Sunday, February 12, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
The Need for the Second Amendment
By Gary Wonning
Since the beginning of our country, the second amendment has continuously been under fire. There are always going to be people who think the private citizen shouldn't have guns and be allowed to defend themselves. As much as they are entitled to their own opinion, they are erroneous in their thinking.
They believe a well regulated militia is something akin to our National Guard, and this militia is the one chosen to protect us. Even though the National Guard's objective is to protect the citizenry, in the days of our founding, every male citizen was a part of the militia and as a result it was the private citizen who had the right to bear arms. Any one thinks about it rationally realizes that living in a society where only government employees have guns would not be a good thing. This thinking displays no distrust of our military, but shows a knowledge of how thinking of this kind could lead to disaster.
Our right to bear arms is one of our basic rights, it insures our freedom, the first thing an oppressive government does is take away the arms of its people, thereby rendering them defenseless. The government can then do whatever it wants without fear of reprisal.
Even under the most ideal circumstances, we really can't depend on the government for our personal protection. As well meaning and efficient as the local law enforcement authorities may be, they simply can't be every place at the same time.
Suppose someone breaks into your house, in almost every case it is going to take the law enforcement officers at least ten minutes to arrive at your humble abode, what are you going to do in the mean time, sit down and have tea and crumpets with your intruder?
This is something most people never think about and rightfully so, it is something many people don't like to face. No one wants to confront a criminal, it is much easier for some one else to do it for us. The problem is, in most cases, there is no one else. If we don't do it, no one will, and people we know and love, including ourselves can wind up hurt or killed.
This doesn't sound like a very good option to me. Ask the career criminal what they most fear, the number one fear is the homeowner having a firearm, the second fear is a dog, and the third fear is they may call the police. Calling the police is way down the list as the criminal knows that by the time the police arrive, the chances are pretty good, they will be long gone.
Many times the homeowner will have a small sign stating they have one of the major security systems installed when they really don't, all they have is a sign. I think an even better sign would be stating,"This property insured by Smith and Wesson." This would deter even more crime. Most times the weapon never has to be used, most criminal are cowards, the threat is more than enough to drive them away.
My blog contains many articles based on the common sense of my ancestors, much of which has been lost in today's world. I feel to survive as a country and a world, we all need to start living by some of the values that have in time been lost.
http://www.uncommoncommonsense.com Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Gary_Wonning Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6637098
Since the beginning of our country, the second amendment has continuously been under fire. There are always going to be people who think the private citizen shouldn't have guns and be allowed to defend themselves. As much as they are entitled to their own opinion, they are erroneous in their thinking.
They believe a well regulated militia is something akin to our National Guard, and this militia is the one chosen to protect us. Even though the National Guard's objective is to protect the citizenry, in the days of our founding, every male citizen was a part of the militia and as a result it was the private citizen who had the right to bear arms. Any one thinks about it rationally realizes that living in a society where only government employees have guns would not be a good thing. This thinking displays no distrust of our military, but shows a knowledge of how thinking of this kind could lead to disaster.
Our right to bear arms is one of our basic rights, it insures our freedom, the first thing an oppressive government does is take away the arms of its people, thereby rendering them defenseless. The government can then do whatever it wants without fear of reprisal.
Even under the most ideal circumstances, we really can't depend on the government for our personal protection. As well meaning and efficient as the local law enforcement authorities may be, they simply can't be every place at the same time.
Suppose someone breaks into your house, in almost every case it is going to take the law enforcement officers at least ten minutes to arrive at your humble abode, what are you going to do in the mean time, sit down and have tea and crumpets with your intruder?
This is something most people never think about and rightfully so, it is something many people don't like to face. No one wants to confront a criminal, it is much easier for some one else to do it for us. The problem is, in most cases, there is no one else. If we don't do it, no one will, and people we know and love, including ourselves can wind up hurt or killed.
This doesn't sound like a very good option to me. Ask the career criminal what they most fear, the number one fear is the homeowner having a firearm, the second fear is a dog, and the third fear is they may call the police. Calling the police is way down the list as the criminal knows that by the time the police arrive, the chances are pretty good, they will be long gone.
Many times the homeowner will have a small sign stating they have one of the major security systems installed when they really don't, all they have is a sign. I think an even better sign would be stating,"This property insured by Smith and Wesson." This would deter even more crime. Most times the weapon never has to be used, most criminal are cowards, the threat is more than enough to drive them away.
