I get a lot of crap for being a Republican and supporting the use of drugs. My view is simple to understand, if it is a victimless crime, it shouldn't be illegal. Smoking weed at my leisure isn't affecting anyone but me. Therefore it should not be illegal. Let me share a story with you that happened to me today. Last November my doctor proscribed me Alprazolam (Xanax) to help me get to sleep. I have problems with anxiety and it makes it hard for me to fall asleep at times. The doctor gave me a prescription for a year’s worth, to take when needed. Here we are in May, seven months later. I went to go get a monthly refill and they can't give it to me. Why? Because it’s considered a controlled substance by the all knowing government. Basically because the government decided to make a victimless law that has done nothing to curb the use of drugs (if anything it has made crime rates go up), I can't get a prescription filled. The law says I have to get a new prescription at the end of 6 months, not the original one year that my doctor and I decided was right for me. Nope, the government knows better about my healthcare then me and my doctor. Now I can't get a refill until I go back to my doctor and talk to him. Thanks for looking out for me Government, you certainly know how to live my life better then I do. Anyone here see why I don't support nationalized health care?
I believe marijuana, mushrooms, all narcotics and other "controlled substances" should be 100% LEGAL. What should be illegal is if when you use those drugs you infringe on someone else’s rights. If you make drugs legal ALL drug crimes, most robbery and gang activity would drop like a rock. Right now the criminals have the monopoly on drugs and control them, hence the crime to get them because they are rare and controlled. They rob people, banks and houses to get money to buy drugs to sell them. If drugs were legal you could go to your local CVS and pick up a bottle of Oxycodine for a migraine. The criminals wouldn't have the market any more since you can just go and buy the drugs. The newly legal drugs would be controlled just like liquor and cigarettes. 18 or 21 to buy and they could be taxed just like them. Honest citizens would use the drugs correctly after discussing it with their doctors. Abusers would still have the same AA meetings they could attend, but the government should not mandate it unless what they are doing is affecting other people’s rights. If they want to abuse it in their free time, more power to them. Alcohol is no different than any other controlled substance in some cases its worse. The effects of alcohol are worse than weed, yet weed is illegal and alcohol is not. I don't endorse drug use, but I do endorse the free choice to use the recreational drug of choice without legal ramifications.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
4 bucks a gallon
Come on congress, this is getting ridiculous. I scream at the TV each night while watching about the ever rising gas prices "It's not that freaking hard people"! Drill in ANWAR drill in Montana, Drill off the coast, build more refineries, use our coal to our advantage. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. The tree huggers want to save the polar bear to prevent us from drilling in Alaska. At this point I don't care about the polar bear. I care that it costs me $4 dollars a gallon to fill up my tank. Sure polar bears are cute on the coca cola commercials, but in real life they'd rip your chest open like you rip the saran wrap of a pound off ground beef. Not so cute now huh? When tree huggers start effecting humans negatively, that’s just insane.No, what does congress do? They sue OPEC. That'll really get the prices down [/Sarcasm]. My 3 year old is more intelligent then these retards in congress. They fine the oil companies, they tax them more like the oil companies will go "Gee golly, they are serious now, we better pay the fine and not pass it on to the consumer". Congress said they would get prices down, 2 years later it's doubled. Gone are the days of $2.50 a gallon. Back then that was insane, today it's a steal. Americans are getting pissed off. Pushing ethanol won't help, forcing unperfected technology won't help. It creates animosity towards the government. Government doesn’t create products that work, they dictate what they think is right. When someone is forced to do something (government programs, ethanol), it is no longer free market capitalism (weeding out what works and what doesn’t), it is socialism. Forcing someone to do something that is unproven technology only makes costs go higher. Right now we need to drill OUR OIL. We have enough of it in Alaska, Montana and off the coast.
Congress needs to let capitalism run its course and gets it's nose out of the economy. Notice what happens when they do? Capitalism when left unmolested will weed out what technology works to get us away from oil. People are smart and know what to do. In the mean time nothing pulls the BTU’s like oil, coal and nuclear power. Get away from Iranian and Saudi oil, and drill our own, while letting capitalism run its course. Problem solved.
Friday, May 23, 2008
137th Annual NRA Convention Louisville, Kentucky
I went to the 137th annual NRA convention which was in Louisville, Kentucky for the weekend. My trip began Thursday morning around 830am. I had to drive thru the state of Maryland which I hate because of their "common sense" gun laws. I still fail to see how having to go defenseless is common sense? Oh well, their state, their problems. I made it thru Maryland in under two hours, after passing about half a dozen cops. *Cough*cough* Police state. I continued to West Virginia where I happily re-armed myself, and where I drove for about 3 hours thru some very beautiful country. I crossed the Kentucky border around 4pm and made it into Louisville around 8pm. Between West Virginia and Kentucky I saw one cop the entire way. It was a Lexington PD cruiser sitting with his lights on before some road construction. 1 cop in two states, 6 cops in one state... anyone else see a problem here? I got to Louisville and pretty much crashed after some pizza.
Friday- I woke up bright and early and headed off to the convention center with Greg after a quick stop at the store and some breakfast at Sonic... We mingled around the convention floor for a bit. I got a few photos, and stumbled upon R. Lee Ermey. The line was too long so I opted to come back the next day. Later Greg and I went to "The Celebration of American Values forum" with guest speakers John McCain, Mick Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Marcus Lutrell, Greg Stube, Karl Rove, John Bolton and Oliver North. There were a few others but I fail to remember at this time. I think the others were Pro-gun Senators and Reps from congress. We got special "media" seating because we are bloggers. Now I want to point out something rather funny in retrospect, but I was rather pissed at the time. So we are in line for the "Celebration of American Values"... And per John McCain’s request the audience had to be disarmed, and by entering we subject ourselves to search and seizure of property.... Remember, this is "A Celebration of American Values". The hypocrisy just sucks, doesn't it?
After the forum we dipped out and headed back to the hotel to go over to Indiana to have dinner with the blogger group. The restaurant was upstairs in the 2nd largest Bass Pro shop in the world. The store was 4 stories high and would have taken all day to walk thru it. After dinner I had to run over to Best Buy to get a charger for my camera which was about dead. Figures... it stays charged for 3 months, and wants to die when I'm 600 miles from home without my charger. Blah. $50 bucks later I drive back to Kentucky and have a few beers in the hotel room and hit the rack.
Friday- I woke up bright and early and headed off to the convention center with Greg after a quick stop at the store and some breakfast at Sonic... We mingled around the convention floor for a bit. I got a few photos, and stumbled upon R. Lee Ermey. The line was too long so I opted to come back the next day. Later Greg and I went to "The Celebration of American Values forum" with guest speakers John McCain, Mick Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Marcus Lutrell, Greg Stube, Karl Rove, John Bolton and Oliver North. There were a few others but I fail to remember at this time. I think the others were Pro-gun Senators and Reps from congress. We got special "media" seating because we are bloggers. Now I want to point out something rather funny in retrospect, but I was rather pissed at the time. So we are in line for the "Celebration of American Values"... And per John McCain’s request the audience had to be disarmed, and by entering we subject ourselves to search and seizure of property.... Remember, this is "A Celebration of American Values". The hypocrisy just sucks, doesn't it? After the forum we dipped out and headed back to the hotel to go over to Indiana to have dinner with the blogger group. The restaurant was upstairs in the 2nd largest Bass Pro shop in the world. The store was 4 stories high and would have taken all day to walk thru it. After dinner I had to run over to Best Buy to get a charger for my camera which was about dead. Figures... it stays charged for 3 months, and wants to die when I'm 600 miles from home without my charger. Blah. $50 bucks later I drive back to Kentucky and have a few beers in the hotel room and hit the rack.
