To: Lewis, Al Gore, Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi

This gentleman responded to my most recent post in a very civil manner, and I thought it deserved a civil response.  I also thought it was perfect as a follow-up to yesterday’s post.

Lewis,

I appreciate your civility in your comment and will try to be equally civil.  There is no room for argument here, this is a statement of fact with no room for interpretation.  I do get pop-up ads from Carbonfund.org AT LEAST twice a week every week when browsing on Firefox… This is not an item for discussion, I wouldn’t even know they existed if I didn’t get a pop-up asking me to donate.

On my next point, you DO have the freedom to disagree, I will just think you are wrong. I don’t believe in anthropogenic (man-made for those who don’t know) global warming. Therefore I believe that companies who sell carbon offsets are the snake oil salesmen of the 21st Century. There is no conclusive proof that the earth is warming due to human activity.

I am not a scientist, however, there are scientists who have proven that there were higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at times during the ICE AGE. Using common sense, that says to me that there is no causal link between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the temperature of the earth. Also, do remember that Greenland has Nordic farmers, Vikings as many know them, buried in what was once fertile soil. Today, even though the earth is dangerously warm, that portion of the earth is covered in ICE!

That sounds to me like an Inconvenient Truth for the case of those that believe planet Earth has a fever.

-Common Sense Guy

PS – Check out this book by Ian Plimer, an Australian Geologist who is also a professor at the University of Adelaide.  The book is Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science.  While you will find many articles throughout Teh Internets, you will find that the VAST majority of them are ad hominem attacks and do not address the science SPECIFICALLY but prefer generalities like the Wiki which makes a point of placing high on his profile his directorships at mining companies (only one of which mines anything related to CO2 production).  I will write more in-depth when I finish reading the book and have time to digest it all.

 

Evil, Evil Breath

carbonfund.org's logo... look familiar?

Carbonfund.org keeps sending pop-up ads to my computer (despite my pop-up blocker being turned on) telling me how evil carbon dioxide is and how it needs to be eliminated.  Check out their website, it’s very funny!

Anyway, I clicked through the ad to see exactly what they were peddling.  I knew it was going to be about carbon reduction and probably have something to do with buying carbon credits (given that the name of the site has the word “fund” in it).  When I got there I went to the “About” page and this is what I saw:

“Our Mission: toward a ZeroCarbon™ world”

Two problems right off the bat… First: They trademarked ZeroCarbon, which reads to me like Meow Mix trademarking the word MEOW!  Second: There is only one way to create a ZeroCarbon world, and that is to eliminate all sentient life.  I couldn’t stand it, so I wrote them this email from the “Contact” page:

“Can I please, please, please give you money to offset my evil breath? I am a human and I exhale a carbon that needs to be eliminated. I need assurance from you before I donate that you will pledge to wipe out the entire human race, as we are the cause of global warming/climate change. Otherwise we will never make enough of a difference to correct the harm we have caused to mother earth… and the polar bears.”

That’s all the absurdity I can handle for today… Just thought you guys might like to know about this crazy organization.  Feel free to email them at www.carbonfund.org, and make sure you check out the page “How offsets work” for a good laugh.

-Common Sense Guy

 

Q&A on “Time to Ban Bathtubs..”

Okay, so this post is going to be a long one, but I thought it would be informational for everyone out there.  My last post involved the Opposing Views website, and a reply to an article that I wrote there.  Someone responded who did not get my point at all, so I had to respond to him.  He STILL didn’t get the point, so I wrote him back again.  Here is the exchange:

He wrote:

“Apples V Oranges?

Matt, firearm incidents and drowning incidents are not the same thing, and can’t simply be compared as equals.

If you look at the age breakdowns of fatalities you’ll see a pattern. (excuse formatting)

Age Firearm Drowning
0 7 74
1 11 197
2 14 174
3 12 89
4 25 58
5 13 32
6 13 31
7 7 21
8 13 26
9 16 19
10 12 17
11 28 25
12 38 19
13 70 41
14 125 33
Total 404 856

Even you wouldn’t suggest that 0-1 year olds are likely to misuse a firearm. If you extend the range by just 2 years the firearms hit the lead. Clearly the drowning problem is with the 0-3 year olds, the same group who are rarely killed by guns. Basically around 10 years the guns take over.

Any rational look at these disparities will show that clearly these are 2 different issues at play, so to try and equate them is just plain wrong.”

