1st Journal Entry.
Well I guess I am a rebel now. Officially the government calls us "terrorists", a vague term that has been used more frequently since President Clinton was elected into office. Its hard to say when our rebellion really started, it just seems to have sprung up on its own as small groups of individuals reached their breaking point. Very few of us can put up with it anymore, its like the days of freedom have passed our generation by. Even the winter's seem colder, but that might be due to the rationing of fuel.
None of us really blame OPEC. Its true they are a cartel that artificially inflates prices, but how many countries did we think we could invade before they just shut their pipelines down to us. We were mistaken to think they need our money, while its true they want our money they are doing just fine with Chinese Yuan and Russian Rubles. We are the ones freezing now, we are the ones without cars, we are the ones shivering in our homes. Our "representatives" in DC are doing just fine... but its okay though, because what they are doing is important, what they are doing is going to help society as a whole. Well I could give a damn about society. If they would allow us to take care of ourselves then we wouldn't be in this situation. We need fuel though, and it is doubtful we will have active trade with the Middle East again. First we invade Iraq, then Iran, then Pakistan... we "annex" Kuwait and attempt to unite with the Saudis but we received the military butt kicking that we deserved.
I don't know what President Clinton was thinking going into all those countries, especially with military recruitment at an all time low. She continued to whine and claim that soldiers were sexist if they didn't want to have a female commander-in-chief. It wasn't that they were sexist, its just that soldiers have a sixth sense that detects bad leadership, so they bailed out. Next came the draft, which most of us avoided. It is getting harder and harder to survive under the radar though. You need your national ID card just to go shopping or ride a bus, everything is done on the black market. Thankfully we are close to Canada who still has some variation of a free society. Its kinda funny actually, when President W. Bush passed the Military Commissions Act nobody paid attention, and then it was turned against citizens who disagreed with the government. If we dissent we must be terrorists. So many good Americans disappeared during the first purge, we still don't know where they are. You can't store that many people at Guantanamo.
It was like a stack of dominoes. People were upset that Clinton was invading countries in our name, so they blogged about her and protested her. Then the arrests started. Well some people didn't feel like going peacefully. They fought back with their guns, they guns our founding fathers wanted us to carry to keep the government in check. So she took our guns. She claimed that personal firearm ownership was hindering national security and security was always more important than liberty. I guess Benjamin Franklin was right, so was Abe Lincoln. After the national firearm confiscation started many people had had enough. Large groups of people, mostly organized through the Internet, moved into New Hampshire and successfully started a secession movement. These patriots wanted to be free from the tyranny that was brewing within our own shores, well President Clinton responded the only way she knew how. She sent in the military, whatever was left of it. I hear they are still fighting over there, but information is scarce, especially since the Internet was turned off. Some pirate stations still exist but it is so hard to distinguish real patriots from government agencies attempting to weed out us "terrorists".
Well, I gotta go. It sounds like we were able to get a hold of a transport truck that was delivering food to a boat headed for Africa (we have to fight the AIDS epidemic, after all it is the humanitarian thing to do).
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Self Defense
We all have the right to defend ourselves. Except for the extreme pacifist this right is recognized as ingrained in us, it does not need to be defined within laws (though it is), we are simply justified to use force to preserve our own life. Many, like me, feel this right includes the right to bear arms. Lets be realistic, people own guns. Some of these people are bad and because of this it is necessary to allow good people to own guns as well. Even if it were not necessary it would still be within our human rights to own the means of protecting ourselves. Not everyone is created physically equal and a firearm can become a great equalizer. A 100 lb woman with a Springfield XD .40 has a way to defend herself from a physically superior 200 lb, 6'00" man. Weapons are not bad, but some people who use them are bad.
So when can the government legitimately remove our ability to defend ourself? Legally they can do it almost anytime but morally the only time anyone should be able to remove your ability to defend yourself is when they can guarantee your safety. Honestly though, it is rare that the government can guarantee our safety yet we are forbidden from carrying firearms in many locations. One of those locations (at least in my home state) is college campuses. Why can I not carry a weapon at my school? I have extensive firearm training, I have completed a concealed weapons class, I have a concealed weapons permit and I have my own pistol that I can easily carry concealed so as to not disrupt or intimidate anyone. So the question remains, why can't I carry my weapon on campus?
The government apparently feels that the school and local law enforcement can guarantee my safety. Life has taught us otherwise. We continue to have school shootings where deranged people are able to take advantage of a proverbial "fish in a barrel" situation. Just imagine if one student was able to fight back at Virginia Tech or one teacher at Columbine could carry a weapon. Imagine that lives that would be saved if the government would allow us to fight fair. My school has over 100 buildings in an urban environment, we are only 6 miles from the 20th most violent city in the nation... yet I am legally not allowed to carry a weapon to defend myself and other students. My campus has public safety, but unless we can get an armed officer for every building on campus then my safety is still in jeopardy. This kind of risk could easily be avoided if we were simply allowed our constitutional right to carry a weapon for self defense.
So when can the government legitimately remove our ability to defend ourself? Legally they can do it almost anytime but morally the only time anyone should be able to remove your ability to defend yourself is when they can guarantee your safety. Honestly though, it is rare that the government can guarantee our safety yet we are forbidden from carrying firearms in many locations. One of those locations (at least in my home state) is college campuses. Why can I not carry a weapon at my school? I have extensive firearm training, I have completed a concealed weapons class, I have a concealed weapons permit and I have my own pistol that I can easily carry concealed so as to not disrupt or intimidate anyone. So the question remains, why can't I carry my weapon on campus?
The government apparently feels that the school and local law enforcement can guarantee my safety. Life has taught us otherwise. We continue to have school shootings where deranged people are able to take advantage of a proverbial "fish in a barrel" situation. Just imagine if one student was able to fight back at Virginia Tech or one teacher at Columbine could carry a weapon. Imagine that lives that would be saved if the government would allow us to fight fair. My school has over 100 buildings in an urban environment, we are only 6 miles from the 20th most violent city in the nation... yet I am legally not allowed to carry a weapon to defend myself and other students. My campus has public safety, but unless we can get an armed officer for every building on campus then my safety is still in jeopardy. This kind of risk could easily be avoided if we were simply allowed our constitutional right to carry a weapon for self defense.
McCain
Senator McCain claims the troops want to finish the mission. Senator McCain claims the troops told him this while visiting them over Thanksgiving. Senator McCain is somewhat mistaken.
I was a soldier. I served as an infantry paratrooper in Afghanistan and Iraq as a machine gunner and operations sergeant, respectively. I know soldiers. While serving in the military your normal rank and file soldier will rarely try to rock the boat, and the last thing they want to do is embarrass their chain of command. This isn't apathy as much as it is a survival instinct. When you depend on those in charge of you and next to you to save your skin then you try not to cause problems. This is probably why Senator McCain thinks the troops are completely on his side and the side of this illegal war.
When a Senator (or anybody that has power or prestige) visits the troops they are often scolded over and over that they had better behave themselves. When in a combat zone you do what you are told, and having been in these kind of "dog and pony shows" I know that it is generally best to answer affirmatively to any questioning that may occur. The truth of the matter is that soldiers are not robots, they are free-thinking individuals who have varying opinions about the war. That is why I am skeptical of Senator McCain's claim that all soldiers want to finish the job. All soldiers can't agree on anything, much less the authenticity of a war where more and more of my brothers are being killed daily. Realistically the proportion of soldiers who back the war is probably fairly similar to the proportion of civilians who back the war. I don't think Senator McCain realizes that the troops he sat down with were probably hand selected by officers to put forth the most positive image as possible, and even if they weren't it is unlikely that a soldier would whine to a senator about how much they want to go home and disagree with the situation they are in. That would be suicide for that soldier.
I was once told that your true character shines when nobody is watching. So what are these soldiers doing when nobody is watching? That is hard to pin down but one thing is for sure, they are donating money to Ron Paul. I don't know if they back his foreign policy or some other specific issue, but one thing is for certain, they aren't sending money to Rudy McHuckneyson.
I don't speak for all soldiers, I only speak for me, but using my knowledge of the military and an attempt at an objective view point, it seems obvious that Senator McCain is mistaken. No matter what they say to your face, Senator, their true opinion lies in how they spend their money, and that isn't on you.
I was a soldier. I served as an infantry paratrooper in Afghanistan and Iraq as a machine gunner and operations sergeant, respectively. I know soldiers. While serving in the military your normal rank and file soldier will rarely try to rock the boat, and the last thing they want to do is embarrass their chain of command. This isn't apathy as much as it is a survival instinct. When you depend on those in charge of you and next to you to save your skin then you try not to cause problems. This is probably why Senator McCain thinks the troops are completely on his side and the side of this illegal war.
When a Senator (or anybody that has power or prestige) visits the troops they are often scolded over and over that they had better behave themselves. When in a combat zone you do what you are told, and having been in these kind of "dog and pony shows" I know that it is generally best to answer affirmatively to any questioning that may occur. The truth of the matter is that soldiers are not robots, they are free-thinking individuals who have varying opinions about the war. That is why I am skeptical of Senator McCain's claim that all soldiers want to finish the job. All soldiers can't agree on anything, much less the authenticity of a war where more and more of my brothers are being killed daily. Realistically the proportion of soldiers who back the war is probably fairly similar to the proportion of civilians who back the war. I don't think Senator McCain realizes that the troops he sat down with were probably hand selected by officers to put forth the most positive image as possible, and even if they weren't it is unlikely that a soldier would whine to a senator about how much they want to go home and disagree with the situation they are in. That would be suicide for that soldier.
I was once told that your true character shines when nobody is watching. So what are these soldiers doing when nobody is watching? That is hard to pin down but one thing is for sure, they are donating money to Ron Paul. I don't know if they back his foreign policy or some other specific issue, but one thing is for certain, they aren't sending money to Rudy McHuckneyson.
I don't speak for all soldiers, I only speak for me, but using my knowledge of the military and an attempt at an objective view point, it seems obvious that Senator McCain is mistaken. No matter what they say to your face, Senator, their true opinion lies in how they spend their money, and that isn't on you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)