Duality

The fact that religion is innately political does not justify politics being innately religious.

One is a system for governance, designed with a specific agenda. Whether it's the betterment of the populace, or the advancement of the regime's ideals is almost wholly dependant upon which version you favor, and even that is a matter of where you were born and how you were raised. The other is religion, which is simply a matter of what your favorite superstitions are, and how you can best apply them for personal gain.

Both can be detrimental.

Both.

To rule iron-fisted, with fundamental adherence to one or more ancient documents (regardless of their source) impedes progress more than any other thing. Differences of opinion can be debated, discussed, or even summarily quashed, depending on your preferred methods (still talking about both). The election of leaders is always more a matter of who has fondled whose junk with more supplication and grace (yes, still both) than objectively deciding who is most qualified to lead. Add to that the inherent bestowing of favors, pardons, and dispensations on the ruling faction's pets, and the outcry of oppression from the losing party's members, and there is a nearly blinding symmetry.

Here is where some of we Americans are different (if you can see us through the embarrassing hordes): We have a code, a living document for governance, called the Constitution. Not only does it lay out ideals toward which the country should aspire, it provides for adjustment and adaptation to progress.

Progress, I have every intention of reminding you, is not defined as staunch and stubborn clinging to old ways. If it were, we'd be sacrificing virgins to Hermes in hopes of getting out of debt.

The only way forward is to drop one of these systems, and the best way forward is to drop the one that favors blind obedience more than reason and logic.

If, however, anyone can point out a single reference to God in the Constitution of the United States of America... just one... I will gladly move on to other things, and never speak of this again.

On that, you have my word.

Double Action, Single Use

You knew this was coming.

Guns are not toys. Everyone knows this, and I think we can all agree.

Neither, however, are guns tools. Get your itchy fingers off the triggers, I'm not done yet.

Guns are weapons. Period. End of fucking sentence.

Weapons have one purpose: to kill. Additional fucking period.

I know some of you are already crying out in protest, "but guns is a huntin' tool!" But you're wrong. Guns are a weapon for hunting. What is the purpose of hunting again? Oh, yeah, to kill stuff.

I can feel the heat from some of your death stares already. Simmer the fuck down, it'll be worth it.

The second amendment CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY states:

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.

I wholeheartedly and unabashedly agree with this, and would defend this right of each and every one of us citizens, should it ever come to that. That being said, shit's getting out of hand.

I love... LOVE the fact that we, as a nation, are capable of sending out a team of a handful of people armed with Barrett M107s to reduce a target from a mile and a half out. You want to talk about reaching out and touching someone? Holy shit. It's a beautiful thing. What a lot of people don't realize, however, is why it's a beautiful thing. It's a beautiful thing because it means we can carefully and efficiently reduce threats with minimum casualties. No innocent bystanders. No whoopsies. There's the target's head, make it go away, and let's go get a beer. Done.Tank? No problem. Box truck full of explosives? Gone before it's a threat.

These are things a well-regulated militia does, and I'm proud and immeasurably glad they can and do accomplish these things. That being said, there is no reason - none, whatsoever - that any civilian needs to privately own a weapon system capable of cutting a platoon in half from a mile away. It's overkill in every sense of the word.

There are many, many people out there, clinging to their guns for dear life, praying to a non-existent god that the big, scary black man in the white house won't take them away. Fucking relax. That's simply not going to happen. I'm all in favor of people being able to defend themselves. I'm all in favor of the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean the obligation to bear arms, and it sure as hell doesn't mean the right to equip yourself with a fully automatic Kalishnikov, 10,000 incendiary armor piercing rounds, and 100 round drums.

What.
The fuck.
Are you hunting?

What.
The fuck.
Are you defending yourself against?

If your home is stormed by a tank battalion wearing body armor, I'm not the least bit concerned about whether you have the means to fend them off or not. I want to know what the fuck you did to warrant the government spending money on a full scale operation to extract your ass.

Okay, right-wingers. Here's your payoff. Despite the fact that I might lean slightly to the left (some of you may have noticed). I don't believe more gun laws are the answer.

I'll go one step further.

More gun laws are NOT the answer.

Why?

This is a well regulated militia.

THIS IS NOT!

Some of you may be saying (about the second image) "but they probably didn't get those guns legally!"

Precisely.

So what exactly will more laws do? Do you really think people who are hellbent on breaking two or three laws are going to draw the line at four? We don't need more gun laws, and we don't need stricter gun laws. We humans are apex predators, and murder is as old as the human race. People WILL break the law, and those people are NOT going to stop and think about it first because they might break two instead. It's asinine. By example, until 1963, many states listed suicide as a felony.

Let me say that again...

Until 1963 (when all but six states repealed their suicide legislation), many states listed suicide as a felony.

Do you think this stopped people from bumping themselves off?

Does anyone remember what happened with that whole prohibition thing?

Pot is still illegal in most states, and it's easily one of the biggest cash crops this nation has. Prohibition of alcohol made millionaires (some who went on to produce some of our greatest politicians). So what do you think will happen if we panic, and start outlawing firearms?

If you said, "a huge market will open up for illegal gun trade, thereby making some people filthy fucking rich" you just won a cookie.

So what's the answer?

You're not going to like it. The answer is simple, but it requires a lot of work.

Education.

You don't tackle the obesity problem by writing stricter fork laws; you educate fat people.

You don't tackle juvenile diabetes by outlawing sugary drinks over a certain size; you educate the parents of those at-risk juveniles.

You don't tackle the violence problem in the U.S. by tightening the legislative noose on guns; you educate the people who have access to them, and in this day and age, that means "everyone."

Will education eradicate the problem? No, certainly not. There will always be bad people. It will, however, reduce the risk. It's only one piece of what needs to be a multi-faceted, interdisciplinary solution that also includes proper mental healthcare. In other words, it's a long, laborious fucking process. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

One thing is certain: The quick, knee-jerk solution will not work.

If history has taught us anything, it's that reducing the rights of any group of people is never met with supplication.