About Me

Name: Pscyclone
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Democrats: You Have No Right to Self-Defense

Posted by Pscyclone on Monday, January 21, 2008 9:56:28 AM

When a person speaks, an observant listener will learn a lot about what the speaker believes, what he or she feels and what he or she is going to do about it.  I sometimes wish I was an observant listener.  But in these days of political campaigns and over-the-top promises filled with rhetoric and showmanship in lieu of substance, what can really be gleaned from the talking heads vying for privilege of representing you to the world?  I'm not smart enough to fill this space with that sort of analysis.  A healthy dose of distrust is mandatory whenever you listen to a politician -- of any stripe -- to do otherwise is to set yourself up for disillusionment, at best, and at worst, the loss of your family.

That may be a harsh charge to level, but it is one that serves me well enough to cut through the nonsense, expect the politician to lie for personal advantage in order to do his, or her, own thing once elected.  The most recent example is former President Clinton who talked and walked a centrist mantra for his entire campaign only to skew alarmingly left once empowered.  We paid the price for such a man in terms of personal freedoms and global respect.  For all the "damage" the left would have us believe President George W. Bush has caused with his policies, there is none as great as the "Slick Willy" legacy, except perhaps FDR's.

And now, eight years after one of the most disgraceful presidencies in the history of our country, we are faced with three carbon copy candidates on the democrat side of our politics.  Senators Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all represent a return to the nanny state ideals that laid this country low and brought us to the brink of shredding the Constitution in favor of tyranny over liberty.  Once again, they are trying to do the same things, only this time, their arguments are more insidious, more cunning, and more dangerous.

In every election that I can remember, firearms and the Second Amendment have played as important a role as Social Security, national defense and the economy.  So it's no surprise that, though the issue seems to have swayed in favor of those that wish to preserve the Second Amendment, it is being brought up again; the matter is far from settled.  Perhaps the timing is one of providence; the D.C. gun ban was struck down by the Nth Circuit Courts and seems poised to go before the Supreme Court.  Advocates and opponents are anxiously awaiting that trial.  Personally, I'd like to see the Supreme Court finally acknowledge what any clear thinking adult already knows; the Second Amendment is a fundamental right which should be as protected as the Sixteenth Amendment (notice how McCain-Feingold Act as well as various bills in front of Congress, and the misnamed 'Fairness Doctrine' all attempt to limit the First Amendment, the so-called 'tolerance bills' seek to restrict the freedom of religion, and the nationwide sobriety checkpoints are allowed to violate the Fourth Amendment -- but no one in authority ever wants to discuss alternatives to the Sixteenth Amendment).  The Court has normally restricted its findings to the narrowest scope possible; my wish aside, that is probably what it will do again.

Irrespective of how fair the winds, every single person in a public leadership position should pass Constitutional muster, which includes the Second Amendment.  If he or she doesn't, the election should go to someone else.  So it is fitting and proper that all our candidates be asked about the issues surrounding the Second Amendment.

In a recent democratic debate, the three leading candidates were put to the question of the Second Amendment.  You can see their responses in the first few minutes of this video.  As is usual, each tried to have the Second Amendment both ways; they were for it before they were against it.  And I was enlightened by their responses.  In a broad appeal to lawful gun owners, each of the big three candidates whole-heartedly endorsed the Second Amendment and the rights of Americans to bear arms for the purposes of the hunting and shooting sports.

Shocking, isn't it?  Even the democrats realize one can't get elected without pandering to the hunters and other sportsmen.  Inasmuch as I was enlightened about their positions by what they said, what they didn't say spoke to me even more.  What they didn't say is the most disturbing, and should be the most offensive.

In each response, the candidate tried to paint the Second Amendment as a right they respect for hunters, sportsman, and lawful gun owners.  There was no acknowledgement that the Second Amendment also protects those who wish to arm themselves for self defense.  This single fact is the most appalling and as I said earlier, offensive.  It is also disingenuous.  To those who are looking for simple 'yes' and 'no' answers, it appeared on the surface that all three candidates supported our Second Amendment rights.  But they didn't.  They're trying to make it mean something it doesn't and the hosts of the debate let those attempts slide.  We shouldn't.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.  It is true hunters use firearms in their sport like a baseball player uses a bat and that the Second Amendment protects their rights to do so.  The Constitutional Framers didn't have hunting in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.  They intended to arm the citizens of this country for personal defense and as a final, last line of defense against a tyrannical government.  Our culture was based on farming and hunting -- there was no need to write an Amendment into the Constitution to protect it.  In fact, when the delegate from Virginia (I think) brought up the notion of protecting 'fishing rights', he was bluntly and directly corrected; the Constitution is not about economy at all -- it's about a government in power by the consent of the governed.  So it's rather incorrect to interpret the Second Amendment as a guard for hunters and sportsman.  If that were the case, where's the Amendment protecting fishermen and their nets?

No, the candidates were trying to be something they are not and hoping that you and I were not paying attention.  Too, they are hoping we don't know our history, and don't care that much for our future.  The Second Amendment is the last resort against a government that has forgotten its purpose, its boundaries; it is the last resort against a thug entering your home under the cover of darkness to threaten you and your family.

Senators Obama, Clinton, and Edwards do not support many of our rights (Freedoms of Speech and Religion to name two).  What they said with their mouths and lied with their voices is that they ardently support the Second Amendment.  With their silence on the real purpose of the Second Amendment they showed ardent opposition; they believe you and I have no right to self defense.

What other rights do you think they want to take away from us?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joy Behar Mocks Islam

Posted by Pscyclone on Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:36:55 AM

.. and the audience of "The View" joined in with laughter.

In an interesting condemnation of most religions, Joy Behar remarked, "I have a theory that you can’t find any saints anymore because of psychotropic medication. I think that [in] the old days, the saints were hearing voices and they didn’t have any Thorazine to calm them down.

"Now that we have all of this medication available to us, you can’t find a saint anymore."

It became clear in the crosstalk that Ms. Behar was referring to the Catholic Church and its methods and standards for canonization. 

What Ms. Behar did was show the depth and breadth of her ignorance.  Saints are not canonized because they hear voices; rather, they are canonized because they lived their lives in such a way that would allow them to be lifted up as examples of a Christian walk, where faith in God is not only necessary, but also sane.  The saints are proof for the rest of us that there is a better way of living – which begins and ends with God.

However, if you look at what she said closely, doesn’t it appear that she’s insulting not just the Catholics, but Jews and Muslims as well?  Sure, Judaism and Islam don’t refer to their hero figures as "saints", but in a religious context it is rather the same thing, whatever doctrinal name a religion uses, no?

It is well known that Islam’s principle "saint" Muhammad often "communed" with Allah over a vast array of subjects, not the least of which was the question of whether to wed and consummate the wedding with a nine year-old girl, or not; Allah approved.  Muhammad sought – and found – Allah’s voice in just about every decision we understand he made (as recorded by the Qur’an).  The origination of Islam is, of course, the appearance of the angel Gabriel, personally delivering Allah’s first recruitment message to Muhammad.  Does Ms. Behar believe this appearance would never happen had Muhammad been on a regimen of Thorazine?  Doesn't it then follow if Muhammad had not received and accepted the Allah's recruitment as a "saint" that the modern world might never have known the Islamic faith?

I wonder how the Muslim community would have responded had they chosen to take Ms. Behar’s remarks at face value instead of joining in the mocking of a competing faith.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »