Is It Sinful To Have Fun

As my children reached the age where they were no longer entertained by Legos and toy cars and more interested in video games, I looked for ways to engage them outdoors where fresh air and exercise would more likely be available. We would go camping, fishing and my love for riding motorcycles was one of the things that I wanted to share with my children. The first bike they got was a Honda Mini Trail 50 that I thought would be the safest way to teach them to ride. On his first attempt my eldest son ran into a tree but quickly became able to avoid obstacles and avoid injury. Both boys loved the experience, so I bought them each a bike and one for myself, so I could keep up with them. I always stressed that they should always wear a helmet, long pants and never ride alone. Our riding was always off-road, which meant loading the bikes in the truck or on a trailer and transporting them an hour or so away. Because of this, we would often include a camping trip with the motorcycle riding and that somewhat limited their riding. We had a large vacant lot down the street from our house and I had an agreement with the land owner to allow my sons to ride there, and in return I would keep the property mowed and we would pick up trash as well. It seemed like a reasonable and safe way for my sons to be able to ride not far from the house when we could not schedule a trip to the river or the lake where we would ride trails. They were instructed to push the bikes the half block to the vacant lot as riding down the street or the ally would have been illegal. However it never really worked out. Almost every time they attempted to ride, someone would call the police and when the police arrived my children would be threatened with arrest and impoundment of the motorcycles. I discussed this with the police on a couple of occasions and assured them that we had permission to ride where they were riding and each time the police concluded that as long as they had permission it would be ok, but the harassment never ended. I even went to talk to the district attorney and the local judge to try to find what ordinance we were breaking and never got an answer and both refered me back to the police who simply stated that they could not ride in the city because they had no license and the bikes were not street legal. The police had an exception for themselves though. They had 4 wheelers that they would ride at public gatherings such as parades and large gatherings such as the annual Relay for Life cancer fundraiser. The only thing that made any sense to me about the police not allowing my children to ride on the lot was that someone had complained and they felt obligated to stop the offense. I was never able to find out which ordinance we were breaking and other off-road vehicles such as riding mowers, golf carts and tractors were never a problem. Is it just that some people can’t stand to see others having fun?

Society seems bent on forbidding things that people enjoy, not because of public safety, but because they associate enjoyment with sinful behavior. I believe this is why the legalization of marijuana has had such an uphill climb. Some people see the use of marijuana as morally wrong. Like people who use marijuana are broken and must be repaired by society, usually through punishment such as fines, probation or incarceration. Now that our government has finally conceded that calling this a war against marijuana is counter productive and alienates the public, they have slightly altered their tactics. Now many courts are offering the chance for rehabilitation instead of incarceration. The financial penalty still applies as the defendant must still pay court costs and the cost of rehabilitation, plus the loss of wages while undergoing the rehabilitation. And if the defendant does not complete the rehabilitation or fails any of the mandatory drug tests, they are right back to incarceration. The only thing is, most marijuana users do not agree that they actually need or want to be rehabilitated. There is nothing morally different from marijuana use than drinking wine or beer. What if everyone caught with alcohol were treated this way? Why are we not allowed to choose a safer alternative to alcohol and why must the punishment be so severe? Even in places where marijuana is decriminalized or where the punishment is less severe, the prosecuting attorney often stacks charges, such as intent to distribute and paraphernalia charges to increase the penalty. If the person has a firearm, the charges automatically escalate to felony weapons charges in addition to the marijuana charges, even though marijuana has a much lower association with violence than alcohol. Just because someone chooses to use marijuana does not mean they are a threat to themselves or society, and it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with them. Millions of people use marijuana and alcohol every day without problems. Why can’t people in society, simply live and let live? Don’t you have enough problems of your own?

Randy Johnson

This article from reason magazine highlights how governments and society ban all sorts of relatively benign behavior because of Puritanical beliefs, most of which are not based on facts.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/26/the-government-bans-fun-not-danger/1

$60,000 Fine For Selling Cigarette Lighter

Remember when we were kids and we wanted the toy guns that looked real. Just like the ones used in the western shows and movies that our hero’s would carry like Roy Rogers or the Lone Ranger. We weren’t worried about being shot by the police. I thought all boys played with toy guns and trucks and sticks and rocks. It was just normal life. When I was seven my brother and I were allowed to save our money and by a BB gun and it looked just like a real rifle. Mine was a pump and my brothers was a lever-action. We would roam the neighborhood shooting at cans and bottles and the occasional sparrow. It never alarmed the neighbors and the police never objected. The police were our friends or at least that is what my parents said.

What happened to America in the last 50 years? Now we have a primary school kid being expelled from school for chewing a pop tart into the shape of a gun. Another child was expelled and arrested after wearing a shirt with a gun on it. Another child expelled for pointing his finger at other kids, like when we would play cowboys and indians but didn’t have a toy gun. Are these actions really any worse than playing World At War or some of the other video games that are currently in use by children today. Today I read a news article about a merchant who sold cigarette lighters that look like real guns and was fined $60,000. Really, is this where we are as a society? The article said that if the lighters had been a color such as blue or green, they would not have been a problem. Have they not seen the pink revolvers that are being sold to women in this country?

How about lets stop the paranoia about guns? Guns have been a part of our society since day one. If people are not threatening others with their gun, they should be left alone. We actually do have the right to bear arms just like it says in the Constitution. The militia was never part of the standing army in America. It was just armed citizens who banded together to help protect our home from tyranny. The reason we have the second amendment, is so we can protect our families and our homes from all enemies, even tyrants like King George or gang bangers that take over neighborhoods where police are helpless to stop them. In places where people have the right to bear arms, that kinda crap don’t happen near as often. Yet in places like Chicago where guns are all but illegal, street wars have been going on for decades with gang bangers fighting over turf that they didn’t buy, and terrorizing the disarmed citizens who bought homes or businesses and now can’t sell them because of the violence. The police seem helpless to stop this total disregard for law and justice, and a disarmed public is at the heart of the problem. When people aren’t allowed to defend themselves they become victims to those who are stronger or more numerous. Like the saying goes ” When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. When victims fight back, violent crime decreases.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/smoking_gun_nets_fine_mULOkpw09uyrCdvzFwsFqL

Randy Johnson

Marijuana And Money

In their effort to forge laws governing marijuana sales in Colorado, legislators are debating about the amount of taxes that should be associated with the sale. Colorado House of Representatives wants a 15% excise tax and a 10 or 15% tax on all sales in addition to the 2.9% state sales tax and any local taxes. Other cost relayed to the consumer will include the high licensing and application fees associated with starting a marijuana distribution center. Other legislative efforts that will continue to drive up costs are the rule governing that 70% of all marijuana sold must be grown by the distributor and no more than 30% may be furnished to another distributor. Also the legislators are considering limiting the amount of marijuana that can be sold and limiting the number of distributors state-wide which could create a shortage of legally sold marijuana. Shortages of supply would tend to drive the cost to consumers higher.

With taxes on sold marijuana approaching 30 to 35% it will be difficult to keep costs low enough to discourage a black market for marijuana. Brick and mortar stores have the added cost of a building, with all of its associated cost such as mortgage or rent, electricity, water, insurance and wages paid to a staff. Citizens of Colorado are allowed to grow their own marijuana and the profits of black market sales will be just too tempting for some to pass up, especially if the legal market is unable to meet demand.

Another problem facing marijuana distributors in Colorado is the continued prohibition of marijuana at the federal level. Since marijuana is still illegal by US law, it is difficult to find banks and insurance companies to do business with the distributors, forcing them into a cash only business with elaborate security systems. I’m sure the Federal government would not allow armed security in a business selling marijuana according to the Gun Control Act. This leads to increased security risks associated with robberies and burglaries and makes it difficult to obtain financing for startup and operating expenses. In addition the Federal Government has a long history of circumventing the will of the people by raiding marijuana distributors and confiscating their assets and property and incarcerating the owners.

All of these things combined make black market marijuana more appealing and profitable while making legal marijuana more expensive and easier targets for the Feds.

http://www.coloradoan.com/viewart/20130430/NEWS11/304300007/Marijuana-taxes-prove-sticking-point-Colorado

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/29/colorado-legislators-pile-on-pot-restric

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/29/smallbusiness/marijuana-cash/index.html

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/30/if-high-cigarette-taxes-fuel-a-booming-b

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Randy Johnson

Police Survey About Gun Control

A few days ago my wife and I were traveling to a graduation and winging ceremony for our youngest son. We were listening to Glenn Beck on talk radio and his show was centered around a survey from PoliceOne.com of 15,595 police officers from around the country about the proposals for gun control restrictions. The questions ranged from the size of the police force and rank of the officer, to questions about magazine capacity and restrictions on (so-called) assault weapons. The results of the survey indicate that the officers that responded overwhelmingly oppose gun restrictions on magazine capacity and type of gun restrictions and support (91% approval) concealed carry among law-abiding citizens. The survey showed that 80% of the officers surveyed believe armed citizens would have decreased the casualties in tragedies like Aurora and Newtown, and 76% support school personnel being armed as a deterrent to such tragedies.