So I wrote back:

“Yes, It is Apples vs. Oranges

Pottering,

You miss my point on this. It has nothing to do with the specific breakdown of ages, simply with the fact that the argument that whoever wrote the article above is making can be easily applied to small children and… Anything! Small children have a high mortality rate regardless of what the actual cause of death is. Before I go any further, I want to make sure that everyone knows I am not speaking simply from some callous statistical standpoint with no real horse in the race, so to speak. I have three children, all under the age of 5 years, so this very much concerns me.

I am simply making the argument that if we decide we need to ban guns, or even restrict their use by people who have small children then we need to ban just about everything we do in life. There is no way to ensure a child will make to their 18th birthday no matter what you do, but we can, as an intelligent people, make decisions that will assist and aide them in getting there. I argue that while many people say keep guns away from kids at all time, this is dead wrong, literally! I would hypothesize that most of the firearm related deaths of children could be avoided with education and familiarization. My four year old (almost five) knows that Daddy has four guns, he knows what they are and how they work, and he knows not to touch them. Through arduous training and discipline, my son knows that he is not to touch ANY gun unless Daddy gives the okay first, including toy guns. This way we avoid even the common mistake where a child picks up a small polymer gun thinking it is a toy and ends up a tragic headline. I will work with my other, smaller children on this when their comprehension skills can handle it.

I want to stress that I do NOT believe that all people should have guns. Frankly speaking, there are many people who should not. What I do believe is that, in America, we have the freedom to evaluate ourselves, determine our level of capability, and decide from there whether or not we should be owners of firearms. That includes the ability to train our young ones, or the ability to find help from someone who can.

I want to close by saying that any death of any child is tragic, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. This was not meant to be a direct comparison of numbers, but rather a direct comparison on the futility of anything, including laws banning guns or swimming pools or bathtubs or toilets, other than training and education to prevent as many child deaths as possible.”

And he wrote:

“Thanks for agreeing, then disagreeing

You first agree that it was apples V oranges, but then go on to say “I am simply making the argument that if we decide we need to ban guns, or even restrict their use by people who have small children then we need to ban just about everything we do in life.”. You are trying to make an apples V apples argument when you have conceded that it is apples V oranges.

Guns are NOT “just about every thing we do in life”, not by a long shot. Calling for restrictions on guns does not equate to a need to call for restrictions on everything. The stats I produced show that incidents of drowning and firearm fatalities vary greatly according to age, clearly differing factors at play. Yet you appear to want to lump them together.

I’m glad your kid has been taught not to touch guns, sadly we’ve seen incidents where parents haven’t been so cautious.

You write that “This was not meant to be a direct comparison of numbers, but rather a direct comparison on the futility of anything, including laws banning guns or swimming pools or bathtubs or toilets, other than training and education to prevent as many child deaths as possible”, but you did provide a direct comparison of numbers. Nobody is claiming that bans/restrictions/whatever can totally eliminate fatal incidents but you appear to think that unless such things achieve a complete solution then they are a waste of time. Correct me if I’m wrong.”

So I responded:

“The Purpose of My Reply…

Wow! There is so much here to take issue with. Unfortunately I don’t write for a living so I don’t have countless hours to continue to do research and write on this. I want to address a few things you said specifically and then I have to move on.

I am not, nor was I ever trying to compare specifically, as I said before, the issues of childhood gun deaths and injuries vs. childhood drowning deaths and injuries. I used that specific statistic to make a broader point that applies to all of life for everyone, whether they are a gun owner or not. It is the fact that personally responsibility is the only thing that will prevent tragedies, and even with personal responsibility, tragedies happen… even for non-gun owning families. Life happens, and when we decide as a people to restrict freedom for safety, we have given up the only thing that matters. I could have used the statistics for many other types of childhood injury or death which actually are higher and more closely mirror the age dynamic of firearms deaths for children, but my point was never direct comparison. My point was that no matter what you do… ban guns, swimming pools, anything built higher than 4ft above ground level (as last I checked more children are injured or die in falls than by guns), ban everything you can think of that kills children and children will still die due to tragedy.

Again, I risk sounding callous in writing this, but I believe that personal liberty is more important to our society than any notion of “public safety.” For without personal liberty, there is no freedom, and without freedom, who the hell wants to be alive anyway? I would recommend that anyone who is more concerned with preventing the so-called “needless deaths” within the United States pack up their belongings and move to Europe. For instance, in the United Kingdom, they are so concerned with preventing “needless deaths” that they have already outlawed guns, any form of self-defense whatsoever, even if someone is trying to kill you, and they are well on the way to banning knives as well. Don’t ruin my country, move to somewhere that they have already given up on their personal freedom for the false pretense of safety.

