The Final Word On The American Taliban (Part Six)

Here are my last two American Taliban questions.

-Which political party in the United States (the Democrats or the Republicans) is more likely to be unmoved by new information and why?

Top answer?

I agree that members of both parties have a pattern of doing this. I'd also agree that conservative 

Republicans are by definition adverse to change, especially social change. Religiosity is a big part of that. Hard core conservatives , in my opinion, tend to see changing your mind as a sign of weakness. There is no credible data to support that marrsige equality negative impacts marraige. Zero. 

Yet, several states, including my own, have people digging their heels in. It's clearly a losing battle. Education reform is another area: it's based on the premise that union busting is going to improve teacher quality. Most of the premises that Republican governors base their reform agendas on are not rooted in an example.

I'm going to talking about this more frequently in the weeks to come. They are unmoved by new information because they believe the stories they are told by their chosen avenues of information.

-Which political party in the United States (Democrats or Republicans) has a hostile fear of progress and why?

Top answer?

It's hard to put either at the top given democratic fear of GMOs, increased productivity in fossil fuel extraction and usage around the world and increased freedom for businesses to operate with limited over site while there is republican fear of stem cell and reproductive research, and of human freedom of choice in regards to mating and use of narcotics. 

More to the point, both parties leverage fear to produce hostility. Neither party wants to speak objectively about any issue. Very issue seems to be caricatured to elicit maximum fear. Both parties enmesh the other in straw men arguments, turning every case away from it's individual merits and instead toward some extreme. 

Question the wisdom of carbon tax verses it's impact on business and you are a climate change denier seeking to end life on earth. Question the justice of one man one woman marriage and your a pedophile promoting beastiality. 

In all cases both sides routinely vastly overstate their own case, making the opposition out to be hypocritical monsters, rather than rational human. It's getting harder and harder for a thinking person to take any politician's word seriously, and easier and easier to despair over the near term future of politics. Politics today ignores reason and focuses on emotional persuasion, particularly the emotion of fear.

Completely agree. That's why Democrats would be best suited between now and the election next year to lose all the BS about GMOs and other nonsense that makes them look as ridiculous as conservatives look all the fucking time.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

A recent email from a reader from Kansas informed me of this.

As of July 1, no training will be required for someone choosing to holster a hidden gun or shove one into a purse or backpack. After that date, concealed-gun permits will be strictly voluntary in Kansas. And no resident of the state wanting to carry a concealed weapon in Kansas will be subject to a state criminal background check so that law enforcement could determine whether they are even eligible to possess a firearm.

Wow. That's fantastic!!

What could possible go wrong?

Do Manners Teach Us to Lie?

Every time someone commits a horrible crime you hear their acquaintances saying, "I'm shocked. He was always so quiet." Or, "He was so polite and respectful."

The same thing is true of Michael Slager, the South Carolina police officer who shot Walter Scott in the back, killing him as he fled from a traffic stop for a broken tail light.

For example:

“I see him as a child of divorce,” Mrs. Shay said. “And I think that may have had an impact on him, if he was a sensitive person, and he struck me as kind of sensitive — shy and a bit quiet. He did want to talk to you and be polite. It didn’t come easy for him.”

“Just a nice kid, you know,” said Nancy Thomas, another former neighbor. “He was a little shy,” she added.

“I remember him being always very respectful to me — you know, he said, ‘Yes, sir, no, sir,’ and he did what was expected of him,” his former chief, Fran Pagurek, said by phone. “We never had an issue with Mike while he was here.”

The last comment got my goat. Saying "Yes, sir," and "No, sir" isn't a sign of respect. It's a sign that you have learned to lie right to people's faces.

Teaching kids these niceties acts as a social lubricant, but it also allows them to hide their real feelings beneath of veneer of false graciousness. It's what allows pychopaths, who are incapable of real human emotion, to pass as normal. Is teaching children to adopt the uniform and formulaic behaviors known as "manners" really instructing them in the art of deception?

Far too often, people hear "Please," "Thank you," "You're welcome," "Yes, sir," "Yes, ma'am," and think, "Oh, what a polite young man." When I hear that kind of effusive politeness I immediately think, "Con man!"

Is the reputed rudeness of New Yorkers more honest than Southern "charm" or Minnesota "nice?"

I hate being called sir. This is America. We're all equals here.

When someone reflexively addresses me as "sir," as if I were some British duke or Southern slavemaster (which happened when I was in Mississippi last winter), it really ticks me off. I'm no one's social superior, and I despise a society that perpetuates that kind of thinking. This is America. We're all equals here. Treating people as something they're not is condescending and obnoxious.

Manners are a disingenuous surface affectation, indicative of nothing deeper.  For every killer who was an odd duck and a loner, there's another killer who politely mouthed all the right words and insinuated himself into someone's life to pass himself as trustworthy solely on the basis of manners -- the ability mask one's true feelings and intent.

The same thing is true for people who know all the right prayers in church and sing the praises of the Lord. Anyone can memorize that crap -- all those external expressions of piety say nothing about your true faith and inner goodness. Just look at all the pastors and priests who railed from the pulpit about marital infidelity and homosexuality who regularly committed adultery and pederasty.

Manners are magic incantations to hide your true intentions.

People are so easily seduced by empty manners and jolly glad-handing. They're on alert with used car salesmen and politicians, and are less frequently fooled by it in those cases. But anyone who relies on the formulaic incantations of manners is using them like magic spells to deceive someone of their true intentions and feelings.

Because the real test of one's character isn't how polite and respectful you are to your betters or the people you want something from. It's how you treat everyone else.

The "Destruction" Continues

Check this out...

Now how could this have happened?:)

The "destruction" continues...

Have They Read The Bible or the Constitution?

Smart Move, Hilz

Check out Hillary Clinton's launch video.


Very smart move taking the focus off of her.

She's heading off to some low key events in Iowa and New Hampshire in which she will have some conversations with smaller crowds. Quite a contrast from this...

And this...

I wonder if Marco Rubio's announcement tomorrow will be as grandiose and bombastic as Cruz's and Paul's respective announcements. One thing is for sure...as with the first two GOP candidates, Rubio will mention how "freedom has died under Obama" and that we need to "take our country back." I expect we will see personal attacks (see: all they know how to do) as well.

What exactly are they taking our country back from? A good economy? Improved health care?

The Final Word On The American Taliban (Part Five)

Continuing with the American Taliban questions on Quora...

-Which political party in the United States (Democrats or Republicans) has a pathological hatred of the federal government and why?

There were a myriad of responses on this one which all amounted to most people thinking neither party really does. I think the word "pathological" turned people off. Here are a couple of interesting responses...

The people of the South most hate the Federal Government. The Feds under Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson forced integration on them and they hated it.. Nixon's Southern Strategy recognized this. He welcomed the haters into the party (and pepole like me soon left). So now all ofices in the South are held by Republicans.

There are sadly many people like Jim. This is also further evidence of my ongoing discussions about the South and conservatives.

I'd say it's both neither and Republicans. There is a wing of the party, led by Grover Norquist that believes 'the government can do nothing well'. Grover, you may recall is infamous for his 'reduce the Federal government in size until we can drown it in a baby bassinet' comment. While he holds no official position in the party he has extracted promises from many to allow no new taxes of any kind, severely restricting options to react to conditions. I would say that this wing has a pathological hatred of the federal government, else why the images of drowning babies? 

The rest of the Republican party is rather more reasonable, but somehow they seem to have lost control. I would hope they regain it soon, if not the moderate flight from the party will continue to the point that a new party will form out of those ejected or who left in disgust. Our 'winner take all' elections force two primary parties of nearly equal membership, and marginalize pretty much anyone else.

