Archive for January, 2014

What the Second Amendment really says

Thursday, January 30th, 2014

While I am neither a gun control advocate nor a gun supporter, I have many very close family members and friends who have guns for hunting, self-protection or as a hconstitution2obby. These hunters eat the food they kill, enjoy the sport and being with others of like interest. They would all pass a universal background check, be able to legally buy guns and unless they are a collector, would not consider the need for an assault weapon.

The Second Amendment was ratified on December 17, 1791, along with the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Gun extremists and the National Rifle Association (NRA) continually yell about their right to bear assault weapons and large magazine clips as a right provided to them by the Second Amendment.

That is simply not true. Below is what the Second Amendment says in its entirety.

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In opposition to what Congress is doing, smart gun laws actually protect the innocent. Background checks work to stop those who shouldn’t have guns, such as felons, domestic abusers, terrorists, the mentally ill and children. People who want safer gun laws also want to get assault weapons designed for law enforcement and the military off the streets.

In 2013, 92 percent of the American population, including many NRA members, thought universal background checks should be required at gun shows and other gun sale venues, not just at registered gun stores. While the NRA and the Republicans have stood firmly on this side in the past, today there are strong lobbyists working against any new gun laws or restrictions. While this hasn’t passed Congress, I believe it eventually will as voters continue to put pressure on their representatives to do their job and represent the wishes of their constituents, rather than what the NRA wants.

Vote for people who represent your views.

What makes more sense to you? Congress

Friday, January 17th, 2014

1. Action: Raise the minimum wage, continue the food stamp program with no cuts, and continue the unemployment benefits for at least three months.

Results: People don’t lose their homes, are able to feed their families and look for a job. They continue to spend this money and boost the economy, thus creating more jobs and putting more people to work. Taxes are collected from them, and the economy continues to thrives.

2. Action: Don’t increase the minimum wage, cut even more from the food stamp program and don’t continue to provide unemployment oldman1benefits for those looking for a job.

Results: Many people who work full time continue to live in poverty, unable to spend discretionary money to boost the economy, might lose their home, phones, cars, and will thereby be unable to continue to look for work. The economy flounders, instead of creating new jobs, existing jobs will be lost adding more people to the food stamp and unemployment roles. Another recession will be looming and the country will struggle rather than grow.