Monday, November 6, 2017

Phrase of the Day: HE DID EVERYTHING "RIGHT"


ANOTHER CHURCH SHOOTING
ANOTHER MASSACRE

THE DEADLIEST CHURCH SHOOTING IN THE U.S.
THE DEADLIEST MASSACRE IN TEXAS

26 PEOPLE KILLED
20 INJURED

INCLUDING ...

JUST OVER HALF OF THE DEAD WERE CHILDREN
8 KILLED WERE FROM THE SAME FAMILY
7% OF THE CITY'S POPULATION KILLED AND INJURED
AGES OF THOSE KILLED ARE BETWEEN 1½ AND 77
(A YOUNG CHILD WHO, AT THIS POSTING, 
IS STILL ALIVE, WAS SHOT FIVE TIMES)

BUT THE TERRORIST DID EVERYTHING "RIGHT"
AS FAR AS GUN RIGHTS PEOPLE MIGHT ARGUE
HE HAD MULTIPLE WEAPONS IN HIS CAR
HE APPARENTLY PAID FOR THEM ALL
NO, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE KILLED THOSE PEOPLE
BUT HE WAS MERELY
EXERCISING HIS 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT
BY HAVING ALL OF THOSE WEAPONS

THE TERRORIST WAS COURT MARTIALED IN 2012
AND RELEASED FROM THE U.S. AIR FORCE IN 2014
WITH A "BAD BEHAVIOR" DISCHARGE
BECAUSE OF ABUSING HIS WIFE AND CHILD
BUT EVEN THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ISSUE ALONE
WASN'T ENOUGH 
TO KEEP HIM FROM LEGALLY BUYING WEAPONS
AND THE TERRORIST WAS DENIED A RIGHT-TO-CARRY PERMIT
NOT DENIED TO BUY, MIND YOU,
JUST DENIED TO CARRY

BUT GUN RIGHTS PEOPLE WILL SAY HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM BUYING HIS ARSENAL
SO HIS DOING SO WAS NOTHING MORE THAN
EXERCISING HIS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT
AFTER ALL, HE DID EVERYTHING "RIGHT"

KEN PAXTON, TEXAS' STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFERED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:
"As we speak, we've had shootings at churches 
for forever.  This is going to happen again.
And so, we need people 
in terms of professional security or in terms of
arming the parishioners or the congregation
so that they can respond 
when something like this happens again."
[underline and italics mine]

"RIGHT", MR. PAXTON, MORE AND MORE GUNS
SINCE THE TERRORIST DID EVERYTHING "RIGHT"


Terry

Monday, October 30, 2017

Term of the Day: SELLING OUR SOUL

AMERICA IS A GUN by Brian Bilston

England is a cup of tea.
France, a wheel of ripened brie.
Greece, a short, squat olive tree.
America is a gun.

Brazil is football on the sand.

Argentina, Maradona’s hand.
Germany, an oompah band.
America is a gun.

Holland is a wooden shoe.

Hungary, a goulash stew.
Australia, a kangaroo.
America is a gun.

Japan is a thermal spring.

Scotland is a highland fling.
Oh, better to be anything
than America as a gun.

Yes, we are, indeed, not only the free country to which many people want to live and aspire, but we are also looked at as the most violent among those peaceful nations ... and we are.  Hands down, we are.

We have been shot at and killed far more often by fellow citizens than by foreign terrorists.

What helps to fuel that is the ongoing partnership among lawmakers, lobbyists, and gun manufacturers.  Do they force the weapons into the peoples' hands?  (That is a common argument the death-for-profit people make.)  Of course they don't.  However, does that mean that what they are doing is stopping or stemming the tide of increased gun violence in this country?  Clearly, it doesn't.  It shows also no desire for safety.  The greatest culpability in a killing that involves a firearm is clearly the person(s) doing the killing.  That is undeniable.  If, however, your involvement does include willful intent to increase forearms sales and to increase access to weapons through relaxed legislation, you do have a level of culpability as facilitators.

Many times, when someone facilitates another, they do so out of either a warped sense of "better this action than that action" (merely swapping one bad behavior for another) or a sheer case of giving up.  In this case, those in power are not looking to merely swap one bad behavior for another, and they are not simply giving up.  Why, then, push as they do?

My term of "death-for-profit" that I used earlier this month goes along with why.  Have you heard of the phrase "selling your soul"?  (Usually, the phrase is used in terms of the Devil, but I am using it in a broader sense here.)  These politicians and gun business folks are doing it for money, money, money.  They are selling the soul of this nation for financial gain.  The soul of America, as well as the lives of its citizens, is nothing more than a commodity.  Yes, the weapons are the physical, more obvious commodity, but this nation's soul is clearly an expendable commodity. 

And they could not care less!

Throughout this month of October, I have posted several times about the issue of massacre prevention (aka gun control), including mentioning the National Rifle Association many times.  This is, of course, not the only blog where that organization is mentioned in relation to the isuue of gun control.  As much as the NRA deserves whatever measure of condemnation it receives, there are other groups who think that the NRA is too soft.  (Yes, the NRA is too soft!)  Some of these groups are the National Association for Gun Rights, the Gun Owners of America, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.  They believe that the NRA has been too compromising and too lenient regarding some gun-related legislation. 

No surprise, the common themes among these three groups are a perceived far-too-high level of anti-gun sentiment in this country and the defense of the Second Amendment.  Their allegiance is to the belief that "gun control" is a code term for "unlawful gun acquisition".  All of these groups, profusely assisted by politicians, are co-conspirators in mass murder and the selling out of the soul of America ...

... and they are using the U.S. Constitution, a guiding document to benefit this country, against this country to do so.

Terry

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Phrase of the Day: THE "COMING FOR YOUR GUNS" LIE

Gun control ...
                       gun laws ...
                                          state regulations ...
                                                                        federal regulations ...
                                                                                                          new or existing laws ...

This cause célèbre, which has become, if you will, a "cause ad nauseam" or even a legislative "cause mortis", has been a cause of concern and divisiveness for some time now.  Most people might say that the big gun debate gained its first major push following the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981.  In that attempt, Reagan's Press Secretary James Brady was seriously injured by the gunfire, leaving him paralyzed and in a wheelchair for the remainder of his life.  (Reagan also suffered a punctured lung in the attempt.)  It resulted in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Action, or simply "the Brady bill", which went into effect in 1994 and established the national background check system.  You would be correct about the big gun debate getting its first big push, in terms of gaining massive public and legislative attention. 

Perhaps you would only go back to the 1990's in this country, when debates heated up following the Ruby Ridge and Waco (Branch Davidian) sieges in 1992 and 1993, respectively.  A shooting at an elementary school schoolyard in California in early 1989, led to the passage of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. 

Or maybe you would say that it has been only as of late that the threat of the government coming for your guns has been at its most precarious and is as its highest level this year.  Groups like the National Rifle Association certainly push that idea ... every single year they push that idea, that is.

Let us look back even further than the Reagan assassination attempt.  The Gun Control Act was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson almost fifty years ago this month, following the assassinations of his predecessor President John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the five years prior.  This law dealt with regulating the interstate commerce of firearms and who were prohibited from getting firearms.  Even further back, following the mob killing in Chicago known as The St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929, the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first term in office, and it put the regulation of machine guns, rifles, and sawed-off shotguns under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco (ATF). 

So, that's going back almost eighty-five years, a long time in this country for gun legislation.  Now, here is an easy question: Is the presence of a government or legislation absolutely necessary for the sentiment of the government is coming for your guns to exist?  Of course not.  In fact, THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS! goes all the way back to the eighteenth century, during the very beginnings of this nation. 

It began, not with weapons themselves, but with gun powder.  King George III imposed a gun powder embargo on the colonies in order to lessen their defensive abilities.  The colonists only had what they brought over with them plus small amounts being made here.  If you have the weapon and you even have the ammunition, but do not have sufficient firepower, then you will be easier to defeat. 

It was the state of Kentucky that can be placed at the beginning of interpreting the Second Amendment as simply an individual's right to bear arms when it passed laws to restrain carrying concealed weapons in the late 1700's.  The Bluegrass State's legislative body's desire for public safety led, ironically, to the first movement in this country of interpreting the Second Amendment in a solely personal manner. 

The case of Bliss v. Commonwealth gave fuel to that interpretation's fire nearly 200 years ago.  Ethan Aubrey Bliss was charged and convicted in 1822 of having violated the state's concealed weapon law by carrying a sword cane (a cane with a sword inside of it).  Kentucky's own State Constitution stated that "the right of the citizens to bear arms in [defense] of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned".  (Notice the inclusion of the phrase "and the state" in the wording.)  Bliss' conviction was overturned in the state's High Court and the concealed weapon law was ruled unconstitutional and, thus, invalid. 

The National Rifle Association would not be formed for nearly another half-century after this decision, and even then, it was for the sole purpose increased rifle marksmanship ... a far cry from today. 

Beginning on the second of this month, one day after the Las Vegas massacre, I posed the following question:  Do [politicians] have a magic number (of deaths and injuries), whether the most at one shooting or a grand total, that needs to be met for [them] to protect us?  Allow me to pose a similar question to all those who bang the war drums of THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS! ...

WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY'RE WAITING FOR?

No, seriously, what do you think they're waiting for?  This nation has been around for more than 240 years and guns have been with us the entire time.  Native Americans, British soldiers, and our fellow citizens (during the Civil War) can all vouch for the second part.  States have had their own governing bodies and courts, the nation has had a Congress and a Supreme Court, and laws have been made since the late 1700's.  While King George III might have preferred disarming the entire nation, our government, in all its forms, did not come for people's guns in the 1700's, the 1800's, the 1900's, or in the 2000's. 

This fervor is nothing more than fear-based, the flames of which are fanned by vociferous profiteers.  If the National Rifle Association, and others to be sure, say "they're coming for our guns", then they must be coming for our guns.  If a politician does not stand firmly with the NRA or other death-for-profit groups, then that politician must be coming for our guns.  Mention the term "gun control" and all hell breaks loose.  Controlling something means to influence or to determine.  Somehow, the image of an evil villain or overlord is instantly invoked. 

If gun control means that weapons of war are kept out of regular citizens' hands and that all firearms are kept out of the hands of the mentally challenged, then the "coming for" argument is rendered null and void.  The ideas of "kept out of" (denied access) and "coming for" (seizing what you own) are not the same thing.

No one likes to admit to being duped.  I don't .. you don't ... no one does.  However, all of those who have bought any firearms because they believe that the government is coming for them have been, very sad to say, duped, and will continue to be duped.  The truth is that gun control is not gun seizure.  The lie is THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!


Terry

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Phrase of the Day: THE SECOND AMENDMENT DISTORTION

Whenever discussions of, or arguments about, gun control come up -- and there are almost always arguments -- there is a clarion call about the second amendment to the United States Constitution.  Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again ...  Talk about beating a dead horse!  You would think that the second amendment is far more important than all other amendments, or even the Constitution itself.

Of course, the second amendment is not the most important piece of the Constitution, but do those who tout its importance the loudest really have the spirit of the amendment, or even just the wording, right?  Let us look at the second amendment as it is written in the Constitution:
        "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
        the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What right of the people shall not be infringed?  That seems to be a key question.  To keep and bear arms seems the prevalent, and loudest, answer.  In fact, that seems to be the only (or the only "really significant") answer based on all the heightened rhetoric.  Let us assume that the founders of this country simply wanted the keeping and bearing of arms to be a right of the people.  If you follow the amendment to its full interpretation, then, why would the founders put in that phrase "A well regulated Militia"?  According to gun enthusiasts, groups like the National Rifle Association, and (although unspoken publicly, I would suspect) many politicians, any group of individuals have the right to arm themselves to the teeth and call themselves a militia.  Well ... you have the freedom to do and say that, of course, but that is not really a right.  Certainly, the founders would not be so concerned with such minutia as to include that in the Constitution, and then to call it a right.

Probably the most ignored part of the amendment, even more so than "A well regulated Militia", is the middle portion: "being necessary to the security of a free State".  Again, this has been co-opted by the pro-weapons proliferation and death-for-profit interests as meaning that the government of a free state would not be coming after its citizens' guns.  Correct, it would not.  That, I believe, is part of what the founders meant by this phrase's inclusion, but did they mean nothing more than the government cannot come after citizens' guns, period?  That, at best, is a resounding maybe. 

To presume that this country's founders, facing uncertainty, death, and the possibility of failure on such a grand scale, would be bogged down in the quagmire of minutia and, essentially, over-regulation is an insult to them.

Consider what those who came here faced: feudal systems, collection of taxes to support the king without a say in what the king does, absence of freedom to speak out against the king (with the possibility of imprisonment or death), an As the king goes, so goes the kingdom modality, and a Rights? What rights? condition, to name just a few. 

Eventually, a large number of those persons decide enough is enough and they are going to do something about it.  They decide to head out to a new land and begin a new nation of their making.  After doing so, in order to codify their intent, they create a document that will declare themselves free from tyranny; the document would be the Declaration of Independence.  They know their actions will anger the monarchy and all hell will certainly break loose and they will likely have to aggressively defend themselves.  All hell does break loose.and they do defend themselves.

As result of the bloodshed, another document of codification is drafted.  This document, going beyond declaring independence, states all of those things, in great detail, they are escaping and how this new nation will be run differently, and for the better.  That document is the United States Constitution.

Now, to bring this back to the question of gun control, do you think the founders of this new nation based the wording of the second amendment because the worst that could have happened was that British troops would take away their guns? 

Since all of this upheaval took place in the eighteenth century, let us look at England at that time.  Specifically, let us look at hunting.  How did they hunt for food in eighteenth century England?  I do not mean on foot, on horseback, individually, or in groups.  What did they use to kill their food?  Prior to the eighteenth century, pack of hounds were commonplace.  Shotguns came into their own and became more prevalent in hunting.  Therefore, aside from knowing a gun call kill a human being just like it can kill an animal, using shotguns to hunt for food was neither a law nor a right; it was considered normal ... nothing more than a means of survival.

When those individuals came here to start a new nation, did they suddenly stop using guns for hunting?  Of course not.  Having a gun, even more so for those who lived in more remote areas, was not deemed unusual.  Why, then, would the drafters of the Constitution feel a need to legislate that?  Why would they even consider, even for a moment, to make what was a normal means of survival a legal issue? 

Owning a gun was not so much non-negotiable, as the pro-gun movement would extol, but rather more superfluous than anything else, and that, along with everything mentioned above, is the context in which the second amendment was drafted.  The second amendment was drafted to call for a defensive force ("well regulated Militia") with the idea that, should a dire need arise, even the citizenry have the right to weapons to help defend this country. 

Thus, the second amendment is not about personal freedom to own guns, period.  It is not about the empowerment of this nation's citizens to not solely (and thus narrowly) defend themselves, but to defend this country against any and all threats to a free state. 

The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States is not about the individual at once, but rather about the nation at large.

Terry

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Term of the Day: DEATH-FOR-PROFIT

No doubt you have heard the various terms to describe business entities and their relation to profits:
for-profit -- an entity that works to make a profit, which is the typical business model
non-profit -- an entity that does not work to make a profit, even though it earns money, usually involved with large-scale enterprises (i.e. UNICEF, American Heart Association)
not-for-profit -- an entity that does not work to make a profit, even though it earns money, usually involved with smaller-scale enterprises (i.e. amateur sports league)

Today, I would like to introduce a new term, even though it falls squarely under the for-profit category.  This term is specific to any entity that works for profit, allows the work for profit, or encourages the work for profit, with utter disregard for human life.  The term is ...

DEATH-FOR-PROFIT

In light of the National Rifle Association's long-term bullish push for looser gun laws and the obsessive promotion of making more weapons available to more persons, all of which increase our chances of being killed and benefit guns manufacturers and gun sellers, the common denominators are death and profits.

You might read that last statement and say that, yes, more sales can generate profits and, yes, deaths occur using weapons and their related paraphernalia, but lumping the two together seems odd.  Yes, it seems odd to you and me, but not to certain politicians, groups like the NRA, gun manufacturers, and gun sellers.  How?  The reality is that every single time there is a mass shooting in the United States, the stock values of gun-related companies go up and sales of firearms increase.

Here is how the stock values of three major gun manufacturers fared after the Las Vegas shooting:
American Outdoor Brands (formerly Smith & Wesson) up more than 3%
Sturm Ruger & Company (largest firearm manufacturer in America) up 4%
Olin Corporation (ammunition/chlorine/sodium hydroxide maker) up 6%

Bump fire stocks (devices that alter a semi-automatic firearm to fire like a fully-automatic firearm), which the Las Vegas shooter used, are now hot items at gun stores.  Last week, Reuters news service noted a gun store in Georgia had received no requests for bump stocks prior to the Las Vegas shooting.  Afterward, requests went way up.  The store's owner said that the requests had likely gone up simply because people are "just worried that they're going to be banned".  Why would anyone worry about bump stocks being banned?  For protection?  To exercise their second amendment right?  Because they are firearm collectors, like antiques?  My feeling (and yes, concern) is that they, too, are interested on some level, consciously or subconsciously, in mass murder themselves.  Yes, that is a wild statement, but, in all seriousness, I cannot fathom any reasoning to be worried that an item that turns a weapon of war into a weapon of war that fires faster being banned unless you want one for yourself for that same purpose.

Stocks going up, gun sales going up, and gun paraphernalia sales going up means one thing for gun manufacturers: profits.  The increase of guns and their paraphernalia means one thing for us: increased chances to be killed.

Let us not overlook politicians who profit from the gun lobbies.  As the old saying goes: Don't bite the hand that feeds you.  Here is a list of the top ten senators and representatives who have received monies from the NRA over the course of the length of their entire respective political careers:
House of Representatives
French Hill (Republican from Arkansas) -- $1,089,477
Ken Buck (Republican from Colorado) -- $800,544
David Young (Republican from Iowa) -- $707,662
Mike Simpson (Republican from Idaho) -- $385,731
Greg Gianforte (Republican from Montana) -- $344,630
Don Young (Republican from Alaska) -- $245,720
Lloyd Smucker (Republican from Pennsylvania) -- $221,736
Bruce Poliquin (Republican from Maine) -- $201,398
Pete Sessions (Republican from Texas) -- $158,111
Barbara Comstock (Republican from Virginia) -- $137,232

Senate
(No, these dollar amounts are not misprints.)
John McCain (Republican from Arizona) -- $7,740,521
Richard Burr (Republican from North Carolina) -- $6,986,620
Roy Blunt (Republican from Montana) -- $4,551,146
Thom Tillis (Republican from North Carolina) -- $4,418,012
Cory Gardner (Republican from Colorado) -- $3,879,064
Marco Rubio (Republican from Florida) -- $3,303,355
Joni Ernst (Republican from Iowa) -- $3,124,273
Rob Portman (Republican from Ohio) -- $3,061,941
Todd Young (Republican from Indiana) -- $2,896,732
Bill Cassidy (Republican from Louisiana) -- $2,861,047

Mind you, these are just the top ten recipients in each house of Congress, not all of the recipients.

Let's say there is a mass shooting somewhere and you, as a member of Congress, express your sorrow and call for better gun control.  Not an unusual move.  In fact, they are the right things to say and your constituents would expect you to do so.  Now, let's say you are one of the politicians listed above, as well as any of those who take money from the NRA, or any other pro-firearm proliferation organization, and you say the same things.  What are your constituents supposed to think?  I am not talking about what you want them to think -- that your sorrow and intent to do the right thing are genuine -- but what should they think?

They should think you are a disingenuous and self-serving fraud with blood on your hands who sleeps well at night while more and more of us are being killed.  Every single one of you.

Terry

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Phrase of the Day: HIGHLY LIMITED IMPORTANCE OF OUR LIVES

One of the functions of those elected into office is to protect the citizens they represent.  A mayor is supposed to protect the city's residents.  A governor is supposed to protect the citizens of his/her state.  The citizens of a state are also to be protected by Senators and Representatives, just to a larger scale.  The President, everyone.

In fact, it is often said by politicians at any level that their priority is to protect their citizens, sometimes saying it is "the most important job" they have.  Indeed, certain actions, resolutions, and laws have been for the benefit of the public at large.  Sometimes, however, those very actions, resolutions, and laws are tinkered with, largely altered, or flat-out overturned, resulting in anywhere from less benefit to the public to either likely or definite harm.

There are other times when those very laws and regulations are changed, or kept from being put into place, to benefit anybody but the public.  Those who benefit are corporations, special interests, lobbyists, and those who stand to profit in some way.  Many times, the public's well-being, health, and welfare are ignored.  In terms of firearms, that profiting in some way is at the expense of the safety of the masses.  These entities and the far-too-many politicians they are in bed with (who pocket large sums of money from those entities) are intentionally making it more dangerous for the rest of us.  In short, our lives are unimportant.

There is, however, one time when our lives are important to politicians: election day.  Yes, Congress will make it so you are more likely to be permanently injured or lose your life, but they sure do want you to show up to vote them in, or keep them in, political office.  Our lives are far more important to those companies and special interests: people keep on buying products of mass murder, increasing profits, and allowing the vicious cycle of lobbying, advertising, and payoffs to continue.

Much of this is seen as nothing more than business transactions, akin to nothing more serious than buying a house.  The United States is home to approximately 4.4% of the world's population.  And yet, Americans own almost half of all guns owned in the entire world.  

The statistics are, however, a rollercoaster of information ...
> The total percentage of Americans who own guns has gone down to 36%, down from the highest level of 53% in 1994, but the average number of guns per household has doubled from four in 1994 to around eight now.
> Only 3% of gun owners in the U.S. own half of all guns in the U.S.
> Over the past half-century, the number of mass shootings in this country is nearly three times as many as the number of the next three countries combined. 
> If the total number of guns owned was distributed to the entire U.S. population, every single person would have a firearm ... with approximately another 25 million left over.
> Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in this U.S. are suicides.
> A whopping 89% of gun owners are in favor of not selling firearms to the mentally ill.

It is not hard to see that the views on guns and ownership are fairly mixed for the most part.  That is both the cause and effect of how firearms are treated by the government and big business.  Gun enthusiasts and death-for-profits organizations like the National Rifle Association like to lift up the importance of life by saying more guns throughout the land makes the land safer (i.e. "A good guy with a gun could have prevented this"). 

And yet, how can that be when places like El Salvador, Honduras, and Venezuela, to name just a few, have both good guys and bad guys (in massive numbers, not just one) with weapons, their homicide rates are listed among the world's highest.  (Those are the three highest rates in the world as of 2015 according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC]).  And how do these same groups of people explain countries like the United Kingdom, Japan, and the Netherlands having such low homicide rates while gun ownership is very low?  No connection ... mere happenstance. 

Recently, the NRA shocked everyone by saying it was in favor of regulations for bump stocks, in light of the Las Vegas mass murder on the first of this month.  My initial feeling was that they were going to ask for a swap of some kind to get behind it.  However, just days later, it said there was no way it would support an all-out ban on them.  If it was truly for safety, it would back a ban on them (and automatic firearms, gun show background checks, etc.), but they want this country to be a profit-gushing weaponocracy.