Yep.

-Which political party in the United States is more intolerant of dissent, both within their party and in the general population? Why?

Top answer?

I think there are factions within each party that don't tolerate dissent within their ranks. But voicing your opinion as a voter and voicing your opinion as a legislator are two very different things. There are pro-life Democrats. There are Democrats who are socially conservative and have issues with marraige equality. There are Democrats who have problems with unions. Because many teachers vote democrat for a number of reasons, but have been vocally critical of Arne Duncan and Barack Obama in regards to Common Core, charter schools and standardized testing. Elizabeth Warren is probably the Senator who sticks out in my mind as criticising the party from within. 

There aren't many Republican politicians who have stood up to the marraige equality fight, the posturing of the socially conservative / theocrats even though I know there are many , many Republicans who have had enough of the big government , mean spirited, wedge issues. There is the Tea Party, which has talked about cutting spending, but also has morphed into social issues. Republicans seem to have greater party fealty, which may be politcually advantageous, but I think that means that it doesn't do enough calling each out, or standing up for what is somewhat at odds with the party's platform.

Agreed.

Gluttony Is A Sin!

The Final Word On The American Taliban (Part Four)

The next American Taliban question was answered perfectly when I posed it on Quora. Up until this point, we have seen the answers point obviously at the Republicans. What we haven't seen is an example of a Republican answering the question and demonstrating its validity in action. With this question...

-Which US political party (the Democrats or the Republicans) views compromise as a weakness and why?

...we did.

There is a political theory out there (citation anyone?) that the party in power tends to fragment and engage in infighting, while the party out of control tends to become more extreme. It should be clear that a fragmented party as well as an extreme party would have difficulty with compromise, though in neither case is this because compromise is seen as "weak." It is because they disagree with the compromise position. 

An extreme example: The Taliban would have gays put to death. In many states in America gays are allowed to marry. What compromise policy should one approve of, in the interest of avoiding deadlock? If the pro-gay marriage party, say, refused to accept mere amputation as a compromise policy, would you say they did so because they wanted to avoid appearing "weak"? I hope you agree that would be absurd. Sometimes you just need to accept that there are strongly and sincerely held views in this world that are irreconcilable and will only be resolved by one view prevailing and another position being utterly defeated. Compromise is not always a noble goal.

Initially, I made the error of thinking he didn't answer the question. But Rob is a well known conservative on Quora and the second time I read it, I realize that he did (see bolded emphasis), thus proving that Republicans are the ones that view compromise as weakness:)

Here's another answer.

Currently, the Republicans because their party has been taken over be extremists. Generally there are extremists on either side who view compromise as failure and a bunch of politicians in the middle who keep the lights on. Democrats are generally more likely to compromise because the Democratic party tends to include people who applaud diversity, which requires some level of compromise to begin with. The Republicans have certainly shown, in the past 6 years, that being uncompromising can reap huge electoral benefits in a country with an ill-informed populace.

The comments that follow this answer are great examples of reality versus bubble.

-Which political party in the United States (Democrats or Republicans) is more undeterred by facts and why?

The top answer (too long to reprint here) in that it indicts both parties ignorance of basic facts. His list is most impressive.

A couple of other answers...

At this time in history, that would surely be the Republicans, or at least the far-right of that Party, which currently seems to rule the roost. They deny climate change or at least deny human involvement, say the earth is 6000 years old, don't accept evolution, etc

The republicans by far. Thirty years of economic failure of supply economics, climate change denial, Birthers, thinking women swallowing thing goes to their uterus, young earth republicans, clueless about human reproduction, abstinence teaching only, clueless about contraception devices, to name a few of their many attempts at avoiding reality

I think our pattern has developed into the full blown truth:)

First Florida, Now Wisconsin

For Some Wisconsin State Workers, ‘Climate Change’ Isn’t Something You Can Talk About

Discussing climate change is out of bounds for workers at a state agency in Wisconsin. So is any work related to climate change—even responding to e-mails about the topic.

A vote on Tuesday by Wisconsin’s Board of Commissioners of Public Lands, a three-member panel overseeing an agency that benefits schools and communities in the state, enacted the staff ban on climate change. “It’s not a part of our sole mission, which is to make money for our beneficiaries,” said State Treasurer Matt Adamczyk, a Republican who sits on the board. “That’s what I want our employees working on. That’s it. Managing our trust funds.”

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. What a bunch of fucking babies. Once again, the closet fascists come out to play!

Cooties!

After the all the noise in Indiana about a law that tried to legitimize religious prejudice, we have a story about the depths of stupidity that such thinking leads to:

Francesca Hogi, 40, had settled into her aisle seat for the flight from New York to London when the man assigned to the adjoining window seat arrived and refused to sit down. He said his religion prevented him from sitting beside a woman who was not his wife. Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move. 

Imagine how completely annoying it would be to have your flight delayed half an hour because some forty-year-old man was acting like a six-year-old boy who's afraid he'll get cooties sitting next to a girl.

And it's not an isolated occurrence.

TEL AVIV (JTA) — For approximately a half hour at the beginning of her El Al Israel Airlines flight last week from New York to Tel Aviv, Elana Sztokman watched as the haredi Orthodox man seated next to her rushed up and down the aisle searching for someone willing to switch seats so he wouldn’t have to sit beside her.

On the same route several hours later, another El Al flight was delayed as haredi men stood in the aisles refusing to sit next to women.

After takeoff, the men resumed their protest until other seats were found for them. A passenger on the flight told the Israeli website Ynet that the trip was “an 11-hour nightmare.”

Does their religion really require such silliness?

Rabbi Shafran noted that despite religious laws that prohibit physical contact between Jewish men and women who are not their wives, many ultra-Orthodox men follow the guidance of an eminent Orthodox scholar, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who counseled that it was acceptable for a Jewish man to sit next to a woman on a subway or bus so long as there was no intention to seek sexual pleasure from any incidental contact.

Apparently these guys are afraid they will succumb to a dark temptation on an airplane, in public, in front of hundreds of other passengers and flight crew.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that has repressed women for centuries. And it's not just Judaism. This same strain of prejudice abounds in many forms of Islam and Christianity.

Men who are too weak to control their own impulses demand separate seating in airplanes and buses and temples. They force boys and girls into separate schools, or ban girls going to school altogether. They make women cover themselves from head to toe. They force women to sequester themselves in their houses and never go out in public.

It's ridiculous that these people think their barbaric religious laws should be accommodated by the rest of society. They're demanding that Talmudic and Sharia law govern everyday interactions between people in public, under the guise of "religious freedom."

Just like those businesses in Indiana who want to use Old Testament law as a basis to refuse to do business with gays and lesbians.

The Final Word On The American Taliban (Part Three)

Next up in this series are the following questions...

-Which political party in the United States (Democrats or Republicans or neither) suffers from severe xenophobia and why?

There weren't as many views on this one so the answers should be taken with the smaller numbers in mind. My favorite?

I'm not sure either party suffers from severe xenophobia, although I would say the right wing of the Republican Party uses fear based appeals as a tactic more. Fear of Muslims, fear of undocumented immigrants, fear of socialism, fear of gays, fear of home invaders, fear of the government, fear of the collapse of America, fear of the United Nations, fear of economic collapse, and so on. Is it xenophobia? Not so much. Fear of change? Pretty much.

If they want to win elections, they are going to have to change this ideology.

-Which political party in the United States (the Democrats or the Republicans or neither) demonizes education and why?

Top answer?

Both and neither, really. 

The Republicans, when playing to their base, like to deride their opponents' education as being uppity or out of touch all while poo-poo-ing scientific evidence which might point to a need to enact policies which could negatively impact Big Business (their donors) profit margins. I don't consider that demonization, though. 

The Democrats tend to want what they consider to be thoughtful measurement with benchmarks and clearly defined objectives, which, when laid like a template over public education, becomes a strait jacket of regulations and teaching-to-the-test without much learning actually going on in the classroom. Again, problem that this is, I cannot label it demonization. 

If I had to choose one or the other, though, which has less trouble convincing themselves education is "not important", it would be the GOP; the Democrats, from their consistent meddling, have always seemed VERY interested in exactly what goes on in every classroom, right down to the slightest zero for not turning in homework- the child obviously has problems which we all must help solve....

The rest of the answers are equally as thoughtful.

Here We Go Again

A South Carolina police officer has been charged with murder after shooting an unarmed black man in the back.

The shooting unfolded after Officer [Michael] Slager stopped the driver of a Mercedes-Benz with a broken taillight, according to police reports.

As soon as he stopped the car, the driver, Mr. [Walter] Scott, fled and Officer Slager chased him into a grassy lot that abuts a muffler shop. The officer fired his Taser, a stun gun, but it did not stop Mr. Scott, according to police reports.

A video taken by a bystander shows what happened next. Wires, which carry the electrical current from the stun gun, appear to be extending from Mr. Scott’s body as he tussled with Officer Slager. As Mr. Scott turns to run, something — it is not clear whether it is the stun gun — is either tossed or knocked to the ground behind the two men.

Officer Slager draws his gun as Mr. Scott is running away. When the officer fires, Mr. Scott appears to be 15 to 20 feet away and fleeing. He falls after the last of eight shots.

The officer then goes back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and picks something up off the ground. Moments later, he drops an object near Mr. Scott’s body, the video shows.

Initially Slager claimed that Scott had taken his taser, but the video clearly shows this was a lie. Slager calmly shot Scott in the back, and then, without a moment's hesitation, methodically staged the crime scene to support the lie.

Now, the talking heads at Fox are probably going to ask, "Why did this black man run away from a cop if he hadn't done anything wrong?" and "Why did he resist arrest? Resisting arrest is a crime!"

Seriously? As this incident shows, any black man in this day and age has every expectation to fear for his life any time a cop stops him. This happens all too frequently: once the cops get hold of you, you never know whether they'll choke you to death like Eric Garner, shoot you for obeying their commands like Levar Jones (also in South Carolina), or beat and sodomize you like Abner Louima.

And there are other reasons. In South Carolina you can be sent to jail for failing to pay child support. People generally don't pay child support because they don't have the money. How does putting them in jail -- making it impossible to earn more money -- further the cause of paying child support?

The United States supposedly abolished debtor's prisons a century ago. Yet in places like Ferguson, MO and South Carolina, people are jailed for not paying fines and court fees. If these cities are serious about getting paid, the authorities should put them to work and garnish their wages. But instead they jail them for not paying fines, and then make them pay room and board for being jailed.

Throwing them in jail prevents collecting fines and child support. It's simply counterproductive and vindictive Catch 22 type of retribution that seems specifically targeted at poor people to prevent them from ever escaping the trap of poverty.

You would expect this kind of state-sponsored injustice in a Charles Dickens story, or a Franz Kafka novel, or newspaper article about Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Not in 21st century America.

But that's life in the American South, the land of no income taxes.

This Year's NRA Convention=Gun Free, Civilian Slaughter Zone

Working guns prohibited at NRA convention

Wait...wha? I thought gun free zones were a big no no for the Gun Cult. Talk about hypocritical...

And dangerous! Imagine if one of those left wing commie bastards who wants to take guns away chooses this gun free zone as his next point of slaughter and chaos. Let's see if the Gun Cult's predictions comes true about crazed killers and how they evily plot mass shootings.

We got ourselves a gun free zone right cheer!

The Middle East Is Burning Because Bush and Cheney Set It on Fire

Dick Cheney says President Obama is the "worst president on foreign policy." That's rich coming from the architect of the Iraq War, the biggest pooch-screwing since Vietnam.

A recent article in the Washington Post indicates that Saddam's Baathist cronies form the core of ISIS, the current bugaboo (after Iran) in Republican circles. But why did these guys start ISIS?

The de-Baathification law promulgated by L.­ Paul Bremer, Iraq’s American ruler in 2003, has long been identified as one of the contributors to the original insurgency. At a stroke, 400,000 members of the defeated Iraqi army were barred from government employment, denied pensions — and also allowed to keep their guns.

The U.S. military failed in the early years to recognize the role the disbanded Baathist officers would eventually come to play in the extremist group, eclipsing the foreign fighters whom American officials preferred to blame, said Col. Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the National Defense University who served as an adviser to top generals in Iraq and describes the links between Baathists and the Islamic State in his book, “Iraq After America.”

The U.S. military always knew that the former Baathist officers had joined other insurgent groups and were giving tactical support to the Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate, the precursor to the Islamic State, he said. But American officials didn’t anticipate that they would become not only adjuncts to al-Qaeda, but core members of the jihadist group.

Bush installed Shiite Iranian puppets in Iraq, knowing they would persecute the Sunni minority. Bush signed a Status of Forces Agreement in 2008, calling for American troops to withdraw from Iraq by June, 2009. And now Republicans had the gall to criticize Obama for their mistakes.

Again and again, Republicans made colossally stupid foreign policy decisions: Eisenhower deposing a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, Reagan supporting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Reagan selling missiles to Iran in exchange for hostages, Reagan supporting Saddam and turning a blind eye to the Kurdish genocide, Bush letting bin Laden get away again in 2001, Bush being duped by Iranian agents in 2003, Bush invading Iraq in 2003, Bush's vindictive de-Baathification fiasco, Bush's torture scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Time and again Bush was warned that his actions were just creating more terrorists. Yet he kept making the same mistakes over and over, all on Cheney's advice. And today, we have ISIS.

Yeah, the Middle East is burning. Because George Bush and Dick Cheney literally set it on fire.

The Final Word On The American Taliban (Part Two)

Next up in my American Taliban, Final Word series are these two questions...

-Which U.S. political party (Democrats or Republicans) has a fundamental belief in scriptural literalism? Why?

Top answer?

Definitely the GOP simply because of the dominance of religious conservatives. Many of the GOP platform stances such as anti gay rights and anti abortion are rooted in scriptural literalism. When someone believes that an arbitrary historical text written by ordinary men is the divine word of God there is no room for compromise or discussion. 

These people want clarity and certainty in their beliefs and mindset. Reality is black and white with no ambiguity. This is what makes all fundamentalist religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam identical to each other. All historical religious texts contain an increasily massive number of propagated human errors from translation and transcription that monotonically increases with time. The Bible and all other religious texts are all written by humans yet many attribute these texts as the word of God. 

To me it is logically absurd that so many people can blindly follow religious texts in a literal manner that conflict drastically with each other. Each religion essentially invalidates itself and all others by declaring itself the one true religion.

No room for compromise or discussion...wholeheartedly agree! It's pretty sad when you think about it. Where is the room for progress?

-Which political party in the United States (Democrats or Republicans or neither) writes and passes legislation to control a woman's body?

The top answer (from my favorite responder!!) was filled with data and incredibly detailed. Save the link for future information. It will definitely be useful in the coming election.

Thousands of Murderers?

Election Day in Ferguson

When the Justice Department released its reports on Ferguson last month, conservative whites believed they had "won" because Officer Darren Wilson was cleared of murder charges. Fox News and its yes men claimed the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" narrative was a complete lie, and that Michael Brown was a thug who deserved what he got.

