American Gun Rights: Why are we fighting to keep guns in the hands of future criminals?

The idea that some person with guns is going to fight off the government isn't a sound one for arguing for gun rights. For one thing, the examples of Waco and Ruby Ridge should have pretty much summed up by now why that's a bad argument. If the government wants to take you out, they are taking you out. That in itself is a major problem that gun culture is not only NOT solving, its probably making worse by suggesting to people that having stores of weapons is somehow going to make them safe in a conflict, whereas we're probably just more likely to witness another standoff wherein children are put into danger and more often than not, killed.

In the same breath I hear "criminals don't follow laws so how is making guns illegal going to stop them", which lines "criminals" out like people that aren't any of "us" and that's ridiculous. Things that are perfectly legal in ONE state would make you a "criminal" in another. Criminality comes usually out of a place of desperation, lack of education and/or opportunity, existential threat, deprivation, etc. Most people are not born with a "criminal" mindset, and even the mentally ill are usually not specifically more dangerous to a society (some extremely rare exceptions do exist, but writing the mentally ill off as a whole is a careless and dangerous thing to do). A life circumstance beyond your immediate control could force you into engaging in "criminal" acts to save your life or protect your family. You know, like shooting a person (which is pretty much illegal).

For some, legal use of guns and legal gun ownership is considered more criminal than others. We have a law enforcement and judicial system that disproportionately impacts people of darker skin. Racism in relation to gun access and laws is a whole different Pandora's box of problems, as well. Philando Castile was not a criminal, informed an officer appropriately about having a gun that he was licensed to carry, and was shot to death as a passenger in a car in front of his girlfriend and her toddler. Had that jumpy ass officer aimed his gun so much as an inch to the right, he'd have SHOT that toddler in her car seat. More guns did not help that situation. Marissa Alexander was being abused and was in fear of her and her infant's life, so she fired a WARNING SHOT into the upper corner of a wall in her home to scare back her abusive husband and was GIVEN 20 YEARS in prison, while the next year in the same state George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, whom he had literally stalked during the course of an evening and was told by law enforcement to stop following and he was let off on the same "stand your ground" defense that failed Ms. Alexander (whose conviction was thrown out on appeal after a few years, thank God). More guns are not helping in these situations either.

So, we have some incompatible ideas going on here. If you engage in a standoff against police (enforcement arm of government), that's pretty illegal and would be considered criminal behavior. Hell, I would think that planning for such an event in advance by its own nature would be considered conspiracy in regard to future criminal acts. Yet, I find that a commonality found with the pro-gun crowd is a pro-police mentality, yet at the same time, the pro-gun crowd tends to bandy about the idea that you have to have guns to fight off the government which would first be ..the police. So, you don't want "criminals" to be the only ones getting guns cause what.. if.. you.. need.. to do something.. criminal, too? I don't get it.

Rather, I do get it, but it's hypocritical as fuck and a dangerous mindset to feel that you're entitled to kill people but no one else is. Yet at the same time, lets make sure people have more guns.

Seriously, fuck this. Keep a lever-action rifle at home in case shit gets hairy or you have a maniac banging down your door. Tell me why you need to not only have guns, but an armory full of guns that can kill people faster than fuck, like rapid-fire weapons?

Who are these "criminals" again?

yeah, they probably won't, huh?

The Feminine Context

REM wakes up to support The Occupation

Awesomeness!

This is an older REM song, but the members of REM (which has been broken up) have endorsed the Occupy movement and offer their song, going so far as to release a "sing-along" video so people can learn the lyrics, as well as offering printable handouts of those lyrics on their site. Sounds like a great protest chant to me.




Lyrics are as follows:

Throw your collar up inside
Hang your dollar on me
Listen to the water still
Listen to the causeway

Mad and educated
Primitive and wild
Welcome to the occupation

Here we stand and here we fight
All your fallen heroes
Held and dyed and skinned alive
Listen to the Congress fire

Offering the educated
Primitive and loyal
Welcome to the occupation

Hang your collar up inside
Hang your freedom higher
Listen to the buyer still
Listen to the Congress

Where we propagate confusion
Primitive and wild
The fire on the hemisphere below

Sugarcane and coffee cup
Copper, steel, and cattle
An annotated history
The forest for the fire

Where we open up the floodgates
Freedom reigns supreme
Fire on the hemisphere below
Listen to me

Veteran Marine PWNS NYPD for Police Brutality

From YouTube.com

"United States Marine Corps. Sgt. Shamar Thomas from Roosevelt, NY went toe to toe with the New York Police Department. An activist in the Occupy Wall Street movement, Thomas voiced his opinions of the NYPD police brutality that had and has been plaguing the #OWS movement.

