A lady of age, one never asks exactly just how old one is, would tell us all of how she marched with King. While knowing she was older, she was certainly not that old. One day, in the face of our open skepticism, she brought in her family album. In black and white glory, there she stood, all of four years old, in what looks to be a white dress, she corrected me to say it was rose, just ready to go to church. Standing next to her was the man himself. So he would be leading the service, I would imagine. Martin Luther King jr., who image is as iconic as JFK or Marilyn Monroe. She might have been all of four, and only remembered the man because her mother would tell her over and over the story, but that photo, with the date printed on the back the way they used to do, was evident enough that she indeed marched with King. If I had such a picture even if I was only four months old, I too, would proudly proclaim, as did she, to have indeed walked with King. MLK was an old fashion preacher, not like the thieves of today who always want your money for some plan to save the multitudes involving them owning a personal jet for millions of dollars. So he knew the words in the Bible, Jesus said onto his disciples, “Suffer the little children on to me.” (Matthew 19:14)

I bring this story up, because it is kind of neat to tell, but also to ask where are the preachers of the Christian right wing today? Are they protesting, demand that children be protected from harm?

“The federal government lost track of 1,475 immigrant children last year, according to an April report from the Associated Press.”

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/federal-government-lost-1475-immigrant-children

Really?

“The shocking figure comes after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new policy that all attempted border crossers would be prosecuted, and that the U.S. government would separate children from their parents during the prosecution.”

After all as Trump called them nothing but “Animals” who cares if they are not treated humanely. After all they are only the offspring of animals. Trump later corrected himself to say he was referring to MS-13. Really? Or is it all illegal’s are by definition MS-13?

But I ask again, where are the priests, the preachers, the pastors and the reverends? Where are they indeed? Why is it the only ones I can find are all left wing? Is it cause the right wing do not fear the hand of god but more likely to send their feeling hand for your wallet?

Jesus used the word “suffer” not to mean untold misery! He meant to bring them to me and *I* will take care of them. He was more interested in taking proper care of the children then in some twisted Oliver Twist fantasy land to make them work as slaves.

“However, the same report found that “over a period of four months in 2014, however, HHS placed a number of UACs [Unaccompanied Alien Children] in the hands of a ring of human traffickers who forced them to work on egg farms in and around Marion, Ohio, leading to a July 2015 federal criminal indictment. According to the indictment, the minor victims were forced to work at egg farms in Marion and other location for six or seven days a week, twelve hours per day.’” (Ibid)

Suffer indeed those little children. Suffer indeed.

 

The argument started to the effect that right to bear arms was not subject to any judge’s interpretation. It was immoral to take away the right on an innocent person just because the court said it was allowable. This is a version of universality of rights without limits or limitations a standard no court has held them to. To which my answer would be to ask them to reconsider their opposition to any such laws as breaking those law would result in two penalties being imposed on top of any jail sentence. As a convicted offender; 1) they would lose the right to carry a firearm, forever. 2) They would also, forever, lose the right to vote, depending on what state they were in. They would lose their right to self defense. And that got me thinking. Follow me down this rabbit hole. Does the right to bear arms originate in the concept of self defense? Or does it come from somewhere else? Does it mean one thing or many things and what does this distinction mean for gun control?

District of Columbia v. Heller: “The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)

The key phrase I am looking at is “…Such as self-defense.” Without a gun James Shaw Jr rushed a killer and disarmed him, thus prevent further loss of life in a Waffle house shooting on April 24, 2018. He did not need a weapon to act in self defense to protect himself and others. He had no need for a weapon to express successfully his right to self defense. So if the ownership of a gun and more broadly, in historical terms, a weapon, is not only thing needed for or can be used for self defense then what could it also mean for the right to bear arms? What are the implications if it means other things besides the narrow, limited application for self defense? Without a weapon you can go hand to hand, use anything that comes to mind, in fact anything at all to protect yourself. A gun need not be involved at all. So you are never, entirely, without some means to protect yourself when you do not have a weapon in your hand. British common-law says a criminal may not own a weapon. Similar legislation is present in any modern legal code. Also keep this distinction in mind, that in practice only nobility may own a sword, the best weapon for fighting at the time. The people in the middle, not the middle class but the bulk of the population, who were not criminals or nobility, would have to have use whatever they could as weapons such as tools that can be found at hand. Just as the people of Okinawa used farm implements and turned them into weapons of war seen in our modern martial arts as needed, so too did Europeans. The ax, for example, is needed for chopping wood and trees, to make household repairs and to defend against predators like wolves and bears. But what you can use on a wild animal can be used on the human ‘wild animal,’ as well. In fact, the whole of European culture is based on this fact. The Romans meeting the Germanic tribes in the early CE called them ‘The Franks,’ a name that has descended to today’s modern name for France, same word origin if not the same word itself. The name refers to two things, 1) the name of a weapon, the ax in the bundle of the Fasces, ancient Imperial Roman symbol; a bundle of sticks featuring an ax thus deriving a name for it. So this evidence fits in with the notion of a weapon being for self defense. It is a tool on hand that can be used for other things but also used to protect oneself.

