I prefer to come to the point. For that reason I don't always explain each step of my thought process. It is a shortcoming, I realize that. On the other hand I don't write the " long form " version fearing no one will read it to the end. The minutia of everyday life can lull you to sleep and it becomes a struggle to stay awake. Each step of a journey is seldom filled with excitement. In my experience most people will not trek the extra miles to reach the end, they just take a short cut. The evidence of that is those postings on social media that begin with, " most of you will not read this all the way to the end " and ask you to leave a word or something else when you are finished. Really they are calling you out. Are you paying attention ? Fact is we are all prone to just skip over things we are either not interested in or that go contrary to what we are thinking. Strangely, if you do read those type of things and leave a comment you run the risk of being called a troll. Hey, it happens to me all the time. But, that is not the point I'm trying to make.
What I am thinking about is all these one-liners on Facebook and all those memes. I do enjoy the one liners when the message is clear. It is the ones open to interpretation that cause so much dissent. Snarky responses fly and little in the way of fact is exchanged. It usually degenerates into name calling. The general feeling is one of animosity. That is the impression I get from the majority of these postings. It doesn't matter if it is from the left or the right, that is the general feeling. Oh, it's a snarky world out there. It really is the old people are reading to respond, instead of reading to learn. Even when verifiable facts are presented they are disputed ! It is an amazing thing to me. I may not like a fact, I may wish it wasn't a fact, but I have to acknowledge that it is a fact. It is a fight of facts ! One set of facts is used to either support or disprove another set of unrelated facts ! I see that ploy all the time. Just saw one this morning comparing the requirements to own and operate a car with the requirements to own and operate a gun. The underlining message was we need to further regulate guns. The only problem there is even if you used that logic, almost three times as many people are killed in automobiles every year than are murdered by guns of all types. Doesn't sound like a sensible approach to me. Are we trying to increase gun deaths ? But that is what I'm talking about. People really do need to think beyond the moment. That is where the listening and learning part comes in. That takes a discussion, not a shouting match. But so many have barricaded themselves in their own fortress of fact and solitude that there is no discussion, no room for listening or learning. Any fact offered counter to what is a popular " belief " is met with scorn and derision. Case in point, a " assault " rifle. So many people have somehow been convinced by a false narrative that there is such a thing as an assault rifle they take it for fact. There really is no such thing ! It's just a scary sounding name applied to a rifle that may have the capability to fire in fully automatic or short bursts. Back in the old days they were called " machine guns. " They were regulated back in 1934 against private ownership and sale in the United States. They were regulated further in 1964. Semi-automatic weapons are not machine guns regardless of shape, form or color !! These so called assault rifles, the infamous AR-15 being sold at gun shows and the like, are simply semi-automatic rifles. You don't hear anyone saying ban all semi-automatic guns ! What you hear is, why do we need assault rifles ? The question really is, why do we need semi-automatic rifles ?
My point here is how can we have an intelligent meaningful discussion when we can't even phrase the question correctly ? How can we talk about that when one side has already labeled it incorrectly and refuses to accept the fact ? Is it because those folks labeling those weapons as assault rifles know that you are not going to eliminate every semi-automatic weapon from the hands of American citizens ? So, we will start by calling one in particular a far more sinister sounding name. Maybe we can cause a chip in this wall. If we can ban one, it's a start. On the other side, the side I'm on, I see that as an attempt to destroy the second amendment. I believe I do have a right to defend myself against all enemies foreign and domestic ! Without the second amendment I'm certainly at a greater disadvantage. Our government is intended to be by the people and for the people. And so saying the people have the right to defend themselves without reliance upon any government agencies. Government is dependent upon the people and the people should not de dependent upon the government. That was the plan.
What I am thinking about is all these one-liners on Facebook and all those memes. I do enjoy the one liners when the message is clear. It is the ones open to interpretation that cause so much dissent. Snarky responses fly and little in the way of fact is exchanged. It usually degenerates into name calling. The general feeling is one of animosity. That is the impression I get from the majority of these postings. It doesn't matter if it is from the left or the right, that is the general feeling. Oh, it's a snarky world out there. It really is the old people are reading to respond, instead of reading to learn. Even when verifiable facts are presented they are disputed ! It is an amazing thing to me. I may not like a fact, I may wish it wasn't a fact, but I have to acknowledge that it is a fact. It is a fight of facts ! One set of facts is used to either support or disprove another set of unrelated facts ! I see that ploy all the time. Just saw one this morning comparing the requirements to own and operate a car with the requirements to own and operate a gun. The underlining message was we need to further regulate guns. The only problem there is even if you used that logic, almost three times as many people are killed in automobiles every year than are murdered by guns of all types. Doesn't sound like a sensible approach to me. Are we trying to increase gun deaths ? But that is what I'm talking about. People really do need to think beyond the moment. That is where the listening and learning part comes in. That takes a discussion, not a shouting match. But so many have barricaded themselves in their own fortress of fact and solitude that there is no discussion, no room for listening or learning. Any fact offered counter to what is a popular " belief " is met with scorn and derision. Case in point, a " assault " rifle. So many people have somehow been convinced by a false narrative that there is such a thing as an assault rifle they take it for fact. There really is no such thing ! It's just a scary sounding name applied to a rifle that may have the capability to fire in fully automatic or short bursts. Back in the old days they were called " machine guns. " They were regulated back in 1934 against private ownership and sale in the United States. They were regulated further in 1964. Semi-automatic weapons are not machine guns regardless of shape, form or color !! These so called assault rifles, the infamous AR-15 being sold at gun shows and the like, are simply semi-automatic rifles. You don't hear anyone saying ban all semi-automatic guns ! What you hear is, why do we need assault rifles ? The question really is, why do we need semi-automatic rifles ?
My point here is how can we have an intelligent meaningful discussion when we can't even phrase the question correctly ? How can we talk about that when one side has already labeled it incorrectly and refuses to accept the fact ? Is it because those folks labeling those weapons as assault rifles know that you are not going to eliminate every semi-automatic weapon from the hands of American citizens ? So, we will start by calling one in particular a far more sinister sounding name. Maybe we can cause a chip in this wall. If we can ban one, it's a start. On the other side, the side I'm on, I see that as an attempt to destroy the second amendment. I believe I do have a right to defend myself against all enemies foreign and domestic ! Without the second amendment I'm certainly at a greater disadvantage. Our government is intended to be by the people and for the people. And so saying the people have the right to defend themselves without reliance upon any government agencies. Government is dependent upon the people and the people should not de dependent upon the government. That was the plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment