On Slamming Hillary: Letter to a Close Friend

I can understand your confusion in wondering why I would support Hillary.

But first of all, I supported Bernie and still do. But he's no longer in the running. She's up next, that's just how it works. Even Bernie's now supporting her. Does that make him bad? No. It's just the system. The system he was working to change, at least somewhat.

What I don't understand is your (anyone's) vitriol against her. Be against her, I get that. To take it so personally though. That is what I don't quite understand.

See...here's just a few things to consider about all this:

The only thing I can find that explains someone feeling about Hillary as they do when they literally come off a hating her, is being submerged in the conservative environment or at least their propaganda that goes beyond what she has earned either for or against her.

How is that? Because, that's where we see that, where it's born, where it has originated.

You say you have found your own data against her?
Where'd you find it? InfoWars is for the most part, garbage and nonsense. How'd you even get there?

Where are all the good things she has actually done and yes, those do exist.
You don't know about them? Why is that? WHY?
Is that the filter showing only the bad?

Her actions have killed people?
Whose hasn't in government at that level? They all have that burden.

Maybe not Jimmy Carter. Maybe.

I fully agree, we have to stop killing, stop drones, etc, so on and so forth, I"m on board there. We have made our killing fields and now we're lying in them so we have to kill for now. That's just a matter of fact in our being attacked. I don't think we need to create more than necessary as we are however.

Trump will do better? Bush did better? Or his dad?

What republican has done better? Reagan? History showed us what he did.

We have two parties in this system. We have to pick one or the other wins. It needs to be changed? Okay. Railing against it doesn't fix it when it breaks it more in railing against the wrong person at the wrong time.

Conservatives have spent literally millions upon millions of dollars over the years against her and her husband going all the way back into the 90s and pretty much originating with Newt Gingrich who we can trace all this Republican obstructionism to all these years since, and who has poisoned the well in American politics so to speak.

But some of what they claim is true you say?

Okay, but much of what they say isn't also, and much of their generalized claims is also true about others and yet, I'm not seeing the same vitriol against them. It's just her. Why is that one has to ask? I get being against her. But the visceral response against her comes from something other than merely her actions in her job and much of what is perceived to be her actions, were just her doing her job to begin with.

And yet, we do not see this reaction against others who have done the same things, even on the right, even by republicans. They have deftly turned a righteous hatred against George Bush and Dick Cheney into hatred against Obama and Hillary. Just think about that for a moment. Bush is far more deserving of hatred for his actions but do the conservatives feel that for him? No. Just Hillary. Odd, don't you think? She wasn't even president. They burden actually lays upon Obama anyway. So why Hillary?

Conservatives don't even feel about Obama (anymore, if ever) like they do her.
It's just...odd.
Well to be fair, it was against Obama first.

But now the black guy ain't running and the woman is.
You do have to consider that. Racism and sexism.

Elizabeth Warren wouldn't be treated this way by the right you say?
Only because they have not had the time to build and grow a grassroots hatred toward her.

But give it time, they would, they will, when they can, if they feel they need to.

Are you feeling like we're cats being herded into an election? We lost Bernie, as I said we would, though I supported him and hope his input will change things (it has already), and Trump (one time friend of the Clintons), is he just a shill to get people to vote for Hillary (not to mention all the bigots and ugliness his running has shown us all across America (not to mention the ignorance and stupidity).

That's our system. Possibly how it really is. Most possibly how it just appears to be. Which is so endemic of life today, what appears to be, people try to turn into fact, when it's not. Things just happen. So typically when it really is a conspiracy, no one notices, the desired effect of a conspiracy. On the other hand, time seems to show all conspiracies.

So. Why do we even bother? Well, because....

Look. In the end, it's just politics. Seriously. It's kind of detached from our actual reality. It's just fun to make it real and it can have real live consequences, sure.

But people first.

It's really not life and death, not for the voter. Though it can be. But typically casting the wrong vote, doesn't kill you. That's the thing about voting and democracy.

A single vote really doesn't kill people, it's everyone voting the same. Kind of like a firing squad where one guy gets a blank and no one knows who it is so you have that buffer to reality, "Maybe I wasn't the one to kill him."

But if you have a friend or a family member who is on the other side of reason in your understanding, even if it's the crazy side they're on, it's still just politics.

Consider that shutting people off is bad. So don't do that. Let them do that, to you. But don't you be a part to the closing off of possibly their only access to rational thinking, possibly to a sane way of viewing the world.

Sure, you can block them on FB if they are obnoxious.

Just don't block them in life. If you get along with them just fine, historically speaking, aside from politics, do not let politics then kill that in the both of you.

Not from your end anyway.

Keeping open the path to discussion is all important, it's imperative. Especially in politics. We need to keep the path to discourse open.

Otherwise, you're an irrational conservative and\or Republican.

Or a liberal nutcase.

Don't be either.

Be, an adult.

Be, an American citizen.

Be, a Citizen.

Winston S. Churchill (House of Commons 11 November 1947) — "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

About that....

In, Churchill by Himself, what else Churchill did say about democracy?

"If I had to sum up the immediate future of democratic politics in a single word I should say “insurance.” That is the future—insurance against dangers from abroad, insurance against dangers scarcely less grave and much more near and constant which threaten us here at home in our own island.: —Free Trade Hall, Manchester, 23 May 1909

"At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper—no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point." —House of Commons, 31 October 1944

"How is that word “democracy” to be interpreted? My idea of it is that the plain, humble, common man, just the ordinary man who keeps a wife and family, who goes off to fight for his country when it is in trouble, goes to the poll at the appropriate time, and puts his cross on the ballot paper showing the candidate he wishes to be elected to Parliament—that he is the foundation of democracy. And it is also essential to this foundation that this man or woman should do this without fear, and without any form of intimidation or victimization. He marks his ballot paper in strict secrecy, and then elected representatives and together decide what government, or even in times of stress, what form of government they wish to have in their country. If that is democracy, I salute it. I espouse it. I would work for it.” —House of Commons, 8 December 1944

Let's end with this:

How American Politics Went Insane
A pretty decent insightful exploration of American politics by Jonathan Raunch from The Atlantic magazine.

Trump vs SuperHeroes vs Gods vs The Fool

People say our fictional entertainment "superheroes" are replacements for what the concepts and beliefs in Gods once gave us in ancient times. Superheroes today are placeholders they say, for what used to be paramount and all important in our lives.

Well. Times have changed. Though many are trying to end or retard that inevitable change.

In reality Gods were our first fictional entertainment superheroes. We just made the mistake of believing our own fictions and it came back to bite us. All through history. All through today.

Republicans, the Conservative right, religious proponents especially extremist ones, even those who voted for BrExit this past week, all seem to be members of the WTP, the Wishful Thinking Party. They think things are not that good, and they aren't as complicated as they really are, so we will just stop thinking, do something drastically opposed to the status quo and obviously that will just fix everything.

Uh, no. It's not that easy. That not thinking, severely altering the status quo, will simply not just fix everything. It can and may in fact wreck the economy and people's lives. However some people, especially those with money can and will make massive amounts of money from this. Which will come from many people with little or no money where their money can be gleaned off of them, easily acquired, then piped up to the rich and money managers of various types.

Those Gods have been mostly whittled down into a single God. Though some religions have warned us against false idols, it is in our nature to raise some of those up among us to that stature if not of Gods, of saviors. There is always someone ready to fulfill that role. Someone who usually claims to hold long established beliefs while cloaking them in new cloth, dazzling us, deluding us, deceiving us.

Like the Idiot Trump who you could call iTrump for short, where people here are voting for that same type of quick fix that will fix nothing and only make matters worse..

Why?

Desperation, of course, with a healthy does of frustration. What else should one expect when one keeps supporting the abuses, who keep taking all the money, twisting things around to where people think it's those they oppose who are really only trying to protect the abused masses against those, once again, whom the abused continue to support.

In order to fix what they have allowed to be broken over so many years they cannot even see it, cannot fathom it. They are selecting the tiger to kill the same tiger who is eating the flock.

Idiocy? Pure and simple. There is where your simplicity lay.

Or are people merely ignorant and desperate?

You decide. Decide not on wishful thinking however, but on reality.

Only then may we fix what was never broken but designed to fulfill a specific function in taking from some who have little and giving to others who have much. Taking from those many who have little, to give to the few who have so much already.

Camus said the meaning of life was whatever you tell yourself in order to stop yourself from killing yourself. Is that what religion is all about, avoiding suicide? And if whatever that is doesn't get its way, it will take the rest of us with it too?

BTW, speaking of stupidity, did you know that some students at private schools in Louisiana have been taught that Scotland’s fabled Loch Ness monster is real. A claim that is then held as evidence disproving Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, as was once reported in The Scotsman?

Or this (there are unending examples, really:

Texas Court Says Citizens Can Skip Education If They Believe The Rapture Is Coming

Robert Reich said yesterday (June 26, 2016):

"Donald Trump is the least-qualified person ever to run for the presidency of the United States; Hillary Clinton is among the most qualified. But, unfortunately, this election isn't about qualifications. It's about whether the populist wave that's gripped America turns authoritarian or reformist.
"I worry Hillary doesn’t see the anti-establishment rage here (and in other advanced nations -- see article, below). I fear she doesn't understand how different 2016 is from 1992, when Bill Clinton ran as a moderate Democrat, or 1996, when he moved to the center and “triangulated” between Democrats and Republicans. So she'll continue to run a cautious campaign based mainly on her competence and experience, and won't stand up to the privileged and powerful – the big corporations, Wall Street, and billionaires – who have rigged the economy against the rest of America."

I was for Hilary, until Bernie entered the 2016 race for President, then I was for Bernie, until he was no longer in the race (though he's in the run for helping America to get back on track again). Now I'm back to Hilary, because...Trump and because...Republicans and conservative in general. And stupidity. I'm personally anti-stupid. Which I see as ignorance plus. Ignorance is noble, when properly earned and eventually updated. However remaining ignorant in the face of information is planned and sustained ignorance, selected ignorance, or just plain... stupidity.

Want one about guns and stupidity (come on, it's a natural): Gun Advocate Mother shoots and kills her two daughters letting her husband get away. Honestly this is about mental illness in this country too, but it's something that is tightly interwoven in all this. I've said for years this psychological need for guns has more to do with mental health of America than anything else. The claims of gun rights don't hold up in reading the 2nd Amendment and this overbearing need for protection just isn't what the claims are proven by the stats.

Brexit is another issue that came to the world courtesy of the uneducated, the not so well educated elders, and commoners, much as we're seeing in America along with the foolish Trumpettes (or divisive capitalist). It would appear then if the young and educated are voting more sanely, we are now seeing the beginning of the end of racism and nationalism, even perhaps isolationism, in many ways in these two countries.

Are we also seeing in these difficult times the death throes of many things that have long been inculcated within us and in which we should be welcoming their demise?

There is some hope, albeit not from America, but Canada where in Alberta they have banned money from corporations and unions, a step in the right direction to protect people and not just money.

There is however this just in, from the Supreme Court on the ridiculousness of at least one of the ludicrous Texas Abortion Laws from one of our southern and rather brain damaged states..

It may take another generation still but we're starting to have a younger populace who is more used to diversity, change and making rational decisions against what has long been believed, even without evidence or with evidence we now have to the contrary. Information technologies and news for profit have polarized us. But also have shined a bright light on long unspoken feelings of tribalism and the many problems with ancient beliefs which do not evolve along with changing realities.

These are surely disturbing and in some ways horrible times. But they also signal to us a reason and a hope. A hope finally for a return of reason, something we can now almost see on the distant horizon. Though you may still have to look very carefully to see it, also notice the obstacles that will be in the way before it arrives fully upon us.

Do know however, that it is on that horizon.

Oh and just who is, The Fool? I'll let you decide. And our future levels of Prosperity.

3+ Points Against the Anti-Gun Control Argument

Stupid.

That's what all this discussion, arguing, disagreement, lies, twisted logic and outright logical fallacies are about gun control. Stupid.

Speaking of Stupid with a capital "S", we have to mention the NRA and either their tactics (brilliant as they work, or stupid as they are in the worst interests of the citizenry). Here's an interesting article on how blatant they are about their tactics.

Just circle back around later and check these links out; I've supplied you with a few to gather further info from. Just be sure to also read this, FROM a self-professed "gun nut":
Why Gun Nuts Lie – I Know From Experience.

Let's set the tone with this:

Now real quick on the NRA being stupid...regarding their comment that, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy"...there's so many ways that concept immediately goes wrong:

First sign you have a problem? For most people? If you're always carrying a gun.

Not to mention firing into usually the dark in a theater or a club missing and hitting an innocent, or hitting the bad guy even killing him and your bullet goes on to kill an innocent, or ricochet and wounding someone. Shooting another "good" guy with a gun who was trying to stop the bad guy with gun. The list goes on.

The honest truth about guns in this country is that this need just doesn't happen often enough for the mentality of all people claiming to need guns for protection. Besides, it abdicates the responsibility from law makers, police and gun manufacturers for them to do something more useful and widespread. It's a child's solution to a problem, really.

The problem as I see it is that we think that a right abdicates control. In having the right to guns, even if that were true from what the 2nd Amendment indicates, we have abdicated the culture and then we just throw people into ownership. These people have not grown up with guns as those did in the past, where a gun was life. It's not LIFE now.

We have supermarkets for food, we have police and fire departments for life saving. And yet we pretend life is still like it is back in the 1700s. It's not. Yes it takes time for police to arrive and they are frequently only good for clean up and reporting. But this is nothing like the 1700s with no phones, no established governmental protections in police, medical and military if and when needed. The mere existence of those things changes the situation greatly.

You have to be raised into a gun culture to have one. Not suddenly join it as an adult and expect things will be just fine overall. For the most part things are going well, but they certainly are not perfect by any means or we wouldn't be seeing mass shootings using weapons designed to kill masses of people.

So if you suddenly want to bring a gun into your life, you need proper indoctrination first!
There's a lot to get through here so I'll go through my three points, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, and then skip through some things and offer other places you can get more and even better information about this sad topic that mostly faux conservatives and the NRA have abused America over.

Even Pres. Reagan, Pres. Bush Sr. and many others going back into the 80s thought what the NRA started to do and has done, were disgusting abuses of rational arguments about guns. We have a police and military now unlike at the founding of this country and what this nonsense does is disrespect all of them in their efforts.

First of all we're ALL into gun control. Or at least studying it for some answers. As the AMA has just pointed out, it's time to lift the ridiculous ban on the CDC studying gun violence..

To say otherwise is, well...stupid. No one wants (some do) excessive gun control. It's still America (mostly and at least until the next election in November). I just don't think we need too loose of gun control. People are dying, something needs to be done, pretty much, end of story. Only a really truly foolish individual would say we should do anything at all in any way possible about the current rash of mass shootings these past years.

People who correlate "Freedom" and guns. Stupid. I'm sick of Constitutional originalists. The Constitution is a "living document". How do you prove that? Easy. If it wasn't it would never have been amended, ever. We have the Supreme Court whose job it is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution in the climate of the times so that it IS the functional document that it has been.

Besides, freedom actually has nothing whatsoever to do with guns or gun control.

It's just that they've been linked together for so long, only the uneducated, the alleged "conservative", the faux "patriot", the greedy and the simply firearms addicted think that it does. They think it has everything to do with it in fact. The times and climate on this topic is finally changing as the Supreme Court rules states have the right to ban assault weapons.

About the 2nd Amendment:

"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."

Nothing whatsoever is stated about purchasing arms in that. Or what type of. People focus too much on the wrong elements, giving emphasis to the wrong things in that Amendment.

There's three points in that statement that we need to pay particular attention to, and which get very little understanding and correct attention to. 

1. A "well regulated" militia (or I'd allow, citizenry) is important. 

2. And so, a "Militia" is important. 

3. Finally to "keep and bear arms" is important. 

But not in the ways you might think. 

To understand the problems we face with this issue one has to examine what the Founding Fathers thought and said back then, and then consider the evolution of society at large, of this nation, of technology and of the world in general.

Take some of the Founding Fathers' comments. 

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."

- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"Disciplined". That's important. It eliminates issues like what we're seeing today. A well disciplined soldier, or people for that matter, do not perform mass shootings such as we see today. Nor do they kill innocents. 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

That is to say like, what? That we shall not be kept from any form of weapon whatsoever? Or that we shall not be kept entirely from any weapon to wit, in that we are not allowed to have any kind of arm at all? That is a big disparity. 

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

First consider he is thinking not necessarily as being indentured by the state, but in relation to outright slavery as he was after all, a slave owner, as were many who were considered "normal" and "decent" people back then. 

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

This is a good one. Back then taking arms to resist was not just to battle another force, but to show up in force, armed, to make a point, to be taken seriously. And also if necessary, in the consideration not of our own government being the enemy, but of the British empire.

Our government was set up as the "Great Experiment" so that we would not have to live that way, fearful of our own government since it would be and is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. 

The Founding Fathers would be horrified to hear conservatives now a days talking about needing to be armed to protect themselves from their own government. From This Government. 

Back in those days, armed resistance was not an unnatural thing. Today things have changed dramatically. WE do not need to show up armed to make a point because we have our government. We also have a standing army, in multiple branches, which is the most powerful in the world, as well as a well regulated National Guard and police force of various levels (local, state and national). 

What is so sad about conservatives who believe we need to remained armed is that they obviously do not respect our government, themselves or other Americans as they should. With all its warts and embellishments, difficulties, dissatisfactions and difficulties, this is still our, OUR... government. 

So what about those words, those phrases then?

"Well regulated" is important. "Militia" is important. "Keep and bear arms" is important. 

Well regulated does not mean we should be allowed as citizens to walk into any gun store and buy any weapon. It doesn't mean any citizen either, UNLESS they are "well regulated". Many take that to mean a militia, or an army.

Our Founding Fathers were leary of a standing national army. Because of Britain. However as we grew up as a nation we grew to need and understand the importance of having a standing army and thus the United States Military came into being. 

From Wikipedia:

"After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly given land certificates and disbanded in a reflection of the republican distrust of standing armies. State militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The Regular Army was at first very small, and after General St. Clair's defeat at the Battle of the Wabash, the Regular Army was reorganized as the Legion of the United States, which was established in 1791 and renamed the "United States Army" in 1796."

Well regulated also means that if you want a gun, you have to be, well, regulated. That means laws and certifications. Training. It also means responsibility for you bearing, storing, maintaining your arms. But in today's conservatively nauseating climate, people wish to believe it means we are all granted a right to have any mechanized weaponry. Nonsense.

We could point out here that when some today say to bear arms includes assault weapons, or if you prefer rapid fire, high capacity mechanized firearms, it can also simply mean, swords and knives, clubs and well who knows what medieval weaponry besides modern firearms. 

