Sunday, January 12, 2020
Saturday, January 11, 2020
The Second Amendment is About Groups of People, Not Individuals
The second amendment to the US Constitution reads:
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.
Let's note that the word "Militia" is plural and it's capitalized. Why? At the time the second amendment was written, the British had a standing army the likes the world had never seen, at least not since the era of the Roman Empire. Standing armies weren't a thing. In fact, they were quite frightening to people because that meant an OCCUPYING AND CONQUERING FORCE.
So, it makes sense that the colonists would want a defense ("being necessary to the security of a free State) against that, hence a Militia, or their own standing army. The fact that it's capitalized means it's an organized force of many people defending the US government.
The latter half of the amendment also has a plural word. "People." Not "person." Not "individual." People, as in a group. This is about a group of people organized in defense of the State in a Militia. And they need to be well regulated which meant, in 17th-century language, well trained.
Before we move forward to modern times, let's take a look at some historical context. Colonists were required to purchase their own guns in case they had to report for duty in the militia. States could not afford to buy any sort of arms. Each state had its own version on the right to bear arms. James Madison, who wrote the second amendment, used these as a guide as he was composing the national version. Here are some examples of the state versions.
Virginia
The people have a right to keep and bear arms;… a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
New York
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.
Pennsylvania
The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
It's quite clear that Madison, in writing the second amendment, was thinking about militias standing in defense against standing armies. Considering that both he and Jefferson banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia, they were clearly not talking about an individual right to own a gun. A person could own a gun while serving in a militia.
One need only look at the third amendment to the US Constitution for further context.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Again, we see the fear of standing armies. People look at this amendment today and don't really think much of it, assuming it's out of date and no longer applicable. But this was a big deal for the colonists who wanted to keep the standing, British army at bay.
It's crystal clear that as we look at the second amendment in our modern era, the original intent was based on being armed WHILE SERVING IN A MILITIA. Ironic, considering that the people that foam at the mouth the most about "original intent" are completely ignoring it here.
We now have our own standing army. It defends us quite well. And if for some reason, it became a tool of a tyrannical government, there is very little that a few handguns or even an AR-15 could do. They have drones. Discussion over. I will add that I see the more likely scenario of our armed forces splintering in which case, again, the need for ordinary citizens to have firearms is still not necessary and causes more harm than good.
Imagine if tens of thousands of people died from Islamic terrorism every year. Or ecoli from lettuce. A national emergency would have been declared long ago and action would have been taken. The religious belief that has metastasized around the second amendment must be eradicated. The United States loses 80 citizens a day to gun violence because of a small minority of our citizens'irrational fervor about guns. They consistently lie about the historical context of the right to bear arms and use fear to propagate unnecessary insecurity.
Fight their lies with this truth.
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.
Let's note that the word "Militia" is plural and it's capitalized. Why? At the time the second amendment was written, the British had a standing army the likes the world had never seen, at least not since the era of the Roman Empire. Standing armies weren't a thing. In fact, they were quite frightening to people because that meant an OCCUPYING AND CONQUERING FORCE.
So, it makes sense that the colonists would want a defense ("being necessary to the security of a free State) against that, hence a Militia, or their own standing army. The fact that it's capitalized means it's an organized force of many people defending the US government.
The latter half of the amendment also has a plural word. "People." Not "person." Not "individual." People, as in a group. This is about a group of people organized in defense of the State in a Militia. And they need to be well regulated which meant, in 17th-century language, well trained.
Before we move forward to modern times, let's take a look at some historical context. Colonists were required to purchase their own guns in case they had to report for duty in the militia. States could not afford to buy any sort of arms. Each state had its own version on the right to bear arms. James Madison, who wrote the second amendment, used these as a guide as he was composing the national version. Here are some examples of the state versions.
Virginia
The people have a right to keep and bear arms;… a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
New York
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.
Pennsylvania
The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
It's quite clear that Madison, in writing the second amendment, was thinking about militias standing in defense against standing armies. Considering that both he and Jefferson banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia, they were clearly not talking about an individual right to own a gun. A person could own a gun while serving in a militia.
One need only look at the third amendment to the US Constitution for further context.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Again, we see the fear of standing armies. People look at this amendment today and don't really think much of it, assuming it's out of date and no longer applicable. But this was a big deal for the colonists who wanted to keep the standing, British army at bay.
It's crystal clear that as we look at the second amendment in our modern era, the original intent was based on being armed WHILE SERVING IN A MILITIA. Ironic, considering that the people that foam at the mouth the most about "original intent" are completely ignoring it here.
We now have our own standing army. It defends us quite well. And if for some reason, it became a tool of a tyrannical government, there is very little that a few handguns or even an AR-15 could do. They have drones. Discussion over. I will add that I see the more likely scenario of our armed forces splintering in which case, again, the need for ordinary citizens to have firearms is still not necessary and causes more harm than good.
Imagine if tens of thousands of people died from Islamic terrorism every year. Or ecoli from lettuce. A national emergency would have been declared long ago and action would have been taken. The religious belief that has metastasized around the second amendment must be eradicated. The United States loses 80 citizens a day to gun violence because of a small minority of our citizens'irrational fervor about guns. They consistently lie about the historical context of the right to bear arms and use fear to propagate unnecessary insecurity.
Fight their lies with this truth.
Wednesday, January 08, 2020
Saturday, January 04, 2020
The Best Writer On Quora
The best writer on Quora is Lee Thé. With 22 million views on his content, his reach is unparalleled and his influence is enormous. The best part about all of this is he is completely dedicated to destroying the Trump cult. His answers in the politics section are concise and perfect in their accuracy. Responding to the question, have Trump’s tax cuts failed the average American, Mr. Thé wrote,
Like all Republican tax cut laws since Reagan, regardless of who they help or harm in the short run, they’re massive and unfunded. The Republican politicians tell the people taxes are bad, tax cuts are good. They never tell mention what the taxes pay for. They never mention the economic chaos that ensues when the deficit has to be paid for. The strategic goal of massive, unfunded tax cuts is the elimination of the social safety net. The excuse is the deficit created by the tax cuts. The justification is equating the social safety net with socialism (oh the horror), and equating that with Soviet communism.
The devil is in the details. According to Politifact.com’s analysis, “every income group pays less in taxes in 2019, but the benefits flow disproportionately to wealthier taxpayers. And by 2027, every income group below $75,000 will see a tax increase, while only those income ranges above $75,000 will still see a cut.”
Bait…and switch.
Trump’s supporters have been tricked into selling their birthright for a mess of pottage
Mic drop.
Mic drop.
Wednesday, January 01, 2020
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
A Special Thanks
Nikto and I would like to thank everyone for reading our little small-town blog in 2019. We started off a few years ago with just a handful of readers and now, thanks to exposure on Twitter, Quora, Medium and Reddit, we average between 500 and 1000 readers every day.
2020 is going to be a crazy year in terms of politics. A sitting president will be running for reelection after being impeached and having a Senate trial. Will he make it through the year? Or will they find him emotionally exhausted and jibbering to himself with his thumbs on his Twitter feed? We can't wait to find out!!
2020 is going to be a crazy year in terms of politics. A sitting president will be running for reelection after being impeached and having a Senate trial. Will he make it through the year? Or will they find him emotionally exhausted and jibbering to himself with his thumbs on his Twitter feed? We can't wait to find out!!
Monday, December 30, 2019
"Conservative" SCOTUS Judges Vote With Liberals Nearly Half of the Time
Take a look at this graphic.
See, now what I can't figure out is why conservatives are so hell-bent on Kavanaugh. He is more liberal than Roberts! In fact, when you really look at the cases, 7 of the 9 judges barely move into the red area at all. Where is all that originalism I keep hearing about all the time?
I submit that they don't really care how the people they support vote. They just want them to be "conservative" whatever the fuck that means. It's pure tribalism.
See, now what I can't figure out is why conservatives are so hell-bent on Kavanaugh. He is more liberal than Roberts! In fact, when you really look at the cases, 7 of the 9 judges barely move into the red area at all. Where is all that originalism I keep hearing about all the time?
