Ren's ranting response about this article "Marriage Proceedings" in the Nov/Dec 2013 issue of Liberty magazine

Here are my thoughts that I submitted to the magazine editor and/or on the magazine's Facebook page:

First:
"At trial, Blankenhorn testified that marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their children and would reduce discrimination against gays and lesbians, but even so, the state should not recognize same-sex marriage because it could conceivably weaken marriage as an institution."

I really can't get this mindset that "if this-then this will happen to the rest of us" when heterosexual divorces and spontaneous and whim marriages have not "weakened marriage as an institution" for anyone else; that is to say, besides the obvious affects of the divorce or marriage of parents on their kids (not an "institution" matter), what any of us does regarding marriage (heterosexuals who get married while drunk or after 3 days of dating) or divorce (get divorced after 1 day or 20 years) or just dating long term does not in any way intrinsically harm another person. We do make laws that determine when certain benefits are applied based on couple status (ie: being married allows us to be in a lower tax bracket) but once again, this does not inherently harm another person.

Second:
 I can't stand it when these people blatantly lie to achieve their goals, and are not called on the carpet for it:

" Tam has helped craft arguments in favor of Prop 8, including an argument on the Prop 8 Web site that homosexuals were 12 times more likely to be pedophiles. In Court, Tam could not state where he got the information."

to just say "could not state where he got the information" is sugar-coating a blatant lie


Third:
ok. Renee must rant...
Religious folks MUST do some REAL research before continuing to go on about this one man/one woman thing, which is a lie perpetrated throughout Christianity. 
Citing Bible verses out of historical context is just one aspect of biblical politics. Rather than reinvent the wheel,

I’m going to include quotes and analysis from several sources: 

“But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.” Genesis 38:9-10

The interpretation here is that sex and having children outside of marriage is ok, especially with your brother's widow, but Onan is breaking some biblical law by wasting his semen… who in American is ok with this today?

Folks cannot pick and choose which scriptures to obey.

the idea of 1 man/1 woman... versus POLYGAMY as being normal and promoted in biblical times:

Abraham:
3 Wives - Sarah, Hagar and Keturah

Jacob, the father of all the Twelve Tribes of Israel was married to FOUR women: Rachel and Leah; in addition, each of these two of Jacob’s wives had a maidservant, each also considered a wife of Jacob, who birthed many of those tribes. 

Abram and Sarai are childless but want children. Attempt: Hagar becomes second wife. 

Lamech has two wives~

The bottom line is that the bible does NOT DEFINE marriage as one man/one woman. To the contrary, the bible depicts marriage as: 

one man/many women
one man/many wives
one man/many wives and concubines
a rapist and his victim
a conquering soldier and a female prisoner one man/many wives, concubines and even sexual relations with slaves

fathers selling their daughters...

Don’t forget the biblical evidence of a same-sex partnership in which Jesus himself healed the younger partner (pais, in Greek) of a roman centurion (a soldier). In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, we are told about a soldier who asks Jesus to heal his pais. Most translations define this as a servant,

but the Greek pais means "lover." Jay Michaelson tells us that
“according to leading Greek scholar Kenneth Dover, pais refers to the junior partner in a same-sex relationship. Now, this is not exactly a marriage of equals. An erastes-pais relationship generally consisted of a somewhat older man, usually a soldier between the ages of 18 and 30, and a younger adolescent, usually between the ages of 13 and 18. Sometimes that adolescent was a slave, as seems to be the case here. It would be inappropriate, in my view, to use the word "gay" to describe such a relationship; that word, and its many connotations, comes from our time, not that of Ancient Greece and Rome. This is not a relationship that any LGBT activist would want to promote today. 

However, it is a same-sex relationship nonetheless.” Michaelson continues: “…we know that the erastes-pais

intimate relationship was common practice among Roman soldiers, who were not allowed to take wives, and whose life was patterned on the Greek model of soldier-lovers.”

We know that “Pederasty in ancient Greece was a socially acknowledged erotic relationship between an adult male and a younger male usually in his teens.” 

Wikipedia tells us that “Scholars have debated the role or extent of sexual activity, which is likely to have varied according to local custom and individual inclination. The English word "pederasty" in present-day usage implies the abuse of minors, but Athenian law, for instance, did not recognize consent and age as factors in regulating sexual behavior.” In
addition, “Although the word pais can refer to a child of either sex, paiderastia is defined by Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon as
"the love of boys," and the verb paiderasteuein as "to be a
lover of boys." This is not considered homosexuality, but the relation between the centurion and the pais was still, indeed, a same sex relationship, which in this case, Jesus knew of but did not condemn.

In addition, historically, marriage was NOT a religious matter-it was a CIVIL CONTRACT. It was not until less than the last 100 years in the US that people started marrying for love, AND marriage did not become a matter of religion, even in Christian cultures, until later. In more recent history, Western European marriages started out as a business contract to establish hereditary lines. According to the book The History of Human Marriage, in the early Christian era, marriage was considered a private matter not regulated by the church or the sate. In fact, the church didn't fully take over the business of marriage until 1563 at the Council of Trent.

Now on the matter of those who run businesses but have moral beliefs that contradict the secular protection of same sex marriage:

When beginning a business, you must decide what form of business entity to establish. For many people, they choose to incorporate their business. 

"A corporation is a body--it is a legal person in the eyes of the law. It can bring lawsuits, can buy and sell property, contract, be taxed, and even commit crimes. It's most notable feature: a corporation protects its owners from personal liability for corporate debts and obligations--within limits."

"The corporation is considered an artificially created legal entity that exists separate and apart from those individuals who created it and carry on its operations."

"Now, this entity, which serves the public, typically, has the following advantages: "

"Owners are protected from personal liability fro company debts and obligations."
"Corporations have a reliable body of legal precedent to guide owners and managers."
"Corporations are the best vehicle for eventual public companies."

In other words, the OWNER is A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE BUSINESS. This same advantage "shields the owner" from losing personal assets if the business goes under, but also "shields the owner" from being able to decide for the business to discriminate against someone based on the owner's belief system-because the BUSINESS does not have a belief system. The business does not have a conscience that would be affected, nor does the business have a moral position on any issue. The owners get the advantage of being SEPARATE from their business, but the business ALSO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT DISCRIMINATE OR VIOLATE LAW. 
quoted information from :http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/77730#ixzz2mc350gXE



the article can be found at http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/marriage-proceedings

Letter to editor re: A Whole Lot of People for John Morse (recall attempt in Colorado)

I am a veteran and a gun owner who grew up in a hunting family and, I am terribly embarrassed by the extremism and vendetta pursued by a small but vocal group of gun rights activists.  A former law enforcement officer, to include the Police Chief for the City of Fountain, Sen. John Morse understands the realities of public safety, and has the courage to make tough decisions and to act on those decisions. 

I am a gun owner and want to give recall fanatics something to think about before provoking more hysteria and fear-mongering, under the guise of “protecting” 2^nd Amendment rights.  Gun owners have a responsibility to be part of the solution and help write sensible laws. 

‎People generally think “gun control” means an opposition to guns. More accurate is the belief that we should limit the situations in which people can use guns, limit who can access them, and limit the types available to certain people.  For example, should a child should be able to carry a firearm? What about a known mentally handicapped person?  A felon convicted of a violent crime?  If you want to limit the use of guns by people like this then technically, you support “gun control.”

The 2nd Amendment is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, a change to the text of the original written Constitution.  In our case, it was ratified by three fourths of the congress and signed in to law by the president.  Your right to own a fire arm was written when fire arms took almost a minute to load a single round. The whole concept of the amendment process is to grant our government the power to adapt to changing times.  Amendments are NOT written in stone. They can be changed and updated with the times. Thomas Jefferson called the Constitution a "living, breathing" document.  It's time for us to have real discussion about our gun culture and the how the laws manage that culture (or not).

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has stated that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment,” and this conservative Supreme Court justice authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns, but also ruled, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Here is more information for the single-issue voters- the special interest groups who are trying to get revenge for votes they simply don’t agree with (which is an abuse of our democratic process):  

·         there are still thousands of guns and accessories for you to buy.

·         You DO NOT speak for the majority of the Coloradans.  Most Colorado voters, which includes gun owners, believe in sensible legislation, to include extensive background checks.

·         Recalls exist so we can remove corrupt legislators from office, NOT because we disagree with a vote.

·         Your irrational beliefs and pursuit of a recall will force all of us to foot the bill for an expensive taxpayer-funded recall election that we cannot afford. It is more important to pay for your personal vendetta than to ensure there is funding for critical programs.

I feel this mindset is truly selfish and is inconsistent with the Constitution that I swore to support and defend while I was in the military. It is time for gun advocates, including my former colleagues and friends, to place the welfare of the country first and take a cue from an Army adage: “selfless service” –support sensible legislation.

We CAN preserve the 2^nd Amendment AND keep people safe, if we are smart, responsible, objective, and reasonable.

Rev. Renee L. Ten Eyck

letter to Rep.Lois Landgraf re: Town Hall to discuss 2nd Amendment

 see below the flier that has been circulated to soldiers on Fort Carson (talk about trying to cater to ONLY one group of constituents)

Rep. Landgraf:

I am a gun owner and want to give you some things to think about before you provoke more hysteria and fear-mongering among your constituents, under the guise of “discussing” 2^nd Amendment rights.  I am also one of your employers (constituents).  As such, I am extremely disappointed in you that you would promote more ignorance and blind extremism, rather than reasonably and objectively evaluate each aspect of this issue.  Right now, gun owners have an opportunity to be part of the solution and help write sensible laws.  With great freedom comes GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. Rather than create more hysteria, you, as a representative, have an opportunity AND responsibility to carefully and objectively evaluate all associated issues and to help your constituents understand them.

First, I am a gun owner and my husband thinks that I need to get a concealed carry permit because of the “fallout” I receive for speaking out FOR sensible gun legislation.  This merely proves the point that gun regulation IS CRITICAL because I GET TO SAY WHAT I HAVE TO SAY (see the 1^st Amendment) without having to worry about other irrational, extremist gun owners who BELIEVE their 2^nd Amendment right includes the right to harass me or threaten politicians.  Your 2^nd Amendment rights DO NOT supersede MY 1^st Amendment rights.  Your 2^nd Amendment rights do NOT give you, or anyone else, the right to threaten anyone else; hence, the need for regulation, because I HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE MY LIFE WITHOUT FEAR or worry. 

I am a gun owner and am extremely embarrassed by the obscene narrow-mindedness and lack of compromise exhibited by many gun owners, and, as a gun owner myself, do not want to be associated with that insanity.  Personally, I am concerned about any citizen with these blind, extreme views.

Let me educate you on a few things:

The current bills address assault weapons, background checks, domestic violence, magazine sizes, etc.  Not one of these jeopardizes ANYONE’S 2^nd Amendment rights, and, let’s put the facts on the table: there are still thousands of guns and accessories that people can buy.  In addition, NOT ONE PIECE OF CURRENT LEGISLATION addresses the FACT that more people die to hand guns every day than to anything else: Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others WITH A GLOCK 9MM HANDGUN.  People die daily to hand guns, but no one has entered this into any discussion on bills.  I disagree with laws that prohibit concealed carry on college campuses, but we must evaluate and reflect on the current state of society.  

Second Amendment rights DO NOT SUPERSEDE anyone else’s CONSTITUTIONAL right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has stated that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment,” and this conservative Supreme Court justice authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns, but also ruled, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. (this does not include give ANYONE the right to threaten anyone else’s life, be it a politician who is working on gun legislation, or a private citizen who is invoking his or her 1^st Amendment right to speak about the issue).

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court wrote in United States V. Miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further explanation:

“Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."”

“The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:”

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

United States v. Warner (1993):

US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling regarding Warner, who was caught in Utah with a machine gun and convicted on possession of a machine gun. Warner appealed on the basis the Utah constitution allows its citizens to bear arms, and therefore he is exempt based on 922(o)(2)(A), "under authority of the State." However, the court overruled this, citing the Farmer case saying machine guns were not meant to be in private hands, and although the Utah law gives permission to own automatic firearms, it did not grant him authority.

The 1994 “assault weapons” ban was a direct result of the shooting of President Reagan and Press Secretary Jim Brady (and two others).  After being disabled, Brady and his wife became active lobbyists, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993 as a result of their work.  The 1994 assault weapons ban was not a stand-alone bill. It was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, an anti-crime measure, and voters largely accepted the basis for a ban on the production of assault weapons, according to news reports at that time.  Furthermore, President Reagan, who was an NRA member, supported the 1994 bill: here’s the link to his editorial explaining his position at that time. www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html.  He made these statements in 1989 after Patrick Purdy fired more than 100 rounds from a version of an AK-47, killing five children and wounding 30 others at a school:

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

“With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”

“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”

Retired General Colin Powell stated this:

“The American people want to see something done, and it is not a threat to the Second Amendment.”

“A message I’d like to see get out is: ‘we’re not taking away your Second Amendment rights,’” Powell said. ”I believe in the Second Amendment, I have guns in my home, I am prepared to protect my family, but I’m prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone buying guns is checked—what is objectionable about that?”

“Extremists who think they need to protect themselves from the government need to be countered by diplomatic calls for gun control, the panel agreed.” (emphasis mine).

“The Second Amendment was written to protect the people from the government, but the reality is the government isn’t coming after you and the Second Amendment is intact. You can own guns legally,” (emphasis mine). “But the American people have been devastated by what’s happened at Newtown and elsewhere.”

Retired General Wesley Clark stated this in 2003:

“I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them."

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal stated this recently:

”I spent a career carrying typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

“I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”

We are not the safest nation on earth-in fact, we fall way below many countries

True “gun grabbers” are few; it is not even possible to “get all the guns.”  Reinstatement of the 1994 assault weapons ban, along with other bills to improve background checks and limit ammunition purchases and magazine sizes does not infringe on anyone’s 2^nd Amendment rights.  The politician, the domestic violence victim, and the vocal private citizen each have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

As stated on the Independent Firearm Owners Association’s (IFOA) website (www.independentfirearmowners.org):

The Second Amendment, regardless of the era – during the days of Madison and Jefferson or today – is about two words: “freedom” and “responsibility.” It never was about hunting or types of firearms.  In fact, it’s not really about firearms.

We CAN preserve the 2^nd Amendment AND keep people safe, if we are smart, responsible, objective, and reasonable.  It is YOUR JOB to be smart, responsible, objective and reasonable.

Rev. Renee L. Ten Eyck

Here's part of Landgraf's response on Facebook. It appears that money has more value than lives:

My letter to editor response to recent letter re: 2nd Amendment

Response to Al Sweet's recent letter about Gun rights

Gun rights

-I am a gun owner who grew up in a hunting family and, I am terribly embarrassed by the extremism and lack of compromise exhibited by many gun rights activists, and, as a gun owner myself, do not want to be associated with that insanity.  Personally, I am concerned about any citizen with these extremist views, and I am not sure I want him or her in the same room with me when he or she is packing a .357.
As Sen. Mike Johnston of Denver stated: "What is before us is not a constitutional question but a policy question."
Mr. Sweet conveys his disdain, but does not give any facts. He opposes Obama (and state gun control efforts) because of his personal feelings about the POTUS, not because Obama has actually done anything to take away 2^nd Amendment rights,  but because of continued conspiracy and hysteria that someone, anyone, is coming for all guns…
What Mr. Sweet states are not facts, but his interpretations, wishes and beliefs. Here are some facts:
In Presser v. Illinois, (1886)- states CAN regulate gun ownership
The Court noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states:
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States."
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court wrote in United States V. Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Further explanation:
“Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."”
“The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:”
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

United States v. Warner (1993) –
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling regarding Warner, who was caught in Utah with a machine gun and convicted on possession of a machine gun. Warner appealed on the basis the Utah constitution allows its citizens to bear arms, and therefore he is exempt based on 922(o)(2)(A), "under authority of the State." However, the court overruled this, citing the Farmer case saying machine guns were not meant to be in private hands, and although the Utah law gives permission to own automatic firearms, it did not grant him authority.
As for Mr. Sweet’s descriptions of Civil War battles-he is justifying the point: those were battles that took place PRIOR to United States v. Miller, and those battles have no bearing on current day society or court precedents that were established long AFTER the Civil War.
When it comes to discussions on hate groups, yes, there were laws implemented to try to keep guns away from former slaves that have since been overturned, but the statement Mr. Sweet made that “The 1994 “assault weapons” ban was aimed at the Koreans who successfully defended their businesses during the Rodney King riots” is patently false.  That legislation, which was packed with loopholes, was a direct result of the shooting of President Reagan and Press Secretary Jim Brady were shot (as well as two others).  After being disabled, Brady and his wife became active lobbyists in the gun control arena, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993 as a result of their work.  The 1994 assault weapons ban wasn’t a stand-alone bill. It was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, an anti-crime measure, and voters largely accepted the basis for a ban on the production of assault weapons, according to news reports at that time.  Please, show your credible sources to support your statement.  Furthermore, President Reagan, who was an NRA member, supported the 1994 bill: here’s the link to his editorial explaining his position at that time. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html.  He made the following statement in 1989 after Patrick Purdy fired more than 100 rounds from a version of an AK-47, killing five children and wounding 30 others at a school:
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

“With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”

“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”
Yes, America has implemented many racist laws since its inception, to include laws trying to keep guns away from minorities.  That does not negate my position that we are not truly managing current gun access of hate groups even though the government is often tracking and following the activities of some of those members.  It isn’t until something bad happens that we act (case in point: the shooting of the Sikh gurdwara in Wisconsin. That shooter had been followed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the government for a decade).
Retired General Colin Powell stated this:
“The American people want to see something done, and it is not a threat to the Second Amendment.”
“A message I’d like to see get out is: ’we’re not taking away your Second Amendment rights,’” Powell said. ”I believe in the Second Amendment, I have guns in my home, I am prepared to protect my family, but I’m prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone buying guns is checked—what is objectionable about that?”
“Extremists who think they need to protect themselves from the government need to be countered by diplomatic calls for gun control, the panel agreed.”
“The Second Amendment was written to protect the people from the government, but the reality is the government isn’t coming after you and the Second Amendment is intact. You can own guns legally,” Powell said. “But the American people have been devastated by what’s happened at Newtown and elsewhere.”
Retired General Wesley Clark stated this in 2003:
“I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them."
Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal stated this recently:
”I spent a career carrying typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”
“I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”
Mr. Sweet’s following statement is ‘loaded:’
“America IS one of the safest nations on the Earth. The myth that we have a high GUN HOMICIDE rate is based on the misuse of the number for overall GUN VIOLENCE. If one removes suicides, accidents, and justifiable shootings the US GUN HOMICIDE rate has been consistently under 4 per 100,000 and not the 10 per 100,000 that the gun grabbers claim.”
All I can say to this is true data show that

1. We are not the safest nation on earth-in fact, we fall way below many countries
2. You cannot separate the data on the overall matter of gun deaths in America (unless you are analyzing a specific category).  Whether it was intentional or accidental is irrelevant when looking at the overall “big picture.”
3. True “gun grabbers” are few; it’s not even possible for anyone to “get all the guns.”  Reinstatement of the 1994 assault weapons ban, along with other bills to improve background checks and limit ammunition purchases and magazine sizes does not infringe on anyone’s 2^nd Amendment rights.

Yes, Mr. Sweet, the NRA would seemingly have a duty to be part of the solution, but it is not. The NRA represents the interests of only the gun manufacturers, not the individual gun owners. I once had a membership, and discontinued it.
Even former President George HW Bush resigned his lifetime membership (www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html)

Former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman is the president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association (IFOA) (www.independentfirearmowners.org).  Here is information about Feldman and his book:
Richard Feldman, a former top lobbyist for the NRA, reveals the primary goal of
the organization today--and it isn’t protecting the Second Amendment--in RICOCHET: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist.
“He explains how the NRA's inflexible positions have placed the nation's most prominent representative of law-abiding gun owners in increasing opposition to law enforcement, gun makers, and moderate Republicans. The upshot is that the NRA is not an effective advocate for its members' interests. Obsessed with fundraising, scare-mongering, and wielding political power, NRA leadership undermines commonsense solutions that would protect gun owners' rights while reducing accidental shootings and gun violence.”
“Ricochet … is a wake-up call for gun owners who cherish their Second Amendment rights. The message is that the NRA has betrayed your trust and misused your hard-earned donations…”
As stated on the IFOA’s website:
Understanding the 2nd Amendment
The Second Amendment, regardless of the era – during the days of Madison and Jefferson or today – is about two words: “freedom” and “responsibility.” It never was about hunting or types of firearms.  In fact, it’s not really about firearms.
We CAN preserve the 2^nd Amendment AND keep people safe, if we are smart, responsible, objective, and reasonable.

Rev. Renee L. Ten Eyck

 http://www.epcan.com/editorials/you-said-it.html