A crash test dummy explains James Madison and the Bill of Rights.

Gun Control for Dummies

I happened to receive a tube video today titled “gun control for dummies”. The presentation is conducted by a crash test dummy who proceeds to enlighten us as to the intent of the first ten amendments to the Constitution otherwise known as The Bill of Rights. The dummy actually does a decent job of pulling the third amendment into a reinforcement of the need for the second and rolls them into a right of citizens to protect themselves against nefarious and/or oppressive action by the government. What is of note, is that as a federalist, Madison was against any amendments, thinking they would further diminish the strength of the  Constitution. He wrote the ten amendments that would become the bill of rights as a compromise and bone-toss to the anti-federalists. Madison did change his mind regarding the amendments (considered a death blow in today’s politics) and ultimately supported the addition of the amendments added to the original document rather than inserted into the body of the text, however in his personally written draft he scribbled in the margin “bill of rights- useful but not essential”.

Clearly the bill of rights including the 2nd and 3rd amendments, were designed to protect individuals (and states to a lesser degree) from an "oppressive government". This was arguably an effective strategy for around seven decades when the only truly effective military strategy was a bunch of guys with guns. One could argue that an armed Militia today isn't really going to do much against an oppressive government since the militia would need tanks, rockets, helicopters, and maybe a fighter jet or two. So, that argument is now moot and simpleminded, thus the dummy doing the explaining. A much better argument would be the intent to protect one’s life, family, and property against criminals. The SCOTUS has upheld this argument and it actually remains germane to the issue. Pretty clear, if some criminal comes in my house with the intent of taking my stuff or hurting my family, I can shoot him. Of course I might just be charged with a crime myself if I fail to prove my life was in eminent danger, but that’s another issue. Never the less, this is basically my current interpretation of my 2nd amendment rights. I have the right to own firearms and use them for my protection. Not one of our founding fathers mentioned or considered hunting in the 2nd amendment, rather, it was for protection.

Since the gun doesn't do the crime or the “crazy mass shooting" (the criminal or crazy shooter does) then it only makes sense to try and keep them from getting the requisite equipment. That way, we responsible gun owners take less heat for what some crazed phyco might do....right? For that reason I would certainly support reasonable back ground checks for firearm purchase. It would not affect me, but maybe serve to keep the blame for senseless violence where it belongs...with the perpetrators.

As is usually the case, the extreme elements on both sides are the problem. Hey, I really do like guns, but I wouldn't feel comfortable in Texas with guys openly carrying sidearms around. We all have the right to buy a car, but you have to get a license to drive it on the highway. I have the right to own a gun for protection of my home and hunting on my own property or in otherwise approved areas, but I sure don't want a bunch of crazy douche bags carrying them around.

Since criminals do the crime and crazies do the mass shootings, it does seem reasonable to try and keep guns out of their hands. A complete background check before a firearm purchase is one step we can take in that direction. But hey, I’m just a simple guy who happens to like shooting the classic Parker Brothers 16 gauge shotgun that me grandfather and father used, and eating the spoils of my effort, however I'm not really sure I (or the citizens of The United States) should have a crash text dummy explaining our rights for us.

While every organized religion within our limited preview of written human history has claimed to be "the King shit" when it comes to moral superiority, history easily proves the contrary. All of them claim a monopoly on human altruism which I find ether disingenuous (at best) or absolute bullshit ( more likly). Let us put aside for the moment the horrific deeds and practices preformed over the last two thousand years in the name of one God or another. Let us dismiss momentarily one thousand years of Crusades, inquisitions, religious genoside, and current Islamic fundamentalism. Let us just focus on the ever present claim of almost every religious community that they are the true practitioners of altruism. Unfortunately, organized religion serves not as a platform for universal altruism, but as a far more narrow platform of group and reciprocal altruism directed only towards members of the same faith, and not toward humanity in general. 

This becomes all too obvious and "close to home" when one observes the agenda of the current American evangelical right. Ones apparently god given right to participate in ceremony prescribed to ones religion justifies indifference or flat-out rejection of all others. This is simply not acceptable in today's global society. We are all too inter- connected and interdependent on one another to accept religious (read mythological) differences. I can accept the reality of "kin altruism" in the fact that we are all genetically predisposed to love our children more than others, but of course that is not only altruism but survival and Darwinism at its clearest. However the shit that is spudded in the name of God (or whatever group- du jouir) is infuriating, and counter productive to the betterment of humankind. 

The natural disposition of humanity toward fairness, kindness, and empathy whether genetic or learned had certainly never been the exclusive domain of any particular religious organization , no matter where anyone says. Random acts of kindness come from all nooks and crannys. Sure they come from Christian Churches, bla, da, bla..churches and peoples of no religious beliefs at all. The most importance observation is that altruism at its purest is a natural part of the human condition. We all strive not only to treat others as we wish to be treated but to help others at what may be our own sacrafice. This is simply "being human"..... Regardless of who you choose to pray too.

The Great GOP Paintball War

GOP Paintball War: Better than a Debate.

I just came up with an idea which makes so much sense I am surprised no one has suggested it thus far.

Everyone has clearly witnessed that every GOP vying for the nomination is just itching to get involved in a ground war in the Middle East again. All of them have expressed disgust with the idea of diplomacy as used in the past few days by our current administration. All would place U.S.A. boots on the ground and incurs American loss of life, regardless of the irrefutable, frustrating, no-win nature of the situation. This almost appears to me as some sort of unnatural blood lust; an insatiable desire to fight, kill, and die rather than actually achieve an objective, only with someone else's life, or that of their children. Now, I may be wrong in my assertion of some disturbing neurosis but every GOP debate has clearly provided a good deal of evidence supporting my assertion and every one has referred to our POTUS as weak for not having used more military in Syria, Yemen and / or Ukraine.

It also has become crystal clear that they all would rather shit a peach seed than allow assault style weapons like AR15s, AK47s, M4s and the like to be regulated in any way shape or form. They have all publicly  stated opposition to any sort of reasonable back ground check to help keep a high capacity mag. armor piercing, high velocity semi- auto out of the hands of some nut case.

So, here's the concept: Instead of having the next GOP debate, which have all clearly degraded to a mud slinging, visceral, personal attack on each other (Bush v Rubio, Trump v Cruz, etc. etc.) let's try a different approach that will not only satisfy all their aghast and anger against each other and American life today as we know it, but also satisfy their desire  for war, killing, and use of assault weapons, not to mention, provide for a clear and undeniable winner.

Let them have a paintball war only substitute the paintball guns with fully automatic AK47s. The Last man or woman standing gets the nomination. I realize this proposal sounds a bit like The Hunger Games, however from all I have heard from the GOP hopefuls, they would all love it, therefor it would be completely voluntary. Of course this would assume that all hopefuls have  conviction behind their hawkish rhetoric. If any did not accept the invitation it would only go to show that they were really just spewing bull shit and are not willing to put their actions where their mouths are. On top of it all, this could provide the hugest global media event ever. Selling rights to coverage could quite possibly save, and fund social security and Med a care forever.

Macabre sounding I know, and of course Paul gets a pass as a liberation and having never endorsed unilateral U.S. Military intervention, but overall, even in jest.......I think it would be awesome.........anyone willing to shell out a fifty to watch on pay for view??????