Bars, Churches, Schools, and Guns

On February 18, 2014, Georgia lawmakers voted to allow bars and churches to decide for themselves whether to let gun owners carry weapons into their buildings.

The measure heads for the state Senate after the members of Georgia's House of Representatives approved the legislation with a 119-56 vote, according to the chamber's Twitter account.

The rights of gun owners became a major political issue in 2012, when the United States experienced a rash of mass shootings, including a massacre that claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut.

Gun-control and gun-rights advocates have turned their respective efforts to statehouses after gun control legislation stalled in the U.S. Congress.

Under the Georgia bill, churches and bars would be allowed to decide whether to allow weapons inside their buildings, according to the legislation's sponsor, Rep. Rick Jasperse, a Republican.

"We don't need to be penalizing law-abiding citizens and taking away their Second Amendment rights," Jasperse said, referring to the U.S. Constitution's right to bear arms.

The legislation would also allow secondary schools to decide whether to allow teachers and administrators to carry weapons.

"The legislation does not represent the majority of people of Georgia, but only a small number of gun advocates," said Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver, a Democrat who voted against the bill.

If the bill passes, gun owners will also be able to take their weapons into governmental buildings if security screenings are not in place, but guns would remain prohibited in courthouses and prisons. 

Sounds like to this writer that we are moving backwards, back into the Wild West.

The Wild West holds a special place in American history—Western films depict it as a place where the rules didn't apply, and where scores were settled with gun slinging and shootouts. The colorful characters who made up the old West were men, women, cowboys, Indians, sheriffs just plain outlaws.

But, what bothers me more is allowing firearms in bars, churches, and possibly schools where our young minds go to learn about American justice and freedom and dream about universal brotherhood.

To Know For Sure

Supreme Court Defines 

“Right to Bear Arms”

Lyle Denniston, writing for the Constitution Daily, reports about two gun rights cases that may get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases hinge on the difference between the right to “keep” a gun and a right “bear” one. The National Rifle Association thinks the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review. The justices are expected to discuss the cases next week and may then decide whether to grant review.

Writes Mr. Denniston:

The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means.

The NRA says you can’t really ‘bear’ something in the privacy of your home.

“The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear’ arms would mean nothing if it did not protect the right to ‘bear’ arms outside of the home, where the Amendment already guarantees that they may be ‘kept,’ ” write the NRA’s lawyers in one of their petitions to the high court. 

“The most fundamental canons of construction forbid any interpretation that would discard this language as meaningless surplus.”

The federal government wants the Supreme Court to take a pass. If the justices agree to hear the cases, they might not get to them until their next term, beginning in October.

AMENDMENT II

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.

So, what does this really mean?

Do we still need this right if we have a military, a national guard, and a police force?

And, if we do still need this right and have to defend our country by arming citizens to resist an invading army, then one must conclude that we have already lost the war and arming citizens is rather pointless…

Just a thought…

In case you were wondering…

Born American, Died Black

 

Trayvon Martin (left), George Zimmerman (right)

By now, most everyone has heard of the senseless killing of a boy, Trayvon Martin, by a man, George Zimmerman, and the subsequent trial in Florida where a jury of 6 females found George Zimmerman not guilty of the charges of which he was accused, because of the "stand your ground" law on the Florida legal books; although, all the jurists did make the claim that they struggled with their deliberations to the point of tears.  And, while this writer does not deny this took place in their hearts and minds, it seems rather pointless to admit unless they are trying to absolve their guilty feelings, and if they are, that too seems equally pointless since they rendered a verdict that they thought was correct given these unique sets of circumstances.

But, these comments are not about the jury, the killing, the trial, the law, or the right to bear arms Constitutional amendment...  no, not at all; it is about the polarization of Americans that took place in the aftermath of the trial's conclusion.

This writer expects (unfortunately) assholes to exist in our 2 major political parties, but not among the rank and file of middle class Americans.  I seriously thought we were beyond all of that.

The African American community thinks and communicates that this trial is another perfect example of "white" American justice; while, the rest of us (whites, Hispanics, and other) believe that justice, according to the letter of the law (but perhaps not the spirit) was ultimately served.

As an aside and with sincere respect to all cultures, I, for the life of me, do not understand why we have to insert adjectives in front of American, to create a unique and distinct sub group

This, to me, creates a separation that could influence and perpetuate discrimination.  But again, this is only my opinion.  And, if we were to extrapolate a little I could eventually see Asian Americans who are not just Southern Asian Americans and not just Georgia Asian Americans but Northern Georgia Asian Americans...  so, I am sure you can see where I am going with this.

We are all Americans,

regardless from where

our ancestors originated and

regardless of the culture

that forms the

foundation of who we are... 

or,

so I thought.

Goodbye 26

Taking on the NRA

A week ago today, 26 lives were taken by a lone gunman in Newtown, CT. This was an event more horrific than others because 20 of those lives were innocent young boys and girls between the ages of 6-10.  The 6 adults are gone because they tried to protect the children.

For the last week and not really meaning to sound callous, we, the American public, have been inundated by the media with redundant news reporting of this unimaginable event; however, none of that reporting will change these events nor will it bring these children back to their parents; although, that is exactly what we all would like to happen.

For the last week, a Nation has shed tears as well mourn the loss of these children who are now safe as they can be, cradled in the loving arms of their Creator.

I understand the need to ask questions and the need for closure, but we need to move on and let those who need to mourn do so in private.

The second amendment (passed in 1791) to the US Constitution, giving us (Americans) the right to bear arms, states:

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.

Definition of militia (n)

mi·li·tia   [ mə líshə ]   

soldiers who are also civilians: an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies

reserve military force: a reserve army that is not part of the regular armed forces but can be called up in an emergency

unauthorized quasi-military group: an unauthorized group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

Synonyms: paramilitaries, reservists, local militia, mercenaries, territorial army, soldiers, guerrillas, soldiers of fortune, legionnaires.

We have debated and will continue to debate the true meaning of this amendment regarding whether or not our truth, decades later, accurately reflects the intent of our Founding Fathers.

We continue to believe that Americans have the right (as Americans) to protect themselves and their families from harm.

And, we continue to believe that our local police, our military (if necessary), our National Guard (if necessary) are directly tasked with the responsibility of protecting those to whom they have been sworn to serve.  However, these forces cannot be everywhere, at all times or 24/7.

So, what are we to do?

Should we reach out to our well regulated militia and/or to each other because we have the right to bear arms?

Should we pass laws regulating the sale of firearms; and, is that Constitutional?

The NRA (National Rifle Association) is the most powerful lobby in Washington, DC and according to CBS This Morning spent a total of 17 billion dollars on lobby efforts to influence the Congress and Senate to protect our full understanding of the 2^nd Amendment. 

This is a lot of money…

Is there really anything that we can do that will prevent something like this from happening in the future?

There is not – no matter how bad I want it to be yes and no matter how many committees or task forces are set-up to study the issue.

The one absolute that exists in America is

the fact that one can get anything that

one desires as long as one has enough

money to pay for it.  This absolute, my

friends, cannot be legislated away. 

No matter how much we want

to take on the NRA…