Gun control is once again a very lively topic in America. Last week, another tragic shooting occurred with many innocent victims who did not deserve to die such a tragic and pre-mature death. This shooting has sparked thousands of high school students across the nation to press for more gun control measures. Measures that many believe will help curtail the tragic number of shootings that we see in this country. Although, I greatly respect the teens and their passion for the issue (it's nice to see teens politically involved and not eating Tide pods). However, this debate is nothing new. Unfortunately, instead of coming together to try and figure out a rational solution to this problem, both parties will find a way to over dramatize this and ensure that little to no action will be taken. But here are a few thoughts that I have on the issue.
To my friends on the Right,
I ask the following question, "When is the right time to talk about gun violence in America?" We must admit that there is a problem before we can talk about a solution to that problem. Many on the right cry for increased border security after a tragedy in which an illegal immigrant kills a US citizen, or for enhanced vetting after an attack by a professing Muslim. So why is after a mass shooting the wrong time to talk about gun violence? In two months, after many have all but forgotten about this tragedy, will that be the right time to talk? I dare say that if the topic is brought up, the Right will be less likely to talk about the issue than they are today.
To my friends on the Left,
Gun control in America is simply different than it is in any other country. America is unique is several different manners. Unlike any other country, America has a long and cherished history of gun ownership, with that right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. An outright ban on firearms would be a direct assault on the Constitution. The path to eliminating the 2nd Amendment is nearly impossible. There's no way that 3/4 of the states would vote to eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, whether you like it or not, many Americans will continue to own firearms.
America is also unique in the amount of guns its people possess. Americans collectively own approximately 300 million guns. No amount of gun confiscation could ever eliminate guns from American households. Also, placing bans on "assault rifles" is not feasible for the same reasons. It would take a massive military directive to confiscate all of these weapons, which is not going to happen without massive bloodshed. Whether you like it or not, guns are here to stay, and they are an integral part of many American's lives.
Finally, if you wish to take appropriate and needed actions towards effective gun control measures, please stop sensationalizing everything when it comes to guns. AR-15s just look cool; someone can kill just as many or more people with a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle. I would even suggest that you go out and fire one, it's quite enjoyable for recreation.
To my friends on both sides of the aisle,
I am firm defender of the Constitution. It was what makes our country unique; and quite honestly, better than every other country on this planet. The right to bear arms is part of that Constitution and deserves to be defended. However, most of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are not absolute rights. Each right has limitations placed on it. For example, through the First Amendment, I have the freedom of speech. However, that freedom does not give me the right to lie and publicly defame you, that is called slander and is not permitted. By the First Amendment, I also have the freedom of religion. However, I do not have the right to commit polygamy or sacrifice animals, even if my religion requires that I do so. Most of our cherished rights and freedoms come with limitations. The same is true regarding the Second Amendment, there can be limitations placed on that right that does not negate or diminish that right.
My solution,
My solution takes a bit of explanation for this issue is complex. I have done extensive research on the issue and I can say that there are legitimate cases on both sides. And that statistics really don't give definitive answers one way or another. With that being said, I am for enhanced "gun control" laws, with certain limitations. Remember, gun control, does not mean gun confiscation. Nor does passing some common sense reforms put us on a slippery slope to a Communistic dictatorship. In case you weren't reading, gun confiscation is never going to happen in America, or at least not anytime in the next few centuries.
Here are the reforms that I support for enhanced gun control:
1. Enhanced background screening and extended waiting period for purchase of a firearm.
Suicides outnumber homicides in America by 200%. That means that twice the amount of people commit suicide each year than the number of people who are killed by other Americans.
Suicide rate in America are steadily on the rise. In 2014, over 42,000 Americans ended their own lives. This is a travesty that is not talked about enough in the gun control argument. About 50% of suicides in America are committed using a gun. A gun is a very easy tool to use to commit suicide. It is quick, painless, and provides a nearly certain death. Very few people survive a suicide attempt of a gunshot to the head. Guns are used in suicide attempts only about 6-7% of the time; however, they are responsible for over 50% of all successful suicide attempts. Suicide is a mental health issue. We need to do better at curtailing this. Therefore, enhanced measures need to be taken to ensure that mentally ill people do not have access to firearms.
2. Mandatory safety courses and competency requirements.
When I was 15, I got my hunting license. In order to get my hunting license, I had to pass a competency test. Not only did I have a written test that I had to pass; but I also had to display competency with several different kinds of firearms. Why should that requirement change when I only want to purchase a gun? Similarly, a few months later, I also had to pass a written test and display my competency to operate a motor vehicle. (Side note, if driving a car is a privilege, than walking down the street or riding a bike is also a privilege. You have the freedom to move about freely in this country. A car is a means to accomplish that freedom. Therefore, driving a car is not a privilege.) Why should we not display competency to own and operate a firearm? There are hundreds of deaths each year due to accidents with firearms. I'm willing to take a test to show my competency to own a firearm if it means that someone else may live.
3. Banning bump stocks and other such devices.
I highly commend President Trump for his stance on this issue. Having a device that modifies a weapon to fire 400-800 rounds a minute, makes that device usable for one thing - mass killing.
Do I think that these measures will eliminate all shootings? Absolutely not. But although we may not be able to save all lives, we should seek measures that will save some lives. If a slight inconvenience to me means that my neighbor won't die tomorrow, then I support it 100%. Human life is too valuable to waste.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Saturday, July 8, 2017
War. Huh. Yeah. What Is It Good For? Pt 2
I want to make it clear that the "war" I don't believe exists is the "war" that many claim is raging in America. I do not believe that there is a war between two opposing mindsets where holding one view leads to eternal damnation and the other leads to paradise. I do not believe that there is a war between Democrats and Republicans; between Black Lives Matters and Blue Lives Matter; the Media vs. traditional values; and et cetera. To be sure, there are conflicts and differences of opinion that exist between many of these groups. And many times, it does seem like we are at war. But this is only because we choose to be at war. Let's examine a possible reason why we're constantly told that we're at war.
An interesting thing about wars is that there are always people who profit from them. Munitions and war materials aren't cheap, and someone has to provide them. Outside of a pure Communistic regime, it is typically the private sector that supplies these war materials. Many of the largest corporations in the world today were grown exponentially during the Second World War. Companies like DuPont, Coca-Cola, Ford, Boeing, Rolls Royce, and Winchester profited greatly by supplying the Allies with war materials; as well as several companies that supplied the Axis powers like Mercedes-Benz and Mitsubishi. Many companies do very well in times of war. I do not believe in conspiracies that the CEOs of these companies plotted in dark rooms to cause a war to break out; But I do believe that some of them may have been motivated by more than just patriotic fervor in their support of the war effort. Let's not forget that "the love of money is the root of all evil."
Is it crazy to think that maybe some people may profit from war in a non-violent sense then? Any rational person could see that it is likely to happen. So who are these people who benefit from this modern day war that is not a physical war? Those who are supplying the war material. And there are many people have gotten very rich and powerful from this war mentality. I don't know the true motives of these people, so I'll try not to criticize them too much, but are Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Rachel Maddow, or Michael Moore suffering financially because of this "war" they've helped create? These people have all benefited by providing the munitions of anger and misinformation to this "war". Hannity and Limbaugh have had long successful careers directed at destroying "the liberal media", the "leftist elitists", and now the horrible "Never-Trumpers"; but ask yourself, to what end has this accomplished anything?
If we're honest with ourselves, we'd realize that these people are just entertainers. They are entertainers who make money off of the amount of listeners they have. And I can tell you from personal experience, if you're not mad and you don't believe in this "war", you typically don't listen to Rush or Hannity. And the more listeners that become this way, the fewer listeners they would have. Thus, the less money they would make. And if we are honest with ourselves, we'd admit that getting political advice on a complex global economy and geopolitical issues from a college drop-out probably isn't the best idea.
That's not to say that college dropouts are worthless or don't know anything, but would you get financial advice from someone who studied nursing and couldn't finish nursing school? Would you go to a diesel mechanic for legal advice? Would you go to the local priest if your transmission blew out? If you wanted to learn how to swim, would you find the nearest McDonald's and ask the cashier? I'm sure many of us would say that we wouldn't normally do these things. Education and experience in a subject tend to lead to master of that subject. So why then, do many get their political advice from those who have no political experience? We seem to get mad at Hollywood actors voicing their political opinions (when we disagree with them) because we believe that they don't know what they're talking about because they are actors. Yet, we're faithful followers of men who never finished college and have little work experience outside of talk radio. Does that not strike you as something to be concerned about? Are you really getting the best political advice when you listen to these people? Have you ever stopped to think, that they might just have an ulterior motive to keep you listening? It's estimated that Rush Limbaugh is the 11th highest earning celebrity in the world. Yes, you read that correctly. His radio contract is for upwards of $80 million a year! His bank account depends on how many people listen to his show. Strong emotions tend to keep listeners. Ask yourself how many people do you know that consistently watch Hannity or Maddow and aren't perpetually mad? You'll probably realize that it's a lot fewer than you think.
So hopefully now we see that this "war" had caused some people to benefit greatly from it. I don't want to say that what they are saying is false. They do bring up some valid points and there are legitimate things to be concerned about. But just because there is a conflict going on now between two very different mindsets, does not mean we are at war. Shouting that the other side is trying to destroy America has never, and will never accomplish anything good. All it causes is massive amounts of rash emotions and sensationalism. And sensationalism rarely solves any problems, and almost always causes additional problems to the one it is trying to solve. Shouting that abortion is murder in front of a Planned Parenthood is highly unlikely to dissuade anyone from voting for a Hillary Clinton. Treating them like a human being and holding a rational discussion with them, and explaining to them why it is wrong is a much better solution.
What are the implications for this constant state of war that we seem to be in? Does it really have ramifications? Are there really consequences? After all, who doesn't enjoy what they believe to righteous indignation? The consequences from this mindset are rarely good.
To be continued...
An interesting thing about wars is that there are always people who profit from them. Munitions and war materials aren't cheap, and someone has to provide them. Outside of a pure Communistic regime, it is typically the private sector that supplies these war materials. Many of the largest corporations in the world today were grown exponentially during the Second World War. Companies like DuPont, Coca-Cola, Ford, Boeing, Rolls Royce, and Winchester profited greatly by supplying the Allies with war materials; as well as several companies that supplied the Axis powers like Mercedes-Benz and Mitsubishi. Many companies do very well in times of war. I do not believe in conspiracies that the CEOs of these companies plotted in dark rooms to cause a war to break out; But I do believe that some of them may have been motivated by more than just patriotic fervor in their support of the war effort. Let's not forget that "the love of money is the root of all evil."
Is it crazy to think that maybe some people may profit from war in a non-violent sense then? Any rational person could see that it is likely to happen. So who are these people who benefit from this modern day war that is not a physical war? Those who are supplying the war material. And there are many people have gotten very rich and powerful from this war mentality. I don't know the true motives of these people, so I'll try not to criticize them too much, but are Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Rachel Maddow, or Michael Moore suffering financially because of this "war" they've helped create? These people have all benefited by providing the munitions of anger and misinformation to this "war". Hannity and Limbaugh have had long successful careers directed at destroying "the liberal media", the "leftist elitists", and now the horrible "Never-Trumpers"; but ask yourself, to what end has this accomplished anything?
If we're honest with ourselves, we'd realize that these people are just entertainers. They are entertainers who make money off of the amount of listeners they have. And I can tell you from personal experience, if you're not mad and you don't believe in this "war", you typically don't listen to Rush or Hannity. And the more listeners that become this way, the fewer listeners they would have. Thus, the less money they would make. And if we are honest with ourselves, we'd admit that getting political advice on a complex global economy and geopolitical issues from a college drop-out probably isn't the best idea.
