Strap ‘Em On
Jul 28, 2009 Political
The right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Seems very simple, doesn’t it? Two sentences, all to the point, no extra words to confuse the meaning- and yet so many people choose to willfully ignore the plain meaning in this simple and basic right that we as Americans are privileged to have.
Simply put, we, as citizens of the United States, have the right to own firearms, both to protect our families and our country. Oh, I know that nowadays if you volunteer to join our armed forces, you are issued government- approved and tested firearms, if for no other reason that ammunition is then interchangeable in a combat situation. That is logical.
But the other part of this right is about protection. True, we have the police, and when the police are on the scene, it is the right thing to allow the police to do their job. However, it is also true that, as good as the police try to be, they are still mainly a reactive force, meaning that in a majority of cases, the police cannot pre-emptively defuse a potential situation. They have to have an actual crime take place before they can do something.
By then, if it is a rape or murder, the damage has already been done. If it is a car jacking, the criminal has already fled with your $30,000 or more car- not a thing that enhances your day, not to mention there is a good possibility that you have been shot or abducted in the car jacking process.
This is why I have a CCL, (concealed carry license)- I carry when I leave home, because I would rather shoot than be shot, and these criminals need to know that there can be consequences for their behavior, and these consequences can be fatal.
Well, my rights have become a little narrower with the defeat of the CCL bill that would have allowed people such as myself to carry my firearm from state to state, within the laws of that state.
Offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, the legislation would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they “have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence” they “are entitled to do so.” It was considered one of the most far-reaching federal efforts ever proposed to expand gun-permitting laws.
“This carefully tailored amendment will ensure that a state’s border is not a limit to an individual’s fundamental right and will allow law-abiding individuals to travel without complication throughout the 48 states that already permit some form of conceal and carry,” Thune said during Wednesday’s sometimes contentious debate.
washingtonpost.com
In an extremely ironic twist, the opponents of this bill cited State’s Rights, a provision of the Constitution that they normally feel more comfortable ignoring, as if State’s Rights were the red- headed stepchild of the United States, as the reason they worked to defeat this bill.
In reality, it was more opposition to the Second Amendment than support of the Tenth that these Liberals were actually working towards. I can, however, see their flawed logic, but the true reality is that there should be uniformity among this part of the Second Amendment, so that people who do interstate commerce, such as truckers, jewelry salesmen, and others can have a consistent level of protection.
It is rather humorous that these Liberal Socialists want to federalize everything except when it suits their agenda to all of a sudden “discover” the Tenth Amendment.
In a rare instance of their trumpeting states’ rights, the liberal Democrats noted that 36 states have specific laws regarding these gun permits. Some bar conceal-carry permits for alcohol abusers and prohibit misdemeanor criminals from carrying weapons.
“The states already have laws. Under the Thune amendment, those laws could be ignored. So if the Thune amendment becomes law, people who are currently prohibited from carrying concealed guns in those 36 states are free to do so. It is absurd that we are considering this,” said Durbin, the majority whip.
washingtonpost.com
Actually, Dick Durbin has it wrong- the people who have been barred from getting licenses in their states would continue to be denied, but those people who have legitimate licenses would be able to have a continuity of legality within these states. This is a good thing. I believe that the people at Virginia Tech, or any other shooting in public, might have been well served by a citizen who was lawfully carrying a firearm at the time. Perhaps not so many people would have died.
I live by the axiom, “It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.” You cannot realistically ask a criminal to wait until you go buy a firearm in order to make the fight more equal. The criminal is counting on things being unequal, in his favor, so it really is up to you to alter the situation more in your favor. After all, it is your life, and that of your family’s that lies in the balance.
I urge everyone who feels the need, to buy their own firearm, and take lessons in correct handling of that specific weapon (and have anyone who might handle this weapon do the same), then, if you feel the need to get a CCL, do so. I have the suspicion that if everyone were allowed to carry a weapon, perhaps some of the less stupid criminals might not try to rob, rape, or murder so many people if they thought that perhaps they might not survive the attempt.
I know that when I leave my house, I make sure all my rights are with me. You should too.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 10th amendment, 2nd amendment, firearms, nra, socialist agenda
Obama Can’t Convince Those Clinging To Guns
Sep 7, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
Barack Obama has the same problem most liberals do when it comes to the Second Amendment and that problem is, they don’t support it. When they are in office and not running for election or reelection they all talk tough on gun control. They want to remove guns from the streets because that will end violence, blah, blah. They continue with this even though cities with the toughest gun control laws still have huge numbers of people killed by guns and in places where LAW ABIDING citizens are allowed to carry guns, crimes are lower. Of course, when they are running for office they act like proud supporters of the Second Amendment and that it is a right and they would not take guns. Some of them dress up like Elmer Fudd and pretend they actually support gun ownership ala John Kerry. Barry Obama finds himself in a similar spot because he has always supported strict gun control measures. He supports Chicago’s gun ban and he supported the unconstitutional gun ban in DC (both are unconstitutional but only the DC ban has been ruled on). Barry is having trouble convincing the people that he is one of them and that he believes in gun ownership:
A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’ Wall Street Journal
Conservatives don’t have to prove they will uphold the Second Amendment because their record is clear on the issue. The problem is that Liberals can’t seem to understand that the Second is as important as any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and without it, the others would likely be in peril. Obama has opposed gun ownership and he did so in his own handwriting on a candidate survey. He now says he believes the Second is an individual right (which it is and always has been) and that we can uphold the Second by allowing cities to put restrictions in place for public safety.
Have we ever heard a politician discuss restrictions on any other right enumerated in the Constitution? Suppose Senator Obama or any other Liberal wanted to allow free expression of religion except that cities could put limits in place for public safety? How about no Islamic Mosques in city limits because the call to prayer disturbs non Muslims? How about no Mosques or Synagogues in city limits because Muslims hate Jews? Maybe we could have the city shut down certain websites from reaching the city limits or certain newspapers because the comments contain hate filled speech. Imagine if a really Conservative city banned any liberal media from being sold there, in the interest of safety. Words can incite hatred and violence, better be careful.
Suppose people like Obama felt that that the Fourth Amendment is an individual right against unlawful search and seizure but that cities with high crime rates and other social problems had a right to regulate that for public safety. Maybe they could say that all cars in a certain high violence area would be stopped and searched for weapons and that homes in the area would be randomly searched for meth labs, guns and other illegal items, all in the name of public safety. Why is it that the Second Amendment is treated differently than the others?
Obama does not support the Second Amendment. His position is now more to the center because he is in the general election and he needed to tact to the middle in order to gain voters. One other telling item is that Obama selected Biden as his running mate. Biden is known as Mr. Gun Control. Biden claims to have written the assault weapons ban (which bans only law abiding citizens from having them) and has given a rating of F by the NRA. Joe Biden thinks that if you own a weapon and you consider it your “baby” you need your head examined. He believes in strict gun control and has voted against the Second Amendment so how does this square for Obama as a believer in gun rights?
Obama saw in the hand picked audience that he had skeptics with regard to his position on gun control. Saracuda hit him hard on how he spoke to people in San Francisco compared to how he spoke to those who cling to guns and religion in Pennsylvania and the rest of Middle America. It seems she was very accurate on this issue and Obama is finding it out. It is not reassuring that he said even if he wanted to he did not have the votes in Congress. Keep in mind that the Democrats are expecting to pick up enough seats to rubber stamp anything Obama wants so he WILL have enough votes, if all goes according to their plan. I also think it is funny to see the whine which basically said; C’mon, this is not really a reason to not vote for me, is it?
Your damn right it is! If we cannot trust a politician to uphold all of our rights then it is reason not to vote for him. If you had held the beliefs in my examples above there would be plenty of people who would think it was good reason not to vote for you. As a matter of fact, Obama and his running mate have both stated that they would pursue criminal charges against George Bush if they get elected (Biden said that was a lie and wanted to know where people got the idea. It was the video of him saying it, I think). These alleged crimes include violations of the Constitution. Ignoring the Second Amendment is a violation of the Constitution. People are not convinced that Obama believes in the rights of gun owners and they have good reason to be concerned. Obama has lied about his positions, here they are.
Barack Obama is having trouble with Middle America and part of the reason is his stance on Second Amendment rights. The left expects gun control and one of the things they view as negative about Palin is her lifetime membership in the NRA. Obama is beholden to the left and he will try to limit gun ownership.
The left is out of touch and Obama demonstrated that with the position that we could have a right and regulate it with control for some but not for others (which is what he really means). Criminals will not follow any kind of ban. They drank during prohibition, they use drugs that are illegal and criminals use guns everyday. They will not obey the law.
Why should anyone believe what Obama says anyway? When he won election to the US Senate he said he was not qualified to be President. Nothing has changed since then but now he is??
Believing that gun control will stop criminals from using guns is like believing that ethics reform will keep members of Congress from being unethical.
Tags: constitution, gun control, nra, Obama, Second Amendment
McCain Picks Palin
Aug 29, 2008 Political
John McCain energized the race for the presidency by selecting Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Palin is a conservative who will help firm up support from the base as well as Independents. Palin is the mother of 5 and her oldest is serving in the Army. He will deploy to Iraq in September.
John McCain showed many things with this pick. His campaign was much more disciplined and better able to keep the secret. While this might not be very important in a campaign (but I will say why it was later), it is important to national security. He also made a qualified pick that has Executive experience. While it might only be a year and a half, it is more than any other candidate has. She might just bring some of the Hillary supporters on board.
Already the pick has caused a gaffe by the Obama campaign. It released a statement on her selection questioning her qualifications. The release might be seen as an insult to Mayors across the country. The release, which stated that McCain has picked someone with no foreign policy experience to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, undercuts Obama. He selected Biden for his foreign policy credentials which is an admission that he lacks in that area. So he is saying that it is bad to have a person like her a heartbeat away but that he should be the heartbeat. As for experience, she has more Executive experience than he does so the question of experience reflects back on Obama. If she is not qualified than how can he be? The release also neglected to acknowledge that she was a Governor and instead stated that McCain selected the Mayor of a town of 9000 to be his running mate. Seems to me that is more than the number of votes Joe Biden got when he was running for president.
I am very excited that John McCain selected her. She will be good for the campaign and good for the country. I am also happy because this is who I wanted him to pick. My support depended on his selection and now he has it.
If we want to discuss change and a broken DC, who selected the person that is not a DC insider?
For those who think Biden will walk all over her in the debate, her nickname is Sarah Barracuda.
I wonder if Obama or his supporters are wishing that Hillary had been selected as the running mate? I certainly believe there are a number of people second guessing the Biden decision today. Perhaps this is why the selection was such a well kept secret.
DC Republican has a list of facts on the next Vice President of the US, Sarah Palin.
Kat from Cathouse Chat is now on board as is Gribbit from Gribbit’s Word.
Tags: energy, McCain, nra, palin, vice president