Guns and the OKGOP

One of the worst, tackiest things one can do is politicize a tragedy in it’s immediate aftermath to push a certain agenda.  Leftists are particularly bad about this.  But, in this time it seems that barely a few days pass before another immensely unfortunate incident occurs – nowhere near enough time to allow the smoke to clear.  Some things need to be said quickly, so I publish this article with apologies.

But with the rise of the anti-gun rhetoric (once again, from the left – who have no qualms about politicizing tragedy) we must rise to refute it’s absurdity.  Such a monumental task!  Truthfully, all the old arguments are worn out.  They are quickly dismissed by the anti-gun lobby.

Take for instance: California is one of the strictest states when it comes to gun laws.  It is very clear that those gun laws did not stop the California incident (what could have stopped it?)  but to the left, it’s never because there were too many gun laws – it’s because there were too few.   

Endlessly we can say that “gun free zones” make us all more vulnerable than we already are.  And endlessly we’ll just hear about fictional “gun show loopholes” and so on.

The dispute between left and right on this issue shows no sign of ending, with a clear division between the two on this issue.  But at least we can count upon the members of the right to stand for the right to own and carry guns?

Well, now we can’t be so sure.

On December 5, an OKGOP state committee meeting (what was supposed to be precinct election training) turned into a dispute about second amendment principles, with some rather disappointing results.

That meeting was being held at an Edmond high school – which is, like all public schools, a “gun-free zone.”  Near the end of a very boring meeting the issue of meeting at a “gun-free zone” was brought up.  Shouldn’t the GOP be meeting at a place more consistent with their principles?

A little ironic, isn’t it?  The group so opposed to the concept of “gun free zones” holds party meetings in such places?  One would expect that the members in attendance would recognize the irony of it all and say, ‘you know, that’s right!  We should start meeting at places that allow open or concealed carry, because that is consistent with our principles.

Nope.  Apparently there was quite an exchange about it, with the end result of Pam Pollard, state GOP chair, altogether wishwashey (for lack of a better term) about the whole thing, permit it to be put to a vote, albeit non-binding, for lack of a proper quorum.

She says that nobody supports the second amendment more than she does – all well and good, but support for something also means that you have to stand for it if necessary.

And yes, perhaps it will be a bit more difficult to find a venue that allows concealed or open carry, perhaps a bit more expensive, but it is by no means impossible.  What kind of message does this send?  We’ll stand on our solid principles, unless it is too inconvenient or too expensive.  That’s the message I’m getting from the state GOP on this.

Yeah, maybe this seems like a small issue in the grand scheme of things.  But if the state GOP can not even unite behind this sort of issue, what about all the others?  Will the GOP forever be in COMPLETE disarray?

Republicans, if you wish legitimacy you must be united in some way on something.  This is a great place to start.

 

 

What does climate change and global warming have in common?

They are both scare tactics, employed to recieve a specific response from the public.   A never ending excuse to expand the powers of government and restrict civil liberties.

Both are exaggerated (or perhaps in a large way fabricated?) to achieve just that.  A genius idea, really: both sides of the electorate are distracted by a different concern.  And one side so willing to dismiss one issue takes the other one very seriously.

But at the end of the day, government action can do little to solve either problem.

In the case of terrorism, it was government action which caused the problem to begin with – we brought violence and instruments of war to an already volatile region, and tried to solve the problem by using Vietnam style half measures.   Perhaps ISIS would have come about anyway; but it didn’t help matters much to have been FUNDING them in their early stages of development.

And however the US government responds to this problem, likely it will resemble what has already been done – and what was responsible for the rise of terror in the first place.  Bottom line?  The problem will be made worse.

As for climate change: the science will never be completely settled on if man is responsible for changing the Earth’s temperature.  Science can give us theories, backed up with evidence, but still theories and nothing more.

If we are responsible for it, what will it take to reverse the trend?  Hybrid cars and recycling plastics?  No, it will need to be much more than that.  For the Earth to repair itself, we would have to throw ourselves back practically in the middle ages – and that’s certainly not going to happen.

If it is purely natural, and Earth goes through natural shifts in temperature over long periods of time, then there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.  How arrogant we would be to say that a government of mere men can reverse the force of nature!  I suppose they can also stop hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, simply by passing laws and enabling agencies to pass regulations?

—-

All said and done, no matter what you believe personally about either of these issues, we must all realize that there is nothing this government can do to prevent them.  Acts of terror will happen, and the Earth will change temperature.   The only thing government can do in response to these things is restrict our civil liberties (and have us pay for the privilege) and that won’t help the situation one bit.

No matter what you feel about either of these issues, I ask that you always know this: your government can’t do a thing about it.