Our second amendment right is as much about protecting each other, as it is about self-protection and it is the only right that protects us from tyranny by our own government. Many good men and women have given their all in defense of our nation and freedoms and many more have risked life and limb for the same. I for one, just can’t give up that right for the fallacy of safety. If you can’t protect yourself or those around you, you are vulnerable to any who would do harm, be it armed assault, rape or robbery.

Glenn Beck article from TheBlaze.com http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/10/survey-law-enforcement-personnel-overwhelmingly-oppose-obamas-gun-control-proposals/

PoliceOne.com survey  http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

Randy Johnson

If You Don’t Want The Right To Bear Arms Then Change The Constitution

My right to bear arms in defense of me and mine are rights that had been honored in free societies for hundreds if not thousands of years before the Constitution of the United States was written. The founders of our nation and signers of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution believed so much in our right to bear arms that they enshrined that right in the Bill of Rights. My right to bear arms should be the same in any state or territory of the United States. It is my second amendment right and states should not be able to deny that right, just like they can’t take away my right to freedom of religion or my right to speak out against tyranny. These rights spelled out in the Constitution were put there to protect our freedom and the right to bear arms is crucial to that end. The type of weapon that can be owned or used should not matter because the right to bear arms, among other things, is also to stop tyranny from our own government. To surrender our guns to any government would be Un-American. Congress, Presidents past and present and the Supreme Court have failed to protect that right from state and local governments and that right has been under federal attack as well. As citizens we have failed to oversee those that we elected to lead us. Without our voice, our elected officials assume we approve of what they have allowed to happen to our second amendment right. We must speak out against this tyranny now or that right will continue to be infringed.

For those of you who hate guns and want to get rid of them consider this. There are an estimated 300,000,000 guns in this country and without the government going door to door, searching houses and killing all who oppose them, these guns are not going to go away. Most of these guns at the present are in the hands of good people who believe in the rule of law and would stand in your defense if need be. But when you make criminals out of us for exercising our rights and demand that we be defenseless, that changes the whole game. Now you are going against the Constitution that many Americans have sworn to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic. For our elected officials to refuse to support that right is a direct violation of their oath of office. As long as the Constitution says that we have the right to bear arms, that right should be honored anywhere in the United States or its territories. If society can’t accept our right to bear arms, there is a set procedure to change the Constitution spelled out in Article 5 of the Constitution. But if our own government refuses to follow the Constitution, we are no longer a nation ruled by law, but subjects, ruled by decree from the elite who believe they are above the law. Either change the Constitution or honor our rights.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html

Federal employee oath of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Article. V. of the United States Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Amendment II of the United States Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Randy Johnson

3D Printing May Be The Key To Our Freedom

As the printing press helped to forge the way for freedom and the increase of knowledge in our history. I believe the 3D printer will usher in a new type of freedom. The freedom to create whatever you may wish or dream up. In light of the recent and current gun ban proposals, Defense Distributed is in the process of creating a sharable file to print a working gun on a 3D printer. They have tested an AR15 that was built with a lower receiver that was printed on a 3D printer. It successfully fired 6 rounds before it broke. While it may seem as though a printed gun is too fragile to be useful, the technology is still new and developing rapidly. Also new technologies are emerging to print in different medias such as different polymers, glass, stone, ceramic and various metals. It will be near impossible to keep guns away from people if they can be printed at home.                                                                             http://defensedistributed.com/about-us/                                               http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/12/03/heres-what-it-looks-like-to-fire-a-partly-3d-printed-gun-video/                                                                                                                          These Printers are becoming available to hobbyists for prices ranging from $2200 dollars and up. Larger more expensive 3D printers are being made that will print in more than one media at the same time. As these 3D printers become more widely used, greater capability will be available at lower cost to the home hobbyist, or anyone for that matter. Soon a 3D printer may be as common in our homes as microwave ovens and computers. Similar to the replicators on Star Trek Next Generation, 3D printers will be able to create many household items we currently use, for example you may want to design and print parts for a lamp and assemble it yourself. At least one company, RepRap, plans to build a 3D printer that can print copies of itself, making it a self replicating printer. It is already capable of printing some of its parts and work is underway to complete the task.  Fab@Home printer lists chocolate as one of its printable medias. As this technology evolves, who knows what may or may not be possible. Consider that we may soon be able to print medicines or household chemicals or maybe a part to repair your car. How about a replacement hip where the ball is permanently made into the socket. The possibilities are almost endless.    http://fabathome.com/                         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap_Project             http://www.stratasys.com/Products/Overview.aspx  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing

Randy Johnson

itsmycountrytoo.org