The Usefulness (or not) of Armed Insurrections

Here is one of the scariest videos I have seen in a while, and there are several copies on youtube, not just on the Anarchy channel.  Not because of the outright violence, but because of what this seemingly sweet young girl is advocating, and the powerful propaganda controlling her mind.  (e.g. equating gun ownership with the safety of air bags)

I am quite sure that sweet "Josie the Outlaw" does not have any real experience of war, revolution or anarchy, or she might reconsider her opinions.  I'm not even sure that she understands the meaning of "outlaw" other than as a cool youtube nickname.



Josie the Outlaw  Why good people need to be armed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQZEa_OftQs

I will admit that I have no experience of violent revolution or anarchy either.  But both history and current events tells us violent armed revolution is quite unappealing.  Not something to be encouraged unless the situation has already become so bad that it can't be any worse.  I can give a few examples in recent years.  Sierra Leone and Liberia in West Africa show us that there is a tendency to atrocities, and they occur on both sides of the struggle.  There was a documentary about the Liberian insurrection on PBS two days ago.  Also, there is anarchy in Syria and Iraq right now, so plenty of reports to give you an idea what life is like during an armed insurrection.

In case you imagine that armed insurrections are more polite and glorious in America than in Africa, you need to study some history that has not been cleaned up for high school textbooks.

Usually armed insurrections do not really start until thousands of people have been killed by the current regime, or unless there is mass starvation.  Most people realize that they really would prefer to live under rule of law, even if it is pretty bad, rather than the absolute horrors of an insurrection, where not just thousands, but hundreds of thousands will die.  Millions more will live in refugee camps after losing everything they had.

So what is going on in America today, that sweet Josie the Outlaw thinks an armed insurrection may be a good thing?  Yes, the national debt is quite high.  Yes, some people are corrupt, and make too much money off the backs of the taxpayers.  But are Americans close to mass starvation yet?  Are groups of Americans being put in death camps yet?  Do secret service people pick up suspects in the middle of the night, never to be seen again?  If not, then conditions are not ripe yet for armed insurrection.

Does Josie have an estimate of how many people will die in a serious armed insurrection?  If not, I would suggest that you might expect about a million before its over.  And that will not necessarily make America a better place, as many of the best people will die, and many of the most vile, and hateful people will still be there - for they exist on both sides of any insurrection, and even seem to rise to the top as the insurrection become more cruel and bloody.

My own advice would be to cool it with the gun advocacy for a while.  Maybe stop watching Fox News and check the dictionary instead for the meaning of tyranny.  And more than anything stop thinking that there are "good people" and "bad people".  Hitler and Stalin both believed that they were only killing the bad people.  Turned out the bad people were them.

Following the Oscar Pistorius Murder Trial

Last year, Olympic runner Oscar Pistorius was accused of  murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.  The trial is going on right now in South Africa.

What do you need to know about South Africa, to be able to follow this trial?  Well, other than the fact that South Africa is mostly a black country with a white minority, it is recovering from a long period of time where the whites took charge and violently suppressed the black people.  This was called "Apartheid".

Today in South Africa, blacks are allowed to vote, and hold jobs that were previously reserved for whites (like President of the country, policeman, judge etc.)  But the black people are still mostly poor, and now South Africa has one of the highest crime rates in the world, an overwhelmed police force and justice system, and also one of the highest crime rates of men against their women.  Yet still, it functions as a country and tourists still visit there.

Interesting, also that the judge in Oscar's case is black and a woman.  Also, that Oscar has both legs amputated at the knee and runs competitively on springs known as blades.  He fought a long battle to be allowed to run in the real Olympics, and won his case.  But did not win a gold medal.

Now back to the trial. Oscars's version of events:  at 3:00AM one morning in Oscar's house, Oscar heard a sound in the bathroom.  Thinking it was a burglar, Oscar grabbed his gun from under the pillow and fired four shots through the bathroom door.  He was then very distressed to find out that his girlfriend, Reeva, was not in bed.  He then broke down the locked bathroom door with a cricket bat, and saw her dead inside the  toilet.

Police Version: Oscar was trying to murder his girlfriend, and Oscar was trying to make it look like he  didn't know she was in there so that he would not have to go to jail for murder.  Also, Reeva was screaming in pain and fear as two of the first three bullets hit her, and the final bullet through the brain finished her off.  Neighbours heard the screaming and gunshots, which Oscar's lawyer insists was Oscar screaming like a woman, and the sound of the cricket bat smashing the door open.  The neighbours don't agree.

My version: Both sides seem a bit extreme.  For one thing, even if Oscar had killed an actual intruder (most likely a black man) instead of his white TV star girlfriend, he would still go to jail for 10 years according to South African law, for killing someone without a self-defence argument.  On the other hand, Oscar's case is also very weak in that he seems to be a quick-tempered hothead who loves guns and the shooting thereof without any concern for other people's safety.  He is also very wealthy, and I think (or am guessing) he felt like the law was mostly for other people.  He also throws up a lot when he hears about the damage his "special" bullets did to his girlfriend.

Most recently, in this trial, Oscar and Reeva's private phone texts have been introduced as evidence.  Reeva once sent a message to Oscar saying he "scared" her sometimes.  Oscar's tenacious lawyer argues that out of the thousand or so text messages,  99% were loving and kind.

My question: Is it also a good defence to argue that 99% of the time that Reeva went to the bathroom, that Oscar did not kill her?

Picture: From Oscar's twitter account, apparently of Oscar and Reeva at a party.

I found it on this page.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278514/Reeva-Steenkamp-Oscar-Pistorius-law-graduate-girlfriend-explode-media-says-agent.html

The Difference Between Bushcraft Skills and Survival Skills

 Still socked in with snow, no relief in sight.  I try to avoid getting cabin madness fever by randomly searching the Internet for a knife to take on our camping trip this summer.  During my search I come across a curious new distinction.  There are some knives referred to as "Bushcraft" knives, and some referred to as "Survival" knives.  I would like to know the difference between them, wondering if this is just another example of over-specialization that we find in our society.

Bushcraft is the set of skills needed to survive in nature (i.e. the bush). Skills include firecraft, tracking, hunting, fishing, shelter building, the use of tools such as knives and axes, foraging, hand-carving wood, container construction from natural materials, and rope and twine-making, among others. (Wikipedia)

Survival skills are to help us survive a natural or man-made disaster.  Unlike bushcraft, the location is unknown.  That's because we do not know what the disaster might be.  So the disaster is often referred to simply as "SHTF", or "Shit hit the fan". You need to be prepared for any of the various possible SHTF scenarios.  That's why survivalists are often called "preppers", in that their main activity is preparing for the day the SHTF. After TSHTF, you may end up in a flooded area, or out in the bush or desert, in even your own home. Skills include first aid, finding water and food, "thinking clearly", self defence, and making the perfect "Bug out Bag" of stuff to grab quickly when TSHTF.  In Survival skills, the main thing that all preppers seem to agree on, is that when TSHTF, you will need to defend yourself against other humans (and possibly zombies) out there, trying to get your stuff or simply wanting to eat you.  There is a lot more emphasis on self defence in Survival than you find in Bushcraft.  So you will often find Preppers are accumulating guns and ammunition, while Bushcrafters may be more absorbed by trying to light fires by rubbing sticks together.

So after all this research, I find that bushcraft knives are designed more for whittling sticks, or making wooden spoons.  Survival knives are made for knife fights, for target throwing, and stabbing.  The same distinctions apply to survival axes vs. bushcraft axes.  So far, saws have not been divided into "Survival saws" vs. "Bushcraft saws".  That distinction may be coming one day, but the current school of thought has it that sawing off an attackers leg or arm is too slow to be an effective deterrent to all but the slowest zombies.  And those can be avoided by simply walking around them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_skills
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushcraft

Pictures: Some of bushcraft from Wikipedia, and one from this website: http://www.tengujutsu.com/page3.htm

Hollywood Stunz gang Gives Bikers a Bad Name

How bad are you when the Hells Angels complain that your motorcycle gang is giving bikers a bad name?

Hollywood Stuntz is a loose gang in New York, who do illegal stunts on motorcycles, on public roads.  They ride in large numbers, seemingly for protection, and to assure a ready made appreciative audience for the stunts.

A video was posted on Youtube, showing this gang assaulting a driver in New York who was driving in an SUV with his wife and child.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ukdkgLYYbw&feature=c4-overview&list=UUod6IWpnppkLNGbMk-fLMdw

The above video was preceded by an American Express commercial, wonder if they know what their commercial are being paired with?

Anyway, opinions are starting to fly about what went on.  As I mentioned, the Hells Angels think this incident is giving motorcycle gangs a bad name.  And they should know something about that, being one of the original motorcycle gangs whose image we are still trying to live down.

The Hollywood Stuntz blog has disappeared (I can't say if it was official or not).  So I had to check a few others for some opinions.

hollywoodstuntz.blogspot.com  (no longer there, but you can use the name if you are quick enough, and you want your blog to have that name.)

I checked one other (Maybe) Texas based military interest blog, where the main opinion was that if New Yorkers simply got used to  driving around with heavy caliber automatic rifles, and sufficient ammunition to take out about a hundred bikers, this would never happen.

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ca/2013/10/hollywood-stuntz-terrorized-other.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/gSklN+(SNAFU!)

And another opinion comes from a white racist blog, Nicholas Stix "The Wild Ones: Racist Brown and Black Motorcycle Gang Hollywood Stuntz Terrorized NYC All Summer"

http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-wild-ones-racist-brown-and-black.html

I don't want to get into a racist dispute, but it seems obvious to me that some people with whitish-toned skin are clearly permitted in the club.  Obviously this leads to counter claims that they either painted themselves white, or they are albino black guys, or they are Puerto Ricans, who may or may not be the "browns" that are referred to.  In any case, after the title the next line refers to the club as "black and brown dominated", making it harder to prove that it is not a racist club, because if blacks/browns are dominating the whites in the club, it would technically still be racist even though they clearly admit whites.  OK That's why I should not have even started into this stupid line of reasoning, it's even less productive than arguing evolution with a Born-Again Christian.  Also, this seems to be a very loose "club" along the lines of "whoever shows up that day is in".  I suspect there is no fixed membership or dues, but of course I could be wrong.  It is also referred to as a "Pop up club".

http://nypost.com/2013/10/02/nypd-lets-pop-up-bike-gangs-rampage/

While I'm at it, I would like to take a shot at the pro-gunners who claim that this proves you can not trust the police to save you and you should simply arm up with the baddest guns you can find before taking your family for a drive.  Obviously, the logical answer is that trying to mow down 100 bikers who themselves may be armed is not going to make this situation any better than calling the cops on your cell phone while you lock your doors (was not done by the SUV driver apparently, watch the video if its still there.)

In summary, I am going to have to side with the Hells Angels for the first time (I think). But not the gun nuts, and not the racists.  This kind of stuff is going to revive the bad name the bikers got during the fifties and has not completely faded to this day.

American Exceptionalism, According to Putin

Apparently, a tempest is brewing over American Exceptionalism.  It started this way.  Syria's president, under attack by rebels, allegedly used chemical weapons (like nerve gas) to kill many innocent civilians.  President Obama, having warned Syria previously that the use of such weapons would not be tolerated, began to make preparations to bomb Syria as punishment.  This bombing did not have the approval of the UN, because Russia is an ally of Syria, and would veto the move.  Russia proposed a plan where Syria would hand over all it's chemical weapons to an international agency for destruction, and sign the international ban on the use of chemical weapons.  Obama cautiously agreed to this solution.

Next, in an unusual move, Russian President Putin took out an ad in the New York Times.  In his ad, he explained his side of the story to the American people.  He said that the chemical weapons attack was a fake by the rebels to encourage the US to bomb the Syrian Army.  And he apparently made some negative comments about "American Exceptionalism".

So what is American Exceptionalism?  There is an entry in Wikipedia to help define it, but not all Americans agree on this definition.  Apparently, to American right wing extremists, it means that America is the greatest country on Earth, and consequently, international law does not apply to them.  (One reason why the USA does not support the International Criminal Court at The Hague).  In other words, they may bomb whoever they like (e.g. Serbia), and invade any other country that they consider to be a potential threat (e.g. Iraq).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

Putin warned that this "exceptionalism" idea is dangerous to world peace.  He probably got this idea from the Russian experience in World War 2, where they were invaded by a country whose main philosophy resembled the extremist interpretation of "American Exceptionalism".  So given the many millions of Russians killed in that war, which the Russians eventually won (With American aid, I might add), it would be natural for Putin to make such a statement.  Because whether or not American Exceptionalism is dangerous, other countries may adopt similar postures, and begin to flout international law.

But the fine points of this debate seem to be lost on the American Conservatives.  Fox News, and The American Spectator are some examples.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/09/13/putin-exposes-the-secrets-of-a

Is American Exceptionalism real?  Well, if it ever was real, it is getting less real all the time.  The first indication of being a truly exceptional country is to have a well educated, well informed, and tolerant population.  This ignorant fury by some conservatives demonstrates just how unexceptional Americans are. Every country in the world has a portion of its people who are easily brainwashed, greedy and bloodthirsty.  We are really all the same, although Putin did also say we were also all different.

Picture: I photoshopped the statue of liberty, replacing the torch with the gun.

Killer Domestic Drones, Did Rand Paul Change His Mind?

There is a bit of a debate about the use of drones to kill people.  Over the last ten years, the use of drones has increased, and the technology has moved forward.

Basically, a drone is a remote controlled airplane.  I guess the actual definition continually varies, but to me it means an airplane with a video camera in it that relays the view back to a remote operator.  Apparently the real definition of drones includes non-human non-remote computer controlled aircraft, but I think that is an entirely different thing.  For me, the key thing about drones is that they are using human intelligence.  The controversial use of drones is to assassinate suspected terrorists with missiles fired from the drone, which results in a lot of collateral damage (i.e. probably innocent people killed or maimed in the strikes.)

Recently, the US administration announced that they would expand the use of drones to Americans as well as foreigners, which resulted in a great outcry. Then it was announced that absolutely no Americans would be killed in America.  This targeting of Americans would only be if these people holding American citizenship were overseas engaged in anti-American terrorist plots (or suspected of doing so).

But now we come back to America.  Rand Paul, the libertarian politician and son of Ron Paul, filibustered the use of drones in America. But  after the Boston Marathon bombings, Rand Paul backed down and said that he never opposed using drones in an immediately threatening situation, for example a person coming out of a liquor store, after committing a robbery,  with a gun and fifty dollars.

The Young Turks (Cenk Uygur rant about Rand Paul's about face)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07MH-WhrlK8

Rand Paul (Before Boston bombings)

“No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” 

Rand Paul (after)

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” 

A political blogger commenting on Rand Paul
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/rand-paul-faces-blowback-after-new-drone-comments/

How can we ever have an intelligent debate about topics like this when people appear to be willing to shift their position dramatically depending on how they feel on a given day?  I believe this is a dramatic shift in position, although many right wing conservatives do not think it is.  Apparently, for right wingers, it was so obvious drones would and should be used for killing bad guys, that they forgot to mention it.  They are only opposed to drones flying over their outdoor hot tubs.

More questions: Since when is somebody carrying a gun fair game in the USA?  I thought there was this thing about "the right to bear arms"?  I am probably missing something, but when this person comes out of the liquor store with a gun and fifty dollars, how do you know that he committed the crime?  And is he (she) really an immediate threat?  Wouldn't that depend on what kind of gun they were carrying, on where they were pointing it, on whether it was loaded, or if maybe it was a toy gun?  I'm thinking that a person coming out of the liquor store with a gun and $50 is relatively harmless unless you try to stop them.

A domestic police drone would probably not be equipped with Hellfire missiles.  At least I hope not.  Some possible weapons a domestic drone could be equipped with would be smaller guns, rubber bullets, tear gas, a taser, paintball bullets, maybe a net?   A domestic drone only needs to detain, slow down, or track an individual.  A foreign drone  kills mainly because it operates without human police assistance.

Being a Canadian, I don't really understand the USA, but I remember back in the early nineties, in Panama City Beach, Florida, seeing a sign "Drive Thru Liquor and Machine Gun Rental".  Assuming I went in there and rented a machine gun, then the person behind me in line pulled a robbery, I could be killed by a drone on my way out. (according to Rand Paul's scenario.)

Picture: Huffington Post comments on drones replacing police helicopters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/domestic-drones_n_2854589.html

Jim Carey, Charlton Heston and Fox News

Jim Carrey got himself into some hot water on Fox News.  From what I understand, he made a spoof country-music video about guns.  In this video, one "funny" joke was that Charlton Heston couldn't get into heaven because St. Peter could not pry the gun from his "cold, dead hands".  (and I guess we are to assume Heaven has a "check your guns at the door" policy, also funny)

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks?feature=watch

To some people, this is humour.  But to Fox News, apparently this video is not funny.  So they accused Jim Carrey of being a meddling foreigner, who is getting into the gun debate.  By foreigner, of course they mean he was born in Canada.

It seems this whole idea of being "born in the USA" is starting to become a central idea in the Republican propaganda.  I'm not sure why they have taken this stance, as some conservatives happen to be foreign born also.  (just one off the top of my head, was Senator McCain who ran for President opposite Barack Obama in 2008).

Anyway, coming back to Jim Carrey. He made a Youtube video which is equally accessible to all countries. (I think)  Anyway, I saw it in Canada, and I'm Canadian.  So I assume it was not targeted to the USA exclusively, as this video was funny to me, and we do have our own gun debate in Canada.  Our gun debate is pretty much the same as the USA, with gun nuts claiming to never give up their guns until we pry them from their cold dead hands.

In the final analysis, Jim Carrey made a video for the US website "Funny or Die", and it is available on the world wide web. It's really a low blow to accuse him of being born in Canada, especially since this video is equally available to Canadians and Americans, and applies equally to both.  Technically, I could have made the very same video, and put it up on Youtube.  Does that mean I would be accused by Fox News of being a "foreigner" and interfering in US politics?

In a related note, the Republicans are quite annoyed to find out that Ronald Reagan was in favour of universal background checks for gun owners.  Seems quite natural, as he was a victim of a shooting himself.

Picture: Charlton Heston's gun collection. Go ahead and click on the picture, in case you need a blow-up (not literally of course).  Could somebody who needs that many guns really be happy in heaven?

http://www.ultimatesportsmen.com/weird/ch.htm

P.S. Would it cancel Jim Carrey's video if a Canadian-born actor came in on the other side of the gun debate?  Here is William Shatner on why we should not have gun control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFaLokC9hqk

I think that evens things up.

Self Defence With Guns Lesson 2: Be Prepared

This is lesson 2 in the Public Service education series "How to defend yourself with a gun".  To recap lesson 1, in brief "Do not threaten to shoot people with your gun unless they are actually trying to kill you in the extremely near future."

Now for lesson 2, how to defend yourself with a gun:  "Be Prepared".  In this lesson, I am going to assume the worst is about to happen.  One or more men armed with assault rifles and handguns are planning to burst into your home or car, or maybe just attack you on the street in order to kill you and take your money and your women.  These men are clever, good shooters, and have the element of surprise.

Given the scenario above, how do you prepare yourself?  I'm not talking about learning to aim correctly, that's lesson 3.  In this lesson we are going to learn how to have your guns at the ready at all time.  The strategy is based on the fact that you will have only 4 seconds advanced warning between detecting the attackers and getting your gun out, with a full clip, pointing in the correct direction.

Preparedness starts while you are asleep.  You should have a loaded handgun under your pillow at all time, but don't place your finger on the trigger.  That will come when you are awakened from your sleep by several armed men breaking in through your window with the intent to kill you, and more.

Next, time to wake up.  Depending on your morning ritual, you will probably be in the bathroom at some point.  Make sure the door is locked, and keep the gun loaded and ready at all times, except don't take it into the shower with you unless it is waterproof.  If you are on the toilet, I suggest placing the gun on a nearby shelf.

I am going to assume you can at least wear a quick draw holster with a loaded handgun when eating, driving, or at work.  Some problems will arise if you are involved in sports such as water polo, speed skating, and dog racing.  Actually, let's just include every sport known to man except jogging.  For jogging, you can actually wear the holster. But for other sports like water polo, you will need to disarm for a while.  I suggest a buddy system.  Find another gun aficionado like yourself, who also likes to play water polo.  You offer to guard him while he enjoys the sport, in return for him guarding you while you enjoy the sport unencumbered by a loaded gun.  The buddy system will work fine for basketball, hockey, baseball, football (European and American).  And all other sports except hang gliding, bungee jumping, and water skiing.  It may just be best to avoid those three sports altogether, as there is no known way to defend yourself with a gun while engaged in those pastimes.  If you have some ideas, please leave a comment below.

So now having decided on a strategy to protect yourself from your assailants, it's time to think about protecting your loved ones while you are not near them.  There are three basic ways to do this.  Hiring armed guards is one way.  Another way is to train your loved ones to use a gun just like you do (sleep with the loaded gun under the pillow), and their own buddy system (not using your buddy, but they find their own buddies for water polo or ballet lessons etc.)  The third method is for you to never leave their side, and to keep them in a tight group for defense purposes at all times.  The third method in many ways is easiest, but only for families that have bought into the notion that they may be attacked by armed killers at any time.  Otherwise, they will be difficult to keep together in one place where you can best defend them.  The first method is good, but you will need to be quite rich, and keep in mind you will have to hire another armed guard for each of your family members, the costs add up quickly.

Before I summarize, I am going to discuss the threat evaluation.  If you think the chances are very good of being attacked by armed men, say at least once a year, my methods are appropriate.  However when the threat level drops to one attack in 50 years or more (average), then it may be worth while considering some alternate form of defence that does not involve guns.  The reason I say that is that if you are attacked only once in 50 years, on the average, you may end up losing several loved ones during that time, just from accidental discharges, or gun malfunctions.  I'm just saying that, given the spotty history of gun safety, it would not be practical to keep on such a high state of readiness for more than a year.  But if you're pretty sure you will be in for a shootout within a year, let's continue to lesson 3.  Next time: Lesson 3, how to shoot accurately.

Research for you: On the web blog "Blasphemes", it is reported as a proven, peer reviewed, fact that American use guns once on an average of every 13 seconds to defend themselves.  And that 65 lives are saved for every life lost in gun play.  Considering that about 10,000 lives are lost a year with guns, then it means that in the last ten years, guns have saved 3,200,000, or equivalent to a city the size of Chicago.  And that's in just ten years.  Imagine the carnage if Americans didn't have guns to defend themselves.

http://blasphemes.blogspot.ca/2009_09_01_archive.html  (you need to scroll down to "Some Stats on Guns" September 25, 2009.

Picture: Although this picture came from the website above, it is found all over the Internet, for example it is also on t*ts'n'guns.com.  It is an excellent illustration of just how a typical person would be defending themselves from an armed assault, and it has some propaganda value too, in stirring up hatred against those bad guys who are always trying to kill people like this cute young woman (who I just assume is a "good guy").  I did have to air brush it a little as unfortunately the original pic was too risque for this blog.

Is This Really Criticising Jesus?

Quentin Tarantino's latest movie is Django Unchained, a revenge flick set in the times of southern slavery. On February 16, 2013, Saturday Night Live, hosted by one of the stars of Django, did a spoof on the film called "Djesus Uncrossed", where Jesus (or Djesus, or Jesus H. Christ with the H silent), came back from the dead to wreak vengeance on the Romans.

Was the SNL skit a spoof of the movie, or was it a spoof on God, or was it the most blasphemous skit ever in their history?  I'm sorry I missed that episode, but this skit is posted on the internet, here is one link.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2013/02/17/jesus-rises-on-snl.html

In my opinion, this was not really a criticism of Christianity, it was first and foremost a spoof of the film.  And I have seen almost the exact same theme in a Jesus skit done on "Family Guy" in the episode "North by North Quahog" in the skit "The Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This".  However, "Family Guy" has done a lot of other things the fundamentalist Christians hate.

http://themaxeychronicles.blogspot.ca/2012/09/innocence-of-muslimsthe-anti-muhammad.html

For example (from this web page, showing how Family Guy is blaspheming Jesus)

A standing gag is that Jesus drives a Cadillac Escalade.
 In "North by North Quahog", he is seen in the car in an action trailer for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This and is portrayed by Jim Caviezel opposite Chris Tucker.
According to the National Gun Association's pro-guns film in "And the Wiener is...", Jesus  and Moses used guns to defeat the Romans.
During his second coming, shown in "Stewie Loves Lois", Jesus's stature is found to be short since science has proven that people were shorter in biblical times.
He also makes use of his powers to assist his golf game, as seen in Holy Crap. Although he is "Employee of the Week" at Happy-Go-Lucky Toys, he is on the golf course going for his fourth Birdie. He makes his swing, and the ball lands extremely close to the hole, on the verge of going in. Using his power, he gets the ball to go in.
In Go, Stewie, Go!, Jesus is on the side of the jocks in a dodgeball game against the meek.

So the basic line taken by Sean Hannity on Fox News is that Liberals are too chicken to take on the Muslims, so it's open season on Christians who don't fight back.

http://www.newshounds.us/20130213_sean_hannity_gutless_snl_writers_hate_christianity_but_are_scared_of_islam

If that were true, I suppose it would be a valid point against all these "attacks" on Christianity.  But none of these skits are attacks on Jesus or Christianity.  They are all attacks on the perverted form of Christianity that is "Born Again Christianity".  The Born Again Christians have basically undermined true Christianity by turning all the teachings of Jesus upside down, preaching hate, not love; war, not peace; wealth, not social justice.  If you are satirizing a perverted form of "Christianity", you are in reality speaking up for Jesus.

And, by the way, Fox News, "Family Guy" is a show on your own network, so how about attacking yourselves for blasphemy, instead of Saturday Night Live on NBC.

Put on Your Hip Waders, the Gun Debate is Back

As the gun debate heats up again, I remain convinced that it is one of the most illogical debates I have ever heard.  It makes about as much sense as debating witchcraft or runaway Toyotas  (actually those of two of my favourite topics.)

This morning I read the story of a US Navy Seal gunned down on a shooting range.  I am pretty sure that the NRA will not be able to use the old argument that it happened because "there were not enough guns at the range" and/or that "more guns are needed to protect people at the shooting range".  I wait to hear what their response will be.

But the other story is Sarah McKinley, an 18 year old mother living alone with her baby, who shot and killed knife-wielding intruder Justin Martin.  This story is of course the ideal one to support the NRA's position that assault weapons should be allowed, because it would have made Sarah McKinley even safer than just using a 12 gauge shotgun.  Does their position make any logical sense?  Of course it does if

1. You assume Sarah McKinley will do a better job killing the intruder with an assault rifle than with a shotgun.  (hint, he's dead.  He can't get any deader)  I'm sorry, I didn't present the NRA's side fairly.  They actually said, not that she would kill him deader, but that she would have more chances to kill him if she missed, and that she would be braver with a scarier looking gun, and that Justin Martin would more likely have been scared away by a scarier looking gun.  I don't buy that argument either, because it really does not make a lot of sense to me.

2. The biggest, most illogical assumption is one that I do not see mentioned anywhere. It is the assumption that only Sarah McKinley will have access to buy and carry an assault rifle, but Justin Martin will not be able to do so.  Nowhere in the NRA manifesto does it say that only mothers with babies can have scary guns, and not the men breaking in.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  They want everyone to have access to scary guns, and they are not supportive even of background checks.

Now my question is, was it Obama who took away Justin Martin's gun?  Justin apparently carried only a 12 inch hunting knife.  The point of this story is relevant to the issue of gun control.  In fact, I might even call it the central issue of gun control.  The NRA wants to make it possible for the Justin Martins of the world to have more guns, and the proposed NRA solution is to also give scarier guns to defenseless women.  If that is going to make the women safer, then please refer to the Navy Seal story this morning.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ex-navy-seal-sniper-author-killed-at-texas-gun-range-reports-1.1141037

http://alysonmiers.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/mr-stewart-you-are-under-arrest-for-letting-your-friend-be-a-stalker-a-junkie-and-an-idiot/

Picture: Another kitten picture. I am using kitten pictures because they are cute.  I got this off the internet, a great source of kitten pictures, and some other stuff too.

Was Hitler Really A Gun Control Freak?

Last Sunday sitting at Tim Horton's a friend of mine stated that Hitler had taken guns away from the German people, the implication being that putting in gun controls in the USA would be a precursor to tyranny.  Although this statement was likely to come from dubious sources (like the NRA), I had to let it go, but remembered to look it up when I got home.  What I found was the exact opposite of the belief that Hitler was a leftist gun-control freak.

First, from Wikipedia, a bit of history around gun controls in Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

After Germany lost WW1 in 1918, it was the victorious allies that made it illegal for German citizens to own guns, not Hitler. Hitler had not yet appeared on the political scene, and would not have substantial power until at least ten years later.

In 1938, Hitler did pass a "gun control" law for the German people, but it was actually to ease off the original harsh disarmament after the occupation of WW1.  So Hitler actually made it easier for German people to own guns.  Surprisingly, Hitler's gun control law did not specifically exclude Jews from owning guns, although the law did exclude people of questionable trustworthiness, whatever that means to a Nazi.  And apparently many Nazis did think that Jews had questionable trustworthiness.  But Jews were a very small part of the German population, less than 600,000 in a population of 60 million.  Overall gun ownership in Germany went up under Hitler.

It kind of makes sense that Hitler supported increased gun ownership too, because this law helped the entire firearms industry, that the Nazis would be needing soon.  Because they could sell more guns, they could ramp up production easily for war.

