Gun Rights and Control

This here is an Essay I wrote for English class.

“An 88 year old woman was in her home, she heard a knock on the door, A stranger was outside, he asked to use her telephone, She let the man in, but instead of using the telephone, he beat her, raped her, and stole 50 dollars, she somehow managed to get a hold of her husband’s gun, and shot the attacker, he was later picked up at the hospital for gunshot wounds.”

This is a story from the Southern Sentinel a newspaper in Ripley, Mississippi. Her story and many like it are found on the first page of the National Rifle Association’s newspaper The American Rifleman these stories serve to highlight the need of firearms for home defense. However, firearms also serve other purposes, such as hunting, fighting back against a tyrannical government, and unfortunately, criminal acts. The Second Amendment to the constitution states “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” but what does this text mean? Does it mean an individual right to bear arms? Or the right of law enforcement and the Army National Guard? I believe this text refers to an Individual right to keep and bear arms by the populace.
The second amendment was written in a time when laws were based off English common law. In fact, our constitution as a whole is influenced heavily by English Common law. In 1803, St. George Tucker, a contemporary English law scholar of the time wrote: “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction”. [Sic] Most gun control advocates claim they wish to ban “assault weapons” and don’t mind “hunting weapons” or the right to hunt. However, most of the founding fathers probably didn’t care about the right to hunt; most were “city-slickers” so why would they include a right to bear arms to preserve the right to hunt? And why would they say “a well-regulated militia”? Most gun-control advocates claim the presence of the term “well-regulated militia” means that the 2nd amendment pertains to the right of the National Guard and Law enforcement only. They often cite Miller v. United States. “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense” (Miller v USA) However, it must be noted that Miller was decided not under the Second Amendment, but under the Interstate Commerce clause, Jack Miller had transported a sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma, where the firearm was allowed, to Arkansas where it was not. “Misters Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully...transport in interstate commerce from...Claremore...Oklahoma to...Siloam Springs...Arkansas a certain firearm...a double barrel...shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length...at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce...not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, ...and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order...as provided by Section 1132C”As a result, the case made no significant impact on Gun rights. In July 2008 the Supreme Court decided Heller v District of Columbia. The Issue was whether or not the Handgun ban in Washington DC violated the US Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment applied to the individual, and not the State. “that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning”
Therefore the key words being “right” and “people” In addition the term “militia” as defined in 1793 meant “all males between the ages of 17 and 45 and fit for military service” The founding fathers intended a comprehensive right of the populace to be armed.
Gun control advocates also try to use emotional ploys to gain support for their political agenda, such as Michael Moore in his “documentary” Bowling for Columbine, in which he leaves a picture of a little girl killed in a school shooting in the house of the late Charlton Heston, former president of the National Rifle Association. Like ambulance chasers, they wait for a tragedy so they jump on their soap-box and preach the word of their agenda to the masses at a time when it’s considered “distasteful” to speak against them. What about the 88 year old woman in the opening of this paper? There’s no practical she could’ve fought back hand to hand, A firearm is the only way she had to defend herself. Criminals are often strong people with knowledge of street fighting and access to knives, clubs, or illegally obtained firearms. Often they have no mercy for their victims, for the average John and Jane American, they only way to even the odds against criminals is with a firearm. I don’t care how many people you’ve “shanked” if I hit you with a .38 caliber round at 30 feet away you’re on the ground and I’m safe. Most Americans aren’t Black belt, Navy SEAL/Army Ranger professional knife fighters or hand to hand experts. But only 15 hours worth of training time with a hand gun gives you a competitive edge if, god forbid, you need to defend yourself against such people. While gun control advocates keep using the same familiar names, Columbine, Flint Michigan, Virginia Tech, ect. It must be noted that all the shootings they cite take place in “gun-free zones” what if the School Administrators had access to pistols? What if 18 year old students were allowed to have rifles in their automobiles? What if teachers with concealed carry permits had been allowed to carry on campus? It’s possible that they could’ve stopped the shootings quickly. Gun-control Advocates often point to the School Resource Officer program, while the program does improve school safety, there’s often not enough Law enforcement, often times there is only one SRO for a whole district, usually he’s uniformed, and parks a Marked Law Enforcement Vehicle in the parking lot, any criminal or school shooter can tell whether or not the cop is at school, and probably remove him from the equation while the Officer isn’t looking. It’s harder to tell when people who wear T-shirts and blue jeans have a gun on them, and just knowing that their victim or a passerby might be armed deters most petty criminals, and probably a lot of dangerous ones too. In addition, most criminal firearms are stolen, and a lot are imported from Mexico, so banning firearms will only serve to disarm the populace and leave them defensless against criminal attack, Michael Moore can stow the whining, and “this girl was killed in a shooting” Ambulance chasers are never right when they try to use emotions.
Finally, what gives government the right to decide what law-abiding citizens can keep in their homes? Most of them are never in a position where they need to defend themselves, they’re surrounded by Secret Service, or US Marshals, or State Patrol, or City Police, and in the case of the president, all of the above. Most Americans can’t afford to have a gauntlet of tough looking 6’3’’ guys wearing Smokey Bear hats or Tuxedos and ear pieces protecting them everywhere they go, and most of the places I have to go, police response time in 20 minutes or more. The sad truth is, unless you live across the street from the precinct, the cop’s only job when they get there is to take names and count bodies. In most counties in the US outside of the big cities, there is virtually no police presence, and no way for the people to protect themselves other then with firearms. Mason County In Western Washington for example, has only 46 sworn Deputies to cover 1051 square miles. Police are not likely to arrive in time for any meaningful help. So people have to fend for themselves. When faced with this argument, the gun control croud often brings up arguments about the “Wild West” and how everyone had a gun and lots of people were killed. In fact the “Wild West” as we know it never existed, the famed “Gunfight at the OK Corral” resulted in the deaths of only 3 people, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, all at the hands of US Marshals, many similar gunfights were fought through the west, but it was never anything like the giant cowboys and bandits gunfights immortalized by John Wayne and Buck Jones movies. And finally, I’ll discuss these “gun exchange” programs, basically, Gun control groups like the Million Mom March and the Brady Center sometimes offer “incentives” to give up guns, you can exchange a firearm for it’s value in cash. The only problem is, it makes gun crime worse, criminals will often pay far less for guns on the street then market value, so they’ll simply trade in their weapons, then re arm and have cash to spare. It’s not an effective means of dealing with gun crime.
So what measures should the government be allowed to take? The government should have the right to restrict fully-automatic firearms, and heavy military weapons. However, small arms (classed by having a bore .60 caliber or smaller, or any muzzleloading firearm, this definition is set by the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives (BATFE)) Felons should not be allowed to possess firearms, nor should people who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, nor those who have been involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital. I think these are reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. Firearm Ownership is a comprehensive right to law abiding citizens of this nation.

