REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN!!

This Faith and Freedom Weekend will be everything about our core Christian and historical roots of our nation and Founding Fathers.

Click below for the flyer and schedule:

Michelle Bachman, John Huntsman, and Rick Perry official dropped out of the Presidential race.

President Obama has been the most pro-abortion President in history. He has forced taxpayers to fund abortions and pay for embryonic stem cell research that kills human life.

In Congress there is a bill that would be a major victory for the pro-life movement. The “Abortion Nondiscrimination Act” (ANDA) would create permanent protection for medical professionals who believe that abortion is murder.

Currently, nurses are being bullied into helping perform abortions against their will. While there is already a bill containing a conscience clause, it must be renewed annually and is being bypassed by the courts and the Obama administration.

But the Abortion Nondiscrimination Act (ANDA) would make it the protections permanent and stop the political games.

The bill is currently in committee, awaiting approval.

TAKE ACTION:

Contact the House of Representative’s Subcommittee on Health today and urge that they support this important bill that respects the convictions of our medical professionals. Click here to contact the committee today.

Taken from: The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission

Anyway. That’s not what I am here to share with you. I took a U.S. Government class this semester and the professor had us do a literature review citing academic sources using Chicago Manual–I never did either. I had to learn how to do it. Now I can officially say I have learned how to cite in all the different ways available.

So I wanted to share my literature review with you. Drop some comments too. What would you have done differently? What do you think? Look forward to reading your feedback.

Topic: Government restrictions on the right to carry in the U.S.

In the wake of two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, having taken place at Virginia Tech back in April 16, 2007, and most recently, on a U.S. military base in Fort Hood, Texas on November 5, 2009, the issue of gun control has surfaced evermore demandingly.  But is gun control the best solution to making our country safer and murder free?  The U.S. inventory of over 200 million guns in private ownership (Cook et al. 1997) are primarily used for recreation, which is specifically narrowed down to hunting and target shooting.  Understandably, forty-six percent of American individuals carry guns for crime protection (Cook et al. 1997).  However, not everyone in America owns a gun.  It was surveyed by the U.S. Department of Justice that only one-quarter of adults own firearms and those that do, normally hold more than one (Cook et al. 1997).  A total of 31 states have adopted “right to carry” (RTC) laws as a reaction to public concern about crimes (Cook et al. 1997; Donohue 2004).  These RTC laws allow most citizens to acquire concealed-carry permits, which legalized their ability to carry guns.  Criminals on the other hand, take advantage of this law and hinder the liberty of innocent persons, many times leading to death.  In most cases, criminals are the ones found to violate laws, steal or purchase firearms through the illegal black markets (Moorhouse et al. 2006).  We can easily assume, by contrast, that law-abiding citizens obey the law, “and obtain permits, register guns, and enroll in firearm safety courses” (Moorhouse et al. 2006, 122).  This literature review seeks to address the effect of government regulation on the American right to carry guns in the U.S. amidst the concerns of crime.

Gun control laws have been tested throughout history.  In fact, some big cities have very strict gun control laws.  For instance, New York City has more strict laws than the whole state of New York.  In spite of this, New York has always had significantly higher violent crime rates.  Washington, D.C. has banned the ownership of handguns since 1976 (Vernick et al. 1999).  As a result, reports show D.C. has much higher violent crime rates than the surrounding areas.  Here, it can be said that the idea that gun control reduces crime rates is false.  The reality is that a firearm does not shoot without a living human’s intervention.  An award-winning expert on crime, Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, has conducted extensive survey research to measure firearms ownership and use in America.  He found that firearms were used as often as 2.5 million times a year for protection-three to five times more often, he says, than they are used for criminal purposes (Cook et al. 1997).  In the vast majority of these protective cases, the gun is not fired.  Other individuals will say that crime increases gun control, which is true because of government reaction to public concern.  In fact, crime rates round up support for gun control laws so much so that the more Democrats in a particular state legislature, the higher the chances are for gun control (Moorhouse et al. 2006).  When people hear about crimes or murders, their initial reaction is to point fingers at what they believe to be the fault of the problem.  So when someone is shot and killed, it’s because guns exist. Forget about the body whose finger pulled the trigger!  Like the saying says, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  Like cars, guns can have a positive or negative effect.  It all depends on how you choose to use it.  Should cars not exist because people get in car accidents?  No, because they are a great means of transportation when used carefully.  Same can be applied to guns; they are a great means of protection.  As many times just their presence can be use as a deterrent to ward off criminals (Moorhouse et al. 2006).

When writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers intended exactly what they indicated in the second amendment: “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” (van Alstyne 1994, 1236).  With modern day language, we tend to miscomprehend or label the Constitution as outdated.  We forget that back in the 1700s some words were defined differently than we know them now.  Unfortunately, individuals, including our government, will interpret the second amendment as they see fit.  The government has tried to change the amendment’s true meaning, continuously claiming it is not what the Founding Fathers wanted, thus resulting in the “infringement” on our right to “bear” “arms.”  Government, given too much power can oppress its citizens (LaFollette 2001). Thus, allowing for the citizens to carry guns deters governmental oppression (Halbrook 1986).  Richard Henry Lee, an early American statesmen from Virginia, wrote, “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms” (Lee July 29, 1999).   The first question about the second amendment is, when the Founding Fathers wrote “bear” arms, what did they mean by that?  Well, if we take a look at the first State Declaration of Pennsylvania in 1776, it says: “That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State” (Halbrook 1986).  So the second amendment includes the right to carry guns for self protection as well.  And to “bear” refers to the ability to carry in your hands or on your body (Halbrook 1986).  According to the Oregon Supreme Court, “arms” meant any “hand carried weapons commonly used for defense” (Halbrook 1986).  Those include firearms, knives, and other instruments.  Requiring a free man to have a license to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional because before the fourteenth amendment was ratified, licenses to carry arms were only required for the inferior race who were the slaves and the blacks (Halbrook 1986).

Although it seems gun control laws are primarily proposed to stop criminal misuse of firearms, we see they wind up regulating, limiting, and prohibiting the purchase and possession of firearms by those law abiding citizens.  Government restrictions on the right to carry in the U.S. may not be as effective, beneficial, and safeguarding as it seems.

Works Cited:

Cook, Philip, and Jens Ludwig. 1997. “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.”National Institute of Justice. (1-2, 7-8)

Donohue, John.  2004. “Guns, Crime, and the impact of state right-to-carry laws.” Fordham Law Review.

Halbrook, Stephen. 1986. “What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right to ”Bear Arms”.” Law and Contemporary Problems. 49. no. 1. (151-162)

LaFollette, Hugh. “Controlling Guns.” Criminal Justice Ethics. 20. no. 1 (2001): 34.

Lee, Richard Henry. National Rifle Association, “America`s Founding Fathers On The Individual Right To Keep And Bear Arms.” Last modified July 29, 1999.

Moorhouse, John, and Brent Wanner, 2006. “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?.” The Cato Journal. 26. (103-124)

van Alstyne, William. 1994. “The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms.” Duke Law Journal. 43. no. 6. (1236-1255)

Vernick, Jon, Daniel Webster, and Lisa Hepburn. 1999. “Effects of Maryland’s law banning Saturday night.” PubMed Central. (259-263)

Washington, D.C., November 17, 2011 –

Today, ParentalRights.Org released an online docudrama, Overruled: Government Invasion of Your Parental Rights, which outlines today’s dangers facing American parents in their ability to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

The film, which runs 35 minutes at OverruledMovie.com, focuses on three real-life American family cases in which parental rights were egregiously violated by the government: a medical care case, an educational freedom case, and a religious freedom case. The movie also warns against adoption of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. This treaty would override virtually all child and family laws in the United States and grant ultimate authority to international bureaucrats. Overruled describes why the adoption of the proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only means to halt the parental rights violations which are taking place all over America.

i
“American parents just assume that their traditional right to make sound decisions for their children is fully protected in our legal system,” said Michael Farris, President of ParentalRights.org. He added, “Overruled reveals how precarious our rights are in today’s legal climate – and the movie makes it clear that we can and must fix the problem before it is too late.”

i
Fortunately, the American people overwhelmingly support traditional parental rights. A Zogby poll last year that surveyed over 2,000 people found that 93% of Americans agree with the traditional definition of parental rights, which is the ability to raise their children free from government interference so long as no abuse or neglect is taking place.

Farris said, “We need to capitalize on this strong support all across the country and pass the Parental Rights Amendment to prevent government officials from unnecessarily interfering with families.” Scott Scharpen, the film’s Executive Producer and chairman of the board of ParentalRights.Org, was proud to announce that Overruled is presented by ParentalRights.Org, a non-profit grassroots organization focused on passing the Parental Rights Amendment. Overruled is available online free of charge at OverruledMovie.com.

i
For more information, visit www.ParentalRights.Org.

Watch the video below:

Please watch these videos.

“Forever Changed” film by ACLJ:

“In My Seat” video. A pilot’s story from 9/10 and 9/11:

Monsanto

USDA

FDA

They are all connected. If GMO foods are not labeled for consumers, how will we know what we are eating? We just won’t. Many Americans have no idea what are GMOs, much less what they are eating, because the FDA finds GMOs “safe for consumption.” This is just flat out wrong. I wrote and presented an Illustrated Oratory speech on this topic in high school and when I competed in NCFCA Speech and Debate. I was able (with God’s doing) to take this speech all the way to the National semi-final round, getting 15th place in the nation.

There is a new film in production about GMOs and the need for labeling these genetically modified foods, so people have the choice to choose what they eat.

Please see the sneak peek below:

www.GMOFilm.com

This is how it works:

1. You need to first register to attend the Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale Conference on the U.S. Constitution featuring guest speaker Rick Green.
2. Then you need to email me at TruthforAmericasYouth@gmail.com with your FULL NAME and EMAIL ADDRESS. That’s all.
3. When we get 12 registered names we will randomly select a winner for this ADDITIONAL FREE TICKET!! And we will notify you via email.