America's Downward Spiral With Political Violence

What the supporters of "gun rights" fail to comprehend, despite their saying guns are "inanimate objects" is that "inanimate objects" can be turned against them. 

It's also poor policy to allow your opponents to be well armed.

Unfortunately, the concept of "gun rights" has allowed for the US to have way too many guns in the hands of the wrong people.

London Broadcasting Corporation's James O'Brien asks, 'Why are Charlie Kirk's words suddenly off limits?' Especially since Kirk did say about gun deaths on April 5, 2023, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

 

The best sentence I've read on this subject is: "I don't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but he did."

How can you condemn me if Kirk said, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

If it's wrong to quote Charlie Kirk's words then it probably was wrong for Charlie Kirk to make those comments in the first place.  

Anyway, here's Tim Black for a final comment:

When we hang the capitalists, they will have sold us the rope

Charlie Kirk is the product of misrepresenting the Second Amendment to make it anything other than a declaration that the militia, that is the non-professional, part time defence force, should be protected.

The text says nothing of personal uses, in particular self-defence. In fact, the constitution makes it clear it only addresses the common defence (preamble: "provide for the common defence").

The phrase "self-defence" is absent from the text. 

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Anyone who wants to change the meaning of this, or wishes to imply that it applies to anything other than the common defence should be precluded from the practise of law.

In fact, the founders could have just said "fuck it, we screwed up" given what a mess they made with the war of  independence.

They didn't: they wrote a POS called the US Constitution.

Which includes something which was so insane as to be counter to their intent of "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 

I hope Scalia is burning in hell for his trashing of the law and the other Justices need to admit that they massively fucked up with Heller-McDonald and their progeny.

It's about the common defence,

Not a personal right. 

And show me where in the US Constituion it mentions a personal right to weapons, especially for self-defence, if you think I am wrong, or don't know what I am talking about. 

But, you can't do that because the text is silent on that topic.

Note: I added the photo since Charlie Kirk said gun deaths were 'worth it' to keep Second Amendment. I am not cheering his death, but this is an important point to add to this statement since his advocacy for this nonsense definitely contributed to his death. If it's wrong to quote Charlie Kirk's words then it probably was wrong for Charlie Kirk to make those comments in the first place.

"I don't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but he did." 

David Hogg needs to join the Green Party.

I said I am on the outs with most of the "Gun Violence Prevention" crowd lately and David Hogg's ejection from the DNC is yet another glaring example of why. I don't know what he is hoping to do, but it won't get done through the duopoly. The Dems have a habit of talking progressive, but doing nothing significant about it.

Instead, they hope to get people that they can point to and say, "They are progressive" while the rest of the party sits in the malaise that Hogg finally pointed out.

But hoping to get a solution from the parties which are the problem is going to prove fruitless: especially if you are trying to get reform by attacking their standard operating procedure. There's a reason that the primaries are pretty much meaningless.

And what has changed in regard to your pet issue? If anything, it's much easier to buy a gun now than it was when I was your age. And fully automatic weapons are more freely available along with talk of silencers being struck off the NFA list.

Just think of the carnage if the Parkland shooter had one of those!

I could get into how the duopoly uses the "hot button" issues to avoid addressing real problems. After all, I've been pointing out how meaningless Juneteenth is. After all, what is the state of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Anyway, David, we have a couple of issues in common: political change in the US, in particular election reform, and Firearms Regulation/Second Amendment. I can tell you that you are being overly optimistic if you have any hope in bringing about change within the Democratic Party/Duopoly.

And while making the switch to a third party is something I did myself: you  have to commit to getting new parties in the game, which the duopoly have hindered. But that's the only way for change to come about.

 It's the big donors, not the average person.

The Untold History of U.S. School Shootings: Before Columbine

The US constitution makes it clear that it deals with issues of the common defence, that is the military. It also does not mention personal uses, especially selkf-defence.
It's long past time when the absurdity of "gun rights" is ended.

The Alarming Rise of Political Violence in America

I wanted to come up with something about the targeted assassinations in Minnesota, which is where my two co-bloggers were located. It needs to be tied into what Luigi Mangione did and why that is not acceptable, even if you agree with his message. It's interesting that the act of political violence against politicians happened in Minnesota, even if that is only coincidental. On the other hand, political violence is a very disturbing trend. I agree with this commentator that it doesn't bode well for a country.

Armed mobs are more of a recipe for repression than freedom.

You really think the Founders gave you "gun rights" to defend yourself or to "fight tyranny"???

Gimme a break! You need to read the constitution and TRY to understand it. But this is a good rundown. The constitution is pretty clear that it doesn't want rebellion if you really read the thing.

OK, I'm not sure if I should revisit my comment about the Second Amendment & UA, or something else.

I can do both actually. 

The Second Amendment fallacy still applies. The Ukrainians were and are much better armed than I had expected at the start of this war. They did have the proper defence systems to counter the Orc (Russian) attack. Additionally, the Ukrainian forces followed historic trends and either captured or destroyed enemy equipment.

But, they didn't just have small arms to defend the nation. Otherwise, this would be a vastly different and scarier war for the West. Russian intentions do not stop at Ukraine's borders. Sadly, people in the West were far too willing to appease Putin while pretending not to. Political theatre at its worst.

My transition: A friend's brother was killed in the war. I don't know about my relations who are fighting. I hope they are doing well. I am not certain of the numbers, but I know that Ukraine is doing much better than Russia.

The something else: too many people outside of Ukraine don't understand they are a different country. I understand it because I understand the cultural nuaces that make nations different from each other. Also, I have relations who will tell you in no uncertain terms what your misconceptions are.

I made a statement that Ukraine was flat to a Ukrainian cousin when I was younger. She pulled out a topographic map to show me that the West was in the Carpathian mountains. Likewise, they will point out that Ukrainian culture isn't at all like Russian culture. You would think that Americans would understand that.

But the something else I want to mention is that quite a few people outside Ukraine are parroting the Russian line that Ukraine is somehow "part of Russia". 

Not at all.

That is historical and cultural ignorance based on superficial knowledge. Unfortunately, I find that ignorance is endemic in the West, particularly in the US. I was unaware that there was a Bipartisan Congressional Ukraine Caucus in the US legislature and has been since 1997. I would think that caucus would be much more vocal about the issues in this war.

Additionally, there are a lot of people who have relatives who were DPs post-WWII. I am amazed they are not more vocal about what is going on. Perhaps because most of those people are "boomers" or their parents.

People need to understand that the West allowing Russia of occupy Crimea was only the start. The War in Ukraine is only a stepping stone to a war that will soon come to the West.

Wait until the US Gun Nuts see this....

An open top BMW 6 series with a NSV 12,7x108 heavy machine gun mounted - is not something you see everyday.

 

From the Ukraine Weapons Tracker https://twitter.com/UAWeapons

Ukraine helps to debunk Second Amendment fallacy of armed resistance.

CONSIDER THIS... This is just part of the known tally ...

• In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Nevermind that this figure includes something the Russians call "the Great Patriotic War" and the rest of us call World War II. And didn't the Russians have an army where there was heavy fighting?

Toss in that I'm not sure how large the population of Germany was (the country which attacked the Soviet Union) in relation to the Soviet Union, but I would guess that there weren't as many Germans as there were Soviets. As Matthew White says (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/gunsorxp.htm):

Well, right off the bat I can see that whoever compiled this tally has a different definition of defenseless than I do. I myself wouldn't declare the largest military machine on the planet "unable to defend itself", but by adding 20 million from the Soviet Union, this list does. After all, Stalin's most infamous terror fell heavily on the Soviet Army, culling tens of thousand of officers, and executing three out of five marshals, 15 out of 16 army commanders, 60 out of 67 corps commanders and 136 out of 199 division commanders. In one bloody year, the majority of the officer corps was led away quietly and shot. It may be one of life's great mysteries as to why the Red Army allowed itself to be gutted that way, but obviously, lack of firepower can't be the reason.

 One of the nice things about modern technology is that we can see the Ukrainians preparing to fight the Russian Army. Sure, there are the pictures of people carrying wooden guns as they drill, but there are also the civilian reservists. As one person I know who is very close to Ukrainian resistance pointed out: "There will be 80 year old women defending their homes with AK47s."

That doesn't seem to be dissuading Putin from wanting to invade Ukraine. Again, from Matthew White:

This is what I call the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get someone's gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or figuratively), that's not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at Appomattox, that wasn't gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn't gun control either. Mao didn't come to power in China by tricking the populace into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a stand-up fight. There's a big difference between unable to fight back, and fighting back but losing.

Personally, there are other ways to prevent a war. Toss in that I would like to think that Vladimir Putin isn't a complete headcase or total fucking moron. He was in the KGB: The dudes who killed Stepan Bandera. He couldn't be that much of a dumbfuck that he's forgotten that Ukraine was the only part of the old Soviet Union that had an armed resistance.

And while I'm cheering on the underdog, Ukraine; I don't have any illusions that any resistance they make against the Russians will be pretty ineffective. Again, from Matthew White:

Even most of the victims of Hitler went down kicking and screaming. The majority of the Jews and Gypsies were hunted down in countries like Poland and Russia that had been overrun in open battle, and if they were lacking guns, it certainly wasn't German laws that created the situation.

Frankly, this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed -- guns or no guns.

 It would be nice if Putin were able to read this because I would like to think he isn't a complete dumbfuck who is crazy enough to start a war in Ukraine. No one will win if that is the case and Putin's reputation will be total shit.

Не будьте идиотом, Владимир. Война - неправильный выбор.

Of course, no one listens to me anyway.