Handguns - A Moral ImperativeLearn Politics on mps-politics.com. Handguns - A Moral Imperative article will help answer your questions on Politics.We at mps-politics.com specialize in Politics. Politics at mps-politics.com provides the most up to date news and articles. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
You’ve been told violence is a terrible thing. You’ve been told that folks are killing each other all over the world, and they will certainly stop if we can just control this terrible flood of weapons and keep them in the hands of the officials who should properly have them. Most recently, the U.N. is trying desperately to improve everybody’s life by getting firearms off the open market. The world will be a safer and kinder place if they can just manage it. If you truly believe that, my friends, please allow me to sell you some oceanfront property in Utah. Is violence a terrible thing? Yes, it most certainly is. Is violence morally wrong? Of course. Will it go away? Not before Hell freezes colder than a well digger’s backside in January! It is the human condition. Well, then, should we contribute to violence by allowing firearms to be sold? This is the trickiest question of all. You see, firearms do not contribute to violence. Only people can do that. And taking firearms off the general market will have appalling sociological consequences. That’s right. You heard me correctly. I said “appalling consequences.” I know you’ve all heard the argument that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, so I won’t talk about that today. Let’s play a little game instead. Let’s pretend that every single gun on this planet can be destroyed. Let’s pretend that enterprising souls won’t make any zip guns in their garages. Firearms are completely gone – history. Not so much as a slingshot left. It’s over. This would be the end of a terrible chapter in human history, wouldn’t it? Oh, no. It wouldn’t be the end of Hell. It would be the beginning! It would be Mayhem. You, your wives, your kids, and your friends – you would all be at the mercy of every gorilla with a knife, a club, a set of brass knuckles, or even a good-sized rock. No one alive today remembers when might was right, but we’d learn about it again in very short order. Pool cues and fire pokers would be the order of the day. No woman would be safe, ever again, and damned few men. You’d stop carrying a wallet and shift to a money belt, and then it would just be a question of time before everything you own was taken from you, and probably your life as well. It would be absolute horror, and it would be inevitable. Okay, bad idea. So let’s keep a few guns, just for the cops and the military. That should solve the problem, right? Wrong. The founding fathers of this country knew what they were doing when they wrote the Bill of Rights in 1781 AD. In that day and age, it was unthinkable for a grown man not to have weapons, so why did they need to specifically state that the right to keep and bear arms was sacred? They said this because most of them had come here from Europe, from countries where they had good reason to fear governmental authority. Most European countries were already beginning to disarm their citizens, and an intelligent man didn’t need a roadmap to see where this was going. An armed government and a disarmed populace is an absolute guarantee of tyranny. This is what the U.N. wants to do to you. They want you to surrender your arms meekly and beg the protection of your government. They want to permanently forbid you to sell arms to less fortunate men and women anywhere in the world who are shedding blood to resist tyranny. Of course, keep in mind that the men and women who are trying to make this decision for you are all representatives of various governments themselves, and many of those governments are very repressive indeed. Small wonder they want their people disarmed and kept that way! It might help to keep their collective hides unperforated for just a bit longer. I believe it is time to remove our nation from the United Nations, and to remove the United Nations – forcibly if necessary – from U.S. soil. Have you written your congressman to say so? Is it moral to carry arms? You bet it is! When I enter your home or your business with a firearm, concealed or otherwise, I am tacitly agreeing to share with you the responsibility for defending your property and your family. When I eat in the same restaurant, I am prepared to shed my blood in your defense. There are survivors of the horror at Luby’s in Killeen, Texas, who would appreciate what I am saying here. I will never, never need to ask some poor cop to die for me. I value my own life enough to defend it myself. I carry arms proudly, as a free American. Do you?
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described this week's ruling as a "radical overreach of federal judges," while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges "cast aside the will of the people" who voted to approve the controversial ballot measure in 2008. And former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum took to Twitter, claiming "7M Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges." But where do President Barack Obama and Ron Paul stand? [Getty Images News Photo: Opponents of California's Proposition 8 celebrate a court ruling declaring it unconstitutional this week.] Prop 8 Ruling: Where the Presidential Candidates Stand originally appeared on About.com US Politics on Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 19:47:19. Article Index: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
More Articles:1. Definitional Arguments of Attorneys in Committee Meetings By Lance Winslow Volunteering for a Committee can often be a challenge and often one or more people in the group can cause the endeavor to become far from enjoyable no matter how important or passionate you feel about the mission statement. Let us discuss one type of committee member which is often extremely hard to deal with; the Lawyer? Why do lawyers seem to want to join committees? Well, usually it is their way of networking and getting customers, also often people in these groups treat them differently in… 2. The Gay Male Agenda for Political Dominance By Lance Winslow I would like to pose a question. I am unsure if you have noticed what I have with regards to Homosexual males in the United States, but sense they are moving their agenda faster and faster and we are seeing more and more Corporations are catering to this group. Have you too noticed this trend? Are you up on the changes this means for over all society?They are above average in their income levels and a becoming a bigger and bigger market segment. Generally and I hate to stereotype, but as a who… 3. HE WILL ALSO INVADE THE BEAUTIFUL LAND...The U.S.-Israel Strategic Alliance - Part III THE WEST'S INTRUSION INTO THE LAND OF THE PATRIARCHS--NOTHING BUT TOTAL VICTORY! The West's fascination with the Holy Land--the 'Beautiful Land' or 'Glorious Land' (Daniel 11:41)--be it for 'hidden/material' or 'prophetic/spiritual' treasures, has climaxed at the apex of the modern era in America's most recent intrusion into Iraq. The last Caliphate, the Ottoman Turks, collapsed at the close of World War I. On December 11, 1917, British Field Marshal, Edmund Allenby, dismounted, and walked throu… Cheap Mortgage 4. More Devastating Than a Nuclear Bomb By John F. Hart Despite their signature on the Biological Weapons Convention of 1975, it has been reported that China has the most advanced modern germ warfare arsenal in the world at Xian, Shaanxi province.As proof, information obtained using the Freedom of Information Act shows that in 1997 Clinton administration officials approved supercomputer exports to a known Chinese germ warfare lab without an end use inspection. The computer was delivered to Jiatong University, Xian. The university is a known center … |
||||
Three of the four Republican presidential hopefuls sharply criticized the federal appeals court ruling declaring unconstitutional California's