Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Amendment Two

2 comments

"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."

Pastor Urges His Flock to Bring Guns to Church


Jim Winn for The New York Times
Ken Pagano, the pastor at New Bethel Church, prepared to try a Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun at a shooting range.



Published: June 25, 2009
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Ken Pagano, the pastor of the New Bethel Church here, is passionate about gun rights. He shoots regularly at the local firing range, and his sermon two weeks ago was on “God, Guns, Gospel and Geometry.” And on Saturday night, he is inviting his congregation of 150 and others to wear or carry their firearms into the sanctuary to “celebrate our rights as Americans!” as a promotional flier for the “open carry celebration” puts it.



Jim Winn for The New York Times
Ken Pagano of New Bethel Church in Louisville, Ky. “God and guns were part of the foundation of this country,” he said.

“God and guns were part of the foundation of this country,” Mr. Pagano, 49, said Wednesday in the small brick Assembly of God church, where a large wooden cross hung over the altar and two American flags jutted from side walls. “I don’t see any contradiction in this. Not every Christian denomination is pacifist.”
The bring-your-gun-to-church day, which will include a $1 raffle of a handgun, firearms safety lessons and a picnic, is another sign that the gun culture in the United States is thriving despite, or perhaps because of, President Obama’s election in November.
Last year, the National Rifle Association ran a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign against Mr. Obama, stoking fears that he would be the most antigun president in history and that firearms would be confiscated. One worry was that a Democratic president and Congress would reinstitute the assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
But there is little support for the ban. Mr. Obama and his party have largely ignored gun-control issues, and the president even signed a measure that will allow firearms in national parks.
Still, the fear remains that Mr. Obama, and his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., will crack down on guns sooner or later. That — along with the faltering economy, which gun sellers say has spurred purchases for self-defense — has fueled a record surge in gun sales.
“Every president wants to be re-elected, and gun bans are pretty much a nonstarter for getting re-elected,” said Win Underwood, owner of the Bluegrass Indoor Range here. “What I suspect is going to happen is, Obama’s going to cool his jets until he can get re-elected, and then he’ll start building his legacy in these hot-button areas.”
When Mr. Obama was elected in November, federal instant background checks, the best indicator of gun sales, jumped 42 percent over the previous November. Every month since then, the number of checks has been higher than the year before, although the postelection surge may be tapering off, as all surges eventually do. While the number of checks in April increased 30 percent from the year before, the number of checks in May (1,023,102) was only 15 percent higher than in May 2008.
The National Rifle Association says its membership is up 30 percent since November. And several states have recently passed laws allowing gun owners to carry firearms in more places — bars, restaurants, cars and parks.
“We have a very active agenda in all 50 states,” said Chris W. Cox, legislative director of the N.R.A., widely considered the country’s most powerful lobby. “We have right-to-carry laws in over 40 states; 20 years ago, it was in just six.”
Of the 40 states with right-to-carry laws, 20 allow guns in churches.
Public attitudes also seem to be turning more sympathetic to gun owners. In April, the Pew Research Center found for the first time that almost as many people said it was more important to protect the rights of gun owners (45 percent) than to control gun ownership (49 percent). Just a year ago, Pew said, 58 percent said gun control was more important than the rights of gun owners (37 percent).
Gun-control advocates say they feel increasingly ineffective, especially after a recent spate of high-profile shootings, including last month’s murder, inside a church in Kansas, of a doctor who performed late-term abortions.
“We’ve definitely been marginalized,” said Pam Gersh, a public relations consultant here who helped organize a rally in Louisville in 2000, to coincide with the Million Mom March against guns in Washington.
“The Brady Campaign and other similar organizations who advocate sensible gun responsibility laws don’t have the money and the political power — not even close,” she said. “This pastor is obviously crossing a line here and saying ‘I can even take my guns to church, and there is nothing you can do about it.’ ”

Ms. Gersh said she was not aware that a group of local churches and peace activists were staging a counterpicnic — called “Bring your peaceful heart, leave your gun at home” — at the same time as Mr. Pagano’s event.


Jim Winn for The New York Times
Ken Pagano loads a handgun magazine.


But news media attention — some from overseas — has focused on Mr. Pagano, who has been planning the event for a year, in celebration of the Fourth of July. Cameras will not be allowed in the church, he said, to protect the congregation’s privacy.
The celebration will feature lessons in responsible gun ownership, Mr. Pagano said. Sheriff’s deputies will be at the doors to check that openly carried firearms are unloaded, but they will not check for concealed weapons.
“That’s the whole point of concealed,” Mr. Pagano said, adding that he was not worried because such owners require training.
Mr. Pagano said the church’s insurance company, which he would not identify, had canceled the church’s policy for the day on Saturday and told him that it would cancel the policy for good at the end of the year. If he cannot find insurance for Saturday, people will not be allowed in openly carrying their guns.
Arkansas and Georgia recently rejected efforts to allow people to carry concealed weapons in church. Watching the debate in Arkansas was John Phillips, pastor of the Central Church of Christ in Little Rock. In 1986, Mr. Phillips was preaching in a different church there when a gunman shot him and a parishioner. Both survived, but Mr. Phillips, 51, still has a bullet lodged in his spine.
In a telephone interview, he said he found the idea of “packing in the pew” abhorrent.
“There is a movement afoot across the nation, with the gun lobby pushing the envelope, trying to allow concealed weapons to be carried in places where they used to be prohibited — churches, schools, bars,” Mr. Phillips said.
“I don’t understand how any minister who is familiar with the teachings of the Bible can do this,” he added. “Jesus didn’t say, ‘Go ahead, make my day.’ ”
Mr. Pagano takes such comments as a challenge to his faith and says they make him more determined.
“When someone from within the church tells me that being a Christian and having firearms are contradictions, that they’re incompatible with the Gospel — baloney,” he said. “As soon as you start saying that it’s not something that Christians do, well, guns are just the foil. The issue now is the Gospel. So in a sense, it does become a crusade. Now the Gospel is at stake.”

I chose this article because it discusses a controversial act by a pastor celebrating freedom.
__________________________________________________________________________

During World War II, Hitler never officially invaded Switzerland. During this period, all Swiss households, I believe, were required to have a gun. That fact plus the terrain and geography of Switzerland contributed to Hitler's decision.

That being said, the right to bear arms is necessary, as stated in the amendment itself, to the security of a free state. Not only for outside threats, but domestic threats as well, including a tyrannical government. When the right to bear arms has been stripped from the people, the state is no longer free, and therefore, the security of the free state is threatened.

However, proponents of strict gun control would argue that the crime rate is directly influenced by the amount of guns in circulation. They say if we were to ban guns that crime would reduce. But let's see what happened during prohibition. With the ban of alcohol, which isn't even as relatively dangerous as guns, crime sky rocketed because people wanted to drink, and the only way they could do that was to now break the law. Amazingly, after the end of prohibition, the crime rate went back down.

The same pattern can be applied with guns. Criminals already use illegal weapons, be it a handgun without a permit, or an automatic rifle. If a ban on guns were implemented, then criminals are still going to get guns, but now the general public will be defenseless, and criminals will gain confidence in their acts of violence knowing that it will be highly unlikely that a victim has a gun.

-Zach Ross




I chose this video because I like John Stossel, and it is John Stossel talking about gun control, which is a topic directly influenced by the Second Amendment.

What next?

You can also bookmark this post using your favorite bookmarking service:

Related Posts by Categories



2 comments: to “ Amendment Two


  • October 07, 2009 4:45 PM  

    Part of the marketplace has spoken -- an insurance company.

    I've felt that gun regulations should resemble car safety statutes. I would like to see that all gun owners buy mandatory liability and medical insurance.

    It looks as though I'm expecting people to pay for something that is a free right. Not so.

    Gun injuries happen to good people for a variety of reasons. Then, some costs come out of my pocket in indirect and hidden ways.

    Hospitals and doctors may not receive full fees for service -- and the injured may not even have medical insurance. The cost gets passed along through higher medical charges for the rest of us.

    As it is, liability cases might go to court -- and my taxes pay for public defenders, not to mention judges' salaries to carry the case loads.

    Has anyone studied the hidden costs of legal gun ownership?

    Let the marketplace speak.


  • October 08, 2009 4:01 PM  

    You write:

    During World War II, Hitler never officially invaded Switzerland. During this period, all Swiss households, I believe, were required to have a gun. That fact plus the terrain and geography of Switzerland contributed to Hitler's decision.

    A test of this thesis is to study France and Poland, for example. How many citizens owned guns?

    If many owned guns, this rebuts your thesis.

    I believe that Switzerland served the Nazis as a place to safely stash their loot.

    In recent years, international pressure has pushed the Swiss to reveal the contents of Nazi accounts. Where possible, stolen property has been restored to original owners or their heirs.