I submit that they don't really care how the people they support vote. They just want them to be "conservative" whatever the fuck that means. It's pure tribalism.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Friday, December 27, 2019
Monday, December 23, 2019
Deprogramming The Cult
There is a new poll out that shows the highest number of Americans that want Trump impeached and removed from office that we have seen thus far. 51% of those who responded want him out while 43% do not want him out. The more interesting numbers show that 54% show that the Senate should call additional witnesses who were blocked from coming to testify by Trump himself.
Further and far more significant, 46% of American strongly disapproves of the job Trump is doing while only 27% strongly approve. That tells me that Trump is fucked in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
Something else of note is Trump's numbers among independents. 48% approve of the articles of impeachment while only 41% disapprove.
Taken all together, we are beginning to see how much trouble Trump is in if 51 senators vote to hear from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. I think several other senators want to flip as well given the reality of their political lives if they don't. Susan Collins and Corey Gardner are already likely to not make it. Joni Ernst and Martha McSally are also in trouble. Even Mitt Romney might be the man of integrity he is and vote for more witnesses and, ultimately, removal.
And then we have this...
Further and far more significant, 46% of American strongly disapproves of the job Trump is doing while only 27% strongly approve. That tells me that Trump is fucked in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
Something else of note is Trump's numbers among independents. 48% approve of the articles of impeachment while only 41% disapprove.
Taken all together, we are beginning to see how much trouble Trump is in if 51 senators vote to hear from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. I think several other senators want to flip as well given the reality of their political lives if they don't. Susan Collins and Corey Gardner are already likely to not make it. Joni Ernst and Martha McSally are also in trouble. Even Mitt Romney might be the man of integrity he is and vote for more witnesses and, ultimately, removal.
And then we have this...
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Living in Two Worlds
Check out the list of issues that are on voters' minds and how they rank their importance? Could we be any different?
Conservatives, seriously, your top priorities are
1. Don't impeach Trump
2. Don't ban guns
3. No slavery reparations
4. Build a Wall
Compare this to liberals.
1. Don't separate immigrant children
2. Impeach Trump
3. No ban on abortion
4. Don't build a wall
The party of "fuck you, keep away" compared to the party of compassion and law. Good grief...
Conservatives, seriously, your top priorities are
1. Don't impeach Trump
2. Don't ban guns
3. No slavery reparations
4. Build a Wall
Compare this to liberals.
1. Don't separate immigrant children
2. Impeach Trump
3. No ban on abortion
4. Don't build a wall
The party of "fuck you, keep away" compared to the party of compassion and law. Good grief...
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Trump Costing US Billions of Dollars
The future of energy is renewable. Period. Donald Trump and the rest of the AGW deniers are costing the US billions of dollars in the race of this emerging market.
The withdrawal could lock U.S. businesses out of a huge portion of the rapidly growing global market, already worth an estimated $164 billion, that seeks to put an economic price on the greenhouse gases warming the planet — a potential economic loss causing concern among American-based companies such as the food and candy maker Mars.
...the push to reduce the world’s carbon pollution is also creating major economic opportunities. Those include trading systems, already present in parts of Europe and the U.S., in which companies essentially buy and sell the right to pollute — a setup that gives polluters an economic incentive to cut back while generating new income for businesses that help clean the atmosphere.
Yep, it's that fucking bad. And guess which countries are filling up that market and making money?
The withdrawal could lock U.S. businesses out of a huge portion of the rapidly growing global market, already worth an estimated $164 billion, that seeks to put an economic price on the greenhouse gases warming the planet — a potential economic loss causing concern among American-based companies such as the food and candy maker Mars.
...the push to reduce the world’s carbon pollution is also creating major economic opportunities. Those include trading systems, already present in parts of Europe and the U.S., in which companies essentially buy and sell the right to pollute — a setup that gives polluters an economic incentive to cut back while generating new income for businesses that help clean the atmosphere.
Yep, it's that fucking bad. And guess which countries are filling up that market and making money?
Friday, December 13, 2019
Thursday, December 12, 2019
How To Intellectually Dominate Someone Who Says, "We are a republic, not a democracy."
Ever been in an online discussion about politics, majorities and minorities, and someone (usually a libertarian) will say something like, "We are a republic, not a democracy," to sound all smart and stuff? Well, Ryan McMaken has a solution for you! He tells you what they are really saying...
"I don't like your idea, and since it involves aspects that are democratic or majoritarian, I'll invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to discredit your idea."
or
"A majority of the population appears to support this idea, so I will invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to illustrate that the majority should be ignored."
and then he proceeds to tell you how to get them to STFU. Enjoy the entire piece. It's simply wonderful.
"I don't like your idea, and since it involves aspects that are democratic or majoritarian, I'll invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to discredit your idea."
or
"A majority of the population appears to support this idea, so I will invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to illustrate that the majority should be ignored."
and then he proceeds to tell you how to get them to STFU. Enjoy the entire piece. It's simply wonderful.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
The Cult of Both Sides Pwned
“The phrases “they’re all the same” or “everybody does it” are thrown around loosely in order to deflect criticism of indefensible behavior. And yes, of course, I’m referring to President Donald Trump. Some of my Republican friends try to excuse or rationalize Trump’s dishonesty, vulgarity and immorality by saying all politicians do it. They are guilty of employing false equivalency.
If I’m a murderer and you drive over the speed limit, you wouldn’t claim we’re the same since we both broke the law. Similarly, it is not accurate or fair to equate a serial liar — a cheating, philandering, bribing narcissist — with the exaggeration and occasional dishonesty of traditional politicians. Trump is in a league of his own, bereft of decency, unique in his level of depravity. Equating him with other politicians is not only false, it is dangerous.”
---RYAN PULKRABEK, MINNEAPOLIS
If I’m a murderer and you drive over the speed limit, you wouldn’t claim we’re the same since we both broke the law. Similarly, it is not accurate or fair to equate a serial liar — a cheating, philandering, bribing narcissist — with the exaggeration and occasional dishonesty of traditional politicians. Trump is in a league of his own, bereft of decency, unique in his level of depravity. Equating him with other politicians is not only false, it is dangerous.”
---RYAN PULKRABEK, MINNEAPOLIS
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Trump Admits He Is Totally Full of Shit
Finally, Donald Trump has opened his big fat yap about something you'd think he'd know everything about: excrement. The man is so full of bullshit, you'd think he'd start turning orange. (Um, wait a second...)
But it turns out that he doesn't know shit about shit. Last week the Oracle of Mar a Lago had this to say:
The reason there are rules mandating low-flow toilets and shower heads is that water shortages are rampant in many parts of the country, particularly in the Southwest, California and Montana. There's a thing called "senior water rights," which means that if you build a new house, the guy who owns the old farm up the river has the right to stop you from watering your lawn. Or even flushing your toilet, if the previous owner of the land didn't use water for that. It's really a bogus law, but it's endemic out west.
Even in places where there's plenty of rainfall, the deep underground aquifers that supply many suburbs (like mine) with drinking water are being completely drained, and those aquifers literally take millennia to replenish.
The average person urinates six to eight times a day. Defecation rates are more variable, ranging from three times a day to three times a week. Since people urinate between two and 14 times as often as they defecate, water usage should be optimized for urination.
You don't need much water to flush urine: the 1.6 gallons used in low-flow toilets is way more than enough. Frequent bowel movements are also likely to have lower stool volume, and require less flushing. Yeah, some bowel movements might require two, three or four flushes (but 15? Gimme a break!), using three to six gallons.
But so what? Instead of wasting the five to seven gallons of water that old-style toilets used every time you take a leak, just flush the number of times needed. If the "average" person urinates six or seven times more frequently than defecating, they're using only 10 gallons of water a day with a low-flow toilet, as opposed to 30 to 40 gallons as was the case with older toilets. Does it really make any sense to for every American needlessly flush 15,000 gallons of water down the toilet every year to satisfy Donald Trump? That would be four and a half trillion gallons of water!
In some countries toilets have two flush modes: one that uses a small amount of water and another that uses more. But why bother with that gimmick when you can just flush again if needed? One improvement in toilet design that's clearly necessary is a way to make the porcelain slicker, so that excrement and stains just don't stick. We definitely need to make toilets easier to clean, now that Trump is kicking all his undocumented maids out of the country: heaven forbid he'd have to clean his own bathroom!
