Watch: How the 2nd Amendment Helped in Texas Church Shooting

The 2nd amendment of the Constitution played a big roll in stopping more killing in Texas. The neighbor with the gun that came out and exchanged fire with the suspect and hit him fatally.  From what we know about the shooter he was there to kill his in-laws. They were not at the church, he was likely leaving to head to the next location that he thought his original targets would be.

 

 

Would you have helped chase this crazy individual down?

 

Watch: Air Force Error Caused Terror In Texas

The day after a gunman massacred innocent churchgoers in a Texas church, the U.S Air Force admitted that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that should have stopped him from passing a background check and buying the rifle he used to slaughter 26 people.

The conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and infant stepson — he had cracked the child’s skull — should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he bought in the last four years. But that information was never entered by the Air Force into the federal database for background checks on gun purchasers, the service said. With his background that makes us believe that he would have found a way to harm those he wanted to kill either way.

Our question is how is more gun control supposed to fix the issue when they are not even using the reporting and laws we currently have?

test

Trump Calls Bergdahl’s Sentence a ‘Disgrace’

 

 

 


Bowe Bergdahl, who walked off his Army base in Afghanistan in 2009 was ordered by a military judge on Friday to be dishonorably discharged from the Army. Despite prosecutors seeking 14 years in a military prison, Bergdahl, received no prison time for desertion or endangering troops.

Col. Jeffery R. Nance of the Army, the military judge, also reduced Sergeant Bergdahl’s rank to private which required him to forfeit $1,000 a month of his pay for 10 months.

Do you feel justice was served?

I wish NFL owners would fire those who disrespected US flag

I as do many others in this country agree with what President Trump said about the NFL players disrespecting the flag. I think he as the leader of this country should use a bit of caution when speaking about it. The First Amendment of the Constitution is in place so the government can not do anything to stop freedom of speech or religion. As one person to another, there is no protection for freedom of speech or religion.

 


Again I personally agree with what he is saying on a one on one basis. As the President though this seems to be getting close to encroaching on the First Amendment.

What are your thoughts on this?

Should Illegal Immigrants Have Constitutional Rights?

The fact that the term “illegal immigrants” does not appear in the document leads us to believe that the U.S. Constitution’s rights and freedoms do not apply to them. Most often described as a “living document,” the Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. In my opinion “We the People of the United States,” refers only to legal citizens, however, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.

PLYLER V. DOE (1982)

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, “The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svgcases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.”

Equal Protection Amendment

 

When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with illegal immigrants, it typically draws guidance from the 14th Amendment’s principal of “equal protection under the law.” In essence, the “equal protection” clause extends constitutional rights to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through courts consistent rulings they find that the 5th and 14th Amendments apply equally to illegal aliens and citizens alike.

In rejecting the argument that the “equal” protections of the 14th Amendment are only to apply to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to the language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment.
“The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction.”

My concern is with the current rulings of the courts if the illegal immigrants want to push the limits can they also exercise the rights to vote or possess firearms. In my final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, undocumented workers are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans. I believe we need to be careful as this could be a means for certain individuals with the political power to enable them to vote in upcoming elections.

Please let us know your thoughts on this below.

These are the times that try men’s souls.

As I watched the Kid Rock video that officially kicked off his run for the Senate I found myself cheering his bold attack on various issues. Boldness and direct talk are effective as, President Trump, has proven. As the video continued I felt differently but thought, a few expletives are understandable. By the end I was stunned. That is not easy to do today but I was speechless as he spoke of clinging to his genitalia while occupying the White House and other, some may say pornographic, actions. It was then that I started to turn off to the idea of a Senator Rock. I was not completely sure why though so I thought about it. Was it the vulgarity? The disrespect [I perceived] for the highest office in this greatest nation? No…it was deeper than that.

After texting random thoughts back and forth with a good friend [for over three hours] I came to a conclusion. It was not the vulgarity, you should hear me watching football or hockey. It may have been a little of the disrespect for the Presidency, but I value First Amendment rights, so not so much that either.

 

What really bothered me was the hypocrisy and fear I had for what I was envisioning our electoral system becoming. His, Rock’s, performance reminded me of a demented X-rated version of American Idol. Is this what we want? I am tired of “politicians” too, but do I want celebrities starting to overrun the process? The hypocrisy lies in that Republicans [and myself] have railed on about “who cares” what a celebrity thinks and NY and Hollywood are NOT America and on and on. Now here is a celebrity generating fervor with feigned attempts at general policy ideas but mostly by whipping up emotions and hoping America doesn’t Simon Cowell his ass off the stage.

I was not sure I was liking these revelations but they got worse, or better depending on your perspective. As my friend and I continued our texting marathon we began to connect dots and see the correlation if not actual cause/effect relationships. This aggressive expression of ideology, as devoid as it may or may not be, serves only one purpose, to enrage. The left and groups like ANTIFA and BLM have mastered the skill but not by accident, yet another revelation forming in our discussion.

Why the need to destroy statuary, structures, and symbols if your true motivation is safety concerns or violence against you [or your group]? If free speech really matters and you “protect” rights, how does stopping and even assaulting counter views productive or consistent? These are of course, rhetorical, as they have no true legitimate answers but what they do is expand the idea our text conversation was leading to. This is bigger than just now. But how big?

Consider, ANTIFA, BLM and any other fringe group including the KKK and anything within the spectrum serve a higher purpose. While opposite as night and day, could they be working toward a common end? Known only by a few top people, this agenda serves to destroy all to impose the new world order or globalization under totalitarian control. Reaching? Possibly, but this is something bigger than now as we stated. This is an idea and ideas cannot be so easily killed or disposed of, especially when the end is more significant than the individual. People will sacrifice themselves and others without hesitation to further the cause and with a clear understanding they may never see the end product or goal but they had a part. Much like the religious fervor of jihadists, this hatred of freedom and liberty must be destroyed at all costs.