May the public continue this debate, and may the public consider the proposed solutions, not just hear them. May the public earnestly weigh the proposals.
Do we get rid of no-gun zones? Do we encourage people to bring their guns with them when they go out in public? Do we not sell guns to those on the terrorist watch list, or on the no-fly list?
Do we ban assault weapons?
Alas, no time to discuss the proposals, for I must be off to work. Catch you later.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Judging the Nation by the Standards We Judge a Person
What if we judged the nation's character the same way we would judge the character of a single person? What would we find if we judged the whole of the people by the same standards by which we judge an individual?
Like, are we, as a people, honest and fair in dealing with all people? whether they be LGBT, unlawful immigrants, or blacks, and whether they be our politicians, our next-door neighbors or people we do business with.
Are we charitable towards others? Are we not overly judgmental of them? Do we give them the benefit of the doubt, or seek to skewer them? How do we treat our co-workers in this regard, or our neighbors? How do we treat celebrities and politicians? Are we fault finders with them? Are we quick to see evil in them? Do we speak well of others, or do we delight in speaking ill of politicians and celebrities, neighbors and others? Do we stone them?
How to we treat the poor, and the homeless, and the disadvantaged? "For inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
Do we lie? Do we take advantage of each other?
How about in our business dealings? How about in regards to one business dealing with another, or with its employees? How about us as employees? Do we seek to take advantage of our employers?
Do we love our neighbors as ourselves? What about the refugees, then? Do we treat them as we would treat ourselves, or do we say, let's take care of our own before we help those from outside our country?
I think of a scripture that says violence covers the mouth of the wicked, and I wonder at the violent shows and movies we watch. Are we a wild and idolatrous people? Do our pastimes tend to the violent? How about our video games? How about boxing and ultimate fighting? I believe a person can be in such sports without being wrong. I think of Muhammad Ali as an example of someone who was honorable, at least in my book. But, when the participants and fans start to enjoy the savagery of the sport, when they joy in the blood and the carnage, that does not reflect good character.
What share of our nation spends time idling, drinking, and taking drugs? Again, what portion of our people are idolatrous, seeking for riches as their life's goal? How many turn the pursuit of happiness into the pursuit of money, believing that money is happiness? Money over God, this is idolatry.
I guess the question of the morality of the nation could be asked from two perspectives, one, from the perspective of the government and how it conducts itself, and, two, from the vantage point of how we, the people act.
Perhaps, next week, I will return to this topic, considering it from the vantage of government and government leaders and whether we are a moral nation in governing.
Like, are we, as a people, honest and fair in dealing with all people? whether they be LGBT, unlawful immigrants, or blacks, and whether they be our politicians, our next-door neighbors or people we do business with.
Are we charitable towards others? Are we not overly judgmental of them? Do we give them the benefit of the doubt, or seek to skewer them? How do we treat our co-workers in this regard, or our neighbors? How do we treat celebrities and politicians? Are we fault finders with them? Are we quick to see evil in them? Do we speak well of others, or do we delight in speaking ill of politicians and celebrities, neighbors and others? Do we stone them?
How to we treat the poor, and the homeless, and the disadvantaged? "For inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
Do we lie? Do we take advantage of each other?
How about in our business dealings? How about in regards to one business dealing with another, or with its employees? How about us as employees? Do we seek to take advantage of our employers?
Do we love our neighbors as ourselves? What about the refugees, then? Do we treat them as we would treat ourselves, or do we say, let's take care of our own before we help those from outside our country?
I think of a scripture that says violence covers the mouth of the wicked, and I wonder at the violent shows and movies we watch. Are we a wild and idolatrous people? Do our pastimes tend to the violent? How about our video games? How about boxing and ultimate fighting? I believe a person can be in such sports without being wrong. I think of Muhammad Ali as an example of someone who was honorable, at least in my book. But, when the participants and fans start to enjoy the savagery of the sport, when they joy in the blood and the carnage, that does not reflect good character.
What share of our nation spends time idling, drinking, and taking drugs? Again, what portion of our people are idolatrous, seeking for riches as their life's goal? How many turn the pursuit of happiness into the pursuit of money, believing that money is happiness? Money over God, this is idolatry.
I guess the question of the morality of the nation could be asked from two perspectives, one, from the perspective of the government and how it conducts itself, and, two, from the vantage point of how we, the people act.
Perhaps, next week, I will return to this topic, considering it from the vantage of government and government leaders and whether we are a moral nation in governing.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Is Trump's Announcement a Way for Him to Seek NRA Contributions?
Wish stories about campaign endorsements came equipped with mention about whether the endorsers had contributed to the candidates.
Take the National Rifle Association's endorsement of Donald Trump last month. Trump had previously been self-funding his campaign and had just recently shifted to taking outside contributions. The timing of the NRA endorsement makes one wonder if it was accompanied by a campaign contribution.
If our public disclosure laws are to have any effect, the news media has got to question what money is coming from organizations each time they are involved in the candidates' campaigns.
Take Trump's announcement this week about meeting with the NRA. "I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."
When the news of Trump's proposed meeting with the NRA broke, my mind immediately flew to the situation in Utah, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert having gotten in trouble for indicating he would meet with lobbyists in exchange for their contributing to his campaign.
Now, with Trump announcing he would meet with the NRA, I wondered if this is standard operating procedure for political candidates: Tell potential donors you want to meet with them to discuss public policy, then wait for the money to come in. Whether you ask for a contribution at the same time or not, it is understood between you, the contributor, and the candidate that you are seeking that money. Sometimes, the contribution might be hidden, somewhat, by it going to a PAC or such, thus making it harder for the public to make the connection.
I just wonder about all this. After all, Trump has not been the kind of guy who has sought advice from others on public policy. Before he was accepting contributions, would he have sought input from the NRA? Why does he care what the NRA feels about keeping those on the no-fly list from having guns? It is his own feelings on the issue that matters, not the NRA's.
So, since when does Trump see the need to seek out advice on matters like this? It does not go unnoticed on me that he sought the advice from a lobbyist -- someone in position to give him money -- rather than from someone who wouldn't be giving him money. It is not like he tweeted out, "I will be meeting with Paul Ryan and other Republican leaders about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no watch list, to buy guns." It seems is would be more logical to craft policy with them than with lobbyists. For that matter, it would be more logical to meet with the leaders of both parties, of Congress, in general, than with lobbyists. Why can't we create public policy the right way, instead of feeding money into the equation? Craft your policy with those in position to craft public policy (RE: lawmakers), not with those in position to give you money.
Take the National Rifle Association's endorsement of Donald Trump last month. Trump had previously been self-funding his campaign and had just recently shifted to taking outside contributions. The timing of the NRA endorsement makes one wonder if it was accompanied by a campaign contribution.
If our public disclosure laws are to have any effect, the news media has got to question what money is coming from organizations each time they are involved in the candidates' campaigns.
Take Trump's announcement this week about meeting with the NRA. "I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."
When the news of Trump's proposed meeting with the NRA broke, my mind immediately flew to the situation in Utah, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert having gotten in trouble for indicating he would meet with lobbyists in exchange for their contributing to his campaign.
Now, with Trump announcing he would meet with the NRA, I wondered if this is standard operating procedure for political candidates: Tell potential donors you want to meet with them to discuss public policy, then wait for the money to come in. Whether you ask for a contribution at the same time or not, it is understood between you, the contributor, and the candidate that you are seeking that money. Sometimes, the contribution might be hidden, somewhat, by it going to a PAC or such, thus making it harder for the public to make the connection.
I just wonder about all this. After all, Trump has not been the kind of guy who has sought advice from others on public policy. Before he was accepting contributions, would he have sought input from the NRA? Why does he care what the NRA feels about keeping those on the no-fly list from having guns? It is his own feelings on the issue that matters, not the NRA's.
So, since when does Trump see the need to seek out advice on matters like this? It does not go unnoticed on me that he sought the advice from a lobbyist -- someone in position to give him money -- rather than from someone who wouldn't be giving him money. It is not like he tweeted out, "I will be meeting with Paul Ryan and other Republican leaders about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no watch list, to buy guns." It seems is would be more logical to craft policy with them than with lobbyists. For that matter, it would be more logical to meet with the leaders of both parties, of Congress, in general, than with lobbyists. Why can't we create public policy the right way, instead of feeding money into the equation? Craft your policy with those in position to craft public policy (RE: lawmakers), not with those in position to give you money.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Enough People Should be in the Military that it Represents the People
Turn to the words of Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, if you wonder where the seed of thought came from suggesting the Second Amendment is there to protect us against our own government becoming tyrannical.
If I'm reading Hamilton right, what he is driving at is that if the military is composed of enough citizens, there will be enough among them those who won't go along with government taking away the rights of the people.
After all, if the army is composed of the citizenry, they aren't going to fight to take away their own rights.
Here's are Hamilton's words: "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
So, is Hamilton arguing that everyone should own guns so they can rise up in militias if the government becomes tyrannical? Or, is he arguing that enough people ought to be in the military so that it will represent the people, thus ensuring that the military will not rise up against them, because they are the military?
