Peace
forced upon a land is but
subjection.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Saturday, September 28, 2019
It May take a Spirit without a Body to Prepare for an Eternal Body
I wonder if our judgment would be somewhat impossible if we were to remain in our mortal bodies. I wonder if we must leave our physical bodies -- and be left as spirits only -- in order to be judged.
If this is a truth, I feel almost to tears to be allowed to learn it.
We are told that judgment will come in the hereafter. We are told that every knee will bow, and every tongue confess. I believe I have been taught we will judge ourselves, to some degree. Perhaps that is what is meant by every knee will bow and every tongue confess. I do not know.
I have learned -- or at least it is my observation and, and it does seem to be so -- that our guilt can be so strong, it can kill us. And, I have learned that the passage of time usually allows us to forget our shortcomings.
But if guilt can drive a person to death, that is the death of the physical body. It might anguish our souls, but the soul is eternal and doesn't die. I think of how I have been taught that there will be a period between death and entering a kingdom when we will be in a hell, suffering for our sins. This fits in with what I am saying: While we are are in our spirits -- having shed our bodies -- those spirits are open to the buffetings of guilt. The body would die under such pressure, but it is gone, and the spirit is allowed to be buffeted by the guilt.
The mortal body is accompanied by decline, and that includes the loss of memory. I do not know that our spirits, when alone, retain knowledge better, but I wonder if this is so. Time heals all wounds? The mortal body soon lets go of the memory of its sins, but the spiritual body has no such comfort. A little hell is inflicted.
As I have thought about my own shortcomings -- ones so painful I can see how they could bring me to death -- I have also observed that there can be health in facing them. It is a tender balance, but if I face my shortcomings, and put them in an eternal perspective of being things God will prepare a way for me to escape, then it is peace to my soul. I wonder if there is not even a rejuvenating influence in facing our faults this way. Faults that we do not accept, canker. But, faults we acknowledge and place before God for his assistance -- there no longer is reason for them to canker. There no longer is reason for them to bring us to death.
If guilt kills, and we remove the guilt, then the body is no longer subject to death from that guilt. I wonder, then, if this is part of how the resurrection is brought to pass -- if it is part of the science behind it. I think yet again on the phrase that every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess. Acknowledging our faults may be necessary in order to be resurrected. The eternal body might be able to live with the shortcomings, because it has accepted them and placed them in Christ's care.
These are thoughts I have. I do not know that they are true. Maybe I'm all wrong. Or, maybe some of them are off and some of them are on. At any rate, I think it not wrong to ponder and to wonder.
These are thoughts I have. I do not know that they are true. Maybe I'm all wrong. Or, maybe some of them are off and some of them are on. At any rate, I think it not wrong to ponder and to wonder.
Friday, September 27, 2019
War on Refugees
It is a war on refugees, on those fleeing oppression. The U.S. historically has allowed 95,000 refugees a year into the country. In 1980, it allowed 207,116. This coming year? Thursday, the Trump administration announced it will cap the number of refugees to 18,000.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
It's a Crime and Crying Shame that Kaepernick is being Blackballed
Colin Kaepernick came close to being the Patrick Mahomes of his day, a young quarterback splashing on the league. Mahomes is taking the league by storm. Kaepernick didn't dominate as Mahomes is -- didn't achieve as much -- but, he was not so far behind.
Now, how do you take such an exciting player out of the league? How do you blackball them? How do the teams add lesser name after lesser name (as quarterbacks go down and need replaced), and never get around to tapping Kaepernick on the shoulder and asking him to come back?
He was clearly a talent in this league. You just don't go from being a major talent to not being able to even sign with a team. We have an expression: It's a crime. Well, it's a crime and a crying shame that Kaepernick is being blackballed.
Now, how do you take such an exciting player out of the league? How do you blackball them? How do the teams add lesser name after lesser name (as quarterbacks go down and need replaced), and never get around to tapping Kaepernick on the shoulder and asking him to come back?
He was clearly a talent in this league. You just don't go from being a major talent to not being able to even sign with a team. We have an expression: It's a crime. Well, it's a crime and a crying shame that Kaepernick is being blackballed.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
A Scripture on Guns
My favorite Book of Mormon gun scripture (I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which believes in the Book of Mormon) is perhaps Alma 48:23. "Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood . . ."
I lament that too often, the gun owner relishes the opportunity to use the weapon. If all had the attitude of the Nephites, and regretted having to use their weapons, then it would be great that everyone had a weapon to defend themselves and their families. The proliferation of guns in America would not be bad. But, unfortunately, many do not take this approach to guns. Many excite at using the weapon. "Make my day," they say. I do not think this attitude healthy for our nation.
I lament that too often, the gun owner relishes the opportunity to use the weapon. If all had the attitude of the Nephites, and regretted having to use their weapons, then it would be great that everyone had a weapon to defend themselves and their families. The proliferation of guns in America would not be bad. But, unfortunately, many do not take this approach to guns. Many excite at using the weapon. "Make my day," they say. I do not think this attitude healthy for our nation.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Monday, September 23, 2019
Truth is not for Everyone, but is Balm for Those Who can Handle it
Truth is not for everyone, but those who can handle it should have it. I think of how our own faults, if we were to face them, could drive us crazy. The guilt for things we have done -- literally -- can kill us, and probably does at times.
But, if a person can process the truth in his or her mind, without going batty, it can be therapy. Once a person has accepted his or her guilt, and done what they can to resolve it, it will cease to haunt their inner soul.
No, I don't doubt relying on the Savior is part of this. With many things, we cannot make them right. The event has fled, and cannot be drawn back. Our only hope is that the Savior will help us find an escape. I know some of my readers may not believe in this Savior. The same, I tell you it is true.
And, those who turn to hope, who turn to the belief that something can be done to lift their faults, can live with them. Those who do not see hope, can only find relief by fleeing their faults. Denial, I think we call it.
Repentance turns one to face his faults, while the voice of a fool shouts he has none. Truth follows where repentance goes, but hides its head from the wicked.
But, if a person can process the truth in his or her mind, without going batty, it can be therapy. Once a person has accepted his or her guilt, and done what they can to resolve it, it will cease to haunt their inner soul.
No, I don't doubt relying on the Savior is part of this. With many things, we cannot make them right. The event has fled, and cannot be drawn back. Our only hope is that the Savior will help us find an escape. I know some of my readers may not believe in this Savior. The same, I tell you it is true.
And, those who turn to hope, who turn to the belief that something can be done to lift their faults, can live with them. Those who do not see hope, can only find relief by fleeing their faults. Denial, I think we call it.
Repentance turns one to face his faults, while the voice of a fool shouts he has none. Truth follows where repentance goes, but hides its head from the wicked.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Stand Up for what is Right, Even When it is Unpopular
Stand for what is right, even when it is not popular. I'm going to suggest someone who is doing this -- and my suggestion will not be popular.
Colin Kaepernick.
You probably get your cackles up just hearing his name. So, you say, here's a guy who won't even salute the American flag, and who betrays all the lives that have been lost in war, and I am casting him as a hero -- a good guy? He's a socialist, you know. He wore socks depicting police as pigs.
Yes, him.
Kaepernick was raised a Christian -- a good one. He was instilled with Christian values. He has tattoos quoting from the scriptures.
I can't help but wonder but what that upbringing had a lot to do with his deciding not to salute the American flag. Along about that time, there was so much news about Black people being shot, Kap decided not to stand for the singing of the Anthem. He sat right through the national anthem. Afterwards, he tried to explain that he couldn't in good conscience salute a nation where such injustice is going on, people are being killed, and the officers shooting them are being placed on paid time off? Paid time off.
Can any of us understand why Kap didn't want to salute? Can we not but wonder but that this is what freedom of conscience is all about? If you think a nation shouldn't be doing something, and you feel it a grave wrong, and if people are going to their deaths because of it . . .
Is he so wrong for not wanting to salute that flag? You and I might continue to salute it. But, is Kap so wrong for taking a stand for that which he believes is right?
Well, for standing up for what he felt was right, he became one of the most despised persons in America. He became one of the most slandered. Everything he was doing, he was doing for money, they said.
Stand up for what you believe is right, even when it is unpopular? Yes, Kap is doing that.
Colin Kaepernick.
You probably get your cackles up just hearing his name. So, you say, here's a guy who won't even salute the American flag, and who betrays all the lives that have been lost in war, and I am casting him as a hero -- a good guy? He's a socialist, you know. He wore socks depicting police as pigs.
Yes, him.
Kaepernick was raised a Christian -- a good one. He was instilled with Christian values. He has tattoos quoting from the scriptures.
I can't help but wonder but what that upbringing had a lot to do with his deciding not to salute the American flag. Along about that time, there was so much news about Black people being shot, Kap decided not to stand for the singing of the Anthem. He sat right through the national anthem. Afterwards, he tried to explain that he couldn't in good conscience salute a nation where such injustice is going on, people are being killed, and the officers shooting them are being placed on paid time off? Paid time off.
Can any of us understand why Kap didn't want to salute? Can we not but wonder but that this is what freedom of conscience is all about? If you think a nation shouldn't be doing something, and you feel it a grave wrong, and if people are going to their deaths because of it . . .
Is he so wrong for not wanting to salute that flag? You and I might continue to salute it. But, is Kap so wrong for taking a stand for that which he believes is right?
Well, for standing up for what he felt was right, he became one of the most despised persons in America. He became one of the most slandered. Everything he was doing, he was doing for money, they said.
Stand up for what you believe is right, even when it is unpopular? Yes, Kap is doing that.
Saturday, September 21, 2019
We can Play with Toy Boats, or We can Sail on a Real One
Not so many breaking police brutality cases are reaching my ear. I strain to remember when I last heard of a protest against a Black person being killed unjustly by police.
Be that as it may, we should want to root out police violence. I think it unserving to suppose there is no problem. It is the nature and manner of mankind to take authority and use it unjustly. And, that tendency doesn't just disappear because someone is a police officer. Officers are hired from the ranks of humans who therefore have human tendencies.
That which divides a civilized nation from one that is not, to some degree, is its police. Name a country where people are oppressed, and see if the police there do not abuse their power.
To whatever degree, then, we fall into being a nation of police brutality, we fall from being a civilized nation. If this is true, we should not take lightly stories of police beating Black people just because they are Black. No, we should not take lightly reports of police wrongly beating anyone -- regardless of their race.
Our grace as a nation is at stake. The very term, "free nation," is at stake. I wonder at us, and how we pass it all off as playing the race card -- these accusations of police violence against Black people. We can say it doesn't exist, and we can all just run along and play. We can play with our toy boats, or we can hop on the real boat of those trying to do something about it.
Be that as it may, we should want to root out police violence. I think it unserving to suppose there is no problem. It is the nature and manner of mankind to take authority and use it unjustly. And, that tendency doesn't just disappear because someone is a police officer. Officers are hired from the ranks of humans who therefore have human tendencies.
That which divides a civilized nation from one that is not, to some degree, is its police. Name a country where people are oppressed, and see if the police there do not abuse their power.
To whatever degree, then, we fall into being a nation of police brutality, we fall from being a civilized nation. If this is true, we should not take lightly stories of police beating Black people just because they are Black. No, we should not take lightly reports of police wrongly beating anyone -- regardless of their race.
Our grace as a nation is at stake. The very term, "free nation," is at stake. I wonder at us, and how we pass it all off as playing the race card -- these accusations of police violence against Black people. We can say it doesn't exist, and we can all just run along and play. We can play with our toy boats, or we can hop on the real boat of those trying to do something about it.
Do What is Right, They Say, Even When it is Unpopular
We often speak of standing up for what is right, regardless what is popular. Consider, then, Colin Kaepernick. He was raised a good Christian, instilled with Christian values, and those values most surely must have had some sway in his deciding to stand up for Black people he feels are being abused and mistreated and shot without cause.
He's taken a stand for what he thinks is right, and for that has become one of the most unpopular of people in America. Standing up for what is right is not always popular. And, Colin Kaepernick might just be Exhibit One.
He's taken a stand for what he thinks is right, and for that has become one of the most unpopular of people in America. Standing up for what is right is not always popular. And, Colin Kaepernick might just be Exhibit One.
They Disrespect Those Who have Fallen Either Way
Those caught in the middle of the flag controversy -- the players who must decide if they will salute -- could be accused of disrespecting those whose lives have been lost regardless which side they choose.
It is a popular thing to consider all the soldiers who have died protecting and fighting for the American flag, and to say, If you don't salute that flag, you are disrespecting them.
But, what of this: Those who choose not to salute -- at least some of them -- believe police have unjustly taken the lives of Black people, shooting them when they shouldn't. Do you salute a flag when that nation is allowing such injustice? And, if you do, are you failing to stand up for those who have died unjustly?
Which will it be? Will you disrespect the soldiers who have died? Or, will you disrespect those who have fallen unjustly to police?
It is a popular thing to consider all the soldiers who have died protecting and fighting for the American flag, and to say, If you don't salute that flag, you are disrespecting them.
But, what of this: Those who choose not to salute -- at least some of them -- believe police have unjustly taken the lives of Black people, shooting them when they shouldn't. Do you salute a flag when that nation is allowing such injustice? And, if you do, are you failing to stand up for those who have died unjustly?
Which will it be? Will you disrespect the soldiers who have died? Or, will you disrespect those who have fallen unjustly to police?
They do what They do on Company Time
Ah, yes, they do scold Colin Kaepernick and others who used to kneel for doing it on company time, don't they?
But, is that a fair accusation? The Anthem is a scheduled event and their lack of participation in it does not take any time at all from the company. None. Arguing they are taking away from company time if they don't salute doesn't make sense, to me. How so? How much time is being taken? Where is it being taken?
You will say, then, it is not that they are taking away company time, but that they are using company time to express their beliefs. They are using the company's format. That is wrong. They should not use the company's resources in anyway to forward their own cause.
In response, I would suggest the situation is forced upon them. The flag ceremony is there, and they are faced with what to do when the flag is saluted. Some of them do not feel comfortable saluting a nation that they believe is abusing and mistreating and discriminating against Black people.
Don't do what you do on company time? The moment is there. They can't run from it.
But, is that a fair accusation? The Anthem is a scheduled event and their lack of participation in it does not take any time at all from the company. None. Arguing they are taking away from company time if they don't salute doesn't make sense, to me. How so? How much time is being taken? Where is it being taken?
You will say, then, it is not that they are taking away company time, but that they are using company time to express their beliefs. They are using the company's format. That is wrong. They should not use the company's resources in anyway to forward their own cause.
In response, I would suggest the situation is forced upon them. The flag ceremony is there, and they are faced with what to do when the flag is saluted. Some of them do not feel comfortable saluting a nation that they believe is abusing and mistreating and discriminating against Black people.
Don't do what you do on company time? The moment is there. They can't run from it.
We're Taught All Our Lives not to Treat People this Way
Colin Kapernick did, indeed, probably offend the better part of the populace. What resulted brought the league to its knees probably as much as anything that has ever happened. People were boycotting the games. As a result of the outcry, the league feels it cannot let him back, lest the public, again boycott.
If anyone is responsible for his being politically oppressed, it is we, the people. It is we, the people, who are persecuting him. And, it goes beyond just rejecting him for not saluting. We defame his character, suggesting he is turning down all these offers because it is all really nothing but a sham, and he just wants to make the big bucks and he is getting that from Nike and doesn't really want to play, We say all he wants is the attention, when in fact he hardly ever publicly offers his views. We make him out to be someone he is not just to justify our position against him. Raised as a strong Christian, with good Christian values, it would seem it is those values that have prompted him to stand up for those who he believes are being discriminated against, and abused. But, we cast him as a villain -- which he is not. We look down our nose at him and judge him, and mock him, when all he is trying to do is that which is good. We libel him. We slander him. And, we think that is all quite okay.
We say he was all washed up, when he wasn't. Statistically, he had one of his better seasons his last year in the league. Saying he was all washed up doesn't rise to the level of slander, but it is a misrepresentation.
What think ye? Should we be doing all this to him? I still love those of my friends who tear at Kaepernick and tarnish him. But, I think we have been taught all our lives not to treat people this way, and we shouldn't.
If anyone is responsible for his being politically oppressed, it is we, the people. It is we, the people, who are persecuting him. And, it goes beyond just rejecting him for not saluting. We defame his character, suggesting he is turning down all these offers because it is all really nothing but a sham, and he just wants to make the big bucks and he is getting that from Nike and doesn't really want to play, We say all he wants is the attention, when in fact he hardly ever publicly offers his views. We make him out to be someone he is not just to justify our position against him. Raised as a strong Christian, with good Christian values, it would seem it is those values that have prompted him to stand up for those who he believes are being discriminated against, and abused. But, we cast him as a villain -- which he is not. We look down our nose at him and judge him, and mock him, when all he is trying to do is that which is good. We libel him. We slander him. And, we think that is all quite okay.
We say he was all washed up, when he wasn't. Statistically, he had one of his better seasons his last year in the league. Saying he was all washed up doesn't rise to the level of slander, but it is a misrepresentation.
What think ye? Should we be doing all this to him? I still love those of my friends who tear at Kaepernick and tarnish him. But, I think we have been taught all our lives not to treat people this way, and we shouldn't.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Colt Suspends Production of AR-15 for Civilian Market
News kind of breaks that Colt is suspending production of the AR-15 for the civilian market. I say kind of, because it seems this would be a big story.
So far, I haven't seen that it is. All the stories I find are short. The first one I read was but six sentences. I go to the Open Carry Facebook page, and seeing no one has posted there, post a note. No outrage comes from the page's participants (at least not immediately).
Colt says it remains committed to the Second Amendment. It says there are already enough AR-15s on the market. One article suggests a lot of other companies have similar-styled weapons, and that is cutting into Colt's share of the market.
Colt says it will concentrate on military and law enforcement contracts for its AR-15s, that being where the money is.
I do a word-search, and learn AR-15 sales are, indeed, significantly down.
I cannot help but wonder, though, are fewer people buying the AR-15 as a black lash against owning guns associated with mass murders? Are people saying, Okay, I don't need a military-styled weapon?
I laud Colt for their decision, whatever brought it on.
So far, I haven't seen that it is. All the stories I find are short. The first one I read was but six sentences. I go to the Open Carry Facebook page, and seeing no one has posted there, post a note. No outrage comes from the page's participants (at least not immediately).
Colt says it remains committed to the Second Amendment. It says there are already enough AR-15s on the market. One article suggests a lot of other companies have similar-styled weapons, and that is cutting into Colt's share of the market.
Colt says it will concentrate on military and law enforcement contracts for its AR-15s, that being where the money is.
I do a word-search, and learn AR-15 sales are, indeed, significantly down.
I cannot help but wonder, though, are fewer people buying the AR-15 as a black lash against owning guns associated with mass murders? Are people saying, Okay, I don't need a military-styled weapon?