There is something else associated with the name Frank, that of a person who is free of obligation. In other words, this person is not a serf and has no lord, master or nobility to answer to. They are free, plenipotentiary, and sovereign in and of themselves. The “Franks” were a free people. A symbol of their freedom is in that they openly carry weapons and do not seek to hide them from other equals. Whereas open carry of a weapon was frowned upon beyond the mainstay of a dagger used mainly for eating.

Boil this down to two concepts, archetypes in opposition to the other. We have the gun as a means of self defense and we have the gun as a symbol of freedom. Therein lies the problem in and of itself.  See if you follow the logic, as a means of self defense, it matters not what I use to defend myself from my hands, an ax, and a dagger to a pistol, up to a machine gun, as it is a means of protecting myself. The goal is the protection of my body, my physical form and not some metaphysical statement.  As such, what it is, that gives me the means for self defense is therefore mutable, subject to change from one thing to another, from a gun to an ax to hand to hand. Under law therefore it can be amended, changed altered or remanded according to the legislation. Therein lies where the courts took the 2nd amendment, in part in Heller, into something with reasonable, legitimate, legal, and lawful limits. Now consider the second meaning, that of the symbol of freedom or of a free person. Any infringement of this freedom is an assault on all of it. You cannot limit the nature of the unlimited in any meaningful way and still call in unlimited freedom. So it matters not what part you are attacking or prohibiting or repealing, it is an attack upon the global symbol of my person and my freedom. It cannot be compromised, or infringed upon and still be fall freedom. If it could be thusly so infringed, it would not be a right, it would be a mere privilege. Thus you have two camps. Those who say self defense can be mutated, legislated and contained. As opposed to those who say it cannot be. Therefore, there will be an inevitable collision and clash between the two positions as both cannot exist side by side without running afoul of the other. One side will have to bend the other side will have to break. One side by definition cannot bend for to do so without breaking would be impossible by definition. This is where the problem inherent in the gun debate resides. Are weapons, means of self defense or are they a symbol of freedom? Where you agree is what side you stand on this debate. It is also where we stand now as a society when dealing with school shootings and other massacres.

 

 

The following is an exchange on May 19 and 20, 2018. The massacre at Santa Fe occurred mere hours ago. Each tweet is reproduced and separated for readers to see the exchange. The following replies come from a person I am not going to give free advertisement to; instead he is referred to as the Gun Lobby. The first tweet comes from a new organization. Spelling and some minor grammar have been changed.

On Twitter “NowThis” @nowthisnews wrote the following:

“This Texas lawmaker blamed the Santa Fe shooting on doors, not guns.”

I replied: That is like blaming pregnancy on beds not sex.

The Gun lobby showed up to say: “Or blaming the gun instead of the murderer.”

I replied: “yes because it is so very hard to imagine that in a gun culture, where guns can be bought anywhere, at any time, by anyone, when one has a problem with mental health, one would turn to… ping pong? Parcheesi?  To solve any issue…

Yep hard to imagine. Let’s blame doors instead”

Gun Lobby replied: “No one is blaming the door. At least looking at the design of the school is a solution that doesn’t violate the rights of innocent people.”

I replied: “learn the law. Standing by the second amendment means background checks, banning classes of guns, disallowing certain groups from owning guns. Etc. It is only in the NRA wet dream does any of this violate rights.

Supreme Court

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)”

“There is no violation of rights unless the SCOTUS says so. All rights have limits as does the 2nd amendment. When the NRA lies and claims violation of rights, they mean the violation of their right to make money.

Remember that line about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”

“You have to be alive in order to have rights. Tell that to the 10 dead in Santa Fe. Or

‘Since 1968, when these figures were first collected, there have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths on US territory. Since the founding of the United States, there have been 1396733 war deaths'”

“Stop reading terrorist propaganda and get the real facts. I may not like Heller but it is the law. The NRA is merely lying to you as some Russian puppet.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/us-gun-violence-charts-data …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller …

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html …”

The Gun Lobby replied “The Supreme Court does not always make the right decision. Rights are inalienable and do not change.”

I answered with “Indeed so. They do not always make the “right” decision. Nor do they make the correct decision. However they make the final decision. So why is it you stand up for the second amendment but not the rest of the constitution? This is not a line item veto, it is all or nothing.”

“So why is that only patriotic Americans, who swear oaths to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic is also the same ones who advocate gun control because that is the rule of law. Not the rule of guns.”