You stated that I think “unless such things achieve a complete solution then they are a waste of time.” While you are partially correct, I do need to correct you on one thing: Any of those kinds of laws are not only a waste of time, but a surrender of liberty for the sake of some people’s peace of mind. I am not willing to accept that. Peace of mind will not keep me safe from some piece of crap gangster or junkie who wants to impress his ghetto friends or score another hit of smack from killing me when I won’t give him what he wants. In this world, as long as there is evil, I will use the most effective means of keeping that evil from hurting myself or my family. These useless social pariah will never give up the tools that they use to take advantage of good honest people, and therefore I will not give up mine. Not to mention gun bans only make things worse, see: United Kingdom and Australia.

That is really all of the time that I have to address this issue. Maybe this time you can see my actual point instead of fixating on the numbers.

P.S. The numbers do show that gun deaths and injuries of children is at an all time low and is in the BOTTOM 5 things that injure or kill our children.”

That’s all folks!  Remember: Keep your powder dry, your spare mag handy and always keep your eye on the front sight.

 

Time to Ban Bathtubs and Toilets

I have mentioned before that I frequent a website named Opposing Views.  I was there again a few days ago and read an article I could not let slide.  Read the article here if you want to.  I would read it if I were you, but if you only have a few minutes, here is my response to the Freedom States Alliance’s argument:

Using the same logic that the fear mongers and freedom haters at the “Freedom” States Alliance uses, we should immediately ban the sale and possession of every container that can hold more than 2 inches of water. That may sound extreme, but what you are about to read will hopefully help to provide you with some insight on just how dangerous guns are not when compared to other things that we consider “normal” and “fun”.

In 2005, the last year with full data available, the CDC reports 404 firearm related deaths total for children under the age of 14, that is inclusive of the 75 that were unintentional. Also in 2005 there were 1,748 non-fatal firearm related injuries. I will grant to anyone that these numbers are too high and something needs to be done to reduce that number, I just vehemently disagree with the anti-rights gun control groups out there as to what that something should be. I believe that education is the road to fewer firearm accidents and that when children know what a gun is and how dangerous it is, they are less likely to want to play with it or do something that will cause injury to them or others. By that same token, the gun control groups say that there should be no guns in the home, or if they are in the home that they need to be locked away in a place that the children cannot access them in any way. The problem with this method is that if somehow the children do get access to the gun they are far more likely to be so curious about the firearm that they will want to investigate further and that is when the accidents will happen.

During that same year there were 856 fatal drownings of children age 14 or younger and 2,780 non-fatal drownings or water incidents where a child was hospitalized for injuries from being in water but did not die. Now correct me if my math is wrong, but that means that more the twice the number of children died that year from drowning than did from firearms, and an even more applicable comparison since 810 of the 856 drowning deaths were unintentional, that rate is over 10 times higher than the unintentional rate of death by firearms. Also 1,032 more children were injured in water in the U.S. than were injured by firearms.

I have 3 children of my own and don’t want them to be hurt or die in any way, but I have to be realistic in how I view the world. I cannot protect them from everything, so the only thing that I can do is help to prepare them for they might face in the world. My kids may come in contact with a gun outside of my control and I want to know that they will understand that real guns are not toys and do the right thing, which is to leave the gun alone and tell an adult (who hopefully knows what the hell they are doing since so many people are afraid of firearms these days). I also know that my job as a parent is not to remove all the risk in life, but to help my children learn how to manage risk, and to make the most sensible decision in every situation.

By the way, I think I may have inadvertently just made the case for the Brady Campaign Against Bodies of Water or the Bathtub and Pool Policy Center. Oops… sorry Home Depot, you may have to start doing background checks on everyone who wants to buy a tub or an above ground pool, and we’ll have to watch for those straw bathers out there.

Stay safe, keep your powder dry, your ammo ready and your eye on the front sight.

Matt

 

I Don’t Carry

I wanted to put something out there that expressed why I carry… and maybe more importantly, to refute the reasons that many of the people who despise what I do have.  I may post more in depth on these issues later since concealed carry is one of the most important parts of my life these days.

 

I carry everyday, everywhere I can and I try to avoid places where I am not allowed to carry unless it is absolutely necessary that I go there.  I do this for the reasons stated below, but most importantly, without people willing to sacrifice their personal comfort for the protection of society, society will ultimately degenerate.  The sheep need the sheepdogs, not the other way around.  I intend to be a sheepdog as long as I am able.

 

I don’t carry a firearm to be a hero,
I carry because my children see me as their hero.

 

I don’t carry a firearm out of fear,
I carry because I never want to live in fear. 