I laud Colt for their decision, whatever brought it on.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Take His Resume and Figure Out How You are Going to Blackball HIm
Colin Kaepernick statistically is one of the NFL's best quarterbacks ever, His 88.9 rating places him 21st on the list, ahead of Brett Favre, and a host of other legendary QBs. (Grant it, current players dominate the list due to changes in the game.) He led the 49ers from behind in the 2013 Super Bowl, his 15-yard scamper for a touchdown --the longest TD run by a QB in Super Bowl history -- brought the team to within three points of being Super Bowl champions.
He wasn't washed up his final year in the league, as many suggest. His passer rating was 90.7. That's better than his career average. He averaged 6.8 yards per carry -- the best average of any year he had.
Some say he lost his starting job, But he started a number of the games his final season and had a better rating than Blaine Gabbert, the other starter.
He belongs in the NFL, again. With all the quarterbacks going down, and all of the teams scrambling to find QBs, how do they shut their eyes on Kap? It is clear his politics are all that stands in his way.
What is political persecution? When you discriminate against someone because of their political beliefs -- is that political persecution?
Just wondering. This is America, you know, and we ought to have higher standards. This is America, and we ought to act like it. We ought not blackball someone from playing football just for their political beliefs.
No, not in America.
(Edited and revised 9/19/19)
He wasn't washed up his final year in the league, as many suggest. His passer rating was 90.7. That's better than his career average. He averaged 6.8 yards per carry -- the best average of any year he had.
Some say he lost his starting job, But he started a number of the games his final season and had a better rating than Blaine Gabbert, the other starter.
He belongs in the NFL, again. With all the quarterbacks going down, and all of the teams scrambling to find QBs, how do they shut their eyes on Kap? It is clear his politics are all that stands in his way.
What is political persecution? When you discriminate against someone because of their political beliefs -- is that political persecution?
Just wondering. This is America, you know, and we ought to have higher standards. This is America, and we ought to act like it. We ought not blackball someone from playing football just for their political beliefs.
No, not in America.
(Edited and revised 9/19/19)
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
No Political Freedom for Colin Kaepernick; No, not in America
That Colin Kaepernick cannot get a job reflects how deeply divided America is, and how unforgiving it is of those who hold different political views.
As I type this, news is breaking that Kaepernick's agent has contacted the New Orleans Saints, the New York Jets, and the Pittsburgh Steelers. But, said the news story, the teams are not interested or fully responding.
Drew Brees with the Saints suffered a thumb injury that will require surgery. The Jets are down to a third-stringer. And, Ben Roethlisberger of the Steelers in out for the season. Other teams also are suffering early season quarterback losses.
But, no mind, how do you sign Kaepernick? The backlash would be severe from many fans. His luggage isn't his play, it's his politics. In America these days, opinions such as his are not to be tolerated. And, by that, I mean you do not allow him to become your quarterback, or the fans may hit the exit.
How divided are we? How intolerant of others' political views? Kaepernick is being blackballed because of his political beliefs. Mind you, he is not running for office; He just wants to play football without having to give up his political beliefs. This is not an America that says, You have your beliefs and I have mine, but we can still be friends. No, in the America that has evolved since you and I were kids, no longer do we allow others to have their beliefs. We demand that they believe as we do, or hit the highway.
And, Kaepernick has hit the highway.
And, I am left wondering what road we are headed down, that we, as people, do not allow others to have their opinions. America was founded on the right to have freedom of belief. But, say nothing of government, we the people will have none of it. Our way or the highway, Kaepernick. You'll have no job in the NFL unless you drop displaying your political beliefs. No, you're not tossing him in jail, but kicking him out of the NFL is certainly punishing him for his political beliefs. And, it is not the government, but you, the people, who are doing it.
As I type this, news is breaking that Kaepernick's agent has contacted the New Orleans Saints, the New York Jets, and the Pittsburgh Steelers. But, said the news story, the teams are not interested or fully responding.
Drew Brees with the Saints suffered a thumb injury that will require surgery. The Jets are down to a third-stringer. And, Ben Roethlisberger of the Steelers in out for the season. Other teams also are suffering early season quarterback losses.
But, no mind, how do you sign Kaepernick? The backlash would be severe from many fans. His luggage isn't his play, it's his politics. In America these days, opinions such as his are not to be tolerated. And, by that, I mean you do not allow him to become your quarterback, or the fans may hit the exit.
How divided are we? How intolerant of others' political views? Kaepernick is being blackballed because of his political beliefs. Mind you, he is not running for office; He just wants to play football without having to give up his political beliefs. This is not an America that says, You have your beliefs and I have mine, but we can still be friends. No, in the America that has evolved since you and I were kids, no longer do we allow others to have their beliefs. We demand that they believe as we do, or hit the highway.
And, Kaepernick has hit the highway.
And, I am left wondering what road we are headed down, that we, as people, do not allow others to have their opinions. America was founded on the right to have freedom of belief. But, say nothing of government, we the people will have none of it. Our way or the highway, Kaepernick. You'll have no job in the NFL unless you drop displaying your political beliefs. No, you're not tossing him in jail, but kicking him out of the NFL is certainly punishing him for his political beliefs. And, it is not the government, but you, the people, who are doing it.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Not Everyone Should have the Right to Kill
When you grant the right to own and carry a gun, you grant the right to kill. Oh, you haven't the right to kill just anyone, but you have the right, just the same.
And, we give this right to most everyone? Shouldn't.
No, we shouldn't.
And, we give this right to most everyone? Shouldn't.
No, we shouldn't.
'A Hatchet Job to Our Asylum System'
The Deseret New covered the first day of tent hearings in Laredo. I must be off to bed, but grab two quotes:
"They ware taking a hatchet to our asylum system, making it next to impossible to be granted asylum." -- Ricardo de Anda, asylum lawyer
"People with extremely strong asylum claims, who would be guaranteed to win if they were staying inside the United States, will not be able to win." -- Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy analyst for the American Immigration Council
"They ware taking a hatchet to our asylum system, making it next to impossible to be granted asylum." -- Ricardo de Anda, asylum lawyer
"People with extremely strong asylum claims, who would be guaranteed to win if they were staying inside the United States, will not be able to win." -- Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy analyst for the American Immigration Council
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Rights are not for Those Who Abuse Them, so Guns are a Privilege
If you hand a gun to a criminal, you hand death to his neighbor. We should be removing guns from the hands of those who should not have them. (And, we should not be so afraid to say they should not have them.) We should not make it so easy for them to obtain guns as simply running down to the store and buying them. Too easy. Not much harder for them to get their gun than for us to just hand one to them.
We should be doing all we can to stop private sales place guns in their hands. We should be doing all that we can so that friends and family do not lend them guns.
Hand out guns to killers, and you will only have killings. If you say all people have the right to own guns, you might as well hand killers their guns, for they will not be obstructed in getting them.
If you don't want them to have guns, you have to say, No.
You will say owning guns is a right, not a privilege, and therefore we cannot take guns from anyone. But, it is privilege. If we are saying not everyone should have a gun, then it is a privilege.
No, everyone should not be allowed to own a gun. It ceases to be a right when you do something to warrant taking it away.
Guns are the instruments of death. Can we not see that? Would we place the instruments of death in just anyone's hand? When a person acquires a gun, he is handed the power to use it for death.
Rights are not for those who abuse them. If a person threatens another, or does violence to them, he should have this weapon of death removed from his hand.
We should be doing all we can to stop private sales place guns in their hands. We should be doing all that we can so that friends and family do not lend them guns.
Hand out guns to killers, and you will only have killings. If you say all people have the right to own guns, you might as well hand killers their guns, for they will not be obstructed in getting them.
If you don't want them to have guns, you have to say, No.
You will say owning guns is a right, not a privilege, and therefore we cannot take guns from anyone. But, it is privilege. If we are saying not everyone should have a gun, then it is a privilege.
No, everyone should not be allowed to own a gun. It ceases to be a right when you do something to warrant taking it away.
Guns are the instruments of death. Can we not see that? Would we place the instruments of death in just anyone's hand? When a person acquires a gun, he is handed the power to use it for death.
Rights are not for those who abuse them. If a person threatens another, or does violence to them, he should have this weapon of death removed from his hand.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
Friday, September 13, 2019
Thursday, September 12, 2019
We Should be More Careful Who We Give the Tool of Death
The minimum, is to take guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
At least, try to do that much.
But, we will need to get away from the mentality that everyone has the right to a gun, if we are to enact national red-flag laws.
I think of the Wild West, and of how they had similar debate. I believe the courts back then ruled that when the Second Amendment says Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, that doesn't mean guns can be in all places at all times.
No, you can restrict their usage. And, the earlier Americans did. If you rode into Dodge City, you were required to turn your gun in, same as you were in a good lot of the cities and towns in the Wild West.
Gun control, circa 1870.
Guns are a limited right. The Second Amendment says, "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."
The security of the nation -- this free state -- is not at risk by taking guns from those who make threats.
Guns are a limited right. It is the right of the people, at large, to keep and bear guns. And, you as an individual have the right to a gun -- unless you do something to restrict that right.
Like, make a threat.
Guns are the tools of death. That is what they are used for. If you give indication that that is too much responsibility for you, the gun should be taken away. This is not like a car. The car is an instrument of travel. Its purpose is to take someone from one location to another. As opposed to that, the gun's purpose is to kill, largely. If we are to be careful with who we give the right to drive, we should be evermore careful who we give the right to kill.
At least, try to do that much.
But, we will need to get away from the mentality that everyone has the right to a gun, if we are to enact national red-flag laws.
I think of the Wild West, and of how they had similar debate. I believe the courts back then ruled that when the Second Amendment says Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, that doesn't mean guns can be in all places at all times.
No, you can restrict their usage. And, the earlier Americans did. If you rode into Dodge City, you were required to turn your gun in, same as you were in a good lot of the cities and towns in the Wild West.
Gun control, circa 1870.
Guns are a limited right. The Second Amendment says, "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."
The security of the nation -- this free state -- is not at risk by taking guns from those who make threats.
Guns are a limited right. It is the right of the people, at large, to keep and bear guns. And, you as an individual have the right to a gun -- unless you do something to restrict that right.
Like, make a threat.
Guns are the tools of death. That is what they are used for. If you give indication that that is too much responsibility for you, the gun should be taken away. This is not like a car. The car is an instrument of travel. Its purpose is to take someone from one location to another. As opposed to that, the gun's purpose is to kill, largely. If we are to be careful with who we give the right to drive, we should be evermore careful who we give the right to kill.
Is it Safer to Live there than it is to Cross Through Mexico?
Today, do a little thinking about the human trafficking we are concerned about.
Now, President Trump, Utah Sen. Mike Lee and much of the nation want the migrants to take their asylum in Mexico. They argue, there is no need to come to America. Just take your asylum in Mexico.
The rest of us ask, is it save for them there? Think of this: On one hand, we tell them they are fine staying in Mexico, taking their asylum there. And, on the other hand, we tell them they are endangering themselves and their children by crossing Mexico to get to the United States, for the human traffickers are picking them off, raping them, forcing them into labor, etc.
So, on one hand, we tell them to take their asylum in Mexico? And, on the other hand, we tell them it isn't safe to cross Mexico, due to the human traffickers? So, is it safer to stay there and live in the land of the human traffickers than it is to merely cross that land?
Now, President Trump, Utah Sen. Mike Lee and much of the nation want the migrants to take their asylum in Mexico. They argue, there is no need to come to America. Just take your asylum in Mexico.
The rest of us ask, is it save for them there? Think of this: On one hand, we tell them they are fine staying in Mexico, taking their asylum there. And, on the other hand, we tell them they are endangering themselves and their children by crossing Mexico to get to the United States, for the human traffickers are picking them off, raping them, forcing them into labor, etc.
So, on one hand, we tell them to take their asylum in Mexico? And, on the other hand, we tell them it isn't safe to cross Mexico, due to the human traffickers? So, is it safer to stay there and live in the land of the human traffickers than it is to merely cross that land?
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
Charity isn't Telling Someone You Cannot Help
With the immigrant, comes the human trafficking. As they come north to America, the traffickers pick them off.
All of which is being used as an argument against immigration, at least undocumented immigration. They should not be crossing Mexico, subjecting themselves to the trafficking. It is unsafe, and it is wrong. What kind of parent would put his children through these dangers, anyway?
So goes the argument.
What do we do? Do we say the human trafficking is just one more reason not to bring these people to America? I wonder at these immigrants, leaving Guatemala and such places, sometimes because of domestic violence, their husbands and fathers forcing them to seek homes far away from their reach.
I think of the children living in the streets of Columbia, and imagine social workers directing them to the U.S.
Only to be picked off and trafficked as they come.
What do we do? Do we tell them not to come? I wonder.
Perhaps, if we can see that people benefit by coming to the United States -- if they are escaping domestic violence, government oppression or whatever -- then we should help them. Will we, instead, tell them, "No, you cannot come. If we let you come, the reality is that you will be sex-trafficked, and work-trafficked, and human trafficked. So, the harsh reality is that you just shouldn't come. It just isn't safe. This is for your own good."
We can tell them that, and leave it at that -- or help them. If they are in danger of being trafficked, why not help them avoid that? Charity isn't leaving them in their dilemma, but helping them out of it. They have a problem, and we aren't helping them at all if we just tell them we can't help them and don't want them to try to come on their own because they will just get hurt, and that will just make things worse. "Just stay there in Guatemala, and make your way through your problems there, best you can. That's what we're going to have to recommend. It's the best thing for everybody, anyway -- really!"
No, helping another person requires helping them, not telling them to make-do in their dump, and making excuses as to why we shouldn't help them. We sometimes go to war to help other people, to give them freedom. But, in this case, we seem to be turning the helpless away.
What would be so wrong with saying, "Listen, if you are going to be trafficked, we would like to help you avoid that. We will come right down to Guatemala and help bring you to America."
What would be so wrong with that?
Instead of reaching out with hands that care, will our hands only slap them back? Will we only say, "Get away. Stay away. Take care of your own problems."
All of which is being used as an argument against immigration, at least undocumented immigration. They should not be crossing Mexico, subjecting themselves to the trafficking. It is unsafe, and it is wrong. What kind of parent would put his children through these dangers, anyway?
So goes the argument.
What do we do? Do we say the human trafficking is just one more reason not to bring these people to America? I wonder at these immigrants, leaving Guatemala and such places, sometimes because of domestic violence, their husbands and fathers forcing them to seek homes far away from their reach.
I think of the children living in the streets of Columbia, and imagine social workers directing them to the U.S.
Only to be picked off and trafficked as they come.
What do we do? Do we tell them not to come? I wonder.
Perhaps, if we can see that people benefit by coming to the United States -- if they are escaping domestic violence, government oppression or whatever -- then we should help them. Will we, instead, tell them, "No, you cannot come. If we let you come, the reality is that you will be sex-trafficked, and work-trafficked, and human trafficked. So, the harsh reality is that you just shouldn't come. It just isn't safe. This is for your own good."
We can tell them that, and leave it at that -- or help them. If they are in danger of being trafficked, why not help them avoid that? Charity isn't leaving them in their dilemma, but helping them out of it. They have a problem, and we aren't helping them at all if we just tell them we can't help them and don't want them to try to come on their own because they will just get hurt, and that will just make things worse. "Just stay there in Guatemala, and make your way through your problems there, best you can. That's what we're going to have to recommend. It's the best thing for everybody, anyway -- really!"
No, helping another person requires helping them, not telling them to make-do in their dump, and making excuses as to why we shouldn't help them. We sometimes go to war to help other people, to give them freedom. But, in this case, we seem to be turning the helpless away.
What would be so wrong with saying, "Listen, if you are going to be trafficked, we would like to help you avoid that. We will come right down to Guatemala and help bring you to America."
What would be so wrong with that?
Instead of reaching out with hands that care, will our hands only slap them back? Will we only say, "Get away. Stay away. Take care of your own problems."
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Gun Owners Shot Joseph Smith
I belong to a faith that has decided guns will be prohibited from its meetinghouses. Many of the members of this church are staunch gun advocates, and are not comfortable with the new policy.
As I thought on this the other day, it occurred to me that our first modern-day prophet, Joseph Smith, was the victim of a band of gun owners. They came to the jail he was being held in, and killed him.
A band of gun owners.
And, I would quite imagine, what they did, they thought was right. They were just administering their brand of justice. Now, therein lies the danger. The gun becomes a badge. Those who wear it, consider themselves administrators of justice. A thousand sheriffs, and they come with different interpretations of who the bad guys are.
To some, Joseph Smith was the bad guy. So, they shot him.
As I thought on this the other day, it occurred to me that our first modern-day prophet, Joseph Smith, was the victim of a band of gun owners. They came to the jail he was being held in, and killed him.
A band of gun owners.
And, I would quite imagine, what they did, they thought was right. They were just administering their brand of justice. Now, therein lies the danger. The gun becomes a badge. Those who wear it, consider themselves administrators of justice. A thousand sheriffs, and they come with different interpretations of who the bad guys are.
To some, Joseph Smith was the bad guy. So, they shot him.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Harry Said it is Okay to Shoot, as Long as the Right Person is Shot
"There is nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." -- Harry Callahan
One of the dangers of gun ownership, is that we start thinking some people deserve to die. As gun users, we have to decide who we will kill. Who will we ticket as being worthy of death?
The problem comes when someone decides someone is worthy of death who actually isn't. Most every murder, for example, is of a person someone decides is not worthy of life.
We make ourselves gods when we make ourselves gun owners. We get to choose who lives and dies. If we were all of Godly judgement, that would be fine. But, just putting guns in everyone's hands is going to leave them in a lot of hands that should never be making such judgments.
One of the dangers of gun ownership, is that we start thinking some people deserve to die. As gun users, we have to decide who we will kill. Who will we ticket as being worthy of death?
The problem comes when someone decides someone is worthy of death who actually isn't. Most every murder, for example, is of a person someone decides is not worthy of life.
We make ourselves gods when we make ourselves gun owners. We get to choose who lives and dies. If we were all of Godly judgement, that would be fine. But, just putting guns in everyone's hands is going to leave them in a lot of hands that should never be making such judgments.
Sunday, September 8, 2019
Political Hatred Fills Our Social Media
I read down the news feed on my Facebook page, post after post ridiculing the political position of others, condemning, spewing hatred, and expressing contempt.
I think back on the Mueller Report, and of how it warned the Russians are propagandizing, feeding us on social media with bites to incite us against each other, and to divide us. If posts I am seeing are not them, then what are?
A sick feeling crosses me. I feel sad and sickened. Wanting to do something, I post the following on my Facebook page:
I think on my own Facebook posts, wondering if I am a hypocrite and have also posted comments full of contempt and hatred toward others. I search down a short ways, and find none, but think of how I have been negative toward President Trump. I do not go down far enough to find them, to review them. But, I hope that if I did, I would find that while they disagree with the president, they do not reflect hatred or contempt.
I think back on the Mueller Report, and of how it warned the Russians are propagandizing, feeding us on social media with bites to incite us against each other, and to divide us. If posts I am seeing are not them, then what are?
A sick feeling crosses me. I feel sad and sickened. Wanting to do something, I post the following on my Facebook page:
Here's a challenge to my FB friends.
Look at your last 10 posts and see how many of them
conveyed hatred or contempt for others.
Political hatred? Does hatred become okay when it is of the political variety? When you are hating presidents or Congress members, or movie stars -- does hatred then become okay?I think on my own Facebook posts, wondering if I am a hypocrite and have also posted comments full of contempt and hatred toward others. I search down a short ways, and find none, but think of how I have been negative toward President Trump. I do not go down far enough to find them, to review them. But, I hope that if I did, I would find that while they disagree with the president, they do not reflect hatred or contempt.
Is it Communist Conspiracy or Charity?
It is a communist conspiracy that immigrants are coming to America. So goes the argument. Or, at least, some argue this. Others don't lay it on the communists, just on big foreign money. Some big financier, or financiers, are behind it.
I have an old newspaper sitting on my table, The Epoch Times, that suggests it is a communist thing. And, it seems Vice President Mike Pence might once have suggested someone must be financing the rush of immigrants.
You don't just get these big caravans, and so many people rushing to come unless someone is pushing them to come.
I think on the recent Mueller probe, and of how we were told the Russians try to disrupt our elections. If they are doing that, would they stop at the elections, or would they try to disrupt American life in other ways, as well?
I think it not impossible that they would go beyond the elections, and try to disrupt America in other ways. Immigration, then? Would they do that? I doubt they are, but I leave the possibility open.
For my part, I think it just as possible, if not more, that they are behind -- can we call it a conspiracy? -- to divide America on the issue of immigration. For my part, I would not be surprised to learn they are forwarding the line that George Soros is financing the immigration.
George Soros, that dirty, rotten guy. He is behind all this. You can stay mad at all the immigrants for coming, because it is liberals like Soros who are sending them.
Well, I don't know whether I ever finished The Epoch Times article all the way through. And, I don't believe that when they say it is a communist conspiracy, they are referring to the Russians. Are the Russians even considered communists these days? It is possible Trevor Loudon, who was interviewed in the article, is referring to "communists" within the U.S. government when he speaks of communists forcing immigrants upon us.
But, I do know there is at least one other possible factor behind why the immigration might seem orchestrated: Social workers. Social workers in Guatemala, Columbia, and the other Central American countries might be directing the immigrants here.
Social workers.
I read a story in the Deseret News, telling how social workers go into the streets of one of the cities down there. The story spoke of how the social workers would give food to the children living in the streets in order to get them to listen to them as they tried to persuade them to come to their shelters.
I don't think it so far-fetched that if some social workers are talking children into coming to their shelters, there are other social workers who are directing the children to America.
Today, I read another article in the Deseret News, a column by Savannah Hopkinson, suggesting that one of the drivers behind the immigration into America is domestic violence. The migrants come to America, in part, to escape being beaten up by their husbands and fathers.
I think of the children who come unaccompanied, and with adults who are not their own parents. If these are those living in the sewer-invested streets of South America, and if some of them are on those streets because they are being abused by their fathers, are not some of them showing up with parents who are not their own?
I will not say that some of these children are not being brought here to be trafficked. We should study that, find out how many. Childhood trafficking is about as terrible thing as there is. Yes, we do want to do all that we can to stop that.
But, it would seem at least some (and maybe many) of those coming with adults are children fleeing the sewer-riddle streets, and fleeing the domestic violence of their fathers. Some are probably matched with adults by social workers. And, yes, those social workers probably know that adults with children might be given advantages.
Still, if some of the immigrants are bringing children who are not their own for this reason: to liberate the children from living on the streets or from being beaten by abusive fathers, they deserve our thanks, not our condemnation. To us, they are but committing fraud, but we consider not on their charity.
So, all the rush of immigrants? All the children coming on their own or with adults who are not their parents? Conspiracy? A George Soros-financed plot?
I only know many of those coming come with reason. They do flee oppression. They are living in a land of sewer-filled streets. And, we look at them, and say: "No, no, no. You must go back where you came from. Your being here is a communist plot. And, those of you who bring children not your own are committing fraud. And, you little ones also go home. You are as wrong to be here as the adults."
Whatever level of communist conspiracy pushes some of the immigrants here -- if any at all -- is matched by those who come with real stories of horror. We would turn them around, saying, "March right back where you came from," and treat them all like criminals?
I have an old newspaper sitting on my table, The Epoch Times, that suggests it is a communist thing. And, it seems Vice President Mike Pence might once have suggested someone must be financing the rush of immigrants.
You don't just get these big caravans, and so many people rushing to come unless someone is pushing them to come.
I think on the recent Mueller probe, and of how we were told the Russians try to disrupt our elections. If they are doing that, would they stop at the elections, or would they try to disrupt American life in other ways, as well?
I think it not impossible that they would go beyond the elections, and try to disrupt America in other ways. Immigration, then? Would they do that? I doubt they are, but I leave the possibility open.
For my part, I think it just as possible, if not more, that they are behind -- can we call it a conspiracy? -- to divide America on the issue of immigration. For my part, I would not be surprised to learn they are forwarding the line that George Soros is financing the immigration.
George Soros, that dirty, rotten guy. He is behind all this. You can stay mad at all the immigrants for coming, because it is liberals like Soros who are sending them.
Well, I don't know whether I ever finished The Epoch Times article all the way through. And, I don't believe that when they say it is a communist conspiracy, they are referring to the Russians. Are the Russians even considered communists these days? It is possible Trevor Loudon, who was interviewed in the article, is referring to "communists" within the U.S. government when he speaks of communists forcing immigrants upon us.
But, I do know there is at least one other possible factor behind why the immigration might seem orchestrated: Social workers. Social workers in Guatemala, Columbia, and the other Central American countries might be directing the immigrants here.
Social workers.
I read a story in the Deseret News, telling how social workers go into the streets of one of the cities down there. The story spoke of how the social workers would give food to the children living in the streets in order to get them to listen to them as they tried to persuade them to come to their shelters.
I don't think it so far-fetched that if some social workers are talking children into coming to their shelters, there are other social workers who are directing the children to America.
Today, I read another article in the Deseret News, a column by Savannah Hopkinson, suggesting that one of the drivers behind the immigration into America is domestic violence. The migrants come to America, in part, to escape being beaten up by their husbands and fathers.
I think of the children who come unaccompanied, and with adults who are not their own parents. If these are those living in the sewer-invested streets of South America, and if some of them are on those streets because they are being abused by their fathers, are not some of them showing up with parents who are not their own?
I will not say that some of these children are not being brought here to be trafficked. We should study that, find out how many. Childhood trafficking is about as terrible thing as there is. Yes, we do want to do all that we can to stop that.
But, it would seem at least some (and maybe many) of those coming with adults are children fleeing the sewer-riddle streets, and fleeing the domestic violence of their fathers. Some are probably matched with adults by social workers. And, yes, those social workers probably know that adults with children might be given advantages.
Still, if some of the immigrants are bringing children who are not their own for this reason: to liberate the children from living on the streets or from being beaten by abusive fathers, they deserve our thanks, not our condemnation. To us, they are but committing fraud, but we consider not on their charity.
So, all the rush of immigrants? All the children coming on their own or with adults who are not their parents? Conspiracy? A George Soros-financed plot?
I only know many of those coming come with reason. They do flee oppression. They are living in a land of sewer-filled streets. And, we look at them, and say: "No, no, no. You must go back where you came from. Your being here is a communist plot. And, those of you who bring children not your own are committing fraud. And, you little ones also go home. You are as wrong to be here as the adults."
Whatever level of communist conspiracy pushes some of the immigrants here -- if any at all -- is matched by those who come with real stories of horror. We would turn them around, saying, "March right back where you came from," and treat them all like criminals?
Saturday, September 7, 2019
The Knee is a Tell-Tale Indicator
The knees might be an indicator of how the whole body is doing. And, a person walking loose and easy and painless might generally live longer than those whose legs and knees are tight.
Here's maybe one reason why: Wear-and-tear, and pounding, and stress (and maybe toxins) are the things that bring aging, as much as anything else. You can see that pounding in the knee (and hip) quicker than in other parts of the body. It is more evident, because the knee takes more wear-and-tear than other parts of the body.
This theory assumes that at least a good portion of the wear-and-tear affects the whole body. When you run, the knee is affected the most, but the other portions of the body also take wear-and-tear from the same run.
Is running then bad for you? Does it shorten the years of your life? I hate reading this. I found it at
But, I take hope for what is reported at the end of the article.
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults engage in at least 75 minutes of vigorous activity (like running or jogging) or 150 minutes of moderate activity (like brisk walking) every week.
Note added 9/8/19: Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the legs are a tell-tale indicator, not just the knees and hips. Or perhaps just say the ability to walk is the indicator. Look at the elderly, and see how many of them become hobbled. I don't even need to point it out, as we all notice as much.
Not every thing that goes on in the heart is related to the leg, nor does every affliction of the leg reflect what is going on in the rest of the body. Still, there is enough in common that you can look to the legs as a pretty good indicator of the deterioration of the body.
It could be noted that the ability to communicate is as also a key indicator.
And, someone will suggest that it is obvious the ability to walk and ability to talk are indicators of age, so why even blog about it?
Here's maybe one reason why: Wear-and-tear, and pounding, and stress (and maybe toxins) are the things that bring aging, as much as anything else. You can see that pounding in the knee (and hip) quicker than in other parts of the body. It is more evident, because the knee takes more wear-and-tear than other parts of the body.
This theory assumes that at least a good portion of the wear-and-tear affects the whole body. When you run, the knee is affected the most, but the other portions of the body also take wear-and-tear from the same run.
Is running then bad for you? Does it shorten the years of your life? I hate reading this. I found it at
https://www.huffpost.com › running-too-much-health-study_n_5079707.
"A number of earlier studies have suggested that people who run more than 20 miles a week or an an average pace of 7.5 miles or faster are more likely to have shorter lifespans than those who run slower over shorter distances."But, I take hope for what is reported at the end of the article.
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults engage in at least 75 minutes of vigorous activity (like running or jogging) or 150 minutes of moderate activity (like brisk walking) every week.
Note added 9/8/19: Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the legs are a tell-tale indicator, not just the knees and hips. Or perhaps just say the ability to walk is the indicator. Look at the elderly, and see how many of them become hobbled. I don't even need to point it out, as we all notice as much.
Not every thing that goes on in the heart is related to the leg, nor does every affliction of the leg reflect what is going on in the rest of the body. Still, there is enough in common that you can look to the legs as a pretty good indicator of the deterioration of the body.
It could be noted that the ability to communicate is as also a key indicator.
And, someone will suggest that it is obvious the ability to walk and ability to talk are indicators of age, so why even blog about it?
The Yawn and the Lymphatic System
The simple yawn may be but part of the lymphatic system, and is but the body's way of moving lymphatic liquid to places where it is needed, like maybe even to the brain.
What I say is theory and postulate. A quick word search helped me not find the answer.
But, we do know this: The lymphatic system does not have a pump, like the blood circulatory system does in the form of the heart. No, the lymphatic system is dependent -- largely and maybe entirely - on body movement to trigger its liquid's movement.
A yawn is a small movement. Does it trigger liquid movement to the brain?
I notice I yawn at two times: One, when I am tired, an two, when I am waking up. I wonder if when I yawn from tiredness, it is but the body saying the mental pounding and wear has jammed all the liquid into one spot. And, when I am waking, it is not that the day's activity has pounded the liquid into one spot, but that the liquid has drained from or needs stirred to be activated or whatever. I'm wondering if yawns from tiredness and yawns from waking up might be just a little different.
I may yawn at night as I go to bed -- yawning from tiredness and overwork -- but I wonder that as I settle in to go to sleep, the yawning stops. Yawning is not part of the sleep process, itself. Or, is this incorrect? Do I yawn in the middle of the night without partially waking up? I don't think so, but maybe.
At any rate, the yawn can be triggered by two opposite things: One, All the work is has done while being awake, and, two, the lack of work from being asleep.
I have not spent much time at deathbeds, watching the coming death of the children of earth, but I do wonder if they yawn much at that point. If they do, it does not disprove what I have written above. But, if they don't, it it a further indication that yawning is a rejuvenation of the body -- a way of turning systems on, not turning them off.
What I say is theory and postulate. A quick word search helped me not find the answer.
But, we do know this: The lymphatic system does not have a pump, like the blood circulatory system does in the form of the heart. No, the lymphatic system is dependent -- largely and maybe entirely - on body movement to trigger its liquid's movement.
A yawn is a small movement. Does it trigger liquid movement to the brain?
I notice I yawn at two times: One, when I am tired, an two, when I am waking up. I wonder if when I yawn from tiredness, it is but the body saying the mental pounding and wear has jammed all the liquid into one spot. And, when I am waking, it is not that the day's activity has pounded the liquid into one spot, but that the liquid has drained from or needs stirred to be activated or whatever. I'm wondering if yawns from tiredness and yawns from waking up might be just a little different.
I may yawn at night as I go to bed -- yawning from tiredness and overwork -- but I wonder that as I settle in to go to sleep, the yawning stops. Yawning is not part of the sleep process, itself. Or, is this incorrect? Do I yawn in the middle of the night without partially waking up? I don't think so, but maybe.
At any rate, the yawn can be triggered by two opposite things: One, All the work is has done while being awake, and, two, the lack of work from being asleep.
I have not spent much time at deathbeds, watching the coming death of the children of earth, but I do wonder if they yawn much at that point. If they do, it does not disprove what I have written above. But, if they don't, it it a further indication that yawning is a rejuvenation of the body -- a way of turning systems on, not turning them off.
Friday, September 6, 2019
Separate Guns from Those Who Argue and You End a lot of Violence
If you are one of the many Americans wondering what do about violence in America, I have a suggestion: Take guns out of the hands of those who argue.
An argument is an argument until a gun is involved. Then, it is settled by death. A disagreement is but a verbal altercation until a weapon is introduced. Then, the tongue is silenced by the gun's loud crack.
If you would seriously curb gun violence, take the gun out of anyplace where there will be an argument.
I read that about 70 percent of all gun homicides grow out of arguments. Oh, this statistic is not easy to come by. I find little on the topic as I search the Internet. The only thing I find, is this comment:
"In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant." -- https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america
Seventy percent? Would it be true, then, if you found a way to separate guns from those who argue, you would end a good share of the homicides?
An argument is an argument until a gun is involved. Then, it is settled by death. A disagreement is but a verbal altercation until a weapon is introduced. Then, the tongue is silenced by the gun's loud crack.
If you would seriously curb gun violence, take the gun out of anyplace where there will be an argument.
I read that about 70 percent of all gun homicides grow out of arguments. Oh, this statistic is not easy to come by. I find little on the topic as I search the Internet. The only thing I find, is this comment:
"In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant." -- https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america
Seventy percent? Would it be true, then, if you found a way to separate guns from those who argue, you would end a good share of the homicides?
There are Two Types of Thought Patterns
The minds of humanity can be divided in two types: Those that dwell dwell in fear, and those that seek its escape.
Yes, thinking comes in two varieties: One, Analyzing and selecting measured and constructive reaction to the fears of life. Two, Dwelling on the fear -- letting the fear repeat and repeat in your mind, weighing more and more until you fly apart.
One though process brings peace, the other despair.
So, divide the minds of the world in just these two classes: Those that seek an anecdote, an answer, and those that see no answer, just the problem, itself.
In which class are you? Do you have a mind that freezes, or one that responds?
Yes, thinking comes in two varieties: One, Analyzing and selecting measured and constructive reaction to the fears of life. Two, Dwelling on the fear -- letting the fear repeat and repeat in your mind, weighing more and more until you fly apart.
One though process brings peace, the other despair.
So, divide the minds of the world in just these two classes: Those that seek an anecdote, an answer, and those that see no answer, just the problem, itself.
In which class are you? Do you have a mind that freezes, or one that responds?
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Guns and Arguments and Dances and Death
I read a story about two ministers' wives, and of how they got in an argument, and one of them was a concealed carry holder -- and, fetched her gun and shot the other.
Somewhere in thinking about all this, it occurs to me that about as much gun violence probably results from arguments as anything else.
If you'll stop to think about this, this is one of the biggest reasons for not filling our nation with guns. Without a gun, an argument is an argument. But, when weapons are present, a disagreement can be deadly.
We have 1.2 guns for every person in the U.S.? That's a lot of guns for a nation that likes to argue.
And, we ought to eyeball what could happen from a lot of the talk today. Word is, you need to have citizens with guns right at the scene if you are going to stop a mass shooting. The police are not going to arrive in time.
And, that might be true.
But, think of what might happen if everyone starts packing. And, if arguments break out.
And, this isn't just church. What if people start bringing guns to parties? Can you imagine the danger if half the crowd at a dance brought guns?
There's a party I wouldn't want to go to.
America is dancing with danger in suggesting everyone should pack. If everyone at the dance has a gun, you won't need to swing your partner; You can just shoot her. That might sound a little much, but there will come a time it happens.
And, along the way, there will come a lot of other violence.
We can listen to this mantra that everyone needs a gun. I fear it. I do not know where America is headed. But, I hope it is not this direction.
Somewhere in thinking about all this, it occurs to me that about as much gun violence probably results from arguments as anything else.
If you'll stop to think about this, this is one of the biggest reasons for not filling our nation with guns. Without a gun, an argument is an argument. But, when weapons are present, a disagreement can be deadly.
We have 1.2 guns for every person in the U.S.? That's a lot of guns for a nation that likes to argue.
And, we ought to eyeball what could happen from a lot of the talk today. Word is, you need to have citizens with guns right at the scene if you are going to stop a mass shooting. The police are not going to arrive in time.
And, that might be true.
But, think of what might happen if everyone starts packing. And, if arguments break out.
And, this isn't just church. What if people start bringing guns to parties? Can you imagine the danger if half the crowd at a dance brought guns?
There's a party I wouldn't want to go to.
America is dancing with danger in suggesting everyone should pack. If everyone at the dance has a gun, you won't need to swing your partner; You can just shoot her. That might sound a little much, but there will come a time it happens.
And, along the way, there will come a lot of other violence.
We can listen to this mantra that everyone needs a gun. I fear it. I do not know where America is headed. But, I hope it is not this direction.
An Arms Race in the Church House
You could have a minor arms race in the church house, if you are not careful. The nation gets edgy about school shooting, and such.
And, church shootings. There have been enough of those.
Word is, you need to have a gun to stop a gun. The police are not going to arrive in time; Somebody has got to have a gun to stop the criminal.
Soon enough, people are going to start seeing it as their duty to bring their guns to church, to be ready for the next mass shooting.
