So I saw an article in my local newspaper this morning about a marked rise in elder abuse in this country. There's a similar article here. The reality is that current projections, according to that article, show that the number of Americans over age 65 will DOUBLE by 2030. The so called "baby boomer" generation is said to be some 74 million strong. Thanks to our ever growing population of selfish youngsters we're increasingly putting our elders into homes, stealing their retirements, and treating them like children, verbally and physically abusing them.
I'm not going to address the elder abuse specifically. The point I'd like to get out is that we should not be surprised. We have been warned for years now that our society has been moving this direction. There is a culture of selfishness and death in our nation (and world) like never before. Whether we are willing to admit it or not we're in some ways become like the loathed Nazi Germany. The Nazi party at the time began disarming the public (as many Democrats are now asking for). They then began systematically segregating certain portions of the population which were seen as "less desirable". The most widely recognized of those people were the Jews (of which millions were killed). However, what isn't as commonly known are all the so called "mentally ill" and physically disabled persons who were housed in "hospitals". These people were entirely removed from society as some manner of perfecting the German populace. Ultimately, they too were killed in manners strikingly similar to those used to destroy the Jewish population.
So what does this have to do with America today? We have ultimately decided, be it consciously or not, that old people are no longer desirable. As children of these aging folks we simply don't want to care for them. We don't want the hassle. We don't want the expense (and maybe we simply can't pay for it). It is, after all, difficult to take care of an adult person. Especially if that person has lost mental capacity or physical capacities (or both!). So now we place all our old people into segregation from the general population. Or we simply move away and don't live anywhere near them. During the time I spent in law enforcement I recall many times where we dealt with aging persons who had no relatives that lived in the same state. It was difficult to get assistance for these persons who often were beginning to suffer from memory issues (like Alzheimer Disease).
But we shouldn't be surprised. We are after all a country that destroys hundreds of thousands of unborn children every single year. Planned Parenthood along claimed to have perform some 330,000 abortions last year. Here is yet another example of our desire to remove those whom we deem "undesirable" or "inconvenient". The war cry of the "pro-choice" groups continues to be that they want to "choose" when to have a child. Why is it no longer considered the right or responsible thing to simply stop having sex? If you ask me, aside from being forcibly raped, any woman who becomes pregnant made the choice to do so. She willingly allowed a man to impregnate her after all. It's not like it was some random event and nobody "saw it coming". We do after all have scientific evidence pointing toward a correlation between sex and pregnancy.
Today however many of us choose not to have children because we either want to focus on our career, finances, or simply don't want the responsibility. These I would suggest are the same excuses we would use for neglecting or abusing our elders. Now, I'm not saying that every person who has placed their aging parent in a home is inherently evil and selfish. There are certainly circumstances where a person simply cannot provide the 24 hour care that's needed for some of our aging population. If you have a job and children and suddenly have a parent who needs constant care I can understand entirely how you might not be able to do it (especially alone). But we're getting to the point now where people are suggesting we start euthanizing the elderly!
When does it stop? At what point do we finally decide we have to draw the line? The problem with the selfish nature of our culture is that we are no longer capable of thinking logically (let alone morally). We've become so adept that rationalizing our excuses into valid reasons that we can come up with a legitimate excuse for just about anything we want. There are now lots of so called reasons why we should legalize dangerous drugs. We rationalize why we should be spending more and more money on welfare programs that aren't even designed to help people back on their feet. We rationalize that the pro-life movement is just a bunch of crotchety old white men who want to oppress women by forcing them to give up their "rights" to abortion. Yet, ironically, most of the people who are really influentially pushing the pro-life cause are actually women!
Until we stop living in such a selfish manner things are only going to get worse. We want things handed to us on a silver platter. We don't want inconveniences. We want more and more "rights" to things which no right should even be had. We don't want to live rightly, justly, or properly. We simply want to live our own way. We want to decide what is right and what is wrong for us specifically. No longer does it matter what anyone else thinks; they're all wrong after all. Our mentality has become "What's right for me may not be what's right for you." Let's face it folks, after the entirety of humanity's existence we've gotten nowhere. We're right back to Original Sin.
We want to be gods for ourselves. We want to decide right and wrong.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Friday, December 28, 2012
Chicago: Gun Free Zone hits Record Homicide Rate
The city of Chicago has managed to hit the 500 mark for the year. Chicago is not known for being crime free by any means. But you can certainly start calling it one of the most dangerous cities in the country at this point. The city has now confirmed, or have they, 500 homicides in a single calendar year. Though according to a Chicago Tribune article the city seems to be doing all they can to use semantics to keep the tally at 499 instead of that infamous 500. Regardless the murder rate in Chicago is up 17% this year from last. Gun crime is up 11% in a city that severely restricts gun ownership. In fact Illinois is still the only state with an outright ban on obtaining concealed weapon permits (something the Federal courts have just ruled against). Yet even as this crime ridden city screams for tighter "gun control" things seem to be getting worse.
This seemingly "gun free" zone does not seem to be working! Only the bad guys seem to have guns in Chicago. This is the model that the liberally minded left is pushing more and more since the horrendous Sandy Hook school shooting. Interesting to me is how often I see news stories through sites like Drudge Report about double digit shootings in Chicago over 24 hour periods. Now, not all these are fatal. But in a city where gun ownership is practically outlawed explain to me how such a thing can happen. So many cities around the country have legal gun ownership, concealed carry permits, and no where near the number of shootings. Let alone the overall murder rate. This makes me think the gun correlation is perhaps, not what they seem to think it is?
Here's a couple examples of what a seemingly typical Chicago evening can culminate to:
- 8 Killed
- 30 Injured
November 2012 (Whole Month):
- 192 Shootings
- Shootings up 49%
- 5 Killed
- 24 Injured
This came from a simple Google search for news articles from Chicago itself. This total of 500 homicides for the city of Chicago includes people who died from other forms of violence. Imagine how many people are actually shot annually in Chicago. This blogger claims that there was actually a total of 2,640 shooting victims in Chicago as of December 19th, 2012. How is it that there are so many shootings in a single (albeit large) city every single year if you are not allowed to carry a gun?
Illinois State apparently prohibits any person from knowingly carrying a firearm openly or concealed on their person (unless in their own home/property). You can't even transport a firearm in a vehicle unless it is broken down into an unusable state, not immediately accessible, or enclosed in a case. At this point the laws render the firearm totally useless (and the owner defenseless). And you cannot obtain (because Illinois prohibits them) a concealed weapon permit. Yet somehow all these people are shooting each other with guns they can't legally carry?
I'm having a hard time understanding how they can continue to have record homicide rates and all these shootings if it's against the law to carry a gun. That would suggest that lots and lots of people are breaking the law and carrying guns to be used in criminal acts. Having been a police officer in my lifetime I can attest to something very simple, yet seemingly hard to grasp. Laws don't necessarily prevent activity. Laws provide a recourse for law enforcement when people choose to participate in an activity which is deemed by the populace at large to be unacceptable (in this case, illegal).
Here is a very simple and effective example.
"Thou shalt not kill."
This is a fairly basic law in just about every corner of our world. Yet people are murdered every single day on this little planet of ours. This may seem really sarcastic to some readers. But it's really just extremely simple. Just because it's against the law doesn't mean people won't do it. There is a certain element that will do whatever they feel like doing, whenever they feel like doing it, simply because they feel like it. As Chicago is such a great example of this also includes obtaining a firearm, carrying it illegally, and shooting and killing people even though all these things are illegal. Yet, meanwhile, the average citizen in the Chicago area who is mentally stable, moral, responsible, hard working, and law abiding will remain defenseless because they choose not to disobey the legal authorities (which is always the proper thing to do).
Let's face the reality here. Criminals will always find ways to obtain power over their victims. Be it attacking them while they're vulnerable (burglary of an unoccupied dwelling for instance) or using weapons against them (armed robbery, home invasion, etc). However, when faced with a person who refuses to be a victim these criminals often move on to target someone else (though not always). This element is usually looking for the easy score (which is why they don't make their living honestly by working 40 hours a week and getting along like the rest of us).
Here's the good news for Chicago (and the rest of Illinois). A federal appeals court recently struck down the Illinois ban on concealed weapons citing it as Unconstitutional. According to the Chicago Tribune Illinois now has 6 months to create laws to govern this newly found constitutional right to Illinois residents. Perhaps, as the criminal element discovers law abiding citizens are now legally packing heat, we can have a decrease in homicides (let alone shootings).
Obviously the severe restrictions on firearm possession in Chicago is simply not fixing their violence problem. There is more to this story than just guns though. The poverty, lack of married families, lack of fathers, presence of gangs, lack of education, you name them all.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Pretending to Prevent Mass Shootings
So here's a couple of interesting bits of information for public consumption. While the Senate is preparing a bill to ban "assault weapons" (with 120 specific weapons listed) and anything that holds or feeds more than 10 rounds President Obama is enjoying the luxury of gun toting security. He reportedly told a reporter that one of the main perks of being president is having his teenage daughter protected by armed men (1).
Meanwhile, he also sends his children to a school that routinely employs armed security to protect campus. As do folks in the media according to this news article (2). They're sure glad their children have guns around them but think it's a horrible idea that your children have the same protection.
Honestly, this reminds me quite a bit about the socialist forms of government in this world. China for example has called for Americans to be disarmed by the government. Meanwhile in China only the government and their agents are allowed to have guns. Not like that seems to protect anyone. It's well known that China greatly oppresses it's people. There have also been several stories recently of men in China going on rampages without firearms and injuring or killing people (two stories specifically involved schools). One man used a car to run down middle school students (3). The other man used a knife in a kindergarten (4).
We're pointing fingers at the wrong culprit. This is not a gun issue, as evidenced by the same issues occurring in China but without guns. This is both an issue of morality and mental health.
Meanwhile as the liberal left launches a full scale farce (I mean attack) on firearms rights we're seeing record sales on firearms, ammunition, magazines, etc. Brownells reports they've sold 3 1/2 years worth of PMAGs in just 72 hours (5)! This is a bit ironic considering this is exactly what the left does not want. Yet they have only themselves to blame for this increase in sales. They don't want people to have high capacity magazines and so called "assault weapons" (i.e. anything that looks cool and fires semi-auto). Meanwhile, in a vain attempt at pretending to address the problem in hopes of appeasing the liberal left populace Senator Feinstein has introduced a bill to be brought to the Senate floor in January. This bill would reenact the 1994 ban on "assault weapons" by specifically naming 120 firearms to be banned. It also removes the requirement to identify "assault weapons" by 2 characteristics and makes it easier by utilizing only one characteristic. To top that, any magazine or feeding device which contains more than 10 rounds will become illegal.
