Perception : It is what you see.


 

To give you an example..  This Blog, as the title says, is “My View of the World by Joe” and as such it is my view of things based on how I perceive them…  I will admit that I am not a journalist.  I do not go racing out to the news so that I can ask people questions, such as “how did you feel when you saw the man murder your daughter/son/husband/wife/brother/sister/whatever”…  What I will do is read up on it and then give my view, based on my perception, of what is reported, and then try to make sense of it, and maybe ask a few questions…

Maybe I will get you to change your perception of things, and maybe I won’t but, either way I hope to get you thinking about it..

Most of my material, as you may have noticed, comes from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune at HT.com and my favorite source for thought is from Tom Lyons…  both are rather liberal, though he seems to have more common sense that the average liberal..

So, today I want to talk about the two party system that we have, and how they are perceived…

Since this article is about perception I will not try to convince you that these accusation are anything more than SOMEONES PERCEPTION.

First the Democrats….

Democrats are often seen as trying to make themselves more appealing to the criminal element and illegal immigrants by continually trying to give illegal immigrants rights and privileges reserved for legal immigrants and citizens…   making it easier for people who are not supposed to be here in the first place to get social services, vote and go to our schools..  In some states people with out documents can even get special driver’s licenses.  The Democrats continue to tell us that it is wrong to make someone prove they are themselves, by use of a picture I.D. , when they go to vote in an election…  Think about the number of places you have to show an I.D. to do, or get, such as the Pharmacy, travel through an Air Port, getting money from the bank, or to cash a check at the store.

Some people would go so far as to tell you that since we have Law Enforcement agencies to protect us there is really no need for us to own firearms, and that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement Division
ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement Division (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

means that the right to bear arms is reserved for the government..  The myth of “to serve and protect” started by the Los Angles Police Department has been busted by a number of Police Chiefs who have said tha the purpose of their departments is NOT to protect us from crime but to response to criminal acts…  They advocate the creation of more Police type organization, armed of course,  that will have heavier and heavier firepower than the citizens..  If you don’t believe me just look up how many organizations have police powers..  I was surprised to find out that is some larger cities the Post Office has uniformed police patrols…  The POST OFFICE?  I was watching the Animal Planet on Comcast one day…  There were armed officers getting in cars clearly marked ASPCA…  They have Police powers?

 

Check out the number of Police Departments in New York City where they seem to have a cop for everything..  Sanitation Police anyone..  Do they shoot the people who litter or don’t recycle?

All of this is really a matter of perception but it does some times seem that the left is trying to give more rights to the people who are not supposed to be here by taking them away from those of us who are here legally…

Now for the Republicans…

They talk about people taking responsibility for their actions and how it is up to the individual to make his way in the world…  not the governments job…  This is often seen as an attack on the poor.  The Republicans are more inclined toward free enterprise with the idea that the government is responsible for helping people create their own wealth and by not giving it to them..  When President Obama talked about the man who had his own business, and how he had done it himself,  he put his foot in his mouth, maybe he just did not say it the way he ment to, by saying that man had not done it by himself as the government had made the roads and all those things that helped him build up that business…  If you watched the video of his speech President Obama seemed to be saying that the Federal Government did all the things that allowed him to build his company..  Like what?  The Roads?  Even the Interstates are not build by the Feds..  Sure the Federal agencies put the roads on a map but they give this map to the states who obtains the needed land, purchase the road beds, and then hire private contractors to build the roads that the people pay for with the federal gas tax, which the Feds had out like it was THEIR MONEY.  It would not be the job of the Federal Government to make his company for him but, they should at least be able to help keep a business landscape that enable him to build up that company..  himself.

When it come to business interest the Republicans are seen as caving in to the interest of BIG BUSINESS, sometime to the detriment of people’s interest.  Down here there is a constant fight between people who want to have controlled growth, so that we do not out build the roads, water, or services, and the people who want to just allow builder to put anything anywhere..

If you listen to some Republicans you will hear about how to current government regulations hinder the various corporations in the conduct of their business..  Take the Deep Horizon disaster, or the recent financial collapse..  Both of these were covered by government regulations but both happened, and that includes the great PONZI scheme of Bernie Madoff, while government was supposed to be watching but wasn’t.  So before was talk about cutting back on the regulations, some of which are there to ensure a safe environment, lets make sure the regulators are doing their jobs with the tools they have…

 

So, yes, this is about perceptions..  There are, as the saying goes, three sides to any story..  Mine, yours, and the truth.  It is up to us to discover what that truth really is and the make sure we elect people who are more interested in our interest than they are at getting re-elected.

 

It is afterall a Government “by, of, and for THE PEOPLE“,  not “by, of, and for THE CORPORATIONS”.

 

Thanks for your interest,

That Joe Guy.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What are Our Needs? is that the same as Our Rights?


Bill of Rights, 09/25/1789
Bill of Rights, 09/25/1789 (Photo credit: The U.S. National Archives)

 

 

 

As we debate the issue of what the 2nd Amendment really means, and who it really applies to, we are also debating the rights associated with 9 other amendments that also form th Bill of Rights.

 

Here is a nice link to the Bill of Rights Institute, which not only give a text of the Bill of Rights but, some information about the rational for the Bill itself..

 

Here is a portion that has given so many people a lot of confusion…

 

Amendment II

 

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.

 

Now, this is where some of the confusion came from…  For years the militia part was interpreted to mean the amendment applied to the federal government, and not the individual citizen.  They took the “well regulated militia” to mean the Military, even though most of our founding fathers did not seem to envision a standing army.

 

So, what is a militia?  Look here for a good definition of a Militia.  The courts have held, recently, that the 2nd amendment really did apply to the states, and the people.  It would be kind of hard to explain how one amendment would only apply to the federal government while the other nine applied to the “the people” mentioned in the 2nd…

 

We are really lucky that the Federalist did not get their way.  They were sure that our rights were obvious and that we did not need to delineate them in the Constitution.  We have a Bill of Rights written into the Constitution and we are still arguing about what they mean…  So what do you think would have happened if we did NOT have the Bill of Rights?  The Antifederalist wanted a list of rights, the federalist did not, they compromised and gave us a short list, with the understanding that any close decisions was to be decided on behalf of the Citizen.

 

Ok.. Most people will tell you that we have the right to bear arms, some reluctantly.  Some people will tell you that we do not need high capacity magazines, or semi-automatic weapons (for the liberal news people who might be reading this the semi-automatic means that it only fires one shot each time you pull the trigger, and the name is not interchangeable with automatic weapon), or even the right to carry (again for you liberal news people that means to carry).

 

No, I don’t need a 30 round magazine.  Most of the time I don’t even need a firearm but, needing and having are two different things…  I don’t normally need a fire extinguisher, but sometime I might, so it would be nice to have one on hand.  The question, which so many of the rabbit want to ignore, is not about if we need to bear arms the fact is ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

 

in·fringe from reference.com

 

/ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

 

verb (used with object)

1.

to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.verb (used without object)
2.to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don’t infringe on his privacy.

 

Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2  + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

 

If you, or anyone, wants to limit our rights to what we need then you will have to see the constitution as just another piece of papers….  which can be ignored at will..

 

Without people who believe in it the U.S. Constitution it is just an old piece of parchment  to be thrown out when it becomes inconvenient. such as when it is no longer NEEDED..

 

We have choices..  We always have choices.  One is that we can abide by the Constitution, another is we can ignore it, kind of like the “gun” control people seem to want, or we can change it..

 

The first two do not seem like viable options, since a number of people are determined to ignore it, so that leaves us with the idea of change..  Yes, the constitution has been changed in the past.  We have added more amendments, and done away with at least one, remember prohibition?

 

Then again, does anyone remember the Articles of Confederation?  It brought the states together but, did not give the central government the power to make the states behave.  So they decided to “revise” the Articles of Confederation to give the central government more power, and to make bills easier to pass.

 

Thus it was, in just a few years” replaced.  Never voted out, the new Constitution was just voted in..  Would we really want to risk that?

 

Lets go back to the idea of NEEDS..  What do we really need..  and if we don’t need something who will decide if we need it..  I know we already have people who will infringe on the 2nd Amendment by saying you can’t have more than a certain number of rounds in a magazine, it is NOT A CLIP,

 

We have been told that you don’t need to tell lies about other people(slander or libel), unless you are a politician, or yell “fire” in a crowed theater unless there really is a fire.

 

Just think of the “Bill of Rights” and consider how many of them you really “NEED” on a given day..  For those of you who don’t get arrested, for example, you won’t “NEED” the right to have a lawyer present, or the “right to remain silent”.  There are a number of “rights” that we have and yet don’t need on a daily basis so, who is going to decide which of the “rights” you “need” and when you need them….  Will there be a secret court, such as the now famous FISA court, where they will decide if you even “need” a trial by your peers, or will they just pronounce you guilty, and the first thing you hear about it is when they take you to serve your sentence?

 

One last thought for the day:  for those of you who say that our founding father’s did not anticipate high capacity magazine, or even weapon that could fire more than one shot, I say, look at how the world has changed, since then and understand that they did not anticipate the internet, the phone system, telegrams, and many other wonders we have.  Wonders that the Supreme Court has been called upon to apply our rights to.  What if it had been decided that, since they had only envisioned the mail, that he telegraph, your phone, your cell phone, or the internet did not come under those items protected by the Constitution.  Any of those things could then be open without probable cause, and you would have no electronic privacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Price of Freedom…


Bill of Rights, 09/25/1789
Bill of Rights, 09/25/1789 (Photo credit: The U.S. National Archives)

I am sure you have heard the old cliché about the “Price of Freedom” being “Eternal Vigilance”.  You might have even wondered why people keep saying it.  After-all it is a cliché,  and probably has no meaning in our modern world…  If you do think this, then you are missing the point of a cliché..  It got to be a cliché because it had enough meaning to be repeated many times over the years…

Lets look at this particular saying.. “The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance” and what it means which is that we must continually watch for the erosion of our freedoms and rights.

You might say “we don’t have to worry about that, we are protected by the United States Constitution and our Bill of Rights”.  Yes, we have one of the best Constitutions in the world, and it is a remarkable document but, that is all it really is unless the people who are supposed to administer it believe in it.   If the people in charge do not believe in the principles set forth in that document then all it is is a piece of paper…

Years ago, in the 60s, one of my teachers explained that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had one of the best constitutions in the world…  Yes, the USSR, or Russia, had one that was supposed to safeguard the people rights.  The problem there was that, to the people in charge, it was just a piece of paper, and so they did just what they wanted.  They had to build an Iron Curtain to keep people in their area of influence.  This country has to try to keep people OUT.

This country, the United States of America, recognizes that the people have many rights, which are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, and we also have many responsibilities.  You have the right of free speech, so you have the responsibility to tell the truth.  We have the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from enemies, both domestic and foreign, so you could say we have a responsibility to protect the weak.  We have the right to remain silent when charged with a crime, it is afterall their responsibility to prove the charges NOT YOURS.

These rights can also be abused.  Free speech might be turned into libel and slander, just look at any of the recent elections.  The right to bear arms can be abused by the murder of innocents.  The right of a free press can be abused when reporters slant the way the story is told, or if they don’t bother to verify facts….  Not long after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, when the fact were still coming in, one station stated  that he was carrying an “AK-47 automatic assault weapon”.  It has since come out that he was carrying an M-16 knockoff AR-15 Bushmaster which was not an automatic weapon.  Some reporters like to use “trigger words” such as “assault weapon” to describe anything that might look like it could be used by the Military.  So, is the average pump action shotgun and assault weapon if it is the same type used by the Armed Services?  NO.

In the days since Dec. 14th, the day of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, there has been talk, mostly from the left, about a renewal of the dialogue about “Gun Control”.  After President Ronald Reagan was shot, by John Hinkley with his .22 cal revolver/assault weapon, we had the start of the Brady Bunch trying to disarm the American public. The problem with the Brady Bill was that, as pointed out by a member of congress, NONE of the provisions of the Brady Bill would have effected Hinkley’s ability to get a firearm.

If the left is really interested in controlling the flow of firearms they might like to let THEIR Attorney General, Eric Holder, know that we do not appreciate that programs   such as Fast and Furious were helping to arm Narcoterrorist gangs in Mexico, or that Mr. Holder seemed to think that this was a good way to push for more “Gun Control”.

So, where am I going with this?  Think of it this way.  As people talk about what kind of firearms we don’t need, they should look at the fact that our constitution give us the “right” to have them when it says that the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed”.  Maybe the solution would be to preface the “Bill of Rights” with the words “as needed”, and they could make up a panel of experts who would choose which of those rights we “need”.

The National Rifle Association is often accused of pushing an agenda on its members but, in reality, not something the left understand, the NRA is made up of people who have an interest in seeing that their rights are protected from people who would try to take them away.  This is part of what that “eternal vigilance” refers to..

The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are groups that aim to protect the rights of their own groups but, few people have ever said we should control them…or what they say..  Freedom of Speech you know..

O.K. so maybe I don’t really NEED a drum magazine, with enough ammo to blast an intruder back out to the curb, all with out having to reload.  Maybe I don’t really have a need to feel safe in my home, though it is nice.  After some event, such as the Sandy Hook shootings, you will see stories, in the news, about people buying weapons for their own protection, and the firearms ranges do a brisk business.  These are all indicators that people do NOT really feel safe in their homes.

Here is another thought that might, or might not, make you feel safer.. I just read a timeline on CNN.com.  It says the first 911 calls came in at about 9:30am, and the first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes later.  Maybe this timeline refers to when both the Police and Fire personnel got there, maybe it has to do with when a large contingent of responders got on scene, or maybe the Sandy Hook PD sent someone around to see what was going on before they launched a panic response.  It might be nice to know why they took 20 minutes to get there..  Did they have t look the school up on the GPS?  Were they all in the doughnut shop?  Did they do like the Police at Columbine did and wait for the shots to stop?  If I called the Sarasota County Sheriff’s office and thought that it would take 20 minutes for a Deputy to respond, on a “shots fired”, call I would be really worried.  Especially if the left is able to take away my home defence.

So the question might be “how many of our rights do we REALLY NEED, and who will decide which they are.   Right now the legal ownership of firearms, of any type, is not regulated by need but, by constitutional rights granted by the “Bill of Right”.  If they want to disarm the public, in order to make the criminals feel safer, they would have to change the Constitution, or get more liberal Judges in to say “we will pick which of your rights you need”.

Then again, if there ever comes a time when no longer have the “right to bear arms”, just remember the news reports about Police weapons being stolen out of their cars.  Does that make you feel safe?

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.

P.S.  The next time you hear about an accident involving large numbers of vehicles and multiple deaths, think about this, we could also make the roads safe by banning cars.  Who cares that you might be punishing the carefull drives, he can alway call a cab.

.

What Rights do we REALLY Need?


English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

We have rights!  These right are laid out in the Bill of Rights as listed in the United States Constitution.  This means that while there might be some restrictions on these rights, such as no bang bang for felons, these rights can not be outlawed by one of the very groups that these laws protect us from i.e. the government.

So it is kind of odd that while one section of the Constitution declares the Constitution to be the “supreme law of the land” some judges have held that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.  So I guess it is a good thing that most states have included, in their individual Constitutions their own version of the Bill of Rights and the Right to Bear Arms

The problem here is that some of these Judges have taken the mention of the “militia” to mean the state, or federal government, will the Constitution says “the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.  We are the “people” not the government, who is supposed to get their authority from us, the people.

Recent Supreme Court opinions have even affirmed that the 2nd amendment applies to “the people” and that decision has been used to strike down a number of state, and city, law that banned people from owning hand firearms.

The Gun Control crowd may have the right motives, like trying to cut down on the number of criminals who have access to weapons but, the question come up : how would they do this without violating the Constitution?  It would be hard to, for example, ban the so called assault rifle when the supreme court in, I think it was the Miller case, had said that a ban against sawed off shotguns would invalidate its use by a ” well regulated militia”:.  So it is actually the right of the people that makes it possible to arm the military, and that barring the people from owning firearms would also ban the military from the same, as the military/militia is made up of citizen soldiers.

Even if the various “Gun Control” people were to ignore this fact and attempt to pass laws based on what they perceive to be our need, the constitution says this is our right, and since this is one of a number of enumerated rights the question come up : who will decide which rights we really need?

Which other rights will they decide we DON”T NEED?  The freedom of speech?  Religious Freedom, or others.

I hate that criminals can get access to firearms but, I also hate the idea that some bureaucrat could decide which of my rights I don’t need.

I don’t believe that the law abiding citizens of this country should be punished for the crimes of others, and see this as a start down the road to tyranny.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” so said Benjamin Franklin, and he was right.

To close this off I will repeat the old saying “the price of freedom, is eternal vigilance”. 

Protest or Vandalism?


Is Chris Young, credited with being a member of the Occupy Sarasota group, a protester, or a Vandal.  He himself stated, in a televised interview, that he did not know they were going to be there so, does that make him a member of the group, or just a cause that they can take up for more publicity?

Chris Young was arrested by Sarasota Police when he refused the order to stop writing on the sidewalk, by the officer who arrested him.  He has since be claimed by the Occupy Sarasota group, and the American Civil Liberties Union, as a sort of poster child for tree speech.

This, to the left, is a photo of Chris Young’s work,  published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.  I take it that he was arrested before the completion of his  work of ART,  and so that might explain why the point of his protest is unclear.

This is a photo of Truman Adam, in another photo published by the Sarasota Herald.  This was taken as he was using chalk, much like Chris Young, to portray the United States Constitution.  This protest, of the earlier arrest, was carried out WITH A PERMIT.

Mr. Young‘s doodling have been compared to the recent Art Festival where a section of downtown road was closed off to allow chalk drawing, which were later washed away.  The second protest, with chalk, was permitted because the groups had promised to clean up after themselves.

Sarasota City commissioner Shannon Snyder, and ex-cop, had this to say about the chalk, “The city has an obligation to control its property,” Snyder said. Protesters have been doing the chalk thing for weeks, and “they weren’t cleaning it up. They were leaving it there, as part of their protest.”

In this country we believe in exercising out right to free speech.  My question would be : Does this give us the right, whether in chalk or paint, to deface other people’s property, be it that of a private citizen or government?  If I were to go to the homes of the Occupy Sarasota people to write slogan on THEIR sidewalks, or driveways, would they, or the ACLU, support my freedom of speech of would the have me arrested.

The most probable outcome would be my arrest, rightly, with both the Occupy Sarasota and ACLU telling me that they could NOT support a right to deface property.

In THIS I support the Sarasota City Police Department whole heartedly.