As of this writing there are nine states that have legalized same sex marriage within the United States. There are also, 11 countries internationally that have legalized same sex marriage within their nation. Some of the reasoning the ultra religious use to repress same sex marriage is an expression of closed mindedness that is both terrifying and laughable. As far as these folks are concerned the… Bible, Koran, Tanakh, Pastafarian Gospel (what have you) all may have some reference to marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
I say may have because I'm not 100% sure but have a really strong gut feeling that they may and besides I don't really have the time to read through them all.
Anyway, because these holy documents may have referred to the marriage union as one between a man and woman some folks have accepted this idea as one dictated by our Lord, the collective inhabitants of a mountain or some starchy being. What this group doesn't see is that not only that sexual preference was left out of their religious documents but the following were also left out: aircraft, cell phones and cable TV. Now can a logical person say that because those three things were not mentioned in a religious text they do not exist or are frowned upon by God? Umm, no. Can that same logical, religious person say that because they were not in his or her religious text that those things are evil? Again no, if that were the case said person couldn’t watch 24 hours of Pat Robertson and the Inspiration channel, or get their religious text of the day or fly to the Vatican to see Pope Francis. Of course I am using the extremes as an example and I have nothing against religious people. They have a frighteningly strong sense of conviction when it comes to religion that I almost admire but mostly fear. I do believe in God, I don't push my beliefs on anyone and like anything else I take the Bible with a grain of salt. Ok, even if God dictated this directly to his disciples and they took everything down verbatim, people have had over 2,000 years to modify and change his(/her/their) word to suit their needs. A rant for another time....
I will leave this portion of the discussion with a conversation I had once when debating this very question (on my doorstep as she was asking me about my religious choices and holding an enormous amount of pamphlets).
This wonderfully energetic (she almost vibrated…literally) young girl told me that her God loved everyone I slowly looked left and then slowly right and asked in a conspiratorial whisper "What about the gays?” The poor girl looked almost relieved and stated simply, "Oh no, they are an abomination in Gods eyes".
Oh really? Come closer my little fly.
"So how are, "dropping my voice to a whisper again, "gays an abomination, I don't ever remember reading about them in the bible?" I ask little Mary Sunshine.
Her answer was weepingly sweet. God doesn’t mention homosexuality in the bible because it wasn't invented yet. WOW....mmmm 'k.
Now beside the religious folks we have the conservative right who are completely against same sex marriage. On this side we have the "it just isn't done" rationale that can vary from exposing (or, gasp.....raising) children to this type of relationship we will warp these kids somehow. To the allowance of same sex marriage opening the door to say a bestial union (I, Dave take you Woofy the dog…), poly union (I, Tom take you Brenda, Silvia, Catherine, Jessica, Dave and Woofy…) or inanimate union (I, Brenda take you toaster…). However, if children are exposed to spousal abuse, addiction or racism, just to name a few, in a straight relationship nah that’s fine....because it's a traditional relationship.
Come on people.
Another argument I've heard that makes no sense to me from the right is: If we allow gay marriage we are now using the tax dollars of those who don't believe or wish to endorse that institution. SO even though these folks are paying into social security now, as long as they kept their relationship in the closet they can collect?? Really a dumb ass argument. Most states charge a higher tax rates for married couples, so by allowing homosexual marriage the government would actually reap the benefits. This will help pay for better roads, new equipment in schools and in the case of Billy Bob the redneck welfare recipient who made this argument, state paid psychiatric assistance to help his son grasp why his best friend has two dads.
The last argument I want to try and refute is tied to the right but can easily cross over into the religious anti gay marriage argument. Since same sex marriage has nothing to do with procreation it should not be seen as an institution. Folks there are plenty of opposite sex marriages that are a convenience marriage and never have the intention of procreation but that doesn’t make them unlawful. There are folks on both sides of the fence - straight and gay that would make terrible parents. The only difference between the two sides is that homosexual couples actually have to put a lot of thought and planning into having children whereas most straight couples don’t and some put none in whatsoever....repeatedly.
Are you livid or nodding in agreement folks?
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
... US National Gun Control Policy
It can be said that there is a bit of a "discussion" shall we say on the US National and State gun control policy after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut. There is no facetiousness in my tone over this tragedy, as I truly believe God wept on this day in December. State by state and the nation as a whole are now looking to put stricter laws in place to avoid these types of events in the future.
