Now that Kamala Harris has been coronated the Democratic Socialist designee for nomination as their candidate for President of these United States, after that political party's contrived primary process "democratically" elected Joseph R. Biden: What are your feelings about this party's progressive posture within their self-styled exercise of "Saving Democracy for America," and how truly critical the outcome of this presidential election will be?
0% I am ecstatic that this "Democracy's" First partially Black, First partially Indian, First female Co-Parent, and that this nation's primary necessity is to elect our First woman president.
14.29% I really do not care about all these "Firsts." I will continue to pray, and work for this Representative Republic to elect someone competent, and brilliantly patriotic to be our next president.
85.71% I will never vote for any politician that "first" does not have the core values to understand how dire this Constitutional Republic's situation has become.
Publisher's note: This is the initial post of a multipart series expressing a long held belief on how to fix this nation before it is too late to do so. If you would like to read more, you can find other posts of similar intent by clicking here.
Incredulous politicians have the answer
When I was a child "reared" by a domineering mother, I was often cajoled to "control yourself;" however, operating within the confines of this common precept is much easier said than done, especially when, in my day, children were also pushed to attain a purpose beyond the boundaries of their limiting world around them.
And in the 1950s, 1960's, as many of us can well remember, there were some formidable boundaries placed before each of us that limited our reach, yet children, and adolescents, were still implored to reach higher, but stay in control.
Today, there are fewer boundaries for children to hurdle, less resistance to a more purposeful existence, so I have to ask: Why can't most Americans conceive attainable purpose, within the controlling structure of common sense, and what has skewed our collective abilities to do so?
Have we lost our ability for self-control here in America?
Incredulous politicians, who propose the ever expanding concept of the "nanny state," believe they have the answer: Restrict freedoms, create walls of secular influence in this "brave new world" of diminishing, and flexible boundaries, while legislating greater control. And herein lies the "chicken or the egg" conundrum: Would this all be necessary if our government had not worked so diligently to wrest our ability for self-control away from our diminishing concept of a collective self?
Take the horrific Sandy Hook massacre for example. As tragic as this heinous act of this one individual was, this tragedy could hypothetically never be corrected by more strenuous government control, especially since our secular society preaches a diminished self-control, a lessening of parental responsibility, and a greater "it takes a village" concept of what was once known as self-governance.
In other words, a government more in control of us than we are of ourselves.
Often, I hear strong, symbolic strains of this precept every time a Liberal, "nanny state" convert preaches greater gun control, by incredulously espousing: "Why does anyone need automatic weapons to hunt game?"
The answer is simply they (the possessors of legal firearms) don't need automatic firearms to hunt game; however, that is not the issue with those of us who have taken the time to understand the United States Constitution. Owning guns is not about the sport of hunting, or the traditional need to provide essential protein for one's family table, but rather, the philosophy bent within the true Second Amendment advocate actually runs much deeper than that, and with a much stronger purpose to keep that freedom safe for perpetuity.
Accordingly, those who strive to understand the precepts of the Second Amendment of our Constitution's accompanying Bill of Rights perceive its guarantee, and moreover, they will vehemently challenge the diminishment of that freedom to protect their families, and themselves, while maintaining their constitutional right to form a militia to defend themselves and their fellow countrymen against all enemies - foreign and domestic. With this awesome freedom comes the need for a commanding self-control, which is still practiced by real patriots.
I firmly suggest that incredulous politicians practice that same measure of self-control, and look for some other tragedy to embrace if that is their calling to do so.
If, by chance, this one liberal fantasy could come true: Would gutting the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights be worthy of saving just one life from gun violence?
8.82% Yes, I have a zero tolerance to the loss of life if the government would just only help
81.37% No, the 2nd Amendment is one of our most important amendments
The ones who voted yes in the poll voted against the U.S. Consitution, the Bill of Rights, the well thought out concepts discussed in the Federalist Papers, the history of the United States, and the sovereignty of the United States. I don't know which is more troubling: Do they not know or do they know and just favor other contrary visions of the future for this country.
The progressives (who say they care more than others) forget to mention that civilian ownership of "assault rifles" is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Controll Act of 1968. These weapons have a provision for automatic fire. The term "assault weapon" was used in connection with the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which was allowed to expire in 2004. This term is used by politicians to describe semi-automatic weapons with certain cosmetic features. I guess most progressives don't care more than others about such things as clarity or the truth.
Personally, I think the 1934 act is out of whack with the 2nd Amendment. Swiss soldiers are required to take their military weapons home after their service to country. I guess we have moved to far 'forward' for that in this country. The progressives want to move well past the already over regulated condition we are in now.
The enemies of liberty in this country like to gain their objectives incrementally in small steps. If we do not draw a line in the sand now, we will not be able to do so later. The enemies of liberty, like vampires crave blood, can almost taste their final victory.
I am sicked at the few that voted yes in the poll!
Our society is not one that is suppose to battle symptoms of a problem, much less use moronic and misguided knee jerk reactions at those symptoms. For those of you that believe gun control is the answer, I suggest you take a good long look inside yourselves because something isn't quite right!
The progressives (who say they care more than others) forget to mention that civilian ownership of "assault rifles" is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Controll Act of 1968. These weapons have a provision for automatic fire. The term "assault weapon" was used in connection with the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which was allowed to expire in 2004. This term is used by politicians to describe semi-automatic weapons with certain cosmetic features. I guess most progressives don't care more than others about such things as clarity or the truth.
Personally, I think the 1934 act is out of whack with the 2nd Amendment. Swiss soldiers are required to take their military weapons home after their service to country. I guess we have moved to far 'forward' for that in this country. The progressives want to move well past the already over regulated condition we are in now.
The enemies of liberty in this country like to gain their objectives incrementally in small steps. If we do not draw a line in the sand now, we will not be able to do so later. The enemies of liberty, like vampires crave blood, can almost taste their final victory.