Sunday, April 22, 2007
A Wailing and Nashing of Teeth.....
Well, it’s been awhile since I posted anything to this blog. Mostly because I didn’t have any subject I felt worth commenting on. And it is possible today’s blog is not worth commenting on. But what the heck, each of us has our own version of self abuse and for many of the readers, my nonsensical ramblings are their version of self abuse.
Over the past week we have seen tragedy unfold nearly minute by minute as it happened. Then, we may have viewed the madness of a manic broadcast on national television, for what I consider to be nothing more then a ratings ploy. It did not take a far stretch of the imagination to realize that the killing of 32 people was madness.
But while the events were taking place, people all over this country were beginning wail and pull their hair out because even as they viewed the situation as horrible as anyone else, they were predicating that it would result in the loss of privilege. The right to own firearms.
Now I am going to take a short side trip here and hopefully examine the history of the armed citizen through out history. Let me see, looking, searching, well how about that, they don’t exist. Even the earliest settlers of this country were not armed, but they did have access to arms. The famous Captain John Smith was hired to teach and train the Pilgrims in the use of firearms for protection in this new, and dangerous land. But it was not long before the settlers realized that holding all the firearms in a central location was not practical for defense against the local Natives that took offense to their invading their lands, and began to hold those weapons in their homes. Plus, it made it easier to hunt game for the evenings meal.
Even before the advent of the firearm, the average citizen had nothing more then the implements found around the home to defend himself. We must remember that metals were expensive and wages were extremely poor. Even the barter for knives and such could put a major dent in the household savings of food or property. Movies nearly have the picture right when they show the peasants attacking the castle gates with pitchforks or scythes. Once the fight was over, those survivors could then arm themselves with the weapons of the castle. Such was the life of a European, living a harsh life, before this country was discovered.
An even better example of this comes from Asia, where the martial arts were developed. This method of defense, or fighting if you choose, came from the need to be able to defend ones self against either an armed or unarmed assailant. The weapons of the martial arts are in fact farm implements. Each item has a use and purpose within the farming structure. They learned to use what was at hand. After all, if it will cut and harvest rice, it will cut and harvest the head of an opponent.
All through the so called civilized world, the only folks that had what could be deemed weapons were those that ruled or served the rulers as soldiers. If the King decided that his neighbor needed the crap kicked out of him, he outfitted an army with weapons and went forth in the hopes his troops were nastier then his neighbors. Once the war was over, he collected up the weapons, and stored them in the castle’s armory until needed for the next war. Only a cadre of guards and such maintained their weapons. And we are not even going to discuss the bands of mercenaries that wandered the lands in hopes of employment. Many of which would hire out for the winter to protect one kingdom, then later return under the employment of neighboring kingdom as invaders.
So, we enter a new country finding the necessity of being able to protect ourselves on a moments notice. We find ourselves being put upon by our King and his advisors. And then one day we stand our ground at a bridge, with the intend to prevent the King’s men from taking away that which we need for our own protection and fire the shot heard around the world.
Once that little disagreement was settled, there was a discussion that maybe the people should be disarmed by some of the same folks that had fought so hard for this countries freedom from an unjust ruler. But the need was still there and specific words were written to protect the right of the citizen and the state. Our founding Fathers knew that the new country could not support a standing army, but would have to rely on the citizen to close ranks as they had done during the Revolution. Thus was born the Second Amendment.
So there is a short historical view of our right to bear arms. It came from the necessity to protect what was newly founded. It was also recognized that they lived in a violent land, with people that would and could strike anywhere, at any time and that the people needed to be able to defend themselves against such acts. It does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to consider that some of those same people would commit violent acts with that same means against their neighbors. So laws were enabled to prosecute those who violated the basic rights of others. And most of those laws are founded in writings thousands of years old.
But what my intent in this diatribe was that people were reacting without any solid information to events out of their control. What drives such actions? Simply fear. Fear of loosing what they consider a God given right. Pardon my verbosity here, but when did God come down from the mount and say each citizen of this country has the right to own a firearm? This does have me confused.
