We're Here To Help You

Once more you friends at the government, courtesy of the TSA, have kept you safe on the journeys in the airways from 8-year-old terrorist.

According to the TSA website, the toys were considered "Realistic Replicas of Firearms" which cannot be in the carry on luggage. Since the highly trained, elite employees of the TSA goose-step to their own beat, they didn't care about an 8 year-old boy who had recently lost his father to cancer. They didn't care that the "weapons" were nothing but plastic toys. The rules are the rules and everyone must follow them. They also did not give them the option of mailing them to their home or placing them in their checked baggage. That the TSA agents were then seen playing with the toys just underscores the absurdity of the situation.

I understand that these regulations were supposedly put in place for our "protection", but I also know that TSA agents have taken some leeway in enforcing them.

Fortunately the people at Disney heard what happened and sent the boy replacement toys.

This just underscores "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin

Take back your liberty by being responsible for yourself.

h/t to Fark.com

Road trip

Right now I'm in the middle of B.F.E. Iowa gloming of a WiFi connection at McDons while drinking a crappy vanilla cappachino.

Can't get a decent cell signal let alone an Internet connection. Who says modern life has pervaded every area.

Arrogance In It's Purest Form

Let me start things off by saying I am neither a Constitutional scholar nor a Constitutional lawyer. I am however a person who believes in plain language and the K.I.S.S. principle.

That being said, Marc Rubin from the Examiner has decided, as inferred by his articles, that he considers himself well versed enough to interpret what the Founding Fathers meant in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and that everyone else that does not see it his way is an idiot (ref. headline April 22nd article). If he had just ranted about the 2nd Amendment I would have just fobbed him off as another anti. But it was his arrogance that he, and only he, knew what the Bill of Rights said and meant.

Here are his articles that I am referencing:
July 13th

April 22nd
Please read both of these articles before returning back here. I’ll wait.

………

What both articles boil down to is that Mr. Rubin says that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the individual the right to keep and bear arms. He states numerous times in both articles that while he believes individuals should be allowed to own firearms they have no constitutional right to do so. He beleives that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to make sure that the States could have their own militias (i.e. the National Guard) and that these militias would be able to use and have access to the same weapons that the armed forces of the nation have.


Let's look at a few definitions:

militia
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
4. A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government .


The definition of militia has not changed since the Constitution was written, and it is still considered all able-bodied men, between the ages of 17-45. Even under the Militia Act of 1956, its definition still holds with the addition of the 2 separate classes of militia, the organized and unorganized. Mr. Rubin's idea that the militia is now the National Guard is partially correct, but he fails to recognized the unorganized militia. Currently the National Guard is just a State subset of the Active Army.

At that time a militia had started the overthrow of the government. Later on standing armies were established, but all men from 17-45 were expected to be able to pick up arms and defend the country when needed. The Framers originally did not want a standing army during peacetime because of the experience with the British rulers. But they wanted to have the populace ready to defend against any enemies, both foreign and domestic. They didn't want the newly freed people to be unable to defend themselves should the time occur.

people
1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.
2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people.
5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" (Thomas Jefferson).
6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.

Mr. Rubin also contends that when the Framers use the term "people", they are talking about the group rights of the states, not the individual. His proof is that within the Bill of Rights, the Framers used the terms person and people to distinguish between individual and state rights. If that was so, then the 1st Amendment does not allow an individual to peaceably assemble and the 10th Amendment would make no sense as it delegates the powers not given specifically to the federal government to the States and to the people.

According to the dictionary the plural of person is either persons or people. The Framers obviously had a fairly good education for their time and I would assume had a better than average command of the English language. Under these context the sentences do not sound correct if you use the word "person" to denote singular or "persons" for group rights.

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.

To me the phrase seems simple. Because we want the United States to remain free, the people have the right to own arms, to be able to defend the nation if neccesary.

"Well that means they couldn't use them for personal defense, or hunting, or just target shooting."

Actually the Constitution says:

14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That little statement tells me that the State cannot make any laws that would allow a person to be harmed or deprive them of the means to protect

Also, Mr Rubin, the last time I checked handguns were used by the armed forces in pretty much every country that has an army. Heck, that also means the so called "assault weapons" are considered military arms by the anti-gun proponents.

Also your idea that there should be mandatory firearms training is good on the face, but saying that licensing drivers cuts down on accidents is just not borne out by the statistics. No matter the requirements, there is always someone that is not going to follow the rules and hurt themselves or others, whether with a car or a firearm. You just can't regulate stupidity.

Mr. Rubin, I do hope you mean that you are pro-gun and believe that people should be able own and use firearms. Unfortunately from your logic in your articles, I can't sincerely believe it. Especially your elitist attitude that only you and a few others actually know what the Constitution means and that the U.S. Supreme Court and any other court that interperts the 2nd Amendment as an individual right are wrong and are idiots for thinking that way.

As for Sotomayor's rulings on any gun rights cases, the only one I could find was the New York case, Maloney v. Cuomo. Although we don't know whether she wrote the majority opinion, we do know that she agreed with it. And since this ruling has not been appealed as of yet, we do not know for certain if it would be upheld or not, even though Mr. Rubin assumes it would.

h/t to Sharp as a Marble for pointing these articles out.

"Tools don't matter. Actions with them do."

Oleg Volk, a very talented photographer and pro-gun activist, has a very interesting post about how it is not the tool, but the act behind the tool, that is morally right or wrong.

While you're there make sure to check out his awsome gallery of photographs. Be advised that some are NSFW.

Real Rights

"We have a right to free health care." "We have a right to drive."

My main concern is that too many people have mixed up what is considered a right and what is a privilege.

A right is a privilege granted to an individual without any prerequisite and are considered inalienable. It cannot be taken away without just cause and due process.

