Apply Same Sex Marriage Argument To Second Amendment
Apr 28, 2015 Commentary
It works better there…
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today regarding same sex marriage. Two items are at issue here. The first is whether the Court will require all states to allow same sex marriage and the second is whether states that do not have SSM will be required to honor SSM from states that do allow it. If the first one passes the second is basically moot. If the second one passes then it invalidates the first because people can travel to get married and then return to the state that does not allow it.
It appears to be an all or nothing issue.
I read some of the arguments and do not agree with a lot of the pro argument side. There is no Constitutional right to marry. This applies to any kind of marriage. No one has the right to marry period. People have to apply for a license and the state can deny that license for any number of reasons.
The reality is that marriage is something that has been defined as the union between a man and a woman for a very long time. The US even made polygamy illegal thus strengthening the issue of one man and one woman.
The other reality is that marriage has always been an issue that was decided by the individual states. Different states have different rules for who can and cannot get married. You see, there is no right because you need permission.
It is also true that marriage has been seen as a religious institution for a long time. The government got involved for a number of reasons but the basic concept has its foundation in religion.
A state has the right to define marriage so some states have SSM and others do not. It is important to note that the large number of states that have it is no indication that most favor it as many were forced to recognize it even though their citizens voted against it. Activist courts forced them to accept it.
I have read many posts about the issue. People are claiming that this is a basic right and government should not be allowed to restrict it. They claim that people should not be allowed to vote on these rights and they are being discriminated against. They further claim that most of society agrees with it so it should be made the law of the land.
I have already shown that it is not a constitutionally protected item and that states have the right to regulate it (not the federal government). But let us ignore that for a moment and assume these people are correct.
Why not use this same logic for firearms ownership and carry where it would more appropriately apply? The Second Amendment is absolutely in the Constitution and it protects the preexisting right to keep and bear arms. It further states that right shall not be infringed.
But liberals, the very same group that is saying SSM is a right and that it should apply to all states equally especially since most states already allow it (a fact that is skewed by court action) will say that people should not own or carry firearms and that states can decide what they want to do. These are the very same people who will work hard to have this protected right banned.
[note]During arguments one of the justices asked about clergy being forced to perform these marriages if they are made legal. He was assured this would not happen as there is a First Amendment right to protect them. They have ignored the Second so what makes anyone think they will obey the First? Once it is legal Obama and his DOJ will force clergy to perform them under threat of jail. Look at how florists, bakers and photographers who have religious objections are treated.[/note]
Most states allow either open or concealed carry (or both) and they do so without the court forcing them to. People in some states are discriminated against because they can’t do the same thing with regard to firearms as those in a majority of the states. A majority of the population is in favor of firearms ownership and shall issue carry permits. As an aside, I prefer must issue with no permit required. If you pass the check to get the gun you can carry it any way you want.
If the Supreme Court decides that marriage is a right and that the federal government can define it and thus allows SSM to be the law of the land in all states then it only follows that the same should hold true with regard to firearms.
The Court should immediately invalidate all state gun laws and issue an order that all states will be must issue.
The Second Amendment, unlike any kind of marriage, is a right protected by the Constitution.
Funny how liberals always call things they want rights and then say everyone has to give in and honor them while they continue to ignore the G-d given right to keep and bear arms.
I think the SCOTUS will allow SSM. They clearly have no sense of Constitutional rule as evidenced by their decision on Obamacare. Our society is on the decline and will not be around much longer. SSM is one more thing needed to ensure the demise of society.
I do wonder though why states would even obey the ruling. Just tell the feds you won’t do it. What will they do? Tell the SCOTUS you don’t agree and do your own thing.
Obama has been doing that so it is not like he could object.
He certainly has not suffered any consequences of his refusal to obey…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: agenda, gun control, lies, rights, same sex marriage, scotus, Second Amendment
Freedom Means For All No Matter What We Think About It
Nov 11, 2014 General, Military
Freedom of religions and expression is for everyone no matter what others think of what is expressed…
There is an NBA player named Dion Waiters who refuses to stand for the National Anthem. He claims that as a Muslim it violates his religion. I don’t know how it could but I am not a Muslim and it is not my place to judge or interpret his religion so long as what he does in no way infringes on my rights or the rights of others.
The fact is he has a right not to stand for the National Anthem and if he chooses to exercise that right it is his business. A lot of people do not agree and have been calling him out and that is their right as well but the one thing they can’t and shouldn’t try to do is force him to comply.
This is Veteran’s Day, a day when we honor those who have served this nation. We served to protect the rights of the citizens of this great nation and that means that sometimes folks will do things within their rights that we don’t like. When they do it means veterans did their jobs and did them well.
It might not go over well that I feel this way but freedom is for everyone no matter what they choose to do or not to do so long as they don’t hurt or bother someone else. I don’t like the fact that he will not stand to pay tribute to the nation that allowed him to succeed and gave him all the opportunities in the world BUT I will die defending his right to do just that.
I think it is a dishonor to the nation when people do not stand for the National Anthem particularly when there are so many veterans who can’t stand at all BUT the reality is freedom means people get to choose things that others might not like and when they do those things without fear of punishment it affirms that our veterans have done their jobs well.
People do not have to like what this guy does (that is THEIR right) but if they are unwilling to tolerate his right to do as he wishes (in this case based on his religious beliefs) then those folks have no claim when their rights are violated.
When one of us loses our freedom we all lose our freedom…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: dion waiters, freedom, religion, rights, veterans
Stop While We Get Your DNA
Nov 20, 2013 General
People in Fort Worth Texas were funneled into a single lane and then they were asked to move into a parking lot. There were contractors working on some government program to collect DNA to see the number of people on the road who were driving with an intoxicating substance in their system. People could give a mouth swab, blood or do a breathalyzer.
All of this was voluntary and there were plenty of signs indicating so and people were paid if they gave a mouth swab or blood.
BUT, it did not feel voluntary. People who read the signs and did not want to participate were still forced to pull into the parking lot by Fort Worth police officers. People indicated that they were told it was voluntary but it did not feel voluntary. They were detained even if they did not want to participate.
One of the handouts indicated that the air inside the car was passively monitored for alcohol (this is done with small machines that sample the air which contains the exhaled air of the driver). No one volunteered for that but it was done as part of the process that forced them off the road and delayed them.
It does not matter if the entire exercise was voluntary if the police did not act like it was voluntary. If people believed they were being compelled to participate and if they indicated they did not want to participate and their car’s air was sampled and they were delayed then their rights were violated.
I hope those who did not agree are able to get this resolved with perhaps some sort of legal action. I am not normally a sue them first kind of person but government and its police state is getting more and more brazen in the way it violates our rights.
If we make it hurt by taking their money then perhaps they will get the message and stop violating our rights.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: dna, fort worth, pressure, rights, violation
Excellent Letter To Liberals
Oct 22, 2013 Political
Jeremy Choate at Sufficient Reason has written a brilliant letter to liberals entitled “Dear Liberal…Here’s Why I’m So Hostile” and it is spot on. The portion dealing with people’s rights is well thought and clearly explained so that anyone should be able to understand.
Here is a snippet:
If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list — none of the rights listed above [Bill of Rights] require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being. Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else. Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens. Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone. A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet — and it is unconditional.
The entire letter is here and I highly recommend it.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abortion rights, demands, fdr, liberals, Obama, rights
Despite Denials, Government Is Spying On Us
Aug 1, 2013 Political
The government swears (and we can trust them) that they are not looking at our stuff. Why, they only collect metadata and only worry about terrorists and people with overseas connections. They are as pure as the driven snow and would never violate the privacy of the citizens of this great nation.
The head of the NSA said so and we can trust a guy whose job is to keep secrets and do spy stuff that no one is allowed to discuss.
Edward Snowden claimed that the government is reading all kinds of stuff and has invasive programs that can snoop through all kinds of things. He said that he, as an analyst, could do it from his desk. It looks like an article in the Guardian confirms what Snowden told us. The government has a program known as XKeyscore which makes available everything you’ve ever done on the internet. We will pause while you think back to what you might be worried about.
3-2-1
OK, XKeyscore searches your browsing history, searches, email content, online chats and your metadata. The very things Snowden said the government could do and the very things the government has denied.
[note]Isn’t it funny that government claims it must do certain things (like this) to keep us safe so it basically rationalizes spying on us but when a guy like Snowden reveals the program he is a criminal. He spied on them and revealed what they were doing. How is that different from what they do to us? I still have reservations about how he did things but he revealed a serious problem.[/note]
Think the government is not spying on you? A family was visited by the police after the wife searched for pressure cookers and her husband searched for backpacks. While there might be a problem with this and they might be planning something bad the reality is that both items are legal to purchase. The bigger picture item is; how did the government know what they were looking at online?
Let that sink in. There are probably ways that this could have been discovered BUT now that we are aware of the snooping that takes place and its extent one must wonder how government knew this information.
The government continues to deny many things and promises us that it is not invading our privacy but more and more we are seeing that this is not the truth.
As for the XKeyscore program, we are assured that safeguards are in place and it is not used to spy on people.
You mean like the safeguards in place to prevent the IRS from releasing data to other agencies, or being used as a political weapon against certain organizations? Or perhaps like the safeguards in place to keep voters from being intimidated like happened in Philadelphia? Or maybe the safeguards put in place to ensure guns did not get in the hands of criminals under Fast and Furious.
Let’s just say the government has given us no reason whatsoever to trust the alleged safeguards designed to keep our information private and to keep us from having our rights violated. It appears as if the only safe place is wherever Obama’s birth certificate and college transcripts are housed.
One has to wonder if XKeyscore found anything on Chief Justice Roberts. That would explain why he allowed Obamacare to stand by rewriting the law.
In any event, they are spying on us all the time. Keep that in mind. No matter what they say to your face they are spying on you behind your back.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: backpack, constitution, lies, nsa, pressure cooker, rights, snowden, spying