the right of the people to keep and bear arms

anonymous asked:

Second amendment loving?? Why?? The right to bear arms has been misinterpreted . Why do people need all these guns. I live in a country whereby the police don't need guns only the special branch & detectives & people aren't getting shot by cops, neighbours, shooting schools. I've never touched a gun or had the need to. You've no idea the peace of mind & freedom it gives us not to worry about guns. Certain parts of the US was flooded with guns to keep it down many years ago. NRA have an agenda.

“The right to bear arms has been misinterpreted .” Aaaaaaaand I stopped reading.

Myers Briggs Type & Political Affiliation (Old Data)

As you can see, from observing the table, there are a few things that stand out:

  • xSTJs and xNTJs identify as Republican the most.
  • Democrat affiliation is lowest among rational types.
  • Democrats are represented highest among “SF” and “NF” types.ESTJs mostly identify as Republican.
  • INTPs followed by ENTPs identify mostly as Independent.

THE MBTI TYPES AND POLITICAL ISSUES

1. GUN CONTROL

  • Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment. The Second Amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws do not thwart criminals. You have a right to defend yourself against criminals. More guns mean less crime.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Sensing
    likely in favor by: ISTP, ESTP, ISFP, ESFP
  • Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren’t going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes. The Second Amendment gives no individual the right to own a gun, but allows the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Guns kill people. Guns kill children.
    Relevant function: Introverted Intuition
    Likely in favor by: INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ, ENFJ

2. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

  • Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his/her actions. People should be admitted to schools and hired for jobs based on their ability. It is unfair to use race as a factor in the selection process. Reverse discrimination is not a solution for racism.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP
  • Liberals believe that it’s okay to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups. Due to prevalent racism in the past, minorities were deprived of the same education and employment opportunities as whites. We need to make up for that. Support affirmative action based on the belief that America is still a racist society. Minorities still lag behind whites in all statistical measurements of success. Also, the presence of minorities creates diversity.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ

3. SOCIAL WELFARE

  • Conservatives oppose long-term welfare. We need to provide opportunities to make it possible for poor and low-income workers to become self-reliant. It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage a person to become self-reliant, rather than keeping them dependent on the government for money.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ

  • Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always….you guessed it, another government program. They support social welfare. They want welfare to provide for the poor. To liberals, conservatives oppose welfare because they are not compassionate toward the poor. We have welfare to bring fairness to American economic life. Without welfare, life below the poverty line would be intolerable.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP

4. ECONOMY

  • Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn’t be punished for being successful. The free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise afford the widest opportunity and the highest standard of living for all. Free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs and higher standards of living than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Intuition, Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ENTP, ENFP, ENTJ, ESTJ
  • Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That’s why they don’t respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs. Favor a market system in which government regulates the economy. We need government to protect us against big businesses. Unlike the private sector, the government is motivated by public interest. We need government regulation to level the playing field.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling, Introverted Sensing
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, INFP, ISTJ, ISFJ

5. ABORTION

  • Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Human life begins at conception. Abortion is the murder of a human being. Nobody has the right to murder a human being. Support legislation to prohibit partial birth abortions, called the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” (partial birth abortion – the killing of an unborn baby of at least 20 weeks by pulling it out of the birth canal with forceps, but leaving the head inside. An incision is made in the back of the baby’s neck and the brain tissue is suctioned out. The head is then removed from the uterus.)
    Relevant function: Introverted Sensing
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ

  • Liberals, largely believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother. A fetus is not a human life. The decision to have an abortion is a personal choice of a woman regarding her own body and the government should stay out of it. Women should be guaranteed the right to a safe and legal abortion, including partial birth abortion.
    Relevant function: Introverted Thinking

    Likely in favor by: ISTP, ENTP, INTP, ESTP

6. GOVERNMENT

  • Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it’s vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That’s why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ

  • Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn’t like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ

7. RELIGION

  • Conservatives believe the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This prevents the government from establishing a national church. However, it does not prevent God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings. Oppose the removal of symbols of Christian heritage from public and government spaces. Government should not interfere with religion and religious freedom.
    Relevant function: Introverted Sensing
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ

  • Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That’s why, whether you’re talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays,” liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society. They support the separation of church and state. Religious expression has no place in government. Support the removal of all references to God in public and government spaces.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP

8. DEATH PENALTY

  • Conservatives believe the death penalty is a punishment that fits the crime; it is neither ‘cruel’ nor ‘unusual’. Executing a murderer is the appropriate punishment for taking an innocent life.
    Relevant function: Introverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ISTP, ENTP, INTP, ESTP

  • Liberals believe we should abolish the death penalty. The death penalty is inhumane and is ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. It does not deter crime. Imprisonment is the appropriate punishment. Every execution risks killing an innocent person.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP

9. EDUCATION

  • Conservatives advocate for school vouchers to give all parents the right to choose good schools for their children, not just those who can afford private schools. Parents (who pay the taxes that fund the schools) should decide how and where to educate their child.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP

  • Liberals believe School vouchers are untested experiments. We need to focus on more funding for existing public schools -to raise teacher salaries and reduce class size.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ

10. THE ENVIRONMENT

  • Conservatives desire clean water, clean air and a clean planet, just like everyone else. However, extreme environmental policies destroy jobs and damage the economy. Changes in global temperatures are natural over long periods of time. So far, science has not shown that humans can affect permanent change to the earth’s temperature.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Sensing
    likely in favor by: ISTP, ESTP, ISFP, ESFP

  • Liberals believe Conservatives don’t care about protecting the environment. Industrial growth harms the environment. Global warming is caused by an increased production of carbon dioxide. The U.S. is a major contributor to global warming because it produces 25% of the world’s carbon dioxide. The U.S. should enact laws to significantly reduce that amount.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ

11. HEALTHCARE

  • Conservatives believe that free healthcare provided by the government (socialized medicine) means that everyone will get the same poor-quality healthcare. The rich will continue to pay for superior healthcare, while all others will receive poor-quality free healthcare from the government. Health care should remain privatized. Support Healthcare Spending Accounts.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ

  • Liberals support universal government-supervised health care. There are millions of Americans who can’t afford health insurance. They are being deprived of a basic right to healthcare.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ

12. IMMIGRATION

  • Conservatives support legal immigration at current numbers, but do not support illegal immigration. Government should enforce immigration laws. Oppose President Bush’s amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. Those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally should not have the same rights as those who obey the law by entering legally. If there were a decrease in cheap, illegal immigrant labor, employers would have to substitute higher priced domestic employees, legal immigrants, or perhaps increase mechanization.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Sensing
    likely in favor by: ISTP, ESTP, ISFP, ESFP

  • Liberals support legal immigration and increasing the number of legal immigrants permitted to enter the U.S. each year. Support blanket amnesty for current illegal immigrants. Believe that regardless of how they came to the U.S., illegal immigrants deserve: – U.S. government financial aid for college tuition. – visas for spouse/children to come to the U.S. Families shouldn’t be separated. Illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans do not want to do.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ

13. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

  • Conservatives insist that marriage is between one man and one woman. Opinions differ on support for the creation of a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Believe that requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
    Relevant function: Introverted Sensing
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ

  • Liberals believe marriage should be legal for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples to ensure equal rights for all. All individuals, regardless of their sex, have the right to marry. Believe that prohibiting same-sex citizens from marrying denies them of their civil rights. Opinions differ on whether this issue is equal to civil rights for African Americans.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ

14. SOCIAL SECURITY

  • Conservatives believe the current Social Security system is in serious financial trouble. Changes are necessary because the U.S. will be unable to maintain the current system it in the future. Support proposal to allow a portion of Social Security dollars withheld to be put into an account chosen by the individual, not the government.
    Relevant function: Introverted Intuition
    Likely in favor by: INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ, ENFJ
  • Liberals generally oppose change to the current Social Security system. Opinions vary on whether the current system is in financial trouble. Changing the current system will cause people to lose their Social Security benefits. Support a cap on Social Security payments to the wealthy.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP

15. TAXATION

  • Conservatives support lower taxes and a smaller government. Lower taxes create more incentive for people to work, save, invest, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. Money is best spent by those who earn it.
    Relevant function: Introverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ISTP, ENTP, INTP, ESTP

  • Liberals support higher taxes and a larger government. High taxes enable the government to do good and create jobs. We need high taxes for social welfare programs, to provide for the poor. We can’t afford to cut taxes.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ

(Note: Please keep in mind that this research was conducted over a decade ago. The above table is taken from a U.S. sample of 3000 people. It was part of data collected when Consulting Psychologists’ Press revised the MBTI in 1998. Political affiliation and mbti type was among the survey questions.)

