This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

President speaks on Second Amendment....

President Washington that is....


4 comments:

NewGuy said...

I wonder what he would think of the man currently holding the position?

guy faulkes said...

not nearly as much approval as he would have for this mayor.

http://asp.militarygear.com/2013/01/22/oak-harbor-city-councilman-afraid-of-vets-concealed-handgun/

guy faulkes said...

Not nearly as much approval as he would have for this mayor.

http://asp.militarygear.com/2013/01/22/oak-harbor-city-councilman-afraid-of-vets-concealed-handgun/

NewGuy said...

Great Post GUY! I hope everyone reads it...and watches the video! Also, the comments following the article were excellent. Particularly this one:

“Is government suppose to ignore that majority and align with the minority who desires less?” Yes, if the majority opinion is contrary to the Constitution. If the majority wants to change the Constitution, then that’s another issue.

“There are law abiding citizens who owns guns that are in favor of stricter gun controls policies/laws or statues.” Good. Let those gun owners restrict their own purchases if they don’t want to buy certain types of firearms.

“Does a private citizen need an AK47 for self defense or a 20 round magazine?” Does a private citizen need a car that is capable of driving 160 mph if the fastest anyone can drive in this country is 85 mph? The Constitution doesn’t defer to needs-based rights. If we go down that road, the government call also decide if citizens NEED the ability to question government. What exactly is the standard for defending my home? Who is to say how I defend it? The purpose of self-defense weapons is to eliminate the threat to person or property. Am I only allowed to use a .22? A .380 round? I mean, who is the arbiter of what I’m supposed to defend my home with? My simple answer to your question would be, “YES!” Our military is well-armed and subordinate to civilian populace. The private citizen should have the means to defend against that if at some point in the future they are used against the people.

“Should guns be sold without and[sic] limitation on who can purchase them and should they have to be registered?” Yes. No weapon should have to be registered. Hitler used his forced registrations to disarm people. Likewise, the Louisiana government did the same during Katrina.

“Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous.” Knives in the wrong hands are dangerous. Cars in the wrong hands are dangerous. Rope in the wrong hands is dangerous. Alcohol in the wrong hands is dangerous. Baseball bats in the wrong hands is dangerous. There were no guns around when Cain killed Abel.

“why at not at minimum attempt to better govern their distribution.” Because this won’t prevent criminals from getting their hands on them. It will only prevent law-abiding citizens from having access to defend against those criminals.

“One needs a license to fish in most states but not to own a gun.” That’s a state issue, not a federal one. There is no mention of fish in the Constitution.