Though people have the right to form a little militia, so long as they operate peaceably under the law, and wave their guns I do not agree with them at all. I do not think that the rise in citizens militias (aka constitutional militias) in the Militia Movement serves any function other than to make a political statement. There are basic gaps in logic surrounding the movement. The militia members tend to be people who have a very limited trust in the government, particular the federal, and they believe that they can use the second amendment to protect themselves, via a militia, from a tyrannical government. First off, our government is not tyrannical in the least traditional sense (so I would appreciate if these people shut up) and it would require a significant series of screw ups for that to happen. Second off, if you have the right to defend yourself against the government with firearms then, hell, there should be nothing stopping the second amendment to expand the definition of arms into armaments such as anti-material and depleted uranium munitions, RPGs, artillery not limited to self-propelled howitzers, main battle tanks, and all that “good stuff” seeing as tyranny, in this day and age, swoops down with tanks, planes, battleships, and all the fires of hell. Clearly the Founding Fathers never envisioned such destructive instruments of war and most everybody believes today, including militia men, that these arms have not place in the control of the citizenry so please, somebody tell me, what the hell do these militias think they are doing: arming against nonexistent tyranny with vastly inferior provisions? I believe that people should only own firearms to defend themselves because owning them to prevent tyranny is pointless as of now. These “constitutional militias” are not even constitutional recognized by congress as militias anymore seeing as the standards to achieving the status organized militia have been limited pretty much only to the National Guard and State Defense Forces which are professional military entities. My point is that the Militia Movement is not even constitutionally supported these days so they are riding a dead horse by brandishing these imagined rights and frankly they are extremely useless seeing as we have a very effective militia already existing in the National Guard and State Defense Forces. Many in the Militia Movement are opposed to the governmental control over the National Guard and, to a lesser extent, of the State Defense Forces but I would rather place my trust in then than the citizen’s militias that, in their current makeup, have attracted many from the far-right of the political spectrum whose views I would say border the cusp of extreme. I do not think that the Founding Fathers would be all to pleased with the transfer of the militia into military entities but then again I cannot speak for those who have been dead for nigh on 240 years and have never lived in this day and age. One last comment regarding the second amendment against the government is that just because you can brandish arms against it does not mean it has a point of makes it right (in other words, shut up).
For starters, I had so much trouble finding any sources explaining, without sounding batshit crazy, just why the government should not be trusted to such a degree that we require the second amendment to defend ourselves against it that I am not going to bother referencing any (Fox had nothing on the subject). I turned to our good old friend NPR for an article to comment on. Their article, “Report:’Explosive’ Growth Of ‘Patriot Movement’ And Militias Continues”, both unfairly portrayed the Militia Movement yet offered some good perspectives at which to view it. They said of the Movements reasoning, “Obama’s candidacy and election has fueled the growth in groups that believe the federal government will ‘impose martial law … confiscate guns … open concentration camps run by FEMA … and force the U.S. to become a socialist state.'” These extremist, and blatantly ludicrous, views are not however shared by all members of the movement and it really is quite unfair to pass them off as such but on the other hand the movement has become a magnet for these very views that characterize it and due to that we as a nation should be careful. The article claims that it is a conspiracy driven movement but I would beg to differ. I believe that it is a grossly misguided movement consisting of groupings of people who have been manipulated, mainly through fear (as the NRA is so fond of), by a variety of forces into feeling insecure where little insecurity exists and I do not believe they are going about their point in a constructive manner and could better focus their energies elsewhere. Lastly regarding the NPR article they likened the militia movements militia to “hate groups” and though there may be some connection somewhere as is the case with most everything it is terribly biased and false of them to do so; shame on you NPR!
I looked into one more article, from CBS, to find out what the American people, as a majority do not trust about their government. According to the article, trust is at an all time low (as far as polls are concerned). Apparently the leading sentiment in anti-trust is not what the government is doing to its people but what it is not doing for its people: in short, they fight and get shit done.This is not the leading anti-government sentiment among the “militias” so clearly they do not represent the interests of the American people and their insecurities are not quite grounded where they should be. The article also mentioned that another source of mistrust is over what is RIGHT for the government to do (liberals had a problem with the Bush administration as conservatives have with Obama)and this is were the militia movement comes in but by forming a militia they gain nothing and besides, most of their beef with the government in this aspect is surrounded in infantile fears and has no particular political merit.
It is my understanding that allot of people do not care about the environment as much as I do. I feel bad for you if you do not, its sad. The environment is far more than and inexhaustible piggy bank, so to speak: it is my home, your home, our home, everything’s home. Many adopt the sentiment, “so long as its not in our back yard” and I believe that it is not only hopelessly selfish but very sad in its lack of understanding.
