Free people are better people

I am not kidding about this.  There is an old phrase that says you cannot legislate morality and it is correct.  You cannot make people be "better" people.  They have to choose to make them-self a better person on  their own.

It is human nature to resent that which you are forced to do.  At the same time, that which you have freely chosen, you will invest more of yourself because you believe in it.  You want to do it.

People who are free to be generous, to be stingy, to be hospitable or to even be rude are better off.  If, for example, you want to have people help the poor and destitute, by allowing them the choice, use education to make a winning argument that they will accept and buy into, they will most likely become terrific advocates themselves.  Investing far more into the behavior than if someone made a law telling them that they MUST give to the poor or share their income with someone else.

When people are forced to do something, they will often resent not only what they are being forced to do, but the end result or recipient as well. 

Forcing people to be generous or to share with others often has the reverse impact and over time, many will fight and struggle against it simply because they weren't allowed the choice.  They will not take ownership of it.  They will not respect or appreciate the result.

America is a free country.  people are allowed to be the person they want to be.  There may be fewer people volunteering by not forcing action, but those that do choose to participate, will invest more than they otherwise would have.

Maintaining a free country is more than just having laws that keep everyone equal.  It is what allows people to decide for themselves what kind of people they want to be.  When they decide to be better people, then you get the best people you could ever ask for because it's what they wanted, not what someone told them they had to.

America's Mixed Messages Steered People Wrong

America, as a country, was established as an effort to claim independence.  The proof of this is a formal document called the Declaration of Independence.

Independence is one being able to do for one's self, not requiring the permission, direction or approval of another.

The settler's on the American continent wanted to secede from the British kingdom.  They wanted to be an independent country of their own authority. Eventually, they achieved it.

The recognition of independence was so pervasive that it is spelled out multiple times, in multiple ways in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Rights were not given to groups or classes or types of people. No, rights were guaranteed to every individual person.  This was to ensure that the highly valued independence fought for as a country are enjoyed by every citizen in this country.

All the basics are there.  The core principle of independence is there.  Then, government decided to do the one thing it never should have or really had to the right to do.  They began to do things for people.  not just offer to do things as incentives, but to demand that things would be done and the residents must participate and/or contribute to them.

The government, any level of government, should NEVER be in the practice of doing things for people.  The government's role is to ensure that the people are independent.  That people are able to do for themselves.  Read the Declaration of independence.  Read the Constitution and bill of Rights.  It's all right there.

Instead, government, for whatever purposes and reasons be they good intentioned or deceptive from the start,  began to do for people and it has caused problems ever since.

There will always be people who will want to be kept like pets.  If they think their lives will be easier, safer, less complicated, whatever, they will always opt for the gilded cage.  They may not be independent or even free, but they are being taken care of.  Someone else is doing things instead of the people having to do it themselves.

Yet there will also always be people who value independence even more than life itself.  They don't want or need others to do things for them, they just want the opportunity and level field to be able to do for themselves. 

There will always be a conflict between the two types of people because those who want things done for them will be seen as a drain on the resources of those who want to do for themselves.

Those who want things done for them always see the independents as people who are not contributing to the collective whole.

America was not established as a country for the collective whole though.  It was established for those who would be independent.

To live independently is to accept the risks that go along with independence.  There are pro's and cons to every society, none are absolutely perfect.  In choosing the benefits of living in an independent society, you must accept the consequences of living in an independent society as well.

Too many people only want the benefits but refuse to accept the consequences.
They have been mis-lead by government which never should have begun doing for people in the first place.

Gilded Cage Mentality

It seems that more and more people are willing to give up not only their own rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, but everyone else's rights along with them just to gain a feeling of being safe and secure.

It's seeming to be a Gilded Cage Complex" where these people think that as long as the walls are padded, the tools, utensils and everything else they use are made of nerf and the doors and windows are 2 inch thick bullet-proof glass, everything will be OK. 

What they fail to understand is that nothing, no-one and no-how can the government or any other group make such a guarantee.  It's not possible, it's not realistic.

To be utterly honest, not even sleeping is "safe".  Our lives are fragile and fleeting.  Death and danger surround us  our entire lives.  You cannot escape or avoid them entirely.

You would build a gilded cage for everyone, begging to be protected and kept safe.  Your fear and lack of courage threatens not only your lives, but everyone around.  Even those who who accept those risks in life for themselves and live it to it's fullest.

You do not have that right to make such decisions for everyone else.  America was made for individuals, not groups or classes.  It was not made for a minority to control what the majority does and the minority are protected when a seeming majority wants to force it's way on everyone else.

You have the right to go hide from life and live in fear as a frightened rabbit if you so choose.  I have the right to walk free and take on the challenges of life as they come, regardless of the outcome.   I accept that inherent risk for myself.

America was never meant to be a gilded cage.  It was meant to be somewhere every individual could live their own life and be their own person.  You have no right to try to change that.

Here's How the 1st and 2nd Amendments work together

The Second Amendment gives each individual citizen the right to own a gun. period.  Whether you like it or not, it's a Constitutional right.

The first Amendment gives every individual citizen the freedom to express their opinion without being dragged off to jail or being unduly punished for it.

If you are one of those Americans who think that there should be less guns in citizens hands, you have every right to try to educate or otherwise make your argument to others to join the "no more guns club".  Knock yourself out, see how many you can convince.  It's your right to talk about it.

You do not have the right to try to force people or otherwise infringe upon their individual right to keep and bear arms.  Just because you disagree doesn't give you the right to step on other's rights.

Respect the same Constitution that gives you the right to speak your disagreement by not intruding upon other rights people have in the same Constitution and Bill of Rights.

To try to exercise your own Constitutional rights while trying ti infringe on other's only makes you a hypocrite.

The Second Amendment

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.


We need to provide some context or at least definitions for people to understand the second amendment apparently, though how it isn't simple enough is beyond me.

A "Militia" is a group of fighting persons able to be called into action by a leader that may or may not be a State or County led force.

One example of a militia being called upon by the County would be a "posse" being deputized upon arrival to the call of a County Sheriff.

Such militia's do not typically provide arms to the people who form the militia as the budget was or is not adequate for doing so.  Thus, the individual citizens thus responding were expected to bring arms of their own belonging. 

Thus, the Second Amendment made sure that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms of their own.  "Keep" means to have and own.  "Bear", in this case, means to use, or to have upon their person.

"Shall not be infringed".  This is so obvious one shouldn't need any clarification.  It means don't mess with this law.  Pretty simple actually.

It's very important to note that the wording of the Second amendment quoted above is that which was ratified by the states.  Without State ratification, anything Congress on it's own would have done would have not had the same weight or bearing as state ratification.

This means essentially, that these are the words as approved and put into action by the people, not just those who were elected.

The power to do this and any power to change this must come from the States, NOT the federal government.