TraditionalMan

The majority of those voting in the last two U.S. elections voted for Socialism.  I’m not sure many of them understand that, but they did.  I AM sure the officials for whom they voted are well aware of it (see my post of 12/23/12).  I do not want to specifically dwell on this issue.  However, I do want to mention of few consequences thereof.  I think from the standpoint of the average citizen that voted for this government, they will find many of the consequences unintentional.  I know many of these people and am dumbfounded that they could actually cast their vote the way they did.   While on the surface they can reconcile their underlying beliefs with what they were being told.  I am dumbfounded however because these are otherwise intelligence people that refused to look any deeper than the political rhetoric, the stump speeches, the sound bites.  I am dumbfounded because of the overwhelming data that demonstrates over extended periods of time in countless different circumstances and situations that none of what they were being told works.  Two of the most pressing topics of the day are ObamaCare and gun control.

I’m not exactly sure how birth control became a medical issue.  It is not a disease to be cured.  It is not an injury to be repaired.   In many forms of birth control you are putting chemicals into your body but you do so also with aspirin or any other over the counter remedy.  However, in those cases you ARE actually attempting to cure, or prevent, some disease or injury.   So why again is birth control a medical issue?  In the past, from a “societal view”, it really hasn’t mattered.  However, in the new Socialist state in which we live, it does.  It does because the government has decided that employers must pay for it.  I can hear many of you now.  Why does THAT matter?  It matters because, although we continue to ignore it, the Constitution is still the law of the land.  The 1^st Amendment to said Constitution explicitly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”  So what has THAT got to do with birth control?  It just so happens that some people are opposed to birth control on religious grounds.  So, contrary to popular belief, those privately owned companies that do not believe they should pay for their employee’s birth control are not just doing so on religious principal.  They are doing so on Constitutional grounds.  This is the type of thing our Founding Fathers fought against.  Not just against a government that tells you what religion you must practice (such as belonging to the Church of England in pre-Revolutionary days), but a government that tells you what you are allowed to practice and what you are not.  A government that tells you that unless it is practiced inside four walls designated a religious building, it is not religion.  Your religious beliefs are not a concern of the government.  Control is.

I saw a poster the other day that said, “We don’t blame cars for drunk drivers, why do we blame guns for violent criminals?”  I would add that we don’t blame the alcohol either.  I find it a darn good question.  What I find dumbfounding (apparently my word of the day), is that so many people don’t get it.  In More Guns, Less Crime John Lott demonstrated the inverse correlation between guns and crime.  In doing so demonstrated yet again that gun control does not work.  He demonstrated in fact, the exact opposite.  As an aside, Mr. Lott is an economist quite familiar with how to do honest statistical analysis.  Not being a gun enthusiast himself, he originally planned to prove exactly the opposite of what his results showed.  However, unlike so many that manipulate either the question or the answer in order to achieve their going in supposition, Mr. Lott let the honesty of the results speak for themselves.  Of course, many blame neighboring cities, states, countries, etc for such statistics.  They claim that we must get rid of ALL guns and control them getting into the country.  Hmmmmm…  Let’s ask England and Australia how that is working for them.  Both island nations.  You can’t get better control of your borders than that.  Both saw a marked increase in violent crime as access to firearms became more and more restricted.  Not just crime but crime in which individuals were more directly involved.  What do I mean by that?  In England, prior to guns being outlawed home break-ins were mostly limited to vacant houses.  The robbers were of course concerned with discovery and confrontation if someone was home.  This is problematic if the person at home had a means of defense.  Since that means of defense (firearms) was removed from the home (first restricted to the shooting range/club and then altogether), burglars have little to be concerned about as relates to their safety.  They are now going after homes whether someone is there or not.  Now the citizens of England not only have the crime of burglary but assault.  You need now not fear only the loss of possessions, but the lost of limb or even life.   Australia’s “experiment” proved the same.  Has either country admitted its failed policies?   Oh NO!  We can’t have that.  The fact that their subjects (specifically chosen term) are in far more danger now than ever is not a concern of theirs.

What has all this got to do with us?  We are yet again on the trajectory of more restrictive gun control.  The fact that the Clinton Gun Ban was a failure and we actually have far fewer “gun” crimes now than under that failed policy is beside the point.  The problem they argue is the same as what those in other countries pushed.  It didn’t go far enough.  That these other countries have gone to complete bans and finding exactly what John Lott found (in this case, less gun means more crime – while not the title, also covered in his book) is ignored.  We are now again pushing for another “assault rifle” (aka, black, menacing looking rifle) ban.  In addition, the latest FBI data (2011) shows more murder victims in the U.S. by blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc) than all types of rifle combined (496 vs 323).  I could cite reams of data demonstrating the absurdity of blaming the weapon instead of the user.  But this is what will always continue to baffle me – the complete denial of data demonstrating anything that disagrees with their view.  Your safety is not a concern of the government.  Control is.

Let us set aside the “moral” aspect of birth control and the logical aspect of gun control for a moment.  The question with which we are left amounts to control.  Society is a “contract” in which man bands together for collective benefit.  In such a situation, control is to some extent necessary.  Of this there is no doubt.  Because of this, there becomes a delicate balance between individual and group requirements. Using the example of traffic management makes it quite easy to see such a balance.  Traffic lights and stop signs are used to control vehicles at intersections.  We acknowledge that in order to have an ordered society we may have to come to a brief stop at a stop sign or sit at a stop light for a few minutes even if another vehicle is nowhere to be seen.  I would suggest both evidence and logic would demonstrate this is an acceptable price to pay to ensure a level of safety while driving.  I would also suggest that if individuals choose not to practice birth control or own a gun, this is an acceptable price to pay to live in a mutually beneficial society.  However, when government, against all logic and honest data, decides to take our money to pay for something for another individual that we find objectionable or that we are not allowed a specific tool we find necessary, both with no regard for our Constitutional rights, it is probably time to question into what we have gotten ourselves.  We the People have lost our Constitution.  We the People have lost control.

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…