Sunday, April 8, 2012
No post this week
Too damn tired from a packed weekend. I will, however, be posting about women in politics next week.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "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 debate surrounding the necessity of an armed populace is easily older than the Second Amendment. It has produced much controversy, and lies at many the heart of a voter's principles. As this is the second request I've had from the readers, this topic took me a good while (real life factors notwithstanding) to research and prepare. As with past topics, I will summarize the arguments for and against the right for individual citizens to bear arms, and at the end offer my viewpoint.
To begin, I will speak on how the Second Amendment fits into history. The right to bear arms is inherited (like much of our culture and law) from our English beginnings. Fresh from a war with Britain, wherein many a regular citizen farmer took up his trusty hinting rifle to combat an often more well-equipped and professional army, it was completely understandable that the average American would have full license to keep and use weapons to repel invaders, self-defense, and hunting.
As time progressed and America came to further industrialize and urbanize, and state police came into a more recognizable form, the prevalence of a gun existing in each household began to drop dramatically. Of course, this does not mean that the laws and debates surrounding the issue have weakened any. In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual was allowed to bear arms even if unconnected to any militia, and that any limits propounded by the Second Amendment have equal effect on both the State and Federal Government (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, respectively).
The rest of the legislation concerning militia and gun ownership stretches from the founding fathers in the Federal government up until today to many state superior courts, and to comment on them all would bury this topic in legalese and suffocating minutia. So, I will conclude this portion by saying that it is currently legal for individuals citizens to bear arms.
The moral arguments for gun ownership are varied and passionate. I will list and explain some of the most popular. The first is that an armed populace is a free populace, only slaves aren't allowed to carry weapons. Often, the first thing a dictator or tyrant does to disarm the people so as to prevent any insurrection or rebellion. A second argument is that if citizens can't defend themselves with legal access to firearms, criminals will surely pose an unconquerable threat by having access to illegal weapons. It is often said that an armed neighborhood is often the most safe; if you know your opponent has a gun, it is much less attractive to attack their house. In addition, it is much less likely a postal office or supermarket will be robbed if everyone is armed.
The most prolific defense of gun ownership is that restricting such an activity is unlawful, unethical, and unnatural. Firearms, with some more extreme exceptions, are the only weapons to be outlawed in this country. Certain weapons such as swords, bows, and other archaic arms are illegal to carry out on the street, but they are not illegal to purchase and display at one's house. Guns, in many degrees of calibur, ammunition size, rate of fire, and general level of destructiveness have many restrictions placed on them. Only with the invention of such weapons have the laws prohibiting them been put in place. Supporters of the Second Amendment ask why it is suddenly appropriate to outlaw these weapons just because they are more advanced than a sword or bow. Knife crime is a testament to the argument that outlawing guns will not stop violent crime. Escalation is also an argument purported by supporters of gun ownership; if the government can outlaw guns and knives, what is to stop them from outlawing hammers, bats, chainsaws, crossbows, etc.?
An additional argument for gun ownership is that some the restrictions placed on guns are ineffective; outlawing the possession of firearms within 1500 feet of a school will only spur a criminal to purchase a weapon that is capable of accuracy at 1600 feet. One can outlaw guns capable of accuracy at a 1600 foot range, but that very well might increase the black market demand for guns of that capability; a veritable arms race can very well ensue.
Some arguments for gun control (restrictions on gun ownership up to outlawing them completely) are as follows. The Second Amendment does not specify which guns are allowed to citizens; handguns are one thing, but fully automatics and RPGs are much different. It is here that many Second Amendment supporters as well as opponents agree.
Many people who are pro-gun control argue that guns, due to their inherent danger, cause more damage than good in cases of self-defense. Many studies have been conducted which say how gun ownership increases the likelihood of homicide within the homestead. These studies extend to information on suicide as well.
A large argument for gun control is that the likelihood of a tyrannical government overtaking America is so incredibly slim, that the need for an armed populace is unnecessary. Another Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or like-minded figure would have a difficult time getting support from the populace or leverage against the military.
Much of gun control arguments are just that, gun control. Many people do not wish to see guns completely outlawed. Use in sport or hunting are viable options that don't end in death or injury very much at all. Certain deterrents to crime such as instant background checks, ID tagging, wider gun education, and stricter punishments for gun crime, are currently being lobbied for. If the guns can be tracked and the populace is better informed, then there would be less in the way of accidents or illegal activity.