I would argue what it should mean is if you want a revolver or bolt action hunting rifle, you need to be trained, learn respect of a killing machine that you will have and store in your home correctly and no you do NOT get carte blanche, a blanket bill to just have a gun with no training, no reasonable storage considerations and so on. Much as it is now.

If you wish to have a semi automatic handgun or rifle, then you need more formal training and you need to own appropriate storage for those weapons and protection of those weapons when you are using them OR storing them.

NO one should ever be able to take your weapon, whether you are carrying it loaded, unloaded, or in storing it when you are either at home or away. 

A well regulated citizenry bearing arms would be a safe and sane citizenry. 

Which brings up the next term, Militia. 

What is a militia and what did the Founding Fathers intend by that term? I'm really not going to get into that morass of nonsense as it's bandied about and argued over today. Just let it be said that they were referring to the citizenry back then who were the army, who were not a standing army, but who could be called upon at a moment's notice to serve the country.

Who nowadays is ready to drop their lives and go into the Army if need be? We're not talking eighteen year olds either. Anyone of any age, granted focused more so on the young and strong enough to fight and die for their country. And sometimes foolish enough to follow orders. Which is why they don't seen old men into harm's way when they can avoid it, aside from the obvious physical issues age brings along with it.

The point there is since we've already given up on that concept as dysfunctional and problematic, raising an army from the citizenry only when needed, something we did at the birth of our nation out of necessity, then we need to understand the term militia for today to mean something entirely different, and if not unnecessary.

It doesn't mean the same anymore, we don't have the same anymore, and frankly, it points out this part of the 2nd Amendment needs to be rewritten to fit the new situation. For one thing the professionalism and complexity of militaries have gotten to a point that far outpaces that of an instant citizen army. Possibly you could do what Israel does and yet, we do not. Nor do we have an enemy on our borders such as they do. And no, we do not. We have oceans, Mexico and Canada. 

Finally the third point, to "keep and bear arms". 

Nowhere in this does it say people can buy guns. Or what type of guns. It cannot mean assault rifles because they simply didn't exist in 1791. I think the Founding Fathers would be stunned and horrified to learn of the compact and massive firepower we have today and that we allow citizens to own military grade weaponry. Certainly military grade by 1791 standards.

Consider this article on the phrase:

"Among the numerous amicus briefs submitted is the so-called "Linguists' Brief", written by Dennis E. Baron, Richard W. Bailey, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan. This brief argues that the Second Amendment protects only a public right on two grounds: the afore-mentioned interpretation of the leading clause, and the argument that the expression "bear arms" refers only to the organized military use of arms, not to individual use. They claim that the term "bear arms" is "an idiomatic expression that means 'to serve as a soldier, do military service'".

Taking the phrase as it was in general use back then, it means something different than we understand it to mean today.

And this is a final nail in the coffin on conservatives arguing for guns for all as a right:

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

It goes on further to state that contrary to what some ignorant conservatives think today, they were not fearful of our government against the people but of a militia against the government as well as the people. Which I would argue almost (but not quite) indicates for the nation today to disarm people out of protection rather than have them fully armed.

"This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

"Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition."

See?

And finally this passage as if they were viewing conservatives today in their admonitions of ridiculous contentions over and over again against our nation:

"Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs."

You could also argue that the way the phrase was written refers to the government giving us weapons that we could keep and carry. Then that gets into when we would be given them, and when we could be carrying them. Considering back then many had their own guns they used in battle under the banner of the US flag and constitution, we can't expect the government to give us arms to keep and carry and if they did, as they do when you are in a real army, you actually need to use them to go to war. 

When you are off duty in the military you give up your arms, which are then stored in an armory, guarded by armed guards. So then you can't go get drunk and kill your sergeant or friends if you get mad at them during your off periods where you're not just killing the enemy. 

It begs the question, if they refer to citizens keeping and bearing arms at home whenever they like or, only during war, but in that our own government could remove all arms from citizens. And yet this says nothing about which arms are being referred to or how many per person.

Technically the 2nd Amendment could just be saying everyone can have a .22 long rifle or a shotgun to kill rabbits with for food and to use for protection against property or home invaders. Which is to say, burglars and criminals. But that doesn't mean using an assault rifle for home protection which any professional would point out is ludicrous. 

The degree to which people today have abused the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is pathetic. When we have a climate as we do today that includes mass shooters, snipers of public citizens, political assassinations, and terrorist attacks by foreign as well as nationalists, the 2nd Amendment needs again to be reconsidered and handled in such a way appropriate so as to fit our needs today, our current technologies and situations. 

We have to consider not only what the 2nd Amendment means, what it's original intent was, but also what we need it to mean today, how we consider what we have already agreed to do in many ways over many years and, how we have accepted the current meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments.

These are just three of the points we need to clearly understand while not allowing some group like the NRA to subvert and abuse us as a nation for their own slighted agenda and for greed and for power. In light of the disgusting travesties like the Orlando Pulse massacre we can not sit idly by doing nothing, yet again. But we need to stand up to the bullies like the NRA and actually do something useful.

Background checks are the least we can do, as is disallowing those on a Terrorist (TSA) No Fly List from buying guns. Which is not the much larger Terrorist Watch List which people keep confusing with the No Fly List.

What to do if you find you're on a No Fly List.

There is also no reason we need to access a firearm on the same day of purchase and it is wise for there to be a waiting period. I would argue a much longer one than what has been typical in being only three days. We want a gun today when we finally get the money for one. But we don't have to have it, the nation doesn't need to have us need to have it the same day.

In waiting to receive a weapon, it gives us a chance to run a proper background check, to give hot headed potential murderers a chance to calm down, those few who would benefit by a cooling off period, and it exemplifies to us all the import and respect of receiving, owning, and having the right to own, a firearm. 

Firearms purchases should force us to require much planning and thought and most of all respect for their purpose and reason for existing, attaining and retaining. For their purpose is, to kill. Even if you only ever use one for target practice. If you buy cars with the intent purposes of driving them off cliffs so they fly for a moment or two, they were still constructed to be driven.

NOTE on the term "assault rifle":

Don't call them assault rifles! Conservatives don't respond properly to that just as with much of reality and rationality. I'm so sick of their twisting everything just to get their own way.

Many of them believe assault rifles were named as such by the left wing media in the 90s for the assault weapons ban. When really it came about by weapons manufacturer Brunswick Corporation (yes the bowling ball people, among their many other products) way back in 1977 for their RAW (Rifleman's Assault Weapon) rifle, later used by the US Marines in the 1990s.

One could even argue that Hitler's storm rifle translates as the 1943 "assault rifle". From German Sturmgewehr ("assault rifle", literally "storm rifle"). The Maschinenpistole 44 was called the Sturmgewehr by Adolf Hitler, whence it was renamed to represent the separate class of firearm it represented. From assault + rifle.

Wikipedia:
"Others say the firearms industry itself introduced the term "assault weapon" to build interest in new product lines.[8] Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons (2008) wrote:

"The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.[24]"

So for all our sake and that of conservatives so they stop looking even dumber than normal, consider possibly calling them:

FBBGs (for Fast Bang Bang Guns).

Not enough? Want more? The tide may be changing.

SCOTUS on domestic violence.

How about this:

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

Let's face it, civilians do not need military style weapons. Join the military if you want to play soldier and guess what? If you do you don't get to keep your automatic or semi auto weapon in your barracks room while off duty. Unless perhaps if you're actually soldiering, in a war environment. Then it's only reasonable. Because your soldiering, in a war theatre.

Here's a good one....

Breaking Down Gun Nuts: 10 Ways to Determine if Someone is Too Mentally Ill to Own Guns

And now this....

The 2nd Amendment Wasn’t Written To Mean ‘Let Any Damn Idiot Have A Gun’

And if that wasn't the nail in the coffin, this surely is....

From MarketWatch:
"Opinion: What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you" by Brett Arends

Just a touch from that article....

"The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.

"What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government."

I wish you all the best. I wish us all the best....

And now, from Amy Schumer, this.

Orlando's Pulse Massacre - Just Whose Thoughts Led to the Killings? Slabbies?

CNN news headline June 12, 2016: "A gay nightclub here was the scene early Sunday of the worst terror attack in U.S. history since 9/11." Omar Mateen of Ft. Pierce, Florida in a hate crime, murdered many people he didn't even know, all out of stupidity, of foolish beliefs, of disgust at what was unfamiliar to him and undesirable. As if he had any right to act on another's life. Washington Post reported on what the killer's wife had to say about him and her experiences with him.

My heart goes out to those killed or damaged in the massacre this morning at the Orlando night club, Pulse. However my mind and an intense sense of justice reaches out to all those who would wish to, or to do harm to others all because of their own delusional belief system. Be they themselves delusional or insane, or a miscreant jihadi following their misguided path. A path never laid down by their belief in their sense of a small, destructive prophet (little "p"), rather than a great Prophet professing a sense of positive worth and community among all people of the world.

Or be they one of our own nationalist bigots or their leaders, including their semi knowledgeable fool led by his jesters and running for office as yet another, albeit even worse example of a Republican president, all while we are seeing what that can lead to if allowed to propagate unchecked.

These death throes of stupid belief systems are always painful for those foolishly continuing to believe well beyond their usefulness. As well as for all those others of us who have to suffer their extended continuance and eventual demise along with them and theirs until they have once and for all been cauterized and sloughed off from the flesh of all humanity.

If all the weapons used in the Pulse killings were illegal, would this still have happened? Surely it could still happen at times and in places but far fewer I'm sure. Which really proves that case. But it's beside the point.

We might see more bombs being used then (and more bombers blowing themselves up accidentally at home). Or as in recent Asian cases in past years, knives or hatchets could be used instead. Some people originally thought seat belts were a government plot, but they saved lives. Maybe we shouldn't have more than bolt action rifles if we have to have guns. Whatever the solution, it is not in doing nothing. It is in doing something. Many somethings.

This is not about just Islam. This is not about just religion. This is not about bigotry. This is not just about mental health issues. It is about us, in general, people in general. It is about our culpability in allowing people to continue to think deffectively, to follow old, outdated beliefs, to act on ancient rights when they affect others especially in a negative fashion.

We have not taken up the call to see that everyone has healthcare as a right and mental healthcare even more so. Rather than demand these as our most important rights, we have allowed the issue to be subverted to where the concern about our most important right, the right of freedom, has become concern over the right to own and bear arms.

We have continued to give a wink and a nod to religion in general for far too long. We have allowed people questioning science over religion and people in power or in wont of power to lie in public and get away with it. We have allowed too many to push negative agendas on our country and others. We, have allowed.

All any of this means is that this is more about an attitude we need to change. Attitudes about people, about weapons, about fellow citizens, about fellow humans. Attitudes about the real, and not the unreal, or the unreal that appears as real to some.

There is no reason women cannot wear what they like or even walk around naked for that matter and not have to fear rape or abuse. There is no reason we cannot all have guns and yet not experience mass shootings. Though some common sense controls are reasonable and conscionable.

It is our national as well as overall international attitudes about certain things that needs to be changed. Not just possession or potential possession of implements of destruction. We need to grow up, we need to force those others to grow up, to stop acting like their ancients all now long dead along with their beliefs, which should in many cases have died along with them. Some of us need to stop thinking that destruction is good, that nihilism is God, that self is all important.

Any belief system that is found to be anti human needs to be dealt with. Bringing in beliefs from otherworldly issues into the physical realm that lead to negative actions against others, needs to be dealt with. I don't really have a problem with religion, other than I find it sad people cannot find a more up to date way to see the universe and live their lives. However we need to monitor and address religion or any belief system that starts to skew in a way that is against humanity.

If we cannot eradicate religious type belief from the world, we can at least try to control them. It could itself at least try to control itself enough to allow it to be a productive and beneficial force in the world, rather than ever have the opposite effects, ever again. If it were a true and proper thing.

We need to cry out openly against idiocies such as how we don't need to worry about the human or even non human elements of climate change merely because some believe that God will fix it all. Or how we should kill now for belief in issues of an afterlife later. We need to stop giving an open card to those who believe in nonsense.

Believe in your religion, just keep it to yourself, or at very least, do not use it to affect other's who do not see life as you do. Give them the good grace they give you in allowing you the freedom to practice your religion, as long as you keep it in your own garden. Just keep it out of ours, unless we invite you in.

But as I said, this isn't so much about religion as someone who was mentally unbalanced. Did religion lead him there so he could step out of its bounds into what it doesn't teach. Or does? It doesn't matter, really.

When conservatism or fundamentalism becomes reductionistic to a point that it goes backwards, it leads only and ever to the negative and destructive. If we are to have prejudice, it should be against those thoughts that lead people to their negative prejudices and destructive actions. We need to act over all in a way more productive than those who do so against us. Those on the sidelines too need to see and act.

Until that happens, we will continue to see life exemplified in this fashion, with guns, with bombs, with knives and with killings for the stupidest of reasons, with bigotry, ignorance and disgust, with the salaciousness of one's mind seen as a positive thing, rather than with a spirit of humanity and community, as it should be.

Freedom.

I keep hearing this from conservatives. It's all about freedom. Cuz we're 'Merikans! Obviously they do not understand freedom and how government is involved with protecting that and us.

What is freedom and how do we judge when to pull back from it? Total security is no freedom, total freedom is no security. It's a balance.

It is when human lives are too valuable to throw away on the pile of lives given to "freedom".

Did we lose the "right" to freedom in having no seat belts in our cars in order to save our lives? Anyone who has been in even a minor accident and whose life or limbs were saved by a seat belt has no qualms about the seat belt laws.

When we finally find that a "freedom" is too costly for us, that is when we pull back and therein find our level of freedom and balance with protection by our government. Government who really is in the end, us.

It is time we pull back here and now, too. Yes we also need to pay better attention and funding to mental health and inter agency communication to catch people like the Orlando shooter, but also have the laws to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. This evisceration of funding by so called conservatives for our mental health facilities is criminal, too.

The argument that we have a need for firearms to protect citizens from our government is really past. And quite foolish. Childish even in it's understanding of reality.

It's time for the adults we have put in place to govern and protect us to do their job and not just be shills of the NRA and corporations in their pursuits of the filthy lucre over that of human lives.

This is where all lives matter. Black, white, or all others; be they Gay, straight, Muslim or Christian, or all others. Here and in the final justification...Americans, and Human Beings.

Americans, over that of failed conservative ideologies toward money and killing machines.

Addendum, June 15, 2016:

I got up this morning considering the word, "Terrorist" and wondering, is this what we're seeing today? Now that I think about it, I've mentioned this before, in fact I think I've written entire blogs about this. I just looked and since I started this blog in 2010 I have, out of over 1,200+ blog articles, 83 on terrorism with more than a few mentioning this.

Should we use the word terrorist?
I mean, are YOU terrorized? I'm not.
i'm pissed off at how every cowardly little reprobate nobody loser can achieve fame and go out in their own perceived blaze of glory rushing toward their 72 grapes in a kind of Twilight Zone Muslim heaven (small "h" like in my book, Death of heaven, which frankly, fits their stupid childish beliefs in all this and is kind of the point of my book in the first place).

"Pissorist" maybe would be a more appropriate term as I'm only pissed off at cowards who indiscriminately kill people who have no bearing on anything related to any cause that might be claims as a reason for murder, and other than hatred.

But these aren't really Haterists. They conflate themselves and their cause and so want us to use terrorist.

That was when, in looking up the etymology of the word terrorist today, I found this article from after Charlie Hebdo...the author doesn't give us a proper alternative but nearly anything would be better than what we are in my view, incorrectly using now and to the murderer's benefit, to our detriment and to the benefit of the media in drawing our attention and making a buck on it (as always).

They are learning too, but all too slowly. Like the dumb person in the room. slowly coming to realize there are better ways to interact in social situations (like these cowardly murderers), Better ways to be a servant of the people, as they are and need to recognize they should be, rather than merely a subject of their masters in the board room and their own unrecognized ignoble lust for notoriety.

How about just, Snarky Little Bitches with Weapons?
SLBwWs,
SLaBwuhs.
Or just for short, SLaBs, for where they belong, dead, on a slab.
Of course I'd prefer to get them the mental health help they need before they decide to join that bitchy little Daesh organization. (and no offense meant to actual bitches here, sorry ya'll).
But I think I'm onto something. Stop labeling them as what they are going to or are doing and start labeling them for where they'll end up.
On a slab, so, slabbies. Something really uncool sounding, yes?

"Terrorist" as someone pointed out to me, is a term from the government. I'll be needing to talk to President Obama about this. Still, the media can call them whatever they want and they have even mentioned this before themselves. But they use what affects us the most and that is, terrorism.
Still, I say we call them "slabbies" from here on....

Anti-Intellectualism in America

There is a trend of anti-intellectualism in America that has been growing these past decades. Anti-intellectualism is pro-fascism and even pro capitalism. It is also pro religion.

Intellectualism on  the other hand is pro democracy. It is for all intents and purposes, pro human.

There is a scene in 2003s, The Last Samurai where the Samurai says about Tom Cruise's character, "There must be a reason why he is here." A very interesting statement. One that holds great sense, although it is patently misunderstood the world over and throughout most of time.

"There must be a reason why he is here."

This must refer to fate, to predestination, to God's plan. Right?

But is that what it is really being said?

Or is it saying:

"We must find the best possible reason for his existence here" in order for it to make sense, for us to make sense, of it.

That is to say, we need to find the most positive and productive way to explain his being here in this situation and how his being here makes things better and in what way, or how we can utilize his existing in this situation to enhance that situation for those who it should enhance their situation (and is that us?).

Or to put a good and positive message that can be used for others to make their life better or to offer them a useful allegory they can use in their own life.

It isn't however saying, "God put him here, we must find why in order to assuage God's desires."

And yet, so many people take it as meaning just that.

In The Untold History of Modern U.S. Education, it says:

"Education must also train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking. To think incisively and to think for one's self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half-truths, prejudices, and propaganda. At this point, I often wonder whether education is fulfilling its purpose.

"A great majority of the so called educated people do not think logically or scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us the objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education."

This is the road we have been on for a very long time. Where we do not respect and venerate the old, wisdom, and history. Where we do not give credence to knowledge over our own perceived exceptionalism.

There was an article from 2014 that discusses how there is in America, as they titled it, The cult of ignorance in the United States: Anti-intellectualism and the "dumbing down" of America.

When and why is that happening? Where is it leading us? Where has it led us?

Seeking the highest possible understanding of anything cannot harm us, it can only harm some people's sensibilities. We have become more concerned about our feelings than reality.

What in the hell were we thinking?

Another article by Professor Patrick Deneen explains how kids have become a generation of know-nothings.

If we don't turn this about soon, and with extreme prejudice, I'm unsure how we will sustain an America as we've known it, or as it should be. At this rate Americanism will become a slang term for stupid, for wasting a good thing, rather than all the many other great things we have and should have stood for, for so very long.