I could not be happier to see that the Supreme Court found that the 2nd Ammendment indeed applies to an individual right to keep and bear arms for traditionaly lawful purposes (e.g., sport, hunting, and self-defense).
Considering the statements that have either been written or spoken by virtually every contributor to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, particularly Thomas Jefferson (the supposed founder of the Democratic Party), who thought that hunting was a superior sport to all others, and thought that one ought to use a rifle as a walking stick when hiking in the woods, I have no doubt in my mind that the contributors intended the 2nd Ammendment to preserve the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
The 2nd Ammendment is as follows:
"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 argument against the individual right to keep and bear arms is more or less as follows:
1) The purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to preserve the rights of state militia's to keep and bear arms to preserve the security and authority of the individual states.
2) Since militia's are no longer used, and have been replaced by standing armies.
3) The 2nd Ammendment no longer restrains local, state, or Federal legislators.
Scalia argued that while the 2nd Ammendment states A purpose, it does not restrain gun ownership to that singular purpose. Basically, the argument is that just because the writers of the constitution sited militia's as an important reason not to infringe on the people's (i.e. the individuals) right to keep and bear arms, this does not mean that arms were protected solely for the use of militias and for no other purpose. If Scalia's argument is not followed, the only alternative is to essentially remove the 2nd Ammendment entirely. If arms are only protected in militias, and there are no militias, then the 2nd Ammendment is essentially null and void and offers no restraints on Congress and offers no protections to the American people.
I think if you look at the other side of the coin you can see more plainly what's being argued. I freely admit that this is a strawman, but I think it's a good illustration nonetheless. Let's say you have a law that states the following:
"Since murders are usually committed using firearms, the sale and possession of firearms shall be prohibited."
If you follow Justice Stephen's line of reasoning, it could be argued that the sale or possession of a firearm is only illegal if the firearm is used to commit murder.
If you follow Justice Scalia's line of reasoning, you would conclude that just because the purpose of the law was to prevent murder, doesn't mean that the law does not apply to those that aren't intending to commit murder.
So... to Justic Stephens' argument that the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to preserve the state militia, then my response would be this, "When such a time arises that my state calls me into service, my weapon will be well-maintained, and I will be well-practiced."
Monday, June 30, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Aborion: Faith, Belief, Value?
Why are Christians (including Catholics) opposed to abortion? Without citing any sources, I would venture to say that most Christians that oppose abortion would claim the following:
1) God cares about human life and has stated that it is against His Will to willfully take the life of another except in self-defense.
2) Scripture states and science confirms that human embryos are both human and alive
Therefore...
3) Abortion is the willful taking of a human life and contrary to God's Will.
There is no passage in scripture that states, "Thou shalt not kill the fruit of they womb". Christians come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong by way of determining that murdering human life is wrong, and unborn babies are both human and alive.
The passage that most closely approximates a prohibition on abortion is the following:
Exodus 21:22 - 25
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Essentially, this passage implies that abortion (in this case accidental) carries the same gravity as murder, and should be punished in the same way. If the punishment for causing miscarriage or stillbirth were a fine, we could conclude that while abortion is wrong, it's not AS wrong as murder.
However, there is no passage that is totally airtight. One could argue that the preceeding passage doesn't cover instances where the mother intentionally aborted the child, which is a different scenario than another accidentally aborting the child. An abortion supporter could make the argument that it was wrong because the mother WANTED the child, and not because the child was of some inherent value (ie, a human life).
What's the point of all this? In my opinion, politicians that say "I am personally opposed to abortion on religious grounds, but I am not willing to impose my religious beliefs on others through the law," are either ignorant as to why they oppose abortion, they do not really oppose abortion (ie they are disingenuous), or they are afraid to stand up for what they believe to be right because it would not be politically expedient (ie they are cowards).
Ignorant: Opposition to abortion is not simply a religious belief. Since there is no clear instruction against abortion in the Bible, the only way of intelligently coming to the conclusion that abortion is wrong is by following the procedure outlined above. One cannot rightly say, "Well, the Bible says abortion is wrong, but it also says eating pork is wrong, and we don't legislate against that." The Bible does not say that abortion is "wrong" or that abortion is "sin", the Bible implies that abortion is murder. Certainly, one can think abortion is wrong because they were taught it was wrong by their parents or their church, but that is not an intelligent way of determining one's personal value system. There are plenty of people that do this, but these people are ignorant as to why they believe what they do. For these people that do not think through what they believe, it is easy to say, "This is my personal belief, but I won't impose it on anyone else", because it's not true. It's not their personal belief, it's someone else's personal belief that they have adopted but they have no idea why. When politicians, like Barak Obama, for instance, say that they are personally opposed to abortion, I would be very curious to find out why that is. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any time where a politician who is pro-choice, but personally opposed to abortion, has been asked, "Why are you opposed to abortion?"
Disingenuous: If one fully appreciates what it means to be opposed to abortion, and understands that the only way to truly oppose abortion is to consider it murder, and this person persists in stating, "While I am personally opposed to abortion..." then I would conclude that this person does not really believe that embryos are human life, and does not really believe that abortion is murder. If one believes that abortion is murder, and the state has no authority to legislate abortion, then one must also conclude that the state has no authority to legislate murder.
Coward: If one has intelligently and genuinely come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong because abortion is murder, and one believes that the state has the authority to legislate murder, and one still persists in stating, "While I am personally opposed to abortion..." then I would conclude that this person is simply afraid to stand up for what is right.
Of those who are firmly pro-choice, who do not believe there is any difference between removing a tumor and removing a fetus, I can say that their stance is thoughtful, genuine, and, to a certain extent, courageous. I cannot say the same for those that claim they are personally opposed to abortion but do not support the state's right to protect the unborn. They might as well say they oppose slavery, but don't believe the state has the right to abolish slavery.
1) God cares about human life and has stated that it is against His Will to willfully take the life of another except in self-defense.
2) Scripture states and science confirms that human embryos are both human and alive
Therefore...
3) Abortion is the willful taking of a human life and contrary to God's Will.
There is no passage in scripture that states, "Thou shalt not kill the fruit of they womb". Christians come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong by way of determining that murdering human life is wrong, and unborn babies are both human and alive.
The passage that most closely approximates a prohibition on abortion is the following:
Exodus 21:22 - 25
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Essentially, this passage implies that abortion (in this case accidental) carries the same gravity as murder, and should be punished in the same way. If the punishment for causing miscarriage or stillbirth were a fine, we could conclude that while abortion is wrong, it's not AS wrong as murder.
However, there is no passage that is totally airtight. One could argue that the preceeding passage doesn't cover instances where the mother intentionally aborted the child, which is a different scenario than another accidentally aborting the child. An abortion supporter could make the argument that it was wrong because the mother WANTED the child, and not because the child was of some inherent value (ie, a human life).
What's the point of all this? In my opinion, politicians that say "I am personally opposed to abortion on religious grounds, but I am not willing to impose my religious beliefs on others through the law," are either ignorant as to why they oppose abortion, they do not really oppose abortion (ie they are disingenuous), or they are afraid to stand up for what they believe to be right because it would not be politically expedient (ie they are cowards).
Ignorant: Opposition to abortion is not simply a religious belief. Since there is no clear instruction against abortion in the Bible, the only way of intelligently coming to the conclusion that abortion is wrong is by following the procedure outlined above. One cannot rightly say, "Well, the Bible says abortion is wrong, but it also says eating pork is wrong, and we don't legislate against that." The Bible does not say that abortion is "wrong" or that abortion is "sin", the Bible implies that abortion is murder. Certainly, one can think abortion is wrong because they were taught it was wrong by their parents or their church, but that is not an intelligent way of determining one's personal value system. There are plenty of people that do this, but these people are ignorant as to why they believe what they do. For these people that do not think through what they believe, it is easy to say, "This is my personal belief, but I won't impose it on anyone else", because it's not true. It's not their personal belief, it's someone else's personal belief that they have adopted but they have no idea why. When politicians, like Barak Obama, for instance, say that they are personally opposed to abortion, I would be very curious to find out why that is. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any time where a politician who is pro-choice, but personally opposed to abortion, has been asked, "Why are you opposed to abortion?"