So those who feared that the tragedy at Virginia Tech would lead to more gun control, created comments all over the internet concerning the aspect that more legislation would come from the gore of the attack to take away that which they hold dear. But within this I see things others may have missed. The comments showed fear and within that fear were threats which if on the other side of the fence would scare me.
I really do not think either side of the gun control issue really can see just how each side is creating the fears which are rampant on both sides. But more importantly, has no one ever really tried to analyze why folks are so scared of the gun?
Oh sure, we all discuss how stupid most of the concepts of disarmament really are, but what brings such ideas to light? If you subscribe to the many conspiracy theories around the internet, there is an element which wishes to remove any and all abilities of the citizen to withstand their complete takeover of this country. If it were not for several factors, I’d be holding my ribs in pain from the laughter this evokes from me. One of the things that weight so heavily on my mind is I have heard such things from folks I consider to be rational, intelligent people. So what drives this fear? What are they really afraid of?
Flip the coin for a minute an try to put yourself in the shoes of the folks supporting the anti-gun movement. What are they scared of? I believe that answer is simple. Death. They are afraid of becoming a victim of a violent death by a firearm. I’ve even heard one state that they get violently ill if they find out they are in a home which contains a firearm. A person in fear of their own mortality cannot be reasoned with. All logic escapes them. The only focus they have is the protection of their own being and the only manner in which they feel they have is to eliminate that perceived threat. Can you imagine how they feel when some gun owner comments, “they can have my gun…..one bullet at a time”. Fear can create fear, and as Frank Herbert wrote, “Fear is the mind killer.”
I am certain many people who expound such sayings about giving the bullets or other such nonsense feel they are saying them in order to advise those who would attempt to take such freedom away that they would fight to keep that freedom. Some even think they are scaring those other folks into letting them keep said rights. In reality all they are doing is throwing gas on a fire.
Those folks that are so scared of being a victim of violence are hardly vocal. Rarely will they speak up to challenge those that they fear. But quietly they will work to bring down that persons downfall. It is those folks that elect the political leaches that proclaim they will bring about legislation which will bring the fearful some relief of their fears.
Those folks do not see the sporting application nor the protection side of the issue. They are scared and wish not to be. Boisterous comments of a macho nature does nothing to remove that fear, but can amplify it into doing something that in reality makes things worse. Hence, Gun Free Zones.
Now I do know several folks that carry a gun on a daily basis. Not because they are themselves scared of being a victim, but because they feel themselves to be careful, cautious individuals. And the locales where they reside have concealed carry laws. Oddly enough, the folks I know that go through the trouble to get licensed are not worried about becoming a victim, but do so in exercising the right to carry. It has nothing to do with being afraid, just being prepared in case the worst might happen.
And I rarely carry. Main reason is that any enemies I still have left above ground will never come at me head on, but from ambush. They are very much aware that given any chance at all, they would loose the argument and find themselves being zipped into a black bag. So why worry about that which I cannot control. Plus I am aware of where I go, when I go and how I get there.
By now the conspiracy theorist are frothing at the mouth, ready to crucify me for uttering such comments as written above. But I have yet to find anything to support those theories. Certainly there are those who would like to see firearms totally abolished. Some of their reasoning is actually noble in context, but wholly impractical in practice. Others are fearful they will become another victim of an individual like John Hinckley. Again they align their fears with that which will ease those fears and strike out against that which in many ways protects their freedoms.
How does one disarm this country? There are not enough law enforcement types to do the job. Besides, a very large percentage of the LEO’s of this country will fall into the category of the disarmed. The US Military Establishment? Same thing applies there. The UN? Oh, give me a break here. The UN was a grand experiment that has turned into a paper tiger. They can pass resolutions all day long to disarm this country, but who is going to collect those weapons? They cannot even place Peace Keeping troops into a country without that countries agreement. And we must remember this country is much larger then the average country they get sent into. Plus what country will commit troops to come into this one and disarm the public. The French? No, I have a real hard time seeing these things happening.