Thomas is a 24-year-old Marine Veteran (2 tours in Iraq), he currently plays amateur football and is in college.

Thomas comes from a long line of people who sacrifice for their country: Mother, Army Veteran (Iraq), Step father, Army, active duty (Afghanistan), Grand father, Air Force veteran (Vietnam), Great Grand Father Navy veteran (World War II)."



Sgt. Thomas is on the street, and he is pissed.

The point he makes is a valid one. These have been non-violent protests. Perhaps people find the protesters annoying, but they're not actually hurting anyone. The protesters aren't armed, nor are they looting or breaking windows or anything of the sort. Sgt. Thomas shows up and sees police physically pushing the protesters around and can't take it. He asks some pretty valid questions here on the street, such as..

Why are police in riot gear, armed, and pushing unarmed civilians around?

I find it interesting that not one of these policemen could really confront him for the whole five minutes he was speaking. Hell, they wouldn't really look him in the face, for the most part. From the perspective of a man coming home from war, the idea of bearing any sort of arms against unarmed civilians that he's been told he's suffered to fight for, has got to be pretty fucking rage-inducing.

Good on you, Sgt. Thomas.

Just in case you doubt the validity of his claim that he saw police pushing and beating on protesters.. well, check this out. Here's a video of a policeman cold-cocking a young woman who appears to be in her 20's and weigh less than 140lbs. Oh, did I mentioned she's unarmed and standing STILL when he does it?


Here's a video of three Asian-American protesters being moved, one of whom has a bloodied nose from being shoved on the ground by police. If you take note of their surroundings, its fairly clear that these three had instruments set up and were playing music. If you really WANTED to move someone and you had that many hands to help you do it, why not pick the man up and restrain him, rather than break his face open on the ground?


Here's another, where the police not only beat an already restrained protester with a baton, they shove another and pull yet another by her hair over the police line, and then follow up the hair pulling with mace.


You know.. I understand that the police have a shitty job, especially in the face of a situation like this where they are ORDERED to try and contain a very determined mob of people who have no compunction with insulting those policemen and, let's just be really fucking honest here, doing their damndest to INCITE bad behavior out of the police so that they can film it. Like I said, let's be honest.. this video footage of police brutality is a strengthening the resolve and anger of the protesters, and that's good for the Occupy movement. That said, no amount of taunting and irritation by the protesters can excuse bad behavior on the part of the police. Maybe if you're the police, it doesn't feel fair... but the sad fact of the matter, is that its not supposed to be fair. The NYPD are a collection of individuals who have sworn to uphold the law, and the civilians are not bound to that same oath.

Most people, and I do mean MOST, don't have the self-control and strength of composure to take people getting up in their faces and insulting them when they are trying to do a difficult job. I can guarantee you that in the reverse position, the protesters wouldn't be able to contain themselves that much better than the police seen here. However, I believe that when your sworn duty is to "protect and serve", you have to uphold that sworn duty, which MEANS that you have to be BETTER than your peers. Authority figures cannot be afforded the right to lose their tempers as easily as those they are supposed to be guardians of. A parent, who is the authority over their child, doesn't have the right to knock that child around because the child irritated or annoyed them. A parent doesn't have the right to impose punishment without cause, just as a police officer doesn't have the right to arrest a citizen they are supposed to protect and serve without informing that citizen of what they are being arrested for.

Why I'm never tagged in any Facebook party pictures (#1)

Believe it or not, what most people call "hate" can actually be healthy, or at least an indication that your brain still works well enough that it can survive the tidal wave of pointless stupidity that pop culture media tries to drown America in on a daily basis.

Yeah, bitches.. you heard me. SOME hate is healthy.

I hate reading or hearing about the Kardashians. I hate the fact that one cannot AVOID reading or hearing about the Kardashians. I do try, you understand. It's simply impossible, what with their mom, and all the press she can buy, literally hammering people in the head with the name "Kardashian" every time they get online, turn on their television, or go outside their homes. I find this so obnoxious that there is actually a little part of me that longs for the day that Google actually DOES become "Big Brother". Some "top men" at Google get to watch me take a bath (their problem, not mine), and I can filter this crap out of my life entirely with a command as simple as "-kardashian".

Take note of the fact that I did NOT say "I hate the Kardashians". That kind of blind hate is for the simple and ignorant, and that's not something I'll allow myself to become. I really don't think that the word "hate" is the best word for how I DO feel about the tsunami that is Kardashian, but it packs a wallop of venom that I just feel like spraying out at this subject. It's not the actual girls that I dislike, it's what comes with them and what they represent.

So here you go, girls. Let it all out. Add to this. Go for it.

It's OKAY to hate this shit. If you feel anger at the suggestion that you should support the Kardashian Empire..it's okay. Allow me to validate your rage. Here are two answered arguments that you may freely use to support your disgust at all things Kardashian.


Argument One:

(arguments will be phrased much the way I expect they would be phrased by the type of person who would rush to the defense of the Kardashians)

"They're so successful! So ambitious! You're just a jealous bitch and a HATER!"

RICH AND FAMOUS!!! FOR.... Nothing?

The secret of their success is... Daddy. Oh yeah, and Daddy's money. Isn't that where you get all YOUR money? From your Daddy? Well.. if it isn't, then clearly your priorities and values leave much to be desired.

The Kardashian girls have been QUITE successful at not running out of all that money because it's been invested wisely.. by their Mom. With Mom's pitbull-like grasp on her daughters, her business savvy, and her uncanny ability to exploit her children PAST the age of majority, those girls don't have a chance in hell at making the inexperienced decisions that they surely would if not so sternly directed. Under the guidance of She-Who-Owns-Bruce-Jenner, the Kardashians now lend their name to a clothing line that's giving white supremacists a fashionable new day in the sun. 

When your very first steps were paved with gold, your family's provided the best education, diet, and stylists for your ENTIRE LIFE, I should FUCKING hope you're ambitious enough to do something other than sit around on your ass. I'm sick to death of hearing about how ambitious these girls are. Their MOM is ambitious... ambitious to such a frightening extent that I firmly believe if the right advisor could convince her that amputees were in, she'd ask the girls over for brunch at Al's House of Fire-Axes, scheduled to provide enough healing time between a limb-ectomy and People Magazine's annual "Most Beautiful People" edition. For one thing, they don't have to do much to appear ambitious, because every time they lift a (well-planned and carefully staged) finger in front of the public eye, they turn donkey shit to gold ALL THROUGH THE MAGIC OF TELEVISION.

Even crazy Mommy Dearest can get a little excited and fail to read the fine print. In all fairness, she was probably still squinting, waiting for her henchmen to pull their shit together and kidnap a child (with the right genetic match this time, you morons!!!) whose corneas and youth-essence she could harvest, when she unwittingly plastered the half-naked and very expensive images of her offspring all over debit cards that were designed to both:

1. identify their user as a sad, pop-culture obsessed little fan-girl
and
2. to ass-rape the credit history of those users every time they so much as used those cards to buy a magazine (probably containing something about some guy that one of the Kardashians was fucking that week).

Argument Two:
"OMG, U R SOOOO MEAN. THE KARDASHIANS ARE NICE GIRLS WHO ARE REALLY NORMAL EVEN IF THEY R RICH! U JUST WISH U LOOKED LIKE THEM AND HAD THEIR MOENY!"

How nice are they, really?

I submit the following videos for your perusal:

A nice evening at home with the Kardashians



Nice, huh?

How about this next one with the Matriarch at the helm of a deal showcasing one girl, and suggesting to the others that it's a GOOD idea that the other two ride on her coattails later on ..



Oh come on, Khloe... you're ALMOST too fat to even be IN this family, and Kourtney, you're just ugly enough to be cute... like a Chihuahua. How about if I just start carrying you in my purse and maybe we can get a dog products line for you..?

From what I've seen, the Kardashians spend enough money on one lunch to feed a small family for a month, and then they don't even eat it because they're too busy arguing with each other about who's getting more attention from one week to the next. They have done some relatively normal things like getting knocked up and/or married, but when is the last time a network came banging down your door with a million-dollar deal to film you having it out with your douchebag boyfriend and your mom during the annual family-free-for-all at Thanksgiving dinner?

Finally, the Kardashians look as good as they do because they can afford to have ANYTHING and EVERYTHING painted, sprayed, tucked, frosted, conditioned, glossed, waxed, or lifted whenever they wish. With the right stylist and team of aetheticians, you wouldn't recognize and might probably hit on your own sister.

In case you don't want to take my word for it.. Behold...

Eva Longoria - Before and After



Not that anyone's going to break their ass trying to get into her panties, but here you go..

Barbara Streisand - Before and After



and finally, Christina Ricci, with and without makeup..