Rights and Wrongs...
Updated Friday, January 24, 2003
Monday, May 13, 2002
And then there were none.
“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”. The Declaration of Independence.
Legislators throughout the country continue to push through bills on gun control. They neglect to notice (or just plain disregard) that the cities and states with the strictest gun control laws are the ones that have the highest violent crime rate. They continue to state their idea that our founding fathers never foresaw the use or creation of fully automatic weapons. And they continue to state that for our own safety that guns should be removed from our households.
Sadly, these very people, who are trying to reduce our rights to keep and bear arms, are some of the most well armed people in the country. Our Congressmen, Mayors, Governors, etc. all carry concealed weapons and have bodyguards who carry, as well. Some might consider this to be ironic, however, history has shown that those people who are empowered and well armed have always attempted to disarm the general populous before a complete governmental takeover. Perhaps this a bit of a paranoid take on the matter, however, history is known to repeat and Governments are not known for their relinquishment of power.
At the rate the anti-gun laws are being passed it will soon be completely illegal to own or even look at a handgun in the near future. To many, this is a cause for celebration. However, these very people who oppose guns should be in fear. Not of weapons fire, but in erosion of weapons fire. You see, as our law makers whittle down the Bill of rights they whittle down your freedoms. And, they do so without amending the US Constitution and, they do it with the blessings of many Americans – did they forget how and why the USA came into being?
The first freedom to go will be your right to self-protection. Next, they will remove your rights to privacy and against unlawful search and seizure. And by the time you notice it, your rights to criticize the government and its leaders will be gone. And, the democracy you take for granted will be replaced by despotism and tyranny.
If you think this is some Orwellian fiction consider that your government already legislates your personal safety and has removed your right to choose to buckle or unbuckle while driving. Isn't there a movement to make burning the US flag illegal? Consider, too, the so-called “Clear and present danger” ruling by the US Supreme Court regarding freedom of speech.
Now, consider the fact that if you say something that offends someone you can lose your job. If you happen to be a bigot, your job and career may be in jeopardy. As I recall we have a right to be bigots. Furthermore, isn’t losing your job because of your beliefs against the law? Not when it goes against politically correct dogma. And wasn’t it suggested that Bill Mar (sp) was a traitor because he criticized the US method of attack in Afghanistan?
So, the next time you cheer for some anti-gun legislation remember that you are cheering away your rights. And wonder, what’s next?
Meanwhile, I’m waiting to follow the Worms...
“…But
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right,
it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
their future security…”
Declaration of Independence
Sunday, September 8, 2002
The constitution clearly states: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING 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.
This means that the FCC is an Unconstitutional body. But, if you operate an unlicensed radio station and operate it you can be fined and/or incarcerated. And, they have the power to fine radio stations for thier broadcast content.
Now, how did this all happen?
Thursday, October 31, 2002
OK, the anti-gun lobby never sleeps. It has been suggested that anyone who purchases a gun should be required to take a course on gun safety and should learn some basic marksmanship skills.
Now, I have no problem with people taking marksmanship and gun safety classes. In fact, I would recommend taking them for anyone not familiar with a gun. I, frankly, don't want some moron armed to the hilt anywhere near me. So, I agree that people SHOULD take classes if they don't know how to handle a gun.
But you see, when lawmakers can require you to meet certain criteria in order to exercise a right it isn't a right. If in order to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights I have to pass a course what is to stop them from making me take a special English comprehension course before I exercise my right to free speech? What is to stop them from passing laws that make me take a course in religion before I choose a religion for my own?
It is one thing to be anti-gun. But, when you try to erode my rights and yours through unlawful means you are harming both you and I. So, if you want to get rid of guns you should stop promoting gun control laws. You should begin trying to get a change in the Constitution.
Furthermore, by passing or promoting laws that infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights you are doing something that is un-American and un-Constitutional. And don't try to tell me that it is un-American…if it goes against the Constitution it is un-American by definition.
Think about
it and be glad that our founding fathers had the vision that they had.
Monday, December 23, 2002
New Jersey just passed a law that would make guns usable only to the person who originally purchased the weapon. The idea is to house a microchip in the weapon that recognizes the grip of the person who owns it. To many gun control advocates this seems like a pretty good way of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. However, it is one of the most silly, impractical and dangerous attempts at gun control to this date. And of course, there are several Constitutional issues, as well.