The thought now circulating within the government is that by banning military (as much as I am at loath to use this term) "assault rifle-type" firearms, magazines of 10+ rounds and "military" ammunition this will stop future mass murderers.
Can firearms tragedies be avoided if stricter gun control laws were in place or is there more to it?
Lets take a look.
First, the state of Connecticut has one of the strictest set of gun control laws "on the books" within the United States. There are currently weapons banned within the state that don’t meet certain "safety" criteria. Let's face it folks, anyone who owns a gun, no matter what caliber or type no matter if used for hunting fowl, sport (clay or skeet) or personal protection will tell you, it can be used to kill.
That is actually the first thing any firearms safety course will teach you. A gun, regardless of type or caliber, is a powerful thing and must be treated with respect or it most definitely will hurt, kill or maim. If you believe a .22 long rifle or .17 hornet cannot kill a person, please, please do not become a gun owner. You will most likely be the same person who shoots him (or herself) or a family member practicing a quick draw with a loaded gun in the mirror.
As far as the term "assault" rifle (or weapon for a broader term) is concerned, whether it be a semi auto rifle with a 30 round magazine or a 12 gauge double barrel shotgun, it is an assault weapon when used on other people. You are assaulting them if you are shooting at them. Ok, what about the term AR in front of some of these model rifles? That does not stand for Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle as some think. Fully automatic rifles are not available to the general public without a special permit and a whole lot of scrutiny by the BATF. The permit and the weapons themselves (not even taking into account the amount of ammunition the average person would go through) is, in itself, cost prohibitive. AR actually is the nomenclature for the original manufacturer of the rifle, the Armalite company. The average person can only legally (key word here folks) own a semi automatic firearm, that means you need to pull the trigger once for each shot.
Will a magazine ban of 10 rounds or less stop an "unbalanced" (again see the previous post about being nice) person from causing harm to people. Unfortunately again the answer is no. Folks an outright ban (yeah, I said that word) on all firearms will not stop people from hurting others. The Oklahoma City tragedy was committed with fertilizer and diesel fuel, the school assault in China that occurred in December was with a knife. Also, lets be honest here, a magazine ban will only apply to people who have legally purchased the firearms that use them. Criminals will not turn their magazines in to the police or take time out of their busy schedules to register them for that matter. They have too much on their plate committing crimes and multi tasking is not their forte.
What about banning "military" ammunition TLR, you ask? "Military Ammunition" is my favorite of all the cliché lines. Let's get this perfectly straight folks, minus .22 and shotgun there really is very little ammunition that was not initially developed for the military. From .25 all the way to Uncle Jim's deer huntin' .30-06, these were all developed for the military at one time or another. Actually, the .223 (or 5.56mm) which the AR-15 types (Bushmaster, Colt etc) use was originally actually developed as a varmint hunting round.
Now, originally when all this gun legislation conversation began, there was also talk of mental healthcare reform. It is interesting how that talk has faded so far into the background that it's not even discussed any longer. There was some talk of having a mental health register but golly no, that would be infringing on those peoples personal privacy. However, when the names and addresses of all the pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties in New York were actually mapped out online that was perfectly fine. Yeah, smart move lets list out the locations of the folks that own guns so 1) criminals can target their neighbors or 2) particularly ambitious criminals who want guns can target those people directly. I believe one Chief of Police actually referred to it as a "shopping list" for criminals. Great foresight on that idea. Something needs to get people who are mentally ill the help they need. Too many times people chose to not accept that a loved one has issues.
I'm sure there may be some of you thinking that "Hey TLR, if those gun owners whose information is posed on the web have their firearms locked up, there should be no issue." You are right, no one has ever heard of home invaders harming a family to get what they want. Again, extreme sarcasm for those that can't figure it out.
I wont even go into detail about firearms used in suicides. Anyone who is intent on killing themselves will find a way, and realistically there are much less painful ways.
Now this whole rant wasn't just for the sake of a lack of things to do today. I wanted to see if there are any rational people out there, on either side of the issue who are willing to share their ideas. I'm in my 40's and know I'm never to old to learn or adapt my idea base.