Hitler did make some comments about disarming the people.  I got this from a right wing web site: "Hitler was a Leftist"

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

This is Hitler's statement.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942,

I'm surprised that the quote seems to be intact, often it is found with the part about "in the occupied Russian Territories" left out.   But Hitler is quite right about disarming countries that you conquer.  He also disarmed the Dutch people after they surrendered in 1940. After WW2, the British, American, French and Russians also disarmed the Germans, as the Allies did after WW1. It is commonplace, and it does not make you a "leftist" or a "rightist" either.  Everybody seems to agree on disarming conquered people.


Here is another article on Gun control in Germany by William L. Pierce.

http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

The most ironic thing about all this is that Hitler's main tool for gaining control of the German people was Propaganda, not Gun Control.  And this little story about Hitler being a gun control freak is basically modern right wing propaganda that many people seem to be falling for.  A strong democracy depends on an informed population.  Disinformation is the tool of tyrants, and far more powerful than gun control.  Hitler used propaganda to make Germans hate the Jews, just like right wingers today use propaganda to make people hate liberals, Muslims, socialists etc.  Once the hatred for Jews was accomplished, Hitler had full control of Germany.  The propaganda of hate is the real precursor to tyranny.

Picture: from http://americainchains2009.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/dictators-and-gun-control/

Who Promotes the Gun Culture: Liberals or Conservatives?

I came across what seems to be a reasonable creationist, making a statement about James Lee, the hostage taker at Discovery Channel. In his blog, he had these words:

"before anyone gets too smug about how Darwinism leads to violence, let's remember two words: James Kopp. You know, the guy who bought a sniper rifle and assassinated abortionist Barnett Slepian? The fact is that deranged people do violent things because they're deranged. Darwin no more caused Lee's violent acts than the Bible caused Kopp's."

Well at least no one can accuse blogger Todd Wood of being one sided. On the other hand this was the first time I heard that Darwin causing James Lee to buy a gun and take hostages.

But now I have a name, let me try to compare the two acts in several different ways.

1. James Kopp killed someone, James Lee did not. You may think this is splitting hairs, or that this is unimportant. But there is a fundamental difference in what these people did. Both were arguably deranged, but one was also a murderer. Pointing a gun at someone is not the same as shooting someone in cold blood.

2. Nobody directly or indirectly incited James Lee to do anything.

3. There has been no support shown for James Lee's methods or even the terms of his manifesto after the fact. There was support for James Kopp even after he killed the doctor.
http://my.execpc.com/~awallace/herokopp.htm

4. Kopp is not the only killer. There were other incidents, such as the bombing of abortion clinics on the other side. Also, at least one other abortionist was murdered, Dr. George Tiller (I think it was May 2009) Also Dr. Tiller had been shot and wounded before. Let's not forget John Lennon being murdered by a Born-Again Christian, incited by other people in his church.

5. James Lee threatened The Discovery Channel, which was supposedly on his side, whereas James Kopp murdered Barnett Slepian who was an opponent of his.

So in the final analysis, Todd's assertion is true. Darwin did not cause Lee's violent acts any more than the Bible caused James Kopp to commit murder. But on the other hand, nobody supported Lee's idea of pointing a gun at someone. Many creationists supported James Kopp's actual act of violence. And other creationists have carried out other murders.

So if somebody says James Lee is equivalent to James Kopp, what they are saying in an underhanded way, is that Darwinism and Environmentalism did something to incite James Lee.

These two events are not equivalent. There is still the clear rhetoric of incitement, and the evidence of other acts of violence incited by the right wing (and religious) extremists.

I think the evidence is solid that the right wing extremists are doing the overwhelming amount of violent incitement, especially with the use of guns. Another clue is that the left has been trying to pass "Hate Laws" making it illegal to incite violence, while conservatives oppose such laws. Nobody bats an eye when right wing Christian TV Evangelist Pat Robertson calls for assassination of opponents publicly on television. Have you ever heard Michael Moore or Al Gore calling for the assassination of anyone?

In my opinion, with the gun-happy culture in the USA, promoted by conservatives (including Christians) , it's surprising that more people have not turned to guns as the answer. You can hardly turn on a TV without seeing people waving guns at each other.

Here is a blog on the consequences of violent conservative rhetoric.

http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2010/03/consequences-of-conservative-speech.html

Why Santa Feels Safer in Canada

Another of my jolly Christmas specials concerns Santa's safety. I'm not saying that Santa was ever shot at in the USA, but there is a different attitude towards guns in Canada and the US. I started to figure this out at a motorcycle rally in North Carolina, and I guess I was about the only Canadian there. I was conversing with a group of Americans around the campfire. They were apparently interested in some of the differences between our two countries, including our colourful monopoly money. Then we got onto the subject of guns, and I decided to tell this little joke to illustrate the difference in attitudes.

"In 1990, there were 3225 gun related deaths in Chicago. In the same year Toronto had 4. Because apparently, Americans don't tolerate as much bullshit!"

In Canada this would have been a joke. But none of the people around the fire were laughing, they were nodding sagely, "so true, so true".

The same debate starts every time an armed maniac enters a building in the US and shoots and kills a lot of people. Was this incident caused by too many guns, or not enough guns? Although we have incidents like this in Canada, I've never yet heard people seriously suggesting we need more guns to put an end to the problem.

One argument in favour of more guns is that these shootings never take place at gun shows or other places that people carry guns, only in gun-free zones like schools etc. Therefore, if you could make every place like a gun show, there would be no more killing sprees, or to be more accurate, the killing sprees would be shorter.

Now I'm being completely serious, this is how we would argue the point in Canada.

1. Gun shows are not the target of these killers because usually the psychos don't lose their jobs, or have arguments at gun shows. They don't even spend much time there, compared to school, for example. Furthermore, it is a mistake to think a massacre could never take place at a gun show.

Update: recently several armed policemen were killed in Washington state, in a surprise attack in a coffee shop by an armed psycho. This could be considered a real live test of the "let everybody carry guns" idea, and apparently it didn't work, not in this case anyway.

2. Let's think the situation through before we decide to bring loaded, easily accessible guns into every classroom, and every office space in the country. To stop a lunatic shooter we need somebody with a quick, accurate, shot to kill a fellow student who has just turned psycho. We are actually assuming a lot more skill and judgment from the armed students than we have any right to expect. We would at least need some guidelines for deciding when your co-worker or fellow student has flipped out in a dangerous way, or is just a harmless idiot. Do we have to allow them to actually kill somebody first, or can we shoot them as soon as they pull out a gun? If everybody in Canada is armed, you just know that at some point, people are going to be pulling out those guns without actually intending to kill anyone.

Let's assume we are really cautious about this, and first let the psycho kill somebody before you shoot them dead. This might happen: You hear a bang and somebody falls to the floor with blood spilling out, lots of people are already pulling out their guns. Who do you shoot? They are all co-workers or fellow students, including the actual psycho. Did you actually see the first shot fired? Are you sure who it is? And if you fire and miss, killing an innocent student, are you guilty of murder or what? And is this whole scene just a prank or is it real?

This infusion of guns will not only be increasing the number of unpremeditated shootings, also the number of tragic accidents, as loaded guns tend to go off for practically no reason.

3. And even if everybody, at every school in Canada has a loaded gun, then the psycho's plan "B" is to bring a bomb. Psychotic people have already bombed buildings, killing hundreds at a time. And not just foreign terrorists, Timothy McVeigh was an American army veteran. It has happened already, in Canada too, and guns are no defense against this tactic.

We don't have a final answer to this problem in Canada, but until we hear some logical arguments, or see something that proves guns actually help, we are betting that more guns is not the solution. So come on down that chimney, Santa, we won't shoot.

In the News: Booze, Guns, and Socialism

We are not in Kansas any more. (referring to my last post "Sipping Latte in Kansas") Here are the news stories to prove it.

Is Santa a Socialist? Was Tiger Woods sober? Were the cops armed in Tacoma?

Now we are almost in December, and it is time to ask some hard questions about Santa Claus. Is he a socialist? It is well known that he hands out presents to illegal aliens and welfare people, and people of different races although not to people who are not Christian (hence the name "Christmas"). Also, it is known that Santa does not impose taxes on anyone but the elves at the north pole. So, it turns out that Santa is not really socialist, he is actually a faith based initiative. The capitalist free market system is safe for now.

Second shocking story, four cops gunned down in a coffee shop in Tacoma Washington, and the perpetrator gets away. Question, were they wearing their guns? If so, the gun owner clubs will not be able to say this tragedy could have been prevented with more guns. I have observed before that a gun is not a good defensive weapon, it is much more effective on offense. That has to do with the delay factor in deploying the gun during a surprise attack. For those of you into prophesy, I prophesied this tragic event a few days ago by linking to the movie "Volunteers" where John Candy played the part of "Tom Tuttle from Tacoma".

Third story: Was Tiger Woods sober when he had his accident? Because if he was drunk, this event would be of no interest to any sports fan in America. But if he was sober it is a scandal that could wreck his career. Say it ain't so, Tiger.

Why You Point Guns in Movies, Not Real Life

There some universal conventions in the movies, if you take the time to notice them. One of those conventions involves cars and garbage cans. If you see a galvanized steel garbage can and a car in a movie, the car will crash into the garbage can. Similar to market fruit stands, whether on wheels or on a fixed position.

There is also a convention on the pointing of guns in a movie. In order to move the plot along, or to explain what is going on, Shakespeare used to do soliloquies, where the actor turns and speaks to directly to the audience. Today that is almost never done (except "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and a few others). Instead, one character just pulls out a gun and points it at another character. Then the character with a gun either explains his or her motivation in doing whatever crazy things they have been doing, or the pointee explains their own thoughts, or both. Sometimes, in a double pointing episode, both people point the guns at each other. Sometimes it goes up to gang-pointing orgies, although those usually end with one guy breaking out in a big grin and saying something like "let's just put the guns down and do business"

Sometimes the gun pointing is kind of funny. Two big guys come in and intimidate some little guy. One big bad guy holds the little guy from behