They Come Out Of The Woodwork

Sunday…….the day after the big march for our lives…..

Summoned to action by student survivors of the Parkland school shooting, hundreds of thousands of teenagers and their supporters rallied in the nation’s capital and cities across the US on Saturday to press for gun control, the AP reports. Organizers of the March for Our Lives rally in DC hoped their protest would match in numbers and spirit last year’s women’s march. Bearing signs reading “We Are the Change,” ”No More Silence,” and “Keep NRA Money Out of Politics,” protesters packed Pennsylvania Avenue from the stage near the Capitol, stretching many blocks back toward the White House. “We will continue to fight for our dead friends,” Delaney Tarr, a survivor of the Florida tragedy, declared from the stage. The crowd roared with approval as she laid down the students’ central demand: a ban on “weapons of war” for all but warriors.

Large rallies also unfolded in such cities as Boston; New York; Chicago; Houston; Fort Worth, Texas; Minneapolis; and Parkland, the site of the Feb. 14 attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that left 17 people dead. The police presence was heavy as more than 20,000 people filled a park near the Florida school, chanting slogans such as “Enough is enough” and carrying signs that read “Why do your guns matter more than our lives?” and “Our ballots will stop bullets.” Gun violence was fresh for some in the DC crowd: Ayanne Johnson of Great Mills High School in Maryland held a sign declaring, “I March for Jaelynn,” honoring Jaelynn Willey, who died Thursday two days after being shot by a classmate at the school. “For our kids, feeling safe is fundamental, and they don’t feel safe,” said the mother of an 11-year-old marching in DC.

When the last school shooting and the ensuing debate/conversation thee NRA came out with this lame ass ideas on what should be done about the violence and of course none of had anything to do with actual solutions to the problem.

But as lame as the NRA is and their thoughts the GOP has them beat at times….candidates to show their support for the 2nd and their acceptance of gun deaths to win their election  have been known for some of the dumbest and the lamest ideas ever…..

There is a candidate that is at the top of my list of morons…..

For years, the gun lobby, led by the NRA, has pushed the idea that more guns make the world safer. Most recently this has manifested in the argument (endorsed by Donald Trump) that the answer to school shootings is armed teachers. But Brian Ellison is taking it one step further. Ellison is a Libertarian running for US Senate in Michigan, and though his third-party run is obviously hopeless, he drew some media attention this week for his plan to, uh, hand out pump-action shotguns to Michigan’s homeless population.

To be fair, Ellison isn’t the first person to come up with this idea—19th-century revolutionary anarchist Lucy Parsons implored “tramps” to “learn the use of explosives” and Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine famously wrote “Arm the Homeless” on his guitar. But Ellison (who has not yet gotten enough signatures to qualify for ballot access) seems to have thought very thoroughly about his idea. He even started a GoFundMe campaign to buy 20 shotguns for homeless people, though the platform shut down his campaign for violating the terms of service.

Wait!  Is not part of the problem as the GOP sees it as there is a mental illness problem with these shooters and if I am not mistaken that a good portion of the homeless are suffering from some form of mental illness….does anyone see a problem with his dumbass proposal…..

This why there can NEVER be a substantive conversation on gun violence because some people are just not prepared for the debate.

Go now and start your weekend and thanx so much for your time and your visits……chuq


28 thoughts on “They Come Out Of The Woodwork

    1. Most of them have known nothing BUT America at war. So even if news of America’s wars ever do make it past the wall of celebrity Twit Zone feuds…war is as normal as the sun rising in the morning to them.

    1. Yes, the NRA are only enablers of criminals & terrorists and their financial backers are the profiteers of crime, war & terrorism. They don’t personally do it. They leave that to others.

      I know it’s 2018 and few can even speak the English language anymore. However, people need to get their terminology right.

      1. I speak the language better than at least 75% of the population, which isn’t exactly saying much.

      2. And because I can also read, I know that selling modern assault weapons to any imbecile who wants them is not remotely what the 2nd Amendment was about. It was about maintaining Militias to defend America against foreign invasion and corrupted/counter-revolutionary governments that would take away their hard won freedoms. Anybody who disagrees with that needs to form a militia and duke it out with America’s corrupted government that’s out to take away their freedoms. Problem solved as The Founders intended.

        Gun ownership outside of militia use falls under “laws”, not the Constitution. And just in case this long since irrelevant Amendment gets dropped (minus 897% chance) it STILL won’t make the ownership of ANY gun illegal. Actual laws would do that, which are also big long-shots, even in many of the Bluest States. What would happen is the ability for some states to pass their version of “reasonable restrictions” on a right that isn’t. Only the right to form a militia would disappear. Mind you, with today’s weaponry, one capable person could take out almost an entire 1770’s militia on his own….or a theatre…or a dance club…or a school…or a bank…as is his “right”, according to many. The current NRA’s leadership included.

        Faux “Originalists” like Scalia have cherry-picked and outright invented things (trigger locks “violate” the 2nd Amendment, a militia can’t own a tank ) that have made a complete joke of the 2nd Amendment in BOTH directions (not that it already wasn’t already.) And a stupid society drunk on violence as the solution to everything has bought into it, lock, stock & barrel.

      3. You can’t find a single primary source to back up what you just wrote, but there are plenty to support the natural right of an individual to bear arms for their defense, unconnected with a militia.

      4. Militias are…people??? Gee, so is Soylent Green. Perhaps that tasty dish needs some AR-15s too.

      5. Uh….”NO primary source”? I think the 2nd Amendment is THE DEFINITIVE “primary source” of what’s in the 2nd Amendment. It don’t get more primary than that. It’s the “Constitution part” of the Constitution. Only lawyer-weasels & activist judges looking for an excuse to exist, or severe fetishists who masturbate while dressed in period clothing to John Hancock’s personal letters would say otherwise. It’s like questioning the “true meaning” of a Stop sign. Or all these stupid TV shows that giddily talk about “the hidden meaning” in other TV shows. Fuck that pretentious noise!

        If what they wrote in the 2nd Amendment means something that ain’t written there…then these wig & heel wearing motherfuckers obviously didn’t know how to write right. Writing about “What I actually meant was…” in their letters & diaries just doesn’t cut it. It’s like OJ Simpson’s “If I did it…” which…thanks to his lawyer-weasels…he didn’t! So, keep looking for “the real killer”, OJ, I’m sure you’ll find him!

        My diary is full of “primary source” sexual escapades I was involved in…that never happened. But I wish they did. I also wish to convince people that everything happened exactly the way I claim. Unfortunately, the reality is that Scarlett Johansson still said “No” to me. No matter what I wrote before, or after, I can’t change that “No” into a “Yes!!!”…unless I’m Harvey Weinstein. (Seems timely to mention Jefferson had sex with his slaves, too. So maybe Founding Fathers CAN break the space-time continuum to alter the meaning of words. ie “consent”) Frankly, I’m not so sure about Ben Franklin’s braggadocio, either. An old geezer like that is lucky if he can get it up twice a year.

        As THE primary document…The 2nd Amendment specifically mentions the importance of a “well regulated militia” (and does so as the primary clause of the sentence, to which all else is subjected to). It says nothing about “self defence”. NOTHING!!! Self defence is a well known concept that’s as old as the first two chimps who fought over female property. And they’re two VERY simple words that could have EASILY been included in that Amendment, but were NOT!

        A person could already legally defend himself with a hammer, a knitting needle, a feather quill pen, or by launching a slave in a catapult, if they wanted. Those methods aren’t included in the Amendment because, unlike the more controversial armed Militias, they didn’t need Constitutional protection. It’s a lot harder to repel a foreign invasion with a knitting needle than an armed, well regulated, Militia. But If you’re intent on exercising your “natural right to self-defence”, you can disable somebody with a well aimed piece of chalk. I had a teacher who actually “eyeballed” somebody once from clear across the room. He had to be taken to the infirmary. Ironically, the teacher (contrary to school policy) openly supported gun ownership in class. Perhaps we need to arm him to “keep students safe”.

        However, the 2nd Amendment does specifically mention “the security of a free state”, which the “well regulated militia” is meant to defend. But it does NOT mention the security of the individual because that’s NOT what this Amendment is about. (Neither is “hunting” mentioned anywhere for that matter, the once alleged purpose of the 2nd Amendment manipulators, the NRA.) Even within the sentence structure, any right conveyed to individuals is for the expressed “necessary” purpose of defending the “free state”. If you take away that well regulated militia, then the purpose of protecting the right to keep & bear arms from legal “infringement” also disappears. The two are indivisible. Nowhere does it say…

        “Every crazy motherfucker has the right to buy whatever gun they want and run down the street waving it around, whenever they feel like it.” …as so many gun fellators tend to “think” it does. It’s a right directly connected to a clearly defined responsibility. “A well-regulated Militia”. This is serious business, not pleasure. This ain’t about protecting your “freedom” to get drunk with your boys and shoot at bunnies. This is about being trained & prepared to defend the freedom of the nation. Even the angry, drunken, Founding Father with a brewing company named after him said that.

        And speaking of the vast amounts of intentional misinterpretation of a reasonably clear sentence written by flowery nancy-boys like RuPaul Charles his fellow Founding Fathers…

        Also not mentioned is the word “guns”. Yes, “arms” is absolutely there. Why the exclusivity on “guns” when the Revolutionary Warriors also used those cool, wagon wheel, cannons? The militias used every tool available and (minus a meaningful navy) had pretty comparable “arms” to the world-class army they opposed. So, giving The People “the right to bear arms” in the modern context should also include tanks, drones, stealth fighters, and arguably even (limited range) ICBMs. ANY weapon used on a US battlefield. Because the US battlefield is where the “well regulated militia” is supposed to defend the “security of a free state”. You can’t defend a free state from ANYBODY without the appropriate weaponry. An AR 15 with a 500 round clip can kill a whole boatload of innocent motherfuckers on a public street. But even 500 people armed with them wouldn’t last 5 minutes against…even Canada’s military! So the right to own only “gun-arms” would be functionally useless for the clearly stated purpose of Constitutionally protecting their ownership…the Militia capable of defending a free state.

        The only possible way around “bearing all arms” is to use the contemporary (Revolutionary War Era) definition of “arms”. But applying that correctly would mean limiting the 2nd Amendment protected “arms” to single-shot, muzzle-loaded, weapons and those cool, old-timey, cannons..both of which are all-but-useless for modern crime and mass shootings. Hypocritically, some pro-gun idiots disconnect the two in order to keep more serious weapons out of the hands of commoners. “The Founders only intended hand-held guns. Anything else is a danger to public safety…as opposed to assault weapons…which aren’t. Now shut up and salute the flag.”

        Why do “guns” magically get superimposed over “arms”. Because the corrupt Powers That Be want it that way. The last thing they want is to find themselves overthrown by an angry, well armed, well regulated, Militia the way The Founders intended. However, they don’t mind one bit if “we the people” blow each other to smithereens on a daily basis with guns. That will keep us living in constant fear and seeking protection from even more guns, or The Powers That Be themselves. Weapons manufacturers (which all Powers That Be own stock in) make….wait for it…a killing…with things exactly the way they are. They want every drooling imbecile to have 10X more guns than teeth. But they don’t want to be overthrown by them, so no tanks. Thus “Originalist” hypocrites like Scalia make a total mockery of the 2nd Amendment while pretending to defend it. If anything, they’ve helped de-legitimize it. But people don’t care ’cause they just want to shoot at shit with their phallic symbols.

        It’s an “all in” or “all out” Amendment. It’s either functionally irrelevant and needs to be completely ignored/repealed, or the clearly stated function has to remain. Again, anybody with anything different in mind from the written text needs to get a Constitutional Amendment going. There are established processes to make Amendments. Change & clarification is what they’re for! So, get together with your “Constitutional Furries” and start one. Odds are good a “Gun in every pot” Amendment it will make it.

        Reading chicken entrails and inserting whatever the fuck you want to see in the 2nd Amendment makes little more more sense than…actually reading chicken entrails. (See Scalia the “originalist” who ruled that keeping guns unloaded, trigger locks and otherwise responsibly stored..or “well regulated”…are somehow violations of the 2nd Amendment. One of the single biggest, indefensible, legal jokes ever.)

      1. Well gee… that is what happens when while reading a blog at work you are asked to do something and one slips their phone in their pocket… without closing the app.

        *** The equivalent of butt dialing someone, I suppose.

        Please disregard ***

  1. I am sure Mr. Elliston does what he believes will please Allah. So let’s leave the poor guy alone and let him do what he does. He did manage to get elected, didn’t he? Somebody must like what he stands for. Fair is fair, after all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.