The Second Amendment and Guns in the Good Old U. S. of A.

I was EXTREMELY happy to see last month, in D.C. v Heller,
that the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment do indeed recognize that the right to "Keep & Bear Arms" is an individual right. I have to admit, that is a Make or Break right as far as I'm concerned. What do I mean by "Make or Break" you may ask? Just that if some way the second amendment was misinterpreted or repealed, or otherwise done away with, I would NOT give up my guns. you can read into that what you will, but that famous phrase, often quoted, "Cold Dead Fingers" comes to mind.

This country was established / created with guns. The right to keep and bear arms was so important to the Founders, that they listed that right Second - not ninth or tenth - it wasn't an afterthought. It is a Fundamental Right - intended to allow American citizens to protect themselves from a Corrupt Government, and oh yeah, in order to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones, as well as the lives of others who have no ability to protect themselves. (just thought I'd throw that last bit in, so you wouldn't think I was some crazy conspiracy wacko).

You see, that's the mistake all these gun control wackos make when they try to compare this country with England, France, etc. Those countries were old and established before guns were ever invented. This country was established, built, defended, and expanded because guns were available and allowed the American settlers to rise to an equal footing with the English, and to ultimately win our freedom and retain it. Of course, all those things took place between the American Settlers, and what they saw as a Corrupt Government.

The amazing thing about the Supreme Court's opinion in the D.C. v Heller case, was not which side they came down on - individual right or State's government right - but the fact that it was not a unanimous decision. How could four of nine of the highest judges in the land misinterpret the Constitution so much? Not to mention how all the bleeding heart/liberal/gun control nuts (I know this is redundant, but just go with it)as well as what were typically well intentioned national organizations. I have seen countless public statements from these organizations decrying the coming lawlessness, violence, etc., because the Court stated that Individuals have a right to keep & bear arms. This right does NOT apply to Felons, the mentally unstable, or anyone ever charged with a crime of Domestic Violence. Someone please explain to me how a law abiding citizen's right to own a gun makes the country more lawless, violent, etc.?

All this talk about guns, makes me want to go out and buy another. Watch for my next posting.

Letter to the Editor

The following was a letter to the editor I wrote and had published in the Memphis Commercial Appeal - They supply the title. The content is pretty self-explanatory, but let me just say that it just goes to show how the Media manipulates what we know and how we form our opinions.

*No space available for real news*

Almost daily, I see a letter in this space attacking the president for the "ill conceived," "deceitful," "illegal," etc., war in Iraq.

I personally dislike President Bush and believe he has set back the Republican Party and the conservative movement at least two generations, with the help of Republicans in Congress who were so bad they lost the majority in both houses. One of the big reasons for the destruction of the president and the party was the media's coverage of the war in Iraq and the lack of WMD.

A couple of weeks ago, I found an Associated Press story online about the secret removal of almost 600 tons of yellowcake uranium from 20 miles south of Baghdad to Canada (July 6 article, "Nuclear seed removed from Iraq"). Of course, the article made a point to say that the uranium was not weapons grade but also failed to note that it is the material of choice to create weapons-grade uranium.

I remember like it was yesterday in 2003, when former ambassador of the Clinton administration Joseph Wilson (Valerie Plame's husband) wrote an op-ed in The New York Times stating that he found no evidence that Iraq had purchased, or tried to purchase, yellowcake uranium from Niger, where Wilson was sent by President Bush to find such evidence.

There was also intelligence offered by the Bush administration about Iraq trying to buy 50,000 to 60,000 aluminum tubes used in centrifuges to enrich yellowcake.

Wilson's op-ed was the beginning of the downfall of the Bush administration.

Now, it's obvious there was no need to secure the uranium, just a need for the aluminum tubes, since it is now known Iraq had the uranium. Where were the front-page headlines that almost 600 tons of yellowcake uranium were found in Iraq? Were the American press and this newspaper afraid the truth might help to validate the reason for the war in Iraq?