Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Politico’

Rethink gun laws, NOW!

ar-151

AR 15 is not needed by John Q. Public

The carnage and incomprehensible violence that happened in Connecticut shocked the nation and brought the topic of gun control to the nation’s attention. The correlation between the senseless slaughter of those beautiful elementary kids and guns are a natural response by all that have a moral foundation in peace and love. In reflection of the tragedy, the collective WE all demanded that “assault weapons” be banned and called for the re-institution of the loophole riddled assault weapons ban.

The CT shootings led to everyone shouting from the rooftops about the need to regulate or even outlaw certain “assault weapons” as a cure to the evil that happened at Sandy Hook. The event actually left me quite numb and to be honest, I am still quite numb in many ways about that inhuman mass shooting. With that being said, I dare to say that no matter how tragic that shooting is the reality is that it has very little to do with just gun ownership. It has to do with a lack of gun regulations in terms of nozzle velocity, firing capacity  and gun insurance.

I assert that the proponents of gun laws are taking the wrong stance. The arguable connection between the horrible event at Sandy Hook and “assault weapons” only feeds the argument of those on the gun-side that contend that “the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”. The connection between guns and the horrific mass shooting is as contaminating as the belief that “the answer to gun violence is more guns”; both are wrong-headed.

The two opposing positions are equally poisoning the topic of gun regulations by posturing, hyperbole, division, and political demagoguery. Appealing to the other sides sense of good morality on the subject of guns will only harden their stance in opposition of yours.  The problem lies in the fact that we naturally oppose that which we do not already agree with and this is a matter of human nature.

As Stanford University psychologist Leon stated A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Such is the reaction of those who argue their unrestricted right to guns. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” Such is the reaction of those who argue their unrestricted gun rights. One can relate this to the theory of “fight or fleet”; this holds true with predators and data. Relating mass shootings to the need for gun control weakens the argument somewhat. America needs to look at gun regulation/control at the level of what is at the bare minimum level of responsibility that all gun owners should accept. Read more…

Advertisements

They Are Not Entitlements, Damn It!

Earned BenefitsThe Right (Republicans) are all sounding out the cries of the alarm that the rationale for their electoral drubbing this year is all related to the idea that Democrats are Santa Claus and everyone knows that you can’t beat Santa Claus. As Mitt so in-eloquently stated “There are 47 percent of the people…..  who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.” The clear and unambiguous implication here is that the nation has become a bunch of leechers or in the philosophy of Ayn Rand  the nation is now made up  of “makers” subsidizing society’s “takers.” With this philosophy as the foundation of Republicon party, the right has found some extremely misplaced solace in the idea that their philosophies are not wrong; it’s just that America is made up of lazy bums that lavish at the teet of Big Gommerment “government”. You know “That that’s entitlement”, as Millard famously said!

Entitlement is what the Right “Republicons and Libertarians” call Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance. This elitist reference to our “social safety-net” needs to be halted and rewritten in all halls of our political debates. Merriam-Webster dictionary online defines an “entitlement” as belief that one is deserving or entitled to certain privileges and neither Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid  or unemployment fall under this umbrella. All of the so-called “entitlement programs” are funded by the very same Americans that receive them. They are all forms of social insurance that we collectively pay for and  therefore should collectively receive. The Republicon party and their great wordsmiths has stolen the essential visage of these programs to the point that even Democrats are referring to them as entitlements. They are not entitlements, DAMN IT! Read more…

Taking a real look at the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Second Amendment

The right to bear arms?

As passed by the Congress: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State.

When looking at the Second Amendment, in its totality, one can get only one understanding from it; that is if one has an understanding of constitutional history. It has essentially has two parts that make up its whole. I find it amazing that most people, especially those I call the “gun-stupid”, only choose to read and adopt the second part of the Second Amendment. Its intent is utterly clear when one reads the entirety of the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are the written text explaining the arguments for and against the constitution thereby seeking to persuade the states to ratify the Constitution. See; http://tinyw.in/y3IV. The contention that surrounded the Second Amendment was not based on an argument over the rights of people to have arms; it had/has its roots in a disagreement over whether or not this nation would have a standing army or not.

Based on my interpretation of the Second Amendment and the Federalist Papers (29), I get the following meaning from it “In order to have a well regulated militia in the defense of the United States (or states at that time) the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.  Now this understanding of the 2nd Amendment is a far cry from what the gun-stupid would argue today. If you really want to get a better understanding of what the Founding Fathers meant you will really have to read the Federalist papers, but if you just want a quick rundown here it goes.

The Founding Fathers argued heavily about the whether America should establish of an army during times of peace and at the end of their debate it was settled, that America would not have a standing army during times of peace. This decision would remain as policy until the early 20th century when Congress broke from the original intent of the Founding Fathers and established a standing army. The original Constitution allowed for a standing army for a period of TWO years (which is why today, military appropriations happen every two years; it is a means to circumvent the Constitution) and that was how it was until the early 20th century. It has long been established that the Fathers feared a standing army. They were well versed historians which had seen that countries with standing armies were often times over-thrown by its military, which soon oppressed its people. This has happened  time and time again throughout history, and thus the Founders agreed that America would not have a standing army. Of course this approach to the military would not last, but this was the agreement at the time. Read more…

%d bloggers like this: