Lane Changes
The other afternoon the sun was out and the roads were good as we traveled to my son’s house to celebrate our granddaughter’s second birthday.
Traveling along at the posted speed limit in the right hand lane a car approaches us on the left, to pass. As they sped up past us and signal to come back in the right-hand lane, they then slow down once they are in front of us.
They seemed to be in such a big hurry to get past us only to slow down!
What’s with that?
When a citizen becomes a member of the Armed Forces, he/she is taught how to use firearms. When in a combat situation or part of a security force, the firearms are used for protection, as well as aggressive maneuvers. Basically, the government provides a license to kill. I am one of those citizens that is proficient with several types of weaponry, most of which is not necessary to use or own (except non-firing ones for a collector) – yet, I am told that I will go to jail if I carry and especially use a firearm in self defense.
Then when the military member resumes their civilian life, their state government and/or local government tells them they cannot either carry a firearm (even with a registered permit) or allowed to protect themselves, their property, or others, when the situation calls for it. Ask any criminal in prison if he is apt to mess with someone who may be packing.
We are told that this is why there is law enforcement officers. But if you really think about it, they arrive after the victims have been injured or killed – after-the-fact. This is no negativity to the law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to serve and protect, but they cannot be everywhere at all times. Then when they do capture criminals, the officers and the victims (or their surviving relatives) are frustrated at the liberal judicial system we have in America.
In most cases, if an intruder enters your home, for example, (and you cannot always know if they are armed or not), and you shoot them with your registered weapon – injured or killed – you become the criminal. If the intruder(s) were wounded, they could even sue you – and win!
I understand that when a firearm is used in self defense, and even when a police officer must fire his weapon – a hearing must convene to determine and be sure that it was self defense, defense of property, et cetera – and not foul play. But really, wouldn’t one think that once a person criminally trespasses, especially within another’s home, they would lose their rights, except for a fair trial?
What about the woman who could have prevented from being raped or attacked in some way, if she was allowed to defend herself with a snubnose-38?
The state governments ratified the Second Amendment, which means they agreed to it. And if the states who joined the Union later didn’t agree with the US Constitution and its amendments, why did they join the Union? (They had to agree or wouldn’t have become states).
The rule is: states may add to the articles and amendments according to the situations within their state government jurisdictions, but not disobey them or change the articles or amendments without US Congress approval. So every state that doesn’t allow citizens to “keep and bear arms” – are enacting an unconstitutional law or disobeying the US Constitution. If states choose to make citizens who want to carry a concealed weapon to register for a permit, this is not unconstitutional and law-abiding citizens don’t care. If the state government decides that before permits are issued, the citizen must pass a firearm safety and awareness class, no problem – it makes sense because not all citizens have been combat trained.
And speaking of sense, when are we going to start electing people that pass sensible laws and abide by the Constitution?
Despite the fact that 38 states now have state laws that abide by the Second Amendment, Wisconsin is one of the minority who just don’t get it. How can Governor Jim Doyle and his boys in the assembly tell us we cannot exercise the Second Amendment? Where is the Supreme Court on this? And why in the blazes did they re-elect this man?Why aren’t people paying attention to crime statistics between places that don’t allow citizens to defend themselves and others that don’t?
Think about it.
PS: I have written about this to my representatives and senators to no avail. Maybe I (we) should write to the Supreme Court justices directly. I wrote to President Bush, but received no answer. I highly doubt that President Obama will agree, considering his views on the Second Amendment.
I find it very puzzling as I have listen to people complain over the years about how frustrating it is to put up with all the noise in their neighborhood where they just bought their house.
Things like the dogs barking at the local shelters just down the road, airplanes flying over head, trains rolling down the tracks or the race car track.
Now you have to ask yourself – ‘Did they not know when they bought their house that the shelter, airport and trains, race cars were there?’
What’s with that?
I heard the other night on the news about yet another municipality that is to start a new public no smoking ban within their city limits.
There just happens to be a psychiatric facility within the city limits that allows their patients to smoke. They are asking to be exempt from the ban.
So, I can’t help but think if the general public will have to comply, why not them?
By taking away their cigarettes indoors do they think this will cause more issues for them then they already have?
If the general public must comply to the new rules – why not them??
What’s with that?
Recent Comments