Like Collars?

I gave my older brother a dog collar and leash as a gag-gift on his wedding day. More accurately, I gave it to his new bride, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, it was an amusing gift, solely for the context.

I know a girl or two who wears collars or chokers on a common basis. There's even that girl that got denied access to the bus in England a year or so ago, because she was being lead around by a leash attached to her collar.

Sure, it's odd, but hey, some people just are.

Now, think of those two scenarios: a gag-gift giving to a pair of newlyweds and girls just doing it for shock value/fashion statements. I can see people wearing them.

Now imagine the government demanding that you wear a collar, which contains your personal information, and has the ability to give you a strong enough electrical zap to incapacitate your for several minutes.

Would that make you happy to be wearing a collar?

Well, that's exactly what the Department of Homeland Security wants to do to you if you decide to ride on an airplane. The Washington Times has an article up, describing a letter to a company which produces wristbands which can be used for tracking, data storage, and immobilization requesting a proposal so that the DHS can use the devices for security and interrogations. Said letter was written by one Paul S. Ruwaldt of the Science and Technology Directorate, office of Research and Development, of the Department of Homeland Security.

Frankly, I'm flabbergasted that an American citizen would willingly wish to impose such a device upon another one. Especially under the weight of law and without due process.

This is a gross violation of the intentions of our Bill of Rights. I never signed up for this, and I sure did not vote this Mr. Ruwaldt into an office. So not only is he trying to shackle us all with what amounts to electric dog collars, but he's not even an elected official whom we can recall for such vile behavior.

He's a beuarucrat.

So, basically, we, those law-abiding citizens he wishes to electrify into submission, are paying his salary through our taxes.

Great work Mr. Ruwaldt.

Frankly, I'm left reminded of the Pain Bands from that old Star Trek episode "Spock's Brain." You know the one where the pretty women stole Spock's brain, and were raiding the cavemen who lived on the surface for slaves. Then they controlled the slaves via these belts which both sent electric shocks through the slaves, incapacitating them for several minutes as well as containing information about which slave it was.

You know, I understand that we owe a whole lot of our technologies to Star Trek, but I don't think that Gene Rodennberry ever expected that particular one to actually make the jump from fantasy to reality.

So, again, I must say, "Great Work, Mr. Ruwaldt."

I'm left wondering when I'll get my pain band. After all, it's a very small step from forcing every person who gets onto a plan to have one to just forcing everyone to have one. And of course the Department of Homeland Security and Congress and other members of the ruling Police Elite won't need them.

They are Big Brother after all, and they care for your safety.

Foreclosing Foreclosures

There must be something wrong with me.

I just don't understand something that is apparently a vital aspect of my country.

It boggles my mind; confounds and confuses me.

I don't know why my country men would be willing to do this, yet more and more it seems like I'm in a minority of those people who don't.

What am I talking about? What has me so confused?

Why people take handouts from the government.

What's worse, is why do our elected representatives continue to provide handouts to the people? Though, ultimately I know the reason for that: they want to buy themselves a vote.

What brought this on today was an AP story that I found on MSNBC talking about the Senate's upcoming vote on an anti-foreclosure plan.

Disgusting if you ask me.

No one forced these people to take these exotic mortgages, and as such they should now suffer the consequences of their bad decisions.

I'm not getting bailed out of my mortgage--nor do I want to.

Especially not by the government. I don't want my tax dollars spent bailing people out of their own bad decisions. That's not the purpose of the Federal government. Heck, it's not even the purpose of state or local governments.

That's the purpose of charitable organizations.

Which, despite the Democrat's intentions, is NOT the point of the Federal Government.

At least not the federal government whose Constitution I had studied.

To Knock, or Not To Knock....

Back in 1995, case number 514 U.S. 927 appeared before that highest of high benches; those keepers of the writ of law; the new High Priests of our land: The Supreme Court. Commonly known as Wilson v. Arkansas, this case gave the land the joys of the No Knock warrant.

For those of you who are unaware of this particular travesty, the No Knock warrant is the type of search warrant which allows police to enter your home without identifying themselves. Basically, it's the Gestapo, bursting down your door, usually between 1 and 4 in the morning, with their guns pulled, in the hopes that you won't destroy your drug evidence--because evidence can always be destroyed in the 30 seconds it takes a cop to announce himself.

