Donald Trump has been calling news media’s as “The Enemy of the People,” and “Fake News.” Seemingly, the population should be disgusted by now, of his insults? Yet after two years, he still makes such comments and the people still support him, albeit a minority. So why? What is going on here?
News changed. They used to be reporters of facts. Walter Cronkite would end his broadcast with the phrase; “That’s the way it is.” And it was, the way it is, just the facts, no spin and no propaganda. When President Lyndon Johnson sat watching live TV coverage from inside the White House, one story reports that he seeing Cronkite be negative towards his administration turned to one of aides or secretaries and said; “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” This was the power of this one man. He was honest and he was a journalist. Middle American was not his, he was Middle America personified as one man. Today what do we have?
When President Kennedy was shot, public opinion marked the decline in trust in the American government that has never recovered. Such that today, people would rather believe in some mysterious conspiracy figure called Q then any new media. Partially blame this on the failing education system that refused to teach skepticism and critical thinking to the next generation of students. (Note the blame is spread all over in this blog!)
New divisions where merged into entertainment divisions resulting in an emphasis on short, fast paced, peppy, exposes of the news and not investigations, explanation and description of events. Old school journalism died at the supper hour. They might have some other programs that would do that sort of “News” but from now on we had entertainment as a replacement for news.
Then came the budget cuts. The local reporting dropped. The networks centralized on the Coasts, Atlanta, Washington, New York, Chicago, (while not technically on a coast might as well be treated as such) and Los Angeles. Middle America and Middle Americans, so highly prized by Cronkite and Johnson were forgotten, ignored and treated as a bunch of small town hicks. “Who cares what they think, they stick of manure.” Thus began the great divide between the media elites of the coast and the middle of America where Trump’s followers live and breathe. Adding further insult to the injury, Sinclair is writing editorials to send to all their so-called “News” stations to read as if they were local opinion. When they are certainly nothing but corporate propaganda. You can fool some of the people, some of the time but not all of them all of the time. The people, who trusted the news makers and valued their opinions, having been outright lied to, can obviously see their local media as merely a pawn of the coasts and not representing the local people or the local opinions. Is it any wonder that Cable news viewers are almost exclusively elderly? Young people turn in to the news on the Internet, YouTube and bogs.
Lastly, come Fox News, a special case all on its own. The news division is slightly right wing, while trying to be legitimately a news organization. The programs in between are similarly called news but are deemed as entertainment so the new content is not fact checked or scrutinized anywhere near where it legitimately should be to be called news. Such as the many cases of sexual harassment and the payouts in the multi-million dollar range for sexual harassment. People like Bill O’Rielly and Roger Alies cost the company literally millions in payouts. Commentators like Laura Ingraham, while claiming she was not talking about race, might as have been goose stepping and “Sieg Heiling” across the stage, But then in a wink, wink, nudge, nudge moment, disingenuously proclaimed she is not a racist. Sean Hannity, straight out lies on air. He brings on his own attorney and does not seem to remember that he is a client. Lou Dobbs will call out Obama for mildly rebuking someone on the right interrupting his speech but supports Trump when he banned a journalist from reporting on an event when she is the pool reporter, because she dared to ask questions that the President did not like. As a female she is not allowed to be anything other than a pussy for the Donald to grab. But Lou Dobbs thinks this is perfectly fine. While Michael Flynn was pleading guilty, Fox and Friends felt it was more news worthy to show cute pandas. The list of outrages could go on. But why bother. News media’s do not care what the other guy says, they won’t police themselves. They won’t report on the facts. They just want the comfy jobs where they collect enormous amounts of money for doing almost no work. There are exception but they are the few and not the norm. New media has stopped being about the news, facts and reporting. It has become the shallow, empty place of void uninformed opinions paid for by the highest paying advertiser.
Not my quote but: Journalism 101, when one guy says it’s raining and the other guy says it’s sunny. Your job is not to say it could either raining or sunny. Your job is to look out the window and report on the facts as you can see from your window. Until you return to doing that, your credibility well never recovers. Your reputation will never be more then it is now. All too many people will assume you are indeed fake news and turn to conspiracy central like Alex Jones for their information. The Fourth Estate is dying buy (sic) its own financial success.

