Guns - why the Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means

We live in a society that is completely idiotic sometimes.  I don't completely blame the idiot people who think the idiotic things they do...society has made them this way by creating a situation where they're lead to believe things that are completely false.  It's like religion; people will proclaim the complete and undeniable nature of their god...except...there are no facts; only beliefs, hopes and desires.  But at least with religion the damage is less than with guns (at least since the end of the crusades and ACTUAL religious persecution ended).

Our country was founded on the idea of laws outlined in the constitution and its ten initial amendments, ratified by congress these documents set in motion a nation that has grown beyond anything any of those men could have ever imagined.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights was written at the end of the Revolutionary War in the late 18th century...in case you're not counting we live in the 21st century...meaning it's been over 200 years since these documents were created.  Since that time we have grown from 13 colonies to 50 states and a number of territories and protectorates.  Numerous wars have been fought (winning most of them) and its citizens have been leaders in technological achievements from the cotton gin to the personal computer.

And yet...we still hold on to this 200 year old document as if it is infallible and the perfection of all things political whilst simultaneously twisting its factual information for our own personal reasons.

There's a great seen in the show The West Wing where an argument is being had over the nature of the Constitution and whether or not it is archaic in regards to the census here's the transcript - it's worth reading - my part continues below:

TOBY
Every single expert, including the census bureau itself, which is a
bipartisan
commission, has said sampling is better.

GLADMAN
We've heard these arguments many times, but in this country we have a
constitution.

TOBY
We are aware of that.

SKINNER
The Constitution's very clear on this.

TOBY
I don't think it is.

SKINNER
Until a court rules that sampling is Constitutional-

TOBY
The article is arcane.

SKINNER
Come on, Toby. The article is not arcane.

TOBY
Let's take a look at it.

SKINNER
No. No. We don't have time-

TOBY
Let's take a look at it!

GLADMAN
Toby! None of us is a Constitutional scholar. And we honestly don't-

MANDY
It's not gonna take long!

TOBY
My staff managed to unearth a copy.

SKINNER
Toby, come on, we've been here for six-

TOBY
Mandy, would you read please from Article 1 Section 2?

GLADMAN
This is silly!

TOBY
Still, in all it is the owner's manual and we should read what it has to say!

MANDY
[reading] 'Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several
states, which may be included within this union according to their respective
numbers.
Which shall be determined by adding the whole number of persons including
those bound
to service for a term of years.'

SKINNER
Well you said it right there. It says which shall be determined by the whole
number
of persons. The whole number of persons! Not the end of an equation that some
statistician got off a computer. It says so right there!

TOBY
Actually that's not what it says.

SKINNER
What do you mean?

TOBY
Mandy left out a few words. Didn't she Mr. Willis?

WILLIS
Yes.

TOBY
Mr. Willis teaches 8th grade social studies, and Mr. Willis knows very well
what the
article says. It says which shall be determined by adding the whole number
of free
persons. And three fifths of all other persons. Three fifths of all other
persons.
They meant you Mr. Willis. Didn't they?


I cite this because it's important to understand that a document written over two centuries ago, regardless of what it is, is arcane and it is undeniable that the world has passed it by; in this case in regards to the value of HUMAN BEINGS.

So let's talk about guns...

The Second Amendment - included below unabridged says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to keep the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This gets interpreted by society today...and for a long time, sadly...that guns are a right for anyone and everyone to own and carry around.  Many states have gone so far as to allow ordinary citizens the right to walk around with a gun concealed on their person...ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS!

The Second Amendment is pretty clear on the subject: if you are part of a militia which is necessary to keep the security of a free state you have the right to bear arms.

Let's dig into that a little deeper.

When the "army" was founded in 1775 it was not intended to be a constant long-standing entity.  It was created to fight the British and everyone was conscripted.  Additionally, the armed forces have always been an external fighting force, not a police force to be used to control the populace.

Anyone know how many cities had police forces back when these documents were created?  Yeah...how about none; they didn't come around until the 1830's.

Militias were farmers and merchants and clerks who banded together into service defending their towns from, namely, British invaders and those members of the Continental Congress felt obliged to specifically grant them rights to own weapons.  The fact that there is a specific provision for how arms were to be appropriated would indicate that the Framers did not intend to allow what currently exists in regards to gun ownership to occur. 

Militias, as outlined in the text of the Second Amendment, do not exist any longer.  All cities, big or small, have some sort of municipal or county or state police force regulating their area to maintain law and order.  From that simple fact alone, the Second Amendment becomes completely obsolete and unfounded as a currently applicable right.

There is a reality to the fact that guns are an ever-present fact in our current society and they will never, ever go away because politicians would never have the stones to actually do anything about them anymore, but if you want to not look like a complete fucking moron point to that sad fact and stop misappropriating the laws this country was founded on to justify your desire to own something so inherently dangerous that every year hundreds of people die from accidental shootings.

Oh, and let's not forget the dozens upon dozens of school shootings that have happened over recent years and the one thing that rings true more often than not when these events are being reported and in the aftermath investigated: the guns were obtained legally.  That is fucking insane.

Agree with my stance or disagree with my stance on guns...but it's pretty impossible to deny the facts I'm presenting; open your eyes and see.

Tb

Free Speech - why it isn't what you think it is

We live in a country of idiots.

Over the nearly 240 years since independence was declared this country and its inhabitants have seen a number of highs and lows.  We've seen wars and we've seen desecration.  We've seen peace and prosperity (for some).  And often, far too often, laws are used to incorrectly reinforce ideas; whether that's under the guise of a purported right to own firearms (which when reading the ACTUAL TEXT of the Second Amendment clearly outlines the requirements for such things to be true, and virtually none of the gun owners meet these requirements) OR the right to freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment which will be our topic today.  

There is an incredible misunderstanding in this country about what Freedom of Speech means.  People make the assumption that they can say anything they want anywhere they want and they are covered under this law from any repercussions.  This could not be further from the truth.

For those of you not familiar with the specific verbiage of the First Amendment I am including the unabridged text here:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The key phrase that people fail to grasp from this statement is right at the beginning, "Congress shall make no law..." this is explicitly indicating that a law shall not exist which infringes on free speech.  Laws are executed by government agencies and maintained by states and the federal law enforcement agencies within this country.  Laws of this sort do NOT extend to public or private business or spaces.  People CANNOT simply say whatever they want and wrap themselves in the cover of the First Amendment and be "OK".

Here's a good example of the idiocy of people.  My drive to and from work is primarily on toll-roads and the primary road I take has numerous bridges and two walking path bridges that the road travels under.  Over the past few years I have been caught up in dozens of traffic jams, some of which extend 10 or more miles back, due to dumbass fucking people camping out on one of these walking path bridges and putting up stupid signs like: "Impeach Obama" or "Abortion is Murder" and other conservative right-wing shit like that.  

Over this past winter the local government decided to put up shaded netting - the kind you find on good tennis courts to keep wind from blowing through - which was clearly done specifically and explicitly to keep these dumbass people from massing on these paths and causing massive traffic issues.  I was extremely excited about this since traffic is bad enough without these fucks adding to it.  

Well, today on my drive home I was experiencing random traffic issues and I thought, "there must have been an accident - it couldn't be those assholes; there's that netting now".  Well, guess what...yeah, it was the idiots.  They had signage above the netting and off to the side of the path and this signage, instead of being some crazy conservative hate-speech it was various versions of complaints about their freedom of speech being infringed upon and demanding the right to be there and put their signs up.  Oh, did I mention that in several places these people destroyed portions of the netting?  No, well, they did.

Ok, so let's get one thing straight - I don't have to like or give a fuck about your message to hate you for causing traffic issues for me and thousands of other people JUST SO YOU CAN SAY THINGS NO ONE CARES ABOUT EXCEPT YOU.  But the fact that these people think that the netting is an infringement on their rights is TOTALLY FALSE AND IGNORANT!

The netting is not a law enacted to limit their speech.  The parties involved in placing the netting there were attempting to merely prevent unwanted affects from their demonstrations.  

You have the right to assemble.  You have the right to protest.  HOWEVER other people and organizations have the right to inhibit you from adversely affecting the surrounding area.  Add to this the fact that you destroyed public property and I hope these assholes got arrested today.  

I have dreams, no kidding, about making my way to the bridge where these people are with a paintball gun and just shooting everyone there, repeatedly at close range - pelting them with high-velocity rounds of paint.  Cause pain but do no permanent or deadly damage.  The satisfaction I have during these dreams is outstanding.

People will continue to unabashedly misunderstand and ignorantly invoke this law; of this I have no doubt.  But my hope is that somewhere along the way someone may stumble upon this post and learn a little something.

For now; please please please don't just assume something is true - investigate and learn.

Tb 

Batman v Superman - A Voice in the Void Review

A lot of people whose opinions I appreciate and respect on a number of topics have been, in a manner of speaking, up-in-arms over the Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice movie which was released Friday before last.  I'm here to tell you; their thoughts, discourse and opinions are lies or, perhaps it's better, instead to simply say: they fucking missed the point.

In my aging state I tend to prefer to avoid opening weekend release viewing of major films.  Gone are the days of sitting online for hours to rush into the theatre with the hope of getting a decent seat.  Now we can buy seats, specific seats, in advance and never concern ourselves with spending any more time waiting to view the film than we decide is desired.  As such I waited till today to see BvS.

I wasn't worried about spoilers; I've read the stories these characters are loosely based on (Dark Knight Returns, Death of Superman) and so I waded knee-deep into the minefield of Twitter seeing posts about how Rotten Tomatoes rated it terribly and numerous, numerous people stabbing at both the writer David S Goyer (Blade, The Dark Knight) and the director Zack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, Sucker Punch).



Let's touch on some important things that people completely missed the boat on.  First, the decision to "retell" the Batman origin story.  Yes, they show Thomas and Martha Wayne be gunned down but that isn't the point of the memory; it was in fact a dream and it was a dream about how Bruce first encountered bats and how in this dream they saved/killed him and brought him into the light.  It's a metaphor for who he had become but it also showed that this version of Batman that Goyer and Snyder were portraying was truly broken.  And despite what people will tell you mainstream American (you know, those millions and millions of people who went to see the film that have never read a comic book and may have never even seen prior Batman or Superman movies) they needed to be able to connect Martha Wayne to Bruce in the story.

Second, on that note let's talk about Martha Wayne and Martha Kent (a story line crossover literally decades in the making).  Batman is broken, like...seriously and unimaginably fucked up in this version of the story.  Unlike previous incantations where Bruce used his parent's death as an excuse or even a driving force; this version seems to see that occurrence as a mere stepping stone along a path he was destined for.  Batman is the core of the Justice League; he is their human moral center.  He, unlike all other standard members of the League, is a flesh and blood natural human and he's been broken for a long time.  But guess what; at his core he is still a good person who wanted to do good for the people of Gotham and when Clark utters Martha's name Bruce has an awakening.  He realizes that Superman isn't some god who needs to be feared and destroyed, he's someones son.

You can call that cheesy.  You can call that a cop-out.  But as someone who's read Batman comics for more than half my life; through dozens and dozens of versions of his personality based on differing writers and their construct of him, I can tell you that his reaction was something I expected.

I can't tell you that this movie is perfect; it's not.  There are plot points that seem rushed or at the very least lacking; such as, Diana Prince being in Metropolis to get back a photo of her from when she was fighting in Belgium (along side Chris Pine...) is both naive and somewhat hokey...it's 2016 (even in this movie) and it's a digital image...even if she stole the original and wiped every hard drive she could find he could still have copies...so there's that.  There's the Superman killed people story.  It kinda doesn't make any sense...they were killed with bullets...untraceable bullets, but still...bullets.  Superman would have obliterated them with heat vision if he wanted them dead.  Plus; though this isn't covered in the movie, I am positive that he didn't kill the guy who was holding Lois hostage with a gun to her head so...yeah.

Let's talk about some things that people hated on that aren't plot holes.  First, Batman missing what Lex was really doing.  Bruce had his suspicions and knew Lex was up to something; but I remind you that Bruce is BROKEN mentally and he is absolutely focused on Superman and the need to take him out before he destroys every one and every thing.  Plus there was the Diana women distracting him and weird dreams involving the Flash (which he doesn't know is the Flash yet) and a basically drunk Alfred who wants him to spawn instead of fight.

Second, Superman not seeing the bomb in the during the hearing in DC.  I read a review where the person actually said "why didn't Superman hear the bomb"...I don't mind this person voicing a rather stupid thought, but I do mind them clearly never having watched Fight Club!  "Modern Bombs Don't Tick" is real and the bomb was most likely triggered by a remote device set off by Lex.  There seems to be a side-story in that as well where he allowed his close assistant to die; perhaps he knew that she wasn't able to prevent Bruce from stealing his file, perhaps she knew too much and had to be disposed of.

Batman v Superman is an action-packed film which does a solid job of establishing the DC Universe in characters beyond just Batman and Superman (introduction of Aquaman, Flash, Cyborg, Wonder Woman) and the link between Lex and Darkseid is so...comic-booky that I LOVED IT.  People have been hating on this version of Lex...why?  Because he's a weirdo creep rather than a maniacal psychopath bent on Superman's destruction?  How do you think he got that way?  This movie was Lex Luthor's origin story.  How's that for irony?

I really enjoyed this movie; every film has flaws and plot holes and something for everyone to dislike.  Critics didn't understand it (yes, I realize what I mean when I say that) but it's true.  I'll give you a parable; George Lucas craved the acceptance of Hollywood and critics so much that when he made the prequels he basically said "the true fans will love anything I make but I'm going to try and make this for the masses to enjoy!" and so he went out and did the complete opposite both stylistically and managerially than he had previously by bringing on huge named actors to star and wrote BORING crap stories hoping to appeal to a wider base rather than just focusing on making good movies.  This movie was made with a head nod to the comic book fans specifically.  The story lines are deep rooted in the core of these fanbases.  The Death of Superman and The Dark Knight Returns are some of the most famous stories ever and this film took pieces from both to connect the characters and bring them together.

Is there a better version of this movie?  Possibly.  But this movie didn't disappoint me and I think a lot more people enjoyed it than not.  The fact that on a midday showing the second Sunday after its release I was still in a full theatre is telling.  People love big action films - whether they're about some terrorist trying to take over an airport (Die Hard 2) or superheroes battling a demon monster and each other.

The most important thing I can tell you is this: don't let other people tell you a movie is good or bad; you have to decide that for yourself.  But what's important is that you go in with an open mind.  And also that you listen to me and what I say most of all...I kid..I kid.