Fox News has the reputation of being on the right side of the political spectrum, while the Obama administration, though they claimed to be moderate, are on the far left of the spectrum. So when David meets with Roger to discuss the administration’s concerns with the image Fox News is portraying, it leads me to wonder if all of those “birthers, tea baggers, etc” might just be right with their claim that Obama and the administration are socialistic leaning.

I have asked myself when it would be necessary or proper for the White House to visit our media outlets to discuss what they are doing? Would it be proper for the administration to question news outlets when they are tainting the administration’s image? No, it would not be. Their right to speak their opinion is protected by the Constitution. How about when the media is discussing key issues that deal with the security of our nation? In this instance it is not only proper but necessary for the government to step in, but did they when the media was busy discussing what procedures our CIA operatives were using to extract information that saved American lives?

What I find most alarming about this instance, along with others (Fairness Doctrine),  is that it reminds me a lot of current and past countries that eventually found themselves in a socialistic government, or worse, a dictator . The media is typically one of the first areas that is put under the control of the state when it is leaning towards a socialistic government. By eliminating the media, you enable the governing body to go largely unchecked by masses. One recent example would be Chavez, who after winning re-election took control of the media outlets that had criticized him and then moved to taking over other key industries.

We have recently seen how the media can bring people together to fight against the ills of the government, which is why it is important to have an unfettered media. A free and an unmolested media allows access to news that people might not otherwise have known. This access allows people to arrive at opinions for themselves. It is these opinions that affect they way we cast our vote. It is our votes that elect those in government. So in an indirect way, the media helps to promote a check and balance system within our government. When the current administration starts meeting with those outlets that help promote an opposing view point, I have to question the motives of the government.

It seems to me that the strongest attention given to our 2nd Amendment rights come from two types of people: tree-hugging, hippie liberals and pro-military, hobbyist hunters. Okay, so it’s not that black and white, but it’s clear that there is a large demographic of people, somewhere in the middle, that just don’t think about or even care to be part of the 2nd Amendment conversation. I’m sure some of this is due to the fiery and exasperating volley of rhetoric from both sides. However, I’m going to guess that the overwhelming majority of these fence sitters are just comfortable. Perhaps they feel that these particular laws don’t affect their situation and well being, and that the likelihood of them being in a situation where a gun might be needed is just statistically unlikely. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right?

Well, it is broke. Hey, I’ll be the first to admit that guns are scary. Owning one is a big responsibility. Firing one can have grave consequences, no doubt about it. However, it’s that power and freedom that goes along with them that our founding fathers were trying to protect. Despite our opinion on gun control, the right and freedom to protect oneself and one’s property is indisputable. But, protect against what? Hey, I live in a clean, well lit suburban area… what could happen? Why should I worry? Watch the following video and perhaps reconsider your reasons for owning or not owning a gun.

I think she pretty much hit the nail on the head. The 2nd Amendment was one of the many things to come from our founding fathers’ foresight in that they knew, and had previously experienced, the tyranny that rears its ugly head when the people are no longer able to protect themselves from the government that is supposed to protect them and guarantee their freedoms. Government should only have the power that we, the people, “lend” to it. They work for us… or at least that is the idea. Through our votes, we’ve allowed the federal government to keep us comfortable long enough that we’re slowly relinquishing our freedoms and our rights for “the sake of society”. Benjamin Franklin said that “A society that gives up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither and will lose both.” Are we not already quite far down this path?

Well, some states have had enough. They are taking back the sovereign rights that are guaranteed them by The Constitution. Now, this has been going on for months, but I can’t believe that this isn’t getting more coverage. The liberal media isn’t wasting much, or any, broadcasting time on making this known, but one by one some legislatures are stepping up to the plate and are making efforts to re-secure the rights that were given to us long ago. Yes, this is big… check it out.

We may not own a gun. We may not have a desire to own a gun. However, just like those of us who enjoy the freedoms provided to us by our soldiers while we sit on our comfortable couches and read about and watch the turmoil, it is our responsibility to help ensure the necessary rights for those that do own a gun and have a moral sense of what to do with it.

Our government has its checks and balances built into its very structure. This has proven in recent times to fail… and when it does, we, the people, are the final check and balance.