My view on gun control has been changing for a while now. I was very opposed to guns being legal at all for a long time, mostly due in part to never having used, held, or having much knowledge about them or the people who owned them. In the past couple years, I've been able to fire them at ranges, learn about their function and proper safety, and have met with supporters of their ownership. Having been exposed to this opposing perspective has informed me a great deal. I agree with the Supreme Court that the right to bear arms is a historic right that should be upheld; people should have a means to defending themselves, and taking guns away isn't going to stop crime. Correct and widespread education of gun safety and operation would go a long way to reducing the gap between the two sides of this argument. It makes much more sense to tackle deviant behavior in rapists than to outlaw short skirts and provocative dancing at parties. However, I think the most destructive of weapons such as fully automatic guns, explosive rounds, bazookas, and the like have no place on the street or in one's home. Keeping them at the gun range under secure lock and law would be more appropriate, I think. The demand for them is so low, I don't think they pose a great threat.
Seeing as America is increasingly becoming the minority in countries that allow gun ownership, are we backwards in our laws and thinking?
Thanks for reading.
The debate surrounding the necessity of an armed populace is easily older than the Second Amendment. It has produced much controversy, and lies at many the heart of a voter's principles. As this is the second request I've had from the readers, this topic took me a good while (real life factors notwithstanding) to research and prepare. As with past topics, I will summarize the arguments for and against the right for individual citizens to bear arms, and at the end offer my viewpoint.
To begin, I will speak on how the Second Amendment fits into history. The right to bear arms is inherited (like much of our culture and law) from our English beginnings. Fresh from a war with Britain, wherein many a regular citizen farmer took up his trusty hinting rifle to combat an often more well-equipped and professional army, it was completely understandable that the average American would have full license to keep and use weapons to repel invaders, self-defense, and hunting.
As time progressed and America came to further industrialize and urbanize, and state police came into a more recognizable form, the prevalence of a gun existing in each household began to drop dramatically. Of course, this does not mean that the laws and debates surrounding the issue have weakened any. In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual was allowed to bear arms even if unconnected to any militia, and that any limits propounded by the Second Amendment have equal effect on both the State and Federal Government (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, respectively).
The rest of the legislation concerning militia and gun ownership stretches from the founding fathers in the Federal government up until today to many state superior courts, and to comment on them all would bury this topic in legalese and suffocating minutia. So, I will conclude this portion by saying that it is currently legal for individuals citizens to bear arms.
The moral arguments for gun ownership are varied and passionate. I will list and explain some of the most popular. The first is that an armed populace is a free populace, only slaves aren't allowed to carry weapons. Often, the first thing a dictator or tyrant does to disarm the people so as to prevent any insurrection or rebellion. A second argument is that if citizens can't defend themselves with legal access to firearms, criminals will surely pose an unconquerable threat by having access to illegal weapons. It is often said that an armed neighborhood is often the most safe; if you know your opponent has a gun, it is much less attractive to attack their house. In addition, it is much less likely a postal office or supermarket will be robbed if everyone is armed.
The most prolific defense of gun ownership is that restricting such an activity is unlawful, unethical, and unnatural. Firearms, with some more extreme exceptions, are the only weapons to be outlawed in this country. Certain weapons such as swords, bows, and other archaic arms are illegal to carry out on the street, but they are not illegal to purchase and display at one's house. Guns, in many degrees of calibur, ammunition size, rate of fire, and general level of destructiveness have many restrictions placed on them. Only with the invention of such weapons have the laws prohibiting them been put in place. Supporters of the Second Amendment ask why it is suddenly appropriate to outlaw these weapons just because they are more advanced than a sword or bow. Knife crime is a testament to the argument that outlawing guns will not stop violent crime. Escalation is also an argument purported by supporters of gun ownership; if the government can outlaw guns and knives, what is to stop them from outlawing hammers, bats, chainsaws, crossbows, etc.?
An additional argument for gun ownership is that some the restrictions placed on guns are ineffective; outlawing the possession of firearms within 1500 feet of a school will only spur a criminal to purchase a weapon that is capable of accuracy at 1600 feet. One can outlaw guns capable of accuracy at a 1600 foot range, but that very well might increase the black market demand for guns of that capability; a veritable arms race can very well ensue.
Some arguments for gun control (restrictions on gun ownership up to outlawing them completely) are as follows. The Second Amendment does not specify which guns are allowed to citizens; handguns are one thing, but fully automatics and RPGs are much different. It is here that many Second Amendment supporters as well as opponents agree.
Many people who are pro-gun control argue that guns, due to their inherent danger, cause more damage than good in cases of self-defense. Many studies have been conducted which say how gun ownership increases the likelihood of homicide within the homestead. These studies extend to information on suicide as well.
