Saturday, October 10

"Half The Power Of God"

I do not recall where or when I heard or read the statement that a police officer's firearm affords that officer immediate access to "half the power of God." If memory serves, I believe that truism appeared in an editorial emphasizing the requirement that all members of the law enforcement community to be ever vigilant to guard against being too quick to employ lethal force when engaged in perceived dangerous confrontations.  The realization of that truth is just as valid for any individual who is in possession of a firearm.

As previously revealed, I do not own a firearm nor do I have any desire to possess one. So, my plea for a rational, reasoned approach to better regulating the proliferation of firearms,  where it is roughly estimated that there are 3.5 million guns in existence in this country, may indeed be met with wary skepticism if not outright anger. Let it be stated from the outset that I am a staunch supporter and defender of the Second Amendment's constitution guarantee that every law-abiding citizen has the right to own a firearm, and I would join in any protest against any entity that would usurp that right.   

In order to begin to even have a rational discussion on how best to reasonably regulate the continued possession of firearms going forward, two important concessions must be validated as as irrefutable. Number One: For those groups of individuals and organizations who believe that any step toward the regulation of firearms is yet another slippery slope step toward the confiscation of all firearms, the assurance that that eventuality shall not and cannot occur is in the rock solid Second Amendment itself. As recently as June of 2010 the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by either state or local governments. A review of case law on this particular issue is replete with Supreme Court decisions that are in affirmed support of this fundamental right, even going so far as to define the original wording of "a well-regulated militia" as being unquestionably "we the people."  Secondly: For those groups of individuals and government ideologues who would view a Utopian American society as being free of any privately owned firearms, I refer these entities back to the pronouncements above. Both sides of this prolonged Constitutional debate must come to an agreed understanding and affirmation that a citizens right to bear arms is "off the table" for further debate. The elimination of this "right" could only occur "if" the American people elected to adopt such a change to the law through the arduous process of an amended change to the Constitution itself. The probability of that occurring is remote at best.

Yet we have tragic instances of the misuse of firearms that assault our sensibilities that are repeatedly occurring almost on a weekly if not daily basis. Nine killed while participating in a church prayer meeting in Charleston, South Carolina. Another nine killed in Roseburg, Oregon's Umpqua Community College. Wikipedia has a specific list of all the shootings that have occurred in this country's schools beginning in 1850 until this current year. The number of wounded and fatalities reported in this list is beyond mind-boggling. Children killing children! And we are going to continue to waste time and more precious lives fruitlessly debating whether or not someone or somebody is going to take away of Constitutional right to own a personal firearm. How tragic! How stupid!

It is now time that the American citizens awake from their perceived silence on the tragic consequences of our country's poorly regulated gun laws and demand that there be consequential teeth placed in the existing laws to better assure that gun ownership is by and for law-abiding citizens. We can begin this laudable quest by agreeing that the firearm application questionnaire that is typically employed by local municipalities and state governments is a joke. The inquires made are as worthless and uninformative as the age-old stupid question, "Do you still beat your wife?  Yes or No? Typical  "Yes" or "No" questions asked on the application form: "Are you a fugitive from justice?"  "Are you under indictment for, or have waved indictment for, or have been bound over to the circuit court for, or have been convicted in this state or elsewhere for having committed a felony, or any crime of violence, or the illegal sale of any drug?" "Have you ever been diagnosed as having a significant behavioral, emotional or mental disorder? "Yes" or "No." If the answer to any of these questions and the five other equally inane questions is "Yes," there is space at the bottom of the form where one can explain in detail why the person filling out the questionnaire should be allowed within 100 miles of a firearm!  Does anyone possessing an ounce of common sense beyond that of a single cell organism actually believe that a person with a prior criminal felony record or a traceable documented trail of mental illness is going to be forthright in answering any of these questions in the affirmative?

We can begin here. Agree to make background checks uniform in their inquiries across all and within each and every state and municipality. Increase the waiting period before an individual can take actual possession of a firearm until such time as the background check and verification of information submitted can be validated. Make it a provision that no private owner may legally sell a firearm to another person without employing a third party, such a a broker, to assure that the individual wishing to purchase that firearm meets the uniform application process to own that firearm. None of these easily implemented suggestions poses a genuine threat to a citizens right to possess a legally obtained firearm. What it does take is the willpower of the American people to implement same. 

All responsible gun owners and we fellow citizens who value the worth of all lives need to exercise that willpower and better assure that responsible gun ownership is a right that must be accompanied with sane, regulated safeguard provisions. Will initially instituted safeguards prevent the continuing tragic and needless loss of life committed by mentally defective individuals or the criminal element in our society bent on disregarding the basic tenants of a civil society? Sadly no. There are common sense laws that govern rational behavior every day that are continuing to be willfully violated. People still operate their motor vehicles without being in possession of a valid drivers licence or proper insurance, who speed, who fail to wear their seat belts, who drive intoxicated.  But there are rational and well-reasoned laws governing these violations that punish those who are apprehended for failing to comply and adhere to these statutes. Needless tragedies shall still occur, but we are not suggesting or lobbying to ban the operation of all vehicles in order to put an ultimate stop to these events. That's irrational. 

The time to stop the bickering is long past due. Our government is apparently incapable of coming to grips with this nation-wide epidemic. It continues to be a stalemated failure of willpower to at least raise the question of what can we do together to protect the legitimate right of gun ownership while realistically limiting the opportunities for gun possession by those who are recognized as being incapable of properly owning and safeguarding the right to possess a firearm. Indeed, the possession of a firearm must be understood to encompass the awesome acknowledgement and accompanying responsibility that "half the power of God" is but a fingertip away.       



Thursday, July 23



Many well reasoned words have been penned heretofore in on-going attempts to illustrate the profound correlation between the recognized injustices of slavery and the current government sanction through Constitutional Law of a "woman's right to choose" whether or not she of her own free will elects to bring a confirmed pregnancy to full term or terminate the unborn infant in the womb. Ask any Pro-Choice (a.k.a - Pro-Abortion) if she believes that the purposeful enslavement of another human being - to deprive that individual of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -  is morally and ethically wrong and the resounding answer would be "No." But to inquire of this same individual whether or not by terminating a pregnancy this very same moral and ethical standard would also be in effect, the response would not be likewise.There is no logic to this reasoning, but only defense of the indefensible. Whereas the first is a declaration for life and human potential, the second is a hollow argument for personal privacy. In this country both of these ideals of citizenship are constitutionally protected, but the question remains, which of the two takes precedent over the other? 

When slavery in the rural south ruled unchallenged the fodder of its underpinning were not even recognized as persons. At best they were merely "property," to be bought and sold at will. At worse they were regarded as sub-human, to be beaten beyond what even a dog or work mule would be subjected to endure, dehumanized with derogatory labels of inferiority; "exactly intermediate between the superior order of beasts such as elephant, dog and orangutan, and European or white men," or "agents of Satan." Today the Pro-Abortion proponents freely utilize the same tactic in dehumanizing the unborn, callously classifying them as "Abortus, conceptus, gobblets of meat, masses of protoplasm, human waste, a loathsome plague, a hideous affliction."  Now Planned Parenthood has even taken a page out of the slave trade by allegedly marketing to the highest bidder the by-products of salvageable organs of the aborted, late-term infants. If these allegations prove valid, Planned Parenthood's slogan, "Care No Matter What" takes on a deeper, hideous connotation that denotes that due care and diligence shall be faithfully prescribed to transform their status as a non-profit organization to sustainable profitability.  

The irrefutable correlation between the immorality of slavery of old and the unabated practice of pre-birth infanticide today may be refuted but it cannot in moral conscience be denied. In the 1973 when the Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe V. Wade became constitutional law, approximately fifty-five million unborn human infants have been deprived the right and privilege of life, liberty and the promised pursuit of happiness, also affirmed and protected by both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution that guarantee that "no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."  

Much justifiable lip-service has been ascribed to labeling slavery as American's "original sin." Historic verified estimates place the number of African born persons at 500,000 who were transported by force to the shores of this fledgling nation to endure and prevail daily for generations the cruel injustices and deprivations inflicted upon them to sustain an economic and social life style that enriched the few on the backs of the many. A great civil war was engaged in this country, wherein 750,000 lives were lost to only begin to settle the question of human equality for all that continues in fits and starts today.  Those 500,000 and those 750,000 lives expended are never to be regarded as having been spent frivolously, but they pale in comparison to the 55 million unborn children whose beginnings were deliberately aborted before their first gasp of air. 

