mikesoh.com

The District of Columbia is appealing a lower court’s decision that ruled that the laws banning handguns is illegal.  I’m always amazed when liberals what all these freedoms, yet when it comes to the second amendment, they are surprisingly conservative.

The question at hand is: Does the second amendment apply to individuals or to militias?

The argument that DC is making is that the Constitution explicitly states that militias are to be the only ones that have guns to protect states from the federal government.  Let’s look at this 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.

Let’s ask the scientific question, "For what reason would the Founders include this right after the amendment that guarantees the right free speech, right to petition, and the right to congregate?"  If you look at the history of the Revolutionary war, it wasn’t fought by organized armies.  They were fought by farmers, countrymen, and bakers.  Many of these citizens where angry that an oppressive government would force down edicts without a way to legally appeal them.  These citizens were forced with arms.

The security of the United States was not won by a militia; it was won because a community of people said, "Enough is enough" and stood their ground, prepared to die for what they believed in.

The Founders saw the need to protect the citizens from an oppressive government.  The Founders were, indeed, well educated and very bright.  They understood that men could be corrupted by power or greed…or even both!  The Founders included this amendment for one purpose: to allow the people to overtake the government in the event that it became too powerful and oppressive.

This amendment is not about hunting as many people seem to believe.  No, this amendment is about giving people the protection and the tools they need to protect themselves should someone decide, "You know, I don’t like democracy.  We’re going to be a dictatorship."  The amendment even says so: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State…"

What’s clear through the Constitution is the balance of powers: not just between branches of government, but between the government and the people.  In fact, the Bill of Rights’ sole purpose is to outline which rights shall be guaranteed to every citizen!

One of my favorite quotes is, "It will be a dark day when only the police or the criminals have all the guns."

Some people argue (like DC) that because the word ‘Militia’ is in the amendment, the right is, therefore limited to just them.  If one examines the second half of the amendment, this argument simply cannot stand: "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  If we accept the argument that "the right of the people" refer to Militia, we must also examine all other amendments.

Amendment I: 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.

Amendment IV: 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.

Amendment XV: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Isn’t interesting that "the right of the people" in these amendments refer to individuals, not groups like the press, or people who only live in houses, or people who are in political parties.

Now, I’m sure some (like DC) will argue that banning guns has helped decrease violence.  Let’s simply ignore the fact that DC’s homicide number for this year is likely to exceed last year’s number.  But this simply is not a good argument for one reason only: There is no constitutional basis for this argument.  The Supreme Court isn’t dictating policy.  That’s the legislative branch’s job.  The Supreme Court is to look at the Constitution, look at the law being questioned, then decide whether it holds up.  There should be no argument regarding violence rates simply because this is not at question.  While I could prove this wrong statistically, logically, and sanely, there is no need to because the question isn’t "do guns cause violence."  The question is, "Is DC’s gun ban unconstitutional."

This isn’t legal mumbo-jumbo.  It’s plain common sense!

This week, two leading researchers have found ways to create embryonic stem cells from skin cells.  This is great news to both the Christian community that believe that harvesting embryos for stem cells is morally wrong and the medical community that wants to use those stem cells to create cures for diseases.  However, it leaves one group out: The pro-abortionists.

For years now, those that support abortion have put people like Michael J. Fox — who suffers from Parkinson’s Disease — in front of the media saying that aborted embryos provide stem cells that could, in essence, cure anything.  I’ve always seen this argument as misleading and analogous to the salesmen of the 1940′s that sold snake oil door-to-door.  Regardless, without embryonic stem cells, research into other fatal diseases would be halted.  Let’s step aside from the fact that stem cells from embryos has not provided any results while those derived from fatty tissue and umbilical cords have.  Now, that there is a way to convert skin cells into embryonic stem cells, the pro-abortionists just lost their biggest gun.

So what to do now?  It will be interesting how they handle this research.  On the one hand, if they denounce it, it will show that they really don’t care about debilitating diseases.  On the other hand, if they say the research is viable, they no longer have the argument that aborted embryos can be used for science.

Catch 22.

Here’s a great article from the Examiner.  How many of you saw this story on the news?

Snow cones are like communism: it’s a great idea in theory, but it never works out in practice
– Andy Whittin

This week, President Bush vetoed the expansion of the SCHIP, a healthcare bill that would have effectively given children who aren’t poor enough to qualify for MedicAid but aren’t rich enough to buy health insurance health coverage.  It would be paid for by increasing the cigarette tax.  Bush vowed to veto the bill on the grounds that it would be too expensive and it would be the first stop to socializing healthcare.