 

I don’t carry a firearm to feel power,
I carry because I don’t want to feel powerless to defend myself.

 

I don’t carry a firearm to intimidate others,
I carry because I don’t ever want to be intimidated by criminals.

 

I don’t carry a firearm because I feel inadequate,
I carry because, should I need to use it, I don’t ever want to be inadequate.

 

I don’t carry a firearm to boost my ego,
I carry because criminals carry guns to boost theirs.

 

I don’t carry a firearm to be a bigger man,
I carry because I want to be around to teach my son to be the better man.

 

I don’t carry a firearm because I think my life is worth more than anyone else’s,
I carry because those who love me think it is.

 

 

 

Until next time, be safe, keep your spare mag handy and your front sight visible.

Matt

 

 

 

Freedom of Religion, Not Freedom From Religion

Earlier this morning I saw a question on Opposing Views (A website that I sometimes wander to, they have a gun section within which I enjoy debating weirdos, wackos and anti-freedomists) that was asking whether or not Obama’s pick of Rick Warren was a good idea.  Personally, I don’t believe it is, but mainly because I am unsure of some of Rick Warrens personal positions (like his stance on Global Warming [As an aside, I was doing some research into his positions a little while ago and I stumbled upon this horrendous piece written by a supposed Reverend who should be shouted out of the church for many of his un-biblical beliefs, you can read this article here, and hopefully in the next few days I can find time to rebut his incredulous writings]).  That aside, the issue they were debating was his stance on the gay lifestyle.  I had to check this out.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation posted a response to the question which you can read here.  There was no way I could let their intellectually shaky argument stand… not as a Christian, or more applicably to this particular situation, as an American who loves our country and seeks to bring about a restoration of the freedoms and liberties that made us the greatest nation on earth.   I decided to post my response to their argument here on my blog… it is:

Even your organization’s name has it all wrong…  Nowhere within any of our founding documents are the phrases or concepts of “Freedom From Religion” found.  Neither will you find the separation of Church and State a concept engraved upon the soul of that document or its amendments.  The first amendment simply provides for those with a religious desire to exercise that freely.  The actual wording 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.”

For once in your life take a look at that statement and read it for what it actually says, not what you hope it to say.  It simply says Congress shall make no law establishing an official religion, nor shall it make any law prohibiting the practicing of any religion.  Your own bias and misguided view of the document places a non-existent restraint on the ability of any government official to choose how they wish to exercise their own faith, whatever it may be, so long as they do not establish it as an official religion of the nation.

I know you as an organization are not so ignorant that you do not know the history of the phrase “separation of church and state.”  I can only conclude, then, that it is with willful malice that you seek to mislead my fellow countrymen as to the intentions of the Constitution of these United States and the Amendments thereto.  You must look, in context, at the message from Jefferson the Danbury Baptists and realize that the “wall of separation” mentioned has more to do with assuring those in that religious minority that the Government would let them be and allow them to worship as they saw fit than it has to do with whether or not the Government itself was allowed, in any way, to worship or pay respects to any deity, most likely at the time to be the God of the Christians.

 To prove my point I will end my rebuttal to your answer with the actual text of the letters, which show unerringly the meaning behind Jefferson’s words and will hopefully clarify the subject for many of my fellow citizens of these great United States.

In an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson as sitting President to the Danbury Baptists:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their “legislature” should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

Writing to another church, the Virginia Baptists, he wrote in 1808:

“We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”

Clearly we can see by the actual texts of the Constitution, the First Amendment and the letters where the separation of church and state is mentioned that this idea that the Church and the State should be unswervingly separate is a fallacious idea and should not be propagated any further.

I will, as a Christian and an American, always fight for the right of any Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist and any other religion to practice that religion freely, regardless of their status or station within our government, so long as they don’t force me to participate with them.  Which by the way, having an “Evangelical” Christian preside over an inaugural prayer is not forcing anyone to participate, simply don’t listen, or listen but disagree with anything he says, the choice is yours, freely to make.

Matt

 

Representative Republic?

Not So Sure…

In these Great United States we have a unique situation, which leaves us almost nowhere to turn to seek advice and very limited, if any, examples from which to follow. We live in a (supposed) Representative Republic, which is unique in its application. Unlike a true Democracy where each vote counts and majority wins (that happens sometimes, but mostly in local elections and ordinances where it is better suited since every town or county can be vastly different then even their closest neighbors) we vote to elect a group of people who then vote on the major issues on our behalf and (supposedly) in the way that we would have voted. This system works well when the people who are elected are held to account for their actions within whatever office it is that they hold. This particular system does not, however, work well when the voters, as a majority, are uninformed, uninterested and lackluster in their following of the actual goings on of our elected officials. The latter is largely what I see as the current state of politics in the 50 states of the Union.

Examples abound, but let us take the two current Presidential nominees, since they are the easiest to single out. **Political Warning** Some people may be offended by the things I am about to say, just know that at this point, I support NEITHER of these candidates as they have both proven to be at best lax and at worst completely against what I believe to be the most important thing we have in this country… FREEDOM.

John McCain says that he supports freedom (who doesn’t at least say that) and yet he was the co-author of the McCain-Feingold legislation limiting the freedom of speech and he supports the Patriot Act which demonstrates a blatant disregard for our Bill of Rights as American Citizens. I will note that I have no problem with the articles that deal strictly with non-US Citizens, but many of the articles of the Patriot Act infringe on our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

While Barack Obama does not support the Patriot Act, he does speak out of both sides of his mouth on two issues that are extremely important to me, the Second Amendment and the sanctity of human life. He has routinely stated throughout this election that he supports the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment, and yet his version must be worded very differently than the one that I have read at the end of every podcast I do because within the structure of “his” second amendment the District of Columbia’s ban on functional firearms of any kind was, in his own words, “Constitutional” (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html) and yet that flies in the face of an individual right to “keep and bear arms,” as stated in the Second Amendment. He also has issues with parents being allowed to parent, especially when it concerns reproductive “rights”. I say “rights” because the “right” to have an abortion is not spelled out anywhere in the founding documents, and the reasoning behind the justification of it by the courts is, at best, a stretch if not an outright ludicrous use of our Constitution to promote a political agenda. See Obama’s beliefs on a woman’s “reproductive rights” here: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproductive-health-questionnaire.

What does this have to do with our unique situation as a stated Representative Republic? Somehow these two people ended up as our candidates for the highest office in the nation, even though most of us will be voting for “the lesser of two evils” come November since we don’t agree much with either but disagree with one more than the other. What has brought our country to this point? There are plenty of possibilities but one of the biggest problems we have as a nation is fear, and the immobility that accompanies it. We have been convinced to give up liberties for fear via The Patriot Act, and somehow were convinced that it was a good idea… Remember always what Benjamin Franklin said in 1775, one year before we declared our Independence from Britain: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Fear is used throughout our society to achieve the ends that any particular entity is attempting to achieve. Some of these are just fears and righteous causes, however, so many of them are intended only to serve those that profit (in monetary values or in terms of power) from its dissemination. Media outlets feed us a gagging amount of violence, corruption and evil every night. Sure they might sprinkle a little “sunny side” on top of the heap of garbage every now and then, but not more than one or two stories a day. Why? Because your are more likely to stay tuned when they say… “Coming up after the break, are you more likely to commit suicide if you own a gun? Stay tuned to find out.” Then if they said “After the break we talk to a man who raises puppies for a good cause.”

It is just human nature, and they prey upon it to make a dollar or retain (and increase) power. You write me and tell me if I am wrong on this, but in this next Presidential election pay close attention during the campaign and see how many times they use fear of what the other person will or will not do as the basis for their argument that they are better. I can guarantee it will be somewhere between 80 to 90% of the time. 80 to 90% of their arguments will be based on causing you to fear what Barack Obama is going to do for our freedoms or how you should be afraid concerning how John McCain will destroy the country and take us to war with every nation in the world including our allies. Please DO NOT misunderstand me, I know that some of the things that will be brought up will be valid issues (Obama really does want to take away liberties [so does McCain though… that’s another blog post though]). My point is that they will turn them into emotional rather than intellectual issues. It is easier to motivate someone out of fear than out of knowledge that something is right or wrong… that is simply our human nature.

I want to leave with this closing thought: Did we reach this conundrum with open eyes, or open emotions? How did we end up with two candidates that 50% of the people can’t stand in either direction in a Nation where the people are supposed to be represented at all levels of Government? Can we continue in freedom if we allow our emotions to rule rather than logic and a desire to maintain liberty? Remember:

How prone all human institutions have been to decay; how subject the best-formed and most wisely organized governments have been to lose their check and totally dissolve; how difficult it has been for mankind, in all ages and countries, to preserve their dearest rights and best privileges, impelled as it were by an irresistible fate of despotism.

James Monroe, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 10, 1788

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.

John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

 

A Newly Discovered Right? Wrong!

As we all continue to digest the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller, it is irritating, annoying and downright maddening (not to mention sadly disheartening) to see how the media is uneducated, the illuminati (sometimes referred to as Professors) are entrenched in their propaganda and the masses don’t know which way to go, or how to think when they get there.

 

First, I want to address what the Supreme Court actually said, some (I am not educated enough in the law to tell you all) of the implications this ruling has and what reaction and attitude we should espouse moving forward. 

 

The Supreme Court did not abolish all gun control laws in the country; in fact, they specified that reasonable restrictions are allowed.  Addressing this first, in my opinion the meaning of reasonable restrictions will be the most influential and most contested (in and out of the courts) phrase in the entire ruling.  If we look to other uses of this concept by the Supreme Court, this ruling is on par with so many 1^st Amendment rulings.  The Court has ruled that speech, especially speech that is political in nature, is protected under the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution.  It is, however, subject to some reasonable restrictions, such as: Libel or slander, these are both separate legal terms, but for my purposes, they both mean to bring someone’s character falsely into question.  Purposely lying about something someone did or said to demean their character or person is not protected by the 1^st Amendment.

 

Using the same principles as those applied to the 1^st Amend. It would be reasonable to say that while the ownership of firearms is protected, not all uses would be protected.  I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a restriction on the use, in defense of one’s property or self, of a firearm to require that there be a threat to said property and or life.  In other words, you should not have the right to shoot people simply for trespassing; however, trespassing in a mask at night would be just cause for shooting.  Anybody who does not agree simply does not understand that most people who trespass at night in disguise mean you harm, and even if they don’t they are willfully breaking the law and disregarding your rights to property and to be secure within that property.  As Thomas Paine said, “arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

 

Many people have said that this ruling has no effect on State, County, City and Local Governments and does not restrict their ability to do anything they want in terms of gun control.  I sharply disagree in principle even if reality does not follow suit.  The 2^nd Amendment is part of a Federal document and in this ruling, the right to the personal ownership of firearms was found to be protected in Federal Jurisdiction.  Thanks to the 10^th Amendment, things that are not regulated by the Federal Government are left to the States to regulate.  In this case this is a good thing, because now we not only have the 2^nd Amendment, we have a modern Court upholding that right and the maintenance of that right at the Federal level so the States cannot regulate the right to the point that it violates the standard of the Federal level.  In other words, this is why the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) had the confidence to file suit in San Francisco, Chicago and 3 suburbs of Chicago.

 

This is going longer than I thought it would so I will close with this last paragraph:  I think that any freedom loving individual, whether gun loving or not, should be rejoicing in this decision as freedom won the day.  Freedom won out over tyranny, oppression and the sophistry of the freedom hating gun control movement.  I call them “freedom hating” because they seek to destroy the freedom of one person in order to shelter the feelings and emotions of another.  They do no good in this pursuit, and neither will their effort be successful in anything other than increasing the very thing they claim to seek to end… violent crime.  The choice is ever present to respect, if not agree with, someone else’s right to practice something in which you choose not to participate.  There are countless examples of this in our society and yet when it comes to guns, the side that wishes to preserve life and liberty the most is attacked at hateful and many times uneducated simpletons.  I challenge you with this fellow freedom lovers, use this decision to light the fire of a good conversation with friends and neighbors about our freedoms and why you believe they are so important, but do so in a way that they can find no fault in you, even if they find fault in your argument.  Plant a seed of reason, water it delicately and watch it grow.  Thank you and good day.

 

-Common Sense Guy (Matt)

 

On Freedoms and Responsibility

In this day we do not have the luxury of allowing another to stand for us. We must protect our freedoms now, while we still have them, lest we find the history books remarking on what a novel concept the saying at Gettysburg of Abraham Lincoln was: “and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” If we do not protect and hold dear the freedom which we should cherish above all else; the freedom that our ancestors fought for and that our Sons and Brothers and Husbands (and wives) fight and die for today, then we shall read that saying in the future as: and that this government of the rulers, by the rulers and for the rulers over men’s souls, shall not perish from the earth. My hope is that we would use common sense in viewing the world, from everyday minutia to the elections of our leaders. That we would begin to love this country once again and cherish the opportunity that freedom has afforded us all. Whether we began life wealthy in the suburbs or poor in the city, we all have the freedom to, and I would dare say the obligation, pursue the greatness that lies within… Whatever that may be.

I think it is a shame that we do not esteem the janitor who is faithful to his family and who goes to work every day, an honest man. We do not hold high the single mother who works two jobs to provide food and shelter for her children (not only do we not hold her high, but we shun and ridicule her). Who is there to provide the help that she needs, to give her children guidance and show them that the world can be a beautiful place, and loving, not only wicked and cruel. We send these people to the government lines because that is the easiest thing to do. Don’t seek to deceive yourself, it is much easier to pay an extra one or two percent in taxes and hope that the government program for the under-privileged, one of the thousands that are in existence currently, will provide the guidance that the children in the “inner cities” need. It’s far more difficult to volunteer for the Big Brother or Sister programs and give your life to that same child to make them a better person. It’s much more difficult to give up your plasma screen television and instead donate that money to one of the hundreds of private organizations that do a better, more efficient job of reaching those who need help and effecting change in the lives of those who could easily be led down a path of unrighteousness without that help.

We fret over inner city violence, but common sense tells us that this violence is simple to stop… wait a second, before you jump all over me… I didn’t say easy, I said simple. The first step to stopping the violence is to cut off its blood flow (pardon the language). By that I mean that gang violence, or general thuggery tends to be the cause of the most violence in any “inner city”, and it is simple to stop gang violence (I didn’t say easy, I said simple)… you get rid of it’s lifeblood: the members. You care about the kids in the neighborhood, you show them love, give them things to do and make being in a gang uncool. You arrest and convict the ones on the streets with the harshest penalties possible for their crimes instead of letting them go (maybe even make being a member of a gang illegal – our Constitution provides no right of people to associate for the purposes of committing crimes, we only have the guarantee to peaceably assemble). You arm the law abiding citizenry in and around the city so that the criminals no longer have free reign. I’m not saying that violence, or even gangs, would ever completely go away, but we can drastically reduce their impact on our society if we act as responsible and caring citizens.

I want to share with you something that will boggle your mind and will display how backwards our thinking has become these days (some might say we’re nonsensical). Gun control is a hot issue, and rightly so, anytime the government tries to take away rights, people will fight and if they don’t then they deserve to lose them. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has its state scorecard posted, and according to them the second most dangerous state in the union should be Kentucky, because their gun laws are so relaxed, and yet they are the 10th SAFEST state in the union, which means that, contrary to what the folks at the Brady Campaign think, the availability of guns does not necessarily make a place more dangerous. Kentucky should have massacres every weekend, bank robberies every week and shout outs at every accident scene, but they don’t. Conversely, California is ranked number 1 on the Brady scorecard which means that California should be a veritable utopia, with virtually no crime. Again, not the case. California, while not ranked most violent is the 10th most violent state in the union with only 9 states more violent than it. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is not some crackpot organization either, they are heavily involved in the political arena and are respected.

Do you see how we have blinded our eyes? Can you take a step back and look at how warped our view of the world is? Can you tell that we have chosen to abandon (some of us) our rights as free peoples to own firearms in order to feel better about violence. I say FEEL better because the gun control measures do nothing to stop crime, they only prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their rights. If a man was willing to commit murder in order to obtain money through theft, do you think he minds breaking a state law against purchasing guns without a background check or carrying that gun illegally? No. Especially not when people are rarely sent to prison (like they ought to be) for simply carrying an illegal firearm.

It is my hope that we can begin to see beyond our fears, look beyond our selfish needs and use common sense to effect change in our world, for the better.

-Matt signing off.

 

Why “Common Sense?”

Background and History:

I chose the name for this blog as Common Sense for a few reasons which I will detail in a minute. I have wanted to start a blog for a long time and have only needed the time, the inspiration (a particular inspiration), and the name. My wife can tell you that names are very important to me. I would spend up to an hour sometimes thinking of titles for my college papers, which most teachers probably never paid much attention to anyway.

As I said, the name is inspired by a few things, the main inspirations for the name, though, are my desire to bring a level of common sense back to debate in this country. Too often our idea of debate is to call each other names, to shame each other by past actions of the individual (never addressing the actual points of their arguments), or by shouting down any opposing views in order that they not be heard. Frankly I find that type of debate to be base, annoying and outright childish, not to mention the fact that nothing is ever accomplished through those means. I will further discuss debating later in the monologue (for that is what this is, is it not?), but for now I want to stick to the name.

My second great inspiration for calling this blog Common Sense has to do with the much circulated document from 1776 of the same name by Thomas Paine (check the end of this post for that document in audio format). The pamphlet was read by most in the American Colonies and today is touted as a major contributor to the decision to pursue independence and freedom with abandon, never again to suckle at the teat of Great Britain. This document is passionate in its pursuit of its namesake, provocative in its thoughts and generally uplifting to the trodden soul of the oppressed. It was an inspiration to hundreds of thousands of readers, so much so that General George Washington ordered it read to his troops on December 25, 1776, just before crossing the Delaware to face the Brits. While I recognize that my ability to inspire may be shackled by my inability to express myself in the manner that I wish, I hope to influence people with the simple (or complex) arguments that I make in favor of common sense.

