My take on the 2nd Ammendment

"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."

I'll keep this short and sweet.  The 2nd Ammendment gives us a right AND a responsibility.

We have the right to bear arms.  That means we have the individual right to own firearms and defend our homesteads.  We are not limited to those arms that effectively defend our homesteads.

However, we have a COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY to follow the government's regulation of the collective population of American firearm owners to defend the state as a "well regulated militia".  As such, the nation-state can regulate our collective behavior with firearms.    

I dismiss the argument that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to forcibly resist "government tyranny".  It's not like we don't have government tyranny.  The law preventing people from crossing the street in New York City while talking on their cell phones may be a tyrannical limitation of our personal freedom.  However, if a New York Policeman were to give me a ticket for doing so, it would be the height of immorality to draw a firearm and shoot the policeman who is merely doing his/her job. Americans still have the means to confront this tyranny without violence.  YOUR personal definition of "government tyranny" does not give you a right to use force to confront it.

I used to ridicule the argument that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to forcibly resist "government tyranny".  Proponents of this argument pointed out that some of our founding fathers commented that this was the purpose of the amendment.  I don't care!  If the founding fathers who proposed this thesis held a prevailing view, the 2nd amendment would would have contained such language.  It doesn't.  Therefore, I dismiss the argument, but I no longer ridicule it.  The reason is that the 2nd Amendment is part of the BILL OF RIGHTS, a collection of amendments ratified to guarantee our freedom.  Therefore, while the 2nd Amendment does NOT give us the right to resist whatever we as individuals perceive as "government tyranny", it was fully reasoned that the right to bear arms was a necessary right to insure the freedom of Americans for generations to come.  

As a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", it is impractical to regulate a one-man militia.  The Supreme Court has limited certain types of arms available to the public.  Fully automatic firearms have long been banned.  Furthermore, the government does not allow individuals to own their own F-16, Abrams Tank, and other armaments that would allow an individual to function as an un-regulated one-man militia.  This is a reasonable restriction under the "well regulated militia" definition

So what I'm saying is that the 2nd Amendment cannot be interpreted by commentary of one or more "founding fathers".  The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not agree on everything.  Rather, the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted word-for-word.  That is how I interpret it.

I'm a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment.  It should NOT be eroded by those seeking to control firearms.  Firearm ownership is a guaranteed American right; one the founding fathers found necessary to include in the Bill of Rights.

The term "assault weapon" is a loaded term.  A molotov cocktail is an assault weapon.  I don't see the government regulating gasoline sales anytime soon.  Let us not get Orwellian about the words "assault weapon".  A semi-automatic firearm is not an "assault weapon"  A group of people using semi-automatic firearms to take the law into their own hands is an un-regulated militia.    Street gangs and organized crime are a fine example of this.  Banning semi-automatic firearms leaves the individual American powerless to defend the homestead and empowers organized criminals who would not likely comply with such a ban.

The loan crazy with a gun is an easy news item that the popular media likes to milk for weeks on end.  Yet the fact remains, a competent, law-abiding citizen, on-site, with a firearm, will stop a crazy individual with a gun faster than the police.  The police must be summoned and respond in a timely manner before there are numerous gunshot victims.   In such a situation summoning the police is very difficult.  Timely police response before there are victims, is unlikely. 

Last but not least, if you want to see strangers being unusually polite toward one another, go to your local public firearms range.  Everybody there has a firearm in their possession and commits themselves to lawful and safe operation of them.  My personal observation is that a population of armed citizens is remarkably polite and friendly. 

America needs the 2nd Amendment.  We need it today as much as we needed it in 1791 when it was ratified. We just need to keep it in perspective.  You may not like "guns" but that's your personal preference.  One size does not fit all.  The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791 and part of a group of amendments that were required to preserve our freedom.  Without the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution could not be ratified.  The 2nd Amendment was ratified by 3/4 of the states; an overwhelming majority. 

So let's get past these sensationalistic news stories pushed on us by advocacy journalists.  The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional freedom; the supreme law of the land.  If you want to reduce crimes committed with firearms, figure another way to do it.

Blog Update

I have added the web site Open Fuel Standard to the "My Blog List".  The blog is "... the central action hub for all things concerning the vitally important legislation, The Open Fuel Standard Act.
I encourage my readers to follow this blog. - TINSC

I'm writing in my vote for President

I'm voting for Mitt Hussein O'Bamney.

Your tax dollars at work

With great fanfare, President O'Bama visited Holland, Michigan to celebrate the opening of the LG battery factory; a factory built to supply batteries for the Chevy Volt.  The plant was built with federal tax dollars to support a vehicle funded by federal tax dollars made by a company owned by the government.  "This is a symbol of where Michigan is going, this is a symbol of where Holland is going, and this is a symbol of where America's going," President Barack Obama told a crowd at the groundbreaking.

What was the result?  THE FACTORY HAS YET TO SHIP A SINGLE BATTERY!  Workers have so little to do, they spend hours playing board games, cards, reading magazines or watching movies.  All this on your tax dollars. Here is the WOOD-TV Article on the subject.  http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employees-idle

Where is President O'Bama now?  Where is his praise for "green jobs"?  Or should I tell you that studies have shown that for every green job created, 3 are lost from the high cost of electricity.

What kind of "job" is this when it creates nothing of value?  Is this what the insane left enviro-whackos call "sustainable"?  I have a secret for you people: if it doesn't create something of competitive value, it is not sustainable.

What is the O'Bama Administration's response to this massive waste?  "We are sending this to the Inspector General, Department of Energy, for his review," said Ed Pound, spokesman for the board. The Inspector General's Office would decide whether to open an investigation. Pound refused further comment.

A review?  Any fool could have told you that this was a waste before they broke ground.  Why should there be "further comment" when the real goal was to BUY VOTES in an election year.  Detroit and points east of US 127 can be taken for granted to vote O'Bama's way.  But with economic devastation, a few thousand votes in solidly Republican West Michigan can turn the tide of the election toward O'Bama and the Democrats.

Folks!  The government is spending a king's fortune just to make you feel good about yourself.  It's "green".  It's "new technology".  It's "jobs".  That's what they tell you, but none of this is sustainable because it isn't competitive and creates nothing of real value.  For every Volt sold, 10,000 Chinese (and 7,500 Indians)  bought their first conventionally fueled vehicle.  That's because THEY are making things of competitive value while your government encourages us to make worthless batteries for worthless cars that cost too much and won't accommodate Michael Moore's fat-infested torso.

The big corporations don't have a problem because they didn't have to bear the risk.  The people who built the plant have taken their money and run; the executives of those contracting firms now contemplate early retirement.  LG has their O'bama bucks.  They'll close the factory when there's a loss to write off to offset the immense profits they make on their own products.

And you?  HA HA HA!  You get to struggle to buy frozen peas at your local grocer because the O'Bama Administration is forcing electricity prices through the roof.  You get to buy gasoline at $4 a gallon because the O'Bama Administration won't let us use our natural gas surplus to make methanol. It (methanol) can be blended with gasoline in any ratio with cheap ($100/car) off-the-shelf technology.  Coal miners out of work.  Petrochemical lobby happy.  Electric cars in the junk yard.  Saudi Arabia laughing all the way to the bank.

Thank you Mr. President!  Thanks for hiring hundreds of workers who are now reading magazines, playing cards and watching videos.  That's what you called "Hope and Change" 4 years ago, but we all knew what it really was: patronage worker creation - Chicago Style. 

Our next President will be... (drumroll please)...

President Obamney!  Or maybe it's President Rombama. 

Let me put it to you this way.  If you think that you have a "choice" and that either candidate will significantly alter the course of the policies of our government, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. 

President O'Bama appoints ant-Semitic State Dept. Envoy

It's rare that I would post such an article given that there's such little mainstream media coverage of the topic.  Yet it is true that the O'Bama State Department has indeed appointed Salam al-Marayati to represent the United States at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Salam Al-Marayati is the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a manifest anti-Semitic organization.

I've never heard of the Washington Free Beacon, the source of the story, but I have enough contacts in the Anti-Defamation League and Simon Wiesenthal Center to find out if the story is true and whether their respective organizations made the commends shown in the Washington Free Beacon article. 

Unfortunately, the Simon Wiesental Center weighed in and confirmed the story.  I'm not going to elaborate on Salam Al-Marayati because you can read the link and see for yourself who your government chose to represent us in a European conference. 

One would think that the Republicans would make an issue of this , but so far, they haven't.  This is more proof that the Republicans will be no better at supporting Israel and Jews than the O'Bama Administration.  Yes, I like Romney better than O'Bama but I don't have a lot of high hopes for Romney's campaign rhetoric.  Campaign promises are not binding contracts.  In the mean time, it would be nice if Republicans would take issue with this.  I won't hold my breath waiting for that.

Last, I'd like to thank TUNDRA TABLOIDS for breaking this story.  

Regards,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

Syria activists deride slow deployment of UN monitors

A Reuters report today states that Syrian opposition groups are greatly aggravated by the  slow response to their plight.  One activist states:

"When killing happens in Palestine, even though the United States is an ally of Israel, the whole international community presses Israel more than they have pressed the Assad regime," he said.


What a surprise!  Eh?