Social Justice For Some?

I could go on about how horrible the concept of Social Justice is, but everything I have to say about it and those who forward it has already been said a thousand times.

One thing I will mention is that while they claim to stand up for victims, they seem to forget two groups: Jews and men.

Let’s get the argument about men out of the way: the narrative of Social Justice states that those who “suffer” from unequal outcomes deserve special treatment. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 93% percent of all inmates in 2015 were men. So, by Social Justice Warriors’ logic, the criminal justice system must be rigged against men. Yet do you ever hear about that from them? I haven’t.

This argument, in their heads, can be ignored because of all the other privileges men have had over the centuries.

Now to the longer, even less justifiable issue. I don’t see many Social Justice Warriors standing up for Israel, which faces daily threats from Islamists. Rockets fly over Israel every day, and no-one seems to be standing with them except about half of the world’s Jews and a handful of others. Everyone else seems to either support or abet Islamic extremists.

On a side note, you cannot say you support Jews but oppose Israel. Israel is a Jewish state, and if you oppose it and instead support Palestine – a Muslim state – you oppose Judaism. So, doesn’t this make Jews victims?

The latest attitude toward Jews from the Vatican is that since they are descended from Jews, Catholics have an obligation to support and protect them. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Charter calls for the mass extermination of the Jewish people. So, shouldn’t Social Justice Warriors be supporting Catholics and opposing Palestinians? Apparently not. Also, people seem to forget that Catholics do not make up the majority of Christians in America (according to a 2012 Gallup poll, 23.3% of Americans identify as Catholic, while 51.9% identify as Protestant). White Supremacists also exclude Catholics from their circle. The KKK didn’t just kill blacks back in the day – they killed Jews and, you guessed it, Catholics.

But I digress. Whenever you put a modifier before “justice”, it ceases to be justice. Social Justice Warriors and other radical leftists are ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical imbeciles who have been dragging down our country since Obama first started propping them up. Everyone from Bill Maher to Ben Shapiro acknowledges this. Sam Harris once made a great speech on how radical leftism and political correctness led to the rise of Trump, a compulsive liar and admitted fraud. Fortunately, at least for now, he has proven to be a moderate president and the country has benefited from his limited time in office. Of course, we’re only two months into his presidency, so only time will tell how history remembers him.

I might write something later on why I feel Trump’s presidency may be necessary for America, regardless as to how beneficial it may be.


Gun Control In The Wake of The Orlando Shooting

“A [weapon] is never a killer; it is a tool in the killer’s hands.”


In the wake of the tragic massacre that occurred last weekend, voices in the liberal community are once again pushing hard for stricter gun control laws. This also happened after the Sandy Hook shooting, the Colorado Movie Theater shooting, and a number of other instances involving troubled individuals carrying assault weapons. Each time, I have voiced my opinion against banning assault weapons, and I freely admit my views have not changed.

You cannot blame an inanimate object for the actions of a sentient being. Objects do not have the capacity to do anything on their own; even automated equipment needs to be constructed and started by the hands of a living, sentient being. My point is that we have to look at WHY the shootings happened, not HOW. Most of the earlier mass shootings occurred because a mentally unstable individual got their hands on an assault weapon; in response to those cases, I say enforce background checks to make sure such individuals, as well as those with prior legal charges, do not get their hands on such weapons. In addition, I am an advocate of smart guns, and I believe there should be (potentially) subsidized programs where for a nominal, if any fee, gun owners can send their weapons to manufacturers to have them converted.

This recent shooting was an act of Islamic Terrorism. You may think that makes me want to ban Muslims from owning firearms; if so, you are wrong. A major problem with this country, as well as many in Europe, is that we isolate Muslims from our communities, and terrorist regimes such as ISIS prey on the anger that ensues. I believe we have to integrate innocent Muslims and teach them to be better citizens.

The gunman was actually on the terrorism watch list, but the FBI found insufficient proof to indict him. What the FBI did know was that he frequently spouted inflammatory rhetoric and was known to have extremist views. I believe people like him are a danger to society and need to be detained and reeducated before they can act on their ideas. Unfortunately, the current legal interpretation of the First Amendment forbids such actions from being taken. My personal belief is that many the freedoms granted by the Constitution are good in moderation, but they should not be taken to such an extreme that we end up tolerating extreme intolerance.

Another argument made by liberals for banning assault weapons is that they are unneeded for anything other than killing. That is simply not true. Some people like to take them to firing ranges for fun. Some like to think of guns as potential collectibles. Some just feel safer having them instead of simple pistols and hunting rifles in case of an attempted armed robbery.

Others, when arguing for disregarding the second amendment, say the Founding Fathers could not possibly predict guns would be as powerful as they are today. Well, three hundred years ago, muskets were deemed extremely dangerous military-grade weapons, and three hundred years before that (when gunpowder was first weaponized), people fled from anyone who carried what were then called hand cannons. I believe people in the future will think the automatic assault weapons of today are obsolete and largely non-threatening. The point is, power is subjective, and just because something is deemed dangerous today doesn’t mean it will always be considered dangerous. I would venture to say at least a few of the Founding Fathers realized this when they wrote the constitution.

I will say that I have a rather uncommon view of the second amendment; I may touch on that in a later post.

If anyone would like to debate me on this, feel free to leave a comment.