"The lesser of two..."

It should come as no surprise to the few who have read my entries that I am a conservative. Not a "right-wing" conservative, more like a Reagan Democrat with a side-arm.

I do believe that the business of America is Business, just not at the total expense of the working class. It's a fine line to walk but the only one that I'm comfortable with. In the end when I'm chosing a Presidential Candidate to cast my vote for I'm looking at one major issue.

"How is this person going to effect the Constitution's health and vitality in the long run?"

First of all, I don't consider just the document of "The Constitution of the Unites States" as the only word on freedom. In order to understand the Constitution and what it's values are you have to read ALL of the documentation leading up to it's ratification. The big three are of course the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself.

The Declaration of Independence outlined the core beliefs of those who wanted self-determination. It listed a set of ideals of what to them made up a free individual. "We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF-EVIDENT...". That says that by definition the concepts spelled out by the document are unyielding universal truths requiring NO explanation or defense. Any free thinking person with their own will and mind can see that in order to stay that way life REQUIRES these things.

It also did something else infintely more serious. It provided the reasoning to justify what was about to happen. By writing this document they were committing treason against the crown. They had literally signed their own death warrant. They were also providing future generations with the foundation from which they could hold their own mini-rebellions within their own government. It reinforces that in order for the basic needs of people to be realized we should have the authority over our caretakers. If those caretakers start committing abuses or unwarranted restrictions then it is our right and duty to alter our caretakers by voice or by force.

An election is by its nature a mini-rebellion. By electing officials we are denouncing or ratifying what other officials have done prior. It's a bloodless rebellion, an inked coup de ta. You cast your vote instead of casting stones. If those votes are not enforced or if the system to which we are voting becomes unresponsive it is NOT the Constitution and it's supporting documents that need change but the officials who are ignoring or destroying them that need change.

The Declaration spells out the justification for rebellion, the Bill of Rights states specific and guaranteed rights that should not and can not be altered by any amendment afterwards if the Constitution is to have any lasting meaning.

I've written before that the connection between the individuals right to free speech and to keep and bear arms are closely related. The recent interpretations of the Bill of Rights by certain political organizations and special interests that define some of the concepts in the Bill of Rights have been for their own political convenience. If you know anything about the letters and concerns penned by the original authors of the Constitution it is readily apparent which rights are for the individual and which are for the collective.

If the founding fathers had meant that the second amendment was only to guarantee the establishment of state militias then they wouldn't have included "people" in the language. The term militia was used to describe any adult individual that owned a firearm or any means to fight. The body of the people were considered the militia. That's why during the Revolutionary War there was a distinction between the militia and the Constitutional Army. The Army were dedicated soldiers paid and trained and equiped by the government. The militia were free individuals who fed and equiped themselves and showed up on their own to fight. They then agreed to be organized and trained by the Army to fight cohesively with it.  If the second amendment only secures the arming of an organized State supported militia then the fourth amendment only protects public houses, such as libraries, from unreasonable searches and seizures.

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."

4th Amendment: "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."

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that there isn't a right to UNRESTRICTED private ownership of weapons without also saying that there isn't a right to be secure within your own private lives and property.

By using the "guns are dangerous" argument to use emotion in order to convince the shallow minded that restrictions on private ownership of weapons, in direct violation of the second amendment" are necessary for the government to make them secure and safe (something the government is incapable of doing even if ALL weapons were removed from the earth), anti-gun proponents are undermining the foundation of our freedoms.

If we can't take it back it was never ours to begin with. How can you rise up and "throw off such Government" if the tools to do so aren't available to you?

So you see, the second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about retaining the capability to violently rebel against any government which begins to grossly abuse it's people.

Those that would say that a bolt-action rifle can't stand up to a machine gun has never been up against a dedicated individual with a bolt-action rifle. The Russians still vividly remember Afghanistan. Also, they are considering that the volunteer army would not kill it's own family and citizens. Mabe they are correct. But, maybe they haven't taken into consideration that our military is also composed of foreign nationals, particularly those from Central and South America. They also are not considering that just like King George, the subjugating government may not use it's own Army. It would be simple enough to pre-occupy and relocate the volunteer army with concerns overseas and enlist the assistance of a foreign army to subjucate an unarmed and discontented populace.

We don't just need to prtect what we still have, we need to reverse the restrictions that have been placed to userp our uninfringed right to keep and bear whatever arms we see fit.

A murderer doesn't kill you with the tool they have chosen to kill you with, whether it's a gun, knife, or compressed pillow. They kill you with their intent and their planning. The tool is just a matter of preference and convenience. If the murderer is not careful and he chooses an armed and dedicated individual who is aware then they no longer have a victim, they have an adversary.

Criminals try to choose and create environments that benefit their activity, they want helpless victims that are easy to cowtow and safe for them to ply their trade upon.

Oppressive governments also try to choose and create evironments that benefit their activity. They also want helpless subjects who are dependent on the charity and will of their leaders.

The only diference between a citizen and a subject is the will, determination and capability to hold the power that is necessary to prevent that form of oppression. Also, a citizen needs the intelligence and foresight to realize that they are in danger of oppression in the first place. A citizen looks beyond the pretty slogans and attractive promises of feel good politics to see the consequences and ramifications of the plans of their potential leaders.

Free Universal Health Care sounds nice but what has to be sacrificed to obtain it? Lower fuel prices would be nice but what is being harmed to get them? More social welfare programs and less personal responsibilty are tempting to the lazy, but being somebodies pet isn't my idea of freedom.

Consider what you do when a beloved pet outlives it's usefullness. Now consider what an overburdened government who has groomed a subserveant populace does to those that can't support themselves when the government has the tool of "physician assisted suicide" and they are the ones signing the forms of termination when you aren't.

When considering your choice of Presidential or even Mayoral Candidate and Congressional Hopefull, also consider the potential consequences of their often hastily decided upon platforms, platforms not designed and crafted to get results but created to be attractive to potential voters.

Carnivorous plants are attractive to their food, there are no signs pointing them out as harmful. Only the wary see them in time to avoid them.

Try to be smarter than a bug.