It has been 42 years since Roe V. Wade was enacted into law. Will it be another 42 years and another 55 million aborted human lives before America's second on-going greatest sin against humanity will be relegated to a sad, appalling footnote in the annals of history? It is not time?  It is not long overdue that this nation throw off the thin veil of the corrupted privacy excuse for this on-going mass murder of the unborn and to begin in earnest a groundswell of support for a Right To Life Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Continue to turn a blind eye to these legalized atrocities and the American conscience of life and liberty for all shall be awash in the blood of these precious lives yet to be. It is not time that this nation lives up to his proclaimed heritage of freedom for all...even the unborn?  Isn't time for God's sake? Isn't it?   

For additional documentation of the correlation between slavery and abortion, see CHAPTER 86 - SLAVERY AND ABORTION: HISTORY REPEATS by the American Life League.. Link: 


Monday, June 29


It has been brought to my attention that on past occasions my Facebook posts dealing with social issues have  been perceived as my being angry and, therefore, are considered not to be in keeping with my professed "Christianity," as though anger and/or righteous indignation are somehow incongruous with the Christian faith. I disagree. 

Hardly a celebrity, I nevertheless believe I have a significant following on Facebook, and most people would agree that the majority of my posts are lighthearted and hopefully are so regarded as being uplifting and void of overly-opinionated flights of voiced dissatisfaction. Still, I would be far less than honest with myself or with my followers if I didn't admit that on occasion  I do climb high upon my white steed and charge headlong into some topic of personal aggravation. So yes, I do allow my anger to come to the fore. Steadfastly, I make no apologies for that genuine emotion.

Whether by omission or commission of the observed offenders of my sensibilities, the character flaws that bring my blood to a slow boil are abject stupidity, incompetence, hypocrisy, laziness, arrogance, ignorance and occasionally a mismatched fashion assemble. (But the latter shall be reserved for a future rant...)
To suggest that a "Christian" must always abstain from the employment of anger or otherwise bear the slings and arrows of incrimination for failing to live up to the tenants and precepts of an always perceived gentile faith is, if you'll pardon my indiscretion, ludicrous. One only need to consult the scriptures of the Bible to discover that even God himself was not without wrathful righteous indignation when occasion and circumstance warranted. Dig into the New Testament  gospels of Mark and John and one will read where Christ Jesus himself became righteously angry at the observed defilement of the temple courts, wherein the money changers were unabashedly deriving an ill-begotten profit by selling animal sacrifices to the Jewish sojourners who had come to the Temple to ritualistic repent of their sins. So incensed (read: angry) was Jesus that He fashioned a "whip out of cords and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and (are you ready for this?) overturned their tables."  To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" (John 2:15-16) With  no more than even a cursory reading of these verses, one would be in folly to suggest that Christ was more than just a little "hot under the collar." Let me be so bold as to suggest that Christ was angry and had every justifiable reason for being so.

So, let's abstain from the notion that a Christian is to suppress this most basic of human emotions in order to placate some misguided sense of Christian piety. Both God and his Son displayed anger when provoked to do so for justifiable reasons. And as humans, created in their image, we too are imbued with that same behavioral characteristic as well. Where this emotion becomes harmful and uncharacteristic of a Christian, or any rational individual for that matter, is when the anger spills over into spitefulness, vindictiveness, bitterness or a quest for unrequited vengeance. If in my past posts or posts yet to be published, I have slipped or may venture into the darker side of anger, then I stand accused as charged and offer my humblest apologies. 

But let's not falsely accuse me or any other professing Christian of losing their grip on their religion because they allow anger to color their opinions or quest for redress. I daresay that there was an undercurrent of angry dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church when Martin Luther pinned his ninety-five theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences on the door of the All Saints' Church in Wittenberg. I dare say that the Christians of the colonies were more than just a little angry on numerous historical occasions with the despotic rule of Mother England. The Boston Tea Party comes to mind. And I dare say that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not immune from a sense of anger and frustration as he marched repeatedly through the south to protest the deliberate and malicious subjugation of the oppressed black citizens of this nation. No, don't tell me that anger has no role to play in a Christian of conscience. The righteous anger of many Christians have and will continue to strive to turn the pages of history for the betterment of all mankind. Equal justice for all is some times best sought and acquired when the flames of anger and righteous indignation are ignited.