February 21, 2018
The recent school shooting apparently disturbed me more than I thought. You would think I would be desensitized by now. CNN listed a report of all the mass shootings between 1999 and now and we missed, like, four years of zero shootings. Something like that.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html
What really disturbed me was the response from government. The children that survived the shooting went off to protest; wanting a ban on the rifle used. Swiftly, the government (Florida) voted down even the discussion of banning the weapon.
Then, the president spouted off about banning a ‘part’ of the rifle. A bump stock. Just a part of it.
The protests were dead before they got off the ground.
The problem is clear: Politicians are afraid of losing the zealot gun-owners, money and endorsements, voters, etc.
It reminds me of another addiction problem in this country: cigarettes.
So, we know without a shadow of a doubt — cigarette smoking causes cancer. It will kill you.
But ads persist. Sales are ongoing. No one will stop smoking and, generally speaking, they are just allowing the ‘smoking thing’ to run its course. If you don’t smoke, fine. If you do smoke, fine and when you die from your smoking related disease, that’s fine too. Whatever.
But we won’t stop selling cigarettes and making money.
We won’t stop selling mass destructive rifles and making money. The worst part of the rifle is that it’s not necessary to anyone unless you are in the military or some sort of law enforcement.
No. One. Not one person.
Why won’t there be an absolute ban on this rifle? Because, as said above, people are fearful. And greedy. The fear comes in two parts: afraid because they think they will need it. Fearful that they will lose all the things mentioned earlier.
Of course, they start spouting the second amendment and I had an interesting thought about that.
Did you know there is nothing in the constitution that specifically says you can own a ‘gun’ or ‘rifle’? As I pursue this legal career (or job, depending on how things fall), the art of wordplay is very important. Also, the second amendment implies you need you to be in a ‘militia’ also:
“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.”
The term ‘Arms’ isn’t legally binding to the any particular weapon. Could be a knife, a gun, a rifle, a sword, a tank, a nuclear bomb.
You may own a weapon.
But you can’t own a tank. You can’t own a nuclear bomb.
You should not be able to own a AK-47.
Simple as that. I challenge you to show me the legal aspect that can stop me from banning a specific ‘arm’.
Additionally, a well regulated Militia — ‘regulated’, meaning organized and controlled, is the right of the people and those people of the militia can keep and bear arms.
Not in a militia? Guess what? No guns for you. Nothing specific that allows you to bear arms outside of a militia. At the very least a ‘regulated’ one.
You’re reading this and thinking that arms certainly means guns and you’re right. It implies guns and any other weapon. But legally speaking, there is nothing in that statement that protects ‘specific’ arms.
It’s very much like “You are allowed to drink” … if you want to fuck around and drink alcohol, motor oil, pond water, gasoline — that’s up to you. But for your protection, I will ban drinking motor oil and gasoline. I can do that and it will be successful even if a bunch of you are pissed that I stopped you from drinking motor oil. Yes, Americans are dumb asses to think that. If you don’t believe me, I’m in a generation that is eating detergent pods.
Continuing this example, the problem in government is: Politicians are getting paid lovely by motor oil producing companies that see that, in addition to sensible sales of motor oil, they get bigger money from the fools that drink it. Also, the fools that love drinking the motor oil themselves are demanding no one infringe on their rights ‘to drink’. Even as more and more people are dying, they will vote against the motor oil drinking.
Common sense — or logically speaking — we either just wait for these fools to kill themselves off and let the generation of non-motor oil drinking/non-gun users come into affect; to eventually vote out cowards —- or just wait for another school shooting.
Whats funny is, about a year or two ago, some senator or politician was shot on a baseball field. He was someone who opposed gun control measures and that still hasn’t changed things.
I would say the death of a president would be fantastic, but that happened a few times already and it got clogged with conspiracy bullshit that the discussion of banning weapons wasn’t even brought up.
This is a sad country when you get 17-18 people murdered and our politicians, the supreme court and our own president are like, “It’s sad, but …”
I think a concerted effort to simply replace ALL politicians and this fool in office is mandatory. All politicians. All aged and weathered supreme court judges. Wipe it clean and start with fresh ideas cause this ongoing shit of the same old thing is pathetic.That’s why we have a democratic voting system, you say?
How did that work out in 2016? Ask the Russians. By the way, odd coincidence that the AK-47, a Russian weapon, is so easy to buy as well.
We’re being socially fucked with and I would say the Russians are the sole masterminds, but the reality is people are in their pocket and he door is wide open. Well played, but fuck Putin. I would bomb the fuck out of Russia in a heartbeat — or expect another Chernobyl to humble their asses.
One other interesting thought: funny how America is so set on illegal possession of drugs more than these rifles.
Which one can the common man make money off of?
Think about it and see what’s going on.
Update: This article supports my position on the constitution’s 2nd amendment and how it doesn’t protect anyone from banning certain weapons. See? I’m not totally off the rails. For Christ sake, I AM trying to be a lawyer.
myJournal 