Come on, Republicans. Don't you long for the days when a president didn't say something completely stupid and make a fool out of himself five, six, seven, ten times a day? Trump is making it so easy for the guys on late night TV to ridicule him. Just impeach him and save yourselves the embarrassment of having to defend his every stupid tweet and utterance...
By the way, it was a Republican, George H. W. Bush, who signed the original 1992 law mandating the 1.6 gallons per flush standard. Not all Republicans are horrible wastrels.
But it turns out that he doesn't know shit about shit. Last week the Oracle of Mar a Lago had this to say:
“We have a situation where we’re looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms, where you turn the faucet on — in areas where there’s tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it — you turn on the faucet, you don’t get any water,” [geeze, this guy is so inarticulate and incoherent] he said Friday at a White House meeting about small businesses and reducing red tape.When Donald Trump says "people," he means Donald Trump. Apparently the notorious germophobe is totally full of shit, and needs to flush the toilet 15 times every time he takes a dump.
Mr. Trump also noted that “people are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once” and that “they end up using more water,” according to a transcript of the discussion.
The reason there are rules mandating low-flow toilets and shower heads is that water shortages are rampant in many parts of the country, particularly in the Southwest, California and Montana. There's a thing called "senior water rights," which means that if you build a new house, the guy who owns the old farm up the river has the right to stop you from watering your lawn. Or even flushing your toilet, if the previous owner of the land didn't use water for that. It's really a bogus law, but it's endemic out west.
Even in places where there's plenty of rainfall, the deep underground aquifers that supply many suburbs (like mine) with drinking water are being completely drained, and those aquifers literally take millennia to replenish.
The average person urinates six to eight times a day. Defecation rates are more variable, ranging from three times a day to three times a week. Since people urinate between two and 14 times as often as they defecate, water usage should be optimized for urination.
You don't need much water to flush urine: the 1.6 gallons used in low-flow toilets is way more than enough. Frequent bowel movements are also likely to have lower stool volume, and require less flushing. Yeah, some bowel movements might require two, three or four flushes (but 15? Gimme a break!), using three to six gallons.
But so what? Instead of wasting the five to seven gallons of water that old-style toilets used every time you take a leak, just flush the number of times needed. If the "average" person urinates six or seven times more frequently than defecating, they're using only 10 gallons of water a day with a low-flow toilet, as opposed to 30 to 40 gallons as was the case with older toilets. Does it really make any sense to for every American needlessly flush 15,000 gallons of water down the toilet every year to satisfy Donald Trump? That would be four and a half trillion gallons of water!
In some countries toilets have two flush modes: one that uses a small amount of water and another that uses more. But why bother with that gimmick when you can just flush again if needed? One improvement in toilet design that's clearly necessary is a way to make the porcelain slicker, so that excrement and stains just don't stick. We definitely need to make toilets easier to clean, now that Trump is kicking all his undocumented maids out of the country: heaven forbid he'd have to clean his own bathroom!
Come on, Republicans. Don't you long for the days when a president didn't say something completely stupid and make a fool out of himself five, six, seven, ten times a day? Trump is making it so easy for the guys on late night TV to ridicule him. Just impeach him and save yourselves the embarrassment of having to defend his every stupid tweet and utterance...
By the way, it was a Republican, George H. W. Bush, who signed the original 1992 law mandating the 1.6 gallons per flush standard. Not all Republicans are horrible wastrels.
The Russification of the GOP
Ronald Brownstein from the Atlantic has a great piece up about the Republican Party. Essentially, conservatives have become stooges for Putin and his propaganda. Clearly, they view their fellow Americans (in this case, Democrats) as a greater threat than Russia, who is still trying to undermine our global hegemony.
As I have been saying for years now, conservatives are traitors. Time to put on trial and sent to federal pound me in the ass prison.
As I have been saying for years now, conservatives are traitors. Time to put on trial and sent to federal pound me in the ass prison.
Monday, December 09, 2019
Best Sales Quarter in Years For Gun Grabbers, Dick's Sporting Goods
Remember when Dick's Sporting Goods decided to stop carrying assault rifles and high capacity magazines? The NRA and their mouth-foaming supporters tried to put them out of business. Well, they just had their best sales quarter in years.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)