Permission

I, Brennan Ravan, hereby give the Will Galloway listed as author of the website www.conservativechariot.blogspot.com permission to use these articles either in pieces or in their entirety in any way he deems fit to use them provided that he give credit to Brennan Ravan for the article or part of article.  He also has permission to distribute the permission to use these articles to any persons provided that he informs them they must also give Brennan Ravan credit for the use.  20% of any money made from the use of these articles or parts of them must be given to Brennan Ravan.

Why Open Carry of All Weapons Should be Legal Everywhere

Currently there are some states banning open carry of weapons and some allowing the open carry of weapons. I think that this is a very bad idea because it discourages people from traveling state to state if neighboring states have different gun laws. Some might say that the solution to this is to ban open carry everywhere; however, the weapons laws in some states are worded so badly that open carry of weapons, not necessarily firearms, is already happening. I don't know about other states, but in South Carolina if someone goes into a public place they are open carrying a weapon or streaking. This is because law 16-23-405 says, "'weapon' means . . . or any object which may be used to inflict bodily injury or death." That word may is important. If this wording is taken literally, then everything is a weapon. This shows that in South Carolina open carry is already happening because I am told people wear clothes there. Also, the second amendment say that people can carry weapons however they want. People who are anti-gun say that because the amendment only cites a militia people don't have the right to carry a weapon. However, a militia is an informal civilian force that is formed when the country is attacked. A third reason that we should have open carry is very simple. Who would try to mug someone holding a gun? Also, who would try to mug someone when 10 other people are holding guns? The statistical argument also shows that guns should be carried. The United Kingdom has made it illegal for any private citizen to own a gun. It has the highest rate of violent crime of any country in the world. Switzerland gives a handgun to every adult and trains them how to use it. It has the lowest rate of violent crime of any country in the world. When D.C. made it illegal to have a gun in a house in D.C., murder rates went up 134% despite the national average dropping 2%. 

Sigmund Freud ~ "A fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity." 

Yisoruko Yamamoto, Japanese Admiral during WWII ~ "You cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

The Simple Truth of the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act

Earlier I discussed the constitutionality of what is commonly known as Obamacare. I went into how it violated religious beliefs and was unconstitutional because of that reason. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional for an entirely different reason. They say that congress doesn't have the power to regulate commerce between the states and their citizens. It ruled that Obamacare was only constitutional as a tax. Congress decided it was, but continued to tell the public it wasn't a tax. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court said Obamacare had to be a tax, they didn't remember an important part of the constitution. The constitution says that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the house. This means that all taxes must start in the house. Obamacare, however, started in the Senate. This makes it unconstitutional unless the house raises the issue and gets a bill originating in the house passed that does the same thing. The issue is going back to the Supreme Court for discussion, so people might want to hold out on buying insurance through Obamacare. Don't worry, you have until march to get it without penalties and the Supreme Court will have heard the case by then. The message: don't purchase Obamacare until the Supreme Court has heard the case to see whether or not it is constitutional. 

Gay Marriage: Constitutional or Not?

The main argument in favor of gay marriage is: how does it affect you?  How it affects all Christians, Muslims, and Jews is that the holy books directly forbid it. If the state recognizes a gay marriage, then it is violating the religious beliefs of about 90% of the people. They also teach that if a man engages in coitus with another man than both should be executed (Leviticus 20:13). The main argument against this is that Christians already aren't following everything the bible says. When they ask what, the only example that comes up is dietary laws. While this is true of some Jews, it isn't true of Christians or Muslims. Yes, the bible does teach against the eating of swine; however, Leviticus 11:1 clearly states that only the sons of Israel, commonly known as Israelites, are to obey the dietary laws. Most Christians are Gentiles as is evidenced by the fact that it is called the Roman Catholic Church not Catholic Church of Jerusalem (sorry but I don't know what people who live in Jerusalem are called). It is the Greek Orthodox Church not the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. Any laws made by the state which infringe on these beliefs are unconstitutional. I know of no widely recognized religion that mandates gay marriage. There is nothing in the constitution about giving everyone the right to marry whomever they wish. There is a right to not have your religious beliefs violated. There is also a major common sense argument. Most religions don't care whether the state recognizes the marriage as legal. Most people only bother to get the state involved to get the tax exemptions that are given to married couples with children. It is also done to ensure child support will be payed if a divorce happens. These also only apply if the children are biologically related to both of the parents. I think we can all safely assume that a gay couple aren't going to have children unless they adopt. Marriage isn't required to get the tax exemptions that go with adoption, nor is it required to get child support if both people sign as being the legal guardian of the child. Therefore, having gay marriage recognized by the state is both unconstitutional and completely unnecessary. If you want to call yourselves married, be my guest. 

