I remember when Washington D.C.’s handgun ban was challenged in the Supreme Court. I celebrated the Court’s decision not because I wanted to carry a handgun in Washington D.C., but because of the implications for my Second Amendment rights, and for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. I find it ironic that the nation’s capital, where countless patriots had fought for our rights and given us the freedoms we enjoy, is one of the most extreme examples of gun control in the country. Despite this, the violent crime in DC is one of the highest in the country.
The sad fact is that gun control will work TO AN EXTENT in a small place like Washington DC where there is high concentration of criminal elements. It is also a fact, however, that a complete ban on the private, personal ownership of guns will never eliminate violent gun crime. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to only look at places like the United Kingdom and Australia, in which private gun ownership is almost completely banned. Violent crime remains.
Since gun control legislation happens at both a federal and state level, it affects both areas which are plagued with crime and areas with no crime at all. In my home state of Maryland, for example, it is nonsensical to introduce gun legislation that affects both crime-ridden Baltimore City and northern rural/suburban Baltimore County. The gun control laws may make it moderately difficult for a thug in the city to legally acquire a firearm, but it also makes it difficult for the law-abiding hunter to do the same. Gun control legislation is always defended by claims that it is “for the greater good,” meaning that law-abiding citizens must forfeit their rights in order to reap the benefits of a safer society. This is the most fallacious argument in defense of gun control that I have heard. Any fool can realize that gun control only disarms the law-abiding citizen; if a criminal, actual or aspiring, wants a gun, he will find a way to get one, legally or otherwise. Gun control actually makes it more of a hassle to acquire a firearm than purchasing one illegally on the black market, in most cases. Why would a criminal wait for days of background checks to buy a gun which would be registered with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and then use that gun in a violent crime?
Unfortunately, some criminals do just that. The South Korean maniac who shot more than thirty students at Virginia Tech purchased his guns legally. Of course, he had no intention or chance of surviving his rampage, so the legalities of his actions were irrelevant to him. Gun control wouldn’t have stopped him from massacring his fellow college students; it may have just impeded him. Of course, if Virginia Tech hadn’t had a complete ban of firearms on campus, specifically in regards to legal concealed carry, a brave student could have ended his rampage prematurely with a few well-placed shots.
People lament about the death of our nation’s students, and then support legislation that bans those students’ means to protect themselves. Such logic is so unbelievably flawed that it makes you wonder why these people are even allowed to vote.
Another purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people’s right to rise up against their government if it becomes tyrannical; it is their last defense of freedom and liberty. This is the reason that our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution. This is often derided by gun control advocates, who call the defenders of such a notion lunatic conspiracy theorists. Of course, those same advocates are actively pursuing legislation that will allow the government to take away the American citizens’ last defense against tyranny and despotism from that same government. Again, this logic boggles the mind; it is only defensible with the most extreme self-delusion and abandonment of good sense.
Many people in this country are actively working to destroy everything that our founding fathers cherished and fought for. The Second Amendment is the very last defense against such people; it is the last utility that patriotic Americans have to defend their freedom, liberty, and way of life, in addition to themselves, their property, and the well-being of their loved ones. Any encroachment on our Second Amendment rights must be challenged ferociously, because any ban or restriction on one type of firearm is a precursor to further gun control. Give gun control legislators an inch, and they’ll take a mile. Where will they draw the line? The answer is that they won’t draw a line; they’ll erase the Second Amendment altogether if given the chance.
As Charlie Daniels once sang: “They want to take my guns away, and that would be just fine; if you take them away from the criminals first, I’d gladly give you mine!” While I don’t think Mr. Daniels would give up his guns in any case, his logic in this lyric is solid. I know that I won’t be giving up my Second Amendment rights, come Hell or high water. Imagine an army of citizens with this resolve! The gun control nuts and the government would certainly have their dirty hands full.
December 19, 2008
December 10, 2008
The Case for the Legalization of Marijuana
My support for the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana perplexes a lot of people. Those who know that I'm conservative see this position as a glaring spot of Liberalism among my usually-spotless collection of conservative political positions. I counter such claims with the argument that the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana is no longer a conservative or Liberal issue, but rather an issue of common sense.
Many conservatives resist any attempt at decriminalizing marijuana because they automatically associate it with delinquency, crime, laziness, and moral corruption. They aren't too far off-base in those associations. I have several colleagues and acquaintances which match this description and who smoke marijuana. However, to claim a causal relationship between such lifestyles and the consumption of marijuana is fallacious. Why, you may ask? Because for every person I could name who smokes marijuana and matches the aforementioned descriptions, I could also name a person I know who smokes marijuana and is intelligent, morally sound, and hard-working. And, as with most groups of people, there is a middle ground into which many people I know fall.