THE BILL OF RIGHTS, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 15, 1791

Amendment I

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.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

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.

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V

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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

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.

Amendment VII

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.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

You got the keys but I’ll never keep my door locked, you can always come right in. And, if my arms are full you can bet your sweet ass I will drop that shit right then. I might be busy, but I always got some time to surrender to your beauty.
—  Nahko and Medicine for the People, Black As Night

alliaskofyou  asked:

Headcanon: Jealous Sherlock? You can decide if it's an established relationship or not : )

I’ve never written or interacted with drunk people ever so bear with me.

Greg slams down three more drinks on the table, one for each of them.

John cheers while Sherlock squints at his fingers, marveling at the swirls.

“Sherloooock,“ John slurs, tugging at his arm.

“Hm?” Sherlock pulls his attention away from his fascinating fingers to look at John, his face swimming in Sherlock’s vision.

“I want– I want to do the– the– the arm thing.”

“The arm thing?”

“Yeah!” John smiles. It’s absolutely dazzling and Sherlock can’t seem to look away. Right now, he doesn’t really care what “the arm thing” is as long as it keeps John grinning at him like that.

“Where you link arms then drink your drink,” Greg explains to Sherlock.

“How…how do we drink if our arms are linked?”

John’s face falls, disappointed, and Sherlock feels John’s hand come away from his arm and that is not acceptable because John should be touching Sherlock at all times 

At that moment a young woman comes up to their table and places her hand on John’s other arm, leaning her elbows on the table. “I’ll do it with you,” she says.

Sherlock immediately hates her.

Her voice is utterly fake in its interest, trying for sultry when it just comes out as cheap.

John, however, doesn’t seem to think the same.

He smiles, not as bright as when he smiled at Sherlock just a few moments ago (which Sherlock is secretly overjoyed by), and turns away from Sherlock to the woman.

“Hello. How are you tonight?”

John’s politeness towards this stranger is wrong and grates on Sherlock’s nerves. Her hand moves on John’s arm, rubbing it back and forth and John isn’t stopping her. He seems to be enjoying the attention, and Sherlock momentarily sees red.

No,” Sherlock demands, bodily pulling John away from the woman and towards himself. “You can’t touch him, you’re not allowed to touch him, you cretin.”

Sherlock wishes his voice didn’t sound as whiny as it did, but the woman sends Greg an incredulous glance as if expecting him to speak up, but he just shrugs and the woman stomps away.

He’s still glaring at the woman through the crowd of people before he hears Greg sing-songing “Ooooo!” like Mrs. Hudson when she’s found a nice piece of gossip to tell her knitting circle.

Sherlock turns his glare toward Greg to find him grinning from ear to ear. “What? What is it?”

It isn’t until Greg nods his head toward John that Sherlock realizes that John had laid his head down on Sherlock’s shoulder when Sherlock dragged John away from that devil of a woman. His eyes are closed, utterly content with where he is.

Yes, perfect. John should feel absolutely safe with Sherlock. Sherlock will protect him from unsolicited flirtations of strange women in bars, like a good friend.

He goes to put his trapped arm around John to keep him at his side, but the motion jostles John just enough for him to sit up and look around groggily, as if he doesn’t quite reminder where he is.

“Wasn’t there someone there?” John asks, pointedly looking at the empty space at the end of the table.

“No,” Sherlock replies.

Greg covers his mouth with his hand, stifling his laugh.

on [ao3]

I am once again stunned by the inefficiency and negligence of the Department of Justice in wake of today’s news that they will not be pursuing federal charges against Baton Rouge police officers Howie Lake II and Blane Salamoni, who shot and killed 37-year-old Alton Sterling last July.


