Rules Regarding Our Rights
Dec 27, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
The last presidential election demonstrated that we need some controls on who we allow to vote. I had suggested that people should have to pass a test in order to vote or that people should receive more votes based on how much money they pay in taxes. This is not my idea and has been explored by others. The idea is like those who own stock in a company. Those who own more get more votes and in the case of elections, those who pay more in taxes would have more votes because they are providing more of the capital to run the country.
I remember when I made these suggestions I had a few folks who said that what I wanted amounted to racism and discrimination because I would require people to qualify to exercise a basic right. I see nothing wrong with giving a person a basic civics test and making him pass before he is registered to vote but for some reason this gets the panties of some in a wad. The videos in the bottom right siderbar clearly demonstrate why some folks should not be allowed to vote but even the stupidity displayed is not enough reason for the crowd that believes people should have unfettered access to the polling places (unless a Black Panther is intimidating people).
It is interesting to me that people would oppose an idea that would impose qualifications on a so called right. Keeping in mind that the Constitution does not give anyone a right to vote we will assume that it does for the sake of argument. That and that states have set up voting as the method to select people for office. Why would people feel offended that we would impose a qualification to exercise a right?
The very same liberals who get bent out of shape at some sort of litmus test to exercise the right to vote have no problem setting up barriers for those who want to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment. You see, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. The Founders used wording that acknowledged the right existed prior to the founding of this nation. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But it is infringed each and every day. Many states impose restrictions on who may and who may not own a gun and they are very strict on allowing people to carry them. In Maryland, assuming one meets all the checks for criminal record and mental health, one must demonstrate that he is in danger or has been the victim of threats. In some states people must register the gun, submit to a background check, attend safety classes and then, if the state feels generous, the person might get issued a carry permit. These permits and the background checks all come with fees that the gun owner must pay.
Imagine if there were a fee to register to vote. Suppose a person who wanted to vote had to fill out a form, pay a fee and then get a background check and pass a test before being allowed to vote? The ACLU and many other alleged civil rights organizations would be lined up to file the lawsuits crying about the denial of a right. They seem pretty comfortable with these restrictions on a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.
Suppose that Congress made a law that people who wanted to go to church had to pay a fee and have a background check before they could attend services or be affiliated with a religion. Suppose people had to pay fees and pay to get speech training before they could exercise free speech. All of this would not sit well with the very liberals who attacked me for my suggestion that there be a voting test and yet they remain silent when it comes to the rights of the citizens to own and carry firearms.
Well, they are not exactly silent. They are usually speaking out in favor of gun control and against the rights acknowledged in the Constitution. These are the folks who will vote for candidates who want to exercise extreme gun control and who want to ban certain types of weapons (so called assault weapons). They seem to be able to rationalize that it is OK to infringe on one right if they disagree with the right but not on any right they hold sacred.
The “right” to an abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution. The word abortion does not appear in the document and yet the Supreme Court found that right in Roe vs. Wade. This decision overturned all the laws states had regarding abortion and now the left is so wrapped up in this murderous practice that anything sensible is an assault. Require minors to tell their parents, a violation of the “right.” No abortions after the third trimester, a violation so let’s go on and have partial birth abortions to ensure that babies are murdered any time the woman wants to exercise her “right.” God forbid any lawmaker tries to write some kind of law that places any restriction whatsoever on abortion because then the left gets up in arms and sees it as an affront to a basic “right.”
Not so much for gun ownership. The left wants to impose extremely restrictive rules on the law abiding citizens who want to exercise a right that, unlike abortion, is clearly spelled out.
As we move into the anti gun administration and as people like anti gun Caroline Kennedy look to be put into office we will see more restrictions put forth in bills at the federal level. States will try to impose even tighter control. As they do, ask how you would react if these impositions were directed at the other rights that are held as sacrosanct.
Barack Obama said that he felt the government could impose common sense restrictions on rights (he was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms). If this is the case then my common sense restrictions can be placed on voters. I am all in favor of a criminal records check to buy a firearm so that criminals do not buy guns. I am also in favor of a common sense approach to voting. I wonder if Obama will feel that voting should have some common sense restrictions placed on it…
Without the Second Amendment there would be no First and if the liberals get their way it too will be in jeopardy.
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.
Tags: abortion, free speech, gun control, Second Amendment, voting
Will Obama Legalize Marijuana?
Dec 24, 2008 Political
Esquire has an article indicating that Barack Obama might legalize marijuana. This is big news for the bong toting left and a major concern among the youth in this country. On his transparent and open ask Obama site (the one where all questions about the Illinois scandal were deleted) the youth asked about legalizing the potent vegetation. The answer was that Obama is opposed to legalizing the drug which surprises me considering how much he enjoyed using it as a young man. He has indicated that he wants to decriminalize it but that is a matter of how to treat people from a legal standpoint.
I am not actually opposed to legalizing marijuana as a matter of principle. I have never used it and would not if it were legal but I find no difference between the effects of marijuana and the effects of alcohol. As a matter of health marijuana is far more harmful in a shorter period especially to the brain and lungs but alcohol is destructive to the liver and brain over the long term. Long term marijuana use has also been shown to cause mental health problems. Any drug that is abused will present a problem.
Legalizing marijuana and allowing the government to heavily tax it will bring a great deal of revenue to the treasury. If we could get politicians to use it wisely then it would be beneficial to the economy. I am sure there would be many jobs opened if farmers could grow marijuana and I bet we would have enough Americans willing to work the jobs that illegals would not have to pick weed.
There are quite a few problems that would need to be addressed. What kind of quality control would be involved in the process of growing and preparing the stuff for use? Where would it be sold and how could we control it so that it is not sold or redistributed to minors? What security measures would be required at farms to keep stoners from stealing the crop? Would Americans be able to grow their own and how much?
If we end up legalizing the drug it should be expensive and heavily taxed (revenues that will be lost if people can grow their own) so that it will not be easily available. There should be draconian penalties for those who do anything illegal with it like driving under the influence or distributing it to minors. People who are caught growing their own (or more than is allowed) should have to pay an amount equal to the taxes on whatever quantity they produce plus a substantial fine. Those who engage in illegal trafficking should receive jail time. Employers should be able to dictate whether their employees may use the substance regardless of when. In other words, airlines, the military, police departments and such can say their employees are not allowed to use marijuana.
There are many problems that are associated with legalizing marijuana but careful and thoughtful legislation (something Congress knows nothing about) could remedy those problems. Many problems will be difficult to address. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the psychoactive component of marijuana and it is fat soluble so it stays in the body for quite some time. THC is present long after the effect of marijuana has passed so people who are tested will come back positive even if they have not used it for a while. If a bus driver (or some guy in a car) has an accident and is tested he will be positive and the level might be high depending upon when he last used. How could anyone tell if he was high at the time of the accident? This is a major issue that will fill the courts with lawsuits. If that bus drive was not high but tested positive after the accident and people are injured or killed then it is a safe bet there will be plenty of lawsuits. Many employers test employees after a work related accident. If the person is positive (for any drug) they are usually terminated. How will this be resolved if marijuana is legal?
There are also issues of health. What are the long term health effects of marijuana use? Decreased brain function, lack of energy and lack of motivation are common in long term use as are severe lung ailments and brain dysfunction. If only those who use it illegally now continued then the demand on the health care system would not change but assuming that more people would use it if it were legal, how will the increase effect the health care system?
These and any number of other issues need to be addressed before we can legalize the drug. I am personally not opposed to it because I think we can tax it and make money and because it is, in my mind, not very different from the use of alcohol. I would not use it but as long as the issues are addressed I see no reason why others should not be able to if they so desire. However, I would not lose sleep if they never made it legal.
I am a bit concerned because there will be even more bong toting, Kos reading, Kool Aid drinking liberals getting stoned and I don’t know how many more of them the welfare system will support. Besides, we are now dealing with the burnt out liberals of the 60s and I don’t know if we need even more of them around in 20 or 30 years.
There is one other condition that needs to be met before we ever legalize the drug. Every state in the union must become a shall issue state for people who want to carry a firearm (those legally allowed) and that includes every jurisdiction in each state. If we make it legal to use a drug that is not addressed in the Constitution then we need to ensure the citizens in this country are allowed to freely exercise a right that is clearly enumerated in it.
Come to think of it, we need to do that whether marijuana is legalized of not.
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.
Tags: alcohol, drug abuse, drugs, marijuana, Obama, pot, Second Amendment, stoner, weed
Obama Says No Need To Stock Up On Guns
Dec 9, 2008 Political
Barack Obama must be aware that since he was elected to the presidency the sale of guns and ammunition has gone through the roof. Many gun stores report a 50-60% increase in sales, gun shows have more people than at any time in recent memory and ammunition supply places report that they are out of ammo and most is on back order. This is all because Americans are aware of Barack Obama’s stance on gun control.
But Barry says not to worry. He said that people did not need to stock up on guns because he has no intention of taking them.
“I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a news conference. “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word.”
Before it was common sense gun laws. When that did not fly it changed to safety laws and who is to say exactly what that means and according to what person’s definition of safety? Obama’s common sense laws have led his hometown to have countless murders by gun, guns that are illegal to possess in a city from which this so called gun friendly man hails (and served in office). Barack Obama has a long history of abusing the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There can be no doubt about this regardless of what he or his kool aid drinking followers say. Obama’s legislative record tells a much different story than the one he fabricated in order to get elected. He did not believe that it was an individual right and he sided with DC in the Heller case. It was not until after the SCOTUS ruled that gun ownership was an idividual right that Obama told us he has believed that all along (remember, if he says “like I have always said” or “I have not changed my position” then he is lying). Take him at his word? All of his promises come with expiration dates, just ask his kooky left wingnuts who are not real happy with him.
The NRA is not fooled by Obama:
But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it’s not Obama’s words — but his legislative track record — that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.
“Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold,” Arulanandam said.
Obama answered “yes” in 1996 to a questionnaire from an Illinois group on whether he supported a handgun ban. But he later said a staffer filled out that answer and he did not support a ban.
Obama said that a staffer filled out the questionnaire but it was filled out in Obama’s handwriting. That is a talented staffer indeed. Obama wants to take guns away because an unarmed citizenry is more easily controlled by government. This government is getting more and more out of control and it will get worse under Obama. He wants complete control so he can run his Socialist Utopia and he knows that the armed among us will not take his crap.
It should surprise no one that Obama will ignore the Constitution because he is doing so right now. He has not proven he is a natural born citizen and thus will be an illegitimate president. Maybe this is the perfect ruse for him. He can impose all kinds of things and then when the armed take the country back he can say that it is not his fault because he is not really qualified for the job. He can then throw whomever failed to properly vet him right under the bus.
If Obama is telling you there is no need to stock up on guns then you need to stock up on guns. He and the idiots who want to remove guns from society believe they know better than you how to live your life. They believe they are smarter than you and they should be deciding on dangerous things like guns. This is what Peter Hamm of the Brady Center against Gun Violence had to say:
“Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don’t think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more.”
These are people who already have more than enough guns. Who is this jerk to decide how many is enough? Does this guy go around telling people they have too many cars, or too many pair of shoes, or too many clothes? If people have the money and they want to buy lots of guns then who is Hamm (or anyone else) to say that they already have enough? This is the same philosophy that liberals use when they take you money in taxes. You already have enough so we will take some from you.
Barak Obama must think that he has credibility because he won an election. He lost his credibility a long time ago and were it not for white guilt and dreamy eyed liberals (coupled with blacks voting for race) he would be another name in a history book. His word is his bond but only to the idiots who supported him. The rest of us know better.
But Barack Says there is nothing to worry about and that we do not need to buy guns. He even says he is all in favor of gun ownership. Yes, Barack Obama is a friend to the gun owner. I don’t believe that for a minute.
And judging from the sales of guns and ammo, neither do a lot of others.
Source:
Chicago Sun Times
Tags: ammunition, confiscation, gun shows, guns, law, liar, Obama, Second Amendment
When It Gets Tough, People Want Guns
Nov 30, 2008 Political
It is well known that Barack Obama is a gun grabber. He opposes gun ownership though he did a great job of pretending otherwise during the campaign. The reality is, he is in favor of banning handguns and most types of ammunition. He is also in favor of huge tax increases on gun and ammo sales and he wants to ban so called assault weapons. When times get tough, people want the security afforded by their firearms and that is why our Founders wrote that the right (which presupposes existence) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Obama win has many people worried about the future of firearm availability during the next four years. Gun shows have had record numbers of people attending them and gun shops report increases in the sale of firearms and ammunition. People are worried that they might not be able to buy guns in the future (or that the process will be extremely restrictive) and they are stocking up just in case. When things go bad people need to be able to defend themselves. The police are a reactive force. If they showed up before a crime there would be no problem but they always show up after a crime has taken place. The best source of personal protection is a firearm in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.
Look at what happened in India. Ten terrorists caused hundreds of deaths and countless injuries and the police there refused to shoot at them. A photographer indicates that the police hid from the terrorists and did not shoot back. Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor at the Mumbai Mirror, went to the scene of one of the attacks and was able to take pictures of the terrorists. He noticed that the police were hiding and refused to engage the terrorists. Sebastian told them to shoot because the gunmen were “sitting ducks.” They did nothing and the terrorists had free reign. D’Souza stated:
“I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera.” [emphasis mine] Belfast Telegraph
We have seen time and again the tragedy that can occur when the citizenry is not allowed to carry arms. Is there any doubt that an armed person at Virginia Tech could have saved countless lives? I have no doubt that many of the police officers in this country would have engaged the terrorists but I am reminded of how the police in New Orleans abandoned the city in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. They are the exception rather than the rule but can we take that chance when our lives are at stake? There is a reason that we cling to our guns and our religion…
An armed citizenry keeps government in check and prevents tyranny (that is why they want to disarm us).
An unarmed citizenry is nothing more than a slave population.
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.
Tags: gun grabber, guns, india, Obama, Second Amendment, terror
Obama’s Win Leads To Increased Gun Sales
Nov 23, 2008 Political
It is no secret to those who pay attention that Barack Obama wants to outlaw guns. He is opposed to gun ownership and he believes that government should remove guns from the people in order to have safer communities. This from a guy whose hometown has one of the strictest gun control laws in the country but is rife with gun related crime. Barack Obama is no friend of gun owners and his AG nominee is opposed to guns as well (and free speech too here and here). Obama has taken every opportunity to restrict gun rights and yet, he won the election.
Not surprisingly, there is a run on guns and ammunition as people buy them in case they are made illegal. Many gun stores are reporting record sales (higher than after 9/11) on guns and ammo. Ammunition suppliers are reporting back orders as people buy up the what they have in stock.
Gun shows are reporting record attendance and a friend of mine reported that he was at a show this weekend and it was an absolute mad house. He said that he had never seen such high attendance at any show he has ever been to and that people were buying and buying a lot.
So, Christmas is just around the corner and there is no better gift than a nice firearm and some ammunition. I know diamonds are a girl’s best friend but she needs something to protect herself and that nice gem from unscrupulous liberals who will want to take it and spread the wealth around.
The next revolution might be just around the corner so stock up now.
Well, probably not but buy some guns anyway.
Before it is too late.
Tags: bans, guns, Obama, Second Amendment