Dissolve the Constitution? Just how do you do that? Revoke the Second Amendment? That will take the voting of 33 state houses to approve such an action. And remember where those folks live. Presidential Order? Again, who will execute it? I have extreme doubt that having a Liberal President, a Liberal Congress and a Liberal Supreme Court could get away with such extremes. Even the Brady Bill was limited in its scope and power. And parts of it was tossed out by the Supreme Court.
So, what are the gun owners of this country really scared of? The loss of a way of life that goes back far before we became a country? Most of the time when I have asked this question, all I get is the same old pamphlet sayings about the right to bear arms. But this has to go deeper. I just wish someone would explain it too me without spouting pro-gun political slogans.
I saw an interesting fact a couple weeks ago. It seems the US Army has 800,000 people on their retired roster. Imagine if you will if only half those folks banded together to oppose the removal of any part of the Constitution which they once swore to protect. Then toss in the other services. Add those who have never been in service, yet have strong feelings about that document which provides us with the freedoms which we hold so dear.
Fear not the gun grabbers, but fear those who will restrict us in many other ways. Fear the religious right that would deny civil rights to all but those which believe as they do. Fear those who would deny the rights of man to an individual because of color or country of origin. And fear the person who would deny the rights to those who they believe are political opposites.
The wonder of this country is that people with differences can live, work and propel this country forward despite those differences. But to fail to accept those differences makes a person no better then the people they fear. Once that path is taken, only sorrow can follow.
I thought I had finished this entry into my madness, but the mind is a confusing thing and mine just keeps rambling about in my head, telling me that this is far from done.
Often in my writing I leave aspects of ambiguity all over the script. Let the reader think for themselves with only the least amount of prodding by myself. But I truly wonder if being more to the point would be a better tactic then what I have been using since I started these commentaries.
Then again, I have done what I have done with the hope that I could get folks to think without getting upset with me and my liberal leaning ways.
There is an email that has been floating about the internet for a year or better with points that says if you are a liberal you believe in these things. How sad that if you really believe in all those points, then you are in reality as guilty as those who believe in those points of being narrow minded and would deprive some of certain civil liberties. Think I am kidding? You think I say this lightly?
To blindly accept certain aspects as being purely a liberal concept can be a serious mistake for all. Liberals and Conservatives alike. To demand one liberty while denying another theirs because it does not fit into a neat package of political or religious beliefs is in essence the very actions which we, as Americans should be appalled with, instead of embracing. And we are our own worst enemy.
We ridicule that which we do not understand. We insult cultures and religions that have been in existence long before this country was even discovered. We make no attempt to understand the history of another people nor their way of life, but compare theirs to ours and find theirs pitiful. We stand with an arrogance of righteousness, yet treat do not understand why people look at us with contempt.
We will condemn the readings of another group, yet refuse to consider reading those same writings so we can better understand those whom we disagree with. We would deny the right of choice to those we disagree with while demanding that same right for ourselves.
We make no attempt to understand the fear of others while embracing our own fears.
But to create fear in another in a vain attempt to validate your own reasoning is without logic. Fear drives illogical actions. Once fear has embedded itself into the mind, then it is easy pry to ideas that can only appease that mind. Ideas without merit, yet comforting. Ideas that can break what is not broken. But they are comforting ideas which sooth the anguished mind.
How easy it is to forget one of the keys to warfare. Know Your Enemy. Yet, most of the comments I see shows very little knowledge of an enemy. Only a unearned contempt, but an unknowledgeable ally.
For the theorists that read this. Remember one factor I not only require but demand. Any proof you wish to offer in your defense, make sure it will stand up in a court of law. Half-truths, speculation and pipe dreams do not hold up in the light of day. Show me the enemy in their raw form so I can better construct a battle plan to defeat them.
And it is not what they are doing that is important, but why they are doing it. Because to manage the fear of thousands, gains you the vote of thousands.
Sober and Hating it
22 April 07
Over the past week we have seen tragedy unfold nearly minute by minute as it happened. Then, we may have viewed the madness of a manic broadcast on national television, for what I consider to be nothing more then a ratings ploy. It did not take a far stretch of the imagination to realize that the killing of 32 people was madness.
But while the events were taking place, people all over this country were beginning wail and pull their hair out because even as they viewed the situation as horrible as anyone else, they were predicating that it would result in the loss of privilege. The right to own firearms.
Now I am going to take a short side trip here and hopefully examine the history of the armed citizen through out history. Let me see, looking, searching, well how about that, they don’t exist. Even the earliest settlers of this country were not armed, but they did have access to arms. The famous Captain John Smith was hired to teach and train the Pilgrims in the use of firearms for protection in this new, and dangerous land. But it was not long before the settlers realized that holding all the firearms in a central location was not practical for defense against the local Natives that took offense to their invading their lands, and began to hold those weapons in their homes. Plus, it made it easier to hunt game for the evenings meal.
Even before the advent of the firearm, the average citizen had nothing more then the implements found around the home to defend himself. We must remember that metals were expensive and wages were extremely poor. Even the barter for knives and such could put a major dent in the household savings of food or property. Movies nearly have the picture right when they show the peasants attacking the castle gates with pitchforks or scythes. Once the fight was over, those survivors could then arm themselves with the weapons of the castle. Such was the life of a European, living a harsh life, before this country was discovered.
An even better example of this comes from Asia, where the martial arts were developed. This method of defense, or fighting if you choose, came from the need to be able to defend ones self against either an armed or unarmed assailant. The weapons of the martial arts are in fact farm implements. Each item has a use and purpose within the farming structure. They learned to use what was at hand. After all, if it will cut and harvest rice, it will cut and harvest the head of an opponent.
All through the so called civilized world, the only folks that had what could be deemed weapons were those that ruled or served the rulers as soldiers. If the King decided that his neighbor needed the crap kicked out of him, he outfitted an army with weapons and went forth in the hopes his troops were nastier then his neighbors. Once the war was over, he collected up the weapons, and stored them in the castle’s armory until needed for the next war. Only a cadre of guards and such maintained their weapons. And we are not even going to discuss the bands of mercenaries that wandered the lands in hopes of employment. Many of which would hire out for the winter to protect one kingdom, then later return under the employment of neighboring kingdom as invaders.
So, we enter a new country finding the necessity of being able to protect ourselves on a moments notice. We find ourselves being put upon by our King and his advisors. And then one day we stand our ground at a bridge, with the intend to prevent the King’s men from taking away that which we need for our own protection and fire the shot heard around the world.
Once that little disagreement was settled, there was a discussion that maybe the people should be disarmed by some of the same folks that had fought so hard for this countries freedom from an unjust ruler. But the need was still there and specific words were written to protect the right of the citizen and the state. Our founding Fathers knew that the new country could not support a standing army, but would have to rely on the citizen to close ranks as they had done during the Revolution. Thus was born the Second Amendment.
So there is a short historical view of our right to bear arms. It came from the necessity to protect what was newly founded. It was also recognized that they lived in a violent land, with people that would and could strike anywhere, at any time and that the people needed to be able to defend themselves against such acts. It does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to consider that some of those same people would commit violent acts with that same means against their neighbors. So laws were enabled to prosecute those who violated the basic rights of others. And most of those laws are founded in writings thousands of years old.
But what my intent in this diatribe was that people were reacting without any solid information to events out of their control. What drives such actions? Simply fear. Fear of loosing what they consider a God given right. Pardon my verbosity here, but when did God come down from the mount and say each citizen of this country has the right to own a firearm? This does have me confused.
So those who feared that the tragedy at Virginia Tech would lead to more gun control, created comments all over the internet concerning the aspect that more legislation would come from the gore of the attack to take away that which they hold dear. But within this I see things others may have missed. The comments showed fear and within that fear were threats which if on the other side of the fence would scare me.
I really do not think either side of the gun control issue really can see just how each side is creating the fears which are rampant on both sides. But more importantly, has no one ever really tried to analyze why folks are so scared of the gun?
Oh sure, we all discuss how stupid most of the concepts of disarmament really are, but what brings such ideas to light? If you subscribe to the many conspiracy theories around the internet, there is an element which wishes to remove any and all abilities of the citizen to withstand their complete takeover of this country. If it were not for several factors, I’d be holding my ribs in pain from the laughter this evokes from me. One of the things that weight so heavily on my mind is I have heard such things from folks I consider to be rational, intelligent people. So what drives this fear? What are they really afraid of?
Flip the coin for a minute an try to put yourself in the shoes of the folks supporting the anti-gun movement. What are they scared of? I believe that answer is simple. Death. They are afraid of becoming a victim of a violent death by a firearm. I’ve even heard one state that they get violently ill if they find out they are in a home which contains a firearm. A person in fear of their own mortality cannot be reasoned with. All logic escapes them. The only focus they have is the protection of their own being and the only manner in which they feel they have is to eliminate that perceived threat. Can you imagine how they feel when some gun owner comments, “they can have my gun…..one bullet at a time”. Fear can create fear, and as Frank Herbert wrote, “Fear is the mind killer.”
I am certain many people who expound such sayings about giving the bullets or other such nonsense feel they are saying them in order to advise those who would attempt to take such freedom away that they would fight to keep that freedom. Some even think they are scaring those other folks into letting them keep said rights. In reality all they are doing is throwing gas on a fire.
Those folks that are so scared of being a victim of violence are hardly vocal. Rarely will they speak up to challenge those that they fear. But quietly they will work to bring down that persons downfall. It is those folks that elect the political leaches that proclaim they will bring about legislation which will bring the fearful some relief of their fears.
Those folks do not see the sporting application nor the protection side of the issue. They are scared and wish not to be. Boisterous comments of a macho nature does nothing to remove that fear, but can amplify it into doing something that in reality makes things worse. Hence, Gun Free Zones.
Now I do know several folks that carry a gun on a daily basis. Not because they are themselves scared of being a victim, but because they feel themselves to be careful, cautious individuals. And the locales where they reside have concealed carry laws. Oddly enough, the folks I know that go through the trouble to get licensed are not worried about becoming a victim, but do so in exercising the right to carry. It has nothing to do with being afraid, just being prepared in case the worst might happen.
And I rarely carry. Main reason is that any enemies I still have left above ground will never come at me head on, but from ambush. They are very much aware that given any chance at all, they would loose the argument and find themselves being zipped into a black bag. So why worry about that which I cannot control. Plus I am aware of where I go, when I go and how I get there.
By now the conspiracy theorist are frothing at the mouth, ready to crucify me for uttering such comments as written above. But I have yet to find anything to support those theories. Certainly there are those who would like to see firearms totally abolished. Some of their reasoning is actually noble in context, but wholly impractical in practice. Others are fearful they will become another victim of an individual like John Hinckley. Again they align their fears with that which will ease those fears and strike out against that which in many ways protects their freedoms.
How does one disarm this country? There are not enough law enforcement types to do the job. Besides, a very large percentage of the LEO’s of this country will fall into the category of the disarmed. The US Military Establishment? Same thing applies there. The UN? Oh, give me a break here. The UN was a grand experiment that has turned into a paper tiger. They can pass resolutions all day long to disarm this country, but who is going to collect those weapons? They cannot even place Peace Keeping troops into a country without that countries agreement. And we must remember this country is much larger then the average country they get sent into. Plus what country will commit troops to come into this one and disarm the public. The French? No, I have a real hard time seeing these things happening.
Dissolve the Constitution? Just how do you do that? Revoke the Second Amendment? That will take the voting of 33 state houses to approve such an action. And remember where those folks live. Presidential Order? Again, who will execute it? I have extreme doubt that having a Liberal President, a Liberal Congress and a Liberal Supreme Court could get away with such extremes. Even the Brady Bill was limited in its scope and power. And parts of it was tossed out by the Supreme Court.
So, what are the gun owners of this country really scared of? The loss of a way of life that goes back far before we became a country? Most of the time when I have asked this question, all I get is the same old pamphlet sayings about the right to bear arms. But this has to go deeper. I just wish someone would explain it too me without spouting pro-gun political slogans.
I saw an interesting fact a couple weeks ago. It seems the US Army has 800,000 people on their retired roster. Imagine if you will if only half those folks banded together to oppose the removal of any part of the Constitution which they once swore to protect. Then toss in the other services. Add those who have never been in service, yet have strong feelings about that document which provides us with the freedoms which we hold so dear.
Fear not the gun grabbers, but fear those who will restrict us in many other ways. Fear the religious right that would deny civil rights to all but those which believe as they do. Fear those who would deny the rights of man to an individual because of color or country of origin. And fear the person who would deny the rights to those who they believe are political opposites.
The wonder of this country is that people with differences can live, work and propel this country forward despite those differences. But to fail to accept those differences makes a person no better then the people they fear. Once that path is taken, only sorrow can follow.
I thought I had finished this entry into my madness, but the mind is a confusing thing and mine just keeps rambling about in my head, telling me that this is far from done.
Often in my writing I leave aspects of ambiguity all over the script. Let the reader think for themselves with only the least amount of prodding by myself. But I truly wonder if being more to the point would be a better tactic then what I have been using since I started these commentaries.
Then again, I have done what I have done with the hope that I could get folks to think without getting upset with me and my liberal leaning ways.
There is an email that has been floating about the internet for a year or better with points that says if you are a liberal you believe in these things. How sad that if you really believe in all those points, then you are in reality as guilty as those who believe in those points of being narrow minded and would deprive some of certain civil liberties. Think I am kidding? You think I say this lightly?
To blindly accept certain aspects as being purely a liberal concept can be a serious mistake for all. Liberals and Conservatives alike. To demand one liberty while denying another theirs because it does not fit into a neat package of political or religious beliefs is in essence the very actions which we, as Americans should be appalled with, instead of embracing. And we are our own worst enemy.
We ridicule that which we do not understand. We insult cultures and religions that have been in existence long before this country was even discovered. We make no attempt to understand the history of another people nor their way of life, but compare theirs to ours and find theirs pitiful. We stand with an arrogance of righteousness, yet treat do not understand why people look at us with contempt.
We will condemn the readings of another group, yet refuse to consider reading those same writings so we can better understand those whom we disagree with. We would deny the right of choice to those we disagree with while demanding that same right for ourselves.
We make no attempt to understand the fear of others while embracing our own fears.
But to create fear in another in a vain attempt to validate your own reasoning is without logic. Fear drives illogical actions. Once fear has embedded itself into the mind, then it is easy pry to ideas that can only appease that mind. Ideas without merit, yet comforting. Ideas that can break what is not broken. But they are comforting ideas which sooth the anguished mind.
How easy it is to forget one of the keys to warfare. Know Your Enemy. Yet, most of the comments I see shows very little knowledge of an enemy. Only a unearned contempt, but an unknowledgeable ally.
For the theorists that read this. Remember one factor I not only require but demand. Any proof you wish to offer in your defense, make sure it will stand up in a court of law. Half-truths, speculation and pipe dreams do not hold up in the light of day. Show me the enemy in their raw form so I can better construct a battle plan to defeat them.
And it is not what they are doing that is important, but why they are doing it. Because to manage the fear of thousands, gains you the vote of thousands.
Sober and Hating it
22 April 07