A privilege by itself is conveyed onto an individual provided that they meet certain prerequisites and can be taken away at anytime that the individual does not meet these requirements or if the individual abuses the given privilege.

In the United States the Bill of Rights conveys the rights specificaly outlined by our forefathers. They considered these rights to be god-given and could not be taken away by mere man. They decided these rights needed to be put into writing to keep the government from becoming another monarchy where governmental power was concentrated into a ruling class.

Some may argue that health care is a right because of the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" phrase in the Declaration of Independence. What they fail to understand is the government does do that in the form of Medicaid/Medicare, but these agencies are for those that cannot provide for themselves. Those that are able to provide for themselves have the option of private insurers.

All rights are important to the people of the United States. One thing that most people do not realize is that each one of the original rights described in the Bill of Rights is dependent on the other. If one of them is taken away then the rest will start to have no meaning and the people will slowly have no way to control their government.

It’s entirely your fault.

MSNBC is reporting today that jobless consumers will hold back any recovery that the country is making in the near future. “With home prices still falling and one in ten workers without a paycheck, the consumer spending that drives growth likely will remain weak for a lot longer.”
It can’t be that the government decided to spend more money from the TARP on companies that were either poorly run and on the verge of collapse, banks that decided to make home loans to people with little or no way to pay, or to just general programs that get their money from the regular federal budget. There is no way it can be their fault.
It can’t be the POTUS’ fault, because he is “deeply concerned” about us, so much so that the bill he signed gave money to help buy mass transit systems new equipment and construction, but until recently would not allow them to use it for operating cost such as keeping/hiring people to run all the new toys.
As stated in the MSNBC report, even if businesses see the economy starting to turn around, they are going to wait and make damn sure that it’s not going to plummet again before thinking about hiring new people. This means that the people that are currently jobless will have to either wait a lot longer to find a job that pays what they were making, or have to settle for any lower paying jobs that come along.
The good thing is that the unemployment rate seems to be plateauing, even though I’m pretty sure we’ll see double digit numbers for the nation before the top.
That means all you jobless slackers that were laid off from your jobs because your employer could not afford to keep you on need to get out there and spend, spend, spend!! It doesn’t matter that you’re not able to make the rent/mortgage. You and your family don’t need to eat every meal every day. If you don’t get out there and pump up this economy, it’s not going to turn around by 2012 and that would just make everyone inside the Beltway look bad.
When 2010 & 2012 roll around, let the good folks in your local, state, and federal levels know exactly how you feel. Get out there and vote and make certain that your voice is heard loud and clear.

July Indianapolis Blogmeet

Roberta-X has a post up on deciding the date and place for the July Blogmeet. Head on over there and let her know what you think of the date & place.

If you're from out of town and passing through or if you've local and never been to it before, the blogmeet is the perfect place to meet your favorite bloggers, discuss political/2nd amendment/whatever comes up, and enjoy good food/adult beverage, then this is the place to be.

Hope to see you there.

Make sure to contact you Congressperson

The NRA-ILA has put out an update of some pro-gun legislation. My biggest one I want to see passed is H.R. 197 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. I find it very frustrating that I can not carry my XD .45 in Ohio, because Indiana and Ohio do not have a reciprocal agreement. The same goes for when I occasionally travel to Iowa or Illinois. The nice thing is, even though Illinois does not issue concealed carry licenses, I could carry concealed in Illinois under a federal regulations.

Here is the link to the list on the NRA-ILA site and here is a link to find out who your congress people are.

Unless you let your congressman know that you would like or dislike him to vote a certain way on a piece of legislation, they will do what they think is good for them politically.

Inaguaral Post-Indianapolis Independance Day Tea Party

Welcome Readers!

We're going to kick this off with the Indianapolis Independence Day Tea Party.

Due to the Indianapolis monsoons that proceeded to fall all day, the crowd was smaller than last time. Estimates were in the hundreds as opposed to the thousands at the last one. That is not to say that the fervor shown by the crowd was any less intense. Signs showing the crowd's discontent with the way the government is running the country into the ground were poignant and to the point. Ranging from opinions about "Cap & Trade" to remembering our roots of our forefathers. Even Santa Claus made an appearance.

Promptly at 5:00 the group, lead by two young drummers, headed out down Washington Street towards White River State Park. Honking from drivers encouraged the marchers, and slogans, such as "The Redcoats are coming, the Redcoats are coming" were shouted. Cheers from bystanders on the sidewalks were accompanied by some wondering what the marchers were there for. Evidently some people are not paying attention to what is going on in this country and what the government is doing that affects them.

Upon arrival at WRSP, the crowd formed up in front of the main stage to kick off the main event. Richard Behney thanked everyone for coming out and for showing their support.

Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties pertaining to the rain, all of my recorded interviews were lost.

I did talk briefly with Chris Spangle, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Indiana. He was at the meeting along with others concerning the socialization of health care in the United States. They had a tent and were handing out free water to people along with information on what this administration is wanting to do with health care.

I also interviewed several young people that came dressed in Revolutionary era period costumes. They had recently completed some classwork on that period of time and wanted to show and voice their concern for their future that the government has seen fit to gamble away.

Due to prior family commitments I was only able to dedicate a little over an hour to the activities. Unfortunately, I believe that our elected officials have turned a deaf ear to the people that got them where they are today. They are doing everything within their power to take more for themselves and make the people dependent on the government rather than making the government dependent on the will of the people.

As a retired Army soldier, I believe firmly in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence and that the Founders knew what would be needed to make and keep this country great. We need to make sure that all elected officials, from local to the federal levels, know that we are not happy with what road they are taking this country down and if they do not change course we will be forced to make them change.