“What with gun nuts being… well nutty? The Russians are the major force of destabilization in American and around the world. And you have just joined the communist party. Nice move comrade. Now we know why you need guns, because in the open marketplace of freedom your idea failed”

The gun lobby replied: “What is with you leftists and Russians? The only person here affected by propaganda is you. The NRA is the moderate wing of the gun rights movement and does not go nearly far enough to protect the natural right to keep and bear arms.”

I responded:”Russian Market penetration was only 0.01% of Americans or about 35K votes. Just enough to win the election. You are correct the domestic terrorist group called the NRA is the moderate. Thankfully those to the extreme also live in their parents’ basement fondling their “weapons””

“Natural rights to short sleeves. Not modern weapons of destruction. And while I am sure in your world you come across as an intellect, we have the constitution that allows for the rule of law to interpret what those rights mean. Read Heller, this is the jurisprudence.”

“Heller is what in American would be the limits of right to bear arms. Not what some unknown, and unknowable Russian loving communist party member in his fevered delusions that somehow owning a gun makes him something other than a freak to the other 97% of the population who…”

“…Love their country and many of who have taken oath to defend the Constitution as is right for people who love their native land to do so. Heller affirms the right to bear arms. It also affirms limits. Like who can have a gun at what age, what type and where it can be carried.”

The Santa Fe Killer was after a girl he was obsessed with:

“So he could not get a date, go out kill her and 9 friends and injure another 10 people. Only in a gun culture that is out control without reason or rational do we see such things. Boys get turn down in Japan, Canada, UK yet we don’t hear about massacre there. Anyone wonder why?”

“In the 60tys when Black Panther advocated arming blacks, the NRA supported some of the strongest anti gun laws in America. Today, since it is only white males doing the killings, the NRA send thoughts and prayers for the slaughtered.

Showing that NRA is a racist terrorist group”

I read the brief personal description on the gun lobbyist page and made this comment. This is the comment he has left to describe himself to the twitter world.

“One last thought: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice… moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” – Barry Goldwater

That was Lenin who wrote that not Goldwater… make you either a Russian Bot or a manipulated dolt!”

“Why is it, when the Constitution protects Guns, the NRA and its domestic terrorist arm, all strongly support the Constitution and wrap themselves in the flag. The minute the argument goes against them in legal circles they toss out the constitution and claim natural rights… ”

“It’s called moving the goal post. There is no end for them except their sheer theocracy about democracy and the Constitution. They don’t care about anything other than stroking their phallic because clearly they have nothing going for them in that area. ”

“Yes and the gun nut will blame everything else, like white vans, knives or too many doors. All the while afraid of the real answer. Too many guns. But sticking with the NRA answers means they won’t be shot at by their fellow gun nuts and they get lots of cash as well, aka bribes.”

“The solution is there. In American, the slaughter continues because Politicians will not listen to the 97% who want gun control.  Too much money in bribery and too afraid of the gun nuts. The tail wags the dog”

“Definition Gun nuts: Self proclaimed geldings seeking substitution by any means possible; up to an including massacring groups like high school students. Supported by the Russians to destabilize American, sponsored by corporate greed and their domestic terrorist unit, the NRA.”

A fanatic is defined as someone who won’t shut up and won’t change the channel…

The gun lobby replied:”All that ranting and the right to bear arms is still a universal right.”

I answered; “And still meaningless. The right is defined by Heller. Nothing to do with any universe. And as the lawful citizens begin to force legislation through their assemblies, the unfetter existence of gun nuts will come to a screeching halt.

And not a moment too soon.”

The gun lobby replied: “Governments do not grant rights. Your right to life, liberty and property will always exist no matter how a court interpret those rights”

I answered once more; “LOL

The argument of extremes. Those words mean nothing in and of themselves. It is the body of law that explains and expands them into meaningful dialog. Just like the slogan of bear arms is subject to meaning and the courts grant that meaning not the self serving Leninist.”

The gun Lobby replied: “The Supreme Court presided over slavery for 75 years, stop making them out to be some moral arbiter of truth. The constitution merely recognizes rights that have always existed. Humans will always have the right to bear arms, whether governments recognizes that right or not.”

I answered once more: “Again history is beyond you. Dred Scott was that decision. in… 1847. That law stood for 18 years until it was amending in the Bill of Rights.

But see this is the contradiction in this entire case. They, gun nuts support the 2nd amendment but nothing else…”

“The constitution enables courts of law to make lawful decisions on what rights mean and how to understand them in the context of cases brought before the courts. The courts having spoken establish what rights mean. It is not up to some Russian Nazi gun nut to tell us …”

“That a right is. It is not up to any one person to tell all of us. We leave this to an independent tribunal called the Supreme Court to decide. It may not always be right, it may not be correct. But the SCOTUS is the final word on this. Not you and not the NRA.”

The gun lobby: “That’s the difference between you and I. You would stand by a wrong decision, I would not.”

“You stand by nothing but you misplace manhood. Too bad you are shooting nothing but blanks in this argument and everywhere else.

You should try to stand by the Constitution of the United States. Not some terrorist group like the NRA. We the people will be heard.”

One should not forget that there is humor in this too!

The gun lobby wrote: “A support of Lenin? Try correct grammar next time.”
And then he wrote above: “That’s the difference between you and I. You would stand by a wrong decision, I would not.”

I replied to his grammar Nazism thusly: “Look spelling nazi as well 😀
Yet again comrade did you translation into Russian fail on the error?”
Then after a spelling check discovered his error and replied: “Hey spelling Nazi…
Try correct grammar next time.
You and me…
Not you and I….
Those who live by the spelling flame always get burned.”

 

 

 

 

So while having a conversation with someone, a trucker type, who was speaking about someone else’s racism, he openly dropped the following, “My uncle married a transgender lady out in BC…” This was the second time someone had mentioned they had family married to transgender women. I think back and in all my years, I cannot remember ever having heard such a thing. Not that there is anything wrong about marrying someone Trans. No, it is has everything right to it. People are coming out of the closet to say; “Hey this is part of my family and it is normal and fine with me.”

Earlier this year, voters in Virginia elected the state’s first openly transgender candidate to the Virginia House of Delegates. Danica Roem unseated incumbent delegate Bob Marshall who was responsible for the Bathroom bill to force Tran people to the bathroom of their birth.

On HBO, Jeffrey Tambor plays Maura Pfefferman, a transgender women and parent on the show Transparent.

A model, also transgender, Ines Rau, was featured as Playboy’s playmate of the month, the first transgender to do so.

There are many more examples of what is rapidly becoming mainstream, accepted even. Transgender people are slowly being welcomed into society as a natural part of our community. I place all the praise in the world on North Carolina’s ‘Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act’ commonly known as House Bill 2, in which people may only use restrooms that correspond to the sex on their birth certificates and not the sex they have transitions into.

Talk about unintended consequences. What bigotry has wrought, seeking to further marginalize people who were already living far, far, beyond the pale, has resulted in an acceleration of open armed accepted into mainstream as fully embraced and wanted part of humanity. They have cause the reaction of people trying to understand just what is this thing they are trying to prevent. Who should not be allowed into bathrooms and for what reason? Well they passed this into law and we the people investigated. Look at what resulted can now be seen as transgender are just another colour in our world of rainbows.

I live near a major city but in a small town. Sometimes it seems even smaller then I think it was when I pause to remember a time long ago. That town had a lot of character and a lot of characters; this story is merely one of them. There was a man who lived there named Willy, a rather nice man, whose name that he might have been baptized as William but he was never into pretense with anyone that I ever saw. He was always Willy, young or old, male or female, they all called him that. He used to cut the lawn for all the WASPs in the city, white Anglo Saxon Protestants. He was English and went to the same church with them. The man was in his 70tys when I first met him. I was cutting the grass to the house next door, on the French side of things. The town was divided into two parts, the French and the English, though they all lived interspersed.  So in a way we might have been competitors, but we were not. He never saw it that way and nor did I. So he would talk with me as we sipped some water on our break. This job, his jobs and this city, his city, was his whole world. He had been cutting the grass, trimming the hedges and raking the leaves for the same families for years and years. It was the only real job he ever had. Only job he ever wanted too. He was also in very high demand. People would be on a waiting list to get him and his services to take care of their lawns. Sort of a status thing, being in the city’s mainline, having arrived, if Willy did you grass. And if not then you were not in with the “In” crowd, if you know what I mean. He could only do so many places each day but had he wanted to he could have had a lot more people paying him to cut their grass. But then the quality of his work would suffer! He would have to rush. It was not something he wanted to do. He had enough to do with what he had. Work 6 days a week but never on Sunday, that was for Church. Though he never once offered to cut the church lawn either. He never got alone with that minister they brought in from elsewhere. Too standoffish for Willy! So he never offered. And no one ever asked either. Why if he did the church, then they might not get their house done because he would have to cut someone. And no sir! That was not to be allowed. He was a treasure and the WASP intended to keep him all for themselves and their lawns of course.

