On a recent visit to Chicago, i was reminded of the Trump campaign... how could one not be? The brightest thing on the Chicago river at night is the gigantic "TRUMP" emblazoned on the side of the river front Trump building.
When Mr. Trump stated that all Muslims should be temporarily banned from entering the United States -- and the attendees of his speech erupted in applause and cheers -- just who is the "Muslims" in their collected thoughts? Is this "Muslim" all of a single dress, skin color, ethnicity, and nationality? Could it be that the Trump supporting America has become so isolated from the world at large to think that Islam is but a small isolated religion centering upon the Middle East? Because if that is not the case, how is it going to work?
Is it going to be based on a customs form one fills out on the inbound vehicle? "Religion, please select one"? Because paper forms with an official stamp obligates honest answers and the person filling it out can not but tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Except when meats and fruits or amount of incoming currency is involved?
Or will it be a more direct test of faith? Perhaps before every customs check kiosk, a plate of non-halal meats will be presented and all persons entering these United States must demonstrate consumption of such meats.
Perhaps the Trump United States would combine his gun-ho declaration of bringing back water boarding and his promise of a religion based ban by water boarding everyone coming in to the country until they declare their answer to the question of "You are a Muslim aren't you?!" to the satisfaction of "yes i am, no please stop!" Added bonus, it would be cheaper than building the wall to bar illegal immigrants also... provided you recycle the water, after all, parts of the United States is experiencing severe drought.
What of the US resident "Muslims"? How will they be identified as the enter and exit the US? Certainly they could not be treated like your run of the mill potential immigrants? Perhaps a red crescent could be displayed on the clothing of all US resident "Muslims" for the ease of identification?
i don't know. i can't but wonder. i also don't know what struggle Trump went through to bring him to such a mindset. Is this just what happens to a man so long in a career to construct living space that all he see is "within" and "without"?
Is this also why those who applauded and cheered him did so? Because seeing "us" versus "them" is so much easier than seeing the complexity of the world and attempting to fathom the consequences of actions?
Just shuffling chairs about the Titanic
Figured that Golden Gate Mornings deserved its own space.
So, if you look to the right of the screen before you, there within "Pages" and under "Home" is "Golden Gate Mornings" where you will find the Golden Gate Mornings updates. Thanks for stopping by!
July 23, 2014: Further update. Realized that the Golden Gate Mornings page is getting way too long. So i broke it up into monthly chunks. Figure that might make it easier to read.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Friday, December 11, 2015
Guns rights... open carry... gun owners as effectors public safety...
i like guns, i enjoy shooting guns, i respect the history of the gun as works of craft, works of art, and a tool to an end... i enjoy the right to own a gun though i do not own one (though i know the ins and outs of gun safety, i simply do not have the time to maintain my competence with a gun to the degree where i feel comfortable having it around other people)... i appreciate the right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a militia... but i do not agree with the idea of open carry or guns in public. i feel this way for 2 very simple reasons.
1) Unintentional civilian casualties occurs still, even though our armed forces and law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard of fire discipline and competence than any given civilian gun owner.
2) There is nothing that will visually identify a shooter as a "good person with a gun" versus a "bad person with a gun"... and... see 1)
i understand that those who wants to open carry for safety feels that they can do more good than harm... and i appreciate their civic minded desire to do good... but, can they, with no doubt in their hearts and on their minds, tell me that they will only shoot at and harm the "bad person with a gun"?
No matter the intention behind the firing of the shot (to borrow a phrase from the NRA "guns don't kill people"), the person who's finger is on the trigger is ultimately for the result of the shot(s) they direct down field.
After all, while it is easier to identify a shooter when they are the only person in the crowd with a weapon, can you identify the "active shooter"/"bad person with a gun" in a crowd if more than one person has a gun?
1) Unintentional civilian casualties occurs still, even though our armed forces and law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard of fire discipline and competence than any given civilian gun owner.
2) There is nothing that will visually identify a shooter as a "good person with a gun" versus a "bad person with a gun"... and... see 1)
i understand that those who wants to open carry for safety feels that they can do more good than harm... and i appreciate their civic minded desire to do good... but, can they, with no doubt in their hearts and on their minds, tell me that they will only shoot at and harm the "bad person with a gun"?
No matter the intention behind the firing of the shot (to borrow a phrase from the NRA "guns don't kill people"), the person who's finger is on the trigger is ultimately for the result of the shot(s) they direct down field.
After all, while it is easier to identify a shooter when they are the only person in the crowd with a weapon, can you identify the "active shooter"/"bad person with a gun" in a crowd if more than one person has a gun?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)