While this law is a great idea in theory, it would not work out in practice.  Here’s why:By tying such an important bill (at least to the democrats) to a tax, these supporters are failing to see the long-term problems that will come along with such a bill.  The President was right veto because it is too expensive.  Cigarette tax, like most taxes that are tied to sales, is a tax that mostly effects the poor.  (If you’re confused about this, consider reading up on flat taxes.)  As you make cigarettes more expensive, you will encourage more and more smokers to quit smoking.  (By the way, a large percentage of smokers are in the lower tax bracket.)  As more people quit smoking, let money is available to fund the healthcare.  And since the democrats are determined to provide this socialized healthcare, they will more than likely increase taxes again to compensate for the lose of funding.  This cycle will repeat itself until cigarettes become prohibitively expensive.

And now, there’s a problem.  No more smokers, but a lot of children needing healthcare.  By this time, the population of children needing healthcare will have expanded.  Where will this money come from?

Where else?  More taxes.  But who to tax?

If you are going to use a tax, I think a more socially responsible thing to do would be to tax fast-food restaurants.  Places like McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, et al are contributing to children becoming obese.  (Actually, at the alarming rate this is happening, I’m beginning to wonder why there isn’t more hoopla about this in the same way as global warming.)

In the end, who suffers?  The children and the poor.  Most people don’t see this because the short-term benefits are so obvious.  I see this tactic similar to people that sell snake oil.  It’s a great product because it makes you feel better…but in the end, snake oil doesn’t do anything except get you drunk.

So while the democrats vilify the President, they push the attention off of this fact that ultimately shows who they really care about: socially assassinating the President.

Once you take away the smoke and mirrors, once you take away the policital saber rattling, you’ll begin to see that the democratically controlled congress doesn’t really care about important issues.  All they care about showing the President as a baby-hating, murderer protecting, war mongering monster.

And in the end, isn’t that all that matters?

While it doesn’t surprise me that Jodie Foster’s new thriller, The Brave One, did exceptionally well at the box office this past weekend, what does surprise me is the popularity of this genre.  The popularity of "revenge" movies seems to contradict the very ideals of the liberal/democratic side.  Why is it that these movies that seem to go against the very tenants of the "liberal faith" are popular?  Why aren’t there more protests against these types of movies?

Personally, I think deep down, we really want to be these heroes.  I think author John Eldredge said it best: "The movies a man loves reveal what his heart longs for, what is set inside him from the day of his birth."

Let’s take a look at some of the most popular movies in the last year.

Spider-Man

Starring the hunky Toby Maguire as the main hero and protagonist, he becomes a vigilante fighting crime.  Most of the liberals will forget the fact that he uses weapons and violence to catch these enemies.

Had this been a true democratic movie, Spider Man should not have attacked these villains.  Instead, he should have called the police and had them deal with the evil-doers.  Oh, wait.  We should say alleged evil doers.  Because remember, we have to remember the Goblin’s civil rights.  He should be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Spider-man should not be tripping thieves or taunting them, because it makes them feel bad.  Instead, he should be politically correct and try to rehabilitate them back into productive members of society.

Harry Potter series

Ah, the classic battle of good verses evil.  Every year, Harry Potter seems to have a knack of getting himself almost killed, along with anyone else.  He uses magic to defeat the minions of Lord Voldermont.

Had this been a true democratic movie, Harry Potter should have taken all the money that his parents left him and created a scholarship for disadvantaged students.  He still would have played Quidditch, but with an average broomstick, instead of his flashy one.  Furthermore, anytime he was hassled by He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, he should have reported him to the Ministry of Magic.  And instead of fighting him with magic, he should have written him a strongly worded letter encouraging him to seek diplomatic channels to air his grievances.  If that didn’t work, a second strongly worded letter should be sent.  This would continue until all the paper in the world was used up…and only then would should Potter take up his wand.  And because all people are inherently good and there are no truly evil people, this "war" against dark magic is pointless.  The Ministry of Magic should pull their troops out of the magic world and put them to better use: providing universal health care for those that can’t afford it.

 Live Free or Die Hard

YES!  Another Bruce Willis flick, back as bad dude John McClain.  He’s the kind of guy that shoots first and asks questions later.  No one can deny that he gets the job done!

But, had this been a true democratic movie, John McClain would have been arrested for destroying public property.  Instead of trying to fight an under-appreciated government contractor, he should be performing community service at the local soup kitchen.  And let’s not forget his gun!  He’s in the middle of DC!  Guns are killing people.  So instead, anti-war leaflets are his side-arm.  While doing his community service, he finds out that most of the homeless in DC are poor because of the war in Iraq, which leads McClain on a thrilling adventure to nag President Bush to bringing the troops home.  Ignoring the fact that there is a "fire sale", he pleads with congress to create a constitutional amendment to limit the president’s ability to have an army and bring treason charges against him for not preventing the financial collapse taking place.

But see, if a movie like any of these were released, by guess is that they would do poorly.  To my knowledge no movie that has been politically accurate has been as popular as any of these movies.

Does anyone else see the same trend?