We Need a Trump 2.0

Let me be clear: I was never a fan of Donald Trump. Having served in leadership positions for a significant portion of my time in the military, I have a certain viewpoint on the kind of image a leader should project to the public. Former President Trump was far outside what I would consider a good leader because it was very hard to hold any respect for someone who can’t control his outbursts. We expect more from those who are supposed to be holding the reins, and the President is our representative to the world.

That said, Trump’s focus during his time in office was exactly what our country needed. Rather than catering to the demands of other nations who are obliquely our enemies, he forced his way through and put America first. His rhetoric, while ridiculous, did put a lot of focus on what is wrong in Washington. The simple fact that he drove the extreme left absolutely crazy made it worth putting up with his antics as our Commander in Chief.

Personally, I would prefer it if Trump did not run again in 2024. While he did a lot for those of us who value more traditional viewpoints, his lack of discipline when it comes to putting on the proper face in public seriously detracted not only from his perception at home, but more importantly abroad. Yes, other nations might have feared him because they weren’t quite sure what he might do, but I’d rather they fear him because they know he’s going to put the iron fist down if they cross us. He was simply too goofy.

What we need is someone who combines Trump’s no bull attitude with the ability to focus that energy on getting things done. Someone who leaves the showmanship behind and simply attacks the issues. A person who has bald faced facts on the tip of his tongue ready to expose the lies of the media and the far left. A President who calls it like it is with no apologies, but with absolute respect for those he disagrees with. In essence, we need a Presidential version of Donald Trump.

While it is certainly too early to start endorsing anyone yet, my early favorite is Ron DeSantis. I’ll admit freely that I don’t know too much about him yet, and we may find something later that makes him totally inappropriate, but I’ve done a bit of research and watched several videos where he slapped down ridiculous claims with solid statistics and a no-nonsense attitude. Every public interaction I’ve been able to find so far shows a passionate man who respects people but won’t put up with attempts to obscure the truth with irrelevant or incorrect information.

I don’t know if DeSantis should be our next President, but I think someone with that kind of bearing should be the next candidate that the conservative side of the country focuses on. It is this mixture of passion and discipline and an unwillingness to accept ridiculous ideas that will truly “drain the swamp” as President Trump called for so many times. Regardless of who is in office, it is the disgusting pit of greed and corruption that is our political elite that causes so many of the problems we have today.

It is difficult to find good leadership in our country today. As generations move forward, those who benefit from the actions of those who came before struggle to appreciate what it took to get our nation where it is today. Adversity forces us to sharpen ourselves to become more competent, and as we continue to make our lives easier and more convenient, we lose more and more of the obstacles that made us great. It is critical as we continue to dwindle our supply of great leaders that we start putting substance over flash, because the more we vote on feelings rather than results, the worse things are going to get.

Who do you think should be our next President? Are there any no-nonsense potential candidates that would be a good leader? What kind of attitude do you want in a Commander in Chief? These are the questions we have to answer before we jump into another election cycle. The right candidate won’t change things alone, but can take yet another step forward in kicking over the rocks that are covering up our system of government.

Join 176 other followers

If you liked this post and would like to support the blog, please visit the support page!

Living in a Long Winded World as a Get to the Point Person

As I continue to write on this blog, I have been conducting research on ways to get more traffic to my site with the goal being to pull in a big enough audience to begin monetizing the site. It’s a lot harder than one would think it would be because of the way the search algorithms work, so unless you have an active audience that shares your content, you have to figure out ways of manipulating your content to get your articles to be looked at more than those who just write what they want. This is something I will struggle with for a long time because I don’t want to compromise the way I write to accommodate technology, but you can’t really get anywhere if you don’t.

One of the factors that has consistently come up in my research has been that longer articles tend to do better than shorter ones. Some of the recommendations go as high as 1,500 words per article, and while I can certainly extend my articles out that far, it just seems overly pedantic to do so. I’ve always felt that it was ridiculous to use ten words when five would do, and worrying about word count rather than focusing on the topic takes away from the quality in my opinion.

I previous wrote about writing for shorter attention spans, and the idea for that article came after I read a few paragraphs of an article on a subject I’m actually interested in and gave up on it because they just wouldn’t get to the point. The entire thing felt bloated and unwieldy, and as I sat there mucking my way through the unnecessary filler, all I could think was why am I still reading this? It seemed to me that most people are like this, and we could all benefit from writers who cut their content down to the bare essentials and convey only the words necessary to make their point.

This obvious is in contradiction to the statistics, however. Longer and more wordy posts apparently do significantly better than shorter posts that are more succinct. I try to keep my posts between eight and ten paragraphs, and I try to keep those paragraphs between three and five sentences, and I’ve noticed that hitting 1,500 words within those constraints is very difficult without writing huge, nearly run on sentences. Who wants to read that? I certainly don’t. I can’t even get through the first three paragraphs if the point of the article doesn’t surface by then.

It is one of the biggest frustrations in my life that my personality just doesn’t click with the way that the world works. I am a very direct, get to the point kind of person living in a world where everyone wants to dance around the subject hoping to impress you, or at least not offend you. This unfortunately has the effect of causing me to struggle to make it in situations where others seem to flourish. I am a contradictory person, and I hate conforming to the ways of others. It is difficult to be this kind of person when trying to use a system that thrives on conformity.

All this being said, while sometimes you just have to learn to change your ways to accommodate the things you need to do to make it, I prefer to stick to my short and sweet approach to writing. I could start adding extra superfluous paragraphs and use flowery language trying to catch up to the algorithms, but I just don’t want to do that. It isn’t my style, and my writing will suffer trying to be someone that I’m not. I can only hope that with enough time, enough people will come across this blog and find it valuable enough to share with others. Word of mouth can be almost as good as SEO optimization.

The point of this post is partly to lament my struggles with the internet, but also to tell you that you should always stick to who you are. Adapting yourself to meet the expectations of others, even if it means you might succeed, isn’t being true to yourself. It is better to have smaller success doing what makes you you than to sacrifice what makes you great to appease a wider audience. You might make more money, but you won’t be as happy. Fulfillment is in what we do and how we do it, not how much money it makes us.

What do you think about being who you are? Do you like this tendency to drone on in today’s articles, or do you value someone who just get’s to the point? Would you support that person if you knew that they wouldn’t make it otherwise? We tend to think that quality is everything, but sometimes you can be really good at what you do and still never get noticed. Let’s not leave it up to the system to decide what is valuable. With a little bit of effort, we can lift up those whose work we respect and encourage them to do their best work regardless of algorithms.

Join 176 other followers

If you liked this post and would like to support the blog, please visit the support page!

Debt: Learning to Wait for What You Want

This has been by far the biggest struggle of my life. Growing up in a society that pushes the idea that you deserve everything and you should have it all right now, it has been nearly impossible for me to simply wait until I can afford things to acquire them. The call of awesome things is so strong and so easy to get the wrong way that nearly all of us succumb to one of the most nefarious financial tools ever created: credit.

How much money have we wasted in interest charges over the course of our lives? I know that I have spent far more than market value for many of the things I’ve owned due to interest charges. At the time it always seems like a fair trade: pay a little more to get what I want right now. This emotional decision has cost me so much money over the years, and when I think back on it I wonder how much more I could have right now if I had been able to just wait to pay cash for things.

Another thing we don’t think about, in addition to paying more, is the fact that we are locking ourselves into a payment agreement for several years, if not decades. Even something as simple as a car loan typically takes five or more years to pay off these days, and once we sign that piece of paper we are obligated to hundreds of payments regardless of how our life circumstances or preferences may change. After the agreement has been made, the bank usually has no further interest in your feelings and are solely concerned with collecting their payments from you.

This is a problem if you have a change of heart at some point during this process. Once you lock yourself into an agreement, you options immediately become more limited because you have this obligated monthly payment. I have had many times where I regretted purchasing something large because I wanted to make a change, but I simply couldn’t afford to because I owed more for something than it was worth and couldn’t trade or sell it.

I find myself in this position right now with my travel trailer. My primary dream has always been to live on a sailboat and cruise the world, and I’m at the point now where I would love to buy a very cheap one with cash and then live on it while fix it up over time, but I owe far more my RV than I could reasonably sell it for, so instead of being able to shift gears into a boat I’m forced to stay in my current situation until I can figure a way out of it.

The advantage of experience is that we learn lessons that we aren’t equipped to understand when we’re young. What isn’t so good is that it takes us making these mistakes over and over again before we finally get over ourselves enough to learn from them. After many years of working and spending, I have finally reached the place where just the thought of borrowing money makes me shudder. My goal is to become debt free and remain that way. I just don’t need these things so badly anymore that I’m willing to lock myself into a situation to get them.

Now for the political part: our country suffers from exactly the same problem. We feel an urgent need to spend more than we make. In our desire to push this grand social agenda that many in our government espouse, we have borrowed trillions of dollars against our future to secure things that we are too impatient to wait for today. We justify this by telling ourselves that we are “saving lives”, but the truth is that we are simply trading lives today for our children’s lives tomorrow. There will be a reckoning when we finally borrow so much that it becomes clear we’ll never be able to pay it back, and it will be they who suffer for it.

There is a lot of talk about “reducing the deficit” in our budget, but this is an example of our unwillingness to do what is necessary. A reduction of our deficit simply reduces the rate at which we borrow money. It means we’re still spending more than we make and increasing how much we owe. The goal should be getting to a budgetary surplus so we can start paying back the money we owe, not reducing how much we borrow, but that would require we give up our pet projects and no one seems willing to do that.

Our national debt crisis will end at some point in the future, but the question is how will it happen? My gut tells me that we are too selfish and inconsiderate to set aside our pride and start making smart financial decisions to turn back the tide. Instead, we will continue borrowing and borrowing until our financial system totally collapses and we no longer have any credibility in the world. I shudder to think what things will be like then.

How do you feel about debt? Have you mastered your control of it, or do you live like most of us do? What about our government? How much longer do you think we can last this way? Credit always feels like this amazing solution to get what we want, but we never see the other side of this incredibly sharp double-edged sword. If we want to have any chance of a brighter future, we must learn to avoid this insidious tool whenever possible.

Join 176 other followers

If you liked this post and would like to support the blog, please visit the support page!

Proactive vs Reactive Law in a Free Society

We all want to live in a safe society. The idea of living in a world where we can be harmed or killed at any time scares us more than we usually think about, and we try to put measures in place to mitigate the risk of something happening to us. It is reasonable to be cautious about our own personal risk, but when do we cross the line from being cautious to delusional? Like many things, it is a blurry border.

Western society has for many years been predicated on the concept that individual sovereignty is the primary goal. Especially in America, we have been brought up to believe that we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. I grew up on that saying. We believed in it so strongly that our military has fought wars around the world trying to stop the spread of ideologies that oppress individual liberty.

Like many things, however, as time moves on the ideals get shifted to the point that it becomes corrupted. We have added more and more restrictions as our rulebooks continue to bloat into an unmanageable mess. Endless regulations and prohibitions are choking our freedoms out one at a time. What used to be a reasonably free nation has turned into a quasi-socialist state, and there is no end to the madness in sight.

The primary reason for this is our incessant need to try to control the uncontrollable. We put restrictions on our citizens in the name of public safety, and punish people before they ever really do anything wrong in the hope that doing so will prevent something bad from happening. We put speed limits on our roads to reduce the chances of accidents. You can’t start a business without a government issued license, because we’re afraid of bad actors so we want everyone to be supervised. In places like California, you can’t even make modifications to your own home without approval from the local authorities because people think you might do something that endangers yourself or others.

I’ve written a couple of times now about the slippery slope, and our mentality about law is another prime example of this terrible effect. It used to be that we focused on putting in place penalties for crimes committed against people, but today we are trying to simply pile as many rules on top of us as we can in the hopes that it will stop bad people from doing bad things. We just won’t accept that fact that you can’t legislate good behavior, and the rules we pass only affect those who wouldn’t do the bad things we’re afraid of anyway.

That is the crux of the issue, in my personal opinion. We are so fixated on creating a safe environment that we convince ourselves that people are inherently good and we just need a good enough rulebook to prevent the random things that people do. We believe that crime is an accident that we can prevent with enough preparation. The truth is that people have both good and bad inside them, and no amount of iron fist legislation will ever change that. If someone wants to do harm, they will find a way.

The longer we go ignoring this basic fact, the worse things will get for the people who just want to go about their lives. Preventative laws are simply wrong, because we end up punishing people who have done nothing wrong. A crime is something that brings harm to someone, but these rules we put in place are about things that don’t harm anyone. Until a person reaches the point where they have actually hurt someone else, we should have no fear of the law. This is called the “non-aggression principle“.

If we extol logic as one of the premier features of we human beings, then we must stop making emotional decisions and start using reasonable starting points for the ways in which we regulate our society. We have more than three hundred million people in our country, and each is an individual with their own hopes and dreams. Putting any rules in place at all will infringe on those individual desires, but we accept that a certain level of restriction is required to maintain the peace. Knowing this, our goal should be to create as few rules as possible so we minimize the effects on individual people.

A good starting point would be to use the non-aggression principle as the primary node for deciding whether a law should be passed. We should always be asking ourselves: does this punish someone for actually causing direct harm, or are we just trying to prevent people from being bad? If the answer is the latter, the law should be discarded. If we value our freedom, then we should be skeptical of any law at all, but even more so about those laws intended to regulate our behavior through prevention.

What do you think about the law? Is it a useful tool or a dangerous, bloated mess? How much regulation can you accept in your life? What would it take for you to rebel against the system? As we move into the future, it is clear that things are only going to get worse. It seems like there is nothing we can do about it, but perhaps it might not be too late to take a hard look at the path we’re on and find a different way.

Join 176 other followers

If you liked this post and would like to support the blog, please visit the support page!

Learning to Be Content with What You Have

We live in a society that teaches us that we need to be constantly striving for the next level. Social media convinces us that there are so many people who have it better than we do, and as we watch these fake lives play out before us we start to jealously crave what other people have. This unhealthy desire forces us out of a mental state where we can find peace and contentment and casts us down into a pit of despair and self loathing.

It is incredibly hard to ignore the success of others. Part of our biological make up is designed to compare and contrast our status with that of the people who surround us. This is mostly a primal urge to not only pass our genetic information on to the next generation, but also to wipe out the competition. It’s in the very building blocks of who we are to want to have a leg up on the people around us.

Aside from biology, our social structure is predicated on status. We have a natural adulation for people who have found a way to become successful at the things we find meaningful. While this usually generates genuine admiration, there will always be a small part of us that resents such people because we wonder why they were able to do it and not us. Why should they be so successful while we toil at the bottom of the food chain?

The most interesting part to me about all of this is not the jealousy of those who haven’t made it, however, but the attitude of dissatisfaction that even very successful people can impose upon themselves. There is a part of us that has a certain end goal in mind, and as long as we haven’t reached that point we feel as if we simply haven’t made it. We look at what we have and it just isn’t good enough, no matter how much money we might make or how well other people might see us.

The world today is filled with angst. Most of it is probably justified, but a lot of it is simply an inability to be content with what we already have. All we can see is our dreams for the future and that our lives today don’t match that yet. Rather than be grateful for what we have accomplished so far, we struggle to find happiness in the present because of our yearning for the future.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t continue pushing toward the next step in our lives. Being content with what we have doesn’t have to mean that we stop trying to move forward. It simply means that we don’t allow what we haven’t earned yet to become a weight we carry on our shoulders. We look at what we have and allow ourselves to be proud of it, and make a rational decision to continue down the path.

Our lives have many facets that we have to manage all at once, and one of them is learning to be happy. It isn’t a feeling that we have and try to hold onto, but a state of mind that we have to cultivate and incorporate into who we are. Searching for a feeling will usually result in disappointment, but a disciplined system of choosing to be happy about your life can make all the difference in the world. You’ll never feel happy all the time, but your life can be happy if you choose it.

Perhaps the trick is simply learning to be happy with what you have before you try to move on to the next level. If we create a process where we don’t allow ourselves to move on until we find peace and contentment with where we are, it becomes much more likely that we will experience that feeling of happiness far more often because we are removing that feeling of failure that always seems to hang around. By fully completing one step before moving onto the next, we can be even more proud of what we accomplished because there is no baggage from the past weighing us down.

In the end, though, happiness is simply a choice. You can’t always help how you feel, but you can control how you think. When you sit down and decide that you’re not going to allow dissatisfaction to become a major influence in your life, you stand a much better chance of staving off the kind of depression that so many of us struggle with every day. Take a hard look at what you have accomplished and decide if it’s really as bad as your feelings are telling you it is. The likelihood is that you’ll be very surprised at how you really feel.

What do you think about being content? Is it a way of giving up, or can it help you to find a better life? What things in your life do you need to just be happy about? If we can learn to accept our accomplishments for what they are, we stand a much better chance of avoiding so many of the unnecessary problems we deal with. All we have to do is learn to change our frame of reference, and things can be so much better.

Join 176 other followers

If you liked this post and would like to support the blog, please visit the support page!

Labels Are a Double-edged Sword

I mentioned in a previous post that one of the things we need in the world is the ability to group together with other like-minded people to support each other in the way of life we prefer. Nationalism is a good thing in a world with billions of people who each have their own idea about how their lives should be. By compartmentalizing ourselves with others who share our values, we can work together to push into the future.

On the other hand, this mentality can be taken too far. When it is applied broadly as part of a general value set that is flexible enough to apply to millions, it is a helpful framework to keep us on the path. Our natural tendency, however, is to start narrowing our categories to further and further define our groups. It is when we refine the concept down too far that we start running into trouble.

The primary ideal in our country used to be that we are all Americans and our focus was to push the nation forward. Our predecessors valued the country over themselves and, even though we fought about a great many things, the spirit of that fighting was to create a better life for our citizens. The disagreements we had were discussed rather than shouted, and while some things required radical action to get done, most of our issues could be resolved with dignity and respect.

Our situation today is far more precarious. We have taken the idea of healthy group identity and distilled it down to a micro level. The focus is no longer on our nation and our citizens as a whole, but on what group we belong to and how we can seize a piece of the pie that is America. As we watch radical groups on both sides of the ideological spectrum maneuver for power, those of us in the middle who just want to live our lives are caught in the crossfire.

This is the problem with taking anything too far, especially something as dangerous as identity politics. As we sink further and further into these groups, we lose our shared sense of collaboration toward a larger goal. We turn into squabbling tribes clamoring to hold onto our tiny bit of real estate. This unnecessary competition breeds discontent and violence, and it becomes impossible to get to any kind of peaceful resolution on anything.

Perhaps the biggest label war that we still have to deal with today is “race”. We have been brainwashed into believing that the color of our skin has some kind of bearing on our interactions with the world around us. The ugly part is that this we have made this the truth. Rather than recognizing that skin color is a horrible way to judge someone, we continue to try to use it as a metric to implement our will in the country. Instead of striving to remove “race” from our consciousness, we cling to it in an effort to get whatever we can from it.

The single biggest factor in our return to this kind of barbarism is the rampant advance of technological media. We are so connected now that it is impossible to filter bad ideas from good ones. The vitriol of faceless public discourse has thrust us right back into the hateful bigotry we once strove to overcome. There are no consequences for saying anything horrible when no one knows you’re the one who said it. And as more people jump on your bandwagon, people looking to score points for their own ends speak out publicly because they believe they have the support to do so.

What can we do in the face of this? The problem has advanced too far to undo the damage. All we can hope for at this point is to figure out a way to heal the wound and live with the scar. We could never support the level of oppression it would take to purge what has happened from our society, so all we can do is bandage it and hope for the best. Sometimes time is the only thing that can fix things.

Between now and then, however, we need to do our best to continue pushing for reasonable discussion rather than sensational grandstanding. It’s certainly more exciting to listen to a great orator railing against a perceived injustice, but like most things in life we need something much more plain than that. A healthy diet is a boring one, and the same applies to our politics. We need to shift away from “charismatic” politicians who convince us to follow their cause and move our votes toward sober, responsible people who truly have our best interests at heart. Only then can we hope for a better future.

What do you think about labels? Do you truly identify with how others classify you, or are you more than that? How do you feel when someone brings up something like “race” or “political party”? If we can learn to choose the right labels and discard the bad ones, we might have a fighting chance to save our country. If we don’t, we will continue to march down that path of inevitable destruction that once befell the Roman Empire.