Unsurprisingly, this type of search warrant has led to the unnecessary deaths of police and citizens alike. People like the father of 3, Police Officer Ron Jones. Officer Jones was playing stormtrooper, when he burst through the door of one Corey Maye. Maye had a young daughter in his house, and being the responsible father, when he was woken by someone breaking and entering, he made a decision and protected his family. After killing Officer Jones, he realized that it was the police breaking into his home, so he surrendered; only to now be serving a life sentence without parole solely for the perfectly reasonable action of protecting his family.

Of course, things don't always end up this nicely for those being served warrants. Kathryn Johnston, a 92 year old woman, was surprised by one of these things, and she ended up dead. Despite the fact that anonymous tips--which are almost universally the cause of no-knock warrants--informed the police that Mrs. Johnston held a large cache of drugs in her home, no drugs were ever found. All that happened was Mrs. Johnston was killed. Oh wait, that's not all that happened; in an effort to exculpate themselves from the blame of the death of Mrs. Johnston the officers on the scene planted three bags of marijuana.

How's that for police work.

Amazingly for Mrs. Johnston family, Mrs. Johnston is apparently getting some justice in this world. Fox News is reporting this morning that the officer in question gets to spend the next 5 years in prison.

How did we become this? At what point did our homes stop being sacrosanct and start being subject to searches and invasion all at the random voice of a drug informant?

If someone breaks into my home without announcing who they are, I am going to do everything in my power to stop them, and leave them dead. My family is that important to me--and quite frankly, other humans just aren't.

Of course the easiest way to stop all of these senseless killings, of both the gestapo and those being ground under their heel, is to simply outlaw no-knock searches. Make everything be a knock-and-announce search, and at that point, the folks inside the house know it's a cop coming through their windows waving guns at their family.

Wilson v. Arkansas gave us three guidelines for a no-knock search:

• "Circumstances present a threat of physical violence"
• There is "reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given"
• Knocking and announcing would be "futile" Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997)

Let's be perfectly honest here--the first, the threat of physical violence, is always there. This is America, I have guns. Other folks have guns. It's a part of our national identity and culture. We have a strong history of self-defense, and I for one refuse to rely on the gestapo for that defense; especially where my family is concerned. Additionally, if there weren't guns, then there would be knives, swords, baseball bats, screwdrivers, forks, chainsaws, rakes, shovels, and all sorts of other implements with which I can carry out all sorts of body harming, if not outright deadly, violence.

The other two, those are just silly. Even with no-knock, evidence can be destroyed, and if it's "futile" to knock and announce, it's also not hurting anything to do so.

Of course, those "reasons" are really just random justification for the act. After all, the law of the land as defined in Hudson v. Michigan is that violations of the knock-and-announce rules (i.e. not knocking on a knock and announce warrant) is not a valid reason to exclude evidence.

Kind of scary, no?

Fear in a book

It's not often that a book can scare me. It's not. Consider, I was reading Stephen King in the fourth grade.

I found his books mildly amusing.

Horror movies were a staple growing up. It's just not in me to be scared of the things most folks are. Oh, sure, I can be shocked or startled by sudden onslaught of sound and light, but scared? That's hard for me. I don't get that rush of adrenaline, that understated fear that I've felt in the past when I have been scared.

For the record, the last time I had felt that was when my first son was being born and the doctors discovered that he had had his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck three times.

Tonight, I finished a SF novel that scared me. It left me feeling paranoid and suffering under that intense fight-or-flight syndrome one gets when confronted by things that scare you.

Which book might that be?

Cory Doctorow's Little Brother.

This is a novel that combines technology with common, daily events, and then shove them out until you reach their ultimate conclusion. The fact that Big Brother is watching you. Using everything from wifi sniffing to Bayesian statistics, Mr. Doctorow spins a story about the DHS and its crackdown on the civil rights, all in the name of security, in the setting of San Fransisco.

What is sad, is that I can so see this happening.

Maybe it's because that I knew all the technology he discussed, and the small bits he created I could see how they are logical extensions of existing tech. Maybe it's because a large part of my job is sorting through datasets, and creating algorithms to help people do tasks. In fact one project I worked in the past on required that I track where every login came from, passing authentication information back and forth transparently to the user.

I must be afraid because I can see it happening today.

The closest I've ever come to this feeling before was after reading the novel Dark Rivers of the Heart (0-553-58289-5). That particular novel teaches much the same story, with a focus on how our Congress has taken a liking to writing laws which they are exempt from. For example the drug search and seizure laws, and of course the various perks they give themselves such as free tax filings (for more, see this fun Time article).

Regardless, read the book. Become scared with me.

And remember these two quotes:

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

That was from the Declaration of Independence. This one is from Ben Franklin:

He who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will lose both and deserve neither.

Charlton Heston--A Great American.

Another icon of Conservative America has now passed from this mortal coil. Over the weekend, Charlton Heston died.

It's sad, and not just because he was the guy from Planet of the Apes. Mr. Heston spent many years as the president of the National Rifle Association fighting for our Second Amendment rights. Among others. This is the guy that resigned from an Actor's group because that particular group refused to allow a Caucasian play a Eurasian role.

I'm sad that such a fighter (one of the few from Liberal Hollywood) is now out of the fight.

Yet we still have his example to draw from.

We still can fight for our rights, in the same way that he did, and he espoused during his life.

Good bye, Mr. Heston, and thanks for your efforts on our behalf.

According to the House, I'm a terrorist now.

H.R. 1955 - PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS

With the passage of this particular bill from the House (by a 404 to 6 vote) that has now been referred to the Senate (Senate Bill 1959), I have been ever closer brought into line with being an evvvilll terrorist. Why do I say that? It's quite simple, the above bill has these definitions in it:

(2) Violent radicalization.— The term ‘violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(3) Homegrown terrorism.— The term ‘homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(4) Ideologically based violence.—The term ‘ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

Pay close attention, and how they separate the use of force and violence. In other words, they are NOT the same thing according to this particular law. So, what does force mean if it isn't talking about something physical? Well, that's why we have dictionary.com, which provides us with a whole bunch of definitions. Yet it was these which attracted my attention first:

6. persuasive power; power to convince: They felt the force of his arguments.
7. mental or moral strength: force of character.
13. any influence or agency analogous to physical force: social forces.
16. value; significance; meaning.
22. to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person: to force one's opinions on others.

Scary eh?

Still don't understand? Consider, the use of force is using something to convince someone of something. It is persuading someone of something, by its very definition. So, every time you win an argument, and persuade someone to your point of view, you've imposed your values upon said person by force.

Now, go re-read this law's definition for Ideologically based violence. I'll wait.

You with me again? Good.

Notice that part about the use, planned use or threatened use of force or violence? That just defined that any time someone writes for or against laws, politics, politicians, religions, or society in general, they are now, by House definition, a "homegrown terrorist."

Mike Adams has an article up on Newstarget that goes on to describe other ways which this law destroys things such as grassroots movements, and tells how you should get in touch with your Senator to express your disdain for this particular law.

Of particular interest in his article is this quote:

In terms of the upcoming election for U.S. President, there is only one candidate that actually believes in freedom: Ron Paul. He needs your support to win: www.RonPaul2008.com

All the other candidates are nothing more than tyrants of different political affiliations. Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly understands the fundamentals of freedom. That's why he's the only real choice for our next President. Can you imagine what Hillary Clinton would do with the police state powers that Bush has now created? That's the danger of all laws that centralize power in Washington: It's not necessarily what today's President will do with them, but what some future President will do with them.

All I have to say to that is "Hear! Hear!"

Clinton's Las Vegas Trip

The main-stream media is abuzz. The holy grail has been found! Yes, I'm talking about Mrs. Clinton hiding out there in the dessert. It's almost been obscene, as ever since last Thursday story after story of her supposed triumphant debate has flickered across myRSS Reader.

It would be sickening, if not so scary.

Yet, not even the reports that the MSM planted questions for her at the debate could work me up enough to write a rant. At least until I stumbled across MSNBC's latest rave review of her campaign.

HRC: TCB in Vegas. A Conversion Story

A less than surprising (in light of MSNBC's admitted shift Left) endorsement of the Clinton campaign, which starts off with these sentences:

She came, she saw--and she conquered.

After a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," the 2008 presidential election can start to seem like, well, sound and fury, signifying nothing (to coin a phrase). Which is exactly what I expected to find Saturday morning when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association (SMWIA) in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Now, this is a MSNBC "blog" so it's perfectly reasonable that its author has a pronounced bias, but since it is on a MSM website, one still expects... well journalistic integrity? That post just reeks of "Hey, look at me! I'm an HRC fanboi!" Now I can admit to be a Ron Paulite, and I know that my Constitionalistic leanings influence my writings, and that I'll have a tendency to support anyone who pushes a platform which I like. But, I never claimed to be a news site. This here is a place for me to rant and rave about things without driving my beloved wife batty.

Slightly different venue.

All that aside, that's not what caused me to frown and think up a rant. Rather it was this quote (as Mrs. Clinton discussed the Thursday night debate):

I loved the debate because we finally got into some real issues. For example, my health care plan covers every American. Sen. Obama's doesn't.

In effect, she's bragging about socialism; big government.

It still boggles the mind that anyone would willingly take a handout from the government through the welfare and other social programs, which FDR (the guy that put the initial systems into place) said would destroy this country if they weren't revoked.

I can admit, I hate social welfare programs. They are evil things, and in effect are enforced charity. It is the government, taking money from me to give to someone it deems worthy by some arcane stricture. A modern-day Robin Hood if you will. While Robin Hood is often classified as a folk hero, let us not forget that he was fighting against the high taxes and social ills which big government impose upon us. If eitherObama or Clinton manage to make it into office, this is the future we have to look forward to. Yet another attack against the capitalistic, small-government dream which our Founding Fathers held dear.

Presidential candidates should not be bragging about expanding the Federal government's powers. Frankly, I'm of the mind that attempts to expand Federal powers beyond that which are specifically enumerated in the Constitution should be considered treason. Especially, if that Presidential candidate was already an office holder in the Federal government which forced them to take an oath of office to protect said Constitution (such as bothObama and Clinton did when they became Senators). Let's look at that shall we?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Makes sense. It means that they promised to SUPPORT and DEFEND the Constitution. So, tell me again, how does a Federal Welfare System (or Education System for that matter) support the Constitution? There is no article, section or clause which grants the Federal government that particular right or ability, and as we all should know by now, any right not specifically given the Federal government is reserved for the States and the citizenry.

Just one of the many, many reasons why I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Do You Remember?

Tomorrow is the anniversary of September 11th. A day of infamy on a par with the attack against Pearl Harbor.

Throughout Myspace and other blogs, we have a plenty of folks espousing us to remember the Firemen and Police Officers and others who lost their lives on that day, just a few short years ago.

While I have no reservations in remembering those that lost their lives in that attack on our sovereignty, I fear that we, as a nation, have forgotten a more important lesson. Mainly, just what our government is supposed to be. Just what it was that our forefathers fought, bleed and died for.

Thomas Jefferson said this:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.

That was his definition of good government. Doesn't sound like ours now does it?

What's more, I've been reading a blog lately entitled Pro Liberate, and his latest article is a discourse on Power versus Authority. The author of that blog quite often discusses abuses of police power from across the nation.

Sadly, in this post-9/11 world of ours, he has way to many examples.

On these days when we should be thinking about those who have lost their lives via those "peace-loving" Muslims, instead we are given instances of police brutality and an officer of the law informing someone he pulled over rather randomly that he would perjure himself in order to arrest the car driver.

This is our world today. We live in a country that has forgotten its fundamentals. A country that ignores the backbone upon which our very lives and ideals were built. Woodrow Wilson said this about liberty:

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.

Yet today, resistance is a quick fire way to end up arrested. At best.

At worst, you'll be raided by a paramilitary force, complete with automatic weapons, tear gas, and hoping for a chance to zap you with 50,000 volts of electricity. All for the non-violent offense of dissent. Complete with the possibility that your loved ones could end up shot, even if they are unresisting and naked. But, hey, it's the police, their word is without blemish in a court of law, and worth more than the word of the citizen.

How's that for innocent until proven guilty?

So, while it is a good and just thing to remember those that died in the September Eleventh attacks against our nation. We should also try to think of a way that we can restore our freedoms. We need to think of a way that we can live without the fear of a SWAT attack against our homes because we happen to be dissenters with certain laws.

So, while we should remember our dead, we should also try and remember how to be free.

Searching for SWAT

It's three in the morning. You are soundly asleep in your bed, lost to the world and happily dreaming. Tucked in beside you is your significant other, and just down the hall are your 2.5 kids.

Then a flash grenade comes sailing through your window as at the same time your door breaks down, while several armored men, toting assault rifles come pouring through the now broken entry way.

If you're lucky, they don't shoot you.

If you're lucky, the flash grenade doesn't land on a bed, or other flammable object, burning down your house.

If you're lucky, you're not kicked or beaten enough to send you to the hospital.

Sound like a bad dream or maybe the plot to a movie? Could it be a scene from the latest episode of Law & Order? What it is is a short description of what happens during a SWAT raid.

Where once, the SWAT team was used for special circumstances, such things as hostage situations or serving warrants against known felons with a history of extreme violence, more and more they are being used to serve every warrant. The police are breaking into homes to serve search warrants at the early morning, and too often not finding anything, or worse –killing those they do find.

Over the past few weeks, I've come across more and more stories dealing with SWAT teams being used against non-violent criminals, or worse going into the wrong houses to serve the search warrants.

Occasionally these things don't meet with problems.

But what we're seeing more and more of are innocent people - you know those folks that the police are supposed to be serving and protecting – being hit, shot and having their homes destroyed. In fact, just a few days ago, the SWAT team raided the home of Salvador Celaya, a 73 year old suffering from Alzheimer's. He is one of the lucky ones in that he, his 69 year old wife, nor his daughter or her child were shot or injured in some other way during the course of the raid. But he does suffer as the flash grenade they tossed into his bedroom window burned down his house, causing $150,000 in damages (Source).

Just another report in the growing list of problems that widespread use of SWAT teams has caused. Take this small sampling from Florida for the years 2004, 2005 & 2006:

SWAT Team Raids Student Film Crew.
March 20, 2006—FL

A SWAT team in Fernandina Beach, Florida storms a post office building after a bar patron reports a hostage situation. The SWAT team draws its guns and points them at the door of the building. Inside, a high school class is filming a movie. They had sought and gained permission from the local postmaster to shoot the film. The students are ordered to the ground at gunpoint by the raiding officers before they realize their mistake.

Source:
"SWAT Team Called to High School Film Shoot," North Country Gazette, March 26, 2006.

Anthony Diotaiuto.
August 5, 2005—FL

23-year-old Anthony Diotaiuto is shot ten times by police in Sunrise, Florida on a paramilitary drug raid of his home. Diotaiuto was suspected of dealing small amounts of marijuana. Police found about two ounces in his home.

Police say Diotaiuto confronted them with a gun, though his body was found in a closet in his bedroom. Police said the fact that Diotaiuto had a licensed firearm gave them cause to believe he might be dangerous, and necessitated the use of a SWAT team. Diotaiuto had one prior conviction for marijuana possession as a minor, but otherwise had no criminal record, and no history of violent behavior.

Police also say they knocked and announced themselves before entering, though neighbors say they never heard an announcement.

Diotaiuto's family is now suing for the release of police records relating to the raid.

Sources:
Janette Neuwahl, "Relatives, friends criticize death of man in Sunrise police raid," Miami Herald, August 10, 2005.
Brian Haas, "Relatives of Slain Man Hire Lawyer," Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, August 11, 2005, p. B1.
Michael Mayo, "An Ounce of Pot, 10 Bullets, and One Failed Drug War," Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, August 16, 2005, p. B1.

Michael Meluzzi.

July 8, 2005—FL

In July 2005, a Sarasota, Florida SWAT team conducts a drug raid on a home where several children are playing in the front yard.

