In the interest of transparency, I will state That I consider myself an Independent. I believe I have conservative values but a progressive outlook. As an example I provide this: I am "Pro-Life" but believe in "Pro-Choice". How can I be both you might ask. I believe in a "Free Society" where there is legal abortion, I would pursue a "Pro-Life" approach in my life, but would not think of telling someone (especially a woman)that they must follow my beliefs. So when I see legislatures create laws impeding someone from their constitutional rights it pisses me off!
I'm not Gay, seeing men kiss I will admit disturbs me, I find nothing attractive about men. Thus I do not engage in homosexual activity. In a "Free Society" I believe I have the right to make that decision. So I think it's only right that L.G.B.T. community have the same right. It's their life and they should live it by their beliefs and not mine. I have friends who are gay and they are wonderful people (which is why I consider them friends). So I'm saying, if you don't believe in "Gay Marriage", don't marry someone the same gender as you. That's your right! Telling someone else they can't is not! Don't quote me the bible because I don't believe in religion, religion created Westboro Baptist Church who seem to forget to quote Proverbs 6:16-19 to themselves. I believe in GOD. The bible was written by men not by GOD. GOD wrote Ten Commandments, and I don't believe the "Self Righteous" live up to them. When they claim to tell us what is God's word, I think they violate God's 3rd Commandment
I'm starting this blog for honest discussion because I'm scared, I'm tired and I'm pissed off! Like many people, I see something happening to this country that I love so much and I want to work with "We The People" to foster the changes needed to restore it to the principles of "The Great Society".
I'm scared because the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations "are people". I think that is ridiculous even on it's face! Corporations have no soul! Their sole purposes is to make as much profit for their shareholders as possible and thus will donate as much money as necessary to garner that goal regardless of it's impact to "We The People" and the "American Way of Life". That is why we have laws and regulations to protect us. I don't believe in "over regulation" but common sense rules like not polluting people's natural resources are.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy people who claim the government is infringing on their freedom and yet try to deny people constitutional rights for whatever reason they see fit!.
I'm pissed off because of the hypocrisy practiced by our politicians. 90% of Americans believe we should do background checks before selling someone a firearm. Honest gun retailers do that now. People wanted expanded to all gun sales so as to not put firearms in the hands of those who are mentally disturbed, psychotic, abusive or otherwise dangerous. To me it's common sense. There was a time when the N.R.A. agreed. That was when they were looking to the benefit of the N.R.A.'s members and not that of the gun manufacturers as they do now. I'm scared when the paranoia fosters ignorance and people claim that background checks are the "government wanting to take our guns away", and violating the our 2nd amendment rights. I believe most of those people have no idea of the 2nd amendment in reality.
Now the idiot posing as President is proud he signed an Executive Order making it easier for the mentally ill to legally buy firearms!
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:
"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."
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.
As what I have written so far is enough for discussion, I will simply add the following issues I have with government:
- Voter Suppression
It is my hope that we can have civil discourse of views and we as a people will grow individually and as a country will progress positively to "The Great Society".