Mediaboss Marketing

NEWFOUNDLANDS, Penn. Gun control and religious freedom are almost always controversial issues. One group of Americans incorporated the right to bear arms into their Christian faith.

Newfoundland, Pennsylvania is more of a conservative town, tucked away at the edge of the state, 100 miles from the more liberal state, New York.

You have a lot of people leaving liberal areas and Im not making this a conservative or liberal thing thats just the way it is, said Bob Beierle, a resident and publisher of the magazine Our Town. People are moving away from those big cities to live here. And its a different feel here. You have values in a small town.

Newfoundland has a certain respect for both the freedom of speech and religion, and the right to bear arms.

People have more respect for the First and Second Amendment in a place like Newfoundland, Beierle said. The Second Amendment was set up by brilliant men and women because they understood human nature people are corrupt.

Newfoundland is known for God and guns, and the practice of both of those freedoms fall under one roof at the Rod of Iron Ministries.

The World Peace and Unification Sanctuary, also known as the Rod of Iron, is led by Pastor Sean Moon.

We started the church here in Pennsylvania in my brothers basement after my father had passed, Sean said.

Seans brother, Justin, is at his side and is the owner of Kahr Arms near Newfoundland.

Well, I think the right to bear arms is important for most people who come from countries with oppressive governments, Justin said.

They are the sons of late Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a Korean self-proclaimed Messiah, an accused cult leader, and founder of the international Unification Movement.

My father was in a concentration camp for three years, Justin said.

This was in war-torn Korea, Sean said. For us, its very reminiscing of what our family had to deal with in North Korea. But at the same time, my father led international anti-communist movements in Japan and Korea and also the former Soviet Union as well.

When the Moons father passed, Sean was named the heir to the church. But through disagreements with his mother, he broke off and started his own.

His religion has the same philosophies as his fathers, but with a significant tool representing freedom.

In Luke 22, Jesus says sell your cloak and by a sword, Sean said. He tells his disciples to arm themselves. Its the right of self-defense. At this time, we have the Apex technology and its symbolized by the AR-15 in the hands of population of people is a tremendous force of peace to stop tyranny.

Those who follow this religion express it by being armed, with handguns, rifles and many other weapons.

Seans church came into the spotlight when images from its inaugural marriage blessing ceremony showed hundreds of couples wearing bullet crowns and holding AR-15s.

Were used to being called a cult, Sean said. Historically slaves could not own property, did not have rights, and could not own tools for self-defense. We believe God calls us to be kings and priests. Thats why we had crowns and the code of arms. We were celebrating the marriage and blessing of freedom.

On a Sunday, Sean holds a two-hour church service, followed by several hours of training at his brothers shooting range.

Any church, they all form their opinions and beliefs on personal experience, Beierle said. The Moons understands the importance of having a gun.

The fabric of Seans religion is the weaving together of the First and Second Amendment, because for him the gun or Rod of Iron is what makes people free.

When the government fear the people there is freedom, Sean said. When the people fear the government, then there is tyranny. There are people that mock us, hate us, call us a cult all day long. But we pray for them. We arent trying to take away their rights. Were not trying to censor them.

Read the original:
Guns and God: The church combining the First and Second Amendments - News 5 Cleveland

Garwood, N.J.: Dear Snarky Voice of the People Editor: I take exception to your obnoxious labeling of Voicer Skip Triviginos letter This is a stick up as if it is amusing that we readers are now being presented a lesser Daily News. Even if a lesser News is still light years ahead of that rag across town that Sauron, er, Rupert Murdoch, publishes, Skip rightly cited the ever-shrinking comics section, the letting go of sportswriters, rising price of your paper and the last straw, the axing of the Mutts comic strip. Mutts, featuring Mooch the cat and Earl the dog is quite simply one of the best comic strips of all time. Period. Thats not my opinion, rather its the opinion of the greatest cartoonist of all time, Charles Schulz. And that aint chopped liver. Mooch and Earl have far more heart and insight into the human condition then the person who axed them out of just plain bloody mindedness and lack of a sense of humor. Come on, Daily News, your readers have spoken and we want our Mutts back. As Sonny Liston said after his last fight: I think its time to sit down and reevaluate our philosophy. Mike Gordeuk

Read the original post:
Readers sound off on ad hominem attacks, the Second Amendment, and Mutts (again) - New York Daily News

The survey is published here (as well as on StoppingSocialism.com) publicly for the first time. It will also be published by Rasmussen Reports the week of November 25.

For questions about the survey or to book a Heartland policy expert to discuss the results of the survey, contact Heartland Editorial Director Justin Haskins at Jhaskins@heartland.org.

1* Which is better a free-market economic system or socialism?

69% A free-market economic system12% Socialism18% Not sure

2* Would you vote for a presidential candidate who identifies himself or herself as a socialist?

26% Yes50% No24% Not sure

3* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Bernie Sanders?

18% Very favorable29% Somewhat favorable17% Somewhat unfavorable31% Very unfavorable5% Not sure

4* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Elizabeth Warren?

17% Very favorable25% Somewhat favorable15% Somewhat unfavorable34% Very unfavorable9% Not sure

5*Do you support legislation that would ban private ownership of assault-style rifles?

49% Yes43% No8% Not sure

6*Do you support repealing the Second Amendment, which currently guarantees Americans right to bear arms?

24% Yes66% No10% Not sure

IMPORTANT Crosstabs and Statistics Related to These Questions

*Note that in the following results, those who answered other when asked for party affiliation are referred to as independents below. Respondents were given three options for party affiliation: Republican, Democrat, and other.

Socialism and views of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

Assault-Style Rifles

Repealing the Second Amendment

NOTE:Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Read the original:
Heartland/Rasmussen Poll: Likely Voters Reject Socialism, Socialist Candidates, Repeal of Second Amendment - The Heartland Institute

The First Amendment is the First Line of Defense, iStock-1006474816

United States -(AmmoLand.com)-When discussing Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren recently, one thing has been very clear: Both of them have been very open about their desire to silence Second Amendment supporters. Yeah, they say it is just the National Rifle Association, but then again, dont they claim that they dont want to take away guns? Well, they used to say that these days, we know that is a lie.

Cuomo began a campaign of financial blacklisting against the NRA, at the urging of Everytown for Gun Safety, while Warren plans to use the IRS whether it means Lois Lerner comes out of retirement (and her six-figure pension) remains to be seen (and hopefully, we never find out) in conjunction with campaign finance reform that is really aimed at shutting up dissent from her anti-Second Amendment extremism.

Warren and Cuomo are trying to silence the voices of Second Amendment supporters. For good reason when Second Amendment supporters can get a fair hearing from their fellow Americans, they win the argument. The facts often shoot down the pretexts that are used to infringe on our rights. If fellow Americans knew how few people were killed with rifles and shotguns, the bans proposed by many on modern multi-purpose semiautomatics would be dead on arrival, and the politicians responsible for pushing for the bans would find their careers dead in the water.

This is why Second Amendment supporters need to defend the First Amendment with just as much vigor. The First Amendment is the first line of defense for our Second Amendment rights it is with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the rights to peaceably assemble and to petition for the redress of grievances that we fight.

With freedom of speech and freedom of the press comes the ability to persuade our fellow Americans, whether one-on-one or to millions at a time via mass media or social media. With the right to peaceably assemble, Second Amendment supporters strengthen their voice by uniting for a common purpose, sometimes through formal organizations like the National Rifle Association, sometimes through more informal groups. The right to petition for redress of grievances can be as simple as a letter, phone call or e-mail to an elected official or it could entail hiring a professional to present the case to elected officials.

Just having these rights, which pre-exist the Constitution and the protection of which is codified in the Bill of Rights, is not enough. They are merely tools. Their effectiveness depends on how skillfully they are used. For the most part, Second Amendment supporters have been skillful enough in their use of their First Amendment rights to preserve our freedoms.