First, the basics. The designation of marijuana as a Schedule One drug (high possibility of abuse with no known acceptable medical use) while alcohol remains 100% legal is confounding, to say the least. For one thing, it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana; a person will simply fall asleep before even approaching a lethal intake of marijuana. Deaths from alcohol poisoning, however, are much more common.
Furthermore, all the theories which claim that marijuana use leads to harder drugs, complete lack of motivation, total apathy, social delinquency, etcetera, are fallacious. Marijuana affects every single person in a different way, just as any drug does. A person who consumes marijuana and who then becomes a jobless bum hooked on all sorts of other drugs leads us to believe that marijuana was the cause of his downfall. If marijuana was the cause of his downfall, though, the millions upon millions of other marijuana users in the developed world would also be in his position. Reality clearly demonstrates otherwise. The useless, jobless, pot-smoking bum can blame marijuana all he wants, but it's certain that it was his personality and mental outlook that doomed him, and not a plant.
Marijuana needs to be treated just like any other mind-altering substance, including tobacco and alcohol. Such things must be consumed with personal and social responsibility. The legalization or decriminalization of marijuana does not automatically imply the right to endanger others or one's self while under the influence, just as the legal drinking status of a 21-year-old does not allow him to endanger himself or others while drunk. As with the other mind-altering drugs, there will be those who would abuse the right to consume marijuana. Those people are the outliers, though; it is highly probable that legalization or decriminalization would reduce risky behaviors while consuming marijuana. As gun control measures and the alcohol Prohibition of the 1930's show, prohibition measures, especially on a plant that grows naturally as a weed, are doomed to fail, and foster even more irresponsible behavior than the law was intended to prevent.
The so-called War on Drugs is costing taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars to arrest pot smokers, and yet the availability of the drug (especially here in a school/college setting) is incredible. It is also estimated that the legalization of marijuana would pump an additional $6.7 billion into the United States economy, in addition to freeing up several billion dollars more that would no longer have to be used by law enforcement agencies to track, arrest, and prosecute marijuana users (stats from Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Mirons report, funded by the pro-repeal Criminal Justice Policy Foundation). For those conservatives still looking for a reason to legalize the plant, remember that marijuana trafficking from Mexico into the United States is an incredibly lucrative illicit trade, and that the legalization of marijuana in the United States would effectively kill any demand for Mexican pot. The Mexican drug dealers would lose a huge source of their revenue from such legalization in the US.
In short, the associations of marijuana with social delinquency and the breakdown of moral fiber, as well as other assumed dangers of the consumption of the plant, are largely unfounded. The breakdown of moral fiber comes from a person's lack of moral backbone, not from a plant. Social delinquency comes from the same thing in addition to lack of maturity and/or a poor upbringing. Therefore, conservatives should find no objective fault in the consumption of marijuana.
If anyone has any other questions about marijuana or its use, feel free to get in touch with me.
Many conservatives resist any attempt at decriminalizing marijuana because they automatically associate it with delinquency, crime, laziness, and moral corruption. They aren't too far off-base in those associations. I have several colleagues and acquaintances which match this description and who smoke marijuana. However, to claim a causal relationship between such lifestyles and the consumption of marijuana is fallacious. Why, you may ask? Because for every person I could name who smokes marijuana and matches the aforementioned descriptions, I could also name a person I know who smokes marijuana and is intelligent, morally sound, and hard-working. And, as with most groups of people, there is a middle ground into which many people I know fall.
First, the basics. The designation of marijuana as a Schedule One drug (high possibility of abuse with no known acceptable medical use) while alcohol remains 100% legal is confounding, to say the least. For one thing, it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana; a person will simply fall asleep before even approaching a lethal intake of marijuana. Deaths from alcohol poisoning, however, are much more common.
Furthermore, all the theories which claim that marijuana use leads to harder drugs, complete lack of motivation, total apathy, social delinquency, etcetera, are fallacious. Marijuana affects every single person in a different way, just as any drug does. A person who consumes marijuana and who then becomes a jobless bum hooked on all sorts of other drugs leads us to believe that marijuana was the cause of his downfall. If marijuana was the cause of his downfall, though, the millions upon millions of other marijuana users in the developed world would also be in his position. Reality clearly demonstrates otherwise. The useless, jobless, pot-smoking bum can blame marijuana all he wants, but it's certain that it was his personality and mental outlook that doomed him, and not a plant.
Marijuana needs to be treated just like any other mind-altering substance, including tobacco and alcohol. Such things must be consumed with personal and social responsibility. The legalization or decriminalization of marijuana does not automatically imply the right to endanger others or one's self while under the influence, just as the legal drinking status of a 21-year-old does not allow him to endanger himself or others while drunk. As with the other mind-altering drugs, there will be those who would abuse the right to consume marijuana. Those people are the outliers, though; it is highly probable that legalization or decriminalization would reduce risky behaviors while consuming marijuana. As gun control measures and the alcohol Prohibition of the 1930's show, prohibition measures, especially on a plant that grows naturally as a weed, are doomed to fail, and foster even more irresponsible behavior than the law was intended to prevent.
The so-called War on Drugs is costing taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars to arrest pot smokers, and yet the availability of the drug (especially here in a school/college setting) is incredible. It is also estimated that the legalization of marijuana would pump an additional $6.7 billion into the United States economy, in addition to freeing up several billion dollars more that would no longer have to be used by law enforcement agencies to track, arrest, and prosecute marijuana users (stats from Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Mirons report, funded by the pro-repeal Criminal Justice Policy Foundation). For those conservatives still looking for a reason to legalize the plant, remember that marijuana trafficking from Mexico into the United States is an incredibly lucrative illicit trade, and that the legalization of marijuana in the United States would effectively kill any demand for Mexican pot. The Mexican drug dealers would lose a huge source of their revenue from such legalization in the US.
In short, the associations of marijuana with social delinquency and the breakdown of moral fiber, as well as other assumed dangers of the consumption of the plant, are largely unfounded. The breakdown of moral fiber comes from a person's lack of moral backbone, not from a plant. Social delinquency comes from the same thing in addition to lack of maturity and/or a poor upbringing. Therefore, conservatives should find no objective fault in the consumption of marijuana.
If anyone has any other questions about marijuana or its use, feel free to get in touch with me.
December 9, 2008
The Dangers of Social Relativism
Sorry for the delay in posts! College is keeping me mighty busy these days.
I've noticed quite a disturbing trend among some of my fellow college students. While waiting outside one day for my 3:35 class to begin, I overheard a conversation between some students in a different class who were also outside. One of the students, a girl probably a year or two older than I (and possibly a teacher's assistant), was engaging the others in a frank discussion about sexuality and gender. Eavesdropping on others' conversations is not a hobby of mine, but considering this conversation was happening near my usual Monday/Wednesday-between-classes-cigarette-break-spot, I perked up an ear and listened.
The girl began to explain to her small audience about how gender and sexuality are socially constructed, and have very little meaning beyond what "society" gives them. The essence of her claims was that gender roles are something created by the society we live in, and in the same hand, sexuality (be it hetero, bi, or homo) is also socially constructed. According to her argument, the act of coitus has little to nothing to do with procreation, and the commonly-held belief that sex is for procreation is (surprise!) created by society.
I listened with growing alarm at her claims and arguments. Her audience of three attempted to offer timid challenges to her claims, for even their college-level Liberalism was mildly disturbed by such radical claims. Gender, sex, and sexuality aren't real? They're constructed by the society we live in, which we, as Liberals, hate? Oh my!
The conversation ended within ten minutes, and I was left dumbfounded. It was the first time I had heard the social constructivist position given in full on a position. It wasn't my first encounter with social constructivism and social relativism; such viewpoints are rampant on college campuses, where nihilism is an actual sustainable lifestyle. But this was the first time I had listened to a social relativist explain in person their position on an issue, and it sounded like nothing short of insanity.
Had I more time, I would have turned around and immediately engaged in the conversation, even though I knew none of the people in the small group and was not in the class. Alas, I had to go to my next political science class, and duty to studies overrode my desire to destroy terrible claims.
Why is this girl's position so dangerous, you ask? Don't her claims have an instance of truth?
The short answer is that, yes, they do have an instance of truth. We as a society do, both subconsciously and consciously, define what it is to be a man or woman, and what it is to be heterosexual and homosexual.
The longer answer is more complex. The truths of this girl's position are completely overwhelmed and overshadowed by the enormous falsehoods therein and by the borderline-sociopathic attempts at morally justifying such a position.
Firstly, it is clear that biology (specifically genetics) affects human physical and mental characteristics such as race, appearance, gender, and, to a certain degree, sexuality. Social relativists such as the girl I overheard claim that these things are constructed by society, which deems certain variations of these human characteristics to be desirable. Western society, for example, assigns gender roles, defines race and sexuality, and assigns the variations in each category different value judgments. Until recent history, Western society defined heterosexuality as preferable to homosexuality for reasons varying from religious conviction to the assurance of a healthy family unit complete with children, which is necessary if a society is to survive. Men were expected to act a certain way, which included working (supporting the family financially) and being the head of the household. Women were also expected to act a certain way, which included raising the children and maintaining the health of the family.
In the last century, these things began to change. Women began to seek a change to their roles in society, specifically regarding their civil rights and their equality in the occupational world. Western society has shown that no ill effects come from women having equal rights as men; no family (or society) has disintegrated because the woman in the household also has a job, so long as the woman still fulfills her duties as a mother and wife. Men also began to broaden their horizons, albeit not to the extent of the women. Men started choosing to be the one who stays home while the mother works. This also is completely fine, so long as the man in the house fulfills his duties as a father and husband.
People like the girl I overheard, however, seek to change even that. To those people, the very concepts of motherhood and being a wife are socially constructed in order to prop up the paternalistic, chauvinist Western society, just as race is socially constructed to prop up the racist, discriminatory Western society. Such views are common among modern-day Liberals; any success demonstrated by Western society was made at the expense of minorities, and therefore cannot be considered true progress or success. In order to make up for such "oppression" and "discrimination", the social relativist seeks to dismantle and destroy every aspect of Western society that categorizes people, regardless of how tightly they are sewn into everything we as Westerners know and love.
Men should not have to act like men because such assumptions lead to the oppression and ostracism of feminine and/or gay men; the same (but reverse) goes for women. Men and women should be allowed and encouraged to not only adopt the other gender's mannerisms, but also to adopt the other gender's genitalia and other physical characteristics, if they have such desires. Race is based on hardly any physical scientific basis, but is rather constructed by society, and therefore should be ignored from all discussion in order to avoid the oppression or ostracism of the minority races.
Arguments such as these are the basis for the complete destruction of everything upon which our society still precariously stands. The basic, banal truths remain that society IN PART defines these things, but they are defined as such because of the natural manifestation of such things! History has clearly shown that the gender roles, preferred sexualities, and self-identification with regards to race are beneficial to society as a whole. Did Western society become the most successful society on earth by treating these basic traits of humanity as relative and unimportant? Of course not.
This is not to say that discrimination based on these categories is acceptable. No one should be denied opportunities simply on the basis of such categories, although this has happened in the past in Western society. The social relativist, however, seeks to completely destroy these natural foundations of our society in order to make up for such past discrimination and in order to prevent future discrimination. The social relativist is basically a hardcore Liberal whose main goal is to make every single person in the world equal to everyone else, regardless of what they destroy in the process. In order to do this, they must deconstruct everything upon which our society is based in order to make way for the new Utopian society in which race, gender, sexuality, and life choices are all equal, accepted, and successful.
Any sane, rational person must see the folly in such thinking. If the past several millenia have shown anything, it is that humans are inherently not equal, and that any attempt to make them such will only result in the complete self-destruction of a culture and nation (worse-case scenario) or a great averaging of everyone, leading to a bland, cultureless nation of average, adequate people (best-case scenario). In the Liberals' great quest for the Sacred Cows of Diversity and Equality, they will actively destroy one (Diversity) to attempt in vain to gain the other (Equality).
The social relativist opinion held by most Liberals can result in nothing less than failure, and is therefore completely indefensible. I wish I took that girl's class so I could tear her arguments apart limb from rotten limb.
I've noticed quite a disturbing trend among some of my fellow college students. While waiting outside one day for my 3:35 class to begin, I overheard a conversation between some students in a different class who were also outside. One of the students, a girl probably a year or two older than I (and possibly a teacher's assistant), was engaging the others in a frank discussion about sexuality and gender. Eavesdropping on others' conversations is not a hobby of mine, but considering this conversation was happening near my usual Monday/Wednesday-between-classes-cigarette-break-spot, I perked up an ear and listened.
The girl began to explain to her small audience about how gender and sexuality are socially constructed, and have very little meaning beyond what "society" gives them. The essence of her claims was that gender roles are something created by the society we live in, and in the same hand, sexuality (be it hetero, bi, or homo) is also socially constructed. According to her argument, the act of coitus has little to nothing to do with procreation, and the commonly-held belief that sex is for procreation is (surprise!) created by society.
I listened with growing alarm at her claims and arguments. Her audience of three attempted to offer timid challenges to her claims, for even their college-level Liberalism was mildly disturbed by such radical claims. Gender, sex, and sexuality aren't real? They're constructed by the society we live in, which we, as Liberals, hate? Oh my!
The conversation ended within ten minutes, and I was left dumbfounded. It was the first time I had heard the social constructivist position given in full on a position. It wasn't my first encounter with social constructivism and social relativism; such viewpoints are rampant on college campuses, where nihilism is an actual sustainable lifestyle. But this was the first time I had listened to a social relativist explain in person their position on an issue, and it sounded like nothing short of insanity.
Had I more time, I would have turned around and immediately engaged in the conversation, even though I knew none of the people in the small group and was not in the class. Alas, I had to go to my next political science class, and duty to studies overrode my desire to destroy terrible claims.
Why is this girl's position so dangerous, you ask? Don't her claims have an instance of truth?
The short answer is that, yes, they do have an instance of truth. We as a society do, both subconsciously and consciously, define what it is to be a man or woman, and what it is to be heterosexual and homosexual.
The longer answer is more complex. The truths of this girl's position are completely overwhelmed and overshadowed by the enormous falsehoods therein and by the borderline-sociopathic attempts at morally justifying such a position.
Firstly, it is clear that biology (specifically genetics) affects human physical and mental characteristics such as race, appearance, gender, and, to a certain degree, sexuality. Social relativists such as the girl I overheard claim that these things are constructed by society, which deems certain variations of these human characteristics to be desirable. Western society, for example, assigns gender roles, defines race and sexuality, and assigns the variations in each category different value judgments. Until recent history, Western society defined heterosexuality as preferable to homosexuality for reasons varying from religious conviction to the assurance of a healthy family unit complete with children, which is necessary if a society is to survive. Men were expected to act a certain way, which included working (supporting the family financially) and being the head of the household. Women were also expected to act a certain way, which included raising the children and maintaining the health of the family.
In the last century, these things began to change. Women began to seek a change to their roles in society, specifically regarding their civil rights and their equality in the occupational world. Western society has shown that no ill effects come from women having equal rights as men; no family (or society) has disintegrated because the woman in the household also has a job, so long as the woman still fulfills her duties as a mother and wife. Men also began to broaden their horizons, albeit not to the extent of the women. Men started choosing to be the one who stays home while the mother works. This also is completely fine, so long as the man in the house fulfills his duties as a father and husband.
People like the girl I overheard, however, seek to change even that. To those people, the very concepts of motherhood and being a wife are socially constructed in order to prop up the paternalistic, chauvinist Western society, just as race is socially constructed to prop up the racist, discriminatory Western society. Such views are common among modern-day Liberals; any success demonstrated by Western society was made at the expense of minorities, and therefore cannot be considered true progress or success. In order to make up for such "oppression" and "discrimination", the social relativist seeks to dismantle and destroy every aspect of Western society that categorizes people, regardless of how tightly they are sewn into everything we as Westerners know and love.
Men should not have to act like men because such assumptions lead to the oppression and ostracism of feminine and/or gay men; the same (but reverse) goes for women. Men and women should be allowed and encouraged to not only adopt the other gender's mannerisms, but also to adopt the other gender's genitalia and other physical characteristics, if they have such desires. Race is based on hardly any physical scientific basis, but is rather constructed by society, and therefore should be ignored from all discussion in order to avoid the oppression or ostracism of the minority races.
Arguments such as these are the basis for the complete destruction of everything upon which our society still precariously stands. The basic, banal truths remain that society IN PART defines these things, but they are defined as such because of the natural manifestation of such things! History has clearly shown that the gender roles, preferred sexualities, and self-identification with regards to race are beneficial to society as a whole. Did Western society become the most successful society on earth by treating these basic traits of humanity as relative and unimportant? Of course not.
This is not to say that discrimination based on these categories is acceptable. No one should be denied opportunities simply on the basis of such categories, although this has happened in the past in Western society. The social relativist, however, seeks to completely destroy these natural foundations of our society in order to make up for such past discrimination and in order to prevent future discrimination. The social relativist is basically a hardcore Liberal whose main goal is to make every single person in the world equal to everyone else, regardless of what they destroy in the process. In order to do this, they must deconstruct everything upon which our society is based in order to make way for the new Utopian society in which race, gender, sexuality, and life choices are all equal, accepted, and successful.
Any sane, rational person must see the folly in such thinking. If the past several millenia have shown anything, it is that humans are inherently not equal, and that any attempt to make them such will only result in the complete self-destruction of a culture and nation (worse-case scenario) or a great averaging of everyone, leading to a bland, cultureless nation of average, adequate people (best-case scenario). In the Liberals' great quest for the Sacred Cows of Diversity and Equality, they will actively destroy one (Diversity) to attempt in vain to gain the other (Equality).
The social relativist opinion held by most Liberals can result in nothing less than failure, and is therefore completely indefensible. I wish I took that girl's class so I could tear her arguments apart limb from rotten limb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
