Tuesday, September 15, 2009
-I am a major advocate of the peoples right to bear arms. I grew up hunting and fishing and consider myself somewhat of an outdoors man. I was taught gun safety and always treated guns like a tool instead of a weapon. I do agree that it guns are extremely dangerous if put in the wrong hands. I think that penalties should be strict on people who are caught with unregistered weapons because they obviously obtained them illegally and probably intend to use them in an illegal manor. But to take away the right to bear arms is not only taking away my passion for hunting but also the right to protect myself and family should a home invasion occur.
October 21, 2009
Cafferty: Why are so many Americans worried Obama will try to ban gun sales?
Posted: October 21st, 2009 03:00 PM ET
From CNN's Jack Cafferty
Join the conversation on Jack's blog.
A majority of gun owners think President Obama wants to ban gun sales.
A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of those who own a gun, 53 percent who have a gun in the household, and 41 percent of all Americans believe he will attempt to ban the sale of guns while he is president.
This concern is greater among Republicans and people living in the South and Midwest than among Democrats or those living on either coast.
It also helps explain the sharp increases in sales of guns and ammunition. There are reports that U.S. bullet-makers are working around the clock and still can't keep up with the demand for ammunition. Shooting ranges and gun dealers say they've never seen such shortages.
However, President Obama has never said - as a candidate or as president - that he intends to push for a ban of gun sales. The president has said that he believes in the Second Amendment and that "lawful gun owners have nothing to fear." In May, he signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.
Nonetheless, gun rights advocates point to Mr. Obama's record as a state legislator and U.S. senator where he "voted for the most stringent forms of gun control."
It is insane to me that someone would want to prosecute this homeowner. A man protecting his assets and his family! It is a shame. The fact is, there are dangerous people out there who commit heinus crimes. Our right to protect ourselves is essential.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
This Amendment is, I believe, what attracts people to our country. It is stated that you may come to America and practice whatever religion you believe in. You may come here and voice your opinions publicly without fear of the government. It is our right, to choose what we believe in. This is a country for the people written by the people.
Public discussion about the character and fitness for office of presidential candidates is at the core of the First Amendment's command that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the Freedom of Speech." Yet Congress, in its zeal to impose onerous campaign-finance restrictions, has made political speech a felony for one class of speakers. Corporations and unions can face up to five years in prison for broadcasting candidate-related advocacy during federal elections.
Is outlawing political speech based on the identity of the speaker compatible with the First Amendment? Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine the answer to this question.
The case—Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—involves a 90-minute documentary produced by Citizens United, a small nonprofit advocacy corporation. "Hillary: The Movie" examines the record, policies and character of the former New York senator, now Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The documentary was set to be broadcast during Mrs. Clinton's presidential primary campaign. But the broadcast was banned when the Federal Election Commission declared that the broadcast would violate the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The government defends this restriction by saying that corporations and unions are uniquely capable of amassing great wealth and must therefore be prevented from overwhelming the voices of others during an election. Relying on a 1990 Supreme Court decision (Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce), the government characterizes this threat as a "type of corruption" on the peculiar theory that such expenditures do not "reflect actual public support for the political ideas espoused by corporations." Therefore, the government reasons, corporate expenditures "distort" the political process and must be banned.
In crafting McCain-Feingold, Congress acted without proof that such expenditures have any distorting effect on elections. And it responded to a nonproblem with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel. The current ban on candidate-related speech is not limited to big corporations or powerful unions. It prohibits election advocacy by all unions and all corporations, regardless of size. It even criminalizes speech by nonprofit advocacy corporations such as Citizens United and the ACLU, which cannot conceivably distort or corrupt the political process.
The government claims the authority to suppress corporate and union speech not only in broadcast formats but also in books, pamphlets and yard signs. Put simply, the government's theory is that because wealthy corporations and unions might speak too much during elections, all of them must be silenced.
While the law prohibits even the smallest nonprofit groups from engaging in election advocacy, it exempts wealthy individuals, and it does not restrict the many advantages of incumbency for sitting members of Congress. A limitless loophole is also granted to the media. Thus the corporations that own NBC and ABC (GE and Disney, respectively), and corporations like The New York Times (or News Corp., owner of this newspaper), can express whatever views they want during campaigns.
Loopholes aside, the government's argument that speech may be outlawed because it does not reflect "public support for the ideas expressed" is absurd. It is the very antithesis of free speech.
Hard-charging campaign rhetoric is something that the First Amendment's authors had experienced firsthand. In making the choice between government-approved, polite discourse and boisterous debate, the Founders chose freedom. They did not say Congress could enact finely reticulated restrictions on speech. They said plainly that there could be "no law" abridging the freedom of speech.
The idea that corporate and union speech is somehow inherently corrupting is nonsense. Most corporations are small businesses, and they have every right to speak out when a candidate threatens the welfare of their employees or shareholders.
Time after time the Supreme Court has recognized that corporations enjoy full First Amendment protections. One of the most revered First Amendment precedents is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which afforded publishers important constitutional safeguards in libel cases. Any decision that determines that corporations have less protection than individuals under the First Amendment would threaten the very institutions we depend upon to keep us informed. This may be why Citizens United is supported by such diverse allies as the ACLU, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the National Rifle Association and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Persons of modest means often band together to speak through ideological corporations. That speech may not be silenced because of speculation that a few large entities might speak too loudly, or because some corporations may earn large profits. The First Amendment does not permit the government to handicap speakers based on their wealth, or ration speech in order somehow to equalize participation in public debate.
Tomorrow's case is not about Citizens United. It is about the rights of all persons—individuals, associations, corporations and unions—to speak freely. And it is about our right to hear those voices and to judge for ourselves who has the soundest message.
This article is very interesting to me because the government is saying that it is okay for the press, news stations ect. to express their opinions on elections and politics but not for unions or other major corporations. They must be forgetting that FOX, NBC, CNN ect. are corporations themselves.
Check this link out to hear a completely different view point. After watching this I might have a different opinion! Politicians might start driving around with stickers of the corporations they endorse on the sides of their cars. They might start wearing Pepsi hats, Marlboro lapel pins and Mcdonalds will be in control of the health care system!!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
-The Preamble to the Constitution is very powerful to me because it states our intentions to act as a sovereign nation. We are no longer controlled by Britain or any other country. The preamble also states that we will protect ourselves if it deemed necessary.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Barack Obama invoked the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on Wednesday, citing a letter in which the senator said that health-care reform "is above all a moral issue."
"'At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country,'" the president said, quoting the letter which Kennedy had written in May and asked to be delivered after his death.
"I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days — the character of our country," Obama said to a joint session of Congress. "One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government."
Kennedy recognized, however, that with all of the drive of Americans to stand strong, there comes a time when government must step in to help, Obama said.
"When fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand," the president said, citing "a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver.
We are free as people of an independent nation and will not be ruled or controlled by any other nation. This Preamble has been passed down from generation to generation. Our countries pride was instilled in me as a kid as I will do the same for my children.