THE AFFIRMATION OF SELF-DEFENSE

Totalitarians want to disarm the citizenry so that the government will have total control. Most gun control legislation has this thought in mind. As someone has so aptly said 911 is dial a prayer. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that law enforcement cannot be everywhere all at one time. Law enforcement suffers from a lack of omnipresence. Each of us possesses the inalienable right to self defense. No individual has the right to take my life and property from me without due process of law and then only when I have done something wrong.

The deathocrat party is behind gun control laws. They somehow think that guns murder people. It never dawns on them that people with guns murder people. A gun is neutral because it is inanimate. A gun cannot shoot itself. A gun only becomes animate when a person uses it. A gun is then an extension of an animate being. In the mind of a deathocrat, if you get rid of guns, all gun crimes will cease. They do not look to the cause, but the effect. This is because the cause is subjective and the effect is objective.

The deathocrat cannot see into the heart of man, the source of all murder, but they can see with their physical eyes the gun. So they pass legislation against the effect, while ignoring the cause. The deathocrat will be vehemently opposed to the death penalty for murderers who are found guilty in a court of law. What they do not realize is that all guns could be destroyed and man would still murder. This is because murder is in the heart of man, not in the inanimate gun.

The Supreme Court affirmed the right of citizens to use guns for self-defense in a recent court

decision. All that they have done was affirm what was given to us by God in Exodus 22:2. Whether the Supreme Court substantiated the Second Amendment of the Constitution or not, we still possess the right of self defense because God has so legislated it. It is natural for us to want to defend ourselves against attacks and a gun is a good equalizer.

What the deathocrats do not realize is that no matter how many gun regulation laws that are passed, it will not deter criminals using guns. They are not going to go and register guns. They will get their weapons from the black market. What happens when you have a heavily regulated gun market, a black market for guns will naturally spring up. Criminals will ignore any regulations that are passed. They are outlaws.

What needs to be done is to recognize that men with evil hearts are going to do evil things. A good deterrent against criminal behavior is an armed citizenry. A nighttime burglar would have to think twice about trying to rob homes, if he knew that every home has a citizen who is armed and will shoot to kill any nighttime intruder. Self-defense is an inherent right of all the world’s citizens. God has so ordained it. Criminals beware.

MURDER WITH DIGNITY

We live in a world of two opposing sides to most issues. There are those who understand the issue conceptually and there are those who only go by what they see with their physical eyes, that lack understanding of the issue. However, it is the second view that seems to predominate on most issues. This is because most people do not want to have to think through an issue. They think that if someone wants to do something, let them do it. As long as it does not effect my life, I don’t care is their attitude.

What these people do not realize is that someday, it may be them in a particular situation and they would have voted away their rights and someone else will make their decisions for them. According to an Associated Press article, there is an ballot initiative called the "Washington Death with Dignity Initiative" that is designed to allow a supposed terminally ill person to end their life at their own hands. This is "setting up a fiercely fought and emotional campaign."

Those behind this ballot initiative are relying on emotion to carry the day. This is all that they have because intellectually, they cannot defend their position. They are relying on people looking with their physical eyes at some terminally ill person and seeing them suffering pain and concluding that no one should have to suffer like this. They are relying on the word dignity, but the word dignity does not go with what is really occurring in this situation.

Let us define what kind of death is being proposed with this initiative. For a patient to be allowed to obtain lethal drugs for ending their own lives, "two doctors would have to agree on the diagnosis of a terminal disease–giving the patient six months or less to live–and declare that the patient is competent, is acting voluntarily, and has made an informed decision." No one would be making an informed decision because the patient is not being given all the necessary information in which to make the right decision.

If the patient obtains lethal drugs and ends their lives, they have committed suicide. Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines suicide as, "Self-murder; the act of designedly destroying one’s own life. To constitute suicide, the person must be of years of discretion and of sound mind." Self-murder is murder and is a crime. Worse of all, it is a sin and when successful cannot be repented of and therefore, the actor will spend eternity in the lake of fire.

The word dignity is being used as a cloak to hide the heinousness of the act of self-murder. Webster renders dignity as, "True honor; nobleness or elevation of mind, consisting in a high sense of propriety, truth and justice, with an abhorrence of mean and sinful actions...This dignity is based on moral rectitude; all vice is incompatible with true dignity of mind. The man who deliberately injures another, whether male or female, has no true dignity of soul."