After every mass murder, the names and ages of the victims are released.  Each and every one of those killed is a tragedy.  Living in New Jersey, just east of Philadelphia, I hear stories of infants and toddlers being shot by stray bullets in drive-by shootings a lot.  In terms of specifically a mass murder incident, the one in recent memory that shook me the most was the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, five years ago.  The oldest victims, comprising less than one-third of the total number of victims, ranged in age from twenty-seven to fifty-six.  The youngest victims, all elementary school students, were just six and seven years old.  SIX AND SEVEN YEARS OLD!  What was done in light of this shooting?  A lot of talking.  Aside from alot of talking, what was done in light of this shooting?  Nothing, absolutely nothing

British columnist Dan Hodges summed it up best, albeit fatalistically, in a 2015 tweet ...

Lives, the public's lives, our lives are important for making points, gaining votes, and benefiting special interests ... but not important enough to do everything possible to save them.  That is a highly limited importance of our lives.

So, where exactly is the protection going?



Terry

Sunday, October 8, 2017

Term of the Day: LEGALIZED MASS MURDER

This is a video on how to operate a pump handle shotgun.
It is most often used for hunting and it is legal.

This is a video of how to operate a semi-automatic shotgun.

It eliminates the need for pumping the barrel to load the next bullet.  It is sometimes used for hunting, although some states ban their use for that purpose, and whether or not they are legal depends on where in the country you stand.  In other words, while not true in all fifty states, they are legal.

The three images below are examples of what is called a "bump stock".  Its purpose is to allow a semi-automatic shotgun (seen above) to fire as a fully automatic shotgun.
 


Below is a video of someone using a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock.
(** Note: there are 100 rounds in the clip.  Listen to how fast they are all spent.)


Now, get this: Bump stocks are legal.  Why?  One reason is that they are only part of a gun, not a gun itself, that's why. 

This is Jill Snyder.  Jill Snyder is the Special Agent in Charge for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF).  Just days ago, in Las Vegas, she said the following:  "Bump fire stocks, while simulating automatic fire, do not actually alter the firearm to fire automatically, making them legal under current federal law."

Don't alter the firearm?  ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!!!!  The bump stock has to actually become a fully automatic firearm itself in order be rendered illegal?  Simulated automatic fire kills just as many people as does fire from an actual fully automatic weapon.  Give me a break!

So, let me get this straight:  Bump stocks don't mix your eggs to make scrambled eggs or wash your car.  You can't make calls with them like a cell phone.  They aren't alarm clocks and they are useless for doing laundry.  However, bump stocks are legal under federal law because they are not weapons and they, allegedly, do no altering of a firearm.  (I'm sorry, but "altering" is a flat-out synonym for "changing", and by making a semi-automatic weapon fire exactly like a fully automatic weapon, you are changing/altering the way that weapon fires, plain and simple.)

While the government minces words, mass shooters are cutting down more and more people.

Laws passed by the government can make something legal or illegal.  If there is no legislation regarding something whatsoever, the default position is that whatever it is, it is legal.  It may be distasteful, immoral, or unethical, but legally it is still just fine.

If you own a business that sells firearms, you are federally required to perform a background check on the prospective buyer.  If you sell firearms privately, completely unrelated to any firearms business, you are not federally required to perform a background check ... and in the majority of U.S. states, not even the state requires you to do a background check!  If you sell firearms at a gun show, which falls under the private seller category, you too are not required to perform background checks.  An added element of the "gun show loophole", as it is called, is that not even a record of the sale is required.  (Certainly, a private seller is not going to keep a record around anywhere, either.)  Gun shows are not selling only pistols as firearms, either! 

However, if you buy a gun from someone privately or attend a gun show to buy a firearm, you do need one form of photo identification.  It is on green paper stock and the photo is of a dead president of the United States. 

If someone buys firearms, any firearms, as well as modifications like bump stocks, and uses it/them to commit murder, the sale itself is still legal.  (Are the number of murderers who buy weapons this way simply buying them to admire them?  Are they all antiques collectors?)  While the act of murder is still illegal, the means by which the murderer acquires the weapon(s) is legal.  It is condemning the act, but legalizing the ease of access to do it.

It is all a close relative of legalized mass murder.

Terry