In case you haven't realized by this point I am a firearms owner, I sport shoot and possibly may own the more "evil" black, plastic type firearms. I am also a parent and from what I've been told a fairly rational guy. Since I live in a very strict gun state I'm all for a national permit which may require a background check. I say this because I've been through a background check already, therefore it's not as big a deal for me as it is to others. This would get those states that allow gun purchases with no background check or "straw purchases" to close those loopholes. Let's be even keeled though, I will say in return for this it would be great if that would then allow me to carry in every state. Quid pro quo.
In the article I've used the work weapon when referring to firearms. This was meant in the context of its use. Anything used to commit harm be it a firearm, knife, hammer, car or baseball bat is a weapon.
Ok, who's out there and what do you think?
The next topic is one that isn't as hotly constested......right...
The thought now circulating within the government is that by banning military (as much as I am at loath to use this term) "assault rifle-type" firearms, magazines of 10+ rounds and "military" ammunition this will stop future mass murderers.
Can firearms tragedies be avoided if stricter gun control laws were in place or is there more to it?
Lets take a look.
First, the state of Connecticut has one of the strictest set of gun control laws "on the books" within the United States. There are currently weapons banned within the state that don’t meet certain "safety" criteria. Let's face it folks, anyone who owns a gun, no matter what caliber or type no matter if used for hunting fowl, sport (clay or skeet) or personal protection will tell you, it can be used to kill.
That is actually the first thing any firearms safety course will teach you. A gun, regardless of type or caliber, is a powerful thing and must be treated with respect or it most definitely will hurt, kill or maim. If you believe a .22 long rifle or .17 hornet cannot kill a person, please, please do not become a gun owner. You will most likely be the same person who shoots him (or herself) or a family member practicing a quick draw with a loaded gun in the mirror.
As far as the term "assault" rifle (or weapon for a broader term) is concerned, whether it be a semi auto rifle with a 30 round magazine or a 12 gauge double barrel shotgun, it is an assault weapon when used on other people. You are assaulting them if you are shooting at them. Ok, what about the term AR in front of some of these model rifles? That does not stand for Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle as some think. Fully automatic rifles are not available to the general public without a special permit and a whole lot of scrutiny by the BATF. The permit and the weapons themselves (not even taking into account the amount of ammunition the average person would go through) is, in itself, cost prohibitive. AR actually is the nomenclature for the original manufacturer of the rifle, the Armalite company. The average person can only legally (key word here folks) own a semi automatic firearm, that means you need to pull the trigger once for each shot.
Will a magazine ban of 10 rounds or less stop an "unbalanced" (again see the previous post about being nice) person from causing harm to people. Unfortunately again the answer is no. Folks an outright ban (yeah, I said that word) on all firearms will not stop people from hurting others. The Oklahoma City tragedy was committed with fertilizer and diesel fuel, the school assault in China that occurred in December was with a knife. Also, lets be honest here, a magazine ban will only apply to people who have legally purchased the firearms that use them. Criminals will not turn their magazines in to the police or take time out of their busy schedules to register them for that matter. They have too much on their plate committing crimes and multi tasking is not their forte.
What about banning "military" ammunition TLR, you ask? "Military Ammunition" is my favorite of all the cliché lines. Let's get this perfectly straight folks, minus .22 and shotgun there really is very little ammunition that was not initially developed for the military. From .25 all the way to Uncle Jim's deer huntin' .30-06, these were all developed for the military at one time or another. Actually, the .223 (or 5.56mm) which the AR-15 types (Bushmaster, Colt etc) use was originally actually developed as a varmint hunting round.
Now, originally when all this gun legislation conversation began, there was also talk of mental healthcare reform. It is interesting how that talk has faded so far into the background that it's not even discussed any longer. There was some talk of having a mental health register but golly no, that would be infringing on those peoples personal privacy. However, when the names and addresses of all the pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties in New York were actually mapped out online that was perfectly fine. Yeah, smart move lets list out the locations of the folks that own guns so 1) criminals can target their neighbors or 2) particularly ambitious criminals who want guns can target those people directly. I believe one Chief of Police actually referred to it as a "shopping list" for criminals. Great foresight on that idea. Something needs to get people who are mentally ill the help they need. Too many times people chose to not accept that a loved one has issues.
I'm sure there may be some of you thinking that "Hey TLR, if those gun owners whose information is posed on the web have their firearms locked up, there should be no issue." You are right, no one has ever heard of home invaders harming a family to get what they want. Again, extreme sarcasm for those that can't figure it out.
I wont even go into detail about firearms used in suicides. Anyone who is intent on killing themselves will find a way, and realistically there are much less painful ways.
Now this whole rant wasn't just for the sake of a lack of things to do today. I wanted to see if there are any rational people out there, on either side of the issue who are willing to share their ideas. I'm in my 40's and know I'm never to old to learn or adapt my idea base.
In case you haven't realized by this point I am a firearms owner, I sport shoot and possibly may own the more "evil" black, plastic type firearms. I am also a parent and from what I've been told a fairly rational guy. Since I live in a very strict gun state I'm all for a national permit which may require a background check. I say this because I've been through a background check already, therefore it's not as big a deal for me as it is to others. This would get those states that allow gun purchases with no background check or "straw purchases" to close those loopholes. Let's be even keeled though, I will say in return for this it would be great if that would then allow me to carry in every state. Quid pro quo.
In the article I've used the work weapon when referring to firearms. This was meant in the context of its use. Anything used to commit harm be it a firearm, knife, hammer, car or baseball bat is a weapon.
Ok, who's out there and what do you think?
The next topic is one that isn't as hotly constested......right...
Housekeeping and the Me Me Me Stuff...
...that I feel we need to get out of the way.
I have added the "somewhat" in the blog description because, being a pessimistic/realist with perfect hair and a winning personality, I know I will get back from any readers what I put in to this blog. Also, having those traits (among many other that will show through eventually-1,2,3,4) I know, what I find important isn't so to everyone...I understand that, I respect that, I really and truly do...so swallow the snarky comment and click next blog if this isn‘t important to you. I know it will be hard for you to do (yes you, we both know who you are and yes they are watching you) but really do try.
I will be very honest early on and say that the topics may (see - definitely) vary greatly from day to day, post to post or hell, hour to hour. I want to engage the folks who have thoughts on certain topics, those who are on the fence about some topics and yes, even the rabid (I will admit I can be too) in their position. I'm not limiting comments but will ask that everyone be polite and respectful. Do this for me and I will too. If I come off as insensitive (and I know I will) ask yourself "did I read what he wrote in the right context?" If you believe you did then ask yourself this followup "did TLR write what I just read in the correct context?" If both of those questions come up unsure in your mind the next viable question will be "is TLR just an insensitive, insufferable bastard?" The answer to the last question is no...well, sometimes but not intentionally...sometimes.
“How likely is it that all will be polite, TLR,” you ask? Well, I figure I will put it out there so we can all try and be civilized, is my answer. I (again reiterate, the half glass full, world will come to an end with nothing but reality TV shows ruling the air, leading to the zombie apocalypse which will then accidentally trigger a global thermo-nuclear destruction, pessimist/realist here) still expect anonymous trolls to weigh in and screw up everyone’s day.
Let’s start then shall we...
I have added the "somewhat" in the blog description because, being a pessimistic/realist with perfect hair and a winning personality, I know I will get back from any readers what I put in to this blog. Also, having those traits (among many other that will show through eventually-1,2,3,4) I know, what I find important isn't so to everyone...I understand that, I respect that, I really and truly do...so swallow the snarky comment and click next blog if this isn‘t important to you. I know it will be hard for you to do (yes you, we both know who you are and yes they are watching you) but really do try.
I will be very honest early on and say that the topics may (see - definitely) vary greatly from day to day, post to post or hell, hour to hour. I want to engage the folks who have thoughts on certain topics, those who are on the fence about some topics and yes, even the rabid (I will admit I can be too) in their position. I'm not limiting comments but will ask that everyone be polite and respectful. Do this for me and I will too. If I come off as insensitive (and I know I will) ask yourself "did I read what he wrote in the right context?" If you believe you did then ask yourself this followup "did TLR write what I just read in the correct context?" If both of those questions come up unsure in your mind the next viable question will be "is TLR just an insensitive, insufferable bastard?" The answer to the last question is no...well, sometimes but not intentionally...sometimes.
“How likely is it that all will be polite, TLR,” you ask? Well, I figure I will put it out there so we can all try and be civilized, is my answer. I (again reiterate, the half glass full, world will come to an end with nothing but reality TV shows ruling the air, leading to the zombie apocalypse which will then accidentally trigger a global thermo-nuclear destruction, pessimist/realist here) still expect anonymous trolls to weigh in and screw up everyone’s day.
Let’s start then shall we...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)