California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer to the argument that denial of same sex marriage was a denial of fundamental rights was: "Rights are considered fundamental only if they are deeply rooted and firmly entrenched in our state's history and tradition. There is simply no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage in California or in any other state."

What Gun Control is Useful and/or Constitutional?

There have been many gun control bills that have been submitted to congress over the past 50 years, with an emphasis on new laws in the past 5 or 10.  The major debate arose after the school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. Many gathered in front of the White House and the Capital building to try and pressure law makers into passing new gun legislation.  What these people don't pay attention to are the facts.  They were trying to get legislation passed that would ban all weapons classified as being assault weapons; however, in Connecticut there are already laws that prohibit the possession or sale of all assault weapons.  Those people are also ignoring the fact that 80-90% of gun crimes involve the use of a handgun, not a long gun.  Also, about 16,000 homicides were caused in 2011 because of non gun attacks.  Compared to that, the 11,000 gun related homicides seem rather insignificant.  They seem even more insignificant when compared with the 50,000 automobile related deaths.  I don't see anyone trying to ban the use of cars except for a few extremists who really don't care about what others think.  If we are going to ban guns, why don't we ban baseball bats because they cause almost 5,000 deaths each year.  When referring to what gun control is useful or whether or not we want it, we ought to look at who has banned all guns recently.  Adolf Hitler banned guns and then killed 14 million people.  Josef Stalin took the Russian guns away and then killed over 20 million people. Mao Zedong took away guns from the Chinese people and then killed over 40 million of them. I am not meaning to say that Obama intends to kill millions of people; I only mean to say that history shows how only totalitarian governments take away guns on a regular basis. James Madison said, "Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army (check), an enslaved press (mostly check because most of the news stations side with Obama), and a disarmed populace." Aren't we on the way to that right now with all the attempts to take away guns? Even though the second amendment says that the government can't take away guns. The wording of the constitution is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not taken or removed, but infringed. Infringe is to violate or remove any part of the right. This means that laws banning the possession of firearms in public places are unconstitutional. According to the constitution, any laws that limit the possession or use of firearms in public places are not allowed.

Adolf Hitler - "To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens." 

George Washington - "When any nation no longer trusts its citizens with guns, it is sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens with guns because such a government has evil plans."

Priests forbidden to preach?

There have been many rumors going around on the web that priests are being threatened with arrest if they continue to preach on base during the government shutdown. I hate to say it, but those rumors are true. Why else would the house have had to vote 400-1 to remove all penalties if they continue to do so? The laws are written such that it is illegal for all contracted workers to voluntarily offer their services during a government shutdown. The only exception to this is if human life or property is at risk if certain so called "emergency services" aren't still running, those services can continue. The Catholic Church believes that it is required for one to go to church if at all possible. It is possible so long as those priests are still allowed to preach. According to Christian teaching, human life continues after death for all of eternity. Because of these beliefs, Christians feel that continuing to have mass on Sundays is vital to preserving human life. One might begin to wonder how the churches can get out of this dilemma. The answer is actually quite simple due to a small loophole in the laws and the fact that Chuck Hagel is Secretary of Defense. The food and forage act of 1861 states that the defense department is able to receive mandatory funding to keep ALL services usually provided by the military running. This means that if the Secretary of Defense decides to pay the priests, or at least allow them to volunteer, then they automatically get paid because of this loophole. Chuck Hagel is an Episcopalian who was raised Catholic and is currently sending his kids to Catholic school. I feel sure that if a bunch of people raise this concern he will grant funding to the priests. He most likely would grant funding if the Archbishop of Military Services sent him an email saying this. I trust that the Obama administration will also hear these arguements and allow the 1st amendment to take precedence over a law written 200 years later because the constitution if the law of the land. 

Should Abortion be Legal?

There are many controversies over whether or not abortion should be legal in the US. A large number of these stem from religious arguments. In order to maintain as objective a view as possible, we shall rely purely on science. According to the scientific definition, an organism is of a certain species if it has DNA within the normal range of variation for that species. Science doesn't distinguish belonging to a species based on age. It says that you are of a species from conception to death. Since science says that an embryo or fetus is a human, the argument turns to when that embryo or fetus is actually alive. After 4 weeks of development, the embryo starts to develop a heart. The circulatory system also forms around this time, and the heart is pumping blood by early in the 6th week. After 7 weeks, the central nervous system starts to develop. The brain starts to develop in the 9th week, and by week 16 is fully functioning. Around this time the fetus becomes aware of its surroundings. Many studies have shown that the fetus consistently responds to stimulation after the first 14-17 weeks. At this point all that is left to develop is the skeletal structure and the muscles, and the other body systems are just getting more complicated and well developed. I think it would be reasonable to say that after 3 months, the fetus is definitely a person. The only reason that fetuses born after this time die is because of size and errors in the digestive tract. Many studies have shown that if the mother gives birth after 4 months then the fetus has more than a 50% chance of living past There are many controversies over whether or not abortion should be legal in the US. A large number of these stem from religious arguments. In order to maintain as objective a view as possible, we shall rely purely on science. According to the scientific definition, an organism is of a certain species if it has DNA within the normal range of variation for that species. Science doesn't distinguish belonging to a species based on age. It says that you are of a species from conception to death. Since science says that an embryo or fetus is a human, the argument turns to when that embryo or fetus is actually alive. After 4 weeks of development, the embryo starts to develop a heart. The circulatory system also forms around this time, and the heart is pumping blood by early in the 6th week. After 7 weeks, the central nervous system starts to develop. The brain starts to develop in the 9th week, and by week 16 is fully functioning. Around this time the fetus becomes aware of its surroundings. Many studies have shown that the fetus consistently responds to stimulation after the first 14-17 weeks. At this point all that is left to develop is the skeletal structure and the muscles, and the other body systems are just getting more complicated and well developed. I think it would be reasonable to say that after 3 months, the fetus is definitely a person. The only reason that fetuses born after this time die is because of size and errors in the digestive tract. This logic would also follow that to abort a baby after 3 months would be killing it as it is fully alive. Even if you don't except the three month rule, it has been shown in many studies that after the first 4 months a fetus has more than a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb. This would definitely be considered to be a living creature by any reasonable scientist. While some might think that the constitution doesn't say anything against murder, it does. Amendment 5 says that none may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. According to this, the baby can't be allowed to be killed by the government unless the government says that it has done something wrong. I think we can all agree that a fetus is innocent of all crimes that would warrant the death penalty. If it is innocent, then whoever kills it would be guilty of killing an innocent. According to current law, if you kill an innocent, you go to jail or get the death penalty for it. In conclusion, the constitution prohibits the government from sanctioning abortion. Also as long as the government bans murder, it must punish those who abort a fetus. Those doctors who help abort the fetus are also responsible for its death by the same rules that say the hit man who was hired is as guilty of the murder as the employer. 

P.S. if what is inside the woman's womb isn't a human baby, then by definition she isn't pregnant and there is no problem; however, if it is a human baby, then you are admitting it is murder. 

Ronald Reagan - "I notice that everyone who is pro-abortion has already been born"