I was hoping that of all cases, this one would result in some element of justice, however, it appears like that the trend continues. It is clear, from video of the incident, that this man should not have been shot and should still be alive today. People are so quick to shout about the right to keep and bear arms, yet this man, who had purchased a gun for his protection, was executed on site for having a weapon, so where is the right’s defense of Mr. Alton Sterling? Where are the gun activists? Where are the throngs of angry conservatives shouting about the second amendment? This man’s right to bear arms; his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; his right to a jury and speedy trial -those were taken from him and yet they are silent. We all know why; we know about the apathy towards black Americans and other minorities being shot and killed by police, we know they are automatically assumed to have done something wrong and convicted in the courts of the media and white public opinion. There are those who deny the significance of race in Alton Sterling’s death, but as someone who works in public safety along side police officers, as someone who has been detained at gunpoint before, I can clearly see the racial impact, not only in the shooting itself, but also in the public reaction, the investigation, and now, the results. This is not only about one man’s death, it is about how common place this is. This is not anti-police, actually it is the opposite, it is about holding officers and departments accountable to assure the credibility of police.


This is a sad day for America, another name has been added to the list of injustice, with more names sure to come. When does it end? When will we be able to reassure our black children, youth, and even the 37-year-old man selling CDs at the convenience store or cigarettes on the street, that they can trust law enforcement and feel safe when approached? That they will be given the respect they deserve and that they will be innocent until proven guilty?


Now, we await the State of Louisiana’s decision as to whether or not they will pursue charges - I hope they do, and I hope some element of justice is served.  


My deepest condolences go out to the family and friends of Alton Sterling who have had to see this play out over the last 10 months, with much more to come. I wish peace for the community and safety for those within. And for the rest of us, the observers across the country, and across the world, inform yourself, speak up and speak out, we cannot allow this to quietly go away. 

sharethelovebeauty  asked:

"If you don't love me, say it. Go on. Say you don't" "I just wanna be loved" w/t Derek. Thanks doll. Keep up the good work 😚

Masterlist

Hey guys so I’m going back and writing some of my old request and this one for Derek got like six asks so I’m writing it :)

Say it (Derek Hale)

Derek and I were at a pack meeting at Scott’s house and we were currently not talking. We had gotten into a fight before we left and now he was sending me death glares across the room. I was really not in the mood for this so I sat down next to my long term best friend Stiles and he instantly wrapped his arm around me like we did when we were kids. Derek was not having any of that. Throughout the whole meeting Derek glared at me and Stiles, Stiles cracked under the pressure and removed his arm but that didn’t stop us from laughing or joking around. Derek was livid, I could practically see the smoke come out of his ears. Oh, I was totally going to be hearing about this when I got home.

When it was time to leave Derek stood impatiently by the door as I said bye to everyone. When I hugged Stiles goodbye I felt daggers in my back, if looks could kill…

“Good luck, text me if anything happens.” Lydia whispered in my ear as I hugged her, she (along with everyone else in the room) picked up on Derek and I’s fight.

The second I got into the camero I was expecting shouts but I got nothing. Not a single word. Not a single grunt, not a glare, nothing. It scared me more than him yelling at me would’ve. When we got to the loft I slowly walked inside.

“Derek don’t ignore this. Come on.”

“What do you want me to say? You’re practically hanging off of Stiles when I’m your boyfriend, and I was standing right there!”

“Are you seriously jealous of Stiles? You know he’s my bestfriend!”

“I don’t think he knows that!”

“Oh my god, I really don’t have time for stupid fights. I’m leaving.”

“So you’re just going to walk out!” he yelled grabbing my arm.

“Yeah I am! I don’t want to be here any more Derek!” I shouted back.

“Than what do you want!”

I just want to be loved!” I shouted and ripped my arm away from his grasp.

“What are you talking about? I love you. You know that.” he said as he followed me up the stairs as I started packing my bag.

“This relationship isn’t good anymore Derek.”

“That’s bullshit. Emma I have never loved anyone like I love you. This relationship is fine!”

“Derek I just want to go.” I whimpered. 

“If you can look me in the eye and tell me you don’t love me anyone than you can leave.”

“Derek-” I stopped.

“If you don’t love me say it. Go on, say you don’t.” 

“Der, I love you. I’ll always love you. But I can’t deal with this anymore.”

“Look Emma, I will do anything to keep you here right now. I’m cold, grumpy, awful with people, I can’t share my feelings, I’m no good. But when I’m with you I feel like I’m whole. Like all my imperfections don’t matter anymore. You bring out the good in me. So please, please stay.” he begged. He looked at me with sad, broken, puppy dog eyes.

“Damnit Derek.” I said before running back into his arms. 

Originally posted by whovian182

I miss my Der-Bear!

“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 is, of course, the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, oft cited as the justification for gun ownership and lax gun control in America. Various qualms have existed about its interpretation, however, with some people believing that it grants a blanket right to all citizens, while others believe it frames the founders’ intent in the context of militias.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”

The most common argument people bring up is that the first clause is grammatically clarifying the second clause. Militias are meant to maintain security. This can be interpreted in modern days as the military, the police, or the national guard. However, there is a more obvious argument for gun control here.

“A well regulated militia…”

Yes, it’s right there. Look a little more closely…

“well regulated”

That’s it right there. Well regulated. Not only is the 2nd Amendment limited to militias… but those militias should be well-regulated. Guns are meant to be regulated, not freely given.

Keep reading

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 is the second amendment, the one that so many people reference when discussing gun control in the US.
Personally I dont believe that you should be able to own a gun unless you have gone through a strict process, and only if you pass certain requirements. I dont think that my neighbor owning a gun is a part of this amendment, he is not in a militia nor is he a hunter.
Why do people think they need guns? Its a power thing. The argument I’ve been given was they want to be able to defend themselves from an attacker. Yes defense is a good thing to have but if an attacker is able to do a decent amount of damage they can probably get a gun out of your hand.
‘I can have one therefore I should’
No. On so many levels no. I can have a lion but you dont see me parading mufasa around on a leash. And just like a lion being hazardous to others in public so are guns. If someone is walking down the street with a gun there is no knowing if that person is going to turn and start shooting others.
People are concerned with their own safety and forgetting that owning a gun increases your chance of being shot. If I dont own a gun, or carry a gun then someone cant use it against me, I wont ever have to deal with the thought 'if i get jumped right now can they grab my gun?’
Ok so what if the attacker already has a gun? Drawing your own will only threaten the attacker making them more jumpy and eager to pull the trigger, because then they are defending themselves. Its very unlikely that in a situation if two people pointing guns at one another that no one will end up injured.
Stop trying to protect yourself by adding another weapon into the mix.
If you are so concerned with your safety then maybe help those who are in need, those who cant get a job and resort to thieving.

Green Beret's Open Letter on the 2nd Amendment

“The Green Berets, the US Army Special Forces, have a new open letter on the Second Amendment. Over 1100 have signed so far.

In the US Army, it is no secret that the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ), United States Code (USC titles 10, 2, and 18), Department of Defense (DOD) directives, and strict Military Guidelines limit, if not forbid, military active duty personnel from taking a political stand. They can face Court Marshal, Dishonorable Discharge, Article 15 non-judicial punishment, and even jail time.

They also have a fine line to walk. Their very oath, the oath I swore in 1992, does not have an expiration date and demands that we defend the US Constitution against ALL ENEMIES both foreign and domestic.  In 2013, and continuing today, these men are seeing an ever growing threat inside our nation. Therefore when the very fabric of our nation and the Second Amendment of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights is threatened, these brave 1100 (and the list is growing) have stepped up to the plate to put career on the line to defend the very oath they swore. The first step to defending that oath was taken in the form of an open letter to the people of the United States. They continue to sign.

While I realize the letter is long, it has many points that hit the mark a little close to home here state side. Everyone should read this. We should all be concerned about our Constitution and the Amendments. Here is that letter:”

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “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”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

Source:http://madworldnews.com/green-berets-open-letter-second-amendment/

Great letter. I feel like it covers a lot of gunblr’s same sentiments.

