“The shot heard around the world” is most commonly taught today to be the shot that started the Revolutionary War and America’s fight for freedom. However, I believe that as time has gone on, the true meaning behind “the shot heard around the world” has been quite distorted; and this can easily be tied into the media narrative today.
Since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, there has been a nasty haze looming over DC, figuratively speaking of course. The need to control guns and restrict our rights seems to be the number one issue on Capitol Hill, and it has been that way since that fateful December morning.
If you have studied American history, then you will understand that the basis of needing to separate from Britain was the restriction of freedoms and, ironically, high taxes. I’m not calling for any succession, but I am calling for all Americans to open their eyes and read the writing on the wall.
“The shot heard around the world” wasn’t a literal shot fired out of a musket; the shot heard around the world was the order sent out by King George III to confiscate the colonists’ guns.
Are you recognizing the parallels yet?
The Colonists of 1775 wouldn’t stand for having their own personal weapons confiscated from them. In that time period, weapons were handmade by each individual owner or by a local blacksmith, not massed produced, such as the case today.
The musket was the livelihood of a family in those times. The men in the family used the gun to hunt for food and protect the family, should the need arise. They didn’t keep their guns unloaded and stored away; they kept them loaded and ready to fire at the press of the trigger.
They would be kept over or around the door. People were taught how to responsibly handle and care for the gun because they knew they wouldn’t survive without properly knowing how to use it.
We need to read into the past and take large lessons away from the actions of those brave Americans who stood up for what they knew was right.
The original intent behind the Second Amendment was not to tell citizens they are allowed to bear arms when they need to put food on the table. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Chuck Schumer are completely wrong to be sitting on Capitol Hill and holding investigations as to why someone needs more than 10 rounds of ammunition to kill a deer.
Truth is, you don’t need 10 rounds of ammunition of kill a deer. BUT, you do need 10 rounds of ammunition to protect yourself and others from a tyrannical government and tyrants like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer who believe that guns must be restricted in order for our society to be safer.
And this was the original intent behind the Second Amendment. Jefferson and Madison knew that if the need ever arose, the people would have to check their government. It’s like a fourth “check and balance.”
The legislation that Feinstein introduced last month, the new “Automatic Weapon Ban”, was shot down in Congress obviously (pun intended.)
What is an automatic weapon anyway? Are automatic weapons just scary “military-style” weapons? Or how about that concealed .40 caliber handgun in my house; isn’t it automatic?
Any kind of gun ban or restriction, outside the terms of precedent-leading Supreme Court cases, is 100% and undeniably unconstitutional.
Furthermore, they don’t even work. The Columbine tragedy occurred when there was a national assault weapons ban. I wonder why that is?
The moment that our guns are taken from us or are so heavily restricted that we won’t be able to easily obtain, use, and manage them, our country will need to take a step back and rethink the path that we’re heading down.
The Founding Fathers, with the writing and passing of the Constitution, put America on a path of freedom and extremely limited government; but I feel as if we’re living in 1940’s Russia. Something is obviously wrong.
Loading ...
Is Defining Marriage The Court’s Job?
This past week, the Supreme Court was busy hearing two cases concerning the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States. No decision is likely to be made until the court takes their recess sometime in late June.
Many think that the court is going to make a wide, sweeping decision, declaring that same-sex marriage is legal. But is that really the court’s job?
The court’s job is to interpret the Constitution and our laws and to make sure the latter aligns with our founding document. However, the court has been more “judicially active” in the past few decades, meaning they have been legislating from the bench – which isn’t their job.
The fact that one of these cases, the Proposition 8 case from California, is even being heard is complete blasphemy. During the 2008 California State elections, Proposition 8 was a proposition on the ballot to amend the California Constitution by defining marriage in their state as “between a man and a woman.”
In 2008, the people of California spoke, saying that they want marriage in their state to be only between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Of course, soon after the people spoke, litigation was filed; and in 2010 in a district court, the law was ruled unconstitutional. Again in 2012, the very liberal Ninth-circuit court of appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that the law is unconstitutional under Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses in the Constitution.
I do not believe that these two court rulings could be more wrong.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly enumerates the powers that are given to the federal government. The 10th Amendment says that any power not enumerated to the federal government is reserved to the states.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to regulate marriage. That is a power that is reserved to each individual state.
If the people of a state decide to not allow same-sex marriage, then that is perfectly okay! The same goes for any state that wants to allow same-sex marriage; it would be perfectly okay for the people of a state to allow same-sex marriage because that is their reserved power.
It is completely wrong and unconstitutional for our federal government to overstep their bounds and arrogantly believe that it is their duty to define what marriage is.
Frankly, that isn’t the government’s job at all. Marriage is purely a religious institution; and the government, on any level, should not be regulating this ageless and sacred practice.
However, I know the inevitable is for the court to throw out a decision either for or against.
Firstly, they should look at marriage under the scope of “Is it a fundamental right, or isn’t it?” If they believe it is, what are the reasonable restrictions that can be placed on it? Would marriage in the cases of incest or polygamy be okay?
These are questions that are going to have to be asked and answered before any decision can be made.
If the court decides for America that same-sex marriage is legal, what are the limits? Where is the line in the sand for the court and the federal government? A wide, sweeping decision could likely open a whole new bag of issues concerning the power of the federal government.
These court cases made the nightly news headlines all last week, but there’s one question I have to ask: Why is same-sex marriage more important than some of the bigger issues we have as a country, such as the $16.7 trillion debt?
One thing is for sure; 10 years ago, this movement didn’t have nearly as much steam as it does now. America is fundamentally changing. But is it really the change we want or need? We are going to have to answer that question come the 2014 and 2016 election cycles.
Follow Chris on Twitter