Kevin Forrester

“Truth, Metaphor and Race in the Marriage Debate” by Robert Oscar Lopez rings true to me, a straight father of two adult children, and I offer it here as an apt follow-up to my “Thoughts on marriage, before SCOTUS occupies the field.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Barbara Boxer
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Re:  Weapons Ban of 2013

Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer:

I am writing as a concerned California voter to object to your co-sponsorship of legislation described by you as:

“A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.” (pdf)

This bill seeks to, among other things:

• Ban the sale, transfer, manufacture or importation of 157 named firearms;
• Ban all semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine;
• Ban all detachable-magazine semi-auto pistols that have any of the following: a threaded barrel, second pistol grip, or magazine that mounts anywhere other than the grip;
• Ban any handgun that is a semi-automatic version of a fully automatic handgun; and,
• Ban all semi-automatic rifles and handguns that have fixed magazines that accept more than 10 rounds.

Our Constitution limits your powers, Senators, and the Second Amendment to our Constitution means what it says when it tells the Congress that:

“ . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Your proposed legislation is a brazen violation of our Second Amendment and, as such, is unwise, unenforceable, and unconstitutional. I respectfully call upon you to acknowledge the severe limitation placed by our Constitution on your power to control the people’s right to bear arms. Please withdraw this unfortunate bill immediately.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Kevin Forrester

Kevin K. Forrester

__________________________

NRA-ILA | Write Your Representatives

Thanks to James Strock of “Serve to Lead” for pointing us to this essential speech on religion, politics and natural rights in America: an eloquent history lesson and tutorial from George Will in 90 minutes.

Same-sex marriages are neither better nor worse than opposite-sex marriages, just different.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman; same-sex marriage is a different kind of marriage. Why doesn’t that settle everything?

Referring to the union of one man and one man, or the union of one woman and one woman, as a “same-sex” marriage does not mean it is not a marriage.

It is not bigotry to believe that “marriage” refers to the union of one man and one woman, and “same-sex marriage” refers to something else of equal dignity.

Pretending that same-sex marriage is identical to opposite-sex marriage is not helping.

Same-sex and opposite-sex marriages are the same, except for the ways in which they are different, which makes all the difference.

Continue Reading…

Institute for Justice:

By: Darrell Issa

On June 11, 2012, I went all in on open. That day, I traveled to the Personal Democracy Forum (PDF) in New York City to launch the OpenGov Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to developing and deploying technology solutions to help people participate in their governments. But a tool is only as good as the problem it solves, and we face a massive problem. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is only a symptom. Government doesn’t understand the Internet, how it works and the awesome power its networked users wield to disrupt almost anything – especially politics itself.

Continue reading . . .

This month marks the 25th anniversary of Judge Robert Bork’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Also see Did Bork Win? by Ammon Simon.