THE EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.

The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.

Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way.

It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement. THE TEXT OF the Second Amendment is maddeningly ambiguous. It merely says, “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.” Yet to each side in the gun debate, those words are absolutely clear.

Gun-rights supporters believe the amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms and outlaws most gun control. Hard-line gun-rights advocates portray even modest gun laws as infringements on that right and oppose widely popular proposals—such as background checks for all gun purchasers—on the ground that any gun-control measure, no matter how seemingly reasonable, puts us on the slippery slope toward total civilian disarmament.

This attitude was displayed on the side of the National Rifle Association’s former headquarters: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first clause of the Second Amendment, the part about “a well regulated Militia,” was conveniently omitted. To the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is all rights and no regulation.
Although decades of electoral defeats have moderated the gun-control movement’s stated goals, advocates still deny that individual Americans have any constitutional right to own guns. 

The Second Amendment, in their view, protects only state militias. Too politically weak to force disarmament on the nation, gun-control hard-liners support any new law that has a chance to be enacted, however unlikely that law is to reduce gun violence. For them, the Second Amendment is all regulation and no rights.

While the two sides disagree on the meaning of the Second Amendment, they share a similar view of the right to bear arms: both see such a right as fundamentally inconsistent with gun control, and believe we must choose one or the other. Gun rights and gun control, however, have lived together since the birth of the country. Americans have always had the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of state constitutional law. Today, 43 of the 50 state constitutions clearly protect an individual’s right to own guns, apart from militia service.

Yet we’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.

OPPOSITION TO GUN CONTROL was what drove the black militants to visit the California capitol with loaded weapons in hand. The Black Panther Party had been formed six months earlier, in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement. Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were legal landmarks, but they had yet to deliver equal opportunity. In Newton and Seale’s view, the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect and serve the public: the police.

Inspired by the teachings of Malcolm X, Newton and Seale decided to fight back. Before he was assassinated in 1965, Malcolm X had preached against Martin Luther King Jr.’s brand of nonviolent resistance. Because the government was “either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property” of blacks, he said, they had to defend themselves “by whatever means necessary.” Malcolm X illustrated the idea for Ebony magazine by posing for photographs in suit and tie, peering out a window with an M-1 carbine semiautomatic in hand. Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms. “Article number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”

Guns became central to the Panthers’ identity, as they taught their early recruits that “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.” They bought some of their first guns with earnings from selling copies of Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book to students at the University of California at Berkeley. In time, the Panther arsenal included machine guns; an assortment of rifles, handguns, explosives, and grenade launchers; and “boxes and boxes of ammunition,” recalled Elaine Brown, one of the party’s first female members, in her 1992 memoir. Some of this matériel came from the federal government: one member claimed he had connections at Camp Pendleton, in Southern California, who would sell the Panthers anything for the right price. One Panther bragged that, if they wanted, they could have bought an M48 tank and driven it right up the freeway.

Along with providing classes on black nationalism and socialism, Newton made sure recruits learned how to clean, handle, and shoot guns. Their instructors were sympathetic black veterans, recently home from Vietnam. For their “righteous revolutionary struggle,” the Panthers were trained, as well as armed, however indirectly, by the U.S. government.

Civil-rights activists, even those committed to nonviolent resistance, had long appreciated the value of guns for self-protection. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in 1956, after his house was bombed. His application was denied, but from then on, armed supporters guarded his home. One adviser, Glenn Smiley, described the King home as “an arsenal.” William Worthy, a black reporter who covered the civil-rights movement, almost sat on a loaded gun in a living-room armchair during a visit to King’s parsonage.

The Panthers, however, took it to an extreme, carrying their guns in public, displaying them for everyone—especially the police—to see. Newton had discovered, during classes at San Francisco Law School, that California law allowed people to carry guns in public so long as they were visible, and not pointed at anyone in a threatening way.

In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest motherfucker in the world.” Newton’s message was clear: “The gun is where it’s at and about and in.” After the February incident, the Panthers began a regular practice of policing the police. Thanks to an army of new recruits inspired to join up when they heard about Newton’s bravado, groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice.

SOURCE: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

You Need to Support Bernie Sanders

For anyone who doesn’t know, Bernie Sanders is a candidate for the 2016 Presidential election. He is seen as the underdog of the election, mainly because most people don’t take his campaign seriously, especially next to Hillary Clinton. However, his policies and goals are extremely progressive and can start a revolution for Americans. To help spread the word about this, here’s a simplified list of some of his views on certain issues:

Social: Bernie is pro-choice for abortion. He supports the legalization of same-sex marriage. He believes that the government should require insurance companies to provide free birth control. He feels that businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone because of religious beliefs. Also, he feels that the Federal government should not allow the Confederate flag to be flown in states.

Environmental: Bernie supports the preservation of America’s National Parks, and believes that the government should expand their domain in order to preserve more land. He feels that the U.S. should require labels on GMO/non GMO foods (genetically modified organisms) because the people have a right to know. He also supports environmental regulations and changes to prevent global warming, as well as an incentive for the use of alternate energy production.

Economic: Bernie supports an increase in the minimum wage from current status to an actual living wage. He also believes that men and women need to be payed equal pay for equal work.

Domestic Policy: Bernie supports American’s right to bear arms, and wants to keep it in tact. However, he supports increased gun control in that strict background checks, psychological tests, and training should be required when purchasing a gun. He also believes that anyone purchasing a gun needs to pass a criminal and public safety background check.

Foreign Policy: Bernie feels that the government needs to reduce military spending in order to better fund education. He also believes that [suspected] terrorists should be given a fair trial in federal courts.

Education: Bernie supports an increased tax on the wealthy in order to reduce student loans.

Healthcare: Bernie supports the legalization of marijuana, and feels that all citizens jailed for crimes involving the drug be freed upon legalization.

Again, this is just a general overlook of some of Bernie Sanders’ beliefs regarding controversial issues. Of course, use this how you will, but it appears blatantly obvious that in numerous ways, Bernie Sanders is what America needs. I can’t vote, but I can spread the word and support a worthy underdog. He truly wants to make America a better place, and I think he’s the best candidate for doing just that.

The Second Amendment and You!

Because I’m so tired of seeing people improperly quote and define the Second Amendment (especially in defense against stricter gun regulations whenever yet another mass shooting happens in America) we’re going to have a lesson on grammar (and history) in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was written:

The Second Amendment: “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.”

In this sentence, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is not a separate clause. It is describing what a well regulated militia is. If you were putting this sentence in modern English, it would read something like this:

“A well regulated militia, comprised of the people, who have the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, as it is necessary to the security of a free state.”

So, would you like to have a gun? You totally can have one! IF you enlist in the people’s militia, which you totally have the right to do! However, your right to collect and use military grade weaponry for your personal leisure is in no way protected by the second amendment. Also, the government totally has the right to regulate you, your guns, and what you can do with those guns - thus the “well regulated militia” part.

If you want to further debunk the second amendment, you can look at it in the context of the third amendment, “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” - where you see that these laws were, in fact, written in direct response to the British soldiers who came into people’s houses and camped out during the Revolutionary War, and the second and third amendments were made to retaliate against this kind of house usurpation. And unless we live in a society where the military is breaking into your home and taking your stuff on the regular, you really shouldn’t be using your guns anyway, unless you use it as a PRIMARY SOURCE for your livelihood (which most of us don’t).

But hey, that’s just the grammatical, political, and social context of the Bill of Rights. Not like it’s relevant or anything.

the second amendment of the u.s. constitution says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

it doesn’t say “from now one the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms” or any other similar language implying the creation or establishment of such a right

it was merely a written guarantee of a protection of an already existing right

the right to keep and bear arms, like all rights, pre-dates the constitution, exists independently of it, and would continue to exist in that documents absence or amendment for all persons regardless of country of origin or residence.

This coming December will mark the 123rd Anniversary.
A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT…….December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms.

TWENTY members of the 7th Cavalry’s death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.