A few things I think anyone who reads this blog should understand before they are offended. I seek the truth as best I can understand it, I do not concern myself with offending people, as some will always be offended, whether you speak gently or firmly, for truth or falsity. I want everyone to know that I think political correctness has destroyed our ability to communicate effectively, speaking the truth, rather than dressing everything down so as not to offend, and that will not be the case on my blog. I will not tear people down for the sake of tearing them down. I will not, however, spare feelings at the expense of truth and honesty simply for the sake of sparing feelings.

I believe that we have lost the art of debate in this country, and I fear that, as John Adams said, the people will be swayed by the loudest, and not the most intelligent argument (that is, for you scholars out there, a paraphrase of his journal entry during his participation in the Second Continental Congress). In high school I participated in a number of debates in the Law and Government Academy, we stated our cases civilly and without raising our voices, and the most convincing won the day. These days it seems that it is a battle amongst the debaters over who can be the loudest rather than the most sensible. Who can be the rudest rather than the most convincing. I watch debates and hear talk show guests seek to cut each other off, yell at each other and call each other names, as if this was a civil way to argue ideas. This disease has even spread to the level of our President, and the candidates for President of the United States of America. It makes me ashamed!The Presidency is supposed to be honored and respected, whether you agree with the individual or not. (Side note: For those of you convinced I am defending George W. Bush, examine your hearts for hatred and contempt, for I have not mentioned any names, and those of you who would think I am speaking of William J. Clinton, do the same.) I call for the people of this great and glorious nation to remove from their hearts the hatred and disdain for each other and move forward in a spirit of love and respect for your fellow man (meaning mankind, I don’t think it sexist to use the phrase “man” to describe us all). To embrace our differences and love each other still is truly the goal of any great society. I think someone once said something to the order of: No one has ever been argued into changing their mind. Why do we still try then? I know that love and discussion works, not hate and yelling. Fear is another major detractor from bringing us together, fear of what we each need to decide in our own hearts.

While I don’t agree with many of Barrack Obama’s ideas of how we should move forward as a nation, I agree with him that “We are the change we have been waiting for.” One thing me and Mr. Obama would disagree on in regards to that phrase is that we have been waiting for others to institute that change for us, we don’t want to put forth the effort ourselves to create the change that is necessary. It is just common sense to know that we do not need a politician, any politician, to make the changes in our lives that we need to make. What we need to facilitate change is self-control, self-responsibility and loving generosity for our neighbors and those in need of some assistance. If everyone in the country took responsibility for their actions, from the corporate CEO to the single mother (or the man who got her pregnant), and everyone who had the means took it upon themselves to be the generosity incarnate that people need, we would be living in as close a condition to heaven as I dare say we can get on earth.

I believe that everyone on this planet deserves to be free, but most importantly, close to home I believe in our Constitution. I believe that every right guaranteed in that document, as well as in the Bill of Rights that followed shortly after, is guaranteed to us whether any one person likes it or not. I believe that every person has the right, imbued by that Constitution and its Bill of Rights to say what is on their mind, even if it is against the government, and to redress grievances or to gather and protest if their grievance is not being addressed. They have the right to practice whatever religion they choose and I have no right to tell them that they cannot. I believe that people have the right to own property and to be free of search or seizure of that property without due cause. I believe that everyone has the right to due process, that they cannot be forced to incriminate themselves or be forced to suffer two trials for the same accusation. Everyone has the right, when accused to confront their accuser, and to have a trial by a jury of their peers if taken to court, whether civilly or criminally. While they are on trial they have the right to fair and just bail amounts and if convicted they have the right to not be punished cruelly and unusually (which many may disagree on what that is but that is for another post). I believe that every person has the right to elect officials within their state that will act according to their desires, because the state has the right to decide on any issue that the Federal Government does not have jurisdiction over. But most importantly, I believe that every individual has the right to keep and bear arms, that they might use those arms, if necessary to protect the people from the government infringing on any of those other rights and to protect every ones right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, none of which is possible without the right to life.

You may not agree with me on everything, or anything, but please keep your messages to me civil and I will post every reply, regardless of position, on this board (as long as it is civil). More to follow, please feel free to contact me.

Common Sense Guy (Matt)

P.S. – Here are those audio files of Common Sense that I promised you.

Common Sense by Thomas Paine