Saturday - I'm up bright and early again. There was no way in hell I was going to miss out on R. Lee Ermey. I was there for an hour before the opened the doors just to be first in lin
e. Sure enough I was 3rd in line because apparently other people had the same idea. Well I got his autograph and photo with him. Still there wasn't a long wait. At this point I had about 4 hours to kill before the Glenn Beck book signing. I mozied on around the convention floor about 3 times (Which is a lot considering there were probably close to 1000 displays) At 1pm Greg and I met up and successfully made it to be first in line for the Glenn Beck signing. Beck walked right past us, shook our hands and went off to get Ted Nugent’s autograph before he left. We stood there for a few more minutes before Beck went out. His staff was rather pushy and pushed us along as quick as we put that book down. There was no time to get photos or chit chat. I was rather bummed, but I did get his autograph in his book. After the signing we went back to the room and crashed out for a bit before the banquet.
e. Sure enough I was 3rd in line because apparently other people had the same idea. Well I got his autograph and photo with him. Still there wasn't a long wait. At this point I had about 4 hours to kill before the Glenn Beck book signing. I mozied on around the convention floor about 3 times (Which is a lot considering there were probably close to 1000 displays) At 1pm Greg and I met up and successfully made it to be first in line for the Glenn Beck signing. Beck walked right past us, shook our hands and went off to get Ted Nugent’s autograph before he left. We stood there for a few more minutes before Beck went out. His staff was rather pushy and pushed us along as quick as we put that book down. There was no time to get photos or chit chat. I was rather bummed, but I did get his autograph in his book. After the signing we went back to the room and crashed out for a bit before the banquet.The banquet was in a rather large room at the convention center in downtown Louisville. I was near the back of the room, but I'm not complaining since I still managed to get a ticket being on the waiting list and all. The dinner was rather good, and afterwards we heard from a few guest speakers. Wayne LaPierre introduced Bobby Jindal the new Governor of Louisiana. Then the keynote speaker, Glenn Beck. As always his speech was powerful, sarcastic and to the point. I drove home the next morning glad that I went. I got to meet a few well known pro-second amendment celebrities and politicians, as well as picking up a lot of new knowledge about the 2nd Amendment.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Illegal search and seizure?
In America? I don't think so. It happens all the time though. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the ""The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. Most people instinctively understand the concept of privacy. It is the freedom to decide which details of your life will be revealed to the public and which will be revealed only to those you care to share them with. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities. I respect law enforcement, but I don't respect the games they play with law abiding citizens to get them to slip up and forfeit their rights. Even if the citizen knows their rights, and stand up for those rights not consenting to search or seizure of property, and the officer ignores that request, that my friend is known as oppression.
I want to look at something that happened to an acquaintance of mine. His name is Rich Banks. Rich is a member of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association. He attended a PAFOA open carry dinner in Dickson City, PA. Most attendees of this event (other members of PAFOA) were legally open carrying pistols in plain sight which is perfectly legal in Pennsylvania without a license to carry firearms. You only need a LTCF when carrying concealed.
Well as the dinner progressed a “scared” patron called the police to report men with guns. The police showed up and arrested Rich for failure to identify himself with ID. When you are on foot, you are not required by law to produce ID, nor are you required to produce a license to carry firearms if you are open carrying (except for in a car or in Philadelphia). They arrested him for not consenting to search his person and for failure to produce ID. Many other members apparently were searched without consent or probable cause. After all was said and done, Rich was released when the police could not charge him with anything (he wasn’t doing anything wrong in the first place). The problem is when he denied search and seizure of his property and person, he was arrested. They tried to slap disorderly conduct on him for failing to produce ID, which is not required. And even if it was disorderly conduct is described in the Pennsylvania crime code:
§5503: A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
-engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
-makes unreasonable noise;
-uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
-Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor”.
Not producing ID while on foot does not fall under the previous statutes. Since you don’t have to produce ID on foot, just a name if requested, he can’t get nailed for disorderly conduct. If he was not breaking a law in the first place he should have been left alone, plain and simple. The police should have come in and said, nothing illegal is taking place here and away they should have gone. Instead they harassed law abiding citizens for exercising their constitutional rights. Police oppression like this is NOT America. The police need to understand if there is NO probable cause, or no law that has, is or will be broken, a citizen standing up for his rights is NOT grounds for arrest. I for one will stand up in Rich’s legal defense. I am proud he took a bullet for the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments of our Bill of Rights. It’s people like him that keep out Bill of Rights alive. Good job man, I would have been in the patrol car with you too.
