I hate to interject here in the middle of the gun control posts but I found an interesting and non-gun related video that I would like to share.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Gun Control for Dummies: PART 1
Ok, the long awaited gun post... This will be a long one so I am going to break it up into a few posts over a few days so here is part 1...
This issue of guns and gun control has only recently (within the past year or so) become quite high on my field of vision in regards to the troubled times of the future - not to mention the times we are currently experiencing. I am not sure if it is because I live in "the hood" or if it just general paranoia on my part but I have felt an urgency of late to arm myself in order to protect myself and my family in the unlikely event of a desperate situation. To be fair and completely honest, it may be, in part, due to the change of administrative powers in the coming years. However, I feel it is deeper than that as this feeling came way before the Obama landslide. Either which way, it is a right that we have as Americans and one that should be defended vehemently. I'll explain but first, some background.
I grew up around rifles and took hunter safety at a relatively young age. My father and I went hunting though we would be no where near the category of "avid." We would often go to the Lee Kay center and target shoot or out to some desert or hillside to plink off cans or whatever other trash had been left behind by the outdoorsmen that most of us wish would simply sit in their living room to drink. Uh oh, I feel a tangent coming on... Why is it that people feel that they have the right to leave their carp (thanks Tyler P.) where ever it falls? Shooting used to be allowed in a lot of places but one major reason that it gets shut down is because people leave all their boxes, bottles, cans, brass, clays, tvs, mattresses, so much more to list! If you are going to bring it to shoot at it - PACK IT OUT! It is not only other shooters that have to look at the garbage left behind. Ok, tangent over...
Much of my respect for weapons came from these experiences. However, as a youth I only had one experience with a pistol. I will never forget it. I was probably about 10 years old and we went to Sanpete county to visit my uncle. He had a .357 Magnum revolver. I know it was just age and perspective but I swear that gun had to have a 10 inch barrel and a hole in the end that was bigger than my eyeball! My cousins and I were each given one shot. I was NOT first and after hearing the retreat on that thing, I really wasn't looking forward to my turn. After some 'gentle berating' by my uncle and cousins, I stepped up to the plate. I took a hold of that massive six-shooter and I remember the front sight looking as tall as the statue of liberty just daring me to lay her down. I am pretty sure I squeezed my eyes shut right before I pulled the trigger - and I do mean pulled not squeezed. I remember being able to see the flames from the barrel through my eyelids and it kicked a lot harder than I had expected as the gun ended up pointing at the clouds rather than the target by the time my arms had gained stability from the onslaught of the recent earthquake they had experienced. Everyone just laughed but I, naturally, didn't find it too funny. I think they asked me if I wanted to take another shot and, in my state of shock, politely declined.
So why would I want to get into pistols now with such an indelible memory burned in my mind? Because my fear came from the unknown. People, in general, fear guns, especially firearms. Most of this fear, in my opinion, comes from irrational scenarios rehearsed in the mind and reinforced by Hollywood, that when you take a gun in your hands it invariably shoots at people and kills. This could not be further from the truth. Guns are inanimate objects that can do nothing unless acted upon by some other force, namely a human. Okay, in all fairness I guess if one was stupid enough to leave their gun on the floor and smeared peanut butter on the trigger and left it loaded that the family dog could come in, lick off the peanut butter and in so doing, discharge the weapon. But in all reality, these guns can do nothing without someone on the trigger. So how can such fear be overcome? The same way that any other fear is dispelled: proper education, training and experience. When one is properly educated and with a little on-the-job training, so to speak, fear gives way to respect. Respect is what everyone should have for firearms of all forms. Without respect comes fear or danger - depending on who has the weapon.
I know this post didn't deal much with the 'control' part of the guns but that will come later. It will be worth it, trust me.
This issue of guns and gun control has only recently (within the past year or so) become quite high on my field of vision in regards to the troubled times of the future - not to mention the times we are currently experiencing. I am not sure if it is because I live in "the hood" or if it just general paranoia on my part but I have felt an urgency of late to arm myself in order to protect myself and my family in the unlikely event of a desperate situation. To be fair and completely honest, it may be, in part, due to the change of administrative powers in the coming years. However, I feel it is deeper than that as this feeling came way before the Obama landslide. Either which way, it is a right that we have as Americans and one that should be defended vehemently. I'll explain but first, some background.
I grew up around rifles and took hunter safety at a relatively young age. My father and I went hunting though we would be no where near the category of "avid." We would often go to the Lee Kay center and target shoot or out to some desert or hillside to plink off cans or whatever other trash had been left behind by the outdoorsmen that most of us wish would simply sit in their living room to drink. Uh oh, I feel a tangent coming on... Why is it that people feel that they have the right to leave their carp (thanks Tyler P.) where ever it falls? Shooting used to be allowed in a lot of places but one major reason that it gets shut down is because people leave all their boxes, bottles, cans, brass, clays, tvs, mattresses, so much more to list! If you are going to bring it to shoot at it - PACK IT OUT! It is not only other shooters that have to look at the garbage left behind. Ok, tangent over...
Much of my respect for weapons came from these experiences. However, as a youth I only had one experience with a pistol. I will never forget it. I was probably about 10 years old and we went to Sanpete county to visit my uncle. He had a .357 Magnum revolver. I know it was just age and perspective but I swear that gun had to have a 10 inch barrel and a hole in the end that was bigger than my eyeball! My cousins and I were each given one shot. I was NOT first and after hearing the retreat on that thing, I really wasn't looking forward to my turn. After some 'gentle berating' by my uncle and cousins, I stepped up to the plate. I took a hold of that massive six-shooter and I remember the front sight looking as tall as the statue of liberty just daring me to lay her down. I am pretty sure I squeezed my eyes shut right before I pulled the trigger - and I do mean pulled not squeezed. I remember being able to see the flames from the barrel through my eyelids and it kicked a lot harder than I had expected as the gun ended up pointing at the clouds rather than the target by the time my arms had gained stability from the onslaught of the recent earthquake they had experienced. Everyone just laughed but I, naturally, didn't find it too funny. I think they asked me if I wanted to take another shot and, in my state of shock, politely declined.
So why would I want to get into pistols now with such an indelible memory burned in my mind? Because my fear came from the unknown. People, in general, fear guns, especially firearms. Most of this fear, in my opinion, comes from irrational scenarios rehearsed in the mind and reinforced by Hollywood, that when you take a gun in your hands it invariably shoots at people and kills. This could not be further from the truth. Guns are inanimate objects that can do nothing unless acted upon by some other force, namely a human. Okay, in all fairness I guess if one was stupid enough to leave their gun on the floor and smeared peanut butter on the trigger and left it loaded that the family dog could come in, lick off the peanut butter and in so doing, discharge the weapon. But in all reality, these guns can do nothing without someone on the trigger. So how can such fear be overcome? The same way that any other fear is dispelled: proper education, training and experience. When one is properly educated and with a little on-the-job training, so to speak, fear gives way to respect. Respect is what everyone should have for firearms of all forms. Without respect comes fear or danger - depending on who has the weapon.
I know this post didn't deal much with the 'control' part of the guns but that will come later. It will be worth it, trust me.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Sacrifice
So, I hope the last poll on here generated some synapses to fire - or misfire as the case may be. I can't even remember what prompted this question in my head although I am sure that it had something to do with the impending Thanksgiving experience. So, the question: Who is performing the greater deed: the atheist who gives all or the Christian who gives all? I had some interesting comments both on my facebook page and in email. However, with only 8 total votes, it is difficult to tell how most people feel on this - especially since the results went 50/50. So, I'll just cut right to my opinion...
This might surprise you but I vote Atheist is making the greater sacrifice. Why? When a Christian, let's use me as an example, gives something up for someone else or the 'greater good,' I am expecting some kind of reward for this act - whether in this life or the next. Perhaps 'expecting' is the wrong word since it implies selfishness. Having the knowledge that God will bless me for what I have done gives extra motivation, I suppose. However, the Atheist, has no hope of reward, if he has true intentions. The only intention is to make the world a better place. He does not expect a blessing from a Being in any way, shape, or form in return for his kindly deed.
So, let's add a twist: If you, as a Christian, knew that there was nothing in it for you, that there was NO blessing or reward here, there or anywhere... would you still be willing to make the same sacrifice? Something to think about...
This might surprise you but I vote Atheist is making the greater sacrifice. Why? When a Christian, let's use me as an example, gives something up for someone else or the 'greater good,' I am expecting some kind of reward for this act - whether in this life or the next. Perhaps 'expecting' is the wrong word since it implies selfishness. Having the knowledge that God will bless me for what I have done gives extra motivation, I suppose. However, the Atheist, has no hope of reward, if he has true intentions. The only intention is to make the world a better place. He does not expect a blessing from a Being in any way, shape, or form in return for his kindly deed.
So, let's add a twist: If you, as a Christian, knew that there was nothing in it for you, that there was NO blessing or reward here, there or anywhere... would you still be willing to make the same sacrifice? Something to think about...
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
A Joke...
Satan: Knock, Knock...
Man: Who's there
Satan: God...
Man: God, who?
Satan then leans over to God and says, "See, I told you I was winning!"
Man: Who's there
Satan: God...
Man: God, who?
Satan then leans over to God and says, "See, I told you I was winning!"
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Interesting Scripture
If you haven't read 3rd Nephi for a while, you should. My family and I just finished chapter 16. This chapter talks about the gospel being taught to the Gentiles and then to the house of Israel. Verse 10 gets into specifics about "when" this will happen, "At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hipocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, 
I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them." Then in verse 15, "But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them...that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of my people..."
Is it just me or does this sound a little too close to home?
I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them." Then in verse 15, "But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them...that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of my people..."Is it just me or does this sound a little too close to home?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The not so scientific poll...
I was hoping to get a little larger response to the poll I was running so I could gather a little more accurate numbers. However, I'll take what I got and run with it. The question was: How are politics and religion related? The answer choices were:
- They cannot be separated.
- They should be treated as church and state.
- They have no relation.
- Who cares?
So the results were: a) 53% b) 38% c) 7% and d) 0%
I am proud to say that no one voted the who cares. The worst thing that someone can do is give up and just take what comes. In today's social climate that would be very much like running down the Snake River in an inner tube without a paddle or life jacket. Whatever your views are, do not give them up for complacency! Find your voice.
Next, we had one vote for 'no relation.' I am trying to figure out if this was someone trying to spice up the poll or if this was a real and valid opinion. Ghandi once said, "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." In my opinion, when one has the power to control the other their destinies are forever intertwined.
I shouldn't have been surprised that there were nearly as many responses here as there were for the 'cannot be separated' choice. However, I personally have a difficult time understanding this point of view. I like this quote by Einstein, “Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions." To me, it seems like separating politics and religion would be somewhat like trying to separate the two sides of the brain. While each side is responsible for different functions, it is difficult to function without one and either side can be over or under developed. In this way, I believe that church and state are impossible to separate in politics. Look at the presidential election. The candidates were not separated from their religions. Mitt Romney was scrutinized for his ties to the LDS faith, Obama for his past association with the Muslim faith and current ties to the radical Christian faction of Reverend White. I think that these discussions of a candidates religion is healthy. Will our president, who has stewardship over all of us, pray for guidance? Pray for peace? Pray for inspiration?
Lastly, religion and politics cannot be separated. I hope that up to now you have understood what I think to be a rational opinion for why I think this was the clear choice. When your 'state' can dictate to you how you will practice your religion or a religion becomes the state and overtakes healthy debate and discussion, both spell disaster. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state and never its tool." Both politics and religion are an indelible part of our lives. The real trick is to strike a balance, a rhythm in our lives between the two. Do not let your religion take over to the point of complacency in political involvement. Transversely, do not let politics take over your life in such a way that you lose your connection with God. And to end with a quote by Justice William Rehnquist, "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . ."
- They cannot be separated.
- They should be treated as church and state.
- They have no relation.
- Who cares?
So the results were: a) 53% b) 38% c) 7% and d) 0%
I am proud to say that no one voted the who cares. The worst thing that someone can do is give up and just take what comes. In today's social climate that would be very much like running down the Snake River in an inner tube without a paddle or life jacket. Whatever your views are, do not give them up for complacency! Find your voice.
Next, we had one vote for 'no relation.' I am trying to figure out if this was someone trying to spice up the poll or if this was a real and valid opinion. Ghandi once said, "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." In my opinion, when one has the power to control the other their destinies are forever intertwined.
I shouldn't have been surprised that there were nearly as many responses here as there were for the 'cannot be separated' choice. However, I personally have a difficult time understanding this point of view. I like this quote by Einstein, “Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions." To me, it seems like separating politics and religion would be somewhat like trying to separate the two sides of the brain. While each side is responsible for different functions, it is difficult to function without one and either side can be over or under developed. In this way, I believe that church and state are impossible to separate in politics. Look at the presidential election. The candidates were not separated from their religions. Mitt Romney was scrutinized for his ties to the LDS faith, Obama for his past association with the Muslim faith and current ties to the radical Christian faction of Reverend White. I think that these discussions of a candidates religion is healthy. Will our president, who has stewardship over all of us, pray for guidance? Pray for peace? Pray for inspiration?
Lastly, religion and politics cannot be separated. I hope that up to now you have understood what I think to be a rational opinion for why I think this was the clear choice. When your 'state' can dictate to you how you will practice your religion or a religion becomes the state and overtakes healthy debate and discussion, both spell disaster. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state and never its tool." Both politics and religion are an indelible part of our lives. The real trick is to strike a balance, a rhythm in our lives between the two. Do not let your religion take over to the point of complacency in political involvement. Transversely, do not let politics take over your life in such a way that you lose your connection with God. And to end with a quote by Justice William Rehnquist, "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . ."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)