He was a nice sort. Dealt only in cash, and if the Mistress did not have enough money to pay, no problem he would carry them till next week. He had a book of accounts he kept with him in his shirt pocket with stubby piece of wood he called his pencil. I think he saw them on sale for 5 of them for nickel one year in 1957 and bought the whole lot. Spending, lavishly, a whole 40 cents for the lot! He would take out his pencil, or what remained, made sure it had a point or out would come his pocket knife. He had earned that trophy as a Boy Scout, back in the day when being gifted a pocket knife was the sign of being seen as a man.  Once he had a point that he liked, then he would mark down everything; what money he had been given and the change he had returned. He would close the book, put it back in his shirt pocket and put away the pencil for the next house.

His shirt was never tucked in either. Always buttoned but just not tucked into his pants. Let the air flow in when it was hot and he was working. He never wore a hat either. I think i saw him in one once,  He did not look happy with it on. So whatever the weather, his face was always in the sun; white in spring, red by May and tanned leather by August. Same for his arms but strangely not his legs, he always wore long pants. Never shorts. He was a professional. And you wore pants as a man of his profession. Or at least he thought so. He used to always wear shoe, good leather shoes but later on in life, I guess he let down that stiff appearance and switched out for running shoes. His daughter got them for him and made him throw out his old shoes. But they fit well and they were a gift from her, so he surrendered the older shoes to her and watched as she firmly placed them in the garbage. Don’t tell her, but when she left, he went and retrieved them. He still has them in the shed out back, just in case. You know, in case he needed them once more.

He would drive around with his bike, attached to the back was a cart filled with his tools. You would look inside, it was not covered. He had his rake, his gloves, a water bottle and his mower. Except it was not a gas mower, or an electric one. It was the old style that turned rotating blades and you walked and pushed it. He did not like the new fangled machines. They bruised the grass. So he was strictly a human powered mower-man. He would drive up to the house. He would park on the street, never parking in the driveway. He did not want to intrude on the family space. He would do his job the ring the door, hat in hand. Speak with the lady of the house and discuss what she wanted him to do the following week and of course get paid. He worked hard for his money do getting paid was important too. Then he would ride off to the next house. It was never far just down the street where he would repeat the same ritual he did ever other day. Rain or shine, he would be out doing his jobs, cutting his lawns, because that is what he did every other day. He was a man and this was his “Mans” work.

Willy is long gone now, passed on to mowing a better place. But his likes will not soon be replaced and hopefully not forgotten either. But the town has changed. The last WASP died off or moved away with the family to some other place that is not here. The lawn mowing companies are all professional companies. There are no independents anymore. As for Willy, I suspect is he was still here, he would not like them much either. They might just bruise  the grass, their clients. See it is not just about cutting the grass. It’s about servicing the customer.

A gentleman at an open carry protest in Texas was giving a reporter an interview. He stated; word to this effect: “If they tell me I cannot say certain things, then I am going to fight ya. If they say I cannot go to church, or tell which church to go to, I am going to fight ya. So when they come and tell me that I cannot do with a gun what the 2nd Amendment says I can, you can be sure I am going to fight ya.” He then went on to say: “We tell the legislature what laws we the people want. We tell the courts what those laws mean. Courts do not get to invent new laws that oppose what we the people say.” (Note I do not claim this to be an exact transcript of his comments but I feel that I captured the essence of them.) I think the heart of his claim rests on consent. The people, by way of the 2nd Amendment has told the government what they want in law, open carry etc, and that the courts are duty bound to uphold the view of the people therefore no restrictions on guns, where they can be carried and who can carry them is permissible under the 2nd amendment.

There is a lot to unpack in this comment. First, he does not mean what he thinks he means. He says the courts should reflect the views of the people. If he truly meant that then he would be against open carry, for stronger, longer background checks. How can I say that when clearly he is advocating the opposite? If the views of all Americans are to be considered, and we have such information by the way of opinion polling, then it is clear that the vast majority agree with background checks, restriction as to age and outright ban on assault style weapons. See he only thinks he is in the majority. He is not. But this brings up another point when dealing with gun advocates. They are one issue voters. If they see anything that might be against gun ownership or against the right to openly carry, they will vote against that politician in a heartbeat. Hence why the NRA is so powerful, in marginal districts where the vote is near evenly split, the loss of even a few votes could mean the difference in winning and losing.

This also brings us to the notion of consent. I as a citizen must consent to all laws. Therefore if I do not consent to any gun laws I do not have to follow them. Correct? That is seemingly what he is trying to point out. The issue of gun control is not something they consent to so they do not have to obey. Just like all taxes are voluntary, even if you don’t want to pay, you still have to. The questions on the understanding of what is voluntary. In the case of taxes, we send democratically elected representatives to the capital who vote in tax laws that we then have to pay. Where is the voluntary part of have to pay? You can always leave the jurisdiction. You can run for office and then you can get laws passed that remove the burden of paying such taxes. But just as a President does not have a line item veto, you do not have a line item veto over what laws you will voluntarily consent to. It is all or nothing. This gets even worse. You cannot say; “well, fine then I disagree with all of it and be done with it.”You have to leave the jurisdiction and then once gone, you have to renounce citizenship in the country. Sort of like the grandsons of Greek immigrants used to travel as tourists to Greece only to find themselves under arrest and forcible inducted into the army. The logic was, since they could claim to be Greek citizens by way of their grandparents citizenship, the state could impose the military service upon them even if they were clearly citizens of another state. If you had renounced you Greek citizenship while in your birth country, they would not, could not force you to do military service.

In the case of gun control, the rules in effect are established by the people, for the people, with the people by way of the Constitution. The words of that document, only 3000 words long, are essentially meaningless on their own. It requires a legal mind, based on precedent and case law to interpret what those word mean. We call this the judiciary branch of government. There sole job is to read what has come before then make pronouncements as to what this means in the current era and in the current case. Sometimes, this means they make new rules out of seemingly thin air. But that is their job. To then say, well the people tell them what to say is not just, justice or even legal. It is tyranny. Much worse, since the vast majority or hard core gun nuts never amount to more than 3% of the population, they would be the tyranny of a small minority. I don’t happen to like District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) but as I read it, and I have read it a few times, the legal arguments while disagreeable, are consistent and they are clever in their own right. What matter is not if *I* like them, or *You* like them, or even the speaker from Texas. What matters is that the Supreme Court of the United States has said this is what the law says, this is what it means. You can agree to disagree as you want, but you will obey. Or you can leave; give up consent by merely becoming a citizen of another state or country. Just up and leave. This is stark choice you have. Or in the very last case, you can change the law. Simply gather together your fellow citizens and change what the Constitution says. This is what has happened in the past and it could happen again. But as only 3% of the population agree with you, it will be a clearly an uphill battles. Just as *I* and majority, 97%, have to abide by the laws that allow you to open carry,  because the courts say this is allowable, we can also fight to change the law so that it is no longer the law and thus not acceptable.

Times are changing. People are no longer going to accept the need for unrestricted guns and gun violence. The war upon the people will reach a terminal velocity and stricture controls will be implemented. Those who disagree can do so from a different country or they can obey. The status quo will not stand.

It seemed innocent enough to start. “In 1919, Lenin had all of Moscow’s Boy Scouts shot. (From John Gray’s ‘Seven types of atheism’).” Gray is a retired scholar of philosophy, not a historian so it sounds legitimate. Unless one looks deeper into the matter. Being as I do have more than a passing interest in the USSR, history and was a Boy Scout, I looked into this claim. On its face it sounds suspect. Why? Boy Scouts? Massacred? They rounded up kids, 12- 15 years old and shot them? And I have not heard of it? Ego aside. Not going to happen that I would not have heard or seen something about this somewhere before in all the reading, research and study I have done.
To wit, I turn you to “Sergei Eisenstein: October Ten Days that Shook the World (1928)” A great film by Russian propagandists on the Winter Revolution. It shows the valiant storming of the Winter Palace and how it was a great victory of the people. Despite being protected by elite troops who knew they would fail in the face of the revolution, so they surrendered with no causalities. While all of that is wrong, it is right sort of. Making it fake news. The peasants, were in fact Soviet troops who prior to rebelling had been front line soldiers on the Eastern Front fighting the Germans. In other words, they were experience veterans who knew how to fight and wage war. The Winter Palace was protected by Elite guards. So one can assume SAS, Green Beret, and SEALs, that sort of Special Forces who can kill with their hands and take on armies by themselves, chew glass, leap tall buildings, basically the expression of military might, agility and alacrity that can easily hold off the assault by mere peasants. In fact, this was protected not by one but two special units of troops. Really? Yes really. They had the circus squad filled with odd type people like a modern day freak show; Dwarfs and bearded ladies  such like. But they were in the army so they qualified as special soldiers. Okay, maybe not them then, but what of the other Elite unit that was stationed to guard the Palace? Well they were the personal bodyguards of the Czarina, an all female personal bodyguard, who were trained to shot pistols. Sort of like the training a modern police officer might have. Lastly, the part about the no casualty claim that they made? In fact there was one; a minor injury. Best as can be explained. One of the so called “peasants” saw an elite lady bodyguard and pinched her behind. She promptly turned around and kicked him very hard in the special male spot. He went down and she returned to be marched out the gate. See how the words used while seemingly correct are misleading into fake news?
Before return to the subject, we must admit this is not something the Russian would not do. In fact, in May and June, 1940, the Katyn Massacre was an example of just this sort of behavior, the Russians killing officers, nobles and their children, including a bunch of children from a Polish military high school. So, they could very well have lined up a bunch of kids, boy scouts, to a wall in 1919 and shot them all dead.
With those two stories in mind, let us return to Boy Scouts of Russia. Today, anyone can join; rich or poor, male or female and all colors and ethnic background. There is even a troop of boy scouts for gay members. This is completely and totally not the case for Russia. The Boy Scouts were for the sons of the rich and nobles, and no one else. Those same sons who would take up arms to lead the Czars troops into battle as the officer corps, be the leaders of the resistance to the new rule by Lenin and would be expected to cause trouble. Thus many of them would have been otherwise out of town; either in prison camps, (German) at the front, (Russia side), dead, or horrible injured. The few that remained and emphasis on the word few, those who survived the brutal fighting on the Eastern Front after 4 years of war were no longer teens but battle trained and hardened men. These men were also the leaders of the White Army resisting the takeover by the socialists/communists aka the Red Army. So even if they might have been innocent in their actions, some might not have been trying to overthrow the government, they were class traitors as well by being part of the rich or noble class. People traditionally opposed to this government of the Soviets.
So yes, they did order the death of these men, who would be ordered, put to death for rebellion, treason and host of other things. They ordered them to their death for being boy scouts, because it was from that rank that leaders emerged who were thwarting the Revolution not for being able to learn how to tie a sheep-shank knot. They were killed for trying to taint the revolution, not for doing a “good deed” each day.
The result is this; anyone reading the first report will see the nuisances are more important than the headline as the headline clearly does not tell the full story and easily can mislead the uninformed. They did not line up a bunch of kids, boy scouts, but ordered men put to death who would be leaders in rebellion.

See why is fake news and the other is history?

Lady RIP (2002-2018)

I meet her just over 16 years ago. Debbie at work had a cat with a litter. So she was giving away kittens. I had a soft spot for them, so I got one. She arrived on a Saturday, her emerald green eyes all ablaze at the trip and her new home. From the start she was very different. She might be a kitten but she would be no little girl. She had a way, a bearing and a look that said she might be a cat but she was no push over. The way she walked and the way she carried herself sad to me, even at her young age, this is no girl, she is a Lady. Thus how she was named. She was met with the usual cat hostilities from Squeaky, a solid build cat, like a boxer really, small but muscles and toughness over flowing. They would soon be wrestling. In fact, he was so strong I would break them up, fearing in their play he would hurt her. So they would fight on my floor but they would not make a sound. Even today, my cats do not make any noise when they play fight. Otherwise I stop them. Then there was “LB” The old man of the house. He was 15. Look up the word “Stoic; in the dictionary and you will see him. She would hiss at him and he would just sit there. She would make to hit him and he would just sit there. In fact, he never hissed back nor hit her at all. He would just be there. He would pass on later on that year. Rip old age of 15 is 88 in human years so he had a good long cat life. I wonder if cats think we are immortal? They arrive, we are there and when they die, we remain to mourn their passing. The “boys” soon let her into their club and let her play with them. She being a kitten would be the trouble maker and they would as more stately gentlemen play with her much to my amusement if not their own fun. A few months after LB passed, on a morning where Squeaky was as his usual play, waking me up by fighting with my feet, Mother was so taken by it she took pictures of him playing with them. That afternoon, he lied down in the sun upon her bed and simply passed on to the next world. Two cats, lost in a year, are never fun. We soon remedied that by bringing my sisters cat. We called her “Little One” because she was so tiny. She would grow up and be fat but she was fun to have around. She was a trouble maker but she sure did not like to get it in return. They would chase her and she would run, only to come back later for more fun. Then came Holly, super small, the runt of the litter but loved all the same. Always small and still is. Her mother had the litter out of season, in January of the coldest year. But that cat was smart. She had the litter behind a pet food store. Soon they had rescued the liter and given them shelter. So when I was offered my kitten, three weeks old, I said “Yes.” See I had a black cat and I was told this one would be orange. Black and orange, all the colors of Halloween, hence she was named Holly. I had to feed her by syringe to make sure she was feed. That is until one day, when I was feeding her; Little One came to taste her meal. He tongue came out to lap some up but it was not to her taste so she moved on. Holly’s eyes were glued watching this approaching beast. Not in fear but in wonder. What was she doing to my food? She was licking it? So she squirmed and I put her down. She ran to the food and tasted it. Hey this is good. She had learned to feed herself. She would soon be getting Kitten food next to the adult bowl. The only difference is the size of the food really. That is until no one was looking, Then we little Holly would steal a piece of the adult food and crunch into it.

