That's right! My new mystery thriller A MAN OVERBOARD is nearing the finish line and will hopefully be published in September. I'm excited about the novel for a couple of reasons. First, it's a new genre for me. It's also a lot shorter than anything I've done so far. Thirdly, it's written for mass market, so I'm hoping to gain more readers through it. I'm waiting on the edit while I add a piece of back story that will better explain one of the recurring themes. I'm also working on an alternate ending. Yup. An alternate ending. I plan on having a link to my website at the end of the book, where people can go and read the alternate ending for free on my site. We'll see how that goes:) No, it's not just a ploy to drive people to my site (though I hope it does:). I simply couldn't decide which ending to go with!
So what is A MAN OVERBOARD anyway? Well, for a little preview (I don't want to give too much away, I love a blind journey and don't want to spoil it for the others that do as well), a man and his wife go on a cruise. In the middle of the night, masked men awaken our POV and toss him into the ocean. Miraculously, he survives the fall and is rescued. But that's about as good as the news in going to get. Because he soon finds out that his wife is missing. And, upon returning home, his mother-in-law and son are gone without a trace as well. And then, of course, someone tries to burn down his house...
Sound interesting? As always, I'll be waiting with fingers crossed for the first reviews to roll in. But in the mean time, I should go finish the back story:)
You know those old guys that started this country back in the day? Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc...? Yeah, I didn't think so. Because if you did, you'd see straight through all this propaganda that has taken the news channels by storm lately. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the 2nd Amendment. "Ah!" you say, "I've heard of that! That's the piece of the Constitution that allows us to hunt ducks! The President just said that a couple weeks ago, that we Americans take our hunting very seriously!" Sigh. Well, since you haven't read the founders and since no one on TV would be caught dead quoting them, how bout we take a quick look at what the 2nd Amendment was really put in place for and why the founders considered it the patriotic duty of every civilian to be armed. It wasn't, as the mainstream media is so cleverly brainwashing you to believe, to hunt. Or even to protect yourself (though that was obviously part of it).
THE 2ND AMENDMENT DEBATE is obviously all over the corporate news channels, all of them debating or yelling about bans and more laws, etc. But as I listen to the debates on FOX and CNN I'm absolutely astounded that no one is addressing the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Either they're ignorant of it or they don't want to engage the country in the real debate. I'm not saying we need more guns or less guns, I'm just saying, if you're going to debate the subject, have the right debate! The Amendment isn't only there so that citizens can protect themselves from crime. And so all this talk about how we have police now and don't need to arm ourselves is irrelevant. That's not why we have the right to bear arms. And the talk about not needing to have assault rifles to defend ourselves is also irrelevant in the face of the Amendment's true purpose.
"The government is likely to be well-administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism." - Ben Franklin
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. A free people out to be armed." - George Washington
"The best that we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." - Noah Webster
There are tons of these quotes you can find from the founders that give you a clear picture of why the 2nd Amendment was actually written (some of the quotes are debated on line, but there are undeniably enough established quotes to convey the clear intent of the amendment even if some are found to be fraudulent). The purpose of bearing arms is to ensure the longevity of the Constitution. To ensure that the government will always be run by the people for the people. It's to make sure the government fears the people rather than the other way around. It's the safeguard against tyranny and oppression. It's to make sure that no Hitler comes to power here. That is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, not just so we can protect ourselves from crime. Like I said, if we've gotten to a point in this nation where we're ready to open the door to those possibilities, banning what the founders considered to be the only thing keeping the government they were creating from ever turning against the people...then let's have that debate. I saw Stephen Baldwin praising the Patriot Act while saying the founders would have done something different had they could've seen the way technology would advance (implying that people shouldn't have machine guns, etc). But, like everyone else talking on TV, he misses the point. Based on the founder's writings, the people are to be armed so as to repel a Congressional army. O'Rielly wants all high-powered weapons registered with the FBI and agents following the person around. But that would completely defeat the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. All these windbags blowing smoke in the wake of these sad tragedies are disgusting and are only mocking the memories of the victims. If you're going to debate, have a real debate, not a manufactured one in which you rewrite all the definitions in order to steer people to a forgone-conclusion of your own making. If you're going to debate the 2nd Amendment, be honest about why it was written and then go from there. Thomas Jefferson said, "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." If the nation no longer feels this way, THEN the debate can shift to self-protection, victim-disarmament, guns in the hands of drugged-up wackos and gang members, whether or not a sinking culture should be armed, whether we trust the government and any future one well enough to completely subject ourselves to it. There should also be a debate as to how relevant the purpose for the Amendment even is anymore. Obviously citizens are now completely outmatched by law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the military. If the nation did plunge into tyranny, armed as we are now, could we even adhere to the Constitution's instruction of overthrow? If not, then what's the point of still being armed for this purpose?
If there is a "gun control" debate, it should be this: has government evolved to the point where its people can hand over its guns? Can we trust that our government (especially in the wake of Patriot acts, extraordinary rendition, the threat of martial law, etc...) will never turn into anything other than a government for the people by the people? That should be 2nd Amendment debate, because that's what it is about. Keeping the government honest. Every dictatorship in the past can be seen first registering guns then confiscating guns and then taking over their defenseless subjects. Would that ever happen here? Who knows. But the founders included the 2nd Amendment so that door would never be opened. Do we want to open it? And, another question that must be asked, is why our government wants to take the guns away. When the founders put in place a prevention against tyranny, why are those we elected to uphold the Constitution wanting to remove that fail safe? To protect the victims of senseless crime? Then why aren't they even bringing the true meaning of the Amendment to light? Why are they trying to trick the masses into giving up hunting rights in order to protect innocent lives rather than having a real debate about giving up the right to protect themselves against a tyrannical government in order to protect innocent lives?
I just want a real debate!