I am now the liberals target

Many of you watched my appearance in a piece on "Hannity's America" on Fox News last Thursday night. The response has all been positive, but with any political discussion there are opposing views. That is what great about our country, we have the First Amendment, guaranteeing our freedom to discuss the matter openly.

I am descended directly from a Revolutionary War Solider that served five years under George Washington's command in the Continental Army. After the war he moved his family from New Jersey to the mountains around Keyser in 1782. I'm extremely proud of my heritage, my nation and my state. My ancestor took up arms against the British to form a nation based on freedom, even though he was only a foot solider, he took that same risk as all the patriots. Ben Franklin said it best at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately. " While I'm in no immediate danger of being hung for exercising my First Amendment rights, I do risk alienation from some friends and acquaintances that do not share my views. It is important that we have honest discussions of how government works and also just as important that you stick to your convictions.

Saturday on Facebook I posted a story entitled, "Military demands details on soldiers private guns." It is a story about infringement on the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Now I am a gun owner and strongly believe that everyone should own a gun, but I fully understand that there are people that do not agree. That is their right and it is their right to publicly oppose my view.

In follow ups to my Facebook post about the attack on the Second Amendment, one came from Jim Shumaker in which he said, "Gary ive never heaard you say a positive thing about our country or our state." Now Jim has every right to be opposed to the right to bear arms, but he should attack the message not the messenger. I will be happy to defend why I believe that people should have the right to keep and bear arms and he can explain why he disagrees with me. Questioning my love of state and country doesn't offer an opposing opinion, just a personal attack. In West Virginia and most of rural America where the owning of a gun is as much a right of passage as it is a civil right, it would be hard for Jim to offer an opposing argument that many would agree with.

That being said, the personal attack is something that liberals fall back on when they feel they are unable to defend their position. When a person begins to attack the messenger in an argument, then it typically means they have lost the argument. I would invite Jim to point out to me where it is un-American or un-West Virginian to defend the right to bear arms. For that matter to point out where it is un-American or un-West Virginian to disagree with public policy of any kind. In fact the opposite is true. It is very patriotic, if not a duty, to express your disagreement with government. The Founding Fathers wrote into the First Amendment the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" to make sure the United States says a government of the people and by the people.

We must hold politicians accountable. We must challenge them on items with which we disagree. We must hold discussions amongst ourselves and educate ourselves on the issues of the day. If we do not follow politics, then politics will follow us. I invite Jim Shumaker to challenge my positions on the issues. He can make a follow up to this post and I will defend my positions as necessary, but leave the personal attacks at home.

Today the US Supreme Court Heard a 2nd Amendment Case

While we will not know the outcome from some time, the fundamental question is whether or not the right to bear arms is a collective right or an individual right.

The 2nd Amendment states, "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." To any student of history it is clear that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but some believe it is not.

Over 200 years ago the people of the American Colonies petitioned the Crown and their calls fell on deaf ears. In the Declaration of Independence it states, "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." Our forefathers understood what Tyranny was, they lived under it, most of us have not.

When they wrote the Bill of Rights, these men understood what was necessary to preserve freedom. First they understood that a free people needed the ability to speak openly about government and more importantly the ability to disagree with government. That is why the first amendment is the Guarantee of Freedom of Speech.

These men had also knew what happened Freedom of Speech is taken away and they got it back my force of arms. Without the Right to Bear Arms, there would be no United States. My ancestor John Moore was one of those men that took up arms against the crown and helped form this nation. These men that formed our nation understood the true cost of freedom.

Many of us understand that the 2nd Amendment is to protect both the 1st Amendment and to allow individuals to protect themselves when government can't. Should government try to take away freedom of speech from the people, the people have the ability to keep it as long as the right to bare arms is not infringed. A free people should never fear its government, government should aways fear its people.

Those that wish to give up the Right to Bear Arms will ultimately give up the right to free speech. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

A President That Can Unify America

One president is capable of uniting America's diverse social and cultural groups. That president is Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Today he will stop at New York City's Columbia University to give a speech. If it is like most of his other ones it will say absolutely nothing of real substance. If he is smart, he will leave Holocaust denials and other known beliefs at home.

Many people are arriving to hear him speak, ask him questions, and protest and almost zero support him. Not only Jewish groups, but also conservatives, gays, Christians, and others have lined up to see and confront this individual. Can anything in the American body politic produce such a reaction? Absolutely not.

Most groups on the right and left in American politics are much closer to each other than to the brand of hatred practiced by this man. His loathing of Israel and denials of the Holocaust are as well-known as his nuclear ambitions. And now Ahmadinejad seeks to score points by showing up the United States by speaking on our soil. As of right now he plans to defy the New York City Police Department and go to Ground Zero. New York City's hostile reception will likely not make Iran's censored news, and probably not even Al Jazeera. However when he leaves, hopefully he knows full well where America stands when it comes to his hateful brand of diplomacy and politics.

As for unity, it is something often called for by our politicians, but rarely seen. This is not a negative. Iran's people must demonstrate unity or they receive punishment. In America we all have the right to speak freely on our political points of view without fear of reprisals. This diversity of opinion makes us stronger because those that can speak freely in a political system usually feel no need to act violently. Someday the mullahs of Iran will be overthrown and called to account for their crimes against those people.

Have you ever read Readers Voice in the Gazette?

To me I find Readers Voice interesting. You get the full gambit of opinion from the tin foil hat crowd to the misinformed to the thoughtful reflection. That is how Democracy is supposed to work. The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " Government needs to know when the people see they are doing something wrong. Readers Voice is a good format for that.

There are a lot of things that government cannot change that people are complaining, but some can. There are two people talking about the Brickstreet fiasco. The misspending of government funds in West Virginia seems to be a way of life. Since Brickstreet is a government agency spun off to the private sector, that doesn't surprise me. Brickstreet is holding back West Virginia's economic growth. It is protected by government with a monopoly until July of 08, and then it will have price supports to prevent competition from lowering cost. It is a receipe for continued failure in the states economy. The Workman's comp insurance market must be opened up to the free market, no special treatment for Brickstreet. The free market will provide lower insurance rates helping the West Virginia economy.

One comment I really like, " The Iraq war and the unfair taxation of the Republican Party compelled many of us to work hard for a new Democrat majority in Washington. But, gay rights and anti-Second Amendment legislation are loser issues. That will destroy our Democrat majority in Congress pretty fast. " I think all of us want the troops home, but the war on terrorism is going to be with us for awhile. He has the taxation backwards, the Republican party is the party of tax reform, but read his other comments. I think this guy is a Republican he just doesn't know it.

The people of West Virginia know the issues, but are unsure how to change what needs changed. Some cling to party loyalty, that no longer clings to their beliefs. We tend to hold on to the past even when we know it doesn't work. Perhaps we are afraid of change, but change we must. The public is speaking, but that same public must change its voting habits to make those changes it so desires.