I received a sales call from a company that is owned by a man named Pierre Karl Peladeau (PKP). He may not mean anything to you unless you live in Quebec. However, his name means something to me. He was the rich son of a business genius. Sadly, he left that fortune in his son’s hands. It quickly dropped in value:

“At the beginning of his term as president in 1998, Quebecor’s activities were concentrated in the printing and the pulp and paper sectors (which accounted for $7.9 billion of the company’s $8.4 billion in annual revenue). In 2009, the picture was totally different. The company at that point was focusing on the telecommunications sector, which accounted for $2 billion of its $3.8 billion in revenue).“

It takes real skill to lose over half the profits from your company’s business in only ten years.

He sold off 90% of the assets in the company only to retain ownership of his legacy stock. It has 10 times the vote per share as regular stock. Doing the math, in very simple terms, he controls 100 votes to 90 votes for the other shares. He has a minority ownership but with majority votes. So he gets to control the company all the while no longer owning most of it.

He was elected leader of the political opposition, only to quit soon after in order to fight his soon to be ex-wife over custody of his children. Sadly, I do not see any noble motive in this, just that he is a control freak who won’t let his wife have them. His wife would soon be in court fighting a private security company over one of their detectives to learn who the client was having her followed. I wonder who it would be.

As a politician, he was an ardent nationalist! He demanded respect for Quebec and the people of Quebec against any outsiders. Except… Where is his company incorporated in? Delaware. Let me assure you, for the geographically challenged, Quebec is not in Delaware. But this sort of hypocrisy was all too common with him.

As a politician he went to rock concert. When the band was singing their English hit, he was heard yelling “En Francais.” As if he expected the group to only sing in one language and not as their fans would want to hear as they advertised their show.

Once he left office, his ownership of news media amounted to his reporters digging deep into the background of his political opposition. Now, of course, if the scandals uncovered were the stuff of front page, no one would think twice about where they came from. But this is not to be. The so called scandals where of a gossipy affair and more aimed to embarrass people then real journalism.

I could go on but, I would like to draw two conclusions from this.

The first is that PKP is the Quebec version of Donald Trump. From being a liar, hypocrite and poor businessman, to having a political enemies list and acting upon it, all is straight into the same play book as The Donald. The second is for those who think the stink will wash off over time. PKP left politics in 2014. He is still and always will remain on my list of people that I will never do business with, never say nice things and never, ever, will I forget. If PKP was on fire and I had a glass of water? I would still drink the water. Four years later. The people who are on Donald Trump’s team think they will one day walk away from his stench and live out their lives away from his legacy? I have news for you that you will not like! No, you will not like it at all…

This past week, on Thursday Peter Strzok appeared before the House Judiciary Committee. It has been compared to another hearing on Benghazi. Benghazi? Really? Is that the best comparison you can do for this national disgrace? Oh yea who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. (George Santayana) So too here we go again. This was a Soviet style show trial, with an American twist. The guilt or innocence was pre determined. In fact, no one cares about guilt or innocence, all they cared about was to slam and destroy the reputation of the Strzok. The process was not about getting to the truth, the underlying facts of the matter or any furtherance of any legitimate investigation of the facts. It had one purpose but to smear the person with enough merde as they, the elected gentlemen of the GOP could get away with. (Since many of those same men are about to be indicted for collusion, it is no wonder they are trying their best to muddy the water. They are going to jail for crimes against America!) They cannot take Strzok out to a firing squad, (course knowing those men, it would be circular and he would be tied to a post ten feet away.) But they might just as well have a rope and tree as they publicly tried to lynch a good man and his good name. But it backfired. (Bigly) This is not “Back in the USSR”; this is America, the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.” Strzok stood up his bullies and he fought back with integrity and honesty. What were they thinking? This is a police officer who has had to testify many times in court with defense lawyers who actually have master the facts, know what they are doing and are not trying to cover up their own crimes. Those lawyers play hard ball. The GOP House members are not real lawyers, they are not even authentic. No self serving criminal is ever able to stand to a good man with righteous anger. So the Majority members cringed and snarled and made up rules of procedures to try and squirm away from him as he stood up for himself! And all of this was covered live by Fox News. If they were trying to help their side, they should cover more such disasters. It is one thing to lie and tell the spin, it is another to try and lie while the people are watching it live before their very own eyes just what is going on; to see the man’s passion and his answers to ever question. How he stood up and put them in their place. The result is that the GOP looked corrupt and stupid. And best of all, they failed to tarnish him. He came off as a hardworking, honest man, trying to fight for the people and uphold their laws. When you see the chair acting so improperly that he demanded the witness not speak with the FBI lawyer? Everyone knows you have a right to consult with your lawyer during questions. So when Strzok invoked “investigation in progress” language, he was threatened with contempt? I think that the chair should be formally thanked with obstruction charges when he hands down such paperwork. Along with everything else he is going to be charged with.  America deserves better than this from their government. Stand up for change and vote out anyone who was part of Trump’s legacy.

