Due to the recent tragedy in an elementary school, where a psycho went on a murder spree, the conversation all over has been to implement some form of gun control. People have been either vigorously supporting or voraciously condemning the NRA, and screaming for the elimination of so-called "assault weapons". Everyone has become a constitutional scholar when it comes to interpreting the 2nd Amendment - telling us what the founding fathers did and did not mean when they wrote it.
Understand, as the 2nd Amendment stands, we have the (God-given) right to "bear arms". It doesn't say "muskets", or "rifles", or any specific type of "arms". Many of the founding fathers were men of science, so I'm pretty sure they believed in the advancement of all technologies that further scientific investigation would bring. So, ANY law that puts ANY restriction WHATSOVER on what constitutes "arms", is a direct infringement on that right, and therefore unconstitutional.
The argument to the above is often the 1st Amendment, where laws have been written that create boundaries around what constitutes speech and the freedoms that come with it. You can't slander someone (unless, of course, you are a politician - in or out of an election year) and you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What constitutes "arms" in the 2nd Amendment therefore deserve the same type of boundaries. There is a major difference though: unlike the words that come out of our mouths, many of the types of weapons that are up for being abolished are ALREADY in the hands of criminals. Making them illegal only disarms law-abiding citizens. The criminals won't care - that is why they are criminals.
Let's look at this from a different perspective. Who do we really want to keep weapons from? The mentally ill. Think about it: every mass shooting that has taken place was perpetrated by someone who was mentally ill. You can't open fire on kindergartners and be in your right mind. So, mentally ill + gun = death of innocents. Maybe we are attacking this from the wrong angle. What designates someone as mentally ill? Someone with "wrong" ideas concerning reality (by reality I mean that which allows for the social framework to hold together). Where does someone get these wrong ideas? From the things they hear and the things they read.
What is needed is not the expropriation of the 2nd Amendment, but the elimination of the 1st.
Let's get rid of "free speech". Don't let people like me have a platform to share ideas that might disrupt the mainstream. Let the elite, those in our government determine what can be said, what can be printed, and what thoughts can be shared in film and games. After all, since they represent us, and we elected them, surely they would best know what would be appropriate. And once that has become entrenched into our culture, no more mental illness. No more mental illness, no more worry about "assault weapons".
There. Problem solved.
(The above was meant as sarcasm.)
© Emittravel 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
Stuff My Brain Says #58
Politicians, and many who worship at the altar of the "Mainstream Media", believe that the solution to the violence committed using guns would be more, and stricter, gun laws. You know, I honestly wish they were right. A few laws are passed and suddenly such violence is all but a forgotten memory. But you want to know the truth? That is a false hope.
There are already more gun laws on the books than can be counted, and since there is STILL violence committed with guns, more laws can't be the fix. Yet, the cry for more laws has become almost deafening. Obviously, more laws is not the solution - or places like Chicago would already be the safest places on the planet. It is already against the law to commit murder - with any type of weapon - and that has not stopped it from happening.
What is the solution? Some say putting God back in the front of our lives. Others say focus on strengthening the ties of traditional marriage and family. Do I have the answer? No. But I CAN tell you that if something does NOT work, more of it won't either.
© Emittravel 2013
There are already more gun laws on the books than can be counted, and since there is STILL violence committed with guns, more laws can't be the fix. Yet, the cry for more laws has become almost deafening. Obviously, more laws is not the solution - or places like Chicago would already be the safest places on the planet. It is already against the law to commit murder - with any type of weapon - and that has not stopped it from happening.
What is the solution? Some say putting God back in the front of our lives. Others say focus on strengthening the ties of traditional marriage and family. Do I have the answer? No. But I CAN tell you that if something does NOT work, more of it won't either.
© Emittravel 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #6
It's been awhile since the last time I posted one of these, so you may want to go back and at least catch the intro.
It's broke . . .
There has been a desire that Congress must prove the constitutionality of any bill they bring up for a vote. Congress, of course, has ignored this desire and have fought against such a "mandate". Why? Such a mandate would force them to have to read the Constitution and would tie their hands when it comes to attacks upon our liberty.
When it comes to a socially-emphasized agenda, any restrictions against such an agenda must be ignored at all costs. Of course, once a bill has become law, lawyers are brought in (happily lining their pockets) as lawsuits are filed against such laws. While those lawsuits are in process, the new law is considered "good" until proven otherwise. The longer the process, the more entrenched those laws become - forming judicial "precedents" that are often viewed as more legally binding than the very Constitution our system is based upon.
Why not force Congress to prove that the bill they are proposing IS constitutional to begin with? Would we have to worry about attacks against the 2nd Amendment that take away our liberty - empowering those who desire to harm us (not just criminals - a.k.a. "lawbreakers", but the very government that oversteps its bounds), or our 1st Amendment rights to voice opinions such as these, and to worship anywhere we so desire (including "public" property)?
I think it is time for those very politicians who have taken an OATH to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States to accept that they are not our gods, but our servants. And that we the people should not have to provide the leg work to prove when they are out of line to prove a law is unconstitutional.
. . . time to fix it!
© Emittravel 2013
It's broke . . .
There has been a desire that Congress must prove the constitutionality of any bill they bring up for a vote. Congress, of course, has ignored this desire and have fought against such a "mandate". Why? Such a mandate would force them to have to read the Constitution and would tie their hands when it comes to attacks upon our liberty.
When it comes to a socially-emphasized agenda, any restrictions against such an agenda must be ignored at all costs. Of course, once a bill has become law, lawyers are brought in (happily lining their pockets) as lawsuits are filed against such laws. While those lawsuits are in process, the new law is considered "good" until proven otherwise. The longer the process, the more entrenched those laws become - forming judicial "precedents" that are often viewed as more legally binding than the very Constitution our system is based upon.
Why not force Congress to prove that the bill they are proposing IS constitutional to begin with? Would we have to worry about attacks against the 2nd Amendment that take away our liberty - empowering those who desire to harm us (not just criminals - a.k.a. "lawbreakers", but the very government that oversteps its bounds), or our 1st Amendment rights to voice opinions such as these, and to worship anywhere we so desire (including "public" property)?
I think it is time for those very politicians who have taken an OATH to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States to accept that they are not our gods, but our servants. And that we the people should not have to provide the leg work to prove when they are out of line to prove a law is unconstitutional.
. . . time to fix it!
© Emittravel 2013
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Look: A Conspiracy!
People keep telling me that I'm a conspiracy theorist and not based in reality. To them, reality is what the "news" networks all agree on (except for that one, biased organization: FOX NEWS).
I don't spend a lot of time watching the "talking heads" repeat each other's talking points. Maybe that is my problem. If I did, I too would be unaware of the propaganda (but then again, I'd have that much less to write about). Think I'm kidding? Remember the "We Are the 99%" people? Remember the "evil" 1% that needed to pay their fair share? At what point did that shift from the 1% to the 2%, and the "We Are the 99%" to the "We Are the 98%"? The fiscal cliff talks morphed into an argument over taxing the top 2% folks. Where was the insightful, investigative journalists? I never heard one (and again, I admit I don't spend a LOT of time watching them) ask the question: "When did the 1% become the 2%?" Of course they couldn't do that. If they did, it would focus attention on that sliding scale, where 1% becomes 2%, which becomes 3%, which becomes the top 10%.
Think I'm crazy? Fine. Look up the income tax rate when it was initialized and look at it now. The first, peacetime income tax was established in 1894 with a tax rate of 2% for those making over $4k. Less than 10% of households had to pay income taxes. That was one of the main reasons it was able to be enacted - only a small portion of the populous would be impacted. Have you looked at your paystub lately?
If you don't watch the "talking heads" you may find that your brain will reengage and you too can be labeled a conspiracy theorist! Beats being a lemming.
© Emittravel 2013
I don't spend a lot of time watching the "talking heads" repeat each other's talking points. Maybe that is my problem. If I did, I too would be unaware of the propaganda (but then again, I'd have that much less to write about). Think I'm kidding? Remember the "We Are the 99%" people? Remember the "evil" 1% that needed to pay their fair share? At what point did that shift from the 1% to the 2%, and the "We Are the 99%" to the "We Are the 98%"? The fiscal cliff talks morphed into an argument over taxing the top 2% folks. Where was the insightful, investigative journalists? I never heard one (and again, I admit I don't spend a LOT of time watching them) ask the question: "When did the 1% become the 2%?" Of course they couldn't do that. If they did, it would focus attention on that sliding scale, where 1% becomes 2%, which becomes 3%, which becomes the top 10%.