And, when one person sees the person in the pew next to him packing, he decides he ought to be helping out, as well. So, he brings his gun the next week. Pretty soon, eight or nine people are packing.
And, you've got an arms race right in your own church.
Don't question that it could happen. I wonder if in some churches, it already has.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
We Could Wait and See How the Fastest Draw Plays Out in Church
I think of how in some Wild West towns, you had to turn your gun in when you arrived in town. They knew back then that if everyone had a gun, there would only be trouble.
I consider this, as I reflect on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prohibiting lethal weapons in its church houses.
There are those who warn that a shooter is sure to show up at a church meeting, and -- unchallenged now -- rip bullets all through the churchgoers. The church will regret its prohibiting guns, they promise.
Such an event might, indeed, happen. But, on the flip side, consider what a proliferation of guns could mean. What if it became practice among some to bring guns to church? What if, say, ten people conceal-carried? Sometimes, people get upset with each other. And, if they have guns, that can be dangerous. I think of stories of friends simply being together, playing cards or whatever, and a disagreement breaks out, and one pulls out his gun and shoots the other.
That could happen in church. And, the more guns, the more likely it will. Someone gets edgy about someone else, and they pull out their gun. I don't know but what if he or she knows the other person is also carrying, that might even make them pull their gun quicker.
The fastest draw always was the rule when guns were involved. We could wait to see how that rule plays out in church. Or, we could nip it in the bud, and prohibit guns.
I consider this, as I reflect on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prohibiting lethal weapons in its church houses.
There are those who warn that a shooter is sure to show up at a church meeting, and -- unchallenged now -- rip bullets all through the churchgoers. The church will regret its prohibiting guns, they promise.
Such an event might, indeed, happen. But, on the flip side, consider what a proliferation of guns could mean. What if it became practice among some to bring guns to church? What if, say, ten people conceal-carried? Sometimes, people get upset with each other. And, if they have guns, that can be dangerous. I think of stories of friends simply being together, playing cards or whatever, and a disagreement breaks out, and one pulls out his gun and shoots the other.
That could happen in church. And, the more guns, the more likely it will. Someone gets edgy about someone else, and they pull out their gun. I don't know but what if he or she knows the other person is also carrying, that might even make them pull their gun quicker.
The fastest draw always was the rule when guns were involved. We could wait to see how that rule plays out in church. Or, we could nip it in the bud, and prohibit guns.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Is Hurricane Dorian a Small Piece of Scripture being Fulfilled?
Look to the seas, and wonder. Look at the hurricanes and wonder if they are a part of this. I know of two revelations that speak of the seas and the last days.
There is that verse in John 16, of an angel pouring a vial upon the sea, and the sea becoming a source of death.
And there is Luke 21:25, prophesying "the sea and the waves roaring." When Joseph Smith translated portions of the Bible, he added to the words in Luke, "The earth shall also be troubled, and the waters of the great deep."
There are those who belief we live in the last days. If it be true, it does not mean that all the revelations that speak of the last days are being fulfilled at this moment. But, the same, we might look around at what is happening and wonder if that is what the scripture was referring to.
Then, what of hurricanes? They form in the seas. And, they bring death. But, if we are to consider them a sign of the last days, then we would assume they need to be worse than in past ages.
I read this, from newscientist.com:
"Hurricanes are expected to intensify faster, to become stronger overall, to dump more rain and move more slowly as the world warms, and that seems to be just what is happening. . . . The only stronger hurricane than Dorian ever recorded in the Atlantic was Allen in 1980."
Hurricanes are becoming stronger. They do come from the seas. Scripture does refer to trouble from the oceans in the end of times. We can sit back and wonder. We know not for certain that this is what was meant. Maybe the scripture spoke of something else and not this at all.
But, we should wonder.
Note added 9/4/19: Thought of the disclaimer-attitude I ended with, and think to correct it. If the waters are the great deep are to be troubled, if the second angel poured out a vial upon the sea, then that means something will be occurring. If these are the last days (yes, if), then the hurricanes from the waters are how the seas are being troubled. Worse things might lie ahead, much worse. Still, if these are the last days and this is what we see of how the seas are troubled, it, then, is at least a partial fulfillment of scripture -- has to be, for it is what there is.
There is that verse in John 16, of an angel pouring a vial upon the sea, and the sea becoming a source of death.
And there is Luke 21:25, prophesying "the sea and the waves roaring." When Joseph Smith translated portions of the Bible, he added to the words in Luke, "The earth shall also be troubled, and the waters of the great deep."
There are those who belief we live in the last days. If it be true, it does not mean that all the revelations that speak of the last days are being fulfilled at this moment. But, the same, we might look around at what is happening and wonder if that is what the scripture was referring to.
Then, what of hurricanes? They form in the seas. And, they bring death. But, if we are to consider them a sign of the last days, then we would assume they need to be worse than in past ages.
I read this, from newscientist.com:
"Hurricanes are expected to intensify faster, to become stronger overall, to dump more rain and move more slowly as the world warms, and that seems to be just what is happening. . . . The only stronger hurricane than Dorian ever recorded in the Atlantic was Allen in 1980."
Hurricanes are becoming stronger. They do come from the seas. Scripture does refer to trouble from the oceans in the end of times. We can sit back and wonder. We know not for certain that this is what was meant. Maybe the scripture spoke of something else and not this at all.
But, we should wonder.
Note added 9/4/19: Thought of the disclaimer-attitude I ended with, and think to correct it. If the waters are the great deep are to be troubled, if the second angel poured out a vial upon the sea, then that means something will be occurring. If these are the last days (yes, if), then the hurricanes from the waters are how the seas are being troubled. Worse things might lie ahead, much worse. Still, if these are the last days and this is what we see of how the seas are troubled, it, then, is at least a partial fulfillment of scripture -- has to be, for it is what there is.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Trees are Needed More in the Cities to Stop Carbon Dioxide
I wonder if the problem of too much carbon dioxide would be better solved with trees in our cities than with trees in the Amazon. I am not a scientist, so I do not understand these things, completely. But, to me, you place the trees where the carbon dioxide is. If the streets of New York are where the carbon dioxide is, that is where you need your trees. In the Amazon, there might be carbon dioxide miles above it in the sky, but how much is right down where the trees can have any effect? What, those trees suck it in from miles away? I'm not a scientist, but this does not make sense to me.
And, I realize you can only put so many trees in New York City. Still, I wonder if we couldn't make some improvement -- plant a few more.
And, plant more in all our cities.
I think of grocery store parking lots, where often we do see trees. Thanks to Walmart and other grocers for planting them. Could they plant more?
I think of Erin Mendenhall, who is a surprise finalist in the race for Salt Lake City mayor. She campaigned on a pro-environment platform. If she is elected, what will she do? More -- if she is elected, what will she be obliged to do? If someone suggests an ordinance saying no new single-family houses without at least one tree, what will she say? How about no new commercial development without accompanying trees?
Some trees take away more carbon dioxide than others. Could we try to get more of them in our urban environments? The trees at Walmart are nice, but would other varieties be more effective?
I do not know if large trees can be replanted. Perhaps you cannot take partially grown redwoods and line them along the interstate -- where all the cars are. But, if you can, it might be worth it.
Tell me this: Why aren't more of our interstates lined with trees? How many are? Of top, I can't remember seeing any. Why not?
And, I realize you can only put so many trees in New York City. Still, I wonder if we couldn't make some improvement -- plant a few more.
And, plant more in all our cities.
I think of grocery store parking lots, where often we do see trees. Thanks to Walmart and other grocers for planting them. Could they plant more?
I think of Erin Mendenhall, who is a surprise finalist in the race for Salt Lake City mayor. She campaigned on a pro-environment platform. If she is elected, what will she do? More -- if she is elected, what will she be obliged to do? If someone suggests an ordinance saying no new single-family houses without at least one tree, what will she say? How about no new commercial development without accompanying trees?
Some trees take away more carbon dioxide than others. Could we try to get more of them in our urban environments? The trees at Walmart are nice, but would other varieties be more effective?
I do not know if large trees can be replanted. Perhaps you cannot take partially grown redwoods and line them along the interstate -- where all the cars are. But, if you can, it might be worth it.
Tell me this: Why aren't more of our interstates lined with trees? How many are? Of top, I can't remember seeing any. Why not?
Sunday, September 1, 2019
Solve Joint Health, and You Live Longer
Dynamics of the Knee 101 and why it might make a difference in how long you live. Have I piqued your interest? I hope so. Read on. Read why the knee might be a key to long life.
And, what I say of the knee, I say of the hip. The hip is just as important. Have you ever noticed how many elderly fall and break their hips? Why does that not happen so much to those who are young?
The secrets of life and death, then, are to be found in the knees and hips. If you would live to be 101, read on.
A few weeks ago, I saw an ad or infomercial or whatever for a product called Arthrozene. The good doctor who came up with the product explained that the knee's cartilage is like a sponge. And, when the foot lands on the ground, fluid is squeezed out of the joint. And, when you lift your foot, fluid is sucked back in. A bad joint is one where the sponge has dried up, and no fluid is entering or exiting.
I visit a rehabilitation center each week as part of a church calling. Yesterday, as with many weeks I've been over there, I ran into person after person with knee or hip replacements. I ran into two or three whose hips had been broken. Why do hips break more often with the elderly than with youth? Because they are more bridle, of course. And, while I say "of course" because this makes sense, now that I know cartilage can dry up -- and does as we get older -- it all makes even better sense. Dry things break easier. Old people have dry cartilage, and so, old people's joints break easier.
