Saturday, March 31, 2018

Just thinking

One of the 1 Aug 1966 University of Texas victims was an unborn child. 

How many more Gun Violence victims have been unborn children? By the pro-life way of thinking, these "unborn children" are innocent no matter what their parents are like.

Usual question: where are the pro-lifers on this one?

Sorry, but you can't say you are pro-life and go with the gun lobby's pushing the envelope on self-defence to make it easier to kill people. Traditional common law makes self-defence (1) a mitigation, not a complete defence, (2) places the decision on whether force was necessary to the finder of fact (usually the jury), and (3) makes excessive force, even deadly force, a hard hurdle to get past.

But even more importantly if you are going to be against "killing babies", then you should be firmly against guns.

Sorry, but you can't be pro-life and pro-gun without being in serious denial.

Footnote: the University of Texas shooting pretty much put the pro-gun arguments to rest: especially armed civilians stopping the incident. According to people who were there, there were armed civilians, but they made the situation much worse.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Gun Control isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue it's one of public safety.

I am really sick of people who try to make this into anything other than the public safety issue that it actually is. Worse, they twist the Second Amendment to try and create a "right" which didn't exist until fairly recently.

Fortunately, even though Heller and McDonald removed the Second Amendment from its relationship to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution: it made it clear that any "gun right" was subject to regulation.

In case you missed it all. From Heller.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Better yet:
But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64
From McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

So, let's forget the Second Amendment shit since even those "gun friendly" cases aren't on your side. Toss in how you harmonise them with the prior case law which made it clear the Second Amendment only applied to the Active (Organised) Militia (Presser and Miller).

You should feel really stupid if you find your Conservative cred is somehow tied to support for repealing the gun laws. You have been played since it was once a bi-partisan issue, but the powers that be figured out it was a good way to get you to vote against your interest (and sell some guns).

Richard Nixon is on record as saying:

     “I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house, The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth....why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”
    “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.”
That's not the only anti-gun statement Nixon made.

Next, let's go to Conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Despite how he has been reformed, Reagan was a strong gun control advocate.
“Reagan last week declared his support for a bill requiring a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. He did so at a George Washington University ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the shooting that almost killed him and permanently disabled his press secretary, James S. Brady.

“It is called the Brady Bill, and Reagan said Congress should enact it without delay. ‘It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun,’ the former president said.’”

“It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, ‘prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.’ The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

“Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. ‘I support the Brady Bill,’ he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, ‘and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.’" SOURCE
Brady, as in "Brady Bill" and"the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence", is a reference to James Brady. James Brady was a victim of the 1981 attempt on Reagan's life.

Paul Helmke who was the head of the Brady Campaign, was mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana and a Goldwater Republican. In fact, a lot of the Brady people would call themselves conservative (that is a whole other post there).

Chief Justice Warren Burger, another Conservative, said this about the Second Amendment "scholarship" which is polluting this issue. In case the above clip gets yanked:

JUSTICE BURGER: That says a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, people's rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia -- if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? It's got to be registered, that you can't just deal with it at will. Someone asked me recently if I was for or against a bill that was pending in Congress calling for five days' waiting period. And I said, yes, I'm very much against it, it should be thirty days' waiting period so they find out why this person needs a handgun or a machine gun.

Next, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004 started out as an executive order by President George H.W. Bush. Somehow that got lost in all the polemic of this being a conservative v. liberal issue amongst all the other conservatives who backed gun control.

Let's put it this way, there is a reason that Gun Violence research has been banned: it's that it kills the "conservative" talking points on this issue.

Personally, you aren't conservative by any stretch if you can be conned into somehow supporting an issue which is harmful to yourself. 

Nor are you intelligent.

Sunday, March 25, 2018

Being "pro-gun" isn't really pro-gun

What would you say if you saw a bunch of people being really irresponsible? Not only were they irresponsible, but they were giving YOU a bad reputation.

Those people are the gun nuts, or gun loons.

No, not all gun owners fall into that category.

But when someone goes so far off the deep end that they fail to understand that they are not being careful with something that is intended to kill or cause serious bodily injury when used properly.  Even target practise is training to be able to kill.

Now, before you say "it's just an inanimate object that isn't harmful": would you put a loaded one in your mouth and pull the trigger?

I hope you answered that question "no", otherwise stop reading NOW! I say that because there is nothing I will be able to say that will make you see sense.

You are one of those fuckwits who is so entrenched in having a gun as your identity that you will not see sense.

If you happen to be a sensible gun owner, then you understand that having guns everywhere makes no sense.  You wonder why anyone would want a weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds: especially when these weapons cause more harm than good.

But it goes beyond just weapons with a high rate of fire. It goes to idiots who shoot in built up areas because they have a "right" to do so. More people carrying guns in public makes no sense as well.

Unless you are a shareholder in a weapons manufacturer.

I have no problem with legitimate gun ownership, but if you have one to wage war on the US Government (which happens treason under Article III, iii of the US Constitution, so drop the "Constitutionalist" Bullshit--the document is against your position) or to fight the zombie apocalypse.

Deadly weapons are not toys. You have no "right" to one if that is your attitude.

Promoting unfettered gun ownership is plain off wrong.

It's time to stop fighting the change that is way overdue or you may be looking at the gun ban you dread. Instead you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by having been irresponsible with your "right".

Bottom line, start being responsible and get used to there are limits on gun ownership.

Or just shut the fuck up because we are tired of hearing from you because the tide has turned against you.

And the responsible gun owners want to be able to hunt or target practise, which they may end up not being able to do if we don't show some responsibility and sanity in all this.

If people want to call themselves conservative then they had better start with personal responsibility.  In this case the responsibility is to stop promoting gun ownership amongst people who shouldn't even dream of owning a firearm.

Friday, March 23, 2018

Think about it:

The Russians did not tell Hillary Clinton to send surrogates to Arizona shortly before the election, when they would have been far more helpful in Michigan or Wisconsin. They didn’t tell her to give a speech at Goldman Sachs for $225,000 in the wake of a huge bank bailout or call half Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables”. Facebook hadn’t been invented when she was for the Iraq war before she was against it, or when she was against gay marriage before she was for it.
Social media platforms, nefarious bots and dodgy data companies can amplify views that are already out there and distort perspectives that already exist – but they cannot invent them. In short they can manipulate the supply of ideas, but they cannot create the demand for those ideas from thin air. (source)
The problem is that people are too busy blaming the Russians for problems which existed without them.

While Hillary Clinton may have played a part in my voting Green: her being the Democratic candidate was not the main factor. I've gone through the series of events which made me not want to vote for "the lesser of two evils", but vote for someone who represents my political leanings in quite a few posts (especially this one).

Seriously, if the Russians were indeed responsible, then they have infiltrated the US political system to a level where only a serious purge could remove them.

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Tuesday, March 20, 2018


Is that like saying "squirrel" to my dogs?

Ever notice that the conversation turns to Russia when any scrutiny is placed on the US factors in the 2016 Election? Especially in the US media, which happens to be fairly incestuous due to media consolidation.

OK, there were some Russians working for Cambridge Analytica, but it is beginning to look like Facebook may be more at issue here. The Guardian has been doing a series on Cambridge Analytica and the Facebook "hack". This is turning out to be like the Democratic e-mail "hack" which was probably more of a leak than a hack.

The real culpability here is with Facebook rather than the Russians, which is pretty much the case with any Russian involvement I've seen.  Unless Russians have managed to infiltrate the US to an extent that would make Ol' Joe McCarthy look askance at the numbers.

Anyway, I turn off when people try to blame the Russians for a situation which is obviously home grown. It's a waste of time to fixate on them when there are easy fixes to the system, but they won't be addressed since the people who run the system are benefiting by this.

As the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Nix, said:“It sounds a dreadful thing to say, but these are things that don’t necessarily need to be true as long as they’re believed.”

Let's start with the electoral college, but that is only one a a few problems that need fixing here.
See also: