USA Today Vote on Second Amendment

I had this message emailed to me today:

USA TODAY IS TAKING A POLL ON 2ND AMENDMENT - GUN CONTROL

Obama's new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with U S A Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the interested friends you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms. Here's what you need to do:

VOTE

The Question is: " Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"
Answer choices are: Yes or No or Undecided then click on V OT E now white tab!

Getting to the Heart of the Healthcare Debate

Millions of protesters at “tea parties” and town hall debates are an obvious indicator that there are clearly differing views throughout the American population regarding government provided healthcare.

Polls have indicated for quite some time now that more people are opposed to government provided healthcare than support it.

Whether against the present Obama-supported healthcare plan due to fear of high costs, poor performance, government intervention, or any number of reasons, in the end all these reasons really funnel down to one central idea – mistrust of government.

The debate over government provided healthcare in the United States is in essence a debate between people who generally trust government, and people who generally mistrust government.
The words “generally” in the statements above are crucial words. Few people always trust or always mistrust government. It is a general perspective of trust versus mistrust that is at the heart of this debate.

To the chagrin of big government supporters, the United States was founded under a purposeful mistrust of government. The United States Constitution was set up to give people maximum liberty precisely because the founders did not trust government. The second amendment to the US Constitution is a direct descendant of the founders mistrust.

The left may not like this built-in mistrust of the US Constitution, but unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the rest of us), the Constitution is the law of the land.

This idea of governmental mistrust is something that most liberals don't understand. The US Constitution is meant to err on the side of too little government, not too much. It is why the left is wrong in the healthcare debate.
Keep in mind that just because the left is wrong in this debate, does not mean that they will not prevail. For this reason, liberty-loving Americans need to continue to stand up to the anti-Constitutional socialization of America.

Obama's First 100 Days -- Connecticut Political Leadership Phone Numbers

The Democrat's and the Obama administration have no respect for the US Constitution, and the people of this country know it.

In Connecticut (my home state), requests for pistol permits are at all-time highs. In the town of Southington, permit request have already surpassed the total requests for the past 2 years, and we are only in April.

Nationwide, gun and ammo sales are soaring.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the people of this country have already sniffed out the attack on the US Constitution lead by Barack Obama, specifically his plans for attacking our second amendment rights.

Don't stand idly by and let it happen. We can feel the assault on our rights is coming (based on the permit and sales data), so be sure to do something about it. Fight for your legal rights. Join the NRA. It's not expensive. You can find a link to the NRA in the "Favorite Links" area of this website. Your membership comes with your choice of 3 good magazines. There are 60 million gun owners in the US today, but only 4 million active members of the NRA. This needs to change.

The left is great at demonstrating, protesting, and working up firestorms for their favorite issues (think of the anti-war protests during the Vietnam war, and even more recently the protests of the Iraq war). It's much easier for the left to cause disruption because they don't hold themselves to the rules of respect, decency, or even law (think of the criminals that tried to disrupt the 2008 Republican National Convention, or the criminal that recently attempted to hit best-selling writer Ann Coulter with a pie while she delivered a speech at a college campus). However, it's time for us on the right-of-center to take action with our voices, actions, and money.

The NRA is not just about guns. It's about protecting our Constitutional rights. If one of our individual civil rights (the second amendment) can be attacked, repealed, or destroyed, what's to stop them from moving on to other rights they don't like, such as freedom of speech (think Fairness Doctrine), freedom of peaceable assembly (think of the total disdain on the left for the recent "Tea Party" protests), and on and on and on.

I recently attended a game dinner held at a local church. The cost was $40 per ticket. The food started at 5:30 PM and did not stop coming until 10:30 PM. The menu included bear meatballs, venison steaks, venison lasagna, wild mushroom soup, pheasant, rabbit, goose, salmon, venison chili, and many other great dishes. It's one of the local highlights of spring in northwest Connecticut. I dare say there was possibly not one Obama voter in the crowd of 200+. If there was one, they would never admit it! The organizers of this dinner provided a list of phone numbers of local politicians so the voting public could remind our political leaders to honor the oath they took to uphold and protect the Connecticut and US Constitutions. I've provided a copy of the list below:

To Help Fight For Our Gun Rights Call:

1-800-842-8267 CT House of Representatives - D

1-800-842-1423 CT House of Representatives - R

1-800-842-1420 CT State Senate Democrats

1-800-842-1421 CT State Senate Republicans

1-800-406-1527 Gov. Jodi Rell

1-202-224-2823 U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd

1-202-224-4041 U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman

2nd Amendment Protects Citizens From Incompetence As Well As Tyranny

The recent shooting in Mumbai, India could have been controlled. The bloodshed could have been significantly reduced, and maybe eliminated. The Islamic terrorists in Mumbai walked though the crowded city unimpeded by anyone. Due to laws making it close to impossible to get a firearm in India, the security guards in the various hotels and buildings were unarmed. The few police that were not fleeing only had bamboo sticks in which to fight back. Citizens only had stones in which to hurl at the attackers.

You can search the blogosphere and find several sites pointing out how if the Indian citizenry had the right to own guns, this disaster could have been largely abated. Putting that fact aside, regardless of what the citizens could have done had their rights not been impeded, the Indian government had absolutely no police or security force equipped to handle such an incident. Mumbai had no SWAT teams. No special forces units. They did not even have armed police officers! This goes beyond gun control. This is plain incompetence.

Imagine what the police response would have been to a similar incident in an American city. The terrorists my have been able to attack one place, but they would never get out. Even if the citizens did not defend themselves, police and SWAT teams would have surrounded the attackers in minutes. Streets would have been cordoned off. Snipers would have been on rooftops. Tear gas canisters would have been at the ready. A serious police force did not even arrive in Mumbai until the next day. Can you imagine gunmen running around Manhattan without any police resistance for an entire 24 hours?! It would never happen because the governments (local, state, and national) have some level of competence when it comes to fighting crime. It is hardly perfect, but comparatively, it is excellent.

Previous to this tragic incident, I had only thought of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution as a tool against government tyranny. However, after this incident I have come to realize that the Second Amendment is indeed protection against government incompetence as well as tyranny. It's now evident that the Indian government cannot be trusted to competently protect their citizenry. Therefore, the Indian people, and all people, should have a right to keep and bear arms similar to the rights spelled out in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Episodes such as the Mumbai shooting, and 9-11, prove the danger of putting too much blind trust in government to provide protection for you and your family. A person needs the right to protect themselves in situations in which the government cannot.

Governmental Erosion of Personal Liberty -- Connecticut Town Institutes Smoking Ban on Public Street

As Reported in the Hartford Courant: Bristol, CT -- Bristol Considers Smoking Ban On Public Streets

-

I'm not a smoker. I never have been and I never will be, so as far smoking goes, I have no horse in this race. However, I am a citizen that is concerned with governmental intrusion into our lives. Smoking is generally unpopular, so it's an easy target. When government over reaches it's bounds in any direction, it's dangerous for all of us. An attack on the freedoms of one group encroaches on the freedoms of all.

The town of Bristol, Connecticut has banned smoking on a small town road (Newell Road), and is considering implementing a smoking ban on all city streets that boarder parks, schools, libraries, and hospitals. Outside. A total ban. OUTSIDE folks!

Smoking generally does not bother me (as a non-smoker) as much as it tends to bother other non-smokers. I tend to agree that smoking bans in indoor public venues are generally a good idea. However, when is enough enough?! The nanny-state already "protects" us from ourselves with seat belt laws, transfat bans, indoor smoking bans, "unhealthy" snack bans in schools, and various blue laws. Now they are moving to smoking bans outside in public places?! We're not talking about an outdoor concert or the like where people are gathered outdoors in close proximity. We're talking about a general ban.

I've written about bans before on this blog. I don't like them. Bans are dangerous. My frustration is that the general public seems to willingly give up their personal liberties with nary a peep.

This smoking ban may be unconstitutional. What's worse is that it just makes no sense. Who is the mayor of Bristol trying to protect? With huge budget deficits facing the state of Connecticut, and perhaps the town of Bristol, perhaps the mayor should be concerned with real issues rather than attacking personal freedoms for political showmanship.

Surprise, Surprise! US Supreme Court decides that the country should actually follow the US Constitution!

In a 5-4 ruling the US Supreme Court determined that the second amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution applies to individuals. This is the first time ever that the Supreme Court has ruled on individual gun ownership. This ruling renders a 32 year old handgun ban in Washington DC, and similar ban attempts in Chicago illegal.
Regardless of how you feel about gun ownership, this ruling seemed pretty straightforward. The court basically ruled that, yes, the second amendment DOES apply. It cannot be ignored. They are saying that the country actually does have to follow that document we consider "the law of the land". What frightens me is that 4 people who are supposed to be intelligent, legal experts actually voted against the ruling!
Look folks, we either follow the Constitution or we don't. There can be no in-between. You may personally not like guns, or personally believe they should be banned, but unless you are able to amend the constitution (and a process exists for that), you have to respect the document. Too often our political leaders pursue issues based on the prevailing winds of the day, rather than the true doctrines with which this country was founded.Can you imagine if some municipalities (such as Washington DC) decided that the first amendment did not apply? Can you imagine that Washington DC leadership decided that they did not like some of the articles published in the newspaper, so they were going to ban the press within their boarders??! Of course, this would cause an absolute outrage (as it should). However, similar attacks on the second amendment are accepted. Again, regardless of how you feel about guns, the attack on our Constitution has to make you sick. Thankfully, there were 5 justices that were wise enough to uphold the Constitution. Halleluiah! Comments welcome. Let's hear from you in intelligent debate.