As if this wasn't enough, any firearms which are owned prior to the ban would be required to be registered with the Federal government. This process would require the involvement of local law enforcement (along with the ATF) to do a background check on you all over again, obtain photo ID, a fingerprint, and properly identify the type of firearm and it's serial number (6). They might as well require the local police to fire your weapon, collect the bullet, and send it to the FBI to be identified and cataloged as well. Because that way after the nut job goes nuts and kills people it'll make it easier to identify which gun killed whom.
Let's face it folks none of this is real progress toward the end goal that politicians claim they want. It's all a bunch of emotional knee jerk response so we can feel better about ourselves for "doing something". If anything we'll put a solid spike in the gun market, drive prices of firearms and ammunition up, and make sure everyone buys NOW NOW NOW.
We need to get real here and stop pretending. Every single one of these folks who went on a shooting spree was known to have had issues mentally. They were all identified as loners, people who segregated themselves, been "off" or "weird" or some other description. Most of them had been to psychological therapy of some kind, were known to have had issues in school, etc. This doesn't mean every shy kid is a mass murderer. It doesn't mean every autistic kid is violent either. However, none of these shooters was known to be "an every day guy." There were warning signs to those around them if anyone cared to watch.
Taking away 15 round magazines from these shooters and forcing them to go on a rampage with 10 round magazines is not going to realistically prevent anything. If these guys put even 30 minutes into practicing changing magazines before they went on their rampage it would hardly slow them down at all. They would just want to carry and extra magazine to compensate for having fewer rounds in the firearm. Full size magazines are critical when confronted by a life or death situation to protect yourself or others. These are incidents where that split second truly counts and changing magazines could leave you in a defenseless situation in a drawn out gunfight. The mass murder is almost always uncontested in their rampage however so that smaller magazine and reload time will likely not make much difference.
Check out this article for details on each of the recent mass shootings. The writer has detailed the weapons used, how the rampage was ended, and whether or not it was legal to possess a firearm in that location. Of the 21 shootings only two of them were places citizens could legally carry a firearm. Only two shootings were considered to have been ended because a good guy with a gun confronted the shooter. One of these incidents the shooter was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer who are ILLEGALLY carrying a firearm on private property that prohibited the carrying of firearms (that mall subsequently removed their prohibition). Thank God that cop had broken the law that day I say. Had he/she not been carrying more people would have been hurt or killed. I certainly don't condone police officers violating the law. But from a life standpoint I'm glad that officer had broken the law that specific day as it prevented further harm.
Reality is, most of these mass murderers was stopped by their own gun. The rampage only ended because they quit and killed themselves. Imagine if they hadn't killed themselves...
Mentally stable moral adults do not kill other people.
Meanwhile, he also sends his children to a school that routinely employs armed security to protect campus. As do folks in the media according to this news article (2). They're sure glad their children have guns around them but think it's a horrible idea that your children have the same protection.
Honestly, this reminds me quite a bit about the socialist forms of government in this world. China for example has called for Americans to be disarmed by the government. Meanwhile in China only the government and their agents are allowed to have guns. Not like that seems to protect anyone. It's well known that China greatly oppresses it's people. There have also been several stories recently of men in China going on rampages without firearms and injuring or killing people (two stories specifically involved schools). One man used a car to run down middle school students (3). The other man used a knife in a kindergarten (4).
We're pointing fingers at the wrong culprit. This is not a gun issue, as evidenced by the same issues occurring in China but without guns. This is both an issue of morality and mental health.
Meanwhile as the liberal left launches a full scale farce (I mean attack) on firearms rights we're seeing record sales on firearms, ammunition, magazines, etc. Brownells reports they've sold 3 1/2 years worth of PMAGs in just 72 hours (5)! This is a bit ironic considering this is exactly what the left does not want. Yet they have only themselves to blame for this increase in sales. They don't want people to have high capacity magazines and so called "assault weapons" (i.e. anything that looks cool and fires semi-auto). Meanwhile, in a vain attempt at pretending to address the problem in hopes of appeasing the liberal left populace Senator Feinstein has introduced a bill to be brought to the Senate floor in January. This bill would reenact the 1994 ban on "assault weapons" by specifically naming 120 firearms to be banned. It also removes the requirement to identify "assault weapons" by 2 characteristics and makes it easier by utilizing only one characteristic. To top that, any magazine or feeding device which contains more than 10 rounds will become illegal.
As if this wasn't enough, any firearms which are owned prior to the ban would be required to be registered with the Federal government. This process would require the involvement of local law enforcement (along with the ATF) to do a background check on you all over again, obtain photo ID, a fingerprint, and properly identify the type of firearm and it's serial number (6). They might as well require the local police to fire your weapon, collect the bullet, and send it to the FBI to be identified and cataloged as well. Because that way after the nut job goes nuts and kills people it'll make it easier to identify which gun killed whom.
Let's face it folks none of this is real progress toward the end goal that politicians claim they want. It's all a bunch of emotional knee jerk response so we can feel better about ourselves for "doing something". If anything we'll put a solid spike in the gun market, drive prices of firearms and ammunition up, and make sure everyone buys NOW NOW NOW.
We need to get real here and stop pretending. Every single one of these folks who went on a shooting spree was known to have had issues mentally. They were all identified as loners, people who segregated themselves, been "off" or "weird" or some other description. Most of them had been to psychological therapy of some kind, were known to have had issues in school, etc. This doesn't mean every shy kid is a mass murderer. It doesn't mean every autistic kid is violent either. However, none of these shooters was known to be "an every day guy." There were warning signs to those around them if anyone cared to watch.
Taking away 15 round magazines from these shooters and forcing them to go on a rampage with 10 round magazines is not going to realistically prevent anything. If these guys put even 30 minutes into practicing changing magazines before they went on their rampage it would hardly slow them down at all. They would just want to carry and extra magazine to compensate for having fewer rounds in the firearm. Full size magazines are critical when confronted by a life or death situation to protect yourself or others. These are incidents where that split second truly counts and changing magazines could leave you in a defenseless situation in a drawn out gunfight. The mass murder is almost always uncontested in their rampage however so that smaller magazine and reload time will likely not make much difference.
Check out this article for details on each of the recent mass shootings. The writer has detailed the weapons used, how the rampage was ended, and whether or not it was legal to possess a firearm in that location. Of the 21 shootings only two of them were places citizens could legally carry a firearm. Only two shootings were considered to have been ended because a good guy with a gun confronted the shooter. One of these incidents the shooter was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer who are ILLEGALLY carrying a firearm on private property that prohibited the carrying of firearms (that mall subsequently removed their prohibition). Thank God that cop had broken the law that day I say. Had he/she not been carrying more people would have been hurt or killed. I certainly don't condone police officers violating the law. But from a life standpoint I'm glad that officer had broken the law that specific day as it prevented further harm.
Reality is, most of these mass murderers was stopped by their own gun. The rampage only ended because they quit and killed themselves. Imagine if they hadn't killed themselves...
Mentally stable moral adults do not kill other people.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The Liberally Ignorant & Guns
I've been thinking about the Sandy Hook school shootings since the morning it happened. How can we not? It's been in the news ever since. Plus, how do you get over the fact that a mentally ill person murdered 20 children? Plus six adults of course. But honestly how does anyone intentionally shoot and kill children? I wonder this same question every time the news reports a mother or father who kills their children and commits suicide. What good did this person possibly believe they were doing for their child? I wonder this every time the news tells us a man killed his wife, children, and then commit suicide. Where is the outcry for so called "gun-control" in these domestic violence reports?
No, "gun-control" only becomes an issue when it's a very public murder. Something where a dozen or more people are killed all at once. Or when a very public or political figure is killed (or almost killed). I find it interesting how we seem to vilify the man who kills his wife and children yet somehow we vilify the gun itself when another man kills random people in a public setting. In both cases we deceive ourselves ultimately. The gun is simply a tool. Just like a knife, explosive materials, or any other object which ultimately is used to bring about the death of others. The real impetus to the act of murder is ultimately either an issue of severe emotional chaos (lack of emotional control), severe mental illness, or a lack of moral values and respect for human life.
We should be talking about abortion quite honestly. What is the difference between abortion and the Sandy Hook murders? In both cases children were the target of a murderer. I'm sure the so called "pro-choice" movement will have a knee jerk reaction of dismay to my saying this. What's the difference though? In both cases an intentional act was made which resulted in the death of a child; a human being. Thousands of unborn children are murdered every single day in this world. The media certainly doesn't give that story the time of day.
But there is a different impetus behind each of these acts. Inherently both are purely selfish. Both show a lack of value for human dignity. However, one is more apparently driven by mental illness (mass shootings, bombings, etc) where as the other is driven by a simple lack of moral values (abortion). The former could be resolved or at least improved by seriously figuring out how to properly administer help to those whom are truly mentally ill. It's not like any of the recent mass shooters were an absolute surprise to everyone who actually knew them. They all showed signs and symptoms along the way. The latter could ultimately be resolved by making legal changes (or by simply becoming a more moral and faithful people once again).
This hyper emotional focus on "gun-control" is a farce to say it nicely. First of all, the very term in and of itself is incorrect to begin with. What they really mean to say is "outlaw guns". The media loves using false terms when it comes to firearms anyhow. Several times a day I see them using the terms "assault weapons" and "automatic weapons" when referring to civilian firearms. These terms are used by the "Liberally Ignorant" I've decided. It seems to me the false use of terminology is both a case of being ignorant (uneducated on the issue) and liberal in political agenda.
In today's modern world most firearms owned by civilians are meant for one of two purposes. I would wager that most of them anymore are owned for self-defense purposes. However, many Americans are avid hunters. Of the hunting variety there may very well be a disproportionate amount of single fire type firearms (such as "bolt action rifles"). However, many modern shotguns and rifles which are designed specifically for hunting are now "semi-automatic". So what exactly does this "semi-automatic" mean? Well, "semi" means half or partial. Therefore, it's either half or partially automatic. This means you can shoot the firearm more than once without actually having to reload it. That's really what it means. The firearm automatically puts another bullet into the firing chamber each time you shoot it. However, it does not automatically fire the next round for you. That folks, is what an "automatic" weapon does. You could also call that a "machine gun". Pull the trigger down once and hold it and the gun will keep shooting rounds until it runs out of them.
Semi-automatic weapons include a large portion of hunting related firearms these days. Many shotguns (used for hunting big game, dove, quail, water fowl, etc) are being made in a semi-automatic fashion to improve the hunters odds of hitting a moving/flying target. I hunted with an old single shot 12 ga shotgun as a youth and I can attest to the fact that it's not very easy hunting dove or quail when the first and only shot is all that counts. The same goes for many rifles these days. Unfortunately, many of these semi-automatic rifles look very similar to the automatic versions of them used by modern day militarily. Therefore, the liberally ignorant think they're all the same darn thing.
But what about handguns? I'd wager that the mass majority of handguns sold today are the semi-automatic variety. And quite frankly I wouldn't wish to own a handgun that was not semi-automatic. The point of a handgun is for self-defense purposes in my mind. It's for last second survival against a deadly threat against yourself or someone you should be protecting. I want that second, or third shot if I need it. But that's really beside the point quite frankly. Because this whole ordeal isn't really about guns to begin with. None of these mass shooting suspects killed a bunch of people with a single gun anyhow. If these so called "automatic weapons" are so overkill why did these guys all show up with multiple guns?
Again, that's even beside the point. A gun can kill someone regardless of what kind it is. Even a BB gun can kill someone under the proper circumstances. David killed Goliath with a slingshot for goodness sake. The point is that if someone decides they are going to kill someone there's not a whole lot we can do about it. Unless we know ahead of time what's going to happen all we can do is try to defend ourselves if and when that time comes. And quite frankly, that irrational person is going to be hell bent on accomplishing their goal no matter what they have to use to do it. We need to understand and accept that. They will use a car, a bomb, a gun, rocks, shards of glass, nails, anything they can get a hold of if they're actual intention is to kill other people. And we're not likely to talk them out of it.
This is why we need to be focusing on the real issues. These people are sick. Normal human beings don't wake up and decide to kill a bunch of children. Even mentally ill people seem to plan these events out over time rather than a split second decision. So we need to be focusing on figuring out what makes them tick improperly. And we need to focus on getting these people the right kind of treatment whatever that ends up being.
For some, those who simply lack morals, that very well may mean getting them to Church so they can learn how human beings were meant to act toward one another. This country was founded on religious freedom, mostly by Christian leaning people. Somehow we've strayed far, far away from that bent. Now days being a Christian is taboo.
We must remember that laws are like locks. Every lock is ultimately defeat-able. Every law is breakable. Laws keep generally honest people honest. Just like locks keep honest people honest. Those who are inclined to break locks or laws will always do so. Those are the folks who simply do not care about morality or perhaps don't have the mental ability to do so. Legislation does nothing but solve outcry. It will never solve problems. Murder has been a crime throughout the history of mankind.
But people are murdered every single day.
The normal person doesn't live their entire life without committing murder because they're afraid of jail.
The normal person doesn't live their entire life without committing murder because they're incapable.
The normal person lives their entire life without committing murder because it's wrong.
Until we can fix those who are mentally ill and return morals to those who don't have them we will always have pain and suffering. Until we care enough to try... it will never happen.
No, "gun-control" only becomes an issue when it's a very public murder. Something where a dozen or more people are killed all at once. Or when a very public or political figure is killed (or almost killed). I find it interesting how we seem to vilify the man who kills his wife and children yet somehow we vilify the gun itself when another man kills random people in a public setting. In both cases we deceive ourselves ultimately. The gun is simply a tool. Just like a knife, explosive materials, or any other object which ultimately is used to bring about the death of others. The real impetus to the act of murder is ultimately either an issue of severe emotional chaos (lack of emotional control), severe mental illness, or a lack of moral values and respect for human life.
We should be talking about abortion quite honestly. What is the difference between abortion and the Sandy Hook murders? In both cases children were the target of a murderer. I'm sure the so called "pro-choice" movement will have a knee jerk reaction of dismay to my saying this. What's the difference though? In both cases an intentional act was made which resulted in the death of a child; a human being. Thousands of unborn children are murdered every single day in this world. The media certainly doesn't give that story the time of day.
But there is a different impetus behind each of these acts. Inherently both are purely selfish. Both show a lack of value for human dignity. However, one is more apparently driven by mental illness (mass shootings, bombings, etc) where as the other is driven by a simple lack of moral values (abortion). The former could be resolved or at least improved by seriously figuring out how to properly administer help to those whom are truly mentally ill. It's not like any of the recent mass shooters were an absolute surprise to everyone who actually knew them. They all showed signs and symptoms along the way. The latter could ultimately be resolved by making legal changes (or by simply becoming a more moral and faithful people once again).
This hyper emotional focus on "gun-control" is a farce to say it nicely. First of all, the very term in and of itself is incorrect to begin with. What they really mean to say is "outlaw guns". The media loves using false terms when it comes to firearms anyhow. Several times a day I see them using the terms "assault weapons" and "automatic weapons" when referring to civilian firearms. These terms are used by the "Liberally Ignorant" I've decided. It seems to me the false use of terminology is both a case of being ignorant (uneducated on the issue) and liberal in political agenda.
In today's modern world most firearms owned by civilians are meant for one of two purposes. I would wager that most of them anymore are owned for self-defense purposes. However, many Americans are avid hunters. Of the hunting variety there may very well be a disproportionate amount of single fire type firearms (such as "bolt action rifles"). However, many modern shotguns and rifles which are designed specifically for hunting are now "semi-automatic". So what exactly does this "semi-automatic" mean? Well, "semi" means half or partial. Therefore, it's either half or partially automatic. This means you can shoot the firearm more than once without actually having to reload it. That's really what it means. The firearm automatically puts another bullet into the firing chamber each time you shoot it. However, it does not automatically fire the next round for you. That folks, is what an "automatic" weapon does. You could also call that a "machine gun". Pull the trigger down once and hold it and the gun will keep shooting rounds until it runs out of them.
Semi-automatic weapons include a large portion of hunting related firearms these days. Many shotguns (used for hunting big game, dove, quail, water fowl, etc) are being made in a semi-automatic fashion to improve the hunters odds of hitting a moving/flying target. I hunted with an old single shot 12 ga shotgun as a youth and I can attest to the fact that it's not very easy hunting dove or quail when the first and only shot is all that counts. The same goes for many rifles these days. Unfortunately, many of these semi-automatic rifles look very similar to the automatic versions of them used by modern day militarily. Therefore, the liberally ignorant think they're all the same darn thing.
But what about handguns? I'd wager that the mass majority of handguns sold today are the semi-automatic variety. And quite frankly I wouldn't wish to own a handgun that was not semi-automatic. The point of a handgun is for self-defense purposes in my mind. It's for last second survival against a deadly threat against yourself or someone you should be protecting. I want that second, or third shot if I need it. But that's really beside the point quite frankly. Because this whole ordeal isn't really about guns to begin with. None of these mass shooting suspects killed a bunch of people with a single gun anyhow. If these so called "automatic weapons" are so overkill why did these guys all show up with multiple guns?
Again, that's even beside the point. A gun can kill someone regardless of what kind it is. Even a BB gun can kill someone under the proper circumstances. David killed Goliath with a slingshot for goodness sake. The point is that if someone decides they are going to kill someone there's not a whole lot we can do about it. Unless we know ahead of time what's going to happen all we can do is try to defend ourselves if and when that time comes. And quite frankly, that irrational person is going to be hell bent on accomplishing their goal no matter what they have to use to do it. We need to understand and accept that. They will use a car, a bomb, a gun, rocks, shards of glass, nails, anything they can get a hold of if they're actual intention is to kill other people. And we're not likely to talk them out of it.
This is why we need to be focusing on the real issues. These people are sick. Normal human beings don't wake up and decide to kill a bunch of children. Even mentally ill people seem to plan these events out over time rather than a split second decision. So we need to be focusing on figuring out what makes them tick improperly. And we need to focus on getting these people the right kind of treatment whatever that ends up being.
For some, those who simply lack morals, that very well may mean getting them to Church so they can learn how human beings were meant to act toward one another. This country was founded on religious freedom, mostly by Christian leaning people. Somehow we've strayed far, far away from that bent. Now days being a Christian is taboo.
We must remember that laws are like locks. Every lock is ultimately defeat-able. Every law is breakable. Laws keep generally honest people honest. Just like locks keep honest people honest. Those who are inclined to break locks or laws will always do so. Those are the folks who simply do not care about morality or perhaps don't have the mental ability to do so. Legislation does nothing but solve outcry. It will never solve problems. Murder has been a crime throughout the history of mankind.
But people are murdered every single day.
The normal person doesn't live their entire life without committing murder because they're afraid of jail.
The normal person doesn't live their entire life without committing murder because they're incapable.
The normal person lives their entire life without committing murder because it's wrong.
Until we can fix those who are mentally ill and return morals to those who don't have them we will always have pain and suffering. Until we care enough to try... it will never happen.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Current State of Affairs
The year 2012 is almost behind us. After what may be the most divisive election year in American history not much has changed politically. President Obama retains his post, the Senate is still firmly controlled by the Democratic Party, and the House of Representatives is still firmly controlled by the Republican Party. It really is quite ironic now that I think about it. I would not have seen it immediately following the election itself. Admittedly I am no fan of President Obama's politics, personal views, or goals. Personally I see him as the absolute wrong direction for America.
That being said I recognize that folks on "both sides of the aisle" were very unhappy with the current state of affairs. The difficult situation before us this time around was the fact that so many divisive topics were at the forefront during this election cycle. Religious liberty, Constitutional protections, health care, the economy, women's rights, immigration, and so many more. Many folks cared so much about a single issue that all of their opinions and votes likely followed in support of that alone. Meanwhile others sought to cast their votes in favor of as many issues as they could. Yet I know of those who simply didn't vote this time around simply because they were either confused (undecided on their own personal views perhaps), put off by all the politics, or simply felt like their vote wasn't really meaningful.
Perhaps it is time for us to do away with the Electoral College and utilize a popular vote system. They say that no President has ever been elected who didn't win both the Electoral College and the popular vote. I still wonder how many millions of Americans simply don't vote because they simply cannot see the point in doing so. To them there seems to be a reality that the government won't truly listen anyhow. And among millions of others what does their singular vote mean? The reality it seems is that a very select handful of states get to decide who the President is every four years. Only recently has Florida officially declared that President Obama won their electoral votes. This being days after the election was called and the President officially accepted the win. Essentially due to Florida taking so long to count their votes they essentially rendered their votes pointless. The election was over long before Florida even finished voting (some folks were said to cast their votes up until midnight!).
Post election I've seen news articles in the UK about US gun sales soaring as people fear a Democratic push to outlaw so called "assault weapons". The United Nations wants to regulate civilian ownership of firearms around the world. The Republican Party seems to be yielding to Obama and the Democratic Party's desires to raise taxes in order to balance the national budget. Let us hope they actually can balance the budget and begin paying off this $16 trillion debt we're currently being smothered by.
Let alone we're now suddenly hearing about the affair of General Petraeus, Iran shooting down a US drone, Attorney General Eric Holder wishing to resign, and who knows what else hasn't come to light yet. Let alone we're stuck with "ObamaCare" now. Here's an interesting tidbit about Obama's "signature" health care law. In an effort to make health care available to all Americans, somehow more affordable, the law now forces employers to limit Medical Flex Savings Accounts to $2,500 or less. For those who may not be familiar with FSA accounts these allow you to take money out of your paycheck (pre-tax money) and set it aside for paying medical bills. Inherently, since you're not paying taxes on that money you essentially save about 30% (which is an estimate of what taxes would remove). For those having a hard time with a high deductible insurance policy these can help considerably with saving for and paying for medical bills. So why on earth would Uncle Sam force us to limit this? I'd like to know what benefit this is to people who can't afford health insurance in the first place?
The reality is there is one benefit (that I'm aware of) to this limitation. It means the government can prevent you from withholding too much money that they can't tax. Depending on whether you normally set aside more than $2,500 a year this could actually be a tax hike. Let alone the new Constitutionally supported (so says the Supreme Court) tax fines against those who don't buy health insurance. Now the IRS has the power to assess a "tax" on anyone who either refuses to or cannot purchase a private health insurance plan. By the way, that health insurance is also required to pay for contraceptives whether you wish to use them or not, are male or female, atheist or religious, rich or poor.
The most amazing part of this whole debate is the fact that three self professed Catholics (Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi & Kathleen Sebelius) are devoutly in support of these requirements. I most certainly find offense to the requirement solely for religious liberty purposes. Yet I also believe that these requirements are unconstitutional (though the Supreme Court disagrees). Most sickening in my mind is the fact that the Supreme Court specifically states these requirements are Constitutional because of the ability of Congress to pass taxes. But let's go back a couple hundred years for a moment. The founding fathers of this great nation stood against the King of England and opposed him for what they saw as tyrannical taxation and attacks on religious liberties.
What bothers me the most is how obvious so many of Obama's tendencies and desires are. Yet so many people seem to be lulled by his promises of "rights". Rights to choose, rights to health care, rights to immigrate, you name it. They all sound nice on the outside but there's so much we need to consider. Choice for example is a great thing. Having the freedom to choose our own form of liberty is perhaps part of what the founding fathers intended. However, I'd imagine few of them would support the so called "choice" to terminate a pregnancy. Inherently what is happening is a shielded attempt to deteriorate the religious foundation of this nation. President Obama declares himself to be a Christian yet just about everything he supports is in direct conflict with Biblical teachings. He's been said to have belonged to communist clubs during his college years for example. The Catholic Church itself has long ago declared that communism itself is intrinsically evil. In fact Pope Pius XI in 1846 stated, "that infamous doctrine of so-called Communism which is absolutely contrary to the natural law itself, and if once adopted would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even society itself."* I find it a bit amusing that no more than fifty or sixty years ago during the Cold War era Americans were scared to death of Communism. Yet here we are with a re-elected president who received public supported from dictators and communist leaders around the world.
My, how our country has changed in such a short period of time. Apparently this last generation has failed quite drastically in passing along it's moral values, views of ethics, ideals, opinions, and experiences. For example, the idea of "Separation of Church & State" used to mean that government could not tell you who to worship, how to worship them, or when and where you could do so. Today anyone younger than retirement age seems to think that concept of separation means that an individual cannot be religious, speak about their religion, practice their religion, or anything else if they are in, on, near, or around those who are near any governmental group or organization. For example, it's now taboo for a student to pray by themselves. Or a politician to allow their own personal religious beliefs to influence or inform how they do their job as an elected official. In fact this separation concept was essentially to protect that individual so that they could indeed retain their religious freedom.
How all this plays out over the next four years of course is up to us. The electorate.
That being said I recognize that folks on "both sides of the aisle" were very unhappy with the current state of affairs. The difficult situation before us this time around was the fact that so many divisive topics were at the forefront during this election cycle. Religious liberty, Constitutional protections, health care, the economy, women's rights, immigration, and so many more. Many folks cared so much about a single issue that all of their opinions and votes likely followed in support of that alone. Meanwhile others sought to cast their votes in favor of as many issues as they could. Yet I know of those who simply didn't vote this time around simply because they were either confused (undecided on their own personal views perhaps), put off by all the politics, or simply felt like their vote wasn't really meaningful.
Perhaps it is time for us to do away with the Electoral College and utilize a popular vote system. They say that no President has ever been elected who didn't win both the Electoral College and the popular vote. I still wonder how many millions of Americans simply don't vote because they simply cannot see the point in doing so. To them there seems to be a reality that the government won't truly listen anyhow. And among millions of others what does their singular vote mean? The reality it seems is that a very select handful of states get to decide who the President is every four years. Only recently has Florida officially declared that President Obama won their electoral votes. This being days after the election was called and the President officially accepted the win. Essentially due to Florida taking so long to count their votes they essentially rendered their votes pointless. The election was over long before Florida even finished voting (some folks were said to cast their votes up until midnight!).
Post election I've seen news articles in the UK about US gun sales soaring as people fear a Democratic push to outlaw so called "assault weapons". The United Nations wants to regulate civilian ownership of firearms around the world. The Republican Party seems to be yielding to Obama and the Democratic Party's desires to raise taxes in order to balance the national budget. Let us hope they actually can balance the budget and begin paying off this $16 trillion debt we're currently being smothered by.
Let alone we're now suddenly hearing about the affair of General Petraeus, Iran shooting down a US drone, Attorney General Eric Holder wishing to resign, and who knows what else hasn't come to light yet. Let alone we're stuck with "ObamaCare" now. Here's an interesting tidbit about Obama's "signature" health care law. In an effort to make health care available to all Americans, somehow more affordable, the law now forces employers to limit Medical Flex Savings Accounts to $2,500 or less. For those who may not be familiar with FSA accounts these allow you to take money out of your paycheck (pre-tax money) and set it aside for paying medical bills. Inherently, since you're not paying taxes on that money you essentially save about 30% (which is an estimate of what taxes would remove). For those having a hard time with a high deductible insurance policy these can help considerably with saving for and paying for medical bills. So why on earth would Uncle Sam force us to limit this? I'd like to know what benefit this is to people who can't afford health insurance in the first place?
The reality is there is one benefit (that I'm aware of) to this limitation. It means the government can prevent you from withholding too much money that they can't tax. Depending on whether you normally set aside more than $2,500 a year this could actually be a tax hike. Let alone the new Constitutionally supported (so says the Supreme Court) tax fines against those who don't buy health insurance. Now the IRS has the power to assess a "tax" on anyone who either refuses to or cannot purchase a private health insurance plan. By the way, that health insurance is also required to pay for contraceptives whether you wish to use them or not, are male or female, atheist or religious, rich or poor.
The most amazing part of this whole debate is the fact that three self professed Catholics (Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi & Kathleen Sebelius) are devoutly in support of these requirements. I most certainly find offense to the requirement solely for religious liberty purposes. Yet I also believe that these requirements are unconstitutional (though the Supreme Court disagrees). Most sickening in my mind is the fact that the Supreme Court specifically states these requirements are Constitutional because of the ability of Congress to pass taxes. But let's go back a couple hundred years for a moment. The founding fathers of this great nation stood against the King of England and opposed him for what they saw as tyrannical taxation and attacks on religious liberties.
What bothers me the most is how obvious so many of Obama's tendencies and desires are. Yet so many people seem to be lulled by his promises of "rights". Rights to choose, rights to health care, rights to immigrate, you name it. They all sound nice on the outside but there's so much we need to consider. Choice for example is a great thing. Having the freedom to choose our own form of liberty is perhaps part of what the founding fathers intended. However, I'd imagine few of them would support the so called "choice" to terminate a pregnancy. Inherently what is happening is a shielded attempt to deteriorate the religious foundation of this nation. President Obama declares himself to be a Christian yet just about everything he supports is in direct conflict with Biblical teachings. He's been said to have belonged to communist clubs during his college years for example. The Catholic Church itself has long ago declared that communism itself is intrinsically evil. In fact Pope Pius XI in 1846 stated, "that infamous doctrine of so-called Communism which is absolutely contrary to the natural law itself, and if once adopted would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even society itself."* I find it a bit amusing that no more than fifty or sixty years ago during the Cold War era Americans were scared to death of Communism. Yet here we are with a re-elected president who received public supported from dictators and communist leaders around the world.
My, how our country has changed in such a short period of time. Apparently this last generation has failed quite drastically in passing along it's moral values, views of ethics, ideals, opinions, and experiences. For example, the idea of "Separation of Church & State" used to mean that government could not tell you who to worship, how to worship them, or when and where you could do so. Today anyone younger than retirement age seems to think that concept of separation means that an individual cannot be religious, speak about their religion, practice their religion, or anything else if they are in, on, near, or around those who are near any governmental group or organization. For example, it's now taboo for a student to pray by themselves. Or a politician to allow their own personal religious beliefs to influence or inform how they do their job as an elected official. In fact this separation concept was essentially to protect that individual so that they could indeed retain their religious freedom.
How all this plays out over the next four years of course is up to us. The electorate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)