A large argument for gun control is that the likelihood of a tyrannical government overtaking America is so incredibly slim, that the need for an armed populace is unnecessary. Another Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or like-minded figure would have a difficult time getting support from the populace or leverage against the military.
Much of gun control arguments are just that, gun control. Many people do not wish to see guns completely outlawed. Use in sport or hunting are viable options that don't end in death or injury very much at all. Certain deterrents to crime such as instant background checks, ID tagging, wider gun education, and stricter punishments for gun crime, are currently being lobbied for. If the guns can be tracked and the populace is better informed, then there would be less in the way of accidents or illegal activity.
My view on gun control has been changing for a while now. I was very opposed to guns being legal at all for a long time, mostly due in part to never having used, held, or having much knowledge about them or the people who owned them. In the past couple years, I've been able to fire them at ranges, learn about their function and proper safety, and have met with supporters of their ownership. Having been exposed to this opposing perspective has informed me a great deal. I agree with the Supreme Court that the right to bear arms is a historic right that should be upheld; people should have a means to defending themselves, and taking guns away isn't going to stop crime. Correct and widespread education of gun safety and operation would go a long way to reducing the gap between the two sides of this argument. It makes much more sense to tackle deviant behavior in rapists than to outlaw short skirts and provocative dancing at parties. However, I think the most destructive of weapons such as fully automatic guns, explosive rounds, bazookas, and the like have no place on the street or in one's home. Keeping them at the gun range under secure lock and law would be more appropriate, I think. The demand for them is so low, I don't think they pose a great threat.
Seeing as America is increasingly becoming the minority in countries that allow gun ownership, are we backwards in our laws and thinking?
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Further Updating
As an avid reader of webcomics, I know the frustration and disappointment that can accompany a lack of updates. So when I give my latest excuse, know that I sympathize with those of who are awaiting the Second Amendment post.
I won't have internet in my house until Monday, and while I do have an Air Card that allows me to do basic surfing, it makes for difficult and slow multi-page research. Most importantly, I haven't had the chance to sit down with one of my most knowledgeable informants on Second Amendment and general American gun law. They have stated that they are more than happy to be interviewed, but I haven't had the time lately with my work schedule.
Seeing as this topic is a request, I want to take extra time and caution with this upcoming blog, just as I did with the Health Care topic. So, I will do my utmost to bring the entry next Sunday. I thank all of you for your patience and support, and I apologize for not sticking to my weekly schedule.
-Chris
I won't have internet in my house until Monday, and while I do have an Air Card that allows me to do basic surfing, it makes for difficult and slow multi-page research. Most importantly, I haven't had the chance to sit down with one of my most knowledgeable informants on Second Amendment and general American gun law. They have stated that they are more than happy to be interviewed, but I haven't had the time lately with my work schedule.
Seeing as this topic is a request, I want to take extra time and caution with this upcoming blog, just as I did with the Health Care topic. So, I will do my utmost to bring the entry next Sunday. I thank all of you for your patience and support, and I apologize for not sticking to my weekly schedule.
-Chris
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Preview
Hey everyone,
Due to my lack of internet, I won't be able to post this week. However, from this phone I can afford you a small preview. The topic will be on the second amendment. So arm your perspectives and polish your views for this very touchy subject.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Alienation Through Ideology
This week I will approach a topic that has been wearing on me for quite some time. That topic is, as the title suggests, ideology. In particular, the ideology of the "True Conservative". I will make the note now that I will not be analysing "True Liberalism" for the following reasons:
1. I am not aware of any party or entity that espouses themselves as true liberals or think it necessary to broadcast it to the world.
2. There aren't any candidates, including Obama, that have asserted themselves as true liberals in reaction to "True Conservatives".
3. The infighting caused by the implication of a "True Conservative" candidate is not seen anywhere else other than the Republican Party at this moment in time.
Thus, there is no real reason for me speak on the imaginary counterpart of the "True Conservative". If such an opportunity and situation presents itself, I would be happy to make a follow-up post.
To begin, I will attempt to define what a "True Conservative" candidate is. According to the Tea Party Patriots website, this ultra-conservative grass roots entity wants fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economics. At the outset, these proponents of conservatism don't appear very extreme. However, things get more muddled as the associated GOP candidates (Romney, Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum) start asserting themselves as the best and "True Conservative" to take down Obama. The goal of getting Obama out of office is another goal of the Tea Party, although sometimes unofficial. It isn't stated in the goals, but can be seen all over the blog posts and news updates that the Tea Party hosts. It also is a favourite one-liner you hear all too often from the TV debates.
