Tag Archive: original intent

The Second Amendment. It’s a statement of a natural right that each human possesses. It’s not a human right. Those are given and taken away by other humans. No, fundamental rights are rights that are endowed to us by our Creator, and we shaped the government around them. These rights existed BEFORE the government of the nation that became known as The United States was formed.

We have other rights like that. The right to move about, to speak, to write, to not be found guilty of crimes without proof, etc. We cherish our rights, but don’t seem to give the same level of credence to all of them.

I’m going to say something that will shock even those who support a person’s right to keep and bear arms. There should be NO CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE LAWS. I mean it, and here’s why.

Gun Pic

Do we press for laws that make it necessary for a person to obtain a license before they speak, lest they commit slander?


Do we press for laws that make is necessary for a person to get a license before they write, lest they commit libel?


Do we press for laws that make it necessary for a person to obtain a license before they walk from one place to another, lest they jay-walk or walk into someone else’s private property?


Then, why do we require a permit for a person to carry a gun?

Some of the arguments are that a person might not know how to use it, they might hurt someone, or they might be a criminal.

1. If a person doesn’t know how to use a gun, they might make a mistake. That’s true. Does anyone here believe that a 4 hour course is going to make a person an expert. If you believe that, I have some land for sale I’d like to talk to you about later. For more on this, by an expert that will “out-expert” just about everyone reading this, read here.

Also, in this, I might point out that people can do considerable damage to a person’s life with slander and/or libel. A person could be ruined, made destitute, and end up dying on the street with slanderous statements, if enough people believe. That’s why there are laws against it. Just like there are laws against reckless discharges of a gun, yada, yada. Next!

2. Of course they might hurt someone. It’s called risk. You might get hit by a bus when you walk outside your front door. Do you risk it? Yes, because it’s a low risk. There are plenty of states that allow open carry without a permit. Do you hear about these states having gargantuan numbers of random people randomly shooting? Nope. You hear of mass shootings in “gun free zones.” Next!

3. They might be a criminal. Well, yeah. If they are, do you think they give a lick about laws anyway? What else ya got?

This is the bottom line: We are being charged BY THE STATE to exercise a fundamental right. They take finger prints. They charge a fee. They keep tabs on us.

If we had to register our editorials with the state and show our license to write, would you feel the same as you do about concealed carry laws?

Here is my radical proposal – allow people to exercise their right to defend themselves, and THEN, if they commit a crime with the weapon, they get punished. We’ll call it “due process of law.” Pretty snazzy title, right? I may have borrowed it from somewhere…

My sister is a cop. She told me open carry laws are a joke because you want to keep the criminals guessing who’s armed, always unsure, never bold like where they know all law-abiding citizens are unarmed. I agree. But, let’s not make people bow to the State to get the license that would allow them to defend themselves.

So, I restate my premise – the only concealed carry law I want to see is one that states that people have the right to exercise their Second Amendment right WITHOUT having to get a license to do so.

Alright, last time we discussed the way the numbers are decided for the House and the Senate. This is also how many electoral votes there are for the President and VP, with the addition of 3 for the District of Colombia, a recent phenomenon. I’ll have to get into DC representation in another post, but just know for now, that there are those 3. Now you understand why I made you read about the numbers of reps, right? At this point, there are 435 representatives in the House, and 100 in the Senate (unless one has passed away and not yet been replaced…that type of thing). But, the number of electors is based on the number of reps and senators, presuming they are fully staffed, and those for DC, which makes for a total of 538.


Initially, whoever got the most electoral votes was president and second most was VP. Can you imagine Obama having to deal with McCain as his VP? Cracks me up to think about it! Right. Moving on…


This idea of one vote per citizen was rejected during deliberations, as was having the congress doing the voting (pretty happy about that rejection, right about now, and I don’t think I even have to address why that was nixed), and it all comes down to the numbers.


If the “one man, one vote” thing were to be instituted, or if the electoral college was set up differently, the top most populous states would elect the president and the rest of the country would be left thinking, “What just happened?” and most likely, “Oh, garbage.”


Let’s take the 2,000 election as an example of the collection of power from very narrow concentrations of power in the “one man, one vote” results. From Wallbuilders.com:


“If the national tally of the popular vote is transferred proportionally into a vote by the House of Representatives, the results would have been 210 Members voting for Gore, 209 for Bush, and 16 Members voting for others; Gore, therefore, would have narrowly won a vote in the House based on the will of the population.

However, if the State by State votes are transferred to the Senate, since Bush won 30 States and Gore 20, the Senate vote would have been 60 for Bush and 40 for Gore; Bush, therefore, by a large margin, would have been the choice of the States.

In short, Gore narrowly won the popular vote by winning heavily populated and narrowly concentrated urban parts of the nation (Gore carried only 676 counties, located primarily along both coasts and along the Mississippi River) while Bush was the overwhelming choice of the States and of the more geographically diverse regions of the country (Bush carried 2436 counties — nearly four times that of Gore — spreading virtually from coast to coast). The electoral college wisely weighs these competing interests in the selection for a President.”

Clearly, Bush won, when one takes into consideration the entire country.


The electoral college forces the votes to be taken state by state, and it allows the power of each voter to be heralded across the entire nation. Do you want your vote to count? Or do you want big cities and populous states to rule everything? I’d rather not be railroaded, thank you, and thus stand firm in my conviction to the brilliant system of the electoral college.


**This post was updated on 11/17/12 due to an oversight that was brought to my attention by an alert reader.**

I’ve been reading up on the founders and…wait…don’t navigate away! I’m not going to go all “history textbook” on you!! Ok, I am…but just a little…


It turns out that 99% of the founders were, in fact, quite religious. Those that weren’t religious respected those who were. I used to think they weren’t, but I used to be ignorant, too, so there ya go. If you want me to provide proof, first read pretty much any state constitution, at least two of any of the letters that any founder wrote to anyone, and/or Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion by David Barton. Then, if those original sources are not enough for you, let me know…I will print you up a sign for you to wear at all times that reads, “I am willfully ignorant, do not engage.”


Which brings me to the topic of my post. You can say you don’t believe something that is true all you want. It does not make it any less true.


For instance, if I say, “I don’t believe anyone wants to buy Twinkies.”  But, the sales figures from Hostess show 500, 000,000 sold every year. So, don’t believe it if you don’t want to…but you’d be wrong.


Another example: The founders believed that each state was responsible for the encouragement of religion in its citizens. Also, until the states themselves outlawed it by adding amendments to their own state constitutions, there was nothing saying that they couldn’t have a state sponsored religion. To this, some people say, “I don’t believe it.” Some states did and some didn’t, incidentally, have state sponsored religions…which is quite different than a theocracy, but I digress…


Well, fine, don’t believe it. Be ignorant, I guess it’s your prerogative. But, to say that I am wrong and not have ANY sources to support statements like that just makes a person look like the bigot that, frankly, that person is. So, to all the bigots out there…STOP IT. Thank you. That is all.

%d bloggers like this: