Whenever the gun control debate heats up one of the most prominent arguments in the national discourse is the defense of the second amendment on the grounds that an individual is entitled to own a firearm to ensure his or her protection, or that of their family.

Now I don't really understand this argument. Let me explain why.

Frankly, if you need so much protection that you are carrying around or proclaiming to the world that you own a lethal weapon, then perhaps you need to reevaluate your life's choices, not your choice in weaponry.

All i am saying here is that you do not have some "God given" intrinsic right to own a firearm.

Sure, they CAN provide protection, but you can also protect yourself without one. It is not fundamental to your person that you own it- in the way freedom of speech or religion is.

A gun is an inanimate object. And that is my point.

So can we just be honest about our reasons for owning them? They are cool. They make you feel powerful. And this is America after all, we own them because WE WANT TO OWN THEM. (It really is ok to say this. It's REAL.)

But none of these things add up to a right with which we were endowed by our "creator".

But I don't want you to read this as some plea for gun control. If you do, you are missing my point completely.

This is an argument for gun HONESTY.

Gun violence is shocking, exciting, and dangerous. But to an extent, so is gun ownership. We own guns because we want to own guns. Sure, everyone has their SPECIFIC reasons. But this one is likely to be on everyone's list. And it's a reason everyone can relate to (even if you don't own a gun). It's a running theme in our culture. We are a FREE nation after all.

So don't get hung up on the way the media (and now, social media) has on the "power" and "protection" that owning a gun gives you. Because this is, at best, faulty reasoning. This argument appeals to emotions, not logic.

Let me explain.

It can be argued, and often is, that those in possession of guns retain some sort of logistical power by extension. For this to be true, everyone who owns a gun must gain some sort of intrinsic power over others.

Yet, regardless of a guns capability, it does not give you some superior influence or respect. Not REAL respect. It grants you the ability to instill fear. And fear by definition, is not power. Far from it actually. Power denotes control or the ability to produce an effect. Fear can be paralyzingly, manipulative even. But it does not convince. It will not win an argument, it merely mutes it while the discontent grows. And most of you, I am sure, will agree that silencing an argument does not make it go away.Authority on the other hand is granted by reciprocal agreement that it is needed. Both parties agree to the agreement, if not the details.

Ironically, gun ownership with the chief purpose being self protection inherently acknowledges fear in the gun owner. Which is interesting because the very emotion the gun owner is trying to protect him or herself from is the very one which inspired the gun purchase to begin with.

Now I realize that owning a gun is as much an American norm as celebrating the 4th of July. But we can't continue to sensationalize gun ownership in this "god given" way. If we do, then these lurid mass shootings will continue to happen. Some people should not own guns and that is the right decision. Putting restrictions on gun ownership for convicted criminals and those with mental disorders is in no way full proof, but it is reasonable, logical behavior. It is not an assault on law abiding citizens gun rights.

If we cannot come to an agreement on this one point then the media will continue in its melodramatic coverage of gun violence while missing the real crime and mental health stories in the process.

With such a tense political atmosphere, I feel compelled to explain why it is that i am voting for Barack Obama, again.
Here me out now. I in no way affiliate myself directly with one party or another but rather vote for and against individuals, based on the platform they present. Like most people, though, i do have certain "lines in the sand", if you will... Most importantly though, i am guided by my own worldview, values and common sense which has led me to the following reasoning. 

1. Obama has made womens rights a center piece of his campaign.

 From signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 to championing womens unlimited access to birth control i respect his attempts to empower women and level the playing field. (And while i recognize the abortion and birth control debate is a tumultuous one, to RESTRICT rights is simply not American. You dont have to agree with everyones behavior to support individual freedom. But this line is pretty clear. Either we make decisions about our own bodies or we do not. And healthcare availability should not make these choices for us. Considerfor instance the case of an individual who develops type 2 diabetes due to poor eating habits. Should this individual suffer when an employer decides that this value does not allign with his or her company culture? Its a strech, sure, but a parallel nontheless)

2. He drove home the cause of Universal Health Care. 

I believe this is a fundamental human right to have access to quality heath care- particularly in our country- and especially when health care costs without coverage are hardly affordable, any constantly going up. And this is not even to mention the horrors of insurance companies denying coverage based on prexisting conditions, lifetime usage limits, and the idea that insurance companies are for profit enterprises. Obama got it right making sure we all have access to coverage. And his model (based on a bipartisian effort passed by a republican governor) is one that i believe will pay dividends in the future, leading us to be a healthier nation with more reasonable health care costs. 

3. I do not blame Obama for our deficit.

We were knee deep in two wars when Obama assumed the presidency. Two wars which we had no way to pay for, especially considering the impending global recession. Yet Obama continued with our mission in the middle east. We are liberators and spreaders of democracy. But we are not occupiers. He has withdrawn from Iraq and is working on doing the same in Afghanistan. 
Additionally, i think he took the responsible route in helping out the auto industy and wall street. If those jobs and companies had evaporated with their bad investments then THAT outcome certainly would have been attached to Obama and his presidency. So why not extend a hand, and make a little extra money (on loan interest) in the process. It was a lose, lose situation. And i respect the tough predicament that he was in and the unpopular choice that he made... To SAVE AMERICAN JOBS. 
Finally, with the Recovery Act he attempted to further build upon president Bush's attempted economic stimulus. It did not necessarily work (and for the record i NEVER ACTUALLY RECEIEVED the supposed Social Security cuts he said i should have recieved in my paycheck...?) and even though it did not work, Obama admitted this and yet stood by his decision. 

4. He pushed for regulation of Wall Street via the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection act of 2010. 

Now i am not nieve. Corporate America will find ways around it. But they know the government is watching out for the average American's interest just by the mere quickness and willing to pass such legislation. To plead free enterprise and government overreach when you are being essentially bailed out by taxpayers makes your argument void so far as i am concerned. 

5. He is supportive of gay rights. I cant for the life of me understand how this is still controversial.

I will admit that I was late to support gay marriage. I could not comprehend it in relationship to my own marriage. But when you consider your personal definition of MARRIAGE and what YOU believe being married is really about (in my view its rooted in love, family, commitment, support, and trust) not one of these things is gender specific. And there is no reason that gender should or even COULD stand in the way of 2 people feeling this way about one another. Furthermore, because these individuals commitments are not legally sanctioned, does NOT make them any less real. It only makes them less respected. No one is asking any religion to open their arms to gay marriage. But the idea that our government has not- while overtly supporting and encouraging traditional marriage- disgusts me. Obama has made SOME progress, finally allowing our troops to serve openly and refusing to use federal resources to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. And i am hopeful that he will continue on this path. Contrast that with Mitt Romney supporting a constitutional amendment declaring marriage as between one man and one woman and my choice here is clear. 

6. From the beginning, I have supported Obama's action in Libya. As well as his efforts to hunt Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden across the globe. So does Mitt Romney. And so does most of the world. 

7. I feel as though Obamas world view is the more practical of the two. 

Our government structure Is set up in such a way as to make American prosperity and quality of life our main goal. When our leaders faiI to support policy and legislation which supports these ideals, we vote them out of office and try again. This is quite different from even regulated capitalism and free enterprise where the focus is profit for workers and shareholders. I believe there are certain things we do better together, such as education and health care and so called "entitlement programs" which we as workers actually pay into. I would never argue government programs are or should be the standard, but for some Americans that is their standard. And i want them to have the opportunity to  better their life, even if their parents weren't able to provide this foundation for them. 

8. Obama supports the development of green technology. 

And while some of his investments went sour, (looking at you Solyndra...) he is open and optimistic to this developing market. Furthermore, his fuel efficiency standards for vehicles will save us money and increase our competitveness in the global market. And any argument that he has cut drilling permits for natural gas and oil are merely semantics. Finally, to characterize these industries as victims of his policies seem ridiculous considering their record profits in recent years.

So i want to clarify here that this post is meant to sway no one, but to simply explain my own thought process. Maybe if you are on the other side, like me, and are wondering how the hell someone could vote for HIM(?!?!) you now know where i am coming from. I see progress under Obama's leadership. To expect that a business man can come in and restructure and simplify our government structure comes across to me as quite ridiculous. Add to that the uncertainty of Mitt Romneys views on just about eveything and the choice for me is clear. This is in no way a vote AGAINST Romney, it is instead one FOR Obama. 

Mitt Romney recently claimed that he will never earn the vote of 47% of the American populations vote because they fundamentally disagree on the availabilty and usage of so called 'entitlement programs'. He claims that these individuals believe that they CANNOT take care of themselves and thus look to the federal government to pick up the slack. Mitt Romney is right about one thing, he will never get the vote of these people he characterizes as lazy and opportunistic. But i doubt he even as a clue as to why. 
Mitt Romney's attitude toward welfare recipients is symptomatic of a larger prejudice that exists in America. One in which the American people hold each other to this practically unattainable 'American Dream' standard of living which has sparked many irresponsible 'keeping up with the Jones' competitions in neighborhoods across America. The standard of measure which demonstrates how hard you work is thus, quantified in the amount of dollars you are worth, and further represented by what it is that you spend it on. 
The fact of the matter is that this is a rigged game, and the individuals at the top set the rules. And what Romney and many other conservatives fail to acknowledge is that there is a wide discrepancy in the opportunities afforded different members of society. And it is awfully cruel to promote this gluttoness 'American Dream' on a pedastal and claim that there is simply one way to get there: by working hard. This is so cleary false that i have struggled to argue against it. 
What i am finding is that there is a segment of society-one in which i myself belong- which feels obligated to put family and quality of life before financial success. And this mindset is one which is learned and passed on from generation to generation. These individuals take moderate paying jobs, clock out at the end of the day and go home to their real passion- the people they care about. They are not motivated by a paycheck, but see it instead as a fact of life. Money is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Becuase of their moderate income, these family's tend to have less of an emergency fund to compensate in the face of furloughs, pay decreases, and lay offs. And as a result, these are the individuals who are disproportionally affected by an economic downturn. They have lower paying jobs to begin with (allowing for them to enjoy more free time). And with lower paying jobs usually comes less job security. Less job security inevitably leads to vulnerability in a turbulent job market. These are precisely the reasons these families end up relying on so called 'entitlement programs' to temporarily make their ends meet. 
They are not irresponsible families who refuse to take care of themselves. They are families whose priorities are in the right place. They are concerned with quality. Not quantity. And they expect when they are down and out to be able to take advantage of programs that they have spent their entire working life PAYING INTO.