Think I'm crazy? Fine. Look up the income tax rate when it was initialized and look at it now. The first, peacetime income tax was established in 1894 with a tax rate of 2% for those making over $4k. Less than 10% of households had to pay income taxes. That was one of the main reasons it was able to be enacted - only a small portion of the populous would be impacted. Have you looked at your paystub lately?
If you don't watch the "talking heads" you may find that your brain will reengage and you too can be labeled a conspiracy theorist! Beats being a lemming.
© Emittravel 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
The Big Empty
I'm reading an interesting book by Paul Davies called About Time - Einstein's Unfinished Revolution. One of the topics mentioned is that the universe has been expanding since the "big bang". My question is, what is considered "the universe"? Is it just the material that was formed during that "bang" and is propelling away from the other material formed at the same time? Or is the universe itself the "big empty" BETWEEN the material formed during that "bang"? Is the universe a finite area that is expanding, much like a balloon being filled with air? Or is the universe ALREADY an endless expanse of "nothingness", with the material formed during that "bang" moving ever out into that "nothingness"? And if the universe is expanding like a balloon, what is beyond it? A balloon expands into something, but what of the universe?
And if everything started at the "big bang", where did that endless expanse of "nothingness" come from?
I posted a tweet that said, "Questions for God: What is the stuff of Space? How does gravity work? Why put the meat on the back of the leg, when we bang it on the front?" It was meant as sort of a grand joke - the three questions I want to ask God when I meet Him in heaven. But the first two are serious. Scientists throw terms around all the time, but do a lousy job of explaining the "why" behind them. Opposite poles attract (minus/plus) and the same poles repel (minus/minus or plus/plus). Why? What CAUSES those reactions. Just because we observed them, and gave them a clever name/law (Magnetism), doesn't answer the WHY. Same with gravity and the "stuff of space".
Another point in the book (which I am really enjoying, by the way) is that if the universe were to stop expanding (the amount of matter in the universe being enough that the amount of gravity overcomes the speed of expansion) and fall back into a "big crunch", that time itself would flow backwards. Understand, this is not something that the author is coming up with himself - many physicists and mathematicians have embraced it. Why? Just because stars and planets and "stuff" change direction, why should time as well? If I throw a ball really hard straight up, at one point, since the gravitational pull of the earth is greater than the speed of the ball, the ball would stop, change direction, and fall back to earth. Does that mean TIME goes backwards as well? Just because a star changes direction, does that mean time reverses and light from that star goes back TO it?
I guess some things are beyond our finite understanding. It takes One who is infinite to provide the answer. The One who is perhaps OUTSIDE of the universe - holding it in His hands.
© Emittravel 2013
And if everything started at the "big bang", where did that endless expanse of "nothingness" come from?
I posted a tweet that said, "Questions for God: What is the stuff of Space? How does gravity work? Why put the meat on the back of the leg, when we bang it on the front?" It was meant as sort of a grand joke - the three questions I want to ask God when I meet Him in heaven. But the first two are serious. Scientists throw terms around all the time, but do a lousy job of explaining the "why" behind them. Opposite poles attract (minus/plus) and the same poles repel (minus/minus or plus/plus). Why? What CAUSES those reactions. Just because we observed them, and gave them a clever name/law (Magnetism), doesn't answer the WHY. Same with gravity and the "stuff of space".
Another point in the book (which I am really enjoying, by the way) is that if the universe were to stop expanding (the amount of matter in the universe being enough that the amount of gravity overcomes the speed of expansion) and fall back into a "big crunch", that time itself would flow backwards. Understand, this is not something that the author is coming up with himself - many physicists and mathematicians have embraced it. Why? Just because stars and planets and "stuff" change direction, why should time as well? If I throw a ball really hard straight up, at one point, since the gravitational pull of the earth is greater than the speed of the ball, the ball would stop, change direction, and fall back to earth. Does that mean TIME goes backwards as well? Just because a star changes direction, does that mean time reverses and light from that star goes back TO it?
I guess some things are beyond our finite understanding. It takes One who is infinite to provide the answer. The One who is perhaps OUTSIDE of the universe - holding it in His hands.
© Emittravel 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)