I want to look at something that happened to an acquaintance of mine. His name is Rich Banks. Rich is a member of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association. He attended a PAFOA open carry dinner in Dickson City, PA. Most attendees of this event (other members of PAFOA) were legally open carrying pistols in plain sight which is perfectly legal in Pennsylvania without a license to carry firearms. You only need a LTCF when carrying concealed.
Well as the dinner progressed a “scared” patron called the police to report men with guns. The police showed up and arrested Rich for failure to identify himself with ID. When you are on foot, you are not required by law to produce ID, nor are you required to produce a license to carry firearms if you are open carrying (except for in a car or in Philadelphia). They arrested him for not consenting to search his person and for failure to produce ID. Many other members apparently were searched without consent or probable cause. After all was said and done, Rich was released when the police could not charge him with anything (he wasn’t doing anything wrong in the first place). The problem is when he denied search and seizure of his property and person, he was arrested. They tried to slap disorderly conduct on him for failing to produce ID, which is not required. And even if it was disorderly conduct is described in the Pennsylvania crime code:
§5503: A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
-engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
-makes unreasonable noise;
-uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
-Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor”.
Not producing ID while on foot does not fall under the previous statutes. Since you don’t have to produce ID on foot, just a name if requested, he can’t get nailed for disorderly conduct. If he was not breaking a law in the first place he should have been left alone, plain and simple. The police should have come in and said, nothing illegal is taking place here and away they should have gone. Instead they harassed law abiding citizens for exercising their constitutional rights. Police oppression like this is NOT America. The police need to understand if there is NO probable cause, or no law that has, is or will be broken, a citizen standing up for his rights is NOT grounds for arrest. I for one will stand up in Rich’s legal defense. I am proud he took a bullet for the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments of our Bill of Rights. It’s people like him that keep out Bill of Rights alive. Good job man, I would have been in the patrol car with you too.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Open carrying a gun
God forbid I stand up for my rights. I mean after all I should be a drone of the state right? I should have no will of my own and just give in for the common good right? That sounds like a book I read once... oh ya "1984". Anyway as many of you know, or don't know I am an avid gun owner and I carry a handgun with me everywhere I legally can. I conceal when I need to and I open carry when I choose to. I was open carrying the other day and had an encounter with an off duty police officer. I wouldn't call this encounter with the officer negative, just pushy. So I was out in town the other day running some errands open carrying as normal. I decided to stop at Sheetz to grab a drink and a bite to eat. As I pulled in I saw two spots empty right in front, and before I know it this asshole zips right in and parks right on the line (taking up both spots) with a big SUV thing. He looked right at me, gets out with his daughter and goes in. I was pissed, but figured he's just an ass so I let it go. Well I go inside, get my stuff and stand in line. He stands in line right behind me. He is a very tall 6'5+, built, Bas Rutten looking, shaved bald head kind of guy. As I am waiting in line I hear him
Him: "You should cover that up"
Me: A little startled "Why? It's perfectly legal in PA to open carry".
Him: "Well you might scare someone, please pull your shirt over it"
Me: "And who are you"?
Him: "I'm an off duty State Trooper".
Me: (Getting a flyer out of my pocket at this point) "Again its not illegal to OC in PA, look here". As I show him the law.
Him: "Just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to do it".
Me: "Well I choose to, especially now in the summer when its warm. It's hard to conceal, especially with this holster, and its not illegal". I turn back around to pay for my food and leave.
Him: "I wish people would just listen and have common sense. He shouldn't be OCing in public like that" To his daughter who was about 10.
Me: (Before I left) "I've been OCing for some time now, no one has been scared, no one has died, and no one has called the police. It's legal and I choose to protect myself".
Him: "Well I think I'll write my representative to get that law changed".
Me: "Go ahead you won't get far with him (Rob Kauffman), he is very pro-open carry. Have a good day sir, I need to get going". At this point I left leaving him obviously flustered that I know my rights.
Ya god forbid I know my rights... right?
Him: "You should cover that up"
Me: A little startled "Why? It's perfectly legal in PA to open carry".
Him: "Well you might scare someone, please pull your shirt over it"
Me: "And who are you"?
Him: "I'm an off duty State Trooper".
Me: (Getting a flyer out of my pocket at this point) "Again its not illegal to OC in PA, look here". As I show him the law.
Him: "Just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to do it".
Me: "Well I choose to, especially now in the summer when its warm. It's hard to conceal, especially with this holster, and its not illegal". I turn back around to pay for my food and leave.
Him: "I wish people would just listen and have common sense. He shouldn't be OCing in public like that" To his daughter who was about 10.
Me: (Before I left) "I've been OCing for some time now, no one has been scared, no one has died, and no one has called the police. It's legal and I choose to protect myself".
Him: "Well I think I'll write my representative to get that law changed".
Me: "Go ahead you won't get far with him (Rob Kauffman), he is very pro-open carry. Have a good day sir, I need to get going". At this point I left leaving him obviously flustered that I know my rights.
Ya god forbid I know my rights... right?
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The next 4 years of hell
Well for me the next election is a choice between bad, worse and worser. Well start with Hitlery... err Hillary. If she is anything like her husband with NAFTA and the Brady Bill... I might as well go out back and shoot myself now. I think Hillary, if elected will do the same things her husband did. She'll try and push for an "assault weapons" ban. I think with Hillary, the same as her husband would govern more moderate if she had a Republican congress to deal with and if it meant keeping her job as president. I strongly believe she is for the war and is more conservatives on some issues, but plays to her party base in order to get votes. Don't believe me, go look at her voting record. That’s why I say she'll be "worse", or in other words, half way between Obama and McCain.
Now "worser"... Obama. I can't get enough of this "Change" that he is going on about. Ask any Obama supporter what this change is. I'll bet they stare at you like a fool. "Well we need to change direction in Iraq"... Look here folks, we're winning in Iraq. Don't listen to the news, don't listen to the politicians. I have a few buddies in the Army over there who are bored out of their fucking skulls because there is nothing to do. Progress has been made. Life is returning to normal over there. The once anti-American militants are switching sides to fight alongside the Americans. Changing course in Iraq would only insure our loss emboldening the terrorists making things worse. "Well the economy is in rescission" they say. Again, media misconception. Our economy is fine. It is not going downhill, it may have slowed, it may have stagnated a bit, but it isn't going into a recession (downhill). Unemployment is low, taxes are low, and spending is up. That is a good economy. Changing that would be high unemployment, high taxes and less spending. Again with this "Change" crap... America DOES NOT need changed. It is fine the way it is, the last thing we need is more intrusive government.
Obama has a way of getting all these college kids, black inner city folks and rich white liberals with skulls filled with oatmeal to believe he is God. He is a blank slate in which everyone wishes and writes down their hopes and dreams on. I have news for you, look up Communism, and then look up his voting record as a Senator of Illinois and then when he was an Illinois state representative. You’ll find similarities. Not to mention his mentor in college was a card carrying member of the communist party. This man is socialist, he is communist, he is not American. Before some liberal gets their panties into a twist, I say he is not American in the sense that he has no traditional American values which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He is for state control of everything and he is for robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Now for the bad, John McCain. He is far better the previous two clowns I mentioned, but he is no day at the beach either. John McCain bends too much, more then he should. He is taking the Republican Party and conservatives further and further to the left. Look at his views on abortion, illegal immigration and guns. These are issues I cannot ignore and choke down as a conservative. Many solid conservatives do not like McCain because he is far from what the Republicans used to be. Do you want to know where a conservative candidate should be? Look at Thomas Jefferson, and then compare him to John McCain, Hillary and Obama. Now can you see how politics have shifted really far left in this nation? I’ll give McCain one thing. He supports the troops and the war on terror. That’s one thing I am for, and will be enough for me to hold my nose and pull the lever for McCain, because I’d hate to see “worse” and “worser” get in.
So I say to America, this is all you could come up with? For the next 4 years, regardless of who gets in, i'll more then likely be complaining about them. Hey don’t blame me though, I voted for liberty, I voted for Ron Paul.
Now "worser"... Obama. I can't get enough of this "Change" that he is going on about. Ask any Obama supporter what this change is. I'll bet they stare at you like a fool. "Well we need to change direction in Iraq"... Look here folks, we're winning in Iraq. Don't listen to the news, don't listen to the politicians. I have a few buddies in the Army over there who are bored out of their fucking skulls because there is nothing to do. Progress has been made. Life is returning to normal over there. The once anti-American militants are switching sides to fight alongside the Americans. Changing course in Iraq would only insure our loss emboldening the terrorists making things worse. "Well the economy is in rescission" they say. Again, media misconception. Our economy is fine. It is not going downhill, it may have slowed, it may have stagnated a bit, but it isn't going into a recession (downhill). Unemployment is low, taxes are low, and spending is up. That is a good economy. Changing that would be high unemployment, high taxes and less spending. Again with this "Change" crap... America DOES NOT need changed. It is fine the way it is, the last thing we need is more intrusive government.
Obama has a way of getting all these college kids, black inner city folks and rich white liberals with skulls filled with oatmeal to believe he is God. He is a blank slate in which everyone wishes and writes down their hopes and dreams on. I have news for you, look up Communism, and then look up his voting record as a Senator of Illinois and then when he was an Illinois state representative. You’ll find similarities. Not to mention his mentor in college was a card carrying member of the communist party. This man is socialist, he is communist, he is not American. Before some liberal gets their panties into a twist, I say he is not American in the sense that he has no traditional American values which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He is for state control of everything and he is for robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Now for the bad, John McCain. He is far better the previous two clowns I mentioned, but he is no day at the beach either. John McCain bends too much, more then he should. He is taking the Republican Party and conservatives further and further to the left. Look at his views on abortion, illegal immigration and guns. These are issues I cannot ignore and choke down as a conservative. Many solid conservatives do not like McCain because he is far from what the Republicans used to be. Do you want to know where a conservative candidate should be? Look at Thomas Jefferson, and then compare him to John McCain, Hillary and Obama. Now can you see how politics have shifted really far left in this nation? I’ll give McCain one thing. He supports the troops and the war on terror. That’s one thing I am for, and will be enough for me to hold my nose and pull the lever for McCain, because I’d hate to see “worse” and “worser” get in.
So I say to America, this is all you could come up with? For the next 4 years, regardless of who gets in, i'll more then likely be complaining about them. Hey don’t blame me though, I voted for liberty, I voted for Ron Paul.
The Bill of Rights
I went ahead and added my thoughts on the Bill of Rights to give everyone an understanding how I view things in our nation today. In my last post I explained what I thought about our Republic and what it is. This post explains what I believe that Republic protects. I’ll get into each Amendment in greater detail as I post more. This will give you a general idea of what I think each Amendment means.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I take this as the Government cannot make any law preventing people or the media from speaking out against the government, nor can anyone be punished for doing so. The people are allowed to rally against the government without fear of arrest. And lastly the government cannot establish a church of the United States or religion (hence the word establishment). There is nothing about the separation of church and state. The founders didn't want a forced religion. Not a banned manger scene in some town square because its next to a courthouse.
Amendment 2: 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.
This simply states that the people can and have the right to rise up in arms against the government. The people are allowed to Para-military train and the PEOPLE that form these militias are allowed to own guns.
Amendment 3: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I really don't understand this one. I think it stems from when British soldiers were ransacking people’s homes during the war and demanding food and shelter from the owner. The founders didn't want this again... this could technically fall under the 4th.
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Basically the government cannot take property or services for no reason what so ever. The word "unreasonable" plays a key role here, and where I think the term probable cause comes from. They are synonymous. Just because a cop thinks you have weed doesn't mean he can just search you, that’s unreasonable. Yet it is reasonable if he sees a bag of pot sticking out of your pocket. Also people should be safe in their homes from the government, unless they are doing something really stupid, and even then the government can't just barge in without a good reason.
Amendment 5 pt. 1: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
I'm going to break the 5th up into a few parts because each part has its own meaning. Personally I think it could be two separate amendments, but it can all be tied together as well. The first part means what it says. You don't have to answer any questions to the government. You have the right to remain silent and not agree to any accusations until you are in trial.
Amendment 5 pt. 2:...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
You can't be found innocent, then tried again and found guilty.
Amendment 5 pt. 3: ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
All this is why I believe property is a right, not a privilege. The government can't decide to take my house because I didn't pay a tax or because I am noisy. They can however take it after a fair trial. All this stuff you see on Cops when they impound cars, take someone’s gun etc... It’s all done as a violation of property and liberty. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Amendment 5 pt. 4:
…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Gov't has to pay up if they want your land. Even then if you don't want to sell they can't take it per the previous sentence statute.
Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This amendment guarantees the right to not sit in a prison cell for months on end without being accused of something. It guarantees that the accused will have a quick trial and be told what they are being charged for. It also allows for the accused to have an attorney present for legal assistance before answering any questions as protected by the 5th Amendment.
Amendment 7: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Your peers, not the government decide what your verdict is, or is not. This prevents government from just slapping a guilty verdict on everyone that walks thru the court room. The trial has to be fair.
Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This means the days of torture are over. Punishment must be civil and humane.
Amendments 9 & 10: -
-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The 9th and 10th amendments basically are there to cover the tracks of the first 8. The people have the right to have rights and that whatever the constitution doesn’t tell the government not to do is left to the states or to the people to decide.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I take this as the Government cannot make any law preventing people or the media from speaking out against the government, nor can anyone be punished for doing so. The people are allowed to rally against the government without fear of arrest. And lastly the government cannot establish a church of the United States or religion (hence the word establishment). There is nothing about the separation of church and state. The founders didn't want a forced religion. Not a banned manger scene in some town square because its next to a courthouse.
Amendment 2: 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.
This simply states that the people can and have the right to rise up in arms against the government. The people are allowed to Para-military train and the PEOPLE that form these militias are allowed to own guns.
Amendment 3: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I really don't understand this one. I think it stems from when British soldiers were ransacking people’s homes during the war and demanding food and shelter from the owner. The founders didn't want this again... this could technically fall under the 4th.
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Basically the government cannot take property or services for no reason what so ever. The word "unreasonable" plays a key role here, and where I think the term probable cause comes from. They are synonymous. Just because a cop thinks you have weed doesn't mean he can just search you, that’s unreasonable. Yet it is reasonable if he sees a bag of pot sticking out of your pocket. Also people should be safe in their homes from the government, unless they are doing something really stupid, and even then the government can't just barge in without a good reason.
Amendment 5 pt. 1: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
I'm going to break the 5th up into a few parts because each part has its own meaning. Personally I think it could be two separate amendments, but it can all be tied together as well. The first part means what it says. You don't have to answer any questions to the government. You have the right to remain silent and not agree to any accusations until you are in trial.
Amendment 5 pt. 2:...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
You can't be found innocent, then tried again and found guilty.
Amendment 5 pt. 3: ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
All this is why I believe property is a right, not a privilege. The government can't decide to take my house because I didn't pay a tax or because I am noisy. They can however take it after a fair trial. All this stuff you see on Cops when they impound cars, take someone’s gun etc... It’s all done as a violation of property and liberty. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Amendment 5 pt. 4:
…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Gov't has to pay up if they want your land. Even then if you don't want to sell they can't take it per the previous sentence statute.
Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This amendment guarantees the right to not sit in a prison cell for months on end without being accused of something. It guarantees that the accused will have a quick trial and be told what they are being charged for. It also allows for the accused to have an attorney present for legal assistance before answering any questions as protected by the 5th Amendment.
Amendment 7: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Your peers, not the government decide what your verdict is, or is not. This prevents government from just slapping a guilty verdict on everyone that walks thru the court room. The trial has to be fair.
Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This means the days of torture are over. Punishment must be civil and humane.
Amendments 9 & 10: -
-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The 9th and 10th amendments basically are there to cover the tracks of the first 8. The people have the right to have rights and that whatever the constitution doesn’t tell the government not to do is left to the states or to the people to decide.
The Free Republic.
So this is my first Blog entry and I am going to begin with a foundation for subsequent posts.
According to Wikipedia a Republic is "A state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican".