That's not to say that college dropouts are worthless or don't know anything, but would you get financial advice from someone who studied nursing and couldn't finish nursing school? Would you go to a diesel mechanic for legal advice? Would you go to the local priest if your transmission blew out? If you wanted to learn how to swim, would you find the nearest McDonald's and ask the cashier? I'm sure many of us would say that we wouldn't normally do these things. Education and experience in a subject tend to lead to master of that subject. So why then, do many get their political advice from those who have no political experience? We seem to get mad at Hollywood actors voicing their political opinions (when we disagree with them) because we believe that they don't know what they're talking about because they are actors. Yet, we're faithful followers of men who never finished college and have little work experience outside of talk radio. Does that not strike you as something to be concerned about? Are you really getting the best political advice when you listen to these people? Have you ever stopped to think, that they might just have an ulterior motive to keep you listening? It's estimated that Rush Limbaugh is the 11th highest earning celebrity in the world. Yes, you read that correctly. His radio contract is for upwards of $80 million a year! His bank account depends on how many people listen to his show. Strong emotions tend to keep listeners. Ask yourself how many people do you know that consistently watch Hannity or Maddow and aren't perpetually mad? You'll probably realize that it's a lot fewer than you think.
So hopefully now we see that this "war" had caused some people to benefit greatly from it. I don't want to say that what they are saying is false. They do bring up some valid points and there are legitimate things to be concerned about. But just because there is a conflict going on now between two very different mindsets, does not mean we are at war. Shouting that the other side is trying to destroy America has never, and will never accomplish anything good. All it causes is massive amounts of rash emotions and sensationalism. And sensationalism rarely solves any problems, and almost always causes additional problems to the one it is trying to solve. Shouting that abortion is murder in front of a Planned Parenthood is highly unlikely to dissuade anyone from voting for a Hillary Clinton. Treating them like a human being and holding a rational discussion with them, and explaining to them why it is wrong is a much better solution.
What are the implications for this constant state of war that we seem to be in? Does it really have ramifications? Are there really consequences? After all, who doesn't enjoy what they believe to righteous indignation? The consequences from this mindset are rarely good.
To be continued...
Thursday, July 6, 2017
War, Huh, Yeah. What Is It Good For? Pt. 1
"These are the times that try men's souls."
"You are about to embark upon a great crusade."
"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."
These are words spoken in times of actual war. Times when our country and its way of life was at stake.
Today, we are not at war. The survival of country, as we know it, is not at stake. We are not engaged in another Civil War. We are not left with only binary choices regarding our future. We are not left at a crossroads of one choice leading us to eternal damnation and the other leading us to glory. We are not at war.
But we have made to believe that we are. We're told every day that we are at war. We're told that Republicans want to destroy our healthcare and freedoms while we're being told that Democrats want to destroy our religion and confiscate our guns. All of these ultimatum-like talking points serve one purpose, and that is to make us believe that we actually are at war.
Why do so many people, on both sides of the aisle, insist on fighting this war? Why do so many in our country relish in the fact that we are so divided right now? Why do so many people seem to promote the idea of war? Why do so many people get their fulfillment in the life by being mad at "the other side of the aisle"? Why are we so angry all the time? The answer to these questions is simple: war allows the worst deprivations of mankind to be justified. Many of the most heinous crimes in history have committed in times of war. War has been used as a justification of crimes, hatred, and bigotry for centuries, and it continues to be today.
Example:
The Holocaust, one of the worst atrocities of human history, was perpetrated against the Jews because Hitler and his cronies deemed them to be the cause of Germany's demise. Hitler and the Nazis believed that tt was the Jewish bankers who had sold Germany out in 1918 and led them to the humiliation of Versailles. To the Nazis, Jews thought differently, they acted differently, they celebrated non-Germanic holidays, many were wealthy, and they looked different than many Germans, so to the Nazis, Jews couldn't be true Germans. The Jews were different from the model Germans Hitler envisioned; so to him, they were enemies of the true German people. As enemies, they were not worthy to live in "the Reich" as normal German citizens. As enemies, they weren't even worthy to live. To eliminate the Jews was to ensure Germany's survival. And to question this mindset or to speak out against this bigotry was to speak out against the state, and speaking out against the state was considered treason. What higher crime could a citizen commit than treason against his country? Have you ever wondered why so few Germans spoke out against the Holocaust during the war? How could so many people ignore the plight of people whose only crime was practicing a different religion or holding a different political persuasion? The answer to this question is that the Germans were made to believe that the survival of their state and their cherished fatherland took precedent over another group of people, because they were at war. Would you betray your country for another group of people that were different than you? If we're honest, could the Holocaust occurred in 1934 when Germany was not at war?
Another example of this war mentality is the Holodomor. The Holodomor is one of the lesser known tragedies to befall humanity, but it was one of its worst. This horrendous mass starvation was perpetrated by Josef Stalin against the farmers of the Ukraine. This atrocity did not take place during a war in the traditional sense, but rather a cultural war. This was a war against the "Kulaks", the so-called enemies of the working class people of the Soviet Union. It is estimated that around 7-10 million Ukrainians died as a result of this act of mass murder. To put it in perspective, that's more than the number of Jews killed by Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. The Holodomor also occurred in a short time period, roughly 1 year. If you want to lose your appetite for the next few hours, do some reading on the Holodomor.
But now we come to a different dilemma regarding these examples. In both of these examples, the atrocities were not committed by the leaders, but by ordinary people. Yes, the leaders orchestrated them, but Adolf Hitler never dropped a canister of Zyklon B into a gas chamber, not did Josef Stalin confiscate every single scrap of food in a Ukrainian village. These atrocities were carried out by followers of these men. These men knew the atrocities and they knew the suffering of these people, yet they committed these atrocities anyway. Why? How could man stoop so low as to do this to his fellow man? I believe there are two reasons that could bring a man to do this. The first is fear. Fear that if he did not follow orders he or his family would be killed or worse. This can be seen by the vast atrocities committed by Lithuanian, Latvian, Polish, and other Eastern European peoples against the Jews. In many cases, Jews were instrumental in perpetrating the Holocaust. This was not because they wanted to, but because they feared the consequences if they did not. The second reason is that these actions were justified because he was at war with these people. In either case, he could justify his actions by making himself believe that he had chosen the "lesser of two evils". Murder is wrong, but is it wrong if it is done to justify the defense of one's country or family? How many of us would honestly sacrifice ourselves and our families just to die with a stranger? If we're honest, that's not an easy question to answer, even in a perfect situation.
Fortunately, we have the gift of foresight and by looking to the past, we know that neither the Jews nor the Ukrainian Kulaks were responsible for the hardships befalling Germany or the Soviet Union. Yes, there were some Jews who did some bad things. There were Kulaks who abused their power and took advantage of others. But those shortfalls did not lead to downfall of the German or Russian state. But instead of dealing with the real problem, it was much easier to make enemies of a certain group of people that could be easily blamed. Anne Frank was no less of a German than Adolf Hitler was. (She was actually born in Germany, while Hitler was born in Austria, so I guess she technically was, but you understand my point)
The point of this is to say that war allows and makes people do things that they would never normally do. War allows man to stoop to the lowest places he can ever go. War has the potential to turn even the best among us into one of our worst. This is true not just of a literal war, but in a "Cultural" or "Religious" war as well.
One of the most important things to realize about a war, whether literally or metaphorically, is who stands to profit from this war. Money, power, and greed are very strong motivators for war.
To be continued...
"You are about to embark upon a great crusade."
"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."
These are words spoken in times of actual war. Times when our country and its way of life was at stake.
Today, we are not at war. The survival of country, as we know it, is not at stake. We are not engaged in another Civil War. We are not left with only binary choices regarding our future. We are not left at a crossroads of one choice leading us to eternal damnation and the other leading us to glory. We are not at war.
But we have made to believe that we are. We're told every day that we are at war. We're told that Republicans want to destroy our healthcare and freedoms while we're being told that Democrats want to destroy our religion and confiscate our guns. All of these ultimatum-like talking points serve one purpose, and that is to make us believe that we actually are at war.
Why do so many people, on both sides of the aisle, insist on fighting this war? Why do so many in our country relish in the fact that we are so divided right now? Why do so many people seem to promote the idea of war? Why do so many people get their fulfillment in the life by being mad at "the other side of the aisle"? Why are we so angry all the time? The answer to these questions is simple: war allows the worst deprivations of mankind to be justified. Many of the most heinous crimes in history have committed in times of war. War has been used as a justification of crimes, hatred, and bigotry for centuries, and it continues to be today.
Example:
The Holocaust, one of the worst atrocities of human history, was perpetrated against the Jews because Hitler and his cronies deemed them to be the cause of Germany's demise. Hitler and the Nazis believed that tt was the Jewish bankers who had sold Germany out in 1918 and led them to the humiliation of Versailles. To the Nazis, Jews thought differently, they acted differently, they celebrated non-Germanic holidays, many were wealthy, and they looked different than many Germans, so to the Nazis, Jews couldn't be true Germans. The Jews were different from the model Germans Hitler envisioned; so to him, they were enemies of the true German people. As enemies, they were not worthy to live in "the Reich" as normal German citizens. As enemies, they weren't even worthy to live. To eliminate the Jews was to ensure Germany's survival. And to question this mindset or to speak out against this bigotry was to speak out against the state, and speaking out against the state was considered treason. What higher crime could a citizen commit than treason against his country? Have you ever wondered why so few Germans spoke out against the Holocaust during the war? How could so many people ignore the plight of people whose only crime was practicing a different religion or holding a different political persuasion? The answer to this question is that the Germans were made to believe that the survival of their state and their cherished fatherland took precedent over another group of people, because they were at war. Would you betray your country for another group of people that were different than you? If we're honest, could the Holocaust occurred in 1934 when Germany was not at war?
Another example of this war mentality is the Holodomor. The Holodomor is one of the lesser known tragedies to befall humanity, but it was one of its worst. This horrendous mass starvation was perpetrated by Josef Stalin against the farmers of the Ukraine. This atrocity did not take place during a war in the traditional sense, but rather a cultural war. This was a war against the "Kulaks", the so-called enemies of the working class people of the Soviet Union. It is estimated that around 7-10 million Ukrainians died as a result of this act of mass murder. To put it in perspective, that's more than the number of Jews killed by Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. The Holodomor also occurred in a short time period, roughly 1 year. If you want to lose your appetite for the next few hours, do some reading on the Holodomor.
But now we come to a different dilemma regarding these examples. In both of these examples, the atrocities were not committed by the leaders, but by ordinary people. Yes, the leaders orchestrated them, but Adolf Hitler never dropped a canister of Zyklon B into a gas chamber, not did Josef Stalin confiscate every single scrap of food in a Ukrainian village. These atrocities were carried out by followers of these men. These men knew the atrocities and they knew the suffering of these people, yet they committed these atrocities anyway. Why? How could man stoop so low as to do this to his fellow man? I believe there are two reasons that could bring a man to do this. The first is fear. Fear that if he did not follow orders he or his family would be killed or worse. This can be seen by the vast atrocities committed by Lithuanian, Latvian, Polish, and other Eastern European peoples against the Jews. In many cases, Jews were instrumental in perpetrating the Holocaust. This was not because they wanted to, but because they feared the consequences if they did not. The second reason is that these actions were justified because he was at war with these people. In either case, he could justify his actions by making himself believe that he had chosen the "lesser of two evils". Murder is wrong, but is it wrong if it is done to justify the defense of one's country or family? How many of us would honestly sacrifice ourselves and our families just to die with a stranger? If we're honest, that's not an easy question to answer, even in a perfect situation.
Fortunately, we have the gift of foresight and by looking to the past, we know that neither the Jews nor the Ukrainian Kulaks were responsible for the hardships befalling Germany or the Soviet Union. Yes, there were some Jews who did some bad things. There were Kulaks who abused their power and took advantage of others. But those shortfalls did not lead to downfall of the German or Russian state. But instead of dealing with the real problem, it was much easier to make enemies of a certain group of people that could be easily blamed. Anne Frank was no less of a German than Adolf Hitler was. (She was actually born in Germany, while Hitler was born in Austria, so I guess she technically was, but you understand my point)
The point of this is to say that war allows and makes people do things that they would never normally do. War allows man to stoop to the lowest places he can ever go. War has the potential to turn even the best among us into one of our worst. This is true not just of a literal war, but in a "Cultural" or "Religious" war as well.
One of the most important things to realize about a war, whether literally or metaphorically, is who stands to profit from this war. Money, power, and greed are very strong motivators for war.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)