My blog contains many articles based on the common sense of my ancestors, much of which has been lost in today's world. I feel to survive as a country and a world, we all need to start living by some of the values that have in time been lost.
http://www.uncommoncommonsense.com Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Gary_Wonning Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6637098
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Victory For Gun Rights Advocates
By
Daniel Hawes
On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, ensuring our federally protected right to keep and bear arms in all 50 states. The ruling states that the right to "keep and bear arms" is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. No longer will State or local governments be allowed to ban most Americans from owning most types of handguns. The ruling effectively strikes down Chicago's handgun ban, not unlike the Washington D.C. law that was already ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court two years ago in D.C. v. Heller. Gun Rights Advocates hailed the decision across the Country as a major victory before the "conservative" majority inevitably disappears from the Supreme Court Bench. Current Republican U.S. Representative and U.S. Senatorial candidate John Boozman from Arkansas said of the decision, "Today's Supreme Court decision striking down the handgun ban in Chicago reaffirms what our Founders meant by the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms.' The Court stood up for all the law-abiding Americans by ruling that the Constitutional protection of the Second Amendment extends to the city and state laws, not just federal measures. By doing so, the Court said the Second Amendment deserves the same respect from state and local governments as other rights found in the Bill of Rights." Representing the five Justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."
The same attorney that argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008, Alan Gura, also represented Otis McDonald in this case, McDonald v. Chicago. He claimed that Chicago's handgun ban fails to allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura litigated that the Second Amendment, in addition to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments. He argued before the Court that, "In 1868, our Nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee, enshrined in our Constitution, that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship." James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, responded by saying, "States and local governments have been the primary focus of firearms regulation in this Country for the last 220 years. Firearms, unlike anything else that is the subject of provision in the Bill of Rights, are designed to injure and kill."
The ruling in McDonald v. Chicago had the same outcome as D.C. v. Heller, a 5-4 decision with all Justices voting the same way. Ironically, Chicago's Mayor, Richard Daley predicted mass chaos and death when the D.C. handgun ban was struck down in 2008. Obviously, his prediction never came to fruition as Washington's murder rate plummeted over 25% in 2009 alone. The drop compares with only a 7% drop nationally. Additionally, robberies involving guns fell over 14% and assaults with guns fell over 20% during that time same time frame.
Even with these encouraging statistics, Daley has promised not to go down without a fight. He stated in the past that if and when the ruling comes down, he will impose similar restrictions that Washington did after their ban was struck down. He will require gun permit applicants to pay numerous fees, go through an extensive application process, and take two different tests. What this is doing is only allowing the people who can afford not only the gun, but a permit as well, the right to protect and defend their family. They are circumventing the spirit of the law and it is wrong. Gun rights advocates are rightfully thankful for the ruling; however, continuing work must be done in order to secure the right to keep and bear arms for future generations.
Daniel Hawes
http://www.TheGenesisReport.com
Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Daniel_Hawes
http://www.TheGenesisReport.com
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sleep Easy, America - Feds' Terrorist Watchlist Nabs Cub Scout
Friday, January 15, 2010
As we’ve reported before, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), encouraged by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, wants to prohibit anyone on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist from possessing a firearm. Yet, the list and its criteria are secret, and Lautenberg’s bill would criminalize the exercise of a constitutionally protected right while denying a person the opportunity to clear himself of accusations in a fair and open hearing before a court of law. Even today, thousands of people who aren’t terrorists cannot prevent the list from misidentifying them, causing them delays and embarrassment when trying to board commercial aircraft.
It’s one thing when an adult gets the run-around at an airport, because he or she has a name identical or similar to someone the FBI is watching. As the American Civil Liberties Union has pointed out, the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) “automatic selectee” list -- its list of people who are not permitted to board an aircraft without being given the once-over by the agency’s machines and uniformed, latex-gloved personnel -- is based on people’s names, not on physical factors like age.
But when the system is so unorganized that it cannot distinguish a kid from a terrorist, what’s going on here? Yesterday, the New York Times reported that for the last six or seven years, one of Lautenberg’s constituents -- eight-year-old New Jersey Cub Scout Michael “Mikey” Hicks -- hasn’t been able to get on a plane without being patted down like your average neighborhood hubcap thief with his palms on the hood of a police cruiser and a nightstick between his legs. Repeatedly mistaken for someone on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist since he was two years old, Mikey’s encounters with the federal government have consisted of, as his mother puts it, “Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch, someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal.”
To say that the situation is ironic is a gross understatement. The government can’t or won’t get Mikey’s situation straightened out. And he isn’t alone. The Times says that of nearly 82,000 travelers who have applied through the Department of Homeland Security to get their names cleared from the watchlist during the last three years, 25,000 are still waiting.
Yet, the government failed to add to the TSA’s “no-fly list” the self-proclaimed al Qaeda-trained Nigerian Islamist fanatic who allegedly smuggled military high explosives aboard a plane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day last year and almost blew the plane to kingdom come. As the White House report on the incident concluded, there was enough information to have placed him on the “no-fly list;” he was already in the government’s international terrorist identities database (the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE). But, the government failed to recognize that he had a U.S. travel visa (which it could have revoked) because it had misspelled his name.
