Zen and the art of self-defense..

This is where blogs get interesting. An alert reader sent this to me yesterday, so I thought I would pass it on to all of you. The important thing is to note the timeline that has been laid out. Obviously, the gun enthusiasts out in the world know something about something... or someone.

For those of you anti-gun nuts out there, I have two things. First off, this link which hosts a huge repository of stats and knowledge on crime. (It's actually a great website for a whole host of issues.) Secondly, I have a question. We know that the gun, as horrible as it is, cannot be unmade. It's existence will continue in some form from now until the judgement trumpets. We also know that there will always be bad people in the world. Human nature is one of greed, envy, and combativeness and there will always be people seduced by that nature. It stands to reason then, that bad people, who will always exist, will finds guns, which will always exist. How then, does it make sense to take guns away from good people who could defend themselves from bad people?

I lied, I have more questions...

What do you call a bad person with a gun? A criminal.

What do you call a good person without a gun? A victim.

What do you call a good person with a gun? A victim with a chance.

Did you notice that the context of gun never changed in any of those questions? The gun has no "intent"? The gun is neither good, bad, nor judgmental. The gun is indifferent. Or to put it in a more "zen" format... 

If a gun is sitting on a table by itself? Does it ever go off?

Just a question...

I know I am late to the party on this one, but I've been busy living real life. Carrie Prejean, the lovely from California stirred up a hornets nest over gay marriage. We've all seen the clips and heard from the clearly hypocritical and (in my opinion) idiotic Mr. Lavandeira. I say idiotic mostly because, as a pseudonym, he chose the completely moronic moniker of "Perez Hilton". I mean honestly,  if your going to change your name, and can therefore choose ANY name in the world why would you choose a name that is essentially the equivalent of "vapid" in American-English vernacular. I digress. 

So Miss Cali opens her mouth, exercises her free speech, and gets utterly destroyed (Welcome to the New America of "hope" and "change", leave your opinions at the door.) for it. That's not really the story. The story, or at least the question I have is, why is this a story? Why are gays clamoring so hard to be part of an institution that FAILS 50% of the time it's tried in the country? Marriage is a joke every night on late night TV. It is an afterthought on every major TV program, movie, and album. It is constantly downgraded and debased (ala ABC's "Wife Swap"). I don't get it.

If the argument is that churches should be forced to consecrate marriage for gays, I'd politely tell you to get stuffed. That whole thing where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" kind of precludes any notion of that. That would be on par with the government telling a synagog that they had to eat pork or something. But, if the gay argument is that the government must recognize gay marriage, then I'd say they're on to something. But as usual, the leftists have gotten it all backward, sideways, and all other ways...wrong.

The Constitution is not an enumeration of OUR (the people's) rights, it is (or was at least intended to be) a list of the LIMITED rights of Government. As far as the act of marriage is concerned, the government doesn't have the right to acknowledge it or not. Marriage is the commitment of two people to each other under the watchful eyes of their God. This is not an enforceable situation under our Constitution. Instead the government is acknowledging the contract of marriage which is to say that, the "stuff" that gets merged, the offspring that are sprung, and the assets that are acquired, all fall under the purview of the government to enforce contracts.

The gay community has as much right to engage in contracts as any. Engaging in the institution of marriage however, is based on the denomination they choose to engage in. But my real question is, why would you want to? Wouldn't it make more sense for the gays and the straights to get together and change the way the government sees marriage? 

Right now, if your single (gay or straight) you stand as a lesser citizen than if you are married. You are taxed at a higher rate and you receive less services for that higher rate of taxation. Why not join forces and change the law that penalizes the single community? If two consenting adults want to engage in a contract, be it to start a business or start a family, let them draw up the papers, have them signed and notarized, and filed with the proper agencies. No muss, no fuss. If we want the added protection of a government enforceable "marriage" that should be (and quite frankly IS (i.e. civil unions)) available to everyone.

However, if two consenting adults want to get married, let them go to the proper clergy and tell the government to piss off. Our lives are none of the governments business, be you straight or gay. Instead of trying to force governments INTO our lives, wouldn't we all be better served to try and get them out of lives as much as possible?