2nd Amendment, Delusion Revisited

I certainly prefer art over politics for all the obvious reasons. It seems pretty apparent today, especially looking at our current disaster of a POTUS, his thoroughly misled and confused conservative base and his GOP leaders that there are far more geniuses and visionaries in art than politics and government.

That being said, it occurs to me just now that the 2nd Amendment clearly and prejudicially states, it points out ... "well-regulation", "militia" and "keeping/bearing arms". No kidding, right?

That means using correct and appropriate gun control/ regulations. Well regulated. So, background checks, obviously. Sane gun laws, not stupid anti protection knee jerk conservative disinformation supported by Russian and profiteering groups like NRA and gun manufacturers.

Just because the Russians took the Czech's guns in 1967 really has no bearing on our Constitution. And I have heard that as the reason the 2nd Amendment has to be and mean what some want it to, again and again. Thus we can't have ... gun laws? Seriously? That cannot be an adult's position. Because that would be delusional.

But then, we are Americans and we do have our delusions. Just look at who's president now. And what it takes on a personal psychological basis to still support him. Donald Trump is not a serious consideration for the White House. Never was, isn't now. Never will be.

As such:

“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.”

Skipping we did not have a standing army or national guard then and we do now for some time, precluding the need for citizens to keep or bear arms...

That Amendment clearly states one important element that is not ever in this form, considered in arguments for or against.

That if citizens outright have that right (which is not clear, honestly), they need regulation and the "orientation" of militia. I am not saying int hat they need to belong TO a militia but that they need by requirement the training and education of a militia. And considering the advancement, since the Amendment was written, it's now a matter of higher education between the various types and powers of today's weaponry.

How that translates today would be, not that any citizens could go out and buy and own a gun, and/or carry one either in plain sight or concealed, it is to be sure first a requirement by the Amendment they be trained or well regulated, or part of a militia and therefore well regulated and trained.

More guns aren't an answer, they are a desire. As with most things, sanity,
intelligence and acting appropriately are the answer.

I am not even seeing a question about that as a requirement for the right to keep and bear arms.

Therefore to acquire, own and bear arms, one should be trained by a priori requirement and justification... and to be sure, we need that all citizens with arms are competent in their use for the situations and environments the citizens would traverse in any potential and reasonable situation.

As of today, that is not the case.

To whit, citizens with arms and no APPROPRIATE training, AND THAT INCLUDES EX or ACTIVE MILITARY who do not just get to own a gun in civilian life as civilian environments are not military to be sure.. as IN A CIVILIAN ENVIRONMENT ... therefore we are at this time for those unregulated citizens, unconstitutional and illegal and those arms should be confiscated, until such time that citizens have acquired the appropriate training, indoctrination and education in each of the firearms they are to own or carry.

There is our right and reason to confiscate all firearms from all citizens who do not have the required training on each and every gun they own.

That alone would end so many mass shootings.

Who should pay for this training?

Well, if it's a Right, the nation, not individuals. That means taxes.

How much would this cost? A lot.

What would it do? Slow down and decrease gun ownership and increase the alignment of owning and using weaponry to an acceptable degree.

Why? Because many gun owners don't want education, just blind allowances to own devices to kill, without responsibility, without knowledge, education, or a cohesive knowledge about them to a degree they required and demand.


And what is demanded in the place of what is needed?

Entertainment. Guns fulfill one major component of gun owners and it's not safety.

It's entertainment and false sense of security against all the wrong things in all the wrong ways.

Our best protection against crime is support and empowerment of all citizens.

Our best protection against a tyrannical government? Education, Health Care, Sanity. Vision. All the things the GOP does nto support.

Face it. Voting Republicans out is our quickest way to a strong America.

And never again allow this kind of crazy into control of Congress and our Courts or the office of the President of the United States.

Have a gun. Just know what you have and how to care for it, use it and store it.

As previously stated, I certainly prefer art over politics for all the obvious reasons. It seems pretty apparent today, especially looking at our current disaster of a POTUS, his thoroughly misled and confused conservative base and his GOP leaders that there are far more geniuses and visionaries in art than politics and government.

Now, back to the people I know and work with who are so much more cohesively sane and informed...

Easily Debunking NRA's Wayne LaPierre's Lies

"Happy Mother's Day. You're child's been shot and killed."

This is life today in America and around the world. Except America has chosen it outright. We have argued it's a right. We have argued it's just as important as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, or is even greater than that.

We have got to lay to rest this nonsense about how:

"Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun."

First off, it's not true. Did we not only recently see how a young black man stopped a bad guy with a gun... with his bare hands?

Not that President Donald Trump would mention that in his racistly disparaged beliefs. Weren't there also two Marines in Belgium who did the same on a train just not that long ago?

Yes.

Certainly not the preferred method of going up against a gun, but it doesn't only take a gun, or a good guy.

After all, two guys rob a place, once starts shooting people, couldn't the bad guy suddenly go, "Hey, WTF?" And just shoot his partner because he may be a robber but not a murderer?

Yes.

There are some very serious realities that are being completely ignored in that soundbite pro gun nuts so dearly love to reiterate like (not smart parrots) but dumb mimics. You'll never hear reality (stated below) from these people, because they are in love with their guns and their hero worship complex.

MANY people who carry guns ARE looking to get to use them someday. That is really not what you want in a person carrying because they view it romantically. They see it more as a toy, entertainment, through a kind of faux hero syndrome filter. Not as what it is, a killing tool. Not as a machine of death, as it was designed to be. (oddly enough, they also deny that, much to the offense and confusion of gun manufacturers who put a lot of money and research into just that end)

MANY people who carry guns are carrying out of fear and will NOT use them in a real life shooter scenario unless their life is directly at risk. It just makes them feel safe. To pull a gun in a real scenario takes far more than they are willing to experience, and do not experience UNTIL they are faced with having to pull or not to pull a gun out and face down someone shooting at them. It's all fun and games until someone really is about to get hurt. And they know, they may miss entirely as they get gunned down.

MANY people who carry guns are not trained or not well trained. Sometimes not trained is better as they won't pull their gun when faced with death. A semi trained person can be a danger both to themselves and to others. When you can buy a gun and get a license to carry (or not and still carry), with no training whatsoever, you...YOU are the danger to society.

MANY people who carry guns will NOT ever pull out their gun and use it, UNLESS maybe directly threatened in a mass shooting and possibly, not even then. Facing down the reality of death evokes fight or flight, or FREEZE.

MANY people who carry guns will miss if they do pull and shoot, they will instead hit bystanders, never hitting the shooter at all. They will actually add to the death toll, the maiming count and in the end, the shooter could potentially get away or kill the "good" guy with a gun too, anyway. Effectively having helped in killing or harming as many as possible, which was the shooter's purpose in the first place. And how does THAT help the situation.

Let's not forget, some carring and pulling could potentially be shot by police when they arrive. Especially if you are black or a minority or look like a bad guy, merely from your dress. What if you're Muslim? Or just look Muslim? Police see a white guy who WAS shooting people, but they don't see his gun but instead yours, who's going to get shot?

These are the things you NEVER hear alluded to in that statement:

"Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun."

It's a trap. It avoids reality. It avoids dealing with the actual issues of there being guns killing innocent people in the first place.

It's a stop gap measure to add guns to stop guns, but it's not the solution, not the long term fix.

It just sounds good, and makes people feel like they are important.

And after all, that's what pro gun types and organizations like the NRA, the GOP, are all about.

We're better than that. We CAN be, better than that.

BE, better than that.

Militarized Policing?

Cops aren't the military.

I've been saying that for decades now. Policing, is vastly different paradigm than military action, even when it appears the same. The fundamental principles behind policing are and need to be, vastly different. What's so hard to understand about that for police?

We actually do not need a militarized police force. Not in equipment, certainly not in mentality and especially not in tactics in a civilian environment. Yes, it counter intuitively appears to be the same at times, though mostly by police on the front lines. That's understandable. But that is a misunderstanding both of need and of the design of policing itself.

Why are they there? Why this desire to militarize? To protect the police?

NO. They are there to protect the citizenry. WITHIN that paradigm, there is a need to protect police. However what we're seeing is the opposite far too often anymore. All because of a misalignment of reality between the process and purpose of To Serve and Protect, and that of the military. And a conservative desire to reuse old military equipment, so they give it to the police departments. Dress like a soldier, you begin to think like one.

It's the old psychosocial Stanford prison experiment, take a like group of students, separate them into guards and prisoners and within time, abuse starts to happen, an embattled mindset takes place and we have what we see now. Police and their enemies the public; citizens and their enemies, the police.

Even our citizens now want to militarize. What do you think the pro grun movement is all about? As we see police showing up militarized to public protests, so you see citizens arming up looking militarized too, simply out of protection.

David French, Columnist, (the conservative) National Review recently said:

"They're shown [police in training] video after video and told story after story about routine calls that immediately escalate into fatal encounters. This truth, however, sometimes leads to a deception, to a mindset that enhances the sense of risk way out of proportion to the actual threat."

That is, the truth, the statistics show, in reality, that most police \ citizen encounters are vastly non violent, and not fatal. But that is hard to tell some police who work in intense environments. They may indeed need special training. But they are the few, and they too need to understand that community policing is not military handling.

Even the military in urban environments in the Middle East have had to receive police training to deal with citizens. Because they are vastly different issues requiring an entirely different mindset. Asking soldiers to do this may be asking too much. But it is a new world.

Part of the police problem and the reason for their mindset is consistently abusive under funding. As we've seen with teachers in education. We abuse our citizen servants to the point of twisting their own realities around at times to near and utter dysfunction. Then we expect them to perform at a high degree and abuse them more when they do not.

And so we see illiterate and criminal activities from children and our police killing our kids. Even our kids killing our kids. But blaming them is missing the point of what is really going on. You cannot refuse to pay for services, then expect them to be functional services. It warps reality, mindsets, social structures, and an entire nation. That creeps over into our international relations, actions and support.

We are infecting the world with a bad way of thinking. and it all comes back to how we pay for our own needs and how we rationalize our own dysfunctions.

Jamelle Bouie (Afghanistan Vet), Columnist, Slate, recently:

"Trump is so vocal about what he likes and dislikes--so present in the national conversation--that his omissions are often more revealing than his comments. On the rare occasions when this president is silent, it is consistently when confronted with violence against nonwhites."

And let's face it, Putin, too. And women Trump has sexually used and\or abused.

Donald Trump has consistently been massively wrong about so very many things, so many facts, so much of our reality to the point that it's literally killing us and ruining our lives. He is ruining the reputation of America, he is altering our path in future endeavors that will take decades to get back on track.

But only he can save us, he tells us. Yet it's not just him, it is his entire Republican party in their ignorance and refusal to admit what they know to be right and true. It has bled out in things like the Drug War on American citizens. On immigration issues. On social programs. On protections Americans have paid for and are now told they don't deserve.

All because of mismanagement, poor political thinking and actions and believing in ignorant leaders who have sold us down the road for their own profit and that of their dysfunctional beliefs, party and supporters.

We can start to fix all of this, in small steps. Like policing America properly. Funding police, teachers, education overall, health and mental health care, properly. To see all Americans can have health care, education and that their country loves them and no longer sees them as an old Testament problem and as a cancer to be cut out, but as citizens who are part and parcel of this nation and are our best and only concern.


#Police #NRA #GOP #POTUS #realDonaldTrump #Teachers

Putin's Dictatorial Attacks While Holding Russia Hostage

This March 15, 2018 interview by Christiane Amanpour from London, was a VERY important and interesting one. I hadn't thought about polling in Russia in this way. I hadn't thought about Russian actions as not the actions of a State, but of Putin. I knew it as Putin, but through the State. A very interesting set of issues were brought up in this interview.

I've said this many times having studied USSR, their State apparatus, Russia, their people, their leaders. I have great respect for the Russian people, but in a way as we are with Trump, only for them it is far, far worse, they are held hostage by Putin and his criminal elements in the Russian State secret services, their oligarchs and mafia.

Ex world chess champion and activist Kasparov had run for president in Russia and well, they didn't let him. Another ran and was simply shot. Murdered. He murdered an ex spy in the UK just before his election. Why? REALLY? Why? Seriously. It's quite obvious, isn't it?

Life in Russia under Putin, right? That's what you get in an ex KGB operative becoming leader of a long abused culture, the freedom to continue to abuse it, only in using Soviet and KGB tactics to run it. Like murdering political opponents and ex spies as allegedly just happened in the UK.

About expelling Russian diplomats Garry said:

They're still treating them as a state. Go after those individuals, oligarchs, Putin, go after the money. THEY don't care about the State, about national interests! Don't go after the State. Go after people who actually make the difference. Make them choose between following Putin's criminal orders and their fortunes, their money, their families. Stop looking at this as there is war or no war

Not unlike putting someone like #realDonaldTrump in power as #POTUS. He's going to do what he learned to get away with as a corporate leader who had free reign and cleaned up any wrong doings he did to achieve his status and then do it again. And now, he's president.

Surely, Trump isn't smart enough to be a Putin, nor brave enough (but definitely foolish enough), nor can he have the range of actions Putin does in a Russia of today. Give him time. Do not, allow him a second term or to complete this one. The damage he already has done will take decades to rectify, or even to discover.

Garry rejected Christiane's contention that Putin is popular in Russia, saying, you cannot apply western things such as voting and polling and so on to Russia. It has no meaning there. When there is only one restaurant in town, how do you say it is the most popular one when it's the only one available?

If Putin were popular, why does he have to run for president in this fashion to guarantee a win. Why has he never once been involved in a single debate? Why did Putin clearly murder a dissident in London, other than to solidify his dictatorship control, to warn those who might go against him, to quiet dissent.

Putin believes Garry said, that "his dictatorship must be refreshed from time to time by blood and fear." Dictators and Mafia bosses, don't ask why, they ask, why not?

It's interesting and relevant to note that Garry included there, "Mafia Bosses", almost as a tossed off comment it's so entrenched in the reality of Russia.

And here we are.

Isn't that exactly what we're seeing in Donald Trump, only in an Americanized version of what HE can get away with? He has even said that, time and again.

Putin, is Russia's enemy too, not just ours.

Trump, is our American Putin.

Beware, we're beginning to see the battle we're actually fighting.

I've posted this a elsewhere.
Why?

Because it's not just about this.I realized I needed to say something. There is more to this article than I at first realized, once I started considering it more deeply. Is what's going on because of NRA money to Congress so they do their bidding? As we're seeing? Or are we not fully understanding what is going on?

Most likely, the latter. Otherwise, things would have changed by now. We're obviously fighting a different battle than we thought we were.

We need to be very careful from here on.
We are being sold a bill of goods for something that is nothing if not standard operating procedure.
But also by design or coincidence, simply basic old Soviet practices.
Espionage gone mainstream.
Marketing on steroids, using what they've learned from professionals.
Wall Street working to drain us for their benefit using enhanced business and marketing practices.

Words at this time rise to the surface like bacteria on cream. Like subliminal. Like Social Engineering. Like PsyOps (psychological operations).

WAKE UP! Pay attention. Be aware. Educate yourself in areas most vital that you know and understand. So you can see it is actually happening.

This isn't a sci fi story. It's not an action adventure, a thriller movie, a horror film. Donald Trump as president thinks it is. More importantly he wants YOU to think it is. Or at least, to reacts as if it were.

"Are You Entertained?"!

This is for real. All of it. It's not huge evil monsters. It's not just an ultra right wing conspiracy. It's not just Putin abusing Western Democracies, in protecting his vast wealth and enabling his remaining outside of Russian gulags.

It's just people, doing a job, with a boss, with an agenda, with a goal, maybe even with what they believe to be higher purposes....but where any means justifies their ends. We are the target of a lot of people holding political, social and psychological "darts" aimed at our weakest emotional and intellectual and financial spots for their most benefits.

It's the usual misdirect by magicians and conmen.
Con People.
ConGressional Confidence People.
And their cohorts outside of Congress.
Their minions in and all about Congress.
We need to look at the actual problems, not the ethereal facades painted over to look like the problem.

Focus. Learn. Push back in ways that actually move the needle for us. It can happen. We can do this. Why haven't we yet been able to affect positive change in OUR direction?

Because we just didn't know the game we were all playing, or clearly understand just who the opponents were whom we hadn't recognized, or so very often, even seen. So much has been obfuscated, obstructed from view, redirected as our attention has repeatedly been sent off into directions having no bearings on our realities.

But we see you now....

Having Constitutional Awareness

I grew into adulthood thinking there was the great disparity between the haves and the have nots. I cane to realize it was also between those who knew and those who did not, the educated and the uneducated. As I matured in my learning and understandings I came to find that the haves did not always know, even if they were uneducated. Their wisdom was problematic.

I'd assumed they didn't pay attention in school or to life. Then I thought they may have or not, but they followed a path of ignorance in the realm of knowledge.

Then I discovered that there is not just objective truth and subjective truth. That there is subjectivity in objectivity and there can be some objectivity in subjectivity.

Finally I came to the realization that if three people take a path to knowledge, but very dissimilar ones, you could find one who was on one path, and correct. One on another path and incorrect. But then the third could also be on a correct path.

I found that curious.

Until I discovered that there is a truth that is objective. But the orientation behind it, or the desire for what it should lead to, could be very different, even opposing in nature.

And so that brings us to our current political climate.

Even if considering only the best in this situation (that is sans Russian intervention in our culture, both social and political engineering), we could still have a situation with two passionate parties, each arguing opposing things, with very different and moral reasons. Where the question at hand isn't: are they right or wrong (they both are or can be, specifically). The issue is more all encompassing.

Even if your desired path achieved the goals you strive for, are the priorities "correct"? Will they have any collateral damage you SHOULD be aware of and concerned over and are not seeing, or considering?

When you then bring into the mix the paradigm regarding how this country was set up and how it has evolved, what should be morally correct? What is considered by some, of typically fewer numbers and in an Elite, supportive of the structure of the nation? Is the nation built upon the ideals of humanity? Economy? Or merely an elite who should make the important decisions?

If you study those questions and the reality supporting them, it is rather amazing.

When you try to make a situation (or yourself) look better than it (or you) actually do, or change the narrative to seem more positive or reasonably productive, we call that reality, "spin".

When it is used in a negative fashion as weaponized information to hide something or change the narrative in a negative way against others, we call it disinformation (from the Russian, Dezinformatsiya). A favorite Russian, Donald Trump, GOP and NRA tactic.

Also that of the tobacco and car industry. But those two have been slapped down and told in courts to stop it. And it was very costly in the end for them, but no where near the amount of money (or "winning") they did for decades (or the innocent lives lost to line their pockets with money).

Then there is the Russian concept of Maskirovka, using a mask or camouflage in your actions, using the fog of war (or society, or media) to your benefit. Be that in war, or peace time actions. It is in the grey area between war and peace. It is subverting your enemy's processes (America mostly and western democracies) to the abnormal. It disorients. Unbalances. Disrupts. And it is effective. At times, even when the subject (victim) knows about it.

What we have today are people on both sides doing what they believe is their best for our country, while having opposing paths and not giving due consideration for the fundamental concerns of "the other" or "others". For the most part regarding considerations one does not fully understand, gives priority to, or even sees as essential to the goals. It's the old situation with two opposing armies, both praying to God to help them win because they are in the right. It's ignorant. And dangerous.

That being the goal of, a healthy nation. One would presume....

But there are objective truths. It just depends on what what dimension(s) you are viewing the situation from, and are you selecting the appropriate dimension(s) to begin with?

Constitutional originalists do not give as much weight to the reality of our evolved constitutional laws as the original, or original intent of the Founding Fathers with little or no consideration for a "living" US Constitution (ratified 1788) meant to evolve to enhance the original intent.

The argument for a living, evolving Constitution is inherent in its existence.

It has after all, been amended. By the Founding Fathers themselves, who wrote it. Which therefore makes it a living evolving entity by definition. Not a religious tome, those which are defective in that sense from the day they are born into existence. IF they did not mean for it to be a living document, they would have rewritten it, added in the amendments as the original documents, and resubmitted and ratified it.

But they did not. They chose instead to amend. Arguments that ratification was too delicate to have gone through again is merely divisive and subjective, by those who desire one thing against all history and reality. You cannot argue that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing in the 2nd Amendment, but did not know what they were doing in making it to begin with...an amendment.

Much therefore is against those arguments of those 2nd Amendment (ratified in 1791) types who demand it is written in stone. Or given to us, as some have actually said, Wayne LaPierre of NRA for one, from God. Because after all, their favorite amendment then, which they would argue gives them the right to own and bear arms, regardless if they are war weaponry or not, regardless if for militia use or not, evaporates quickly.

We can end the confusion on the 2nd Amendment. And then there is the related slavery issue. Many have said that part of the reason for the odd wording of the 2nd Amendment does have to do with this issue of slavery and slavers protection and control over their "property". The north and south had contention on this and so, best not to be too clear on certain things. I doubt the foresaw the issues it would cause two hundred years later when this was no longer at issue and this oddity was still abusing our nation. Only now it's a matter of children being murdered in their schools and in the streets.

It just takes good men and women to do what is most needed and greatly desired by many. So too about issues of the fundamental structure of America being built on money and not people. Humanity.

The US Constitution actually begins....

"WE THE PEOPLE..."

Why? If then not for the people rather then starting with, "FOR OUR MONEY AND WEALTH"?

There is a reason for that.

Another interesting phrase says:

"...promote the general welfare...."

It does not however say:

"...promote the specific and minimal welfare...."

We have our path. We just need to stay on it and if necessary, continue to evolve America as our Founding Fathers set up for us to do and to beware, those who would abuse our charter and our ideals.

Now, all that being said....

It is interesting (and greatly concerning) how the alleged basis of this gun issue is about citizen gun owners who continue to disingenuously claim that their guns protect their rights. They say they are the protectors of all our rights, even those of us who do not even want some of those "rights".

Some even being questionable rights at this point in history anyway. Some not even being the rights they were given and utterly misunderstanding the intent and meaning. In part due to poor education that continues to be made worse on purpose (uneducated being easier to control), but in greater part due to those elected representatives who with a wink and a nod, control their electorates opinions. Distract them. Abuse them.

There is nothing more powerful, certainly no gun, no weapon, that is able to achieve as much as... a vote.

But because of voting incorrectly for so very long, because of voting against one's own best interests for that of the proffered shiny objects in the room, some citizen's (mostly #Republican it seems) have put us in this dire position.

They (yes, we too) have allowed Citizens United, Gerrymandering, and money to have a vote for the lofty and the few, until finally we have this counterintuitive situation wherein they cannot think themselves out of...except to repeat the same tired old dysfunctional mantras and sound bites they have been peppered with to say by their enemies whom they believe to be their friends and leaders.

It is a position from where they have convinced themselves to believe (unknowingly having been convinced by others for their own benefits divorced from those concerns of these poor citizens) that their need for guns against their own government does something for them. Arm everyone. Arm teachers (who mostly do not want that, just school supplies they cannot even afford).

Where their available and allowed personal weaponry along with a manufactured and delusional conceit of a how a citizen militia could outflank the US Military, Our standing army was not at first desired by the Founding Fathers and a state by state militia could potentially counter that. And so we have that in our National Guard. But people believe it was in Joe Bob's weekend militia were we seek our counter to the federal military branch?

Laughable really, but we do love our delusions.

And so, our children continue to be slaughtered.

And their suggestion to resolve this is what?

Simply more and more of what is killing us by adding gasoline to the flames with the only and ever the same mantra from the NRA and gun owners:

More guns, more guns!

Vote. But vote, correctly for a change and see life, not death in a gun culture such as we are and such as we have been.

Humanity, is more important than any of our devices, or our games, our toys, our guns.

Change American culture to something that can again be respected. Not just in the homes of gun owners and the boardrooms of gun manufacturers and the NRA, but the entire world. To once again look up to us and appreciate us for who we are and not who would once were, or certainly who we now could be, if only....

The situation as it is, in even considering repeal of the 2nd Amendment was brought about greatly by the NRA and extremist gun supporters who wouldn't give even an inch. So here we are. Your bed, you made it, you set yourselves up for this possibility. Your actions have demanded, either giving into anything you want, or repeal.

You are also somewhat culpable in these mass shootings.

According to the 2nd Amendment, let's start slow and take it's lead. That should satiate the NRA.

Also why has, why WOULD, the government block research on this issue?

"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."

So ONLY those who have been militia'd (current and ex military), who had training ("well regulated" and "Militia" (capitalized)), should have greater than hunting weapons?

Let's face it. ALL citizens having weapons is not well regulated or a Militia.

Perhaps then when ex military are no longer of military age, their military style weapons could go away, as they are no longer useful as a fighting force, so why would they needs military weapons?

Or we could leave them with them as award for services rendered (not all of them, perhaps).

One could also argue MOST citizens do not need hunting weapons (is it a weapon if against a defenseless animal?)

The 2nd is not open house on doing whatever you want. Only an uneducated child would read it that way. Or an addict.

It's a complicated and long term issue going back to the founding of our country.

But really, it's not all that complicated. Some people just want to make it out to be complicated.


#NRA #GOP

America Private Civilian (non) Militia Playtime Armed Forces (APCnMPAF)

We should all be sick by now of the abusive nonsense by conspiracy paranoids, extremists, Republicans, conservatives, agents of our enemies, and agents of profit seeking special interests pushing ridiculous agendas.

This nonsense about the 2nd Amendment by those who cannot understand the difference between their current situation in a powerful and well established America and that of the original and tentative America founded through our US Constitution and the need not that much later on for Amendments to that Constitution.

Look, entire books have been written about this subject. The Supreme Court even unwisely ruled on it. I'm not saying I'm smarter then them, but partisan issues to come to bear there. I've read some of the books on this, many articles and papers and researched this to my own satisfaction as a university educated and professional researcher. Which means I'm not seeking to prove my beliefs, but to find the truth. Remember that? Truth? I'm not going to expend lots of verbiage here on this. I'm going to try to simplify it for those who want a quick answer and for those (probably those against what I'm saying here) who seem to have trouble understanding the second amendment.

Or even the simplest of concepts. Like how a Pres. Trump is bad for America (yes, worse than even a Pres. Hillary Clinton from what we're seeing, far, far so much worse) as well as the entire world. But that's another topic where now several (not one or two) government investigations are under way.

Those who cannot understand this are our ignorant and apparently poorly uneducated (or if not, then simply disingenuous) Americans who appear to be willing (like our current travesty in Pres. Trump) to lie, cheat or steal in order to keep their favorite toys (military assault weapons) easily available to literally it would seem, anyone.

Do we need to appeal the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights?

Because those who are abusing its meaning and intent now 200 years after it was written, seem to have no idea what it means or indicates? Do we need to restate its meaning? I'm beginning to think we need to restate it merely so these people can understand clear and modern English.

Amendment II

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.

Civilian so called militias are not the militia indicated in the 2nd Amendment at all. The intended may be referring to, using civilians as militia, but it refers to a top down not a bottom up, entity.

Also, to bear arms seems to confuse some people. For instance, we need to define, bear and to bear.

In the Oxford Dictionary, it means to bring something to bear, which is a good point in relevance.

That is to bear down upon or aim at. To bear arms therefore indicates taking up a weapon against someone seen as enemy with intent to aim at and kill them. As in martial actions against another. But as governed by the state.

Even if militias organize, practice (some would say for many of them, playing at) for the good of the state in the case of the GOVERNMENT needing them for the security of a free state.

Not the security of the civilians against a free state as many now believe. Rather to be ruled over or governed by the state over those militias.

That means that a  militia is allowed to be prepared, but not against the state, as many of them feel they are. Rather FOR the states and against as should most reasonably be considered, all enemies foreign and domestic! We now actually have to concern ourselves with whether this includes our current Pres. Trump and his administration. Brought to us by many of the same people who cannot understand the meaning and intent of the amendment in question here.

There is also the point that one does not bear arms against a rabbit. Therefore it does not actually indicate hunting as so many claim.

Also, arms as in the right of the people to keep and bear seems to confuse too many people. Far too many people, actually. But then that gets into our abuse and lack of support of our educational system. We have been dumbing down Americans who cannot afford a decent education for decades now.

And here we have the results. Uneducated if not outright stupid Americans voting against their best interests and unable to understand what the Founding Fathers thought was one of the simplest of amendments. But one they knew people would misinterpret, which is why it was worded as it was. Also though, worded as it was merely because they wanted to get something passed and put into law, accepted by all the states then voting. And they did.

Though I doubt they could have foreseen the nonsense we're seeing today they more assuredly saw some of it. But only perhaps, a third of it. I doubt they foresaw modern assault weapons or even the self contained firearm cartridge for that matter.

The bottom line here is that the second amendment is for the government, not the citizens.

We also have to be wary of religious militias. Christian militias for instance. We've seen what so called Muslim militias can do in other countries in the form of ISIS. The last thing we need in this country are religious based militias. Or even conservative, right wing, ultra extremist militias.

Granted, although some militias may take themselves seriously and professionally, we still have to deal with the many that do not. Some of which shouldn't even be allowed near a gun to begin with. And even the professional militias, still need to be governed under the government and not aligned against it, as so many covertly (or overtly) are.

And that is its orientation. In now having a standing army, we no longer need militias. Therefore that amendment no longer has any real standing or need.

It may be sad that Thomas Jefferson was against America even having a standing army, as it begets empire building (actually kind of as we've been seeing).

There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation, and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors, that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot, but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army. Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789, 549

Yet, in over two hundreds years we're not seeing this happening. So it's become a moot point. Was Jefferson wrong in his concern? No. But the system as designed would seem to be working well enough that it has not become an issue.

And let's not forget other wise things Jefferson said:

What then is the issue? The second amendment. Not really so much that of itself, as those who wish to twist its meaning and bastardize its intent for their own reward (NRA, gun industry, conservatives) and benefit (maintaining power, self aggrandizement, financial reward).

There are several things we now need to address and remove in our government because of the abuses we've been seeing that have led us here to this dysfunctional point.

First and longest term, we need to address our educational system. Free school at least up through a two year degree...for all. Better, four year colleges should be free, and more of them (and less (and NO more or any at all, private corporate) prisons, which is entirely another important topic).

Removal of the Gerrymandering process which has corrupted our system for far too long.

Removal of the electoral process which again has corrupted out system for far too long.

And finally, removal or rewording of the second amendment which has been corrupted in meaning and intent through disingenuous definitions by mostly conservative interests and greed.

I would argue for removal of the amendment since until we address the other two issues (three if you wisely include fixing and bolstering our educational systems which will take at least a generation to return wisdom to our culture in properly educated citizens), we will find any attempt at rewording the second amendment will merely further corrupt it in the dysfunctional direction I have just pointed out above.

So here we are where we now need to move forward and stop the slaughter at home of civilians by civilians.

Or will we simply remain at the current and dysfunctional status quo, which conservatives so love and have forced into place while we all know that moving forward, being progressive, is the only way to progress and to move forward.

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.

Church and Guns

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant recently signed a bill allowing people in his state for churches to legally have armed security.

Let that sink in.

Note the props: Reagan book, Bible with holstered gun on top

When a national gun culture finally invades your churches, your religion, it's really time to pay attention. Arming churches is not a religious reaction. It's a human, scientific reaction. We don't need to arm and militarize churches. Yes, they have been attacked. But few and it's not really reasonable in arming your church.

Religion should be a baseline for humaneness, for peace, spiritual security, for joy. Historically, for sanctuary. Not for anger, not lethal reactions.

This lack of continuity between religion and believers is untenable and hypocritical. People fear putting their beliefs on the line. They always have. And yet, they have martyred themselves to perpetuate their beliefs. Beliefs that have inspired countless millions over thousands of years. But many now see that it is better to arm their church, than to possibly die for their beliefs.

When I think about Church, about guns, I think back into my past. Back to when I was in the Air Force. My final main base was in Spokane, Washington. In 1975 I was at Fairchild AFB, a nuclear bomber base in the Strategic Air Command (SAC). We had fuel tankers, B-52 bombers, and were on alert 24/7/365.

In about 1977, I got friendly with the guy who gave out equipment in the base gym. My friend and I played racquetball every other day and lifted weights on those other days. If we needed anything we'd go to the equipment room attendant. We got to talking over a period of weeks about things in general, "guy stuff", guns and eventually, oddly enough, religion. Then one day he asked if I wanted to go to his church.

I was at a point in my life where I was ex Catholic, had been head altar boy at our church and in fact had been the altar boy serving at our old priest's open casket Mass for his funeral. My first time seeing a dead person. He looked good, the gentle kind soul I had known for years and served Mass with.

Later I went to a single final and graduating year of Catholic primary school (eighth grade). As I entered my young adult years, I was looking into the universe to see what there was, other than what I had been taught. I read a lot of books on philosophy, religion, even magic, a sign of the times in the 60s and 70s. You name it.

So with an invite to visit what sounded like a cool church, I figured, why not?

I told my wife about it. She probably couldn't have been happier that I wanted to go to church. After all, she was raised Baptist and we had been married in her church. Yes, the whole big church wedding and all. We divorced the year I got out of the Air Force. The guys told me when I arrived at my main base that no one survives that base and remains married. There were a lot of divorces, a lot of philandering, mostly with wives of enlisted fooling around with officers, especially pilots, the God's of the Air Force.

So my wife and I agreed to check out the guy's church with him and his wife. I told the guy the next time I went to the gym. Which was the next day. He said he would pick us up with his wife on Sunday morning and he would drive.

Well, that's nice of him, I thought.

Government as an entity, is typically rather stupid. Elements within the government however can be quite intelligent. yet there is a healthy dose of stupid among the employees. I was about to be stunned by the stupidity of this "nice" guy from the gym.

He had told me to bring my gun, that it was cool to wear a gun to church. I thought that was odd, but hey, I was open to see new ways of viewing the world. I carried concealed, legally, my Walther PPS\k .380 auto. Yes, I should have seen it coming. I should have seen something coming.

We headed out of Spokane toward the border. As we were crossing the border I got nervous and asked him about it. He said it was okay, the compound was in the hills of Idaho and it was beautiful there. About my concealed gun and his, and considering we were in the military, and I had a secret clearance unlike him, I was concerned about federal issues.

He said not to worry, you didn't need a concealed weapons permit in Idaho and where we were going it wouldn't be an issue. When we finally got there up into the hills of Idaho it was beautiful. We arrived at a gate that was unlocked and allowed us to pass. We were now on the property of the Church of Our American Christian Heritage. Beware a church that has in its name, "American" or "Heritage". Or any church who seems to have all the answers.

We drove up in his truck, a forerunner to today's SUVs. he pulled into an area of the compound with a traditional type well int he center and several buildings, one being an old fashioned church with the steeple and all. Several guys were wearing what looked to me like Nazi uniforms, only a different grey color, looking just different enough that you COULD claim, they weren't Nazi uniforms. When I mentioned the similarity (as well as the Hitler salute they used) they got offended. They weren't Nazis! Sure seemed like it to me though.

I won't detail the entire morning. But it was bizarre, surreal, disturbing, and scared the hell out of my wife. I worried if I didn't play it right, would I end up in the bottom of that well. They told us stories of how the local Sheriff was afraid of them and wouldn't come onto their property. The old ladies were the most racist people I had ever met.

Their national leader was there from Georgia to give a lecture at their church service. He didn't know we were there and were novices to their beliefs. He had really let go intimately detailing their beliefs and disgust at non whites, about the "cesspool of humanity that was Vancouver, B.C. Canada."

We got out of there eventually and never looked back. Don't get me wrong, these were very nice, polite and friendly people. I know deep down they meant well. But the things they believed in were immature, foolish, and frightening. As well as bad for humanity in general.

By time we got into the truck to head home that day, my wife had inadvertently nearly ripped off the sleeve of my shirt from repeatedly having grabbed it and holding on with dear life, while trying to look happy and at ease. Occasionally smiling and whispering she would say into my ear, "Get us out of here!"

The next day I considered telling the base about what was going on, but my racquetball friend talked me out of it. After all he said, those people know where you live and when you won't be home with your wife. It brought to mind a scary situation.

Gun and church do not belong together.

Pairing them is a massive warning that something is wrong. Perhaps, if your country has been invaded by an active force as happened in France, there is reason. But not here, not in America, and not since the Revolutionary or Civil War.

Needless to say we need a separation of Church and State, and Church and guns. If you want to protect your church from attack, try non lethal forms, try metal detectors, try anything, but leave your guns at home.

If your church is at all about death or killing, find another church. If your religion is death oriented like the three major desert religions of the Middle East, rethink your life choices.

Religion needs to be positive, life affirming and not about killing people.

Guns, guns, guns...American Guns? Jihadi Guns?

Here's what I think about guns in America, gun ownership and gun control be it for American citizens, or domestic or foreign terrorists on American soil. It is actually all about control now, isn't it?

People saying they want no gun control are merely deluding themselves or lying. No one, doesn't want gun control. It's all about how much control that is in question and if what we have in place now, is enough.

Or enough in just the right ways.

Which we don't. Time to wake up kids. So much lately is really about how we perceive guns. And that, has got to change. But how do we do that?

With altering our perception of guns.

If you want to own a gun for hunting, then take a hunter's safety course. I used to help teach them myself when I was a young teen. I was myself in the military. As a teen I was in a local police sanctioned gun club, and on our high school's rifles team through high school. I used to reload, studied combat shooting. I know something about guns.

I've forgotten a lot about them actually as I'm no longer interested in needing to be proficient in them as a career. But I've been involved with them and the Martial Arts for as long as I can remember. I don't just mean hand to hand, open hand, or one on one fighting. Look up "martial" if you need to.

I have a degree in psychology in awareness and reasoning division, phenomenology, with an interest in systems and processes, and psyops. Also espionage and studied the old KGB tactics for years and how it affected MI6 and the CIA, as well as those associated histories. Also, how they affected general populations. So sociology and propaganda, politics and history.

I also know something about the issues surrounding guns.

Any informed talk about guns needs to consider the psychological, sociological, economic and such issues and yet, they seldom do. Myself, I've owned guns all my life since I was a teen and I've never had an "accident" such as we're seeing so much of now a days in children senselessly being harmed, family members being damaged or killed and just too many innocents "accidentally" being harmed, maimed or killed.

Now if you want another kind of gun than one just for hunting (for hunting think handgun, bolt action rifle or shotgun, with possible exceptions for special situations), you should be able to go to a gun range and just get to shoot whatever you want.

Rent it for an hour, shoot all you want, pay for the targets (oh hell let's throw the targets in for free in the gun's rental), but really you're paying for the shots. After all, those aren't cheap. We very well may need more of those types of firing ranges. I do wonder how many people might be happy to shoot but not own. Even if it's some, it's something.

If however you want to actually own your own gun and maintain it at home, then you should have to take an appropriate course to train you in its use, care and storage for what you want it for: target or home protection. You should have to take a course specific to that range of gun type, cartridge type, number of shots in the magazine or cylinder, and so on.

See? This is all building an import, a respect, an understanding of the danger and impact a weapon has on human beings and those around them. This isn't nothing It's important to understand, this is not a damn toy. It's a tool, a weapon, that is inherently designed to take life and so needs always to be treated as such. People are far too cavalier anymore with them. Too many shots on TV and in movies. Too many people dying in video games, films and media, for make believe and for real.

But when people die, they are dead and it affects a ripple effect of people around them and at times, a nation, or the world.

Should you want a gun for more intense purposes as in concealed carry, you should have to take a course specific to the type of carry that you are considering (under penalty of law if you are later found to have exceeded that license), and you should have to regularly update it... annually.

I might even say update it every five years which is ridiculous (although then you'd have to take a longer course). And of course you'd have to apply with your local Sheriff's department for a concealed carry permit and have them background check you and issue it or not, as might be appropriate.

That, is for a citizen.

If you want anything beyond that as in a professional license (private investigator, personal protection specialist, etc.), you are into another professional category entirely and that's for another blog.

The Government should pay for all of this if it's a right and yes, I see conservatives cringing. But hey, you can't have everything. This is adulthood, pal. Pay up or shut up. And if the citizen has the right, someone has to pay for it. As per the conservatives whining, as most citizens couldn't afford all this it would have to be covered by all citizens.

Because if things go wrong, after all, we ALL end up paying for it!

If the country overall wants to have guns, then we all have to be covering the cost of that. Again, you pay for the shots at the range. Again, those things are expensive. Again, it takes regular practice on all of this.

If you think you can just buy a gun for home or carry and you're good, well...any professional will point out what a child you are being. If not a mental defect. How ill informed you are is bordering on delusional.

The Founding Fathers wanted to guarantee us guns. But come one, let's face it....

LIFE WAS DIFFERENT BACK THEN! And again, that's another blog entirely.

Let's talk about emotions for a moment or two.

A couple of things frequently associated with gun incidents... like anger and hate.

Sure guns can be fun, people can and do even love them. But if you have positive emotions about guns and you are doing positive things, then we have nothing to talk about. Right?

However, if you have negative emotions and you do negative things with guns... well, that is when we do have a problem and that is what all the controversy in America is about right now. And exactly WHY we have to do SOME thing about all this.

We have seen mass shootings because of hate, because of paranoia, crimes committed due to mental health issues. Most people want to do something about it. Many, mostly on the right, don't and mostly because of the slippery slope argument, and because of other arguments where they rationalize doing nothing about, painting themselves into a corner just because of fear and emotions. Behind all of this however is power and money, greed and fear, pushed onto Americans by the NRA.

There are however some people offering sane and rational discussions of the gun issues in America including those things mentioned above.

We are now regularly seeing children killing siblings accidentally and shooting their parents (maybe accidentally, though one wonders with tongue in cheek about that at times). After all some parents kind of deserve to be shot. Karma, right? We see these killings and maimings in the media all the time anymore.