I think the biggest misconception a lot of Americans have is they believe that our government is a Democracy. In a Democracy majority rules, it’s like a monarchy, except for the fact that the majority of the people have the power, and not just one person, usually the King. The ones without the power are in the minority, because they have been over ruled by the majority. Thomas Jefferson said it best. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine". The founders loathed the idea of a Democracy. They wanted the rights and ideas of ALL citizens to be equal no matter how absurd or crazy they are, provided they don't infringe on the rights of others.
In A Republic the people have all the power vested in them, much like a Democracy. There is one key difference, and it’s usually a Constitution. The constitution protects the rights of all, regardless if they are in the majority or minority. If the majority wants it, but the constitution provides for the defense of it, the minority cannot have it taken away from them. The individual is the most important in a Republic. From that point on power is then delegated to the localities, counties, states then the federal government. In a Republic, each state is in essence its own nation, but all collected together by a loose federal government to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare (to to be confused with provide as many Democrats seem to think the case is). This explains the different laws in different states, which is normal in a Republic provided they don't violate federal law (Constitution) which protects all citizens of all states. The states can tell the feds to shove it up their ass if they are violating anything in the federal constitution since it works from the bottom up in a Republic. Many states have taken this stance on the Real ID act (Which I don't agree with, but I'll get to that in a later blog entry). South Carolina, Vermont and Pennsylvania come to mind as states who have told the feds to stuff the real ID up their butts. The power does not come from the top down. It goes from the bottom up and is protected from the top down to make sure no locality violates the National Constitution.
We as Americans need to be fearful of the fact that our Government is slowly eroding our rights. It is happening all over the place. Some examples include obvious violations of the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments of our Bill of Rights. Don't confuse me as anti-American and anti-Government as many do when I talk about this topic. I am as pro-American as can be. Being pro-American means enjoying the fact that you do have rights and EXERCISING them. My concern falls when the Government thinks I should just "give in" and be a good American for the sake of the whole or for "my safety". I for one will NOT give in when it’s my God given rights in question.
I wish to end this first entry with a quote from one of our founding fathers. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
According to Wikipedia a Republic is "A state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican".
I think the biggest misconception a lot of Americans have is they believe that our government is a Democracy. In a Democracy majority rules, it’s like a monarchy, except for the fact that the majority of the people have the power, and not just one person, usually the King. The ones without the power are in the minority, because they have been over ruled by the majority. Thomas Jefferson said it best. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine". The founders loathed the idea of a Democracy. They wanted the rights and ideas of ALL citizens to be equal no matter how absurd or crazy they are, provided they don't infringe on the rights of others.
In A Republic the people have all the power vested in them, much like a Democracy. There is one key difference, and it’s usually a Constitution. The constitution protects the rights of all, regardless if they are in the majority or minority. If the majority wants it, but the constitution provides for the defense of it, the minority cannot have it taken away from them. The individual is the most important in a Republic. From that point on power is then delegated to the localities, counties, states then the federal government. In a Republic, each state is in essence its own nation, but all collected together by a loose federal government to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare (to to be confused with provide as many Democrats seem to think the case is). This explains the different laws in different states, which is normal in a Republic provided they don't violate federal law (Constitution) which protects all citizens of all states. The states can tell the feds to shove it up their ass if they are violating anything in the federal constitution since it works from the bottom up in a Republic. Many states have taken this stance on the Real ID act (Which I don't agree with, but I'll get to that in a later blog entry). South Carolina, Vermont and Pennsylvania come to mind as states who have told the feds to stuff the real ID up their butts. The power does not come from the top down. It goes from the bottom up and is protected from the top down to make sure no locality violates the National Constitution.
We as Americans need to be fearful of the fact that our Government is slowly eroding our rights. It is happening all over the place. Some examples include obvious violations of the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments of our Bill of Rights. Don't confuse me as anti-American and anti-Government as many do when I talk about this topic. I am as pro-American as can be. Being pro-American means enjoying the fact that you do have rights and EXERCISING them. My concern falls when the Government thinks I should just "give in" and be a good American for the sake of the whole or for "my safety". I for one will NOT give in when it’s my God given rights in question.
I wish to end this first entry with a quote from one of our founding fathers. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