One can easily say that I am being sanctimonious, hell I am, because guess what, we need shit to live and often that comes at an environmental cost. I am well aware that there are necessary evils regarding the exploitation of the environment but that is what it is , exploitation, and it has gotten out of hand. We have spiraled into this unsustainable reliance on the earth and resources. Bottom line its not only destructive but unsustainable. I am appalled by the lack of social progression in the USA while the world is slowly but surely progressing in that field. It is not out of our power to become good stewards of the land:there are many alternative energy solutions to fossil fuels, there are far better agricultural practices we can espouse (just read national geographic), there are far better recycling practices, and there are far better business and consumer practices. So many people have gotten so comfortable in this country and the western world at large that they do not know what sacrifice is, what change is: they are disgustingly weak, selfish, and unresolved.
The system in our country also makes it very difficult to achieve this good stewardship because the whole economic system is currently set to make maximum profits in the familiar unsustainable fashion they do so that system is also rigged to remain unchanged, somebody is always going to be paid off. Its gross. We have this illusion of freedom and democracy in this country more so than our European counterparts when everybody making the decision for you it representative of some form of monetary influence, money talks, just look into how effective the EPA and USDA and even FDA is, somebody is always getting paid off. Just look into that article on moodle about how difficult it is for people to install a solar panel for their home relative to other places. It is not that many people don’t want a change in the system it is that the system is not representative of them and if they do not want a change obviously somebody has been keeping them happily ignorant.
I personally believe in global warming but if you don’t, really f**k you because whether it is a “liberal hoax” or not I don’t want fucking asthma I don’t want to look at smog and acid rain definitely exists. There are alternatives and if you believe otherwise then you are weak and hopelessly ignorant. I realize that there are heavy investments in the energy market and many economies rely on resources but change, a slow but hopefully inevitable change should reorganize the system.
The united states does not extract most of its own resources (you would think that all the oil we have would do it but no) and our companies certainly do not attempt to influence how those resources are obtained in certain countries for the purposes of cheap goods. Most of our electronics and automobiles etcetera contain numerous rare earth elements and other rare element that often come from illegal mines that have almost no control over their shitty extraction practices and are aware they cause damage but need the money. It has been estimated that 20% of electronics support violent Chinese gangs, such as the triads that control, most of the illegally obtained rare earth elements. A similar number of our goods support the conflict in central Africa (mainly the Democratic Republic of the Congo) that uses conflict mineral to fuel war: millions have died, millions have been relocated, millions of casualties of all kinds: its quite horrendous.
Its rather unfair that developing countries suffer the most from climate change and resource demand when they contribute the least to it. You know what I am not writing quality stuff and I have to much to say so I will not say any more. Look into desertification.
Abortion is a topic I do not like to even think about. When I was first presented with the issue in 7th grade I was expected to side with my liberal leanings without question. By high school I dropped that approach seeing as I had no grounds on which to form an opinion. From there I ignored the issue all together because it intimidates me. It is one of those deeply personal issues upon which harsh judgements and divisions arise from. Somebody can agree with all my ideas but then despise me to my core for being pro-choice. Having looked into the issue more recently I find that I am somewhere between pro-choice and pro-life leaning more personally to pro-life but I also recognize that my opinion is not another’s and does not fully factor in complexities that I cannot comprehend so I will take the hate out of the equation and respect what everybody believes. This issue is however extremely contentious to many and remains one of the biggest moral obstacles in our society and who has the say dictates that flow of hate and to some degree the nations whole political and moral compass.
Though I am comfortably a northern Yankee I do not wish to impose that on other, lets say southern states, despite the fact I believe they should be more like us in the north. I like the fundamental idea of every state dictating its own affairs through majority consensus but again that does not factor in complexities and would not work for abortion seeing as it is more personal to an individual woman. Therefore it only seems the best course of action to leave it up to the woman despite the problems it causes among the pro-life crowd (I also believe that if a women is legally married and the husband is accounted for, as in around,then it should be a collective decision). If we satisfied the pro-life supporters and my irrelevant personal beliefs it would only open up a route of illegal and dangerous abortions among other potential problems around raising an “unwanted” child. This is an issue that has some of its roots in our rotten society that can be at least somewhat alleviated if our country embarrassed more “progressive” social reforms. Instead of fixating so much time and effort around abortion we should leave it up to individuals for the nonce until we have fundamentally changed in our identity as Americans. I do no think it is the place of a state or a federal government to interfere in ones fundamental morals until a clear majority arises for a specific doctrine (in this case whether or not it is “murder”). You know what I don’t know what to say at this point its complicated, its a woman’s body, both a man and woman’s developing child, as well as some, what would be otherwise indifferent, stranger’s moral concern regarding the general sanctity of life.??? I don’t know who can decide until our nation is in a secure enough state to come to a conclusive determination as to what would be best (obviously certain abortion cases should always be taken up such as danger to the mother).
The crack of the bat, the pop of the glove, the bang of the gun: America’s three most iconic sounds. Where baseball is the pastime guns are the passion. Baseball however is a harmless game whereas guns, even pistols, have the enormous potential to rip through and pulverize the flesh, bones, and bodily organs of an animal. Guns where invented solely to kill and destroy which they have succeed in doing better than any other weapon in history. People tend to overlook that, but they have their rights.