The SWAT team descends from a van, deploys flashbang grenades, then swarms the home. 44-year-old Michael Meluzzi, who had a criminal record, begins to flee as he sees the armed agents exit the van. Police chase Meluzzi down and fire a Taser gun at him, partially hitting him.

According to Officer Alan Devaney, Meluzzi then reached into his waistband, leading Devaney to believe he was armed. Devaney opened fire, killing Meluzzi.

Police would find no weapon on or near Meluzzi's body.

Sources:
"Suspect is stunned, then fatally shot, " Associated Press, July 11, 2005.
Latisha R. Gray, "Fatal drug raid raises questions; Residents ask why a SWAT team came in with children present," Sarasota Herald-Tribune, July 31, 2005, p. BS1.

Jarrell Walker.
April 12, 2005—FL

After deploying a flashbang grenade and entering the home of 19-year-old Jarrell Walker, police shoot Walker twice in the back, killing him. Walker is lying prone on the ground when he is shot.

The officer who shot Walker was wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a ballistics shield. The officer has been involved in four shootings in his seven-year career, says he thought Walker was reaching for a gun. Walker was unarmed, though police did find a gun on the other side of the room. They also found a substantial amount of drugs in Walker's home.

Walker was shot dead in front of his three-year-old son, also home at the time of the raid.

The shooting was only the latest of several questionable use-of-force incidents involving area police. On the same day the FBI announced it would investigate the Walker shooting, Pinellas County Sheriff Jim Coats said he would review his department's deadly force policy. Remarkably, Coats' changes to that policy, announced in October 2005, broadened the number of situations in which his deputies could use deadly force.

Source:
Steven Thompson, "Pinellas Sheriff Revises Deadly Force Policy," Tampa Tribune, October 19, 2005.
Graham Brink, "Deputy Mayor Responds to Critic," St. Petersburg Times, May 26, 2005.
Alex Leary, "'Exciteable' Tag Haunts Deputy,'" St. Petersburg Times, May 6, 2005.

When are we going to wake up and realize that there's a problem with the wide spread use of SWAT teams and tactics. As our police become more militarized and we, the normal citizen, becomes more prone to the abuses which the use of paramilitary tactics lead to, some of the essential and fundamental concepts that our country was founded upon are falling under the iron jack boot of our own government.

If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.

Especially when it's a search warrant being executed based upon information from a confidential informant concerning drug purchases.

I think it is high time that the citizens stand up and demand a return to sanity on the part of SWAT tactics. Remember, when the SWAT team goes in, they firmly believe that it is a life-or-death situation. Humans hopped up on that much adrenaline and then armed to the teeth begs for abuses and escalation of situations which lead to the death of those without the kelvar armor.

9th Circuit Appeals Court At It Again...

That wonderfully liberal 9th Circuit Appeals Court has yet again pulled off a brilliant activity. Known for the infamous ruling which declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, they have now said that the average citizen cannot bear arms, and it is actually unconstitutional for them to do so (Reuters News Story).

Now, I can see that incredibly liberal section of the country, having 3 judges who just happened to sit on that particular court to say this. Yet once the ruling was handed down, the appellants tried to get it brought before the entire Appeals Circuit Court. Out of the 28 judges on the appeals court, only 5 of them think that this ruling is as stupid as it truly is.

Now let's look at the amendment in question:

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.

Hmm... it seems that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. To me that actually means that there should be NO laws regulating guns and gun control, for any laws that the federal government places upon arms, is infringing my right to bear them. From concealed weapon to waiting periods. These all are infringing upon my right to bear arms. How can I say this? Well let's look at exactly what infringe means:

To hinder; to destroy; as, to infringe efficacy;

So with this definition, the second amendment reads "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 hindered."Makes a world of difference doesn't it. Remember this appellate court if and when someone breaks into your home. Remember this appellate court if and when someone hurts your loved ones, while all you can do is stand by, because you don't have the means to protect yourself and your loved ones. Remember that this appellate court, the liberal left and the ACLU (because they still have yet to defend the second amendment) all think that the common man is to stupid and careless to have guns. I personally think they're afraid we might get tired of their liberal agendas and finally overthrow this bloated government, and reinstitute our Constitution.