Okay so Will Smith has not been in the news a lot lately and has he even done any acting of late? But he made the news today in my world when I saw a quote. Let me set the stage. This week I have seen so many viral videos of racists acting all superior on minorities. One lady, for daring to wear an American territorial flag in the USA, who knew Puerto Rico was not in America?  Timothy Trybus, allegedly is the drunken racist in the video says it is not. And the cop who stood by and watched him, and is now on desk duty, should be fired. (Or as I checked for the latest update, fearing his termination and protecting his pension, he has resigned instead. This way he can get another job in a different place and still claim to “serve and protect.”)Or the two white women acting as the neighborhood bigots welcomes a Hispanic family moving in across the street from them with a drunk attack on the nice people. They both got arrest. Then there was the grandmother who got all upset at being called a racist when she spotted a black child selling chocolate bars. As if that racist would have done the same for a white child. Then there were the two pool incidents, the first a white women claiming to be property manager attacked a black family for wearing socks in the pool. Okay weird behavior but you could still be polite about it and not a racist. Just saying that as friendly parting advice, she was fired from her job soon after the video went viral. It seems her company has a thing about having racists working for them. Or the other racist pool member on the board of regents, who demanded a women tell him her address even after she had a community card and going so far to call the police. The board fired him. Then to help him spend more time at Klan rallies, his company spotting his face, also fired him. It is bad public relations to employ someone that openly racist and that openly stupid on your pay roll. Now he can no longer afford to live in that nice area and might actually have to move to where those other people live… Gasp! Bye, enjoy the move. So on and on it went all week with the morning having some new video. Today’s video had a bit of a twist to it, in that some racist using the “N word” in Chicago on a small black woman. What he did not see was the biggest nightmare he could imagine in a very large African American who took exception to the racist rant and took off his glasses and proceeded to punch the asshole such that he fell to the floor and the when he again cursed the man he kicked him into the tracks of an oncoming “El” train. At that point the people pulled him out of certain death. See even those they would let him get the beat down he deserved, they figured he might learn from his racism and live to see the light of day once more. Now I do not condone violence of any sort. Because it leads to what also happened this week when a 92 year old Hispanic man, walking with the aid of walker accidentally touched a little girl on the sidewalk in front of her mother as he did his daily walk. The mother took a break and slammed it into his face. Then while he was left to rot on the ground a gang of youths came by and proceeded to viciously kick him more than a few times. He has now been released from hospital and is recovering at him. 92 years old. The attackers in this case were black. Racism is not only a white thing. It’s a thing and it has to stop.

This brings up my first comment by Will Smith. See I was getting despondent about the constant video assault, until I read his words. Now he may not be profane in much of what he says but this time? He hit a home run.

“Racism is not getting worse. It’s getting filmed.” -Will Smith

Amen Brother! It is getting filmed. Named and shamed and then we play the game. From holding a make shift Mariachi for New York racist lawyer Aaron Schlossberg, to having them fired, arrested or shamed in public. Racism is no longer tolerated. No longer accepted and will no longer be in the dark. Every cell phone has a video camera and you find a Wi-Fi spot nearly anywhere. Just film it and upload it and let the voice of the people name and shame ever last one of them.

Ontario has announced changes to their existing drug plans. If you are a child and have private insurance, by way of your parents I would assume, you no longer get your drugs free under the provincial plan. Should you have no insurance then you remain covered by the government plan. There should be no difference at the local level in distrusting pills to sick kids. This is good, sort of. At least it should be! Right? It will save the government money as it goes forward and that is a good thing right? That should lower taxes and this is a good thing. Right? Well there are two tracks, the personal and the governmental to follow. First, the personal path; As the government is saving costs by dumping on insurance companies, they costs are forwarded to consumers who have to pay increased premiums to cover the additional costs now borne by government for what used to be a public cost is now a private cost. So what happens? Profits are a percentage of sales, so by increasing premiums, so increase the profits. Insurance companies unlike the government are there to make money. So costs go up for private plans. This knocks off the marginalized working poor whose premiums go up such that they cannot afford insurance any longer. So no more dentistry, no glasses, and nothing that private insurance would have covered. But children still have their pills. See what might have cost all of Ontario pennies each will cost the work poor real money off their pay. Money they will no longer afford to pay. Do we really want to have people asking such American questions as; “Do I buy us food or do I buy my kids glasses and dental care.” When you live on the margins, such a question is very real.

But this great for the government supply side right? Not so much, by reducing the amount of people covered, they increase their own bulk buying costs. The predictable cost is now unpredictable, when you cover all children; you get all the range of problems. But as people are covered by private insurance this is subject to change year over year in a non linear function. Furthermore as people are forced off insurance due to rising costs, the state will have to pay in other cost related expenses due to less medical care that was once covered by insurance for poor and marginalized people. Long terms costs can be seen in that people with less ability to buy glasses will read less, and learn less and be more likely to stop school earlier then they could have achieved.

The one thing this is good for, and it is not citizens of the province but the companies. Drug companies will charge more per pill. Insurance companies will earn more profits on high costs per policy. But at least the people will get a tax break right? No not really. The savings will not trickle down to them, and if it did, as they are only paying pennies for their share of such a program, they will get pennies back. All in all, this plan is a loser neo con agenda to strip people of entitlements that are paid for collectively.

New York Times published an article about a Muslim girl living in America, within it she questions her sexuality, her religion, her life and her basic existence. This is seen as strangely inappropriate for her to wear a Hijab and be a hoe. Hoejabi is even a word now.
“Taken literally, the term “hoejabi” refers to women who see themselves at the crossroads of being “hoes” and “hijabis.” If you’re not a Muslim woman, don’t even think about using it”(1)
We have seen this sort of thing before: 50 years ago this would have been written by an Italian discussing the Madonna–whore complex. Same idea different day. Some years later, we would be hold a copy of the “Catcher in the Rye” and wondering what poor tragic Holden Caulfield would do next? Or perhaps it would be “A Separate Peace” by John Knowles, “The Outsiders” by S.E. Hinton. Before that even F. Scott Fitzgerald “The Great Gatsby” from way back to 1925. I even suspect that if I was in England in the 70 tys it would be “The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe”  as my talisman for teenage angst.  Or perhaps if i was older and pre second world war it would be George Orwell and his works “Down and out in Paris and London” or “Homage to Catalonia.”Just put on the vintage record album with “why must I be a teenager in love” released by Dion and the Belmonts in March 1959.  Or perhaps Dylan’s “Highway 61 Revisited”?I could go on but the point is the literature is rift with people questioning who they are in their teenage years. Today it is a Muslim female. And I say so? Welcome to the club, let us know if you ever get an answer back.The only man who knowingly questioned the world and got an answer was Job.

• Job 38:1-7

  Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

  2 “Who is this that obscures my plans  with words without knowledge?

  3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.

  4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

  5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

  6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone

  7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

Let me know if anyone ever answers you!

In Leon Texas, a group of people armed with cameras were arrested for posting the name of the Chief of police and his home address on their chat program. The police then promptly arrested those same men under a law in Texas, Texas Penal Code – PENAL § 36.06. Obstruction or Retaliation, where publishing such information is deemed illegal. Not sure it not also a government overreach into protected speech of the First amendment, but it still stand on the books, not having been tested as yet.

“First, the individuals arrested are not the publisher of the webpage—YouTube is. Second, even if they are the publisher, they didn’t put the address out there, and the statute provides that to show intent, the publisher would have to leave it up for over 48-hours or to repost it to another website.”(1)

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has a solution for commercial purposes such that for copyright law purposes, they would treat online service providers as deemed innocent middle-men in any underlying conflicts, disputes or claims of infringement between someone with a legitimate copyright and any user who posted any infringing content for purposes other than “fair use.” I understand commercial law is not penal law, and Federal law is not State law, but the principle seems to be similar. In my mind, and I am not a Texas lawyer, it is like walking down a street, a police officer tosses a bag of drugs at my head, to protect myself I grab it and then promptly arrest me for drug possession. Did I have the drugs on me? Yes. Did I have true possession or intent? I don’t think so. The same with the auditors. Did they have the address on their chat? Yes. Did they have intent to publish it? Did they receive notice and 48 hours to take it down? And lastly, should notice be sent to the auditor themselves or to YouTube as the company that physically was hosting the chat? Not to mention that the whole thing seems to be on shaky constitutional grounds to begin with.
All I do know is that if I owned property in Leon Valley, I would be looking to sell because in the next few years they are going to be paying out a lot of money for those arrests. That bill is almost certainly going to be passed on to the people who are property owners.

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.”