While a true conservative's basis may lie in fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free market, so much other ideological fervour is attracted to the conservative message. Positions against gay-marriage, allowing more prayer in schools, disgust at the elimination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", contraception and abortion, and other minutia have become commonplace. Perhaps it is because the three Tea Party goals are, in fact, umbrella terms that are all too magnetic for right-wing sensibilities. Perhaps it is because the GOP attracts very right-wing candidates. Whatever the reason, the Republican candidate, and the contest for who can be a "True Conservative", has become overloaded with baggage that has alienated many a moderate voter.
I've already spoken on how I dislike how the political climate is ruled by two parties and others can't manage the funding for equal representation. This is another example of how damaging extremism can be. Before writing this post, a registered-Republican voter was speaking to me on how she can't recognize the Republican party. When she joined up originally, there was less talk about legislating morality, less posturing about prayer in schools, and more sensible talk about the economy. Nowadays, she can't identify with any of the candidates because of how extreme they all are and how extreme one has to be to be a true Republican.
Whatever happened to being fiscally conservative yet having liberal views on social issues at the same time? How and why is that a crime? It is my understanding that many people sit in that position and don't know what to do. They could care less about gay marriage, or may even support it, but they want less taxes. They are Christian but agree that school-supported prayer is a bad thing that infringes on the rights of different religions and those without religion. The emerging attitudes towards church and state, economy and environment, and a great deal of other issues are changing. People no longer fit into the extreme mould the GOP has become, nor do they fully support the Democratic party. Yet, all they are given are those two candidates and some fringe contestants who can't get a commercial on the air because of how political funding works in this country.
My final point is about how the Republican candidates have handled themselves in light of this "True Conservative" pissing contest. Each candidate, including some of those who have dropped out, claim to be the only true conservative and list attacks against their opponents to disqualify them. This infighting, which only makes each of them look less appealing, turns to excuse-making. Each candidate has responded to attacks by either denying the allegation, or spinning to sound like it wasn't as bad as it sounds, or making it seem as though it is, in fact, a truly conservative choice. Thus, you have (at the moment) four grown men yelling at one another about who has the cleanest record and trying desperately to alter their past to appease some high-handed ideal that much of the country doesn't seem to like in the first place. This doesn't even benefit the extremists; as they are content to henpeck everyone's conservative credentials in a McCarthy-esque witch-hunt, until the prerequisites are so impossible to achieve that they distance themselves from everyone.
Take Gingrich, for example. He actually came out to say that it was a mistake for him to join forces with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi on combating global warming in an ad years ago. He has been constantly attacked for it, and now directs his counter-attack to taking out the Environmental Protection Agency ( he called it a complete failure at a recent conservative conference). I was impressed that he admitted to his mistake, it was mature of him and he gave reasons why he changed his mind. I disagree with him on his current stance towards man-made climate change, but I respect his position. What I find baffling is that he believes the EPA should be eliminated in its entirety because of some bad regulations it has put forth. Sure, the EPA should get an overhaul and certain regulations have done some damage to the economy, but to leave potentially dangerous business practices unchecked is just utter folly. Gingrich, I think, was hoping to score conservative points by appearing anti-regulation, making up for his past faux pas with Gore and Pelosi. Once again, a conservative candidate took one step-forward, and then ran back inside the closet three miles back at the Tea Party HQ.
Another example is Rick Santorum. Santorum's Christianity is something that should remain personal to him, and should not affect his views or action in office. That is the law, that is the CONSTITUTIONAL law. Yet, every time he opens his mouth about religion, he comes on as this budding theocrat, claiming that Satan has invaded government and academic institutions (I'm not making that up, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/feb/22/context-santorum-satan/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n4jopm7hYFk#!). Santorum allows far too much of his religious beliefs to rule his political decisions, and having someone like that in office at any level of government scares me, and I hope it as least concerns all of you.
To conclude, the race for an Obama-beating, Christo-fascist, anti-gay marriage, anti-regulation, limited government, free-market sycophant, Tea Party groupie is harming the political nature of this country. It is alienating moderates of both sides, it is setting up the GOP candidate to be irrational and unstable, and it is pretty much handing the vote to Obama at this point. I won't make any predictions, but I will sorely hope for at least a moderate candidate to take the stage against Obama. If I don't see one, I will be forced to choose Obama once more, and I hope I don't have to do so out of regret and spite.
What do you all think of the current state of the republican party? To all my UK viewers, don't be afraid to comment, we need some outside perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)