Join 176 other followers

If you liked this post and would like to support the blog, please visit the support page!

Censorship is the Great Evil of Our Time

There aren’t a lot of popular or engaging Libertarian voices out there in social media. One of the hallmarks of this philosophy is the idea that we want to keep to ourselves, and we want you to leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone. Because of this, and the fact that a significant portion of my viewpoints are conservative in nature, I tend to listen to more people on the right than I do on the left. It is simply a numbers game.

I bring this up because one of the voices I listen to on a regular basis is Steven Crowder. He’s a right leaning comedian who does a political podcast that covers a range of issues that are important for the country. His attitude is very aggressive and he has no patience for political correctness. I warn you now before you watch him: if you’re slightly sensitive about anything, you won’t like it. He goes out of his way to be offensive, and I like that because I’m tired of how easily offended our society has become.

The reason I bring him up in this post is because his YouTube channels have been temporarily banned because of some of the videos he has been posting lately. Primarily, he uploaded a video where he sent fact checkers to addresses used for voters in the last presidential election and they were empty lots or other such anomalies. At the time of this writing, that channel is up, but the video where he explained how his channel was suspended was completely removed for violating the YouTube terms of service. I’m sure if you dig down deep enough, there is probably a section in there about not speaking out against YouTube, but frankly that is a ridiculous attitude for a platform to have.

I can only think of one thing when I see things like this happening the world: unfettered evil. There is no possible way to turn a blind eye anymore to the seeping corruption that is big tech liberal bias. You never hear about left leaning channels or pages being removed because of “misinformation”. Even if they are posting outlandishly false things, the fact is that no one is even reviewing those pages because the focus is on people with a conservative viewpoint. I have seen articles and videos where people have literally gone line by line debunking far left content, but nothing ever comes of that. It’s only those on the right.

This is a dangerous time in America. Our right to free speech is under just as much threat as our right to bear arms. There is a battle for control in not only our government, but also in our new method of public discourse. It has become unacceptable to speak your mind, even if you are offering your point of view in a civil way. The moment you say something that those in power disagree with or find threatening to their control, you are completely removed from the scene and your message is quashed.

Censorship used to be a dirty word. In the twentieth century, one of the biggest battles in media was the fight to increase what could be shared in public. We used to value freedom of expression, even if we disagreed with the message. It was understood that diversity of opinion is what makes our country great, not because every idea is good, but because when we throw as many ideas at the wall as possible, we get a lot more that stick. Increasing the pool of knowledge allows us to pick and choose from a wider field, and we all benefit.

There can be no justification for censorship, save those things that directly incite criminal behavior. Even then, I struggle to agree with that. Words are words, and words can’t hurt us. Even extreme calls for violence are borderline with regard to being acceptable for censorship. Our government has stated that it is not protected, but then again, one of the reasons we have the Second Amendment is to protect our rights under the First. I suppose “hate speech” is the line, but that’s still very subjective. In the end, I can only really support laws against actual physical violence. Speech is too much of a gray area.

I may on the fence about censoring violent speech, but I am completely opposed to any form of quashing the opinions of others no matter how unsavory they seem. We have a right to think what we want to think, even if it’s not factually accurate. That is part of what it means to be an individual. It is not required for us to conform. The beauty of this country has always been that we can all have our own way of thinking and we figure out a way to make it work. That’s getting lost in this soup of social media homogenization.

Luckily, it seems as if the number of people who can’t take this anymore is growing. People just like us are getting up of the couch and starting to push back against this ridiculous movement to force a single view on everyone. No one wants to live under this kind of oppression, and it is my hope that we will all fight back. I yearn for the days when we could share a funny thought without having to worry if someone was going to get us in trouble over it. This is supposed to be a free country, but it’s up to us to keep it that way. We should never be afraid to speak our mind.

How do you feel about censorship? Do you agree with social media platforms removing content or shutting down pages over “misinformation”? Should these providers be policing their content, or are we each responsible for our own message? We need to resolve these issues as soon as possible, because the longer we wait, the harder it will be to reverse. If we’re not careful, we will wake up one day to find that we’ve lost the biggest freedom we ever had: the ability to speak.

Join 176 other followers

If you liked this post and would like to support the blog, please visit the support page!

50+ Followers!

I just wanted to say a quick thank you to those of you who choose to follow my blog, and especially those who come back time and again to consume my content! It is really encouraging to know that what I’m doing is appreciated by others! Please feel free to share the blog with others so we can bring more people along for the ride.

Join 176 other followers

If you liked this post and would like to support the blog, please visit the support page!

The Second Amendment Isn’t for Personal Defense

Don’t let the title of this post mislead you. One of the implied rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment is that you have the right as a citizen of this country to keep and bear arms for your personal self defense. The court system has put this interpretation into actionable law and there is no longer any legal question as to whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens.

The point of the title is to tackle another aspect of the amendment that was the primary impetus for its addition to the Bill of Rights. Our new nation had just exited a bloody war with Great Britain to secure our freedom from the tyranny of the crown. With this fresh in their minds, the founders of the nation wanted to ensure that future generations would have the ability to do the very same thing in the future should the citizens ever fall under the iron fist of another oppressive form of government.

It is the primary function of the Second Amendment to prevent our government from disarming us as a means of control. The purpose of a militia is to band together in the common defense of the citizens against enemies that seek to oppress or injure them. Given that our country was birthed from a revolution against authority and our founders put in place legislation that furthered our ability to do that, it is clear that the point of the law is to allow law abiding Americans to be as armed as they need to be to resist unjust infringement of their rights.

One of the biggest arguments against this is that in our modern time, the average citizen doesn’t stand a chance against the most powerful military in the world. I find this an amusing argument because the people who say this obviously don’t pay attention to history, or even the world around them today. There are many examples of limited armies holding out against our military over time.

From 1950 to 1953, we fought on the Korean Peninsula in defense of the democratic South Korea. We had superior weapons and more highly trained and experienced soldiers who had only recently participated in the Second World War. Our air power and endless military budget should have secured a total victory, but in the end all we could manage against the communist north was a stalemate that we are still dealing with today.

It was even worse during the Vietnam War. For nearly twenty years we struggled in that part of the world to prevent the spread of communism. Despite our vastly superior technology, we simply couldn’t use our advantage to make any real progress. We eventually had to give up on the entire enterprise because the cost was too much and the people had enough of it. Despite all of that, even if we had tried to continue, it is unlikely we could have ever really won that war.

We still struggle with this problem today. For twenty years now we have been in a protracted war against agents who want to reign destruction down upon us. These people have basic firearms and primitive explosives, yet the most powerful military in the world is unable to completely wipe out these fanatical fighters. The supreme force in the world can’t seem to put down a threat that by all rights should be a cinch to wipe from the face of the earth.

What do we learn from this? The reality is that the only way our government can ever truly control us is if they can take away our ability to defend ourselves. They understand that even the most basic of weapons like handguns or semi-automatic rifles poses a real threat to their ability to force us into doing what they want. A dedicated, passionate citizenry can do quite a lot with very little, and even if we don’t have the fighter jets and cruise missiles, we can outlast them until they run out of resources and ultimately take our country back.

I previously discussed the concept of the slippery slope, and when we look at how effective regular people can be when they are properly armed, and how the people in power understand this fact, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that we need to be very careful about any advancement of gun control legislation. The reason there is so much pushback against things that seem reasonable is because every little step we take to limit access to firearms is another step toward taking away our ability to prevent our government from oppressing us.

What do you think about the Second Amendment? Do you think it’s just for self defense, or is there more to it than that? What can we learn from history to help us better understand why it was created in the first place. On an issue as charged as this one, it is more important than ever to set aside our fears and emotions and focus on critical thought to come to a logical conclusion. To do otherwise invites danger to our doorsteps.

Join 176 other followers

If you liked this post and would like to support the blog, please visit the support page!

“Seaspiracy” Documentary

This is not an official post. I simply wanted to recommend that you watch the “Seaspiracy” documentary on Netflix because it moved me to the point that I want to share it.

Join 176 other followers

If you liked this post and would like to support the blog, please visit the support page!