Based on this definition of dignity, how can self-murder be made a dignified act? Self-murder is sinful and therefore cannot be dignified. Suicide is a cowardly act. How can one be a coward and have true honor, nobleness or elevation of mind? Supporters of this horrible initiative will not define their terms. They have to rely on pure emotion and if this initiative passes, it will be not death with dignity, but death to dignity.

NO SHAME

Being brazen is in, displaying shame is the new taboo. To be brazen is to be impudent. Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines impudent as, "Wanting prudence or discretion; indiscrete; injudicious; not attentive to the consequences of words or actions; rash; heedless. The imprudent man often laments his mistakes, and then repeats them." The brazen man is one who acts without any forethought. When the consequences of his actions turn against him, then he wants to blame his actions on someone else. The brazen will never take responsibility for their actions.

Webster renders shame as, "A painful sensation excited by a consciousness of guilt, or of having done something which injures reputation; or by the exposure of that which nature or modesty prompts us to conceal. Shame is particularly exited by the disclosure of actions which, in the view of men, are mean and degrading. Hence it is often or always manifested by a downcast look or by blushes, called confusion of faces." Shame should cause a man to discontinue a degrading situation.

The audacity of some is beyond words. A recent example has occurred in Ontario where thousands of compulsive gamblers have filed a $3.5 billion class action lawsuit. This lawsuit is being filed against provincially (government) run casinos. The crux of the issue is that these compulsive gamblers had signed up for a program that denied them entry into the casinos and that they had been allowed in.

These compulsive gamblers will not control their gambling. By signing up for this self imposed ban, they were hoping to shift responsibility for their actions from themselves to the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. Instead of staying out of the casinos, they subjected themselves to arrest for trespassing. They now want to be able to profit for breaking the law. This is as brazen as it gets.

These gamblers have no conscience. Instead of being shamed by their degrading actions, they continue to repeat them. They refuse to govern themselves. If you do not govern yourself, someone else must do it for you. They want to blame the government for their failure to control themselves. They cannot and will not accept responsibility. This lawsuit is wholly illogical. It is frivolous to the core.

What needs to happen here is that these gamblers need to be arrested for trespassing and appropriate penalties imposed and the lawsuit thrown out. Then what needs to happen is the government of Ontario needs to get out of the gambling business. All casinos need to be shut down. The government of Ontario is getting what they deserve. Gambling will forever attract those who do things to excess. Government sponsored gambling will foster gambling addiction. Gamble responsibly is a worthless slogan.

GOVERNMENT MANDATED HEALTH CARE

It is amazing that the state that the Puritans founded, and then instituted God’s law in is now devoid of any godliness. Beginning with the Supreme Court of Massachusetts mandating queer marriage to the state government mandating that those who can afford health insurance must purchase a policy or face being fined. The government of Massachusetts is taking away the individual’s freedom of choice.

Health care is an economic good. Health care is subject to the market. This means the law of supply and demand. If someone wants to have health insurance, this is an individual decision and it should not be a government coerced one. Individuals in Massachusetts are forced to buy a policy, possibly against their will. This is not a voluntary but an involuntary system. This is another example where there needs to be separation of economics from the government.

Recently, the Associated Press ran an article titled "5 Percent Still Without Health Ins." A quote from this article reads, "Five percent of Massachusetts taxpayers failed to obtain health coverage in 2007, and more than half of those, about 97,000, were forced to forfeit their personal exemption, worth $219, after it was determined they could have afforded health care."

If an individual did not earn enough money, they are not required to purchase health insurance.

This law is discriminatory against those who earn more than the government established

threshold. I guess the government needs to pass a law that says that one cannot be discriminated against because he makes a lot of money. Notice the coercion regarding the 97,000 that had to forfeit their personal exemption. The quote uses the word "forced." Being forced to do something means that it is against an individual’s will. This is what a government does, it uses its power of coercion. The individual’s freedom of choice has been taken away from him.

The fact that 95% complied with the law shows that citizen’s of the state of Massachusetts are not going to resist this law. They apparently do not care about their individual freedom of choice being stripped from them. The state of Massachusetts is a fascist state. The government will do whatever it wants because in the fascist state there are no absolutes other than the government doing absolutely as it pleases. The state of Massachusetts alone thinks it is sovereign.