Blood Guns…

Posted October 13, 2007 by xptweakerntn
Categories: Gun Control

After a recent shooting at a school, it has once again caused people to talk of gun control. I oppose gun control because the right to bear arms was given to us for a reason. Contrary to popular belief, an armed population is necessary for the well-being of a society. Often, gun control actually causes increases in violence in crime. After all, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

The II Amendment was written for a for a reason. It allows us, as civilians, to posses guns. Not only do guns allow you to defend yourself from criminals, but also from the government. The II Amendment was written to protect the general population from our own government. Unless a society can defend itself from its own government, that government has total control over its populace. “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government,” -Thomas Jefferson. Without guns, how can a society oppress oppression?

Not only does the II Amendment protect us from ourselves, but also from threats from foreign governments. To an invading force, an armed populace means greater resistance. In WWII, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto stated: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Although a national military can be extremely efficient against invasions, an armed society only strengthens a country’s defense.

Contrary to popular belief, sometimes the more guns a population has, the safer the people actually are. In Kennesaw, Georgia, there is a law that states every household must own and maintain a firearm. The law went into effect in 1982. Between 1982 and 1999, there was a total of three murders in the county, two of which were with knives. In Switzerland, every man is issued an assault rifle , and the crime rate is lower than it is in England, where handguns and most rifles are outlawed. When people can fight back, a criminal thinks twice before committing a crime. “One man with a gun can control 100 without one,” -Lenin

I oppose gun control because guns provide security for the civilian population. Without guns, anyone can control them however they want. Guns are like drugs, as long as someone wants them, there will be a supply for them. Outlawing guns means that only people violating the law will have them, and only preventing law-abiding citizens from possessing them.

Computerized Democracies…

Posted July 24, 2007 by xptweakerntn
Categories: Political Theory

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
-Thomas Jefferson

I recently recalled my World History teacher explaining to the class how, if it were called for, here in the United States we could setup a true Democracy. He believed it was possible because of the widespread use of computers, and how everyone could simply vote on issues that came up. Although some technical issues would more than likely complicate the process (For example, if it is as easy as it sounds, why don’t we hold elections this way?), I agree that it would be possible, but just because setting up a true Democracy is possible, I don’t believe it would would be the best possible way to govern the United States.

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government
-Thomas Jefferson

I believe that in order for America’s people to govern themselves entirely, which is what a true Democracy is about, the people have to be informed. How many people know everything about a certain political issue? When it comes to some issues, it would be perfectly ok for all of America’s 300 million people to simply vote on. For example, some people believe that September 11th should be a national holiday, and voting on it would be perfectly acceptable. However, on some issues, I don’t believe that the American people are capable of making such decisions wisely. For example, when it comes to national security and foreign policy, in order for the American people to make decisions, first everything would have to be shown to the people. Forget about sensitive data, you would have to show all of it to the people. Although sometimes keeping secrets is frowned upon, in other cases keeping secrets is completely necessary. To make it even simpler, all secrets and complications put aside, do you think that the people of America have what it takes to keep up with issues and vote on them on a regular basis? What about in times of crisis? Would we even have time to make decisions?

Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time

-E. B. White

You may be asking what the difference in a true Democracy and a Republic is. Although a Republic is a form of a Democracy, the difference is noticeable. While both forms are supposedly “for the people”, in a true Democracy the people directly make the decisions directly, and in a Republic the people elect officials who are supposed to make the decisions based on qualities they were elected on. Although this does make corruption possible, I ask that if an elected official is corrupt, why elect him again? Supposedly, these elected officials have the people’s best interests in hand, even if the majority of the people disagree with the decisions. This is my biggest concern when it comes to true Democracies. Even if 75% of the people agree on an issue, what if that 75% is wrong? To put it simple, a true Democracy will give the majority exactly what it wants all of the time, but will that always give the majority (or even everyone) what is best for them? Opinions are subject to manipulation, and can change overnight. I think that people do not realize that THE UNITED STATES CAN FALL! Look at the Roman Empire, do you realize how much of the world they conquered, and then how quickly the Roman Empire fell? China has more people than the United States, and Russia has enough nuclear weapons to totally annihilate the United States. Do you think that the American people can make decisions on what is best for others, or simply vote for themselves (more benefits for themselves, of course)?

However, in a perfect society, a true Democracy would be freedom at its greatest, but to achieve it, the people have to first want to govern themselves. For a society that is having trouble running its own households, giving the people of that society the responsibility of making decisions on what is good for themselves instead of what looks appealing is a huge responsibility. What happens when the majority prevents the minority from preserving its rights? Perhaps if we had a true Democracy, black men would never have gained citizenship, and even white women would never have gained suffrage (The right to vote, in case you didn’t know that). Allowing a vast group of people to govern themselves sounds good, but are we capable of it? I will leave you with an inspirational clip of “George Patton” (Patton was a General in WWII).

Capital Punishment Abortion Is Murder

Posted July 6, 2007 by xptweakerntn
Categories: Abortion, Capital Punishment

    We are all created equal, but it is what a man does in his life that determines whether he is righteous or wicked.
I believe that capital punishment is a topic that shouldn’t be taken lightly, just as abortion shouldn’t. I do believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as those are our inalienable rights. I would like someone to explain to me, however, how exactly a criminal serving life in consolitary confinement has the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would like someone to explain to me how any prisoner has a right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

Comparing capital punishment to abortion is like comparing rifles to hand grenades; they both have their uses, are in the same ballpark, and both kill people, but they are used for two totally different purposes. Capital punishment is used to deal with criminals who have had their chance at life and failed. Abortion is used to kill innocent babies that will never have the chance to make decisions.

Personally, I don’t think that capital punishment should be used in most cases, but it should be available. The problem with justice, sometimes it makes mistakes. Scott Peterson is an example, I’m sure than not every man that has murdered his wife and unborn baby has received the death penalty. Sometimes they go to jail, and sometimes they take a trip on death row, but I ask who is to decide who lives and who dies? Some people serving jail time, and some people on death row, are completely innocent. As long as a man is sitting in a cell, and new evidence proves the man innocent, he can walk free. There are few things that will ever help the man that had years taken away from him, but what happens when a man is put to death, and then found innocent?

I never said I was for or against the death penalty, I just don’t think we have the right decide who lives or dies. What about in Saddam’s case? He was a brutal dictator, and did despicable things. I believe the world is better off with him put to death.

However, assuming abortion is ok because a fetus “isn’t yet human” is also absurd. By performing an abortion, you are preventing a human being from eventually walking this earth. It is as simple as that. Using the point “We are not dealing with a conscious being” isn’t valid. Does anyone reading this remember when you were two week old? What if a person was to murder a two week old baby, do you think the baby would ever know the difference? I’ll even go this far, what about sleeping people? Do you think, honestly, if you murder a sleeping person, he or she will ever know the difference? Doesn’t “conscious” mean that you know you are alive and well? A two week old baby, or a women sleeping, neither know they are here. Yes, in a few hours, the woman will know she is here, but in a few years the baby, and even an unborn baby, will know he/she is alive and well.

The only time an abortion should be an option is if it risks the life of the mother, or if the baby is the result of incest. It could be an option in some cases of rape (I believe some cases of rape could easily be avoided by the woman). Then again, if you decide abortion is ok for a certain reason, why wouldn’t all reasons make it ok? I mean, one could say the only acceptable reason for abortion would be if it presents a threat to the mother or child. If you can justify that, then the justification of aborting a pregnancy because it may cause emotional distress to the mother, well, wouldn’t that be ok? Abortion is a hard topic to discuss, because not only is it fueled directly by emotions, more so than other opinions, but because you can’t make many decisions about abortion from hard facts. The main belief for pro-life is that life begins at conception, because that side believes in an all powerful God. The pro-choice side is fueled by the rights of women, believing that a fetus isn’t alive, so it isn’t murder. I guess if you don’t want a baby, you shouldn’t be pregnant, because if you can afford an abortion, shouldn’t you be able to afford contraceptives?

A License To Kill…

Posted July 3, 2007 by xptweakerntn
Categories: Abortion

A license to kill is exactly what abortion is. Supposedly, it is the woman’s “right” to choose to kill an unborn child. What about our unalienable rights:Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or the pursuit of all who threaten it, if you’re in the Navy)? Ah, the argument is that an unborn child doesn’t have any rights, because the baby isn’t even alive yet. What would happen if a male kicked a pregnant female in the chest, and terminated the baby? Rights?

So yes, the main argument for abortion is that it is the womans right, because it is her body. What about a woman’s rights? Does she have the right to use cocaine? How about prostitution? Suicide? What if a man claimed rape was ok because it was his body? The logical argument against that would be “But you are affecting someone else’s body also”. What about abortion? You are affecting an unborn child’s life drastically in that case.

Another common argument for abortion is that if a child is going to be born into a poverty stricken family, abortion should be an option because the child’s life would be miserable. Look at statistics, and I’ll probably say yes, this is true, a poor child will have a much harder life than a child born into riches with a Silver spoon. This doesn’t mean we should kill the child before it is born. After all, a child can be born into a rich family, and in his teen years, get involved in drugs, alcohol, etc, and permanently make the rest of his life miserable as well. Anyone remember Scott Peterson? He was wealthy, killed his wife and unborn child, and now sits on death row. Just because a person has more money doesn’t mean that they are going to be a better, more successful person than a person born into poverty. Some examples of people born into poor families are Charles Dickens, Beethoven, and Oprah Winfrey.

There will always be some people that use rape and incest as an excuse for abortion. Although these circumstances create questionable cases, I ask you if a baby born from rape is any less important than any other baby? While it is more likely that in this case the baby would be a more unwanted baby, it still would be very possible for the mother to love the baby. It is also true that only approximately 1% of all abortions are from rape or incest, so shouldn’t that fact end the argument for rape of incest legalizing abortion?

On the side of mothers asking for abortion, their arguments are usually found somewhere between not being able to afford the child, not wanting the child, not being able to care for the child, not being mature enough for the child, etc. While it is true that these women shouldn’t be pregnant, should we kill the child because of it?

I know that all this makes sense; I also know that it is very unlikely that I will change anyone’s opinion. But ask yourself this: Should killing an innocent, unborn child be allowed as a convenience in our lives?

Outlaws With Guns…

Posted April 19, 2007 by xptweakerntn
Categories: Gun Control

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns

The politically correct way to prevent shootings such as those at Virginia Tech is completely banning guns of any kind. Furthermore, I, of course, oppose gun control of any kind. Our second Amendment states “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 Bill of Rights, or the first ten Amendments, came into effect December 15, 1791. Congress threw the second Amendment in there for a reason; it wasn’t to make it easy for criminals to have guns, but actually to keep the public armed so that if necessary, could protect themselves from either our own government, if necessary, or a foreign threat.

Many people state that if owning a gun was illegal, or even harder to accomplish, crime and violence rates would plummet. This has no evidence to support it. For one thing, it was illegal for the kid to have the two guns on the campus. He didn’t care about the laws, because he wasn’t worried about what would happen if he violated them. Criminals are just that, criminals. They violate the law. Another thing, if guns were illegal, then you would start to see crime for the guns. Right now narcotics are illegal in the U.S., and you see many crimes committed to get the drugs to whom is buying them. If guns were illegal, you would start to see crimes committed to get the guns to buyers. If there is a demand, there will be a supply.

One might state that less guns on the street equals less crime, yet even this is false. Kennesaw, Georgia has a law that states, with a few exceptions, that every household in the county must own and maintain a firearm. The law went into effect in 1982. Between 1982 and 1999, there was a total of three murders in the county. Yet in 1996 it had over 13,000 citizens, no small number. Furthermore, of the three murders, two of them were with knives. In Kennesaw, crime rate is extremely low, and I will explain why. Imagine if you were a thief. Imagine that you knew one house had an owner with a gun inside at the current comment, and then you also knew that a house on the other side of the block had an owner without a gun. Thinking for your own life, which house would you rob? Unless your motive was to steal the gun and sell it, you would of course have chosen house number two. In Kennesaw, people think before they do something. They know that if they break the law, they could easily lose their life during the process of breaking it. After all, I would rather have a gun and not need it, rather to need a gun and not have it.