Instagram

Instagram: SuhJester

Monday, February 11, 2013

1 Beats 2


            If you’re anything like me, you’re tired of hearing about the second amendment and what the founding fathers must have meant by putting it in the Constitution.  When it was written, the power of the gun was the most powerful force one man could posses to conquer or defend.  They envisioned a world where the peaceful public could protect themselves and their free state from oppressive forces. 
            Many people believe that our government now is that oppressive force.  They are shouting so loud and with such tunnel vision that they have become an oppressive force themselves.  There is talk of all kinds, discussing the reasons why we should take a second look at our Second Amendment.  There are violent voices speaking out against our government using the Second Amendment as fodder for their rhetoric.  But the founding fathers left a whole constitution in which we should design this free state.  The Second Amendment is there for the average citizens to have the right to militia and protect it.  I ask: What good is the Second Amendment when we scrap all the rest. 
            After the many gun related deaths and tragedies that have befallen our nation in the recent months, many things have been blamed.  There was research done about violent movies and video games.  We talk of drug wars and race wars in the middle of this recessed economy, which members of congress are doing nothing to fix.  I have heard all sorts of moderate to extreme proposals for gun control solutions, for which the opposing side always says, “That will do no good”.  So we do nothing. 
            Another thing I’ve heard over and over is that “we need to get back to God” or some rhetoric of that nature.  People are pushing for prayer in schools and to establish this as a Christian nation.  Now, this goes against exactly why the First Amendment was written.  The founding fathers, though religious in their own right, were completely unwavering when it came to their thoughts on religion and a free state.  It was clear that the church and the state should be separate and not influence each other.  But in response to this Second Amendment argument, many have been overlooking that separation.  They claim that it is our state’s break with religion that has caused this social downturn. 
            Well, I have a different argument.  Again, we had no problem jumping in head first with the violent movies and video game angle of which the research proves that that is not the answer.  Conservatives looked for nations that subscribe to the same social norms as we do and draw a line signifying how they also kill each other.  But that wasn’t the case.  America stood out as the violent one, and all the pundits and politicians scratched their heads while pandering to their bases.  After making excuses to keep funding from education and well-needed social programs, no one can figure out what makes our nation so violent.  Many looked at everything they disagreed with and tried to write a narrative that fits, in hopes of abolishing that aspect of our culture.  However, there is one aspect that does tie us to all the extremely violent nations on this Earth.  That aspect is Religious Fanaticism.  No matter what religion you are talking about, it is the fanatics that make it spoil.
            I have no problem with a person’s faith.  Whatever someone needs to pull meaning out of life or make their day more positive and rewarding is their business.  I don’t care what book it comes from.  But it is that fanaticism that creates the problem.  Once it interferes with the affairs of the free state, it becomes a cancer that never goes away.  People stand behind our constitution when the things they like are being threatened, but they have no sense of irony when they want to trample the constitution to fulfill their individual beliefs.  That way of acting is selfish and just plain wrong.  It also demonstrates a profane understanding of faith and morality.  In our nation, “God” has been the go to argument as if it held a history of peace and understanding in the hands of man.  The products of religious fanaticism throughout history have always been fear, segregation, and violence.  But never once was Religious Fanaticism on trial here in the US.  Many stand by it and want to strengthen it.  Many want to push further and establish this country as a Christian nation.  According to the constitution we have already gone too far.  Our government has handicapped itself making laws respecting the establishment of religion.  The public is suffering and at war with themselves.  Our Nation is going through an identity crisis on many issues balancing faith versus ethics.  Some of the biggest topics that we fight about, such as Abortion and Gay rights are simple church and state issues in which religious fanatics use the government to the point of being unconstitutional.  Day by day, we are identifying ourselves more with the fanatics we are at war with and less with the pure drive that started this great nation.  It is destroying us from the inside.  So, instead of sacrificing our country to protect the Second Amendment, we should save our country by protecting the First.   

Saturday, February 2, 2013

AR15 sets a fire in panties


There’s been much to do about Gayle Trotter’s testimony to the senate about women and AR-15 rifles.  She asserted that women need AR-15 rifles because that was one of the only way’s women could feel safe, protecting their families.  That breeds all sorts of complicated discussions that I would not assume any direction.  As a man in this modern day, I have heard women argue the most ridiculous cases to get what they want and I have always been in the wrong, somehow.  So, I will do my best not to comment on how women should think, act, or feel. 
In this case, it seems clear that the NRA is using anything they can to gain an angle on the gun discussion going on in Washington.  So here they are using women.  As this woman, Gayle Trotter speaks ‘for all women everywhere’, it seems that her stance is that women are different from men.  They do not posses the upper body strength that men genetically have, and that hand-to-hand confrontation would favor the man.  She then tells a lengthy story about a real woman defending her family in her home while two assailants broke in.  She concludes with the assertion that an AR-15 is the safest thing for a woman to protect her family.  The senator’s response was pointing out that the woman in the story, Sarah McKinley used a shotgun to defend her home, a weapon that would not be affected by the proposed legislation.  Gayle Trotter did not recall this detail of the case, which remains the only detail of pertinence in the entire story.  However, her conclusion remained the same.
This argument all comes out along with the decision to allow women to serve in combat units in our military.  I am not sure if the NRA has voiced an opinion on that topic, but in war-time combat, when men and women who each posses AR-15 rifles or other military weapons, are we to assume that the NRA’s perspective would believe women to be at a disadvantage?
That aside, Gayle Trotter’s testimony leads me to believe that the NRA is using women in any way to get their agenda passed.  The politics of politics these days is so disgusting.  There is little respect shone to any and all demographics of people one way or another.  We denounce any viewpoint and therefore the person with that viewpoint if it is not our own.  As for the congressmen who conduct these hearings, America is showing less and less respect for these divisive tactics, but that doesn’t stop them from continually voting those very players into powerful positions that make our laws and influence our companies and people and pay them a salary until death.  It is quite a phenomenon.  And so it continues with these people holding this hearing with groups who clearly have an agenda and will say anything to make it happen.  And, like always, it’s done all in the pursuit of making money. 
Again, after hearing Ms. Trotter’s testimony, I only had one reaction.  This is also my suggestion to the NRA for their next argument.  March another woman down to the capitol and go further.  Why not state that women are such terrible shots and that their aim requires the thirty bullets found in the contested magazines.  (I mean, women know their magazines.)  State that a woman who only has ten bullets needs those extra shots to prove affective.  Worry not against the inevitable argument asking the destinations of all those strays that were the necessary byproduct of a woman defending her home.  Surely there's a fix to the 29 stray bullets all for the sake of killing a man with that final one.  Maybe we should all have bulletproof walls and windows, too?  I mean, that’s the only reasonable solution, right?  Somebody has to sell that stuff!  Guns may kill people, but they create jobs.