I think it is the latter. I think the second thought is the thought Hamilton had in mind.
I don't know but what there aren't other quotes that would give us an idea of where the notion came from that the Second Amendment is there to protect us against tyrannical government. If this quote from Hamilton is the source, however, it would seem that rather than private gun ownership, the cause that everybody should be getting uptight about is whether there are enough of us enlisted in the military so that that military cannot rise up against us.
That should be the grand cause. Instead, it is a cause we've never even heard of. Just saying.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318670/posts
If I'm reading Hamilton right, what he is driving at is that if the military is composed of enough citizens, there will be enough among them those who won't go along with government taking away the rights of the people.
After all, if the army is composed of the citizenry, they aren't going to fight to take away their own rights.
Here's are Hamilton's words: "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
So, is Hamilton arguing that everyone should own guns so they can rise up in militias if the government becomes tyrannical? Or, is he arguing that enough people ought to be in the military so that it will represent the people, thus ensuring that the military will not rise up against them, because they are the military?
I think it is the latter. I think the second thought is the thought Hamilton had in mind.
I don't know but what there aren't other quotes that would give us an idea of where the notion came from that the Second Amendment is there to protect us against tyrannical government. If this quote from Hamilton is the source, however, it would seem that rather than private gun ownership, the cause that everybody should be getting uptight about is whether there are enough of us enlisted in the military so that that military cannot rise up against us.
That should be the grand cause. Instead, it is a cause we've never even heard of. Just saying.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318670/posts
Thursday, June 16, 2016
If You Make Assault Weapons Legal, Only the Bad Guys Will Use Them
Open minds must be open. I sit here, pausing, realizing I am willing to consider something I could get in trouble just for considering.
Banning assault weapons.
I think on the news of the day. I think of the report Omar Manteen sought to buy body armor, but was turned away by a suspicious store clerk. Did he wear body armor during his attack? I do not know. It is said that if you ban guns, only bad guys will have guns. But, I wonder if it is hard enough to get body armor, if then the killer will be more inclined to go without.
Yes, I think on the news of the day. I think of the family of the inventor of the AR-15 saying he would have been horrified to know the weapon has been used in mass killings. He intended the weapon for military efforts.
I pause, again, as I write this, realizing how my friends and others will villainize me for even considering this, realizing they will consider me anti-patriotic.
Banning assault weapons has always been a moot point, to me. My stand has always been -- and still is -- that there should be no restrictions on weapons. The Constitution doesn't allow it, and therefore certainly it does not allow banning assault weapons. I've not needed to venture into considering the banning of assault weapons, since the Constitution doesn't allow it.
But, if we were to be wise, like the founding fathers, would we amend our Constitution to allow banning of assault weapons? Would this be wise?
I see, clearly, that this would have an impact. If it were illegal to own, illegal to sell, illegal to have assault weapons, there would be far fewer killers using them. They might turn to other weapons, including bombs, but this one would be crossed off their list.
Yes, I think when we see something is wise, we should do it. We are foolish to let gun rampage after gun rampage, mass killing after mass killing, continue if we can do something that is certain to have an impact.
I think, again, of the old assertion that if we ban guns, only bad people will have them. I wonder. It seems that if we allow assault weapons, only bad people will use them. That is the real reality. There might be a few exceptions, there might be a few times when assault weapons have been used to stop a mass murder or to stop a crime, but they are few. Contrast that to how many times the assault weapons are used in mass killings.
Far and away, when the assault weapon is used, it is the bad guy using it.
Are we being wise? I think of the founding fathers, I think of how George Washington and Thomas Jefferson indicated we should consider changes that need to be made, and be wise enough to make those changes.
If we can see that this is wise, it is not being unpatriotic to consider it. It is being patriotic. I think on how I have been taught to stand up for that which is right, even when it is unpopular. I know, that off top, you will not think this right. I would ask you to at least consider it. Yes, I will challenge you to consider whether you are being open minded. Whether we decide to do this or not, we must at least consider it. Being open minded demands that we at least give it consideration.
Banning assault weapons.
I think on the news of the day. I think of the report Omar Manteen sought to buy body armor, but was turned away by a suspicious store clerk. Did he wear body armor during his attack? I do not know. It is said that if you ban guns, only bad guys will have guns. But, I wonder if it is hard enough to get body armor, if then the killer will be more inclined to go without.
Yes, I think on the news of the day. I think of the family of the inventor of the AR-15 saying he would have been horrified to know the weapon has been used in mass killings. He intended the weapon for military efforts.
I pause, again, as I write this, realizing how my friends and others will villainize me for even considering this, realizing they will consider me anti-patriotic.
