Second Amendment Defined, Interesting Take on University Organizations

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide - Yahoo! News: "WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conservative court's embrace of gun rights since John Roberts became Chief Justice.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's 'right to keep and bear arms' could survive legal challenges.

On its busy final day before a three-month recess, the court also ruled that a public law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, jumped into the nation's charged immigration debate by agreeing to review an employer sanctions law from Arizona and said farewell to Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring after more than 34 years."

Gun Rights

I do find the article's opening statement to have interesting phrasing. It really tries to drive the point home that its those dastardly conservatives giving everyone guns. It could have been phrased in a more impartial manner, but it could have been worse.

Depending on how you feel about the issue, it's either a big victory for gun rights, or a big loss to the 'public safety'. I, personally, am pleased. Not only because it guarantees greater individual liberty, but it also sets a very clear precedent on the second amendment clarifying what has been for decades hazy phrasing. Regardless of what original intent was, this is now precedent.

The significance of this is two fold. First, while the Supreme Court did overturn Washington DC's ban on hand guns in 2008, that only solved half of the debate. Washington DC is not in any jurisdiction of the states. It is a special case, as it is a Federal jurisdiction, and the overturn of the DC ban only went to far as to definitively say that the US Government cannot ban gun ownership, as it is (in the 2008 ruling) a guaranteed Constitutional right.

However, this case establishes the precedent on a state and local government level. It concerned a Chicago gun ownership ban that, as the article states, has been in effect for over thirty years. This ruling effectively sets the precedent that this is not an issue where the right to ban guns is reserved by the states. No, this ruling states that the banning of gun ownership by any governing body is inherently Unconstitutional, whether it be at the local, state, or federal level.

Now, I'm sure there will be many up in arms about this, particularly those that wanted gun ownership banned. But time and time again, studies have shown that banning gun ownership does not reduce crime. In fact, study after study shows that there is no correlation in gun bans reducing violent crime, and in fact in many cases the passage of concealed carry laws has actually reduced gun related crime.

I guess the essential fallacy of the whole issue is the assumption that taking gun ownership rights away will somehow prevent criminals from using guns as weapons. This line of reasoning assumes that criminals will follow the gun law. In effect, though, I think what ends up happening is that law abiding citizens turn in their firearms. Criminals do not. This give criminals greater leverage in any criminal act they take in which they exert their will on another human being. Not a very good situation.

There's also the dissemination of the idea that more guns will inherently equal more gun violence, as access is easier. However, I find this argument equally fallacious. The same could be applied to any object. More cars equals more violent deaths in car wrecks. Lets ban cars. More knives in peoples hands equals more stabbing deaths. Lets ban all knives.

In fact, I would argue that while gun bans may slightly reduce the number of violent crimes by gun, I doubt it has any effect on overall crime rate, perhaps no effect on violent crime rate at all. I don't have statistics to back this assumption up, but I bet it simply changes the nature of the crimes committed, not inherently the number of crimes itself. If you really want to steal a purse, you can do it just as well with a Bowie knife as a gun. If the victim has no self defense, either one is deadly.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need guns anyway, as people wouldn't attempt to violently force their will onto others. But unfortunately, we don't live in a utopia. Until that day comes, I'm perfectly content and happy with this ruling. Regulation and responsible gun ownership is the solution, not outright bans.

Christian Legal Society

Another, perhaps more clear take on the situation can be found here.

Now here is a ruling that I have much more mixed feelings about. From a legal standpoint, I understand precisely where they are coming from. The majority's arguments are valid. Students shouldn't have to fund groups whose views they find offensive. I wouldn't like it if my tuition money was going towards a racist group at a University. I defend their right to exist and to express their views, but I don't want to fund them in any way shape or form, as I wouldn't agree with their views. Show the converse is true as well. I understand gay individuals not wanting to fund an organization that prohibits homosexual membership.

I think I favor in side of the courts ruling primarily because the university wasn't trying to dissolve the group or prohibit its operations, but rather simply deny them funding for noncompliance with an established anti-discrimination policy. Now if the university had been trying to prohibit their forming a group period, I'd probably have a cow. But reluctantly I'll say they knew the University's policy. They deliberately violated it. Also, they're law students. They should have been more aware than anyone else of the university's policies.

Plus, they retain their right to exist as a campus organization, they simply are no longer receiving any form of funding or material resources from the university. It seems relatively cut and dry, honestly.

However, it does bother me simply because so many universities tend to be very... limiting on student free speech. Though this isn't directly related, it has echoes of many examples of universities inherently limiting student free speech, as if students were somehow less protected by the First Amendment. I just fear that this could somehow turn into an outright ban down the road.

~~~

As a complete aside, I'm always for more speech, not less. Students, everywhere, should have just as much right to free speech as any other US citizen. It doesn't matter how distasteful the speech is, whether or not its hateful, or seditious. All speech should be protected under law. Free speech is the fundamental vanguard of liberty, and anyone who would wish to limit it in the interests of political correctness, fairness, or equality, is inherently doing themselves a disservice. It's always easy and tempting for the majority to limit the minority, but when the power balances reverses itself, then the former majority always cries 'liberty!' I think we should always cry Liberty from the beginning, even to protect those that might disagree with us. The First Amendment exists for a reason. It's guaranteed first for a reason. Our forefathers had foresight.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington

Progress

There's a called meeting of my lodge this Tuesday for me to turn in the remainder of my EA work. I'm actually somewhat nervous about it this time around. I've worked on the memorization less, and while I know everything I ought to know, it's simply not as solid as my first turn in. And, given how polished my first turn in was, apparently they're all expecting the same quality this time around. I think I'm prepared, but I'm somewhat nervous all the same. I want to turn it in and progress to my FC, but part of my would like to wait and work on everything till I know it by heart, without any mistakes. But, regardless, Tuesday is the day.

Coincidentally, I'm also taking my PPR exam that afternoon. I'm going to be brainfried and ready for bed come Tuesday night.

Anyway, off to study and drink hot tea. Also, last of my Earl Grey. Need to buy more.

"The Menaissance" by Brett McKay

I can't remember exactly how I found this video, but I felt it very near and dear to me and the kind of person I strive to be. My girlfriend agreed.



Brett McKay, as he stated, runs the blog the Art of Manliness. For any old fashioned man, it's interesting, if not insightful, and covers a plethora of subjects.

An Artificial Sun on Earth

Article here.

I have to say, while the potential is exciting for cheap renewable energy and the possibility of controlled fusion, at the same time, I'm hesitant. I saw Spiderman 2. I know how this can end.

There are some experiments I am very wary of conducting on Earth. We only have one planet.... lets try not to destroy it, shall we?

Flicker

At what point does a candle burn brightest?
When with veracity and splendor,
When with passioned heat and flame,
How noble might be its light,
How true its form?
At what point the elegance so exact
That one mar might snuff its light?

At what point is a candle?

Or does it flame eternal?
Does its light illume eternity,
A chorus of rays
Splendorous in their beacon?
As one flame pierces the dark,
How much more a legion?

Is candle light eternal?

Verdant Valley

As the sun riseth over green hills of Earth,
(As a soprano sweetly kissing a note),
God's Creation doth reveal itself
In its purest form , a Vineyard of Life,
Unspoilt and fertile,
Beautiful in its nature and
Natural in its beauty
An organism unto itself
It may well be
The Face of God.

Stolen Inspirations

How does a poem mean?

As a heartbeat flutter
Blood rushing to the limbs
Fight or flight reaction?

Scholastic monk, solemn in thought,
Devout in mind-works
Praying for inspiration?

Or rational philosopher,
Paradigm of Reason, Logic,
Man of the arts, sciences, ages?

I think they mean best by candle light.

The Politics of NASA

Let it be known that I have very mixed feelings on NASA. As with any government agency, they seem to have a lot of bloat and fat that needs cutting, they seem to be inefficient and ineffective, and seem to waste a lot of money. However, I ardently believe in their purpose - that of pushing the limits of human technology and resources and reaching out to the stars.

Thus when I saw this article, I was definitely disappointed, both in NASA and the Obama administration. (This isn't the first time I was disappointed with this administration, but that's another issue.)

That fact that this article and story, as far as I can tell, broke on The Times, a London based news source, also disheartened me. Is America so apathetic regarding space exploration that our media won't give the story the time of day?

Excerpt of the story below:

Nasa has begun to wind down construction of the rockets and spacecraft that were to have taken astronauts back to the Moon — effectively dismantling the US human spaceflight programme despite a congressional ban on its doing so.

Legislators have accused President Obama’s Administration of contriving to slip the termination of the Constellation programme through the back door to avoid a battle on Capitol Hill.

Constellation aimed to build upon what was arguably America’s greatest technological achievement, the first lunar landing of 1969, by launching new expeditions to the Moon and to Mars and worlds beyond. Mr Obama proposed in February that it should be scrapped because it was “over budget, behind schedule and lacking in innovation”, but he has met opposition in Congress, which has yet to approve his plan.The head of Nasa, Major-General Charlie Bolden — an Obama appointee — has now written to aerospace contractors telling them to cut back immediately on Constellation-related projects costing almost $1 billion (£690 million), to comply with regulations requiring them to budget for possible contract termination costs.

The move has been branded a “disingenuous legal manoeuvre” and referred to Nasa’s inspector-general for investigation. “It’s bordering on arrogance by the Administration to boldly and brazenly go forward with this approach. It shows a blatant disregard for Congress,” said the Republican Congressman Rob Bishop, of Utah, whose constituency stands to lose thousands of jobs. Two weeks ago the Senate passed legislation that compels Nasa to continue work on Constellation unless Congress directs otherwise. That legislation is due to be signed into law by Mr Obama this month while Congress continues its deliberations over his proposal to cancel the current space space progamme.

Since this administration has, thus far, been all about big budget vast changes to our governmental structure, I'm surprised he didn't try to start a moon colony, to be quite honest.

Sarcasm aside, it's starting to look more and more like Virgin Galactic and other private space enthusiasts might be our last, best chance to get off of this rock. Or maybe India will take up the mantle in the United State's place. I'm sure that's a legacy we can be proud of, winning the space race only to give up and peter out in deference to the rest of the world.

Seriously. We first landed on the moon 41 years ago. Why haven't we been back since? This marks one giant leap backward for mankind.

Wings of Wax or Soaring Above Babel

Who can find fault in Daedalus?
What sin had he,
Except that of a dreamer's heart?

Who condemns ambitions to soar,
Aspirations to fly,
Escaping one's confines, dreams of
Becoming
Something more?

What was his sin?
Surely it was he, in Icarus,
Who lost all?
Tell me, where resides the
Cautionary Tale?

The Golden Rule

Christ said to treat your neighbor
As you would be treated in kind
And to love God with
All your being.

As we are created in God's image,
Gifted with the Divine Spark,
Should we not also
Love our fellow man
With our being, entire?
For how can we love God
Without loving His cherished
Creation?

I think it poorly contrived
That initial disposition of
Man to extend his will
Over fellow man.

Any and all powers enacted by the majority
Will surely burn brightly, flames of oppression
When minority is such no longer.

It is downright foolish conceit
That presumes intellectual infallibility

Surely it is just to live and let live?

Conquering the Lighthouse Trail

On a whim, I decided to go hiking in the Canyon today. Been spending far too much time inside lately. I also noticed that it had been generally overcast with almost no rain, just a few thunderclaps. And given that today was generally cooler than the weather the preceding couple of weeks, I figured I ought to seize the day!

A gorgeous picture of the clouds starting to roll in:



The entire time I was afraid these clouds would pour on me, particularly since I didn't have a ziploc baggy for my new[ish] camera. I got lucky though, and just enjoyed the shade and the beauty.



I don't remember the exact distance, but I think I was a good mile and a half or more in before I could even see the lighthouse on the horizon:



On the final approach:



A good (long and wide) shot of the trail leading up to the lighthouse. Notice the lack of civilization anywhere in sight - gorgeous!:



A path leading up to the tip top of the lighthouse. Given how narrow and unsteady it is, and how much I don't like heights, I have yet to bring myself to tackle it:



In context, bottom right. The path leads to the very tip top left pinnacle of the formation. Only seen people up there once:



A gorgeous view of the storm front off in the distance. Never reached Canyon, but it was amazing watching the clouds swirl in the wind streams high up:



After spending some time up on the formation, had to eventually come back down. This unfortunately is easier said than done. The very steep and relatively smooth climbs associated with the last quarter mile of the hike, like the one pictured below are what make it challenging. Not physically, necessarily. There's simply nothing to hold onto in order to brace yourself, and nothing but rocks to catch yourself on if you fall.



I feel obligated to end the photos with one of Sneaky Snake. I walked by him (quite literally) on the way back from the lighthouse formation. I probably got within 1.5' or 2' before I realized he was there, did a funny little jump as if it would somehow outsmart the snake, then ran about 8' away. When I realized he hadn't moved at all, I decided to sneak back up a bit and snap a picture. I can't say for sure what type he is, but it has a strong resemblance to this guy. Especially if you look at the second picture. Maybe I got lucky today.



Definitely fun, second time I've done this by myself. Notes for next time: Bug spray and a walking stick of some sort. The bug spray is absolutely necessary because the horse flies are pretty horrendous out there. They bite. It hurts.

And a walking stick primarily for the descent from the formation. Difficult not having something to stabilize yourself on very smooth, sandy, 45% grades, heh.

Hopefully I'll have a chance to actually hike one of the other trails in the Canyon in the next week or two. (After my knees recover! About six miles round trip.) Only ever done the lighthouse in Canyon, and I'd like to experience more of it while I'm still here.

Venting Some Frustration

I live in the Collegiate Station Apartment Complex in Canyon, TX. Rent is low, utilities are low, the grounds are mostly clean, and the residents are mostly quiet. It's even pretty close to campus. The few times I've had complaints, they've almost always been resolved within the week. The management has never seemed top notch, but it's never been horrible either. Did I mention that rent is low?

My one consistent complaint with the complex is that they use Pavlov Media as their cable and internet provider. Ninety-five percent of the time it works just fine, perfectly acceptable. Then there is that five percent of the time (like now) when it comes and goes in spurts, and generally sucks more than dial up. When you talk to the apartment complex's main office, they tell you it's not their fault, and that you should call Pavlov Media.

When you call Pavlov Media, you get someone (often speaking English as a second language) who gives you the run around. After thirty minutes of arguing about it, they finally understand that the internet isn't working, at which point they tell you that it's fine on their end and you should talk to your apartment's main office.

The end result is several days of torturously living like you're in the early 1990's (what did I do before internet?) hoping for the satellite connection and routers to miracle themselves to a consistent working state. I admit, I'm totally dependent on the internet. It provides my entertainment. I get ninety percent of my news from it. It's a communication medium with many people in my life. It's a general reference tool for anything I become inquisitive about. Heck, it's even where I pay some of my bills. So when it disappears, I'm rarely sure what to do with myself. I guess I'll have to read a book...