That said, we as Second Amendment supporters have to recognize that there is a need to up our game on this front. Those who seek to deprive us of our rights have adjusted in the wake of their failures, and we need to adjust to the adjustments they have made.

This includes the recognition that the fight for our rights has become a full-spectrum fight, one that has to be fought not just in the political and legislative arena, but also in corporate boardrooms, PTA meetings, and even when it comes to our professional life. Yet even in these new areas where we have to fight for our freedoms, it will be our First Amendment rights that will help save the Second Amendment.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Continue reading here:
The First Amendment is the First Line of Defense - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process. Neither right, however, is absolute. The First Amendment, for example, has never protected perjury, fraud, or countless other crimes that are committed through the use of speech. Similarly, no reasonable person could believe that violent criminals should have unrestricted access to guns, or that any individual should possess a nuclear weapon.

Inevitably, courts must draw lines, allowing government to carry out its duty to preserve an orderly society, without unduly infringing the legitimate interests of individuals in expressing their thoughts and protecting themselves from criminal violence. This is not a precise science or one that will ever be free from controversy.

One judicial approach, however, should be unequivocally rejected. During the nineteenth century, courts routinely refused to invalidate restrictions on free speech that struck the judges as reasonable. This meant that speech got virtually no judicial protection. Government suppression of speech can usually be thought to serve some reasonable purpose, such as reducing social discord or promoting healthy morals. Similarly, most gun control laws can be viewed as efforts to save lives and prevent crime, which are perfectly reasonable goals. If thats enough to justify infringements on individual liberty, neither constitutional guarantee means much of anything.

During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court finally started taking the First Amendment seriously. Today, individual freedom is generally protected unless the government can make a strong case that it has a real need to suppress speech or expressive conduct, and that its regulations are tailored to that need. The legal doctrines have become quite complex, and there is room for disagreement about many of the Courts specific decisions. Taken as a whole, however, this body of case law shows what the Court can do when it appreciates the value of an individual right enshrined in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment also raises issues about which reasonable people can disagree. But if the Supreme Court takes this provision of the Constitution as seriously as it now takes the First Amendment, which it should do, there will be some easy issues as well.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) is one example. The right of the people protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like the right[s] of the people protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. The Constitution does not say that the Second Amendment protects a right of the states or a right of the militia, and nobody offered such an interpretation during the Founding era. Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) was also an easy case under the Courts precedents. Most other provisions of the Bill of Rights had already been applied to the states because they are deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition. The right to keep and bear arms clearly meets this test.

The text of the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to bear arms, not just the right to keep them. The courts should invalidate regulations that prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons in public, where the vast majority of violent crimes occur. First Amendment rights are not confined to the home, and neither are those protected by the Second Amendment.

Nor should the government be allowed to create burdensome bureaucratic obstacles designed to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The courts are vigilant in preventing government from evading the First Amendment through regulations that indirectly abridge free speech rights by making them difficult to exercise. Courts should exercise the same vigilance in protecting Second Amendment rights.

Some other regulations that may appear innocuous should be struck down because they are little more than political stunts. Popular bans on so-called assault rifles, for example, define this class of guns in terms of cosmetic features, leaving functionally identical semi-automatic rifles to circulate freely. This is unconstitutional for the same reason that it would violate the First Amendment to ban words that have a French etymology, or to require that French fries be called freedom fries.

In most American states, including many with large urban population centers, responsible adults have easy access to ordinary firearms, and they are permitted to carry them in public. Experience has shown that these policies do not lead to increased levels of violence. Criminals pay no more attention to gun control regulations than they do to laws against murder, rape, and robbery. Armed citizens, however, prevent countless crimes and have saved many lives. Whats more, the most vulnerable peopleincluding women, the elderly, and those who live in high crime neighborhoodsare among the greatest beneficiaries of the Second Amendment. If the courts require the remaining jurisdictions to stop infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, their citizens will be more free and probably safer as well.

Read the rest here:
Second Amendment | The National Constitution Center