Shortly after the active shooter incident in Virginia involving some of our lawmakers someone wants to sponsor a bill so that our lawmakers may carry a gun. When I read the Second Amendment to our Constitution, “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.”, it seemed clear enough to me. Wouldn’t this apply to our lawmakers? Why do we need any other regulations or laws concerning arms? “the right of the people” applies to all U. S. Citizens, yes even our Congressmen and Senators fall under “the people”. It allows the keeping and bearing of arms, this includes any type of weapon, not just guns, but any weapon. I don’t understand how the government can limit “Assault Weapons”, weapons that hold a capacity greater than 10 rounds, or tell us we can’t carry in any “particular” public place. Private property is an entirely different matter and should be left to the wishes of the property owner. If I choose to carry a large club, crossbow, glaive, hand grenade, spear, sword, or even an armored vehicle, it is covered by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Or it should be. Ever tried walking down the street carrying a large club or a sword? Chances are you wouldn’t get far before someone contacts the local authorities and you’d be detained and questioned at a minimum. If you’re lucky you’ll be questioned by a smart enough policeman who realizes you haven’t broken any laws. At worst you’d be arrested and possibly even taken somewhere to be evaluated. Why did our lawmakers wait until there was an attack on their own? For years most of them have been strongly opposed to our Second Amendment rights. Now that they have been attacked by an obviously deranged man, now they want to pass a special law to allow them to do something they already have the right to do. I ask you why? There are many of them who still are opposed to the Second Amendment, they wish to pass a law to allow them to carry but are still willing to do away or regulate the rights our founding Fathers gave all of us under the 2nd Amendment. Doesn’t this strike you as odd too?
We hear about Congress not being able to repeal the “Obama Care”? When actually all they have to do is abolish it. What they are really trying to do is reinvent the plan and devise something better. Hence the discord among our lawmakers, if they are that adamant about repealing it they could simply repeal it and replace it later. It would simply put us back to the way things were before, until a better plan can be agreed upon. The old health care system had it’s flaws, but so does the new one. Health care is not a right, it is a privilege and if you want health care, then you have to pay for it somehow. If your employer doesn’t provide it, perhaps you should seek employment elsewhere or budget and steward your finances accordingly. I know many will think this is harsh, but it is a reality. Life is not fair, it never has been and it never will be. The health care system is corrupt to the core. Providers overcharge, insurance companies get billed an exorbitant amount for services, then pay only a percentage, which only causes providers to bill for more often unnecessary services. It’s an endless cycle which only results in driving up costs. If our original health care system was so bad, why was it working to such a degree that most other nations looked to us for as their model? Free enterprise works, even in health care.
Lastly, we always hear about programs like Veteran’s Health Care and Social Security running out of money, but never once has anyone mentioned Welfare running out of funding. Shouldn’t our elected officials fund those who defended our freedoms and those who contribute to our society and free enterprise over those who do not? Only about 25% of our citizens are able to qualify for military service and out of that 25% an even smaller percentage actually joins the military (2-4%). These brave men and women go places and do things most of our citizens never think about let alone do to defend our freedoms and way of life. Doesn’t it make sense to take care of them after their service to our Nation has ended? It does. As for social security, how does a program that every working citizen pays into fall into jeopardy of going bust, but a program like welfare that supports citizens who do not work or contribute to society in any way never does? This just pegs my stupidity meter and greatly angers me. Crime rates and drugs are disproportionally prevalent among welfare recipients. The program was well intentioned, but it has spiraled out of control. Originally the program was meant to give someone who was down on their luck a helping hand, a stepping stone to something better. In reality most folks who go on the program stay, and it is passed on from generation to generation. Perhaps it is time to abolish or repeal Welfare as we know it. I am not against helping someone, but shouldn’t it be a limited? One can’t draw unemployment indefinitely. You’re limited to a number of weeks and you must report periodically that you are actively seeking employment while drawing unemployment. Why doesn’t the same apply to Welfare. Give the benefit for a set number of weeks, and require something similar to ensure they are actively seeking employment? This makes sense. The government should only allow the welfare be spent on lodging, food and clothing. Require an audit of the expenditures. It seems reasonable to me that if someone is receiving government aid of any kind, that they should be clean of drugs and other vices like alcohol. Why not drug test the recipients? The government would save a lot of our tax dollars if the benefits were cut from all the folks who aren’t trying in good faith to get off welfare.
All of these issues have been mismanaged for far too long. It is time that Americans hold our elected officials accountable for their poor decisions. How do we do that? Simple, vote the folks who aren’t performing in our best interests out of office.