Look. I don't myself actually hate ANYone. It's just not in my nature. So. Can I still be an American Mr. Conservative Right Wing Nut Person? And yes, we have wingnuts on both sides of the spectrum, but honestly, the most dangerous and most often they are on the right, conservative end and of late have become ubiquitous.

My grandmother used to tell me when I was young, if ever I said I hated something, that:

"We don't hate anything. It's a very strong emotion. It takes up a lot of energy. We just don't have enough energy in our lives to live properly and still hate." What a great view on life, right? Yeah, she was pretty amazing. We should all be so lucky as to have a Grandmother like her.

I asked her once (we were Catholic) back then when I was young and still innocent:

"What about Satan? He's the greatest evil thing there is so, can't we hate him?"

I knew I had her that time. I was beaming inside with pride and integrity.

Then without skipping a beat, she said:

"No, not even Satan." She was the greatest person I knew.

So... I don't hate. I have experienced strong dislike, to be sure and some people definitely earn that. Lately and frequently for Republican and conservatives speaking out in the media, or running for public government office...there's plenty of foolish people out there to have a strong dislike for.

When I studied martial arts as a child I was taught that you never get mad in a fight. Strong emotions make you blind to something, they make you stupid. If you get mad you have already lost the fight, they would tell us. Always remain calm, methodical, and think. You are rational, you evaluate, you act appropriately to the situation as it unfolds.

If anything you do your best to enrage your opponent, to make them dumber, to make foolish moves. Because while they are mad, they cannot think as clearly as you are thinking, if you remain calm and sensible yourself, that is.

They also told us you should win the fight within the first five to nine seconds or you've already lost. Although you should continue to try to win, if that happens, obviously. What they were saying is that winning is in the before time, in seeing it coming, in diffusing it before and then in winning it as soon as it begins, if it even gets that far. Then you are the true victor. The Warrior of Peace. For Peace.

The greatest warrior is one that has won the battle before it begins, Sun Tzu tells us.

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

It's always best to have seen the situation coming and end it as it begins, if not sooner.

It's better to run away from a fight, than to be responsible for killing someone I was told in Karate. Be called a coward our Sensei told us, as long as we avoid killing someone. But if they do try to kill you, allow them to go to the next life before you. Once engaged in battle, win, even though in some ways you have already lost. But that is the difference between the short game and the long game.

Because that is what we were being taught, back then, to kill (for me, beginning in fifth grade). If you kill someone it is your responsibility in that they did not know you have that killing knowledge. They are at a disadvantage in their ignorance, they do not fully understand o have all the information they need to save their own life. Therefore if they die you did it, it was in your hands.

We were taught back then in 1965 to say to them before engaging in a fight, three times (however fast you had to say it) that: "I know Karate."

Then at least they were forewarned and it was then up to them to continue. What I discovered in practice however was that it didn't really work. It seemed to embolden them. It just was something which was better than nothing, better then giving them no warning or information whatsoever. They never believed it, they thought it was a ploy, or they didn't or couldn't understand it.

When I later found and studied Aikido they taught us when someone attacks you, they are not your enemy. We do not see things in that way in Aikido. They are merely your practice partner. You are in this together. You are both human beings. You remain calm.

You try to educate both yourself and them in hopefully being, in practicing being, compassionate beings. If they aren't then perhaps in their interaction with you at that time they may learn to be. At least a little.

In several fights I have had in my lifetime, because of how I acted during the fight, in having been victorious mostly at the end of the situation, the other person, even though they had started it all, learned something and actually remarked upon it.

One time I threw a guy down during a fight. He was a stranger bigger than me, who picked a fight with me for no reason I could figure. Half way going down I reached out and grabbed him, I kept him from striking his head on the concrete sidewalk. I had showed my superior fighting skills and my superior compassion in protecting him from himself (or from me) and he was quite aware of it. It would have been hard not to be.

As I helped him to stand again, he could have attacked me but he recognized that I could have killed him simply by not acting to save him. There was a look of stunned surprise on his face, and appreciation. He asked me: "Why did you do that?"

I said: "I didn't want this fight. You started it. If I hadn't stopped your fall, it would have killed you." That led to a discussion. We then parted, never to see one another again. But he left me with a different view on life. That was obvious. He walked away seeming somehow, changed.

Everything is a learning experience. Or you are doing things wrong. When you come up to someone in a situation such as that:

First you do your best to see their orientation.
Then you show them your orientation.
Then you release them and let them go on their way.

Needless to say depending up on their "orientation", the letting them... "go on their way" may mean into their next life. Which very well may actually just be letting them leave this life.

In Aikido, much of what happens is up to the other guy.

And so it is in life.

Guns, make this very hard to do. Due to the density of the energies involved, it speeds everything up. We need to be very aware of things much further ahead of time than in a non weapon confrontation. This has been the case ever since the first indirect weapon was put to use. The rock, the sling shot, the spear, and finally the arrow. Then came the gun, massively beyond the capabilities of the arrow.

Much of warring is misunderstanding, or a lack of compromise, or lack of reason or understanding to compromise. Lack of compassion, perhaps on both sides.

No compassion means damage done by all to all around the situation.

Getting back to guns we need education, orientation, massive more respect for them than we have seen of late. We need understanding and compassion for everyone around any gun, ever.

When you then delve into things like bombs well, you can see the progression there and the need.
It is massive.

So. Is there anything we can do about the gun situation today?

Yes. Of course there is. We just need to do it.

Finally, remember the paraphrased words of President Lincoln from his 1838 Lyceum address:

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."

When you consider such people as are in the NRA and our conservative right wing with its potential presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and others in the current 2016 Republican candidate run, consider these further words of Pres. Lincoln:

"It is to deny what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion as others have done before them. The question then is, Can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men, sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never! Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? And when such an one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down."

Perhaps only we can bring ourselves down. 

How about we just don't do that? Let's think, let's work together to evoke positive change in all the right ways. Against fear, against hate, and against our biggest foes of greed, political disinformation and ignorance. 

So I ask again... is there anything we can do about the gun situation today?

Yes. Of course there is. We just need to do it.