First off, the technology to do this does not exist. This makes it very silly. Furthermore, making a firearm is a relatively simple process. It assures that there will be many more homemade firearms and it would make standard firearms sell for a premium value, much like illegal drugs. What's more, the only persons purchasing these so-called "smart" guns would be law abiding persons who have no intention or likelihood of using the firearm for illegal activity.
As far as practicality goes, this law is severely flawed. Guns are expected to have a microchip that can tell one persons grip from another. Well, what happens if a gun owner likes to use a different hand from time to time? What happens if their grip differs from one shot to the next? What happens when one person is at the shooting range with friends or family and he wants to teach his wife, son or daughter to use his gun? Will he have to purchase several different firearms, one for each of them? And, finally, what happens if the chip goes bad or if the electrical system that must be included in the weapon fails? Will he have to purchase a new weapon or send the weapon back to the factory at additional cost to repair it? Oh, and does anyone have a computer? Ever seen it crash? Are you going to have to reboot your gun should it fail for some reason? An intruder would love that. None of this makes any sense at all and is incredibly impractical.
Now, for many reasons, as I have stated above, this is a bad law. But here is where such a law becomes very dangerous. The majority of handgun owners have them for self-defense. Most owners of handguns never use their guns for anything but target shooting and to keep available if an intruder invades their home. What happens if a husband who owns a gun for self-protection is gone and his wife is at home when someone invades their home? The wife would be unable to use that weapon for self-protection. And, if that were the only weapon available her life would be in jeopardy.
The Constitutionality issue of this law is a very interesting one. First, of course, there is the second amendment (article II) "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Now, many will argue that this law does not prevent gun ownership. True, but it does infringe on my gun ownership rights since it is not the governments right to tell me who can fire my gun. Furthermore, should the chip goes bad in my gun I cannot fire it. Therefore, I cannot bear arms against an intruder. Furthermore, a gun that cannot fire is merely a large piece of metal. A gun fires a projectile. Should this chip fail my gun is no more than a paperweight. What's more, should my family be threatened the only person who can use my weapon is myself. This infringes on their rights to bear arms since the weapon will not work for them.
To conclude, this appears to be a way for those opposed to guns, to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Clearly, this is not the way to stem crime. Frankly, this only assures that the only people who have guns that fire are those who are possessed of criminal intent. And, as has been proven many times over, gun control laws fail. Criminals are more likely to commit crimes where they are most likely to get away with it. To date, the states with the least gun control laws have a lower percentage rate of gun related violence than those states that have fewer gun control laws.
With the anniversary of the famous court case of Roe v Wade on the horizon I thought that I would put my perspective on this landmark case.
The resulting situation is terrible law.
Many people out there will agree with me on the simple basis that they believe that abortion is murder. Folks, until science can prove that it is murder I will not be in your corner. You people really need to put your bibles down and learn how to argue logically instead of arguing based on faith. It just won't work.
Many people out there will disagree with me because they say that it is a woman's right to do what she wants to with her own body. If this were the case she would be allowed to smoke pot and take acid at any time. So, that argument doesn't exactly work. However, that is not the basis for my claim that Roe v Wade is bad law.
Roe v Wade is bad law because it gives the woman direct control over the lives of three people while completely dismissing the rights of one person - the father.
The first scenario is that of a woman who wants to abort her baby while the father wants her to keep it so that he can be a father. The father has no say so and she can abort the baby should she choose to do so. The father has no recourse and no control over this.
The second scenario is that of the father who wants to abort the child while the mother wishes to keep the child. She can keep the child without his consent. Again, the father has no recourse or say so in her choice. W hat's more, she can then make him pay child support for this child. Where is the fairness and the justice in this? The way that this law stands the future of the father is in the hands of the mother in waiting. He bears nothing but burden and she bears the choice. That is not very just.
You can't have it both ways. If you have total choice over a situation then you must claim total responsibility for the situation. So, the law needs to be changed to either give the father some choice in the matter of the abortion or non-abortion or it should be changed to give him a choice in what roll he will take in the child's life.
This is
America, after all.