This amounts to nothing less than an attack on our Constitutional rights under the innocuous sounding guise of "common sense" gun laws. Please do not misunderstand me - I do believe there are certain restrictions that should be in place such as in the case of individuals convicted of a felony, has a history of violence (such as domestic abuse, rape, etc.), or has been diagnosed with a mental illness that would make access to a firearm dangerous for him or herself or those around them.  

But imagine, if you will, that the line of reasoning being used by Our President, Attorney General, and others in the government and private sector to attack the 2nd amendment were used to attack another of the rights recognized in the Constitution, such as the first amendment right to freedom of speech:

"The Constitution confers an individual right to freedom of speech. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right. The time in which the Constitution was written is much different than today. Then it was important because we were struggling with the British monarchy for independence and people needed the right to speak out without restriction. We have long since gained our independence and there is therefore not a need to cling to such unfettered access to words and ideas. Just look at how dangerous it can be - children hurting family and friends with name calling, irresponsible radio personalities, bloggers, and the like recklessly reporting on every little thing that goes on in government endangering the well laid plans of elected officials.

We would like to make just a few free speech related laws that would curtail what exact words can be used by the average American citizen as well as the number of syllables in the words they are allowed to use. Obviously such restriction would not extend to professionals such as lawyers, politicians, etc.

We recognize that there may be special cases where an individual may need to less restriction on their freedom of speech and such special cases should require a federal license to insure that the words are being used in the correct context to avoid any injury to the listener. I'm not saying we take away the freedom of speech, just some common sense free speech laws. This would greatly enhance the ability of lawyers in prosecuting cases of slander or liable, well as those at the Federal level for whom a compromise of a public knowledge of their conduct could endanger their political careers.

At the very least, this would have a positive effect in other countries where our current concept of freedom of speech inspires citizens to speak out against their government, hampering the efforts of government officials to order the lives of a citizenry that need not worry about speaking for themselves since the government is there to do it for them"

What if such verbiage were used of our Freedom of Religion? or our right of peaceable assembly (this is in fact being restricted in many parts of the country as I write this – do not many cities require a license to conduct a peaceful protest? Do not many fence protestors off in “protest ghettos” – usually blocks away from who or what they are protesting against?)?

The response to this would range from side splitting laughter to outright horror if such words came out of the mouth of one of our elected officials. Yet there are many who simply shrug their shoulders and go on with their lives acting as if the things being said about our 2^nd Amendment rights are really only the concern of the "backwards redneck" that has an unhealthy fascination with fully automatic assault weapons.

Every time “a few” laws are made which restricts freedom of law-abiding citizens, those freedoms are a step closer to being completely lost. Therefore, we must be diligent to hold our elected officials accountable for the protection of our God-given rights. Whether it means the freedom of speech, the freedom to peaceably assemble, the freedom of religion, or the right to keep and bear arms.

We cannot let even the smallest infringement of these rights go unanswered. Otherwise, we will reach a day when we will have none of them. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus once wrote that “only the educated are free” if that is true, then it is equally true that only the educated remain free. We must then, educate ourselves about the direction our government is heading and be willing to speak out while we can. Thomas Jefferson once  wrote "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Yes, it takes time to read about these things and more time to contact our elected officals. We live in society where we are increasingly more busy. However, our country is what it is because that is what we have made it and are making it even now. Speak out about these things before they even make it to a vote!  Just as the right to keep and bear arms presupposes that it is the individual U.S. citizen who is the last line of defense so does the 1^st amendment freedom of speech presuppose that it is the individual who must speak out.

Our founding fathers recognized and acknowledged that there are certain rights as being essential to preventing "misconstruction or abuse" of the powers being granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. Each of these small changes that our city, state, and local governments make which restrict our freedoms has an erosionary affect - not so noticeable at first, but eventually will grow into a canyon which separates us from our freedom. When that day comes we will be living under not imagined, but very real tyranny.

So I when I look at some of the things the Republican party is saying in regards to the, um... "stimulus" packages that are being rammed through, I can only scratch my head.

A particular source of puzzlement is the "more tax cuts" mantra being chanted by Republicans (disclaimer: I was a Republican up until a few years ago when I changed to an independent). The argument goes that tax cuts will mean more money in the pocket of the tax payer, thereby giving them more to spend on any number of things from luxury items to investing in one's business.

Of course, I am always in favor of having more of my money in my pocket so lower taxes are a good thing - usually. The idea that lower taxes will actually mean a boost in revenues for the government doesn't seem realistic. It is like suggesting that a person who is in massive debt, being hounded by bill collectors, receiving utilities cutoff notices, etc, can best deal with their situation by quitting their decent paying job to take one that pays less all while maintaining the spending levels that got them into debt in the first palce. However, the Democrat answer would be like suggesting that one should hold the course at their current job and deal with the problem by going into more debt by taking out student loans so that one can go back to school as well as purchasing a hybrid car with the intent that it will not only provide additional funds by the expected fuel savings but also help the environment to boot!