TSA can spell “Mikey,” however. Despite efforts by the boy’s parents and their congressman to get TSA to straighten out the error, the delays and pat-downs continue. Meanwhile, other non-terrorists tired of their airport delays have been able to get off TSA’s radar screen by changing their names or deliberately misspelling their names when purchasing a ticket.
Irrespective of how this relates to Second Amendment issues, we think -- and more and more people are likely to agree -- that while our fellow Americans in federal service have prevented virtually all terrorist attacks in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks, numerous problems with the watchlist apparatus remain and it is long past the time that these problems should have been corrected.
Mikey’s case, however, serves to remind us of the potential ramifications for the Second Amendment, if the watchlist is used by the likes of Lautenberg and Bloomberg to their nefarious ends.
Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy
As we’ve reported before, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), encouraged by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, wants to prohibit anyone on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist from possessing a firearm. Yet, the list and its criteria are secret, and Lautenberg’s bill would criminalize the exercise of a constitutionally protected right while denying a person the opportunity to clear himself of accusations in a fair and open hearing before a court of law. Even today, thousands of people who aren’t terrorists cannot prevent the list from misidentifying them, causing them delays and embarrassment when trying to board commercial aircraft.
It’s one thing when an adult gets the run-around at an airport, because he or she has a name identical or similar to someone the FBI is watching. As the American Civil Liberties Union has pointed out, the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) “automatic selectee” list -- its list of people who are not permitted to board an aircraft without being given the once-over by the agency’s machines and uniformed, latex-gloved personnel -- is based on people’s names, not on physical factors like age.
But when the system is so unorganized that it cannot distinguish a kid from a terrorist, what’s going on here? Yesterday, the New York Times reported that for the last six or seven years, one of Lautenberg’s constituents -- eight-year-old New Jersey Cub Scout Michael “Mikey” Hicks -- hasn’t been able to get on a plane without being patted down like your average neighborhood hubcap thief with his palms on the hood of a police cruiser and a nightstick between his legs. Repeatedly mistaken for someone on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist since he was two years old, Mikey’s encounters with the federal government have consisted of, as his mother puts it, “Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch, someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal.”
To say that the situation is ironic is a gross understatement. The government can’t or won’t get Mikey’s situation straightened out. And he isn’t alone. The Times says that of nearly 82,000 travelers who have applied through the Department of Homeland Security to get their names cleared from the watchlist during the last three years, 25,000 are still waiting.
Yet, the government failed to add to the TSA’s “no-fly list” the self-proclaimed al Qaeda-trained Nigerian Islamist fanatic who allegedly smuggled military high explosives aboard a plane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day last year and almost blew the plane to kingdom come. As the White House report on the incident concluded, there was enough information to have placed him on the “no-fly list;” he was already in the government’s international terrorist identities database (the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE). But, the government failed to recognize that he had a U.S. travel visa (which it could have revoked) because it had misspelled his name.
TSA can spell “Mikey,” however. Despite efforts by the boy’s parents and their congressman to get TSA to straighten out the error, the delays and pat-downs continue. Meanwhile, other non-terrorists tired of their airport delays have been able to get off TSA’s radar screen by changing their names or deliberately misspelling their names when purchasing a ticket.
Irrespective of how this relates to Second Amendment issues, we think -- and more and more people are likely to agree -- that while our fellow Americans in federal service have prevented virtually all terrorist attacks in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks, numerous problems with the watchlist apparatus remain and it is long past the time that these problems should have been corrected.
Mikey’s case, however, serves to remind us of the potential ramifications for the Second Amendment, if the watchlist is used by the likes of Lautenberg and Bloomberg to their nefarious ends.
Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy
Sunday, January 10, 2010
What Gun Owners Should Anticipate With a Democrat Administration
By Libby Thornton
Right after the presidential elections, rumors of changes in leadership styles and policies have spawn across the country. The change that is anticipated to happen is a double-edged sword that will affect the country positively and negatively. Because of the partisan differences, the transition of the government from the conservative republican to the more lax but pro-life democrats is expected. Obama's speeches during the campaign somehow gives insight that he will be crusading for gun-less America and will do all possible moves to refrain from engaging to wars. In a wide view and in the effect of the war on Afghanistan and Iraq, the sentiments of Obama are but an acceptable notion. However, there are some small things here that should not slip out of Obama's eyes as this might cause a grim situation. Gun-less America is not an answer to peaceful America, rather it is synonymous to defenseless Americans.
Criminal rates across the country heightened as crisis has not yet been leveled and that unemployment rate rose worst than those 30 years ago. Violence is expected to even increase as this crisis continues to be in effect and that its rehabilitation is way projected for about 5 years. Aside from the crisis, the country is already suffering from lawlessness because of some factors affecting security policies and other legislations. This malady is rather sad but can even become sadder if no immediate intervention can be done with it.
Businessmen in America are usually armed with guns for defense and order in their premises. Small businesses in addition depend on their guns to foster and advance safety of the business without having to pay for a security. Too unfortunate as projected, the next president is pro on passing stricter laws on gun ownership and dealership. The reason behind this is the simple notion that the lesser the guns being issued, the lower the crime that may happen. However, criminals do not always use licensed and issued guns, most of the time; guns used in crimes are smuggled. This is what contradicts the stated notion.
According to a legislation passed in Florida, a new gun regulation is to be implemented with greater emphasis on gun ownership and dealership and focused mainly on the conduct of background checking of all applicants for gun ownership and renewing gun owners. The concern also affects gun dealers in the state including those selling at show rooms, etc. Background check of gun owners and applicants has been done for quite sometime already. But according to Florida legislators, there are flaws in the law that they needed to revise it and make it stricter.
There are resistances however from some factions that say the revising of the existing law and the implementation may contradict the Constitution under Human Rights clause. But it was clarified that said law is not necessarily intended for enforcement but for dealership only. The law suggests that gun owners be mentally checked to make sure that the intention for the ownership of the gun is not for a possible retaliation. A criminal background check will refrain from providing unlawful person to own deadly weapons publicly.
With this present issue on gun ownership, it is truly easy to say that the penny has really two faces. Though it may sound safer to have guns for defense, it cannot be assured when there is an existing law that prohibits one, in superficial sense, to own a gun. Well, it might not be that the law prohibits, but because of the strict clauses in there makes it look something not regulating but prohibiting.
Libby Thornton is 41 years old, working as a marketing executive in a leading authority on the web when it comes to criminal background check with the largest background check database consisting of over 245 million criminal records is provided.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Libby_Thornton
Right after the presidential elections, rumors of changes in leadership styles and policies have spawn across the country. The change that is anticipated to happen is a double-edged sword that will affect the country positively and negatively. Because of the partisan differences, the transition of the government from the conservative republican to the more lax but pro-life democrats is expected. Obama's speeches during the campaign somehow gives insight that he will be crusading for gun-less America and will do all possible moves to refrain from engaging to wars. In a wide view and in the effect of the war on Afghanistan and Iraq, the sentiments of Obama are but an acceptable notion. However, there are some small things here that should not slip out of Obama's eyes as this might cause a grim situation. Gun-less America is not an answer to peaceful America, rather it is synonymous to defenseless Americans.
Criminal rates across the country heightened as crisis has not yet been leveled and that unemployment rate rose worst than those 30 years ago. Violence is expected to even increase as this crisis continues to be in effect and that its rehabilitation is way projected for about 5 years. Aside from the crisis, the country is already suffering from lawlessness because of some factors affecting security policies and other legislations. This malady is rather sad but can even become sadder if no immediate intervention can be done with it.
Businessmen in America are usually armed with guns for defense and order in their premises. Small businesses in addition depend on their guns to foster and advance safety of the business without having to pay for a security. Too unfortunate as projected, the next president is pro on passing stricter laws on gun ownership and dealership. The reason behind this is the simple notion that the lesser the guns being issued, the lower the crime that may happen. However, criminals do not always use licensed and issued guns, most of the time; guns used in crimes are smuggled. This is what contradicts the stated notion.
According to a legislation passed in Florida, a new gun regulation is to be implemented with greater emphasis on gun ownership and dealership and focused mainly on the conduct of background checking of all applicants for gun ownership and renewing gun owners. The concern also affects gun dealers in the state including those selling at show rooms, etc. Background check of gun owners and applicants has been done for quite sometime already. But according to Florida legislators, there are flaws in the law that they needed to revise it and make it stricter.
There are resistances however from some factions that say the revising of the existing law and the implementation may contradict the Constitution under Human Rights clause. But it was clarified that said law is not necessarily intended for enforcement but for dealership only. The law suggests that gun owners be mentally checked to make sure that the intention for the ownership of the gun is not for a possible retaliation. A criminal background check will refrain from providing unlawful person to own deadly weapons publicly.
With this present issue on gun ownership, it is truly easy to say that the penny has really two faces. Though it may sound safer to have guns for defense, it cannot be assured when there is an existing law that prohibits one, in superficial sense, to own a gun. Well, it might not be that the law prohibits, but because of the strict clauses in there makes it look something not regulating but prohibiting.
Libby Thornton is 41 years old, working as a marketing executive in a leading authority on the web when it comes to criminal background check with the largest background check database consisting of over 245 million criminal records is provided.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Libby_Thornton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)