Yet the Justice Department released a second report that showed a consistent pattern of racism and civil rights violations in the police department and the courts that intentionally screwed poverty-stricken black residents of Ferguson out of millions of dollars and repeatedly threw them in jail because they couldn't pay. Police abuse of African Americans was an integral part of the city's budget. This resulted in a slew of resignations in Ferguson and the dissolution of the Ferguson municipal court.

This was a clear abuse of police and government power, something that should be near and dear to the hearts of conservatives. Yet all they can do is crow about Michael Brown getting what he deserved.

For months protesters filled the streets of Ferguson, spending hour upon hour upon hour -- sometimes all night long -- protesting the abuse the police and the city government have heaped upon African Americans for years.

Today is election day in Ferguson. A cynic might say they picked the date to minimize turnout.

During those protests some activists were trying to register people to vote. Conservatives went ballistic. Even though Ferguson has a majority black population, everyone in the police and the city government was white.

Today is election day in Ferguson.  Yeah. Today. The Tuesday after Easter. In an odd-numbered year. A cynic might say they picked the date to minimize turnout:

In 2013, the turnout rate was just 17 percent among white voters and 6 percent among black voters. One reason for the small number of voters is the fact that elections are held in April on odd-numbered years. That's been shown to seriously depress turnout, compared to November in a presidential year, or even to November in midterm years. Turnout topped 40 percent during November's midterm elections, but that also represented a 10 percent drop from 2010. But in 2012, 76 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, almost 20 points above the national average (and Barack Obama thrashed Mitt Romney, taking 85 percent of the vote).

It seems crazy to me that people can spend hour upon hour for week after week, standing in the streets yelling, "Hands Up Don't Shoot," yet they can't spend half an hour on a day in April to cast a vote.

You can protest all you want, but it won't make a damn bit of difference if you don't elect people who will listen to your protests.

I know that for a century and a half white conservatives have put up all kinds of roadblocks to prevent African Americans from voting. But as the 2012 election results show, blacks can clearly make their voices heard, if they just show up to vote.

Today's turnout in Ferguson will show whether all the protesters who stood on the streets were serious. If they can spend countless hours, night after night, chanting about justice and peace, surely they can make an appearance at a polling place to elect the people they want to ensure justice and keep the peace.

You can protest all you want, but it won't make a damn bit of difference if you don't elect people who will listen to your protests.

Lil' Wayne (LaPierres)

VERY Good Words (on guns)

I was asked recently to answer a question on Quora.

Is America's Second Amendment "right to bear arms" a bit antiquated and needing to be reformed?

I haven't yet but check out this answer, from a "Firearm owner, firearm safety, military weapons training, responsible firearm use."

Right now, no, I do not believe it should be altered in any way. We can, however, change gun laws. I believe in the individuals right to own weapons, for person defense, hunting, and the ultimate purpose of the 2nd amendment - defense against tyranny. I personally do not see at this point the threat of a violent movement by the government that would cause us to rise up, but very few people who are destroyed by such things can see it coming.

I think we need to tighten up the screening process for owning firearms. Better mental health evaluation, better evaluation in screening buyers to determine their level of responsibility, and making more courses and training facilities available for people to learn how to use their weapons effectively, safely, and the most critical part - WHEN they should actually use it. An example in closing: Adam Lanza murdered children and teachers with his mother's guns. She was a shooting enthusiast. She knew Adam was troubled, mentally ill, and unstable - Yet she did not lock her weapons up as a responsible owner should - And that mistake cost her her own life, and the lives of many others. 

Responsible owners vs Irresponsible is what needs to be looked at. How exactly we do that, I am not sure.

It's that last line that really nails the debate right now. The difficulty in this is that there are many firearms owners and gun rights activists that realize that they are likely not mentally fit to own guns. Some of these people are the loudest in that group and it's so obvious they would be affected by any changes to laws. So, they prey upon responsible gun owners fears and everyone just goes along.

It won't change until, sadly, these folks are personally affected by gun violence.