Wedding Speech

Just want to keep my wedding speech from March 31, 2012 here for posterity...

The sun danced all around with a glittering smile,
as two lovers sat quietly, alone for a while.
Then he turned and said, with a casual air,
(though he blushed from his toes to the tip of his hair)
“I think I’d quite like to get married to you.”

“Well then,” she said, “well there’s a thought.
But what if we can’t vow to be all that we ought?
Can you promise me, say, you won’t grumble and shout,
if I’m late yet again when we plan to go out?
For I know I can’t say that I’ll learn to ignore
dirty socks and damp towels strewn all over the floor.
So if we can’t promise to be all that we should,
I’m not sure what to do, though the idea’s quite good.”

But he gently smiled and tilted his head,
till his lips met her ear, then softly he said,
“I promise to weave my dreams into your own,
that wherever you breathe shall be my heart’s home.
I promise, that whether with rags or with gold I am blessed,
your smile is the jewel I shall treasure the best.
Do you think then, my love, we should marry, do you?”

“Yes,” she said smiling. “I do.”

I want to take a moment and speak on behalf of both myself and my wife…

We appreciate that some of you traveled a long way to come here, and to you we offer our thanks for making the journey.
We both have small circles of friends and family, and it was very important to us that all of you join us, and share in our joining to each other.

We owe special thanks to our mothers, for their support and for their parts in making this day the most treasured in our lives.

The Second Amendment

Leftists argue that back in the day the Constitution was written, the musket or flintlock was as dangerous a weapon as one could own, and hence it was not very dangerous to society at large for 'ordinary people' to be in possession of one.

The flintlock was the weapon of choice of the MILITARY, and as such, was also the weapon of choice of the CIVILIAN. The whole reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be able to take back their government from a tyrant, should the need arise. In order to do that, it would be helpful to such citizenry to be in possession of the same ARMS as the aforementioned tyrannical government.

Technically, background checks DO violate the 2nd Amendment, because such checks ascribe to the government the right to decide who is, and who is not, allowed to own a weapon -- which happens to be a RIGHT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. By affixing a condition on that right, we allow government to consider owning a weapon to be a PRIVILEGE bestowed upon us by government... and privileges can be taken back by the same government that granted them. That's the inherent danger in ignoring those wonderful, G-d - given rights as described by the founding fathers.

Driving a car is a privilege, and as such it can be taken away.