Tag: #liberal

To shoot or not to shoot?

…not precisely Shakespeare I know, but let us try to ask this question.

Why doesn’t the USA hold a
National Referendum
 on the 2nd amendment?

The gun debate continues to rage, with both sides of the argument using a variety of views to justify their stance on gun ownership. It also needs to be clear that both sides make compelling arguments that demand serious consideration. Perhaps the public should answer the question of whether it is a right to own a firearm or not.

Political figures are either pro-gun or anti-gun, but while everyone screams different arguments, nobody is taking the simple question and putting it on display.

And why would they?

It would put a debate to an end.
It would remove a reason for support.
It would remove one of their tools of gaining support.

Think about your position of the debate and see whom you supported because of that, and then look at the same politician’s public policies and tell me if you still agree. Some people will find that their stance on whom they support, rested on an argument of whether it is a right to own a firearm but found the public policies to be shocking.

And oh boy, is it media on board with this debate. Shocking news stories that inspire fear or anger is an excellent way to attract attention

So why not let the public decide? Put forward a vote…

Should people have the right to own a gun?

Let us say we removed guns?

….the pro-gun side ask: “Well what about the guns acquired or owned illegally?”

Everybody agrees that illegally owned weapons should be considered a serious crime.  The problem is that it is not considered one.

Don’t believe me?

In the US, it is a precise statistic that the vast majority of mass shootings take place with the use of a handgun.

Nevertheless, the average maximum penalty of the US for owning an unlicensed weapon is only 3.5 years, except for New York, where their laws state : 

Possess loaded firearm without permit, outside of person’s home or place of business: class C felony, classified as violent felony offense, punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum of 3.5 years
(Source)

So obviously, for some violent individuals, it is not that frightening to risk three and a half years in prison. 

Owning an unlicensed weapon should be a severe crime that should carry a very hefty punishment. Some might argue that this can be applied, but others might feel that it is not good enough. Either way, it would undoubtedly be a better stance at adding deterrents of obtaining illegal firearms. The risk of a mandatory long term sentence would undoubtedly make many individuals think twice about even acquiring the gun illegally, let alone attempting a violent action.

So then we keep the guns, right?

…hold on, should all guns be ok?

 

img
This machine gun is perfectly legal to own in the US, as long it is a semi-automatic. However, is it reasonably acceptable to own a weapon that can support such a high quantity of rounds and would permit an offender to spend such a long time in between having to re-load and thereby be a threat for much longer before being vulnerable to being subdued? (Image Source)

 

Well, the gun is useless without bullets. So why not place a cap on how many bullets certain guns owners can own.

This being defined by how much one gun can hold with being fully loaded.

 

You don’t need more than one magazine to protect yourself. Having enough to fire some warning shots and some for the possibility of an actual need for self-defence arising should be enough.

Guns

So do you agree that that the public should decide, once and for all?

Should people still have the right to own a gun?

Let us know what you think in the comments below.

Advertisement
by Matthew Sciriha

Can you name a modern fascist group?……ANTIFA.

Antifa

Nowadays, a very quick and easy response to conservatives is the label: “Fascist!”

But where does it come from?

Now most people would automatically think of WWII and the Nazis….wrong

Some will actually say it’s from the Italian word fascismo, referring to the political movement spearheaded by Benito Mussolini…..close….but still wrong.

I say close because it did originate in Italy(not Germany) and was conceptualized by one Giovanni Gentile.

giovanni_gentile_sgr
Source

 The man was the self-styled “Philosopher of Fascism” and was essential in creating the foundation of fascism.

Well, Giovanni’s philosophical mentor and inspiration was none other than Karl Marx. In his writings about fascism, Gentile explained how he believed that the entire community was at the service of the state because the state was the community. Sound familiar? Hold that thought.

 

 

Fun Fact about fascism: It’s a form of Government, not a political alignment.

The Nazi party was an ultra-nationalist party that used fascism to function.

So what exactly is Fascism? Fascism is a form of government that most noticeably uses the forcible suppression of opposition and control of media, industry, and commerce. 

Notice how no mention of political alignment is mentioned there. That’s because the opposite of Fascism is not communism, but rather libertarian.

Neither a socialist or a nationalist must exclusively be a fascist.

Now ANTIFA is short for Anti Fascist. Ironic that their methods are exactly like those of those they hate. ANTIFA is a self-proclaimed left-wing group that feels that they can use any means necessary to crush whoever they feel is part of, or in support of Neo-Nazism and far-right groups. While that doesn’t sound too bad, they really do mean, any means necessary.

The real problem is, they very often award the label of fascist, to anyone who disagrees with them. This is where that previously mention, any means necessary, happens. It always involves yelling and very often if there are enough members, they will surround the person. From a bird’s eye view,  it probably looks like the exact definition of a mob. There have even been serious reports of extremely violent crimes committed by ANTIFA members.

ANTIFA has been known to also start riots that commit violence by targeting anything they consider to be commercially owned, be it businesses, property or cars.

Their idea is that a community has a right to defend itself against anything it considers a threat, even if it is an idea. Freedom of speech is acceptable as long as it conforms to their socio-political ideology. Otherwise, that freedom is drowned out by the noise of being labelled and branded.

antifa_840x480
Source

It’s ironic isn’t it, those who wish to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of expression are quick to crush the speech and expression that doesn’t agree with theirs.

The truth is if one fine day somebody could actually hand over everything this group demands, the hoped-for result of an absolute balance, would turn out to be a one-way ticket to anarchy(no stops and no turnarounds).

….and where are we today?

It is true, the numbers of this violent group are dwindling. But certain left-wing politicians, are working quite hard to push certain parts of the establishment the wrong way.  Just like what happened recently in Portland, Oregon. In a violent clash between Antifa and a free-speech group(who some, have claimed are a far-right group), it was noted that police seemed uninterested in the Antifa rioters and seemed to focus on their opponents.

Many have pointed out online that Portland’s mayor has quite the reputation for being quite the hardcore left winger who prefers to turn a blind eye to Antifa as they are self-proclaimed left-wingers too. I believe this just goes to show, that while the left, makes accusations of corruption, they also make use of …the end justifies the means… attitude also. 

When a cause is pushed without prudence at the helm, it’s bound to fall into the same traps as it’s failed, predecessors.

by Matthew Sciriha

They nominated him for what?!…. ….Would you give it to him?

Capture

 

Absolutely not. This is where I draw the line. Personally, I think there is no way that Trump would be awarded that award.

Obama got the 2009 award and many debates, even today if it was justified.

Why are they saying Trump should get it?

Since North and South Korea shook hands and declared; that they had started the journey of peace and to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, the Republicans are already hailing that Trump’s initial pressure and then quick U-turn gamble in accepting North Korea’s invitation was a remarkable albeit risky victory.  

Trump hasn’t even met Kim yet, but Fox News is already repeating the words “De-Nuke”.  

http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5777945735001&w=466&h=263 Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

But he isn’t going to get a prize. Should the meeting happen; he will portray it as a success over the failings of his predecessors. A success which will help him in his campaign for re-election but no more than that.

What’s are the real reason Trump won’t get it.

Well, one possibility is that it would be a PR issue that they wouldn’t recover from. Just imagine. People boycotting the Nobel Prize because they awarded it to Trump. The prestige of the various parties involved in choosing Trump would be tarnished in the eyes of too many. 

So will they take that risk?….No

The result is, of course, is that many people who support him display their outrage. Capture

Societies are constantly becoming more polarised and divisive despite calls for co-operation. Due to this, I think that it’s safe to say that just like the USA, a lot of westernized countries will soon follow the same road and this will mean a sudden rise in conservatism.  I don’t think the wave will spill over into a hard right perspective but it will need to be watched and managed very carefully.

If the Democrats want to get back into the driver seat, then they are going to have to sit down and wait a bit. Trump will present a very difficult challenge in 2020 but after that will no longer be an issue. That’s their window. 

by Matthew Sciriha

Trump is going for gold.

gold

 

Trump’s ticket to his second term is within his reach, as North Korean dictator Kim Jung-un declares the country will be halting nuclear/ ICBM tests.

Trump quickly followed up this news with the following tweet:

Bearing in mind that Trump said that this meeting is going to happen by end of May, I would say he is pretty much at the finish line.

To be honest, no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall under; not supporting this would have to be the dumbest you could do this year. I’m not a fan of Trump but a successful summit with North Korea has so many positive possibilities that I believe nobody could fault.

Consider the humanitarian effort:

It’s no secret that there is a large percentage of the population living in abysmal conditions. Peace talks could start to alleviate their suffering and perhaps even allowing aid groups to go in and to help. Not to mention pushing to eliminate the three generational punishments. 

However…

Here’s a thought I had. There is a large presence of the US military within the vicinity of North Korea, to act as a deterrent should the dictator feel a little trigger happy.  But if peace is established and the majority of those military personnel leave ( I say majority because let’s face it, where the Americans land they never leave. ), then they have to go somewhere.

Question is where?….

Well there’s always the middle east…but something tells me they’ll go a bit north….( food for thought )

Back to the matter at hand though. Should Trump and Kim both make it to the meeting, then Trump would have a diplomatic victory that will boost his approval and guarantee his position for a second term as a US president.

n7jy2hlx8j (1)
Will populism over-power liberalism?

This is how populists rise, on the back of the nation by giving them exactly what they want. The US is in the current mindset as at the end of the 1970’s. The hippie movement was losing one of their core factors of their raison d’être and so are the hardcore liberal movements today.

Is this a mournful farewell to progress? I think quite the opposite. Should the progressive achievements now be given time to settle in as part our cultural norms, optimistically speaking; I think that we can look forward to a time where a lot of innovation and change will be going on as well as a lot of growth.

This, however, is not the sole responsibility of governments though, we the people must do our part in electing the right leaders. At the moment, I personally don’t like Trump; however, it would be wrong to say that he hasn’t done anything good.

So far, the good he has done is worth its merit and praise. So I’m personally already starting to say he will get his second term…I guess we’ll find out.

by Matthew Sciriha

If the pay gap against women is real, businesses would become sexist towards men.

blindfolded-2025474_1280

Let me explain what I’m saying…and then you can go nuts.
Now we’ve all heard about the Gender Pay Gap…. so no need to go into too much detail about it.
But here is a quick summary for those who aren’t too familiar:
Quick Wikipedia search the phrase Gender pay gap and the introductory paragraph is as follows:

The gender pay gap is the average difference between a man’s and a woman’s remuneration.

There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap:
Unadjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience. For example, someone who takes time off (e.g. maternity leave) will likely not earn as much as someone who does not take time off from work. Factors like this contribute to lower yearly earnings for women; while the pay gap has narrowed over time, a gender pay gap still exists, even when controlling for these external factors. Unadjusted pay gaps are much higher.
In the United States, for example the unadjusted average female’s annual salary has commonly been cited as being 78% of the average male salary, compared to 88-93% for the adjusted average salary for college graduates.

Source : Wikipedia

So, the summary provided… onward then.

I have to point out that the points provided by the movement against the gender pay gap, actually would result in businesses acting in a sexist way towards men, rather than women.
The biggest claim(or as the opposing side call it; the myth) being, that:

Businesses will pay a man more than women, for the exact same job.

With just a bit of reasoning, it’s easy to see why that doesn’t make sense; the following being aside from it being against the law in most countries where this issue is protested.
Ask around for what the purpose of a business is and the easiest answer is :

…to make a profit…

Expand it ever so slightly and you can get an easy formula like this: Gross Sales minus Expenses = Profit.
That translates into; the more money your business generates while reducing more of its expenses; the more profit it can yield.
So let’s apply the myth to a real-life scenario…
Bob has a company and he needs an employee. He gets two applications, from a man and woman respectively.
Let’s call them John and Jane.
According to many feminist movements, if John and Jane are of equal qualification; then John gets the job.
Woah, WHAT?!…*Said my internal dialogue*
This isn’t going to hold, and here’s why:
If a company attempts to act in a sexist way, it would only do so towards its own detriment. If both applicants, are of equal qualification but it would cost the business less to employ the female applicant; then the only way that the business would employ the man would mean that it is prepared to go against its very purpose for the sake of sexism.
This is impossible. The reason being that as a whole and in the profit intended running, a business doesn’t allow itself to make a sexist decision like that because; it would make less profit for no logical reason.
If the myth is true we can go a bit further and say, women would get hired more and that would result in an active discrimination towards men.
How? It would eventually mean that the average of earnings(this is by using the myth supporter’s methods of calculation no less) of both genders, should reflect that women would be earning more as a whole; while men will get less as a whole. Resulting in the original statement that women earn less, shattering; because men wouldn’t be hired, resulting in men not even earning enough to compete on the same graph as a collective against women.
Let me go back to the quote for a second.

Unadjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience.

If the latter, mentioned in the above is not properly adjusted for; then the facts provided by the myth supporters is actually fiction from the start. Real life scenario’s take the above mentioned into account.

I wish someone would explain to me, why feminists are pushing to debating an issue that:

  • doesn’t happen in the legally correct job environment,
  • is not a concept that society finds fair or acceptable,
  • would actually lead to women dominating the job market in the future.

Just because there are situations where wrongdoing is committed it doesn’t mean that the collective is bad.

People must stop condemning the barrel, because of a few bad apples.

by Matthew Sciriha