I am having a "moment". You may have had them in the past. You know what I mean. You come across a number of articles or news posts and something just clicks. It could be a positive thought, a pet peeve, or suddenly you see a connection that others are missing.... Unfortunately, my "moment" is the pet peeve kind. And it's not just one either. Prepare for a two-fer.

I came across a post on Yahoo! news. You can read the full post here: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20101112/tls-health-us-brain-internet-aeafa1b.html The opening paragraph just caught my attention in a bad way. To me it is just another example of twisted thinking and a support piece that has a spin that irritates me... See if you feel what I do after reading it:

"A US study out Thursday suggests that people spend about half of their time thinking about being somewhere else, or doing something other than what they are doing, and this perpetual act of mind-wandering makes them unhappy."

The report goes on to make many claims that may or may not have significance. My problem is the initial premise, which is the whole point of everything that follows. There is this theme that being unfocused is the CAUSE of unhappiness. Now I won't argue that in some circumstances that this can actually occur. My problem is with the perception that our problems are simply a result of things that are difficult to change or impossible to control. I contend that it's more often the case that if you are unhappy THEN your mind wanders.

You may ask, Well isn't' that directly what is implied that you are not in control and so you are some kind of a victim to a wandering mind. I guess in some instances it could be... But, and follow me here.....What if our unhappiness is due to our not living in ways that MAKE us happy. We live in a world of instant gratification and easy solutions. We don't want to rock the boat or do what is hard. More importantly, we don't want to pay the needed price or not be able to live a certain way without consequences. EVERY DECISION HAS A CONSEQUENCE.... It may not happen immediately but putting it off typically means it either happens later when we can least afford to deal with it, or it will be compounded into something far larger than it otherwise would have been.

Yes, the lack of focus and the increases in disorder in this world make it hard to focus. Living incorrect principles just makes it that much harder and WILL ALWAYS result in unhappiness and difficulty. You can think a little deeper, or you can live it and learn it the hard way!

OK
Now on to my second gripe.

It's all about double standards and Aristocratic attitudes. I am a fairly recent addition to the ranks of the "Gun nuts". I am proud to know that this community is full of people that are MUCH more educated than the media, politicians, Hollywood, or the world would like you to believe. Now I don't mean educated in the sense of universities, but generally educated. (Typically in self study, or through associations with others in the community as well) Like the T.E.A. Party, people who seek truth generally find it, scraping back a think veneer of falsehood and manipulations by those who are in power or the media.

Let's get to basics.... am I a "redneck" or a person who deeply believes that as a father and citizen, my personal defense and the defense of my neighbors and community are in my hands? I see my self as the latter believing that our self defense rights (aka the 2nd amendment)  are given as a RIGHT by GOD and not man. Our founding fathers placed that very thought (and duty) in blood in ink. So what's the debate for?

Here are two examples:

"The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has granted the gun ban application of former United States President William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton. The Manila Times was able to obtain a one-page certificate of authority issued by the Comelec where the Committee on the Ban on Firearms and Security Personnel (CBFSP) for the October 25, 2010 Barangay (village) and Sangguniang Kabataan (Youth Council) elections, chaired by poll body Commissioner Lucenito Tagle, granted the gun ban exemption to a large number of Clinton’s security personnel from the US Protective Service Agents."

OK It's a given that our elected officials, and officials from other nations, should be protected (and often with weapons you and I would NEVER be allowed to have), but I find it interesting that you station in life allows you to dictate to others while you are exempt from your own dictates. Gun control is really self defense control. We have had members of the U.N. even state that there is no right to self defense of the individuals; rather that it is reserved for nation states.

I thank God every day for the Founding Fathers recognition of the God-given right to self defense.. It bothers me though that almost everyone else views the Constitution and Bill of Rights as documents that are GRANTING or CONFERRING rights onto us rather that acknowledging that those rights exist. That is what it comes down to.... Strip away ALL laws and government agencies, and the attitude of the founding fathers is that those rights STILL EXIST.

OK, I have to put one more in!! (bonus soap box issue)

We live in a land that adheres to the thought that you are "innocent until proven guilty", right? WRONG!!

It's a simple matter, but I ran across an article about the District of Columbia overturning some gun laws that landed a gentlemen into trouble. This man happened to have ammunition at his home. That's it. No gun was ever found. He was arrested and prosecuted for possessing the ammunition. Thanks to the Heller v. Washington D.C. case as well as the recent McDonald v. Chicago case, things are starting to change. Ammunition is dangerous if not handled properly, but the gun is really required to be a huge threat. There are a number of reasons to own ammunition and not have a gun. I won't go into that. Rather, I want to focus on the fact that there are many cases (even ones not related to guns) where the presence of one thing that is not inherently illegal can be used to prosecute you due to the idea that because you possess X, you MUST have Y (which is illegal), even if Y is nowhere to be found.

Here is what is drawing my support and ire:
Posted here: http://volokh.com/2010/11/04/d-c-s-highest-court-holds-ammunition-ban-violates-second-amendment/

Ammunition Ban (With Affirmative Defense for Properly Registered Gun Owners) Violates Second Amendment

 From Herrington v. United States, decided today by D.C.‘s highest court (the D.C. Court of Appeals):
 Appellant Kevin Herrington was convicted in 2006 of unlawful possession of ammunition (UA), in violation of D.C. Code § 7–2506.01 (2001) (now § 7–2506.01(a) (Supp. 2010)). His conviction was based solely on evidence that he possessed handgun ammunition in his home....

Now, looking at the case, you may say that guns were not legal in the district at that time, and even that there may be other circumstances that are involved. The point I am trying to make is that just because you cannot prove that a suspect has a gun in violation of the law does not mean that you should be able to use SOMETHING OTHER THAN AN ACTUAL GUN to convict them. It is a slippery slope. Let's face the fact that this is a moment where we choose EITHER security OR freedom. I choose the latter. True criminals are not that smart, and eventually they will be caught, but don't impede my freedom to just to get them.

-CP_Case