Can new fluid be created? I don't know. The Arthrozene people must believe so. I tried to replicate what Arthrozene has in it, by buying Boswellia and Collagen. I already had some Hyaluronic Acid (and some Boswellia, but I bought some more).
Now, getting back to the suggestion that when you run, as your foot lands it squeezes out fluid and as it lifts up, it sucks in fluid. You do not lubricate the joint then, without exercising. And, note this: If you land hard, that is more likely to jar out the fluid than a gentle touching down of the foot. Just like there is a splash when something heavy is thrown into a pool, whereas there is no splash if the heavy item is gently laid into the water, so the pounding from running means more than gentle walking.
There is a lot I do not know. I have learned a little about the lymphatic system, and of how it carries the body fluids around, and the body fluids have toxins in them and the lymphatic system helps carry them out. I would guess the lymphatic system serves the knees and joints, and any liquid squeezed in or out is transported through the lymphatic system. So, when it is squeezed out, is it carried away and a new supply of liquid sucked in? If you are going to get rid of toxins, this would seem necessary. If there is any value to squeezing out the fluid only to let it back in, it would seem some new fluid must be brought into the joint.
Does all the fluid in our body intermingle? Or, is there a set of lymphatic vessels for one fluid, and another set for another? Is there one set for intake, and another for outtake? What are the interfacings with the blood system? Is inflammation carried through both?
Consider that toxins kill. Consider that the breakdown of the knee and hip might be due to toxins being introduced, or becoming too dominant. Maybe when the knee cartilage dries out, it is because of the toxins in the liquid. At any rate, if the same toxins are awash in the rest of your body, then if you keep your knees and hips healthy, you might keep the rest of your body healthy.
The knee becomes the visible indicator of the whole of the body.
When a person just lays in a hospital bed, their lymphatic system is hardly active. Yes, we know the lymphatic system requires exercise. Unlike the arterial system, which has the heart as a pump, the lymphatic system has no pump. It relies on exercise. Now read this, from http://www.cpandr.co.uk:
"The lymphatic system is our body’s own waste removal service. It is the least talked about system in the body but is arguably the most vital."
Lay in bed and die, perhaps? If removal of the toxins requires the lymphatic system and the lymphatic system requires exercise, where does that leave us? If our joints get stiffer and stiffer and we no longer can exercise, that is death sitting in. Solve joint health, and you live longer. One, the health of the joints is a reflection of the health of the body, and, Two, you need those joints healthy so you can exercise and have the lymphatic system ridding you of killing toxins.
And, what I say of the knee, I say of the hip. The hip is just as important. Have you ever noticed how many elderly fall and break their hips? Why does that not happen so much to those who are young?
The secrets of life and death, then, are to be found in the knees and hips. If you would live to be 101, read on.
A few weeks ago, I saw an ad or infomercial or whatever for a product called Arthrozene. The good doctor who came up with the product explained that the knee's cartilage is like a sponge. And, when the foot lands on the ground, fluid is squeezed out of the joint. And, when you lift your foot, fluid is sucked back in. A bad joint is one where the sponge has dried up, and no fluid is entering or exiting.
I visit a rehabilitation center each week as part of a church calling. Yesterday, as with many weeks I've been over there, I ran into person after person with knee or hip replacements. I ran into two or three whose hips had been broken. Why do hips break more often with the elderly than with youth? Because they are more bridle, of course. And, while I say "of course" because this makes sense, now that I know cartilage can dry up -- and does as we get older -- it all makes even better sense. Dry things break easier. Old people have dry cartilage, and so, old people's joints break easier.
Can new fluid be created? I don't know. The Arthrozene people must believe so. I tried to replicate what Arthrozene has in it, by buying Boswellia and Collagen. I already had some Hyaluronic Acid (and some Boswellia, but I bought some more).
Now, getting back to the suggestion that when you run, as your foot lands it squeezes out fluid and as it lifts up, it sucks in fluid. You do not lubricate the joint then, without exercising. And, note this: If you land hard, that is more likely to jar out the fluid than a gentle touching down of the foot. Just like there is a splash when something heavy is thrown into a pool, whereas there is no splash if the heavy item is gently laid into the water, so the pounding from running means more than gentle walking.
There is a lot I do not know. I have learned a little about the lymphatic system, and of how it carries the body fluids around, and the body fluids have toxins in them and the lymphatic system helps carry them out. I would guess the lymphatic system serves the knees and joints, and any liquid squeezed in or out is transported through the lymphatic system. So, when it is squeezed out, is it carried away and a new supply of liquid sucked in? If you are going to get rid of toxins, this would seem necessary. If there is any value to squeezing out the fluid only to let it back in, it would seem some new fluid must be brought into the joint.
Does all the fluid in our body intermingle? Or, is there a set of lymphatic vessels for one fluid, and another set for another? Is there one set for intake, and another for outtake? What are the interfacings with the blood system? Is inflammation carried through both?
Consider that toxins kill. Consider that the breakdown of the knee and hip might be due to toxins being introduced, or becoming too dominant. Maybe when the knee cartilage dries out, it is because of the toxins in the liquid. At any rate, if the same toxins are awash in the rest of your body, then if you keep your knees and hips healthy, you might keep the rest of your body healthy.
The knee becomes the visible indicator of the whole of the body.
When a person just lays in a hospital bed, their lymphatic system is hardly active. Yes, we know the lymphatic system requires exercise. Unlike the arterial system, which has the heart as a pump, the lymphatic system has no pump. It relies on exercise. Now read this, from http://www.cpandr.co.uk:
"The lymphatic system is our body’s own waste removal service. It is the least talked about system in the body but is arguably the most vital."
Lay in bed and die, perhaps? If removal of the toxins requires the lymphatic system and the lymphatic system requires exercise, where does that leave us? If our joints get stiffer and stiffer and we no longer can exercise, that is death sitting in. Solve joint health, and you live longer. One, the health of the joints is a reflection of the health of the body, and, Two, you need those joints healthy so you can exercise and have the lymphatic system ridding you of killing toxins.
Lessons to be Learned from Taylorsville Shooting
Push aside news of all the other shootings and learn from a little one in Taylorsville, Utah.
No one died, so no news outside Utah.
But, I wonder if there are lessons to be learned as much from this shooting as from any other.
A man shows up at a birthday party, drunken, barefooted, and with a gun. The party's host talks him into leaving, and he does. The party's host then goes to talk to a neighbor, who is a concealed carry permit holder. As they talk, the unwelcome man returns, an argument ensues, the man points his gun -- and the neighbor shoots him.
The story exemplifies the notion that some people shouldn't have guns. The man was drunken. Certainly you do not want a drunken person to be carrying a gun around. But, what if he had been sober? Would it have been okay for him to be bringing the gun? The party host still would have been within rights to ask him to leave. But, what if the party host was alright with the man having the gun, as long as he wasn't intoxicated? Would it then be a good thing -- and safe -- that the man brought his gun?
That would depend on what the man intended to do with the gun, wouldn't it? If he were just hauling around the gun in case he should need it for self defense, perhaps having the gun is okay. But, even then, be careful. If the man knew he sometimes gets in arguments, and was wanting the gun to give him the one-up in such situations, he might rationalize he was carrying it for self defense. If you get in fights, the gun can be seen as your self defense.
Bottom line is, Some people should not have guns. We should be drawing lines and leaving some people out when it comes to the right to bear guns.
Gun-free zones? That's another question this story broaches. Should a birthday party be a gun-free zone? Or, to the contrary, should guns be encouraged? Should we make sure someone at the party has a gun, just in case a criminal comes and someone needs to shoot him down? What would become of little parties such as this, if a number of people stepped into the role of defenders, and all came packing heat?
For my part, I think those are parties I would leave. You can argue guns are needed for self defense, but having a number of guns present only escalates the danger of one being used. I do not think I would like to be going to parties, or other gatherings (including church), where a number of guns are present. Count me out.
No one died, so no news outside Utah.
But, I wonder if there are lessons to be learned as much from this shooting as from any other.
A man shows up at a birthday party, drunken, barefooted, and with a gun. The party's host talks him into leaving, and he does. The party's host then goes to talk to a neighbor, who is a concealed carry permit holder. As they talk, the unwelcome man returns, an argument ensues, the man points his gun -- and the neighbor shoots him.
The story exemplifies the notion that some people shouldn't have guns. The man was drunken. Certainly you do not want a drunken person to be carrying a gun around. But, what if he had been sober? Would it have been okay for him to be bringing the gun? The party host still would have been within rights to ask him to leave. But, what if the party host was alright with the man having the gun, as long as he wasn't intoxicated? Would it then be a good thing -- and safe -- that the man brought his gun?
That would depend on what the man intended to do with the gun, wouldn't it? If he were just hauling around the gun in case he should need it for self defense, perhaps having the gun is okay. But, even then, be careful. If the man knew he sometimes gets in arguments, and was wanting the gun to give him the one-up in such situations, he might rationalize he was carrying it for self defense. If you get in fights, the gun can be seen as your self defense.
Bottom line is, Some people should not have guns. We should be drawing lines and leaving some people out when it comes to the right to bear guns.
Gun-free zones? That's another question this story broaches. Should a birthday party be a gun-free zone? Or, to the contrary, should guns be encouraged? Should we make sure someone at the party has a gun, just in case a criminal comes and someone needs to shoot him down? What would become of little parties such as this, if a number of people stepped into the role of defenders, and all came packing heat?
For my part, I think those are parties I would leave. You can argue guns are needed for self defense, but having a number of guns present only escalates the danger of one being used. I do not think I would like to be going to parties, or other gatherings (including church), where a number of guns are present. Count me out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)