Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Foolish College Students

Let me ask you something. If you were caught breaking the law, and I mean the caught-dead-to-rights-nothing-ambiguous-about-it-type-of-caught, and I was the judge who sentenced you, what would you do months later? Would you go post a picture of yourself on the world wide web, a picture flaunting the crime that got you in trouble in the first place, along with a catchy caption that said, basically, "$%@! you, Judge"?

Probably not. Because you are probably not a Michigan State University student without any brain cells remaining.

As the Detroit Free Press reported, a few Spartans from Michigan State didn't quite understand this behavior may get them into further trouble.

The judge had chastised nine students caught drinking at a Troy high school prom last spring. That would be the end of it, he figured.

It was, until Judge Michael Martone stumbled across a Web site weeks after the students had been sentenced to probation. Leering back at him from his computer screen were some of the same students from Troy Athens High School, now in college.

On the site, they were giving him the finger. They were toasting him with cups of beer and chugging shots of Jagermeister liqueur. They were posing with beer cans stacked almost to the ceiling, and retching into toilets at Michigan State University.

The Web site's headline said: "F U Martone. ... Night after court/ Hahaaa."


As the Free Press states, this all started back in high school, with underage drinking at the Prom. It lead to some consequences with the school, then to consequences with the judicial system.

Days before the prom incident, Judge Martone of Troy's 52-4 District Court had paid a visit to Athens High School, his fifth time in five years, to address the Class of '05.

Martone, 58, has devoted his career to battling under-age drinking.

In 13 years on the bench, he has given speeches on drinking's dangers to more than 150,000 students across the nation.

Other judges have praised and emulated his crusade, especially his dramatic school assemblies in which Martone holds actual court sessions, marching guilty adult defendants off in handcuffs to the gasps of students. He follows up with warnings about the risks of alcohol poisoning, bringing up tearful parents of teens who have died from drinking, making gyms and auditoriums quiet as a cathedral.

So, it was an unhappy coincidence that, after Martone had given his prom warning to the Troy Athens assembly, some of those students appeared before him to be arraigned on charges of being a minor in possession of alcohol, a misdemeanor.

That means they not only can't drink again, but they must stay away from wherever alcohol is served or consumed.


So, after all the court costs and legal fees are paid, and community service is worked, what do you do? Why, you take pictures of yourself violating the Judge's orders and tell him to blank off.

Soon, her computer skills would have her creating the Internet photo gallery. More than 400 digital photos showed some students appearing passed out, others using special tubes to gulp beer, couples playing a drinking game called "beer pong," inebriated girls sitting on toilets -- all of it tagged with captions, many of them profane and aimed at Martone.
All three of the girls in question were shown drinking at parties at Michigan State.

And then, the judge finds out.

The site had been up a month when Martone surfed the Internet, seeking a news release on one of his prevention programs. By entering his own name into a search engine, he landed on (name withheld's) site instead. Almost immediately he recognized faces from Troy Athens and the prom incident, he said.

That triggered what he calls his most trying time as a judge. He was hurt, frustrated and disillusioned, he recalled.

"They made a mockery of the legal system," he said this week. "I had to do something."

The Web site, shown to police and probation officers, immediately became legal evidence for charging the three young women with contempt of court "for disobeying my direct order not to consume alcohol," Martone said.


The judge wasn't happy.

The students were brought before Martone again. He lugged the evidence into court, inside his laptop.

On Dec. 23, (name withheld) the Web-site creator, joined (another girl) in court, ready for their new sentences. This time, (the web site creator) appeared without a parent or a lawyer. She said last week that she did so because she wanted to face Martone on her own, to show her remorse and willingness to accept responsibility for her misdeeds and to try to explain herself. She was deeply ashamed, she said.

She'd written a letter, asking for leniency. She handed it to the judge.

"It was sad," he recalled. "In it, she said she wants to be a criminal justice major. I told her, perhaps you might want to consider another line of work."

Martone began questioning(name withheld) about her Web site, why she created it, and what some of its symbols and profane words meant.

In an exchange of about 45 minutes, Martone reminded her to be honest, as (name withheld) first evaded some questions, then admitted that her Web site did use profanity aimed at Martone, and that she had a drinking problem.

He sentenced her to 30 days in the Oakland County Jail. She was marched off in handcuffs, to spend Christmas and New Year's Day behind bars.

Martone then sentenced (the other girl) to 15 days. The two become cellmates.


A third girl received a more lenient sentence, 10 days in the slammer, plus 100 hours of Community Service. The 10 days would be served on the weekends.

Of the nine students who drank before the prom, two others have served jail time as well, for later alcohol infractions. But only the three women created evidence that landed in the judge's laptop.

Alito is the 110th Supreme Court Justice

Judge Samuel Alito will officially be Associate Justice Samuel Alito before the State of the Union speech tonight. He was confirmed by a 52-48 vote.

CITGO supports Dictator Chavez?

J.J., from God, Guns, and Glory! had this interesting article about CITGO gasoline and their financial link to the government of Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez.

I've confirmed the information, available at CITGO's website.

CITGO states:

The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of PetrĂ³leos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Alito to be Confirmed

Judge Samuel Alito is soon to be Associate Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.

In a side note, I enjoyed the call for a filibusterer Massachusetts Democratic Senator (and former presidential hopeful) John Kerry. Senator Kerry made this proclamation while at a five-star resort in Switzerland. What a place to do senatorial business. But I digress...

Alito is expected to be confirmed Tuesday with the support at least 57 senators in the Republican-controlled Senate who have stated their intention to back President Bush's selection to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The 55-year-old U.S. appeals court judge was then to be quickly sworn in before his expected appearance at Bush's annual State of the Union speech with the White House's other new Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice John Roberts.


One thing I am still curious about - I heard all about his abortion views, his alleged abortion views, what he thinks about Roe v. Wade, ad naseum. What I don't know about is how he views the 2nd Amendment. I hear him called "conservative" on the news, but I know that many brand-name conservatives hold the 2nd amendment as an embarrassment while looking down their snotty noses at the "red-neck hicks" who hold it dear.

I look forward to Judge Alito, he appears to be a man of integrity. But, in reality, I don't know a lot about the man, and I simply hope for the best.

Tags: , ,

Is AOL Blasphemous?

I had to chuckle at this World Net Daily article.

I enjoy WND. I go to it almost daily, read most of page 1, some of page 2. I respect their writers. But this one really made me think, "you must be kidding."

America Online is now acting like God – using what some consider to be His very name in a marketing pitch for e-mail, voice chat, video chat, instant messaging, text messaging and other forms of communication.

AIM's new slogan is "I AM."


The service says things like "I AM INSTANT MESSAGING" or "I AM VOICE CHAT."

"I AM" are the words God used to answer Moses' question about His name.

Jesus, too, used the phrase in John 8:58, when he said, "Before Abraham was, I am."


May be AOL was acting blasphemous and intentionally used the name of God. I doubt it, though. It probably sounded like a cool name. It probably market-tested well.

Millar suggested AOL would never think of using – or misusing – the names "Allah," or "Buddha" in its corporate marketing efforts.


Please! You don't see "Allah Instant Messaging" or "Budda Voice Chat," but at the same time, I don't think you can read into the "I AM ..." to make it say something like "God Instant Messaging." I think we are taking blasphemy a little too far on this issue.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Church and State

I was driving down the freeway yesterday when I came across a car with this bumper sticker attached:

"Separate church and state"

There were other stickers on the vehicle promoting various liberal causes and disparaging President Bush, but the church and state sticker caught my interest. My mind drifted to the Constitutional debates and thought of the concerns the Founding Fathers' had to make sure that the Church was never corrupted by the State. We would not have a National Church (in the way the Church of England is the UK's National Church). Church and spiritual belief was too important; the State would not be allowed to interfere.

Fast-forward a couple of hundred years, and now we see a different spin. The Church, not the State, is the holder of all things evil. The Church, liberals worry, is trying to infiltrate and corrupt the State. This is not the case, but the Church is allowed to try to reform society, to improve the lot of the people both spiritually and temporally.

Still, all we see championed is "separate church and state," something that is not in the 1st amendment, as ruled recently by our judiciary. I don't know what the liberals fear about the church, especially since it seems to be their greatest asset at election time, making the rounds in the pulpits on Sunday mornings... wait a minute, may be we do need to separate church and state.

Tags: ,

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Dirty Cop

I respect and appreciate our law enforcement people here in Michigan, and by and large I think they do a great job. Once in a while, though, we get a bad apple and wonder - how in the heck did this happen?

Here is one of those stories.

A police officer (to be accurate, a now former police officer), actually attacked his partner. As the Detroit Free Press writes,

Dupuis allegedly demanded that his partner, Prema Graham, who was driving the police car, stop for a soda. When she refused, Dupuis grabbed for the steering wheel before prodding her twice with the Taser as she warded him off with her free hand, police said.

He then recharged the Taser and drove it into her right thigh, police reports said. She was hospitalized with minor injuries and has since returned to work.


Wow - and this guy is supposed to protect the public?

Dupuis has worked as a police officer in Inkster, Ecorse, Hudson, Southgate, Highland Park and Hamtramck. He also worked as a Wayne County sheriff's deputy.

Depuis is 32 years old. That is quite a work history. Why would someone have so many different jobs? Because he wasn't a good officer? The Free Press sheds a little light on records this (less than impeccable) work history:

Feb. 17, 1997: Written up for careless driving while working for the Ecorse Police Department.

Nov. 4, 1998: Reprimanded by the Southgate Police Department for a incident Oct. 8, 1998, in which he allegedly beat up a mentally disabled man at a gas station.

Dec. 24, 1998: Accused of falsifying overtime slips while working for Southgate.

March 16, 1999: Accused of stalking a woman and repeatedly pulling her over, also while working for Southgate.

March 30, 1999: Told by the Southgate Police Department that his one-year probationary period would not be honored and that he would be fired. He resigned three days later.

Nov. 7, 2000: Laid off by the Highland Park Public Safety department.

April 21, 2002: While working with the Hamtramck police, he is accused, with another officer, of assaulting a man during a traffic stop, which resulted in a lawsuit.

Nov. 3, 2005: Accused of discharging a Taser stun gun and striking his female partner, Prema Graham, in the leg with the weapon

Nov. 5, 2005: Lawsuit settled for $20,000 stemming from traffic stop April 2, 2002.

Nov. 10, 2005: Fired from the Hamtramck Police Department.

Dec. 7, 2005: Charged with misdemeanor assault and battery in connection with the Taser incident


It is easy to rip cops, especially when one this bad hits this news. I don't want to do that - but it does make me ask, how in the world does this kind of thing happen? What kind of damage does it do to the public trust? Shouldn't a token background search provide some idea that this may not be someone you want on your police force - BEFORE YOU HIRE THE GUY?

Tags: ,

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Did Jesus Exist? Let a Court Decide?

You know the phrase. "Now I've seen everything," or "now I've heard everything."

I have often uttered "Now I've heard everything." And yet, I frequently re-learn that, no indeed, I haven't heard everything.

This story from Italy really does have me thinking, "now I've heard everything.".

How is this for jurisprudence: a court in Italy is trying to determine if Jesus existed... and if the Roman Catholic Church is breaking the law by teaching Jesus lived around 2,000 years ago!

The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.

"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.


Mr. Cascioli is taking Father Righi to court, to make him prove Jesus existed as an historical figure.

"In my book, The Fable of Christ, I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ's existence," Cascioli said.


So they are going to a court of law to make a priest prove Jesus existed? Now I've heard everything.

Tags: ,

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Israel and Eminent Domain?

Apparently, Israel didn't learn from the Gaza Strip pull-out. The are at it again. This time in the West Bank, at the city of Hebron.

According to the article, "many of the families are armed." However, "there are no plans whatsoever on the part of the residents to use weapons. This is not what we're about. Still, there will be strong resistance."


In the meantime, it looks like their resistance is causing a pain in the neck to the government that would displace them.

"IDF soldiers, snipers and police took over several buildings that surround the marketplace, while the residents inside were busy preparing food for the dozens of protesters stationed near the structure in hopes of preventing the evictions."


The Jewish residents of Hebron will not win this battle.

This strikes me as interesting, because it reminds me of the Kelo v. the City of New London ruling. Remember this recent ruling - where the Supreme Court betrayed Americans and the Constitution? Eminent domain now means private investors can have a city condemn a property, kick out the residents, and let the private investors build - all because "public good" will come out of it with supposedly higher tax revenue.

How are these stories related? Simple - the government sticks it to the people, and then rewards the crook.

In the case of the Jewish residents of Hebron, their government is kicking them out of town, taking their property and giving it to a group of people who's leadership has sworn to destroy the Jewish people.

In the case of the USA, their government is now able to kick them out of town, seize their property, and give it to some rich guy who will build something on it that may pay more in taxes.

In either case, the governments' actions are based on lies, and it is the citizens who pay the painful price.

Tags: , ,

Israel Withdraws Again. Why?

Israel is kicking Jewish people out of the West Bank now.

I don't understand it. How can the Israeli government push it's citizens around like this? The Gaza Strip withdrawl was a disaster, and the Palestinians' have continued aggression against the Jewish people.

Why allow your people to suffer more and more injustice, first at the hands of the State, and then at the hands of the Palestinians?

The Second Amendment is Not About Duck Hunting

Check out S.M. Head's website and blog.

My favorite article from his website is reproduced below. To find a direct link to this article, click here.

The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting (© 1999-2006 by S. M. Head)

I subscribe to the idea, like the founders our nation, that the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee of a pre-existing, personal, God-granted right - not a collective right or right granted to a militia or the National Guard. In fact, the constitution's 2nd amendment is not a grant of permission, but an acknowledgement of an "unalienable" right that we as a free people have, constitution or not. It takes a real sloppy twisting of language and a truly dishonest interpretation to squeeze out of the 2nd something it doesn't say. Its about an armed citizenry, solely and uniquely for the purpose of keeping our government from opressing its people. Period. It is in no way about hunting or sporting or personal self defense. But thats what the anti-gun liberals do - they lie, and amazingly they succeed at getting easily duped people to believe them. The issue of guns and gun control is not a minor political hot potato or a secondary topic to be treated lightly, it is the very insurance policy of the Constitution. After all, tyrants prefer unarmed victims.


Tags: ,

Game

I've been playing a game for about a month that is pretty fun. It is a political simulation called Particracy.

Check it out - it is a fun few minutes every day or two.

The"Anachronistic" 2nd Amendment

I've been harping on the ACLU position on the Second Amendment for a while. Please note that their webpage describing their position was long enough that I have addressed it piece-by-piece it in several blogs. In fact, I addressed this particular section of their webpage several articles ago, in this tome of wisdom. But I have more to say on the issue, so grab a cup of coffee, strap on that .45 or .357 or (fill-in-the-blank), pull out the magnifying glass, and let's examine the ACLU position and why I believe it is so incorrect and inadequate.

This is what the ACLU states as background to their position:

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Let's break it down and then let's beat it up.

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles."

Our 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.

Is the right a "collective" one? If this is collective - meaning individuals cannot exercise this right, then all of the Bill of Rights is collective, not individual. The same wording is used throughout the Bill of Rights.

Who are the entities in this amendment? The militia and the people. The militia is necessary to the security of a free nation. Who makes up the militia? According to 10 USC Sec.311, all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 are defined as members of the militia.

Who are "the people"? Well, they are the citizenry, right?

So the militia is not, per se, part of "the people." But members of "the people" compromise the militia, which has a function different from a standing army. There is a clear distinction between the militia and the people. We are allowed a militia, and we are allowed our individual right to keep and bear arms.

What was the purpose of a militia? It was not necessarily, as the ACLU states, to keep the people free from the central government. Their purpose was to protect people from forces that would harm people, such as armed forces from another state (which did occasionally occur) or from raids by Native Americans.

This right has nothing to do with the National Guard. If we are to truly believe the National Guard fulfills the purpose of the militia as stated in the 2nd amendment, why is the Federal Government sending members over to Iraq? Shouldn't they be stationed in their home state? Isn't the National Guard a part of the U.S. Army, while militia units have not been part of a standing army, historically? Sure, militia units served the Continental Army in the Revolutionary War, but under the control of local officers - plus, they were no longer serving with the standing Army at the conclusion of the war.

And, contrary to ACLU opinion, there is nothing anachronistic about the militia. It exists today, and not as the National Guard.

The situation in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina should show that a handgun or hunting rifle can do lots of good in one's personal protection, and that a militia can form to protect people. Neighbors acted in a militia capacity until control could be restored. The National Guard and the police were not protecting people. Neighbors protecting neighbors, fathers' and mothers' protecting their families, friends protecting friends, and decent people protecting those who couldn't protect themselves - all of these became the militia. Counter to the ACLU slam on hunting guns and handguns, these tools worked just fine for the New Orleans militia members.

There is nothing anachronistic about defense or self-defense. I imagine that late at night, if an ACLU member was at home, sleeping snugly in bed until a window shattering wakes the member up, that member would "get anachronistic" really quick.


"The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Again, I refer to the Second Amendment.

We have already established the 2nd contains an individual right to keep and bear arms, as well as a right to act as a militia. The 2nd very clearly states this right "shall not be infriged." What is the purpose of licensing and registration? To remove the guns from the people. To disarm those that would be the militia in times of crisis, when there is no protection from the National Guard or from the police.

When "licensing and registration" are called "reasonable regulation," we see that there no such reality exists... there is no "reasonable regulation." The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As a side note, the ACLU really does have an interesting web site. Whether or not you agree with their opinions, and I rarely do, they do a great job of clearly laying out their beliefs and making information easily accessible. Take a trip to their web site sometime.

Tags: , , ,


Monday, January 16, 2006

2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court

This statement on ACLU policy just makes me sick. Attorney's should know better. And something tells me, they do.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

Unfortunately, that is not what U.S. v. Miller said.

As a matter of fact, the Senate's 1982 "Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report" provides the contrary evidence.

According to the case law appendix, the Miller decision said:

a court cannot take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun is covered by the second amendment — but the Court did not indicate that National Guard status is in any way required for protection by that amendment, and indeed defined "militia" to include all citizens able to bear arms.

As I write this blog, it is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday. I think of the civil rights and dignity he stood for, and I find it interesting that the Senate report had this to say in regards to the terrible Dred Scott decision:

The United States Supreme Court has only three times commented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our constitution. The first comment, in Dred Scott, indicated strongly that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court noted that, were it to hold blacks to be entitled to equality of citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

As a side note, let's not forget that the government has a history of denying rights to people. The Dred Scott case highlights the need for people to be armed in order to ensure their rights are not infringed upon. The government could enforce slavery and terrible treatment as long as Blacks were unarmed.

The second decision was the U.S. v. Miller, already mentioned earlier.

In the third case, Lewis v. United States, "(a footnote) indicated only that 'these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms' — a ban on possession by felons — were permissable [sic]. But since felons may constitutionally be deprived of many of the rights of citizens, including that of voting, this dicta reveals little."

There is no question, from Supreme Court interpretation, that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to individual ownership of guns.

Tags: , , ,

More ACLU and the 2nd Amendment

Although not surprised, I was disappointed when I read the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment.

Here are more snippits from the webpage that states their position:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

That seems all well and dandy, but it is not a "neutral" position. Registration is not a "neutral" position in the least. What is the purpose of a registration? To know who keeps arms, just for the heck of it?

And what is the definition of "reasonable" regulation?

Finally, let's not forget that cars are not dealt with in the Bill of Rights. Arms, however, are. We are told that we have a right to keep and bear arms.

Let's look at the 2nd 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.

There are two categories referenced in this amendment: the militia, and the people.

What is the right of the people? "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms." What about this right? It "shall not be infringed."

If the ACLU indeed believes "the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership," then it must believe the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of free speech. Their favorite amendment, the First Amendment, states:

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.

Is there any difference between "not infringing" on the right of the people (a la 2nd amendment) as opposed to "not prohibiting or abridging" on the right of the people (a la 1st amendment)?


Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't concern itself with bazookas and nuclear warheads. The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. "Arms" were, in that era, defined as items like knives, muskets, rifles, etc. Arms could be stored at your house, and they could be carried on your person.

In contrast, "ordnance" included items like cannons, and that did not receive 2nd Amendment protection. But "ordnance" did not equal "arms."

The ACLU is employing silly reasoning - of course the 2nd has nothing to do with missles, nuclear weaponry, and the like - but these are not "arms" as the Founding Fathers' understood "arms." These items fall into the "ordnance" category. BIG difference.


The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

I thought the 2nd amendment said that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." I didn't realize that the question was left open by the Constitution. It sure didn't seem to be an issue for almost 200 years.


Tags: , ,

Saturday, January 14, 2006

A Big Shock to the Anti-Gunners - Who is the Militia?

The anti-gunners are going to crap their pants (pardon the crudeness of the statement, but I believe it is accurate).

As stated in a previous blog, a portion of the ACLU position on the 2nd Amendment is this:
"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government."

It goes on to misrepresent the individual freedoms in the 2nd.

Anyways, the standard B.S. is that the "militia" in our modern world is the National Guard.

Interestingly, this is what current Federal Legislation in the US Code, 10 USC Sec. 311, defines the "militia" as:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

or

female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Further,

the unorganized militia consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, next time someone has a difficulty understanding the individual nature of this statement:

"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."

And they feel like they need to spout of on falsehoods like "It is a collective right" or "the Militia is the National Guard," then point out who the defined members of the militia truly are.

True, this ignores the fact of individuals right to keep and bear arms, not to mention the right of women as individuals to keep and bear arms, but let's just stick with what the smarmy anti-gunners can understand, then continue to educate them on individual rights.

Tags: , ,
,

Thursday, January 12, 2006

ACLU and the 2nd Amendment

Here is the ACLU position on the 2nd Amendment.

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Anachronistic? Excuse me?

How come 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights are "individual" rights, but the 2nd is a "collective" right?

1st - "the right of the people..."
2nd - "the right of the people..."
3rd - "... without consent of the owner"
4th - "the right of the people..."
5th - "no person..."
6th - "the accused..."
7th - "the right of trial by jury..."
8th - "...nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted"
9th - "rights...retained by the people"
10th - "powers delegated... to the people"

The right to keep and bear arms is no more "anachronistic" than the 4th Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

Tags: , ,

Where did the Second Go?

I went over to the ACLU website today. I don't know why, just curious.

They had a nice little paragraph stating their purpose:

"The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

I was fascinated at the different issues they promote on the website, listed on the right side of the page.

> Criminal Justice > Death Penalty > Disability Rights
> Drug Policy > Free Speech > FreedomWire / Youth
> HIV/AIDS > Immigrants' Rights > Lesbian & Gay Rights
> National Security > Police Practices > Prisoners' Rights
> Privacy & Technology > Racial Justice > Religious Liberty
> Reproductive Freedom >Rights of the Poor > Safe and Free
> Voting Rights > Women's Rights

You and I probably notice a glaring absence from this list. Where are the 2nd Amendment freedoms? They state, "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." The Second Amendment, last time I checked, was part of the Bill of Rights, whether or not the ACLU wants to admit it.

Apparently, if someone uses a gun to commit a crime, he or she is entitled to ACLU representation. If you legally own your gun, you are a criminal.

There is something wrong here.


Tags: , ,

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Guns and Liberty

Many philosophers (such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke) shared the view that ownership of firearms, by a people who are ready and willing to use them, is vital to resisting tyranny. These philosophers held that disarmament will bring enslavement to tyranny.

The Second Amendment was birthed from that political philosophy, as well as the years leading up to, and including the Revolutionary War, where this "theory" was confirmed as truth in the laboratory of practical experience.

People generally considered in the "conservative cultural elite" embrace us gun owners, but do not embrace our cause, the cause of protecting our 2nd Amendment freedoms.

Why? Why do they pander to our votes and anticipate our support when they, along with the liberal cultural elite, by their actions cast us off as a bunch of uneducated redneck hicks who are an annoyance and an embarassment to this country in this age of civilization. Take, for example, Columnist George Will, who is quite vocal in his dislike of the 2nd, and preference to see it repealed.

We have done a good job of using titles as a catch-all, making "liberals" the evil ones, and "conservatives" the guardian of everything good. But the simple truth is that we have basic freedoms, given to us by men and women who gave their lives and possessions and blood to create a government that believed in these freedoms.

And now we have "conservatives" and "liberals" who don't believe in these freedoms at all. The ACLU, for example, shuns the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments, but they form our precious Bill of Rights. Conservative groups love to blow the shofar and rally the troops around fun topics like taxes or flag-burning.

Both groups seem to show disdain for the rights of gun owners. It is time that we, as gun owners and defenders of the 2nd amendment, stop using cute little labels like "conservative" and "liberal" - instead calling politicians as they are. They either are pro-freedom or anti-freedom. And it is time we start making "conservative" politicians pay at the ballot box when they stick it to us by ignoring us with their actions.

Tags: , ,
,

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

The Governator Doesn't Have a License

I don't know why I find it a bit amusing that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't have a motorcycle license, and has driven motorcycles for a long, long time.

As a motorcyclist myself, although legally licensed and insured, I know there is nothing funny about accidents. Fortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger only required 15 stitches, and his son was not hurt.

According to the New York Newsday, the Governor acknowledged that he never bothered to obtain a motorcycle license because he "never thought about it."

"I just never really applied for it," he told reporters during a state budget briefing. "It was just one of those things that I never really did."

It just seems ironic that in the most heavily regulated state in the Union, the leader of that state "never thought" about getting appropriate licensing. Now, I don't know how it is in California, but here in Michigan, it was common knowledge that you need an endorsement on your drivers license to "make you legal," although many do ride without a license. I have a little "CY" under the "endorsements" section of my license, kindly given to me by the Secretary of State after I passed the motorcycle tests - written and practical.

The fines could reach as high as $250, but the CHP deferred any ticketing to the LA City Attorney's office, who have yet to figure out what to do. I guess Governor's get a free pass when it comes to evading regulation. At least, until election time.

Navy Chaplain Sinks Navy Brass, Ends Hunger Strike

Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt: 1

U.S. Navy Brass: 0

Lt. Klingenschmitt, the Episcopalian chaplain on a hunger strike because the Navy wouldn't let him "Pray in the name of Jesus," ended his 18 day hunger strike on Saturday.

On Friday, he received reluctant permission to wear his uniform and pray in Jesus' name outside the White House, and ended the hunger strike by taking communion there.

Good for you, Chaplain.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Navy Chaplain is on a hunger strike

Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt is an officer in the U.S. Navy. He is also an Episcopal priest. That is right - he is a chaplain, a Christian chaplain.

When you picture a chaplain, who do you see? Probably a soldier or sailor who enters high-stress and high-danger situations, and happens to be a priest/rabbi/preacher who helps all soldiers and sailors, but specifically one of his own faith.

Lt. Klingenschmitt has been informed by the Navy that he is not allowed to "pray in Jesus' name." As a Christian minister, you can imagine this really throws a wrench in his ability to serve his sailors' spiritual needs.

"They taught mandatory lectures there to all chaplains, that you cannot pray to your God, you have to pray to the civic god," Klingenschmitt explained. "The Muslim chaplain can't pray to Allah, a Jewish chaplain can't pray to Adonai, a Roman Catholic can't pray in the name of the Trinity, and I couldn't pray in Jesus' name in public.
"They only let us do that in private. If it's in public, they tell us to just pray to God and say, 'Amen.'" (Source - http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48164)

This Navy regulation - in effect since 1998 - is against Title X of the U.S. Code. Since 1860, someone in Lt. Klingenschmitt's position to has been allowed to pray "according to the manners and form" of his own church.

The Chaplain was written up by his his commanding officer, Capt. James M. Carr, because Klingenschmitt emphasized his own "faith system" when praying and preaching. Captain Carr again wrote up the Chaplain for a sermon he preached at an optional chapel service. Then Captain Carr asked a Navy judge to end Chaplain Klingenschmitt's 14 year Naval career, which would keep him from getting any retirement.

Chaplain Klingenschmitt began a hunger strike when the Navy stripped him of his uniform for all public appearances that might include praying in Jesus' name. "I won't eat again until the president of the United States gives me back my uniform and lets me pray publicly in Jesus' name," he said.

Unfortunately, the good Chaplain might lose a lot of weight. In this government obsessed with the hatred of Christian religion, I don't think the President will do anything.

Our soldiers, sailors and airmen have enough to deal with. Why won't our government allow their spiritual helpers the freedom to do their work? I'll say a prayer for Lt. Klingenschmitt every day of his hunger strike - and I'll do it in Jesus' name, regardless of what the Navy, or any other branch of the government, thinks.