Banning assault weapons has always been a moot point, to me. My stand has always been -- and still is -- that there should be no restrictions on weapons. The Constitution doesn't allow it, and therefore certainly it does not allow banning assault weapons. I've not needed to venture into considering the banning of assault weapons, since the Constitution doesn't allow it.
But, if we were to be wise, like the founding fathers, would we amend our Constitution to allow banning of assault weapons? Would this be wise?
I see, clearly, that this would have an impact. If it were illegal to own, illegal to sell, illegal to have assault weapons, there would be far fewer killers using them. They might turn to other weapons, including bombs, but this one would be crossed off their list.
Yes, I think when we see something is wise, we should do it. We are foolish to let gun rampage after gun rampage, mass killing after mass killing, continue if we can do something that is certain to have an impact.
I think, again, of the old assertion that if we ban guns, only bad people will have them. I wonder. It seems that if we allow assault weapons, only bad people will use them. That is the real reality. There might be a few exceptions, there might be a few times when assault weapons have been used to stop a mass murder or to stop a crime, but they are few. Contrast that to how many times the assault weapons are used in mass killings.
Far and away, when the assault weapon is used, it is the bad guy using it.
Are we being wise? I think of the founding fathers, I think of how George Washington and Thomas Jefferson indicated we should consider changes that need to be made, and be wise enough to make those changes.
If we can see that this is wise, it is not being unpatriotic to consider it. It is being patriotic. I think on how I have been taught to stand up for that which is right, even when it is unpopular. I know, that off top, you will not think this right. I would ask you to at least consider it. Yes, I will challenge you to consider whether you are being open minded. Whether we decide to do this or not, we must at least consider it. Being open minded demands that we at least give it consideration.
The Gun has to be Accountable for its Part
If you are going to study gun violence, you pretty much have to study what role the gun is playing. Unfortunately, the Guns-don't-kill,-People-do mantra would turn attention away from the gun. We cannot do that; We need to study the role of the gun in the violence taking place.
We cannot look blindly away from the gun. We cannot divert all the attention to the killers. Yes, if we didn't have guns, people would find other weapons: knives, scissors, axes, or whatever. That doesn't diminish the fact that it is the gun that is being used so often. We should look at it, consider its role.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
The Language Police Might not Like it, but Guns Kill
"The bullet tore through his heart and killed him," I said.
Max looked up at me in horror when I said that. "Don't do that," he said.
"Don't do what?" I asked.
"Don't blame the bullet. That is about as bad as blaming the gun," he said.
"Oh, Max. I mean no harm in saying the bullet killed him. It did, didn't it? What's the harm in saying it, then?" I asked.
"Around here, we don't talk like that," he said.
"Don't talk like what?" I asked.
"We don't say bullets or guns kill. We just say people kill. That's just the way we word it around these parts," he explained.
"Around what parts?" I asked.
"America. In America, we don't talk like that," he said.
I hung my head, embarrassed for a short moment, and a little confused. For a while, I wondered if my part of America wasn't part of America, for people where I was from had no problem saying, "A bullet tore through his heart and killed him."
Nor did they have a problem saying someone was killed by a gun if that's what killed them.
I shook my head and looked back up at Max. "Max," I said, "You some kind of language police?"
"What you mean?" he asked.
"Well, seems to me, there's nothing wrong with saying guns kill, if they do," I said. "People like you might be offended, but there really isn't anything wrong with saying it. I'm just thinking you're being some kind of language police."
Max looked up at me in horror when I said that. "Don't do that," he said.
"Don't do what?" I asked.
"Don't blame the bullet. That is about as bad as blaming the gun," he said.
"Oh, Max. I mean no harm in saying the bullet killed him. It did, didn't it? What's the harm in saying it, then?" I asked.
"Around here, we don't talk like that," he said.
"Don't talk like what?" I asked.
"We don't say bullets or guns kill. We just say people kill. That's just the way we word it around these parts," he explained.
"Around what parts?" I asked.
"America. In America, we don't talk like that," he said.
I hung my head, embarrassed for a short moment, and a little confused. For a while, I wondered if my part of America wasn't part of America, for people where I was from had no problem saying, "A bullet tore through his heart and killed him."
Nor did they have a problem saying someone was killed by a gun if that's what killed them.
I shook my head and looked back up at Max. "Max," I said, "You some kind of language police?"
"What you mean?" he asked.
"Well, seems to me, there's nothing wrong with saying guns kill, if they do," I said. "People like you might be offended, but there really isn't anything wrong with saying it. I'm just thinking you're being some kind of language police."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)