RSS

Tag Archives: freedom

When Does Help Become Too Much Help?

It’s no secret that most everything I was ever told growing up was a lie (By society not my parents). For example: Salt is bad for you, FALSE. Marijuana kills brain cells, FALSE. Sticking our nose into other countries business and starting or supporting wars is vital to the American way of life…. Hmmmmm this one isn’t so easy to make a judgement on. There are no studies or experiments that could be done in a lab to prove or disprove this. Maybe I can examine a few recent wars to see if I can come up with a good answer.

Take the Vietnam War for example. Itvietnamwar2 was touted as being necessary to fight the spread of communism. We had to help those poor Vietnamese people so they wouldn’t fall under Communist rule. Was it really up to the US what happened over there, or up to the people of Vietnam? One major flaw of this countries government is they act like the “Boss” of the world. We see countries and their conflicts and we automatically assume we know what is best for them. Maybe as a “free” society we should try to help other peoples in their fight for freedom, but do we go too far?

Let’s examine this question by comparing these wars with our own revolution. This is a great example because we were struggling for our freedom while being ruled by a monarch in another country. We felt we could do a better job ourselves. We also reached out to other countries for aid, and one that responded was France. They sent troops, ships and money which proved invaluable and helped us win the war.

Some argued the French could have done more to help us. These arguments were very prevalent during the war as well . Our country wanted more troops, ships and aid from the French. It’s obvious now that we didn’t need anymore, and we made good with what we received.

Now imagine for a moment the french did send more help. Say we convinced the nation of France that this war was imperative to stopping the spread of the British Empire and they should make it there number one goal to drive the British out of the American colonies. If we somehow accomplished this and the French sent the majority of their army and naval fleet to the colonies many would see this as a good thing. They would have a huge force and really give the British a pounding. However, the French armies would be encamped all over the new world. This wouldn’t be the intended purpose, but when the war was over the US would have a huge french army “occupying” American soil.  Now let’s say the French realize their huge investment in this new world and want to protect it. After all they just spent countless lives of troops, ships, money etc ensuring our freedom from the Brits. They may feel they would have to leave troops here to protect us from a follow up British invasion or from another country who may swoop in and try to gain control over our new nation. If this were to happened the French would have wasted all those lives and resources for nothing. How could anyone blame them for wanting to protect their investment.

Think about this for a moment. There would be a standing french army on American soil, here to “protect us” from an unseen enemy. From the point of view of the American people, who just gained their independence from one nation, it would look like the French didn’t trust us with this  new freedom that they had just helped us gain. After awhile of this “occupation” the American people could want to rebel against the French, or the French could try to make us part of the their own Empire. One could compare this scenario to the Iraqi war. At first they greeted us as liberators. Then as we became an occupying force they began to resent and rebel against us.

The point here is there could be such a thing as too much “help”. It’s like that old saying: “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.” If our government really wanted to help these countries there may be better ways to go about it. Instead of starting or participating in an all out War we could give them aid, support, and funding. If this isn’t enough to help them gain independence then maybe they are not ready. Maybe it is not their time. Who are we to make that decision? I believe if we do want to give aid or support it should be up to congress however. This way there would be a more representative decision on the part of the American people on who we help and why. Instead of helping a country because they have oil or are strategically important in a region. Of course this would only truly work if you had an uncorrupted system. Which is a whole other story.

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 13, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Conversation With Gun Control Advocates

yelling_anger1    Recently the topic of gun control has been coming up everywhere. Being a supporter of the 2nd amendment myself and an advocate of less government there is no surprise what side of the argument I am on. My question is though: is “argument” the correct term? Cannot we have an intelligent discussion about the topic?

Too many times when this subject comes up people get into heated debates and let their emotions take hold. What I try to tell my fellow 2nd Amendment supporters is we must find common ground with people who are on the side of gun control. One way to go about this is to ask them a few simple questions to see exactly where they stand on the issue.

A few questions you can ask are:

-What are you feelings about guns in this country?

-Why do you feel that way?

-Have you ever had an experience with a gun? -etc

If you engage the person this way instead of throwing random facts out or treating them like they are an idiot you may actually get somewhere. In order for this to be effective you actually have listen to what they say. Let them speak and ask them more questions.

We must note that there are two major types of anti-gun people or should I say two types of reasoning behind the belief. From what I have seen the two types are: 1.) Peaceful people who want to see less violence in the world, and 2.) Figures of authority who think it’s ok for you to not have a gun, but ok for them to have a gun, or as in the case of politicians, ok for people protecting them and their family to be armed.

Most of the people we come in contact with on a day to day basis are in the first group I mentioned. These are everyday people who through love of their fellow human beings are against guns and the violence wrongly associated with them. It is important to note that they have this stance based on their concern for others’ well being. It is important because they differ vastly from people in the second group. People in the second group believe that they are better than the average citizen. They believe that they and their families are more important and are some how privileged. This way of thinking is very dangerous to the American way of life. A way of life where everyone is supposed to be equal and the people are supposed to have the real power.

The other issue is people in the second group are using people from the first group. They use their compassion and love for fellow humans against them with fear. Which brings me to my main point. Most anti-gun people have the feelings they do toward guns because of misplaced compassion due to fear and misinformation. Once you realize this you know where to start.

The goal here isn’t to change people’s opinions, but just to get them to open their minds. Show them how fear and propaganda from the second group could be effecting them negatively. Show them how the second group doesn’t really want to abolish guns, they just want to take them out of the hands of average citizens(who in many cases are safer than most with a firearm). Remind them how the second group would never give up guns themselves for protection of their family or property.

If this post helps just one person it was worth my time!!

Topics I plan on talking about soon include: How to talk to anti-gun people about the differences between assault weapons, assault type rifles and the need for these weapons and high capacity magazines for the average citizen.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on January 31, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

A Letter in Response to Proposed Gun Legislation in CT

0130-senate-gun-hearing-630x420#MoreLawsMoreProblems

Here is a letter I wrote to all my reps at the state level, and I will be sending a modified version to my reps at the federal level:

Hello State Rep,

I am a citizen of Milford, registered voter and veteran of the United States Marine Corps. I am also a local DJ who works 4 nights a week in local establishments here in Milford. I talk to a lot of people on a daily basis and have a pretty accurate sense of the social climate here in the area. And when I say talk, I really mean listen. I don’t try to talk over people or push what I believe onto them. I genuinely want to know how people feel about topics in the community. So most times I won’t even state what side of a particular argue or topic I am on. I believe this is what gives me a true accurate sense of how people feel.

The reason for this email as stated above in the subject line is the recent proposed legislation aimed at guns, the owners and control. First off I would like to express my disgust in the way that gun control proponents are using the terrible tragedy in Sandy Hook as a platform to spread lies, fear and hate. These proponents were advocates of gun control before this senseless act of violence, and are using it to there advantage. They are trying to blur the lines between fact and fiction when it comes to firearms.

That all being said I would like to share my feelings on the proposed legislation. I believe most of it is a knee jerk reaction. I understand that legislators need to do something so the public knows they care. I understand elected officials have to accurately represent there constituents. I understand there is a lot of propaganda on both sides swaying pubic opinion. BUT most if not all of the people I talk to believe that there are enough laws in place. CT is one of the strictest states as far as guns go. These laws are working. It all comes down to the old saying: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”

Then there are issues such as limiting magazine(clip) size on semi-automatic weapons. Honestly this is only going to hurt the law abiding citizen. Criminals are not going to obey these rules. Please don’t misinterpret me, I believe the Milford Police Department does a great job! Very tactful and respectful of citizens. I see this on a daily basis in downtown Milford. That is more than I can say for some members of Law Enforcement in other cities where I have DJed (That is a whole other topic). Even with all my respect for the police here in Milford I know that they cannot be every where at once. So, as slim as the chance may be, it may be up to the law abiding citizen to protect her or himself until the police arrive. Also it is great to be prepared in the unlikely event of a major natural disaster, civil unrest or likewise scenarios. In the Marine Corps we always trained for the worse just as a back up, and as a boy scout I remember the motto which was “Be Prepared.”

In short we have the correct laws in place. They work! I am including a list of proposed bills and my stance on each of these. I copied and pasted these from the Connecticut Carry Defense League’s Website. I have carefully read through all these bills and agree with all there stances except for HB-5269. I listed my reason below:

HB-5112 AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PERSONS HOLDING HANDGUN PERMITS. Official Position: Oppose
HB-5165 AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFENSE OF A PERSON’S HOME, MOTOR VEHICLE OR BUSINESS. Official position: Support
HB-5176 AN ACT CONCERNING THE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER. Official position: Support
HB-5179 AN ACT CONCERNING ACCESS TO THE INTERACTIVE VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEM OF THE SPECIAL LICENSING AND FIREARMS UNIT OF THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE. Official position: Support
HB-5268 AN ACT REQUIRING THE MAINTENANCE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE BY FIREARM OWNERS AND ESTABLISHING A SALES TAX ON AMMUNITION. Official position Oppose
HB-5269 AN ACT INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR CRIMINAL USE OF A FIREARM OR ELECTRONIC DEFENSE WEAPON.
I personally disagree with this one. I believe it should be interpreted on a case by case analysis by law enforcement and the judicial branch.
SB-1 AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS FROM VIOLENCE. Official position: Oppose
SB-21 AN ACT AUTHORIZING BONDS OF THE STATE FOR AN ETERNAL LIGHT IN MEMORY OF VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE. Official position: Oppose- amendment for all victims of violence not just firearms. SB-42 AN ACT CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION. Official position: Oppose
SB-122 AN ACT CONCERNING RESTRICTIONS ON GUN USE. Official position: Oppose
SB-124 AN ACT BANNING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES. Official position: Oppose
SB-140 AN ACT CONCERNING LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR FIREARM OWNERS AND SALES TAX ON AMMUNITION. Official position: Oppose

Thank You for taking the time out of your busy schedule to read my email. it really does mean a lot to me, and I would love to hear how you feel about these issues and why. Being very opened minded I value different opinions.

Sincerely,
Brandon S.
Concerned Citizen of Milford, CT

 
4 Comments

Posted by on January 29, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,