For years the three got along. Except, alas poor I, I was surrounded by females. Feeling outnumbers I found a male cat from another work place. He was a total barbarian to the girls. So I named him Eric, short for “Eric the Red” as he was a bright red. And he was big. The breed is called Maine Coon and this one was near 4 feet from nose to tail. Big and heavy. He would run after our little runt, Holly, and she would flee to my door. Only one day she stopped too swiftly for Eric and he ran right over her. No he does not push her over, or hit her in any way. He ran right over her. She was standing and he was standing all around her like a babushka doll. When I told mother about Holly whimpering, Mother said she was always a wimp. I told Mother if someone ran over me that way I might whimper too. There we were four cats, and frankly the house was busy at petting time and food time and bed time too. Each had their own personality. Like Little One would sleep in the food bowl. Not next to it or around it. Nope, her head would be in the food and she would sleep there. Lady would hate to jump up so whenever she chased Little One for being a pain, the only escape was to run and jump up somewhere. Eric was but he was not allowed to be mean so he turned out to be a gentle cat. That is unless he was wrestling with Lady. Did you know there is a cat Judo? Lady held a black belt. Eric weighed double hers and his body was easily twice her size. Yet he wanted to be the Alpha male in the house, he had to answer to the “Boss.” Lady would never allow him to take her position. He would try to fight with her. The word “try” is key. She would lie on the ground letting him come lord over her! That is until she would take both paws and grab his head and turned. Where his head went so did the rest of his body. And with a mighty thump he would be slammed to the ground. Now they were playing so no noise was made but you could hear the thump of his fall. After watching her flip him three times in a row, I had to stop it. I feared she would hurt him. Not the other way around.

Along the ride, rules were set. No cats on the table. No fighting between the cats. No hogging the food (Sorry Little One!). But time passed and soon caught up with us. Little One was the first to go. She was not moving, in a coma of sorts. So we picked her up and covered her to keep her warm. The other three cats came by. I petted her so she knew someone was there and she passed on in the night. A few years later, was Eric’s turn. He was in pain such that he cried out in the middle of the night. I would have brought him to the Vet but over the course of an hour from whence he made me aware of his problem, he too was gone. That was 10 months ago. So I was down to but two girls cats. Mother said the two seemed to be in a funk. So New years Day I purchased a new little girl. Her name was shadow. She was all black, sort of brown in the sun and she was fun. She got the other two busy again.

Lady was feeling her age. She stopped eating the hard food, and after trial and error we figured out how to feed her. She would only eat soft food. If we left it on the floor the new cat would eat it all (seemingly in one gulp!) Since Shadow does not like to jump up anywhere, we put the food on the counter. Holly would still eat some but only a bit. Lady could not jump up to the counter anymore. Not like she would have even as a kitten. So she needed an elevator service. In case you are wondering that “elevator service?” That would be me. So in the morning when I stirred she would yell at me to get out of bed for food. I would put her up let her eat then after a while bring her down cause she could not jump down. I would do this every two hours or so all day long. She was so used to yelling at me, she would yell for food, she would yell for water and then for no reason at all until I picked her up and held her for a while. I did that a lot. In the last days I think she stopped eating. She would pick then yell to be let down.

So this week; her last day, I came home from work. She could no longer walk. It was time. We both knew it. But it so broke my heart to bring her to the vet but I could not let her suffer. I would not let her suffer. I ate my lunch and feed her some cheese. She loved cheese and chicken. She had both for lunch that day. I got her settled in Mother’s arms and I drove. She stared at me the whole time. I parked the car and took her in my arms. In we went. A nice lady stopped and petted her and remarked bow beautiful her eyes were. She was always such a pretty cat. So I held her tight, petting her and crying, until my number was called. But I knew, in the waiting to be called she passed on. Held in arms, that she loved to be held in. Who loved to hold her too. By someone, I hope she in her cat like brain understood, loved her very much as well. I told the receptionist I was there to verify my cat had died. She did not make us wait. We saw a doctor. Rigour Mortis was setting in. But he checked her heart just for show I think. He could tell. She was dead. They asked if I wanted to keep her collar. My cats lived their lives with those bells, and if the collar was removed they would wait for it back. They did not have much but that collar was theirs and they understood that. Just like the bed I slept in was theirs during the day so get up it is their time to use it should I dare sleep in too late for their opinion.

And so we came home to a house that is much quieter now. No one yells at me. She would when she wanted come to my door and yell at me. I used to worry about what she was doing but I figured out she wanted me to pick her up and pet her. She hated heights but she would get picked up two or three times a day because she would yell at me for no reason. Well she had a reason; she wanted to hugged, cuddled and petted. No there is no one who pushes me away from the dropped food items. In the morning, I hear no feline alarm call. The other two cats are healthy and happy. They miss her too, I think so anyways. I know I still miss her. In the end, she may have thought we humans are immortal. We were here when she arrived. And we are still here after she left. Someone has to immortalize her name. In the end, she is always a lady to me.

Rest in Peace Lady

She was my friend but she will always be MY cat.