Emotional Hardship

Well, this looks like it, i'm once again single, and I think this time is for good. I'm just dying over here, It's so not fair

But I'll be ok, I got lots of friends, sorry to readers who've been waiting, but i'm going to delay the next post, i'm in grieving, and i don't know when i'll be better.

uhhhhhh

Myths and Lies about the Medieval Crusades

We now live in a system where people don't get the whole truth. Many high school students are taught bogus information in "Religous Education" classes, most of these portray Christians negatively and airbrush Muslim history with absurd claims such as "The Muslims preserved Roman knowledge" or "The Muslims lived peacefully with the Jews and Christians" and that the crusades were "wars of aggression" against "peaceful Muslims". these claims are outright wrong, so to help sort through political correctness that has infiltrated our education system, I'm starting a history series to help separate myths from reality.

MYTH: The Crusades were wars of aggresion against Islam
REALITY: The Crusades were defensive wars fought to contain Islamic aggresion and to Assist the Bynzantine Empire

After the Death of Mohammed Islam spread widely throughout the Bynzantine empire, by force. The Muslims laid waste to every thing in sight, sacked numerous citites, and made it to the Gates of Constantinople. The Seljuk Turks had burned churches in Jerusalem and killed clergy throughout the city. by 1009 AD they had conquered much of the Middle east, causing the Byzantines to put aside the Chism and request help from the West. The West's response was to launch a crusade to aid the Bynzantines, answering a cry for help, not a war of aggresion against the Muslims.

MYTH: Muslims lived peacefully with Jews and Christians until the Crusades
Truth: Not exactly....

The Berbers are a perfect example, during the conquest of Africa many Christian and Jewish berbers were attacked and slaughtered by Muslim berbers. Islam expanded by force throughout Africa as well as Persia. the Persians were destroyed by the Muslims and assimilated by force. The Sassanian empire suffered the same fate. another instance is the Tatar invasions, where muslims set out to pillage, loot, and burn down christian settlements in Eastern Europe

MYTH: ISLAM MADE MANY SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS
TRUTH: ISLAM STOLE MOST OF THEM.

Perhaps the biggest lie is the idea that Islam made many scientific accomplishments and preserved the knowledge of the Roman empire, which the European Crusaders "rediscovered" during the crusades. in fact, the Byzantines preserved that knowledge. And the Muslims disregarded it until the Bynzantines began to use the Roman science to make superweapons for their defense (such as "Greek fire") Several Historians have also uncovered evidence that the books of the Library of Alexandria were used as fire fuel. This story is also told by many written accounts from the Medieval era. The Muslims made most of these "advancements" after destroying most of the Bynzantine empire, and thus taking what was left of Byzantine science and copied.

The last stand of the West

UN is full of idiots. plain and simple. The United Nations has condemned Israel for launching relentless airstrikes against Gaza. The airstrikes were intended to disable the military might of Hamas, the political party in charge of Gaza, Hamas agreed last year to a truce, every single Jew in gaza was removed and the Muslims were given their own space. Well, all the moderates were killed or exiled by the extremist party Hamas, which had begun launching frequent Quassam rocket strikes against Israel. The results have been horrendus, 12 deaths and 700 wounded. including an 8-year old boy who had both his legs blown off by a falling rocket. Children play soccer on quarter size fields, they only have 15 seconds to make it to their shelters once the air-raid siren goes off. Israel conducted a large scale airstrike last saturday, killing 250 Hamas militants and destroying large amounts of critical infrastructure.



Last summer, the Republic of Georgia attempted to attack Tskhinvali to end South Ossetian separatist attacks, as a result the Russian Federation launched an invasion of Georgia that went far beyong "saving the Ossetians from genocide" in fact the Russians went far beyond protecting the Ossetians, they now occupy Ossetia and Abkhazia, with tanks sitting ready to invade again.



The cause of these conflicts may be simpler then it seems, a geuine hatred of liberal western society, does Russia honestly care about Eastern European people who hate authortiy (the ossetians) their treatement of the Chechnyans would say otherwise. Ultranationists in Russia, the abundance of unguarded nukes, Islamonazism, and Anti-America sentiment is go up in the upper circles of society in many parts of the world, while the lower classes seem intent on immigrating to the US or Europe for economic or social reasons. The dictators of the Earth strongly dislike the US and Western Europe, along with all countries that seem like them (Israel, India, South Africa, Georgia)

But despite the strong threat from Islamonazis, Russians, and the Third world in general, The West is doing nothing about it, western Europe depends upon Muslim immigrants to keep their populations up, and are leery of doing anything to upset the muslims. With the exception of UK most of Europe has reverted to a 1968 on steroids style of living and are dangerously oblivious to the danger posed to their way of life. The US now has a president who is more concerned with Saving the UAW and the Big Three in Detriot rather then Hamas or Russia. low birth rates have lead to near economic collapse in Europe, especially Italy. The US population is only expanding due to immigration. That won't last forever, and when immigration hounds on the extreme far right finally get "immigration reform" that makes it too hard to immigrate here, then our economy will have enough and likely fall, as it is already. Leaving the last Western hyperpower unable to compete in global markets with China, India, Pakistan, ect.

We need to get our act together

We need to slash spending

We need to stop punishing buisness

We need to stop pursuing social programs

we need to destroy Evil wherever it may grow

We need to slash enviornmental regulation that leaves us unable to compete economically

We need to support our Allies

We need to not be averted to warfare when nessecary

We need to pray.

simply put it, we need to get smart. Will 2009 be the beginning of the end for Western society? will Russia overtake the old republics? will Hamas be crushed? or will international pressure cause Israel to abandon Operation Cast Lead? the first die has been cast. And so begins, the last stand of the West.

Hey PETA!

Hey you! yes You! Are you a liberal? are you a vegan liberal? are you a gullible hollow head who will do anything for the "movement" (aka a liberal vegan)? Do you think the head of Foster farms is a Hilteresque pig who should be put to death? will you tell children who's parents are suffering from AIDs "F*** you" and firebomb universities working on a cure? Will you rally outside animals shelters? and most importantly, do you think meat amounts to the holocaust? YOU'RE IN! JOIN PETA TODAY!



People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, sounds good. right? I mean, who is really against the "Ethical" treatment of animals? The problem is that they aren't for the ethical treatment of animals. They're a extremist group that is indirectly responsible for the deaths of many and uses terrorism to achieve their ends. Sealed in their tax returns for 1994 included large sums to Rodney Coronado, a delusional nut-job who firebombs universities conducting medical research using animals. Not only has this delayed research on life-saving cures. But has caused millions in property damage. Coronado, who has the nerve to compare himself to the late great Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. has expressed no apology for his acts. And PETA has no qualms handing him cash.

PETA has also run offensive advetising using images of Hitler's concentration camps juxtposed with Industrial farming techniques, this advertising de-values human life, and is offensive to the memory of 6,000,000 Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Slavs, ect. who were wiped out by Adolf Hitler. But wait! it get's better! PETA has run a set of advertisements called "Your mommy/daddy kill animals!" Geared towards children, these ads are distributed at schools, parks, and over the internet. If the Ku Klux Klan were handing out ads saying that blacks were created by satan, they would be arrested for child-endangerment (and rightfully so) but if PETA passes out pamphlets saying "your parents kill animals" then they get a freebie. That's justice?

PETA also runs ads using thin naked women to promote a vegan diet. Now I will admit right now that I (along with most heterosexual males above the age 14) Will tune out the words and watch in utter fascination as Alecia Silverstone climbs out of a pool nude. But what about the effect on young girls? studies have shown that teenage girls are more likely to develop a negative self-image, leading to anorexia, bulimia, and a whole host of conditions that can lead to extreme weight-loss and malnutrition. While vegan diets can be healthy, alot of people who practice them don't know how to manage a vegan/vegetarian diet. if these people have children, they might try to force a child on a vegan diet. The baby can suffer everything from mental retardation, to nutritional rickets, to death.

In conclusion, PETA is public nuicance at best, a domestic terror group at worst. People like them deserve no place in modern society

John McCain's list of endorsements.

Don't think John McCain should be president? These people do.

Capt. James Lovell USN (ret.), Astronaught on Apollo 13, starred in Movie "Apollo 13"

Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State under Richard Nixon

General James B. Davis, USAF (Ret.) - former Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (NATO)

Sylvester Stallone, actor in the "Rocky Balboa" series, "Rambo"

Carly Fiorina, Former CEO of Hewlett-Packard

General Carl E. Mundy Jr. , USMC (Ret.) - former Commandant of the Marine Corps

Col. George "bud" Day USAF (ret.), Medal of Honor Recipient.

Lorenzo Lamas, actor

Chuck Norris, no questions asked.

Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay.

George Shultz, former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan.

R. James Woolsey Jr. , former head of CIA under William CIA under Bill Clinton

Debra Bartoshevich , Former Hillary Clinton delegate.

John Rich, Country singer from "Big & Rich"

compare this to Fidel Castro, Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, Ludacris, ect. and the choice shouldn't be hard, then how come so many people still support Obama, just look at the endorsement lists, who do you trust more? a medal of honor recipient or Bill Ayers? the choice is yours.

It ain't over John, the line is in sight, sprint to the finish.

McCain's performance on wensdays debate was simply phenomenal. Obama was looking all around, getting nervous, McCain laid all of Obama's talking point to waste, from Joe the plumber to "I'm not George Bush" McCain performed very well. but it will have been meaningless if McCain continues to slack off on his campaign.

Senator, for all of your talk and rallies, you haven't been performing on TV and Radio ads. You got off to a good start with the "worlds biggest celebrity" and "The one" ads. But you if you don't follow through then you won't get elected. What's interesting to note is that polls usually trend liberal before elections, nearly every poll taken weeks before election day had the Democrat above at least 4 points, but even now McCain is tying in polls, polls putting McCain more the 4 points below are rare. Whenever McCain has had significant airtime (the GOP convention, for example) He ties in polls. Considering previous poll history, McCain is in a good spot right now, but good is the enemy of great.

John McCain needs to agressivley advertise in the swing states that matter most. This is it, John it's your turn to hold the keys, but you got to work for it, use your money, buy ads, it's now or never. if you don't get noticed you won't get elected, so get down from your high horse and into the fight. let's win this. and for the good of our country, you better.