It is, as we all know, the second amendment that grants people the right to bear arms. Just what that entails has been a subject of debate between individuals and the court for some many decades. There is no clarity on that founding principle yet the populous is divided in half on government restrictions on firearms, generally between liberal and conservative factions. It is truly reflective on our values that so many hold this right nearer and dearer to them than almost every other society and yet others do not.
It is a common belief among mainstream liberal politics that a peaceable society can more readily be constructed if firearms, the main object of most homicides and suicides, were more restricted by the federal government. It is a logical assumption, yes, and has proven its effectiveness in numerous, mostly European, foreign countries. The USA is not France or Canada and neither are our societies past the mainstream western facade: ours is a society of violence; fear; hate; anger; and importantly racial, economic, and stark political divisions. I think that it is somewhat naive for people to believe that greater weapon restrictions will solve problems in society when it will only serve to widen the chasm between the left and the right. Furthermore our society is primed for greater levels of violence than lets say, France and that gun violence is the result of a poor society, not the weapons. One can argue that the more restrictions on firearms the less usage of them in violent acts but many if not most firearms used in homicidal or otherwise violent acts were purchased illegally and one must also bear in mind that Washington DC has the strictest regulation of firearms in the USA yet the most homicides per-capita out of any administrative region yet New York, which also has strict gun laws, has very few acts of violence committed with firearms because the cities society is vastly more progressive than that of DC.
The Conservative view on weapons is, in my opinion, ignorant and unjustified. They justify their rights to weaponry, relatively unrestricted, because it is their right to defend themselves against other and tyranny. They buy into and perpetrate a culture of insecurity that should otherwise not exist. Last I checked the USA is a fairly safe country without a tyrannical government in sight. Some conservatives believe that liberals want them to rely more on the federal government for defense thus drawing them into their grasp. It is this ideology of the need for physical power to the people that the fear tactics of politics – there are generally two platforms politics run on: fear and hope, the media, and the NRA are so effective at utilizing. Normally people do not need firearms and any deviation from that normalcy would logically be deemed not normal.
It is not that gun control is out to strip people of their rights but more so control the sale and distribution of firearms. It is not required in most every state to register you rifles, shot guns, and handguns. To that I must say come the f**k on. It is not asking much to register them and I believe that if people valued their gun rights then they would be willing to do that one relatively simply thing, but no they do not and that, to me, betrays the lack of genuine value in a “thing” when you are only willing to have it at the lowest possible cost.
Personally I believe that gun regulations should at some point be stricter but now is not really the time unfortunately.
I don’t how to comment on ALL THESE topics without filling in the lack of point with bullshit wording. I don’t know anything about illegal immigration, reading those articles did not help either. I know NOTHING and therefore should just shut up. Everybody should just SHUT UP now and go on living. We live in a BIG country in a big world so whatever, there is room for something, whatever that means. politicians should just shut up and literally die, they all must die or at least get out of my face. I want this illegal immigration bull crap out of my life until somebody bothers to tell me the POINT. I will not comment on something i have no rights commenting on. LIFE GOES ON. just make it worth living and do what you HAVE TO DO, unless of course that is commenting on something I do not wish to.
World of Warcraft is abbreviated WOW. For something abbreviated WOW I do no think it supplied any wow factor. In the trial version I played it was totally lacking in anything I desire in a game. I was honestly embarrassed playing it. It was so goddamn STUPID. I guess that’s the draw. People like stupid shit!
It is an utter fantasy and demands attention during game play. Maybe that is the specific draw. I do not understand all this orc and elf shit, I only understand its in its classic form: Tolkien. Tolkien has soul and writes in eloquent verse that comes from a place of meaning – writes with conviction. WOW is weird, plain and simple. I felt weird playing it, and being a little off myself that is pushing limits. Perhaps its because I am off that it was uncomfortable.
What I would like to know is where those guys hit the gym? I didn’t see one – its like Khal Drogo in the HBO adaptation of Game of Thrones, is he benching goddamn horses. Why were all the women scantily clad? Why did this game have to objectify like every other piece of mainstream BS. Being another element of the mainstream I believe it is critical to analyze it like you would social media, in place of acceptance. I believe that many people know that things like WOW are not natural forms of happiness but are to weak to bother fighting it (not to bash people cause everybody is week in some form or another).
I spent most of my time killing innocent and docile animals: rabbits, deer, squirrels, frogs, cows, sheep, chickens, and cats 😦 (not cats!!). I was so uninterested in the game that I preferred to kill real animals in one of two shots as apposed to ten or so. I chose the male hunter class just because I relate to humans and males, also I like forest biomes and archery in real life plus I believed that a bow should give an advantage since you can fire 4 or so shots before you are attacked close range (real life pragmatism).
There was one aspect of the game that I loved, but I was not quite satisfied with it. I loved to collect goods from my kills and sell them. It triggered that capitalist mindset I have but I did not have the space in my inventory that I would have had in minecraft.
I did not hate the game that much, it was mildly diverting. I just didn’t like it very much. I feel like because it was an assignment and carries certain negative connations that we were supposed to not like it. Honestly I did not though. So thats that and that is not even a portion of why WOW ain’t so wow.