Disingenuous: If one fully appreciates what it means to be opposed to abortion, and understands that the only way to truly oppose abortion is to consider it murder, and this person persists in stating, "While I am personally opposed to abortion..." then I would conclude that this person does not really believe that embryos are human life, and does not really believe that abortion is murder. If one believes that abortion is murder, and the state has no authority to legislate abortion, then one must also conclude that the state has no authority to legislate murder.
Coward: If one has intelligently and genuinely come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong because abortion is murder, and one believes that the state has the authority to legislate murder, and one still persists in stating, "While I am personally opposed to abortion..." then I would conclude that this person is simply afraid to stand up for what is right.
Of those who are firmly pro-choice, who do not believe there is any difference between removing a tumor and removing a fetus, I can say that their stance is thoughtful, genuine, and, to a certain extent, courageous. I cannot say the same for those that claim they are personally opposed to abortion but do not support the state's right to protect the unborn. They might as well say they oppose slavery, but don't believe the state has the right to abolish slavery.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
I can't fathom this
Is there any reason not to allow oil companies to drill other than, how I see it, resentment politics.
If you aren't familiar with resentment politics, it's fairly simple: a certain policy is either supported or rejected, not because it will yield a more just society or a more successful society, but because it hurts people we don't like.
There is nothing in politics I hate more than resentment politics. Provoking strife between classes, genders, and races is an easy way to score political points, but it creates massive barriers to progress.
Oil drilling is one of them. The only argument I have heard against oil drilling has been that it will help oil companies.
True, some folks have argued that drilling won't "solve our energy problems", but that's not really an argument against drilling. Just because drilling won't "solve" all of our energy problems, doesn't mean it won't help.
Some folks have argued that "alternative energy" should be pursued, but our government isn't a position to choose either drilling or alternative energy, they can choose both: oil companies would foot the bill for drilling, taxpayers foot the bill for developing alternative energies because at this point they aren't productive or profitable.
Some folks have argued that our oil supply is only 3% of global supply... which still isn't an argument against drilling, and it doesn't really mean anything, because I've also heard that that 3% of global supply is enough to satisfy our oil needs for 100 years. I've heard the argument that our drilling is safe and won't spill, a preemptive attack against environmental arguments, but I've not actually heard anyone argue that drilling is environmentally unsound.
These are all arguments that we should pursue some other course, or that the benefits won't be worth the costs, but no one has found the time to point out what those "costs" are, and why we are to deem them as being too high. There's a good reason for that: the costs are very low to the American taxpayer.
Even the argument that speculation is the real cause behind high prices at the pump is not an argument AGAINST drilling, it is an argument for the government to take action against speculators IN ADDITION TO whatever is decided about drilling, which is really a totally separate issue. Personally, if SPECULATION is really the cause of the price increases, and that speculation has fluctuated greatly because of supply concerns about Middle Eastern Oil, then the mere ANNOUNCEMENT of the relaxation of the moratorium on oil exploration should make an immediate impact on the futures price of oil.
The ONLY argument I've heard AGAINST drilling is that it will help "Big Oil". It doesn't matter that what helps Big Oil also helps the American consumer, so long as any policy helps Big Oil in any way it will be wholeheartedly opposed: that is resentment politics.
If you aren't familiar with resentment politics, it's fairly simple: a certain policy is either supported or rejected, not because it will yield a more just society or a more successful society, but because it hurts people we don't like.
There is nothing in politics I hate more than resentment politics. Provoking strife between classes, genders, and races is an easy way to score political points, but it creates massive barriers to progress.
Oil drilling is one of them. The only argument I have heard against oil drilling has been that it will help oil companies.
True, some folks have argued that drilling won't "solve our energy problems", but that's not really an argument against drilling. Just because drilling won't "solve" all of our energy problems, doesn't mean it won't help.
Some folks have argued that "alternative energy" should be pursued, but our government isn't a position to choose either drilling or alternative energy, they can choose both: oil companies would foot the bill for drilling, taxpayers foot the bill for developing alternative energies because at this point they aren't productive or profitable.
Some folks have argued that our oil supply is only 3% of global supply... which still isn't an argument against drilling, and it doesn't really mean anything, because I've also heard that that 3% of global supply is enough to satisfy our oil needs for 100 years. I've heard the argument that our drilling is safe and won't spill, a preemptive attack against environmental arguments, but I've not actually heard anyone argue that drilling is environmentally unsound.
These are all arguments that we should pursue some other course, or that the benefits won't be worth the costs, but no one has found the time to point out what those "costs" are, and why we are to deem them as being too high. There's a good reason for that: the costs are very low to the American taxpayer.
Even the argument that speculation is the real cause behind high prices at the pump is not an argument AGAINST drilling, it is an argument for the government to take action against speculators IN ADDITION TO whatever is decided about drilling, which is really a totally separate issue. Personally, if SPECULATION is really the cause of the price increases, and that speculation has fluctuated greatly because of supply concerns about Middle Eastern Oil, then the mere ANNOUNCEMENT of the relaxation of the moratorium on oil exploration should make an immediate impact on the futures price of oil.
The ONLY argument I've heard AGAINST drilling is that it will help "Big Oil". It doesn't matter that what helps Big Oil also helps the American consumer, so long as any policy helps Big Oil in any way it will be wholeheartedly opposed: that is resentment politics.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Hydraulic Hybrids
Check this article about new technology for trucks. The technology needs some work before it could be applied to cars.
Some of the major positives of this technology: it's a lot cheaper, and a lot easier to recycle or dispose of than batteries, it's allegedly more efficient at capturing braking energy than batteries are.
This is also another example of how, contrary to what many Americans believe, our world's economy is not being manipulated by Big Oil, or Big Medecine, or the Illuminati; it's being manipulated by the Dutch. Or maybe you didn't catch the part about Bosch Rexroth being at the forefront of this technology. For those of you that don't know, while Bosch is based in Mt. Prospect, IL, the name Bosch is Dutch. And who is the expert that the article quotes? James Van de Ven. Here you all are, reading this post, trying to think of where Denmark is, and how such a little country could possibly be controlling the world's governments behind the scene. That's just how they like it.
Before you post anything... I'm fully aware that the Dutch are from the Netherlands. I was totally going to post this video that I got from Oneway of a man protesting Denmark and "the Dutch" for the cartoon depicting Mohammed with a turban bomb, but I couldn't find the video. Rest assured, it's hilarious.
Some of the major positives of this technology: it's a lot cheaper, and a lot easier to recycle or dispose of than batteries, it's allegedly more efficient at capturing braking energy than batteries are.
This is also another example of how, contrary to what many Americans believe, our world's economy is not being manipulated by Big Oil, or Big Medecine, or the Illuminati; it's being manipulated by the Dutch. Or maybe you didn't catch the part about Bosch Rexroth being at the forefront of this technology. For those of you that don't know, while Bosch is based in Mt. Prospect, IL, the name Bosch is Dutch. And who is the expert that the article quotes? James Van de Ven. Here you all are, reading this post, trying to think of where Denmark is, and how such a little country could possibly be controlling the world's governments behind the scene. That's just how they like it.
Before you post anything... I'm fully aware that the Dutch are from the Netherlands. I was totally going to post this video that I got from Oneway of a man protesting Denmark and "the Dutch" for the cartoon depicting Mohammed with a turban bomb, but I couldn't find the video. Rest assured, it's hilarious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)