjected to a ban on certain types of guns. We must ask did it accomplish anything. Well the answer is, NO! As a matter of fact the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006 said that not a single Law Enforcement Officer was killed using an “Assault Rifle”. The FBI said Law Enforcement was more likely to be killed with their own handgun. Finally when the ban was lifted what happened? Nothing! There was not an increase in gun violence. There were no gangs of raping & pillaging running through the streets. The only thing that has happened is the price of these weapons came more to a market price, instead of the inflated ban price.
So there you have it. The truth about dumbama and his support for the second amendment. You have to ask yourself if he is this wrong on something so clear, how can he be clear on anything?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
