Everyday I hear things that make me wonder what we, as Americans, hold dear. It seems that most of the time there isn’t a nickel's worth of difference between the way Republicans act and the actions taken by the Democrats. One party would take everything away from us and the other would give everything that is ours away. And, there isn’t any consistency as to which party is which. I happen to be a pro-choice Republican. Not that I think abortion is right, I don’t, but I believe in the sanctity of a person's body and the decision making process belongs to the individual. I must answer to my God for my actions, not yours. That is your responsibility. Pregnancy occurs in this day only for four reasons; force, stupidity, want or God's will. In only force or mother’s health, do I support abortion as a solution. Society offers too many alternatives. Still, it remains the woman’s right to choose her course of action. Some things are right simply because they are right.
I am also very pro 2nd Amendment. I believe, as did the founders, that it is my right to defend my family and myself if necessary from my enemies and my government. The founders felt the same way. (Am I smart or what?) An individual's right to self-defense is not to be tampered with in any fashion. Some things are right simply because they are right.
The same truth can be applied to our border situation. Closing it to unwanted or undocumented is right simply because it’s right. No country with an open border policy ever held its sovereignty for long. Furthermore, dangerous people are coming across our borders by the hordes and the current administration is doing nothing about it but talk. But alas, both sides of the isle are leery of touching such a hot button issue for fear of offending someone. I can only surmise that popularity in the polls and desire to win their next election, trumps doing what is good and right for our country. Just once I would like to hear a politician of either party stand and support the closing of the border because it is the right thing to do and if Canada and Mexico are offended, oh well. Maybe they should control their people and offer them a reason to stay in their own country. How long would you put up with me if I moved into your house, spread my political rhetoric, religion and ill will about your property? How long would you put up with me if I complained about the way you treated me, if I demanded that you share your income with me, give health care to me and my extended family, educate me, cloth me and tolerate the way in which I attack the standard of living you provide for me. If you would do that for me or anyone else, then open the door, here I come.
Recently I spoke with some southern California Republicans about supporting the idea of a resolution demanding that our leaders close the border. Most did not return my calls, a few wanted to see the Resolution and a couple wanted nothing to do with it. The reasons given were without a doubt the lamest I have heard in a while. "Closing the border at this time will hurt business in my county. We hire a lot of Hispanics to fill our labor force. Such a resolution would offend our Hispanic workers", and the most absurd of all, "we are trying to build the Republican Party here in this county and that Resolution would hurt our efforts." Where did love and loyalty to country go? What happened to intestinal fortitude? Spine? Backbone? Grit? If this had been the attitude during the Second World War, we currently would be speaking a different tongue. Oh, excuse me, we already provide for that.
Close the Border Now. Demand this of your politicians. Join others who love this country, across party lines. Write letters, insist on a response, and insist on action. It is our country. We are the people. Make this an issue and hold feet to the fire. Let’s take back this country. Let me know what you think while you still have free speech.
Showing posts with label Gun Control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Control. Show all posts
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tragedy Strikes
On April 16th tragedy struck Virginia Tech in the form of a deranged gunman who, for whatever reason, killed 32 innocents and himself. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims. In no way can we get even a slight sense of their loss. By the time you read this, more information will have become available as to the reasons for this senseless killing rampage. Unfortunately, there will also be those who call for more gun control. And, it is just that faction of our society that I wish to deal with here.
The initial reports indicate that the lone gunman was of Korean origin, in this country on a permanent visa. Further, the first two killings, a man and a woman in a dormitory, were reported to involve a domestic dispute. From there the killer went one half mile across campus were he proceeded to kill another 30 and wound 15.
What kind of gun control would have prevented this tragedy? Certainly the recent ban of all guns on the campus of Virginia Tech did not. Nor did the prohibition of foreign nationals possessing firearms. Where this killer got these arms, from whom and under what circumstances are questions that need answers. It is foolish indeed for any of us to entertain the notion, even for a moment, that our police, as good as they may be, can be everywhere at once. By their very nature police are reactive, responding to crimes after they occur and attempting to apprehend the perpetrator. Gone are the days of proactive policing when officers stopped and questioned suspicious people in areas of high crime. Our litigious society and unscrupulous attorneys have seen to that. No police officer, in his right state of sanity, would attempt to thwart crime before it happens. Much safer to handle the radio call, take the report and let the detectives do their job of catching the bad guy.
So we are left with the question, who protects us? The police no longer can for fear of suit and job loss. It is not the function of our military. Our elected officials? Nope. Neighbors maybe, under some circumstances, but don’t count on it. There is only one person you can count on to protect you and that person is you. It seems that our elected officials are bent on removing that right. There are thousands of laws on the books controlling guns. I doubt that anyone reading this can give me an example of a situation regarding firearm misuse that is not covered currently. Yet our legislators will soon be demanding more as a result of the Virginia Tech shootings. To answer my earlier question, what kind of law could have prevented this tragedy? A Right to Carry law. Realistically, I doubt that it would have prevented the first two killings although it may have. I am sure, however, that an armed person could have prevented the other thirty. Now before you go all bonkers about people carrying guns and the attendant hazards involved, Right to Carry permits require extensive training, background checks, periodic qualification and considerable commitment to the responsibility of such permits. There are over thirty states with Right to Carry laws and in each one crime has been reduced significantly.
Ultimately, we will get the type of society we demand, be it one where we live in fear of gangs, terrorists, or lawsuits from ambulance chasing attorneys, or one where we take back our streets by giving latitude back to our police in dealing with criminals and gangs. We need to allow our police to be pro-active as in the past. Our border guards need protection from frivolous criminal charges and when criminals are sent to jail, it should not be fun. Convicted criminals should not have more rights than honest citizens or for that matter, live better.
Finally, we need to be responsible for ourselves. We need to demand from our legislators that they correct the mistakes of the past and acknowledge that we have the right to own, carry, and protect ourselves with a firearm.
The initial reports indicate that the lone gunman was of Korean origin, in this country on a permanent visa. Further, the first two killings, a man and a woman in a dormitory, were reported to involve a domestic dispute. From there the killer went one half mile across campus were he proceeded to kill another 30 and wound 15.
What kind of gun control would have prevented this tragedy? Certainly the recent ban of all guns on the campus of Virginia Tech did not. Nor did the prohibition of foreign nationals possessing firearms. Where this killer got these arms, from whom and under what circumstances are questions that need answers. It is foolish indeed for any of us to entertain the notion, even for a moment, that our police, as good as they may be, can be everywhere at once. By their very nature police are reactive, responding to crimes after they occur and attempting to apprehend the perpetrator. Gone are the days of proactive policing when officers stopped and questioned suspicious people in areas of high crime. Our litigious society and unscrupulous attorneys have seen to that. No police officer, in his right state of sanity, would attempt to thwart crime before it happens. Much safer to handle the radio call, take the report and let the detectives do their job of catching the bad guy.
So we are left with the question, who protects us? The police no longer can for fear of suit and job loss. It is not the function of our military. Our elected officials? Nope. Neighbors maybe, under some circumstances, but don’t count on it. There is only one person you can count on to protect you and that person is you. It seems that our elected officials are bent on removing that right. There are thousands of laws on the books controlling guns. I doubt that anyone reading this can give me an example of a situation regarding firearm misuse that is not covered currently. Yet our legislators will soon be demanding more as a result of the Virginia Tech shootings. To answer my earlier question, what kind of law could have prevented this tragedy? A Right to Carry law. Realistically, I doubt that it would have prevented the first two killings although it may have. I am sure, however, that an armed person could have prevented the other thirty. Now before you go all bonkers about people carrying guns and the attendant hazards involved, Right to Carry permits require extensive training, background checks, periodic qualification and considerable commitment to the responsibility of such permits. There are over thirty states with Right to Carry laws and in each one crime has been reduced significantly.
Ultimately, we will get the type of society we demand, be it one where we live in fear of gangs, terrorists, or lawsuits from ambulance chasing attorneys, or one where we take back our streets by giving latitude back to our police in dealing with criminals and gangs. We need to allow our police to be pro-active as in the past. Our border guards need protection from frivolous criminal charges and when criminals are sent to jail, it should not be fun. Convicted criminals should not have more rights than honest citizens or for that matter, live better.
Finally, we need to be responsible for ourselves. We need to demand from our legislators that they correct the mistakes of the past and acknowledge that we have the right to own, carry, and protect ourselves with a firearm.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Right of the People
When our form of government was established at the Constitutional Convention one of the points of contention was the people’s rights. It was agreed that one of the first orders of business for the first Congress would be the passage of a bill identifying the rights of the people regarding their government. This was done with the passage and ratification of the first ten amendments to our Constitution. This block of amendments is known as the Bill of Rights. The Founder’s insisted on a Bill of Rights because they deeply believed that the basic rights of the citizens needed to be written down for all to see. These rights were not to protect the government from the people, but rather the people from the government. The Founders were very much concerned with excesses of government, as we should rightly be today. Thus the Bill of Rights establishes our rights as people and citizens of the United States. These are individual rights, for you and for me. Webster’s Dictionary defines Bill of Rights as “the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” The point to all this is the Bill of Rights is a package of rights that cannot be separated.
Acknowledging then, the Bill of Rights was assembled and passed as a package for you and I as individuals, it follows that all ten amendments apply to us, as individuals. Logic dictates that you cannot have it both ways. If the first ten amendments, labeled the Bill of Rights, were established to identify the individual rights of the people, then you cannot take any one of them and make a case that it doesn’t. The same logic applies to wording. For example, the phrase “the right of the people” appears in three of the amendments and the term “no person” appears in one. Both of these phrases either apply to you and I, as individuals, or they don’t. Again you can’t have it both ways. The right of the people in the 1st amendment, for instance, means you and I. It cannot, therefore, mean something other than that in the 2nd amendment. Like it or not, “the right of the people” in the 2nd amendment refers to the very same people it does in the 1st. To attempt to take that right away is to put in jeopardy the rest of the Bill of Rights. If the right of the people in the 2nd amendment means only a government controlled militia, such as the National Guard, then logic follows that the same phrase in the 1st protects only the speech and religion of government officials; freedom of the press is only a government press and the right to peacefully assemble is only for government persons. The 4th amendment protects only government facilities and the 5th only government affiliated people.
By now it should become clear where I am on the issue of the 2nd amendment to our Constitution. You may not like that particular amendment, for what ever reasons, and isn’t it wonderful that you have that right. But, you only have that right as long as you can defend it. As soon as you lose the basic right to defend yourself by arms, if necessary, how long will it take for other rights that we all cherish to become null? It has been said the 2nd amendment is the “first freedom”, that without it all the others are just words on a paper to be trifled with by any politician or government. Think about it, seriously, what kind of rights do the people have in Iran, North Korea, China, under the former rule of the Taliban, or the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren?
With freedom comes responsibility and that involves the willingness to defend that freedom. Our young need to be taught that our “rights of the people” have been secured, not without a heavy cost. You may not like the 2nd amendment. But, thanks to many who gave their all, it is still there. Think before you act; the freedoms you save may be ours.
Acknowledging then, the Bill of Rights was assembled and passed as a package for you and I as individuals, it follows that all ten amendments apply to us, as individuals. Logic dictates that you cannot have it both ways. If the first ten amendments, labeled the Bill of Rights, were established to identify the individual rights of the people, then you cannot take any one of them and make a case that it doesn’t. The same logic applies to wording. For example, the phrase “the right of the people” appears in three of the amendments and the term “no person” appears in one. Both of these phrases either apply to you and I, as individuals, or they don’t. Again you can’t have it both ways. The right of the people in the 1st amendment, for instance, means you and I. It cannot, therefore, mean something other than that in the 2nd amendment. Like it or not, “the right of the people” in the 2nd amendment refers to the very same people it does in the 1st. To attempt to take that right away is to put in jeopardy the rest of the Bill of Rights. If the right of the people in the 2nd amendment means only a government controlled militia, such as the National Guard, then logic follows that the same phrase in the 1st protects only the speech and religion of government officials; freedom of the press is only a government press and the right to peacefully assemble is only for government persons. The 4th amendment protects only government facilities and the 5th only government affiliated people.
By now it should become clear where I am on the issue of the 2nd amendment to our Constitution. You may not like that particular amendment, for what ever reasons, and isn’t it wonderful that you have that right. But, you only have that right as long as you can defend it. As soon as you lose the basic right to defend yourself by arms, if necessary, how long will it take for other rights that we all cherish to become null? It has been said the 2nd amendment is the “first freedom”, that without it all the others are just words on a paper to be trifled with by any politician or government. Think about it, seriously, what kind of rights do the people have in Iran, North Korea, China, under the former rule of the Taliban, or the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren?
With freedom comes responsibility and that involves the willingness to defend that freedom. Our young need to be taught that our “rights of the people” have been secured, not without a heavy cost. You may not like the 2nd amendment. But, thanks to many who gave their all, it is still there. Think before you act; the freedoms you save may be ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)