Constitutional Rights?

In light of the recent murders of teachers and innocent children in Connecticut, many politicians, talking heads and celebrities have voiced a desire for increased gun control laws.

Last week our local newspaper ran and editorial in which they said; "No civilian should have a military-style weapon capable of firing off dozens of rounds of bullets without reloading. Fortunately, in the Sandy Hook case, police arrived quickly. With hundreds of rounds of ammunition, it’s conceivable that Lanza would have kept killing. No one needs that kind of firepower to hunt deer or shoot turkeys."

I have experience firing weapons in the military, but am not a hunter. I am NOT a member of the NRA and I'm not a weapons collector. However, I have rarely heard more ignorant statements than those I've heard in the past few weeks.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is simply stated; "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." That's it. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing about shooting turkeys or targets. Nothing about protecting oneself from burglars.

Some say; we have a well regulated militia. Therefore, we have no need for military-style weapons. To that I would say; if/when the government decides to confiscate your property for whatever reason, they will not do it with pistols. They will come with maximum firepower. How will you defend yourself against that if we further restrict our existing rights? 

Beyond the issue of existing laws, nobody (except the NRA President) is talking about the possibility of arming people at schools. I have no idea if that is a reasonable option, but I do think that when a bad guy with a gun is met by a good guy with a gun, the chances of mass killings are much less. Additionally, when people contemplate carrying out such horrific acts, I can't help wondering if they are less likely to attempt the act if they know their chances of carrying out the act are extremely slim?

In the end, it appears to me the people we normally look to for enlightened, educated and intelligent decisions and advice don't even care what the primary governing documents say.

Tell me what you think.

What's Wrong With Church?

I have been pondering for some time, the struggles many churches have with attracting and retaining members. See what you think of this opinion.

Years ago (and I'm talking 100-200 years), the church was a central meeting point in many communities. In many cases the church housed a school. Also, due to the fact that much of the US economy was agriculturally based, the church was a place many people went to meet with their friends, neighbors and relatives. Therefore, people had very deep roots in their community churches.

Fast-forward to the 1980's. The US economy became more heavily weighted toward business, office jobs, technology and people embraced more readily, the concept of relocating away from their families.  Suddenly we were spending long hours at work, shuttling our kids from school, to gymnastics, dance, music and other activities. People's roots in the church were becoming shallow.

Fast-forward again to 2012. We now have entire communities online. We often-times associate w/online friends more than we do in person. So-called community churches are thriving while traditional churches are trying to figure out how to grow their congregations.

So what is missing? To me it is the sense of community. These newer "community churches" are seldom affiliated with any national church. They may offer a message (the word of God), but without all the pomp and ceremony of the more established churches. They may or may not have programs in place for youth or small groups. Many people say these newer churches are shallow in themselves because they offer nothing beyond a once-a-week service. But many DO offer programs that don't cost a lot of money (e.g. small group bible study) or have daycare centers operating on-site during the week that are profit-making and help support the costs of operating the church.

In order to have a sense of community, people have to invest in their community. Whether it be financially, physically or otherwise, we must open ourselves up to being accepted into the community. Usually the community is already willing to accept us.

As well, many of the well-established "mainstream" churches have become more of a business for the national and local levels, the clergy AND the local church leadership. Think I'm wrong? Tell your Preacher you have to cut their salary. See what happens. Tell the national organization you disagree with some new policy and see what happens. Look at the many people who think that because they donated the new organ, piano or building, they have the right to dictate how it is used. The fact that these newer churches operate with significantly lower overhead cannot be overlooked.

Equally as important is parishioners or congregants who don't think they need to pony up the money or pitch in physically or administratively. Every church seems to have a core group of people who donate money, time and/or talent. Often this group is accused (quietly over lunch and out of earshot) of doing things their own way. Nevermind the accusers often haven't offered to help. Our community is OUR responsibility. The more of us involved, the more of us will understand how and why certain decisions are made. AND the more of us involved, the more ideas we can pull from and if there's a better idea, it has a better chance of being implemented.

In the end, I believe the "organized churches" in America need to return to a sense of community. There may be significant changes these national organizations must make. If they fail to make those changes, it won't end the church today, next week or even next year. But rest assured there will be a slow decline (some say it has already started) which will have the same result...barring Divine Intervention.

Reply

Great post and I appreciate it. Here's my response;

  Taxes: From the standpoint of "it won't affect me" I don't care if taxes get raised on people making over $250k/yr. My only concern there is many of those people are small businesses reporting their business income on their personal tax returns. That aside, it is my understanding that even if you took all the money the "millionaires and billionaires" make it wouldn't run our Federal Government for more than about 3 months. So somebody else is gonna have to pay. As for those people paying less than the middle class; If a person earning $500,000/yr pays a 15% (lowest rate), that is $75,000 paid in taxes. If I make $60,000/yr and paid the same 15%, that is $9,000. So how does the rich guy pay less?

  As for the FairTax, it is actual legislation and you can check it out at www.fairtax.org. It doesn't raise or lower taxes on anyone, it merely replaces the mechanism through which we fund our Federal Government (i.e. income taxes are eliminated). Those who consume more will pay more. You should read the book, it is really good (and short).

  Healthcare; I agree everyone should pay their own. I thought the original problem was healthcare costs were "getting out of control." The Affordable Healthcare Act (AHA) doesn't address that. I agree that insurance companies shouldn't be able to dump someone who then can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition. 

  Here's my biggest problem with the healthcare system; you pay $300/month for health insurance, your employer pays in $400/month also. That's $8,400 paid to the insurance company every year on your behalf. You go to the doc 'cause you can't shake the crud. You pay your $35 copay, the insurance pays $80 to the doc for a total of $115. For that privilege the insurance co. is getting $8,400 annually for you. Multiply the company's portion times the number of employees and it can be huge. As a former employer, there was no way I could offer that for my people.

  If the Affordable Healthcare Act was such a great deal, why did the Federal Government issue waivers for over 100 employers (such as McDonald's)? Yes, something needed to be done, but I doubt the AHA is the silver bullet. Maybe I'll be wrong.

  Abortion; Just don't make me pay for it. I'm against abortion for my family, but won't tell someone else whether or not to get one. I just don't think tax dollars should be used to fund them.

 Marriage; I don't care what people do in their own bedroom. Just don't tell me I have to accept the behavior as normal. We were going along in life and with all we have to deal with a very small percentage of the population has now told us WE must accept their beliefs and conform to their desires. But my faith tells me to love thy neighbor. So I will.

  2016 Movie; I saw it, but in my opinion it only offers a perspective of why the President is making the decisions he's making. It wasn't anything new for me.

  Foreign Affairs; After our Ambassador is killed in Libya, I believe we shoulda blown the place into oblivion. I know that sounds harsh, but my experience tells me that other nations don't play nice. They don't have rational discussions and then compromise. I've seen it.

  Every person I've ever met in the military is against war (including myself). However, somebody will be the world's military superpower. If not us, who? I personally don't want our nation to be at the mercy of other nations' militaries.

  I don't think Christianity has anything to do with political choices. 

  I do not believe the President can relate to most of us. He's never held a private sector job where he had to work his way up from the bottom. He's never (until being elected where somebody else handles most everything anyway) owned/operated a business where he had to make payroll and struggle to pay the taxes, withholding, health insurance, utilities, employee issues, etc.

  The President never served in the military, so he certainly can't relate to the sacrifices those people have made.

  If you say the President CAN relate even though he's never walked in my shoes, do you also believe others who've not walked in your shoes CAN relate to you?

  I believe the fact that President Obama went off and played more golf in three years than GWBush played in eight years is an example of his lack of concern. The fact that the First Family took lavish vacations and threw huge parties at the White House early in his presidency is another example of how he doesn't relate to what the rest of us are dealing with.

  He is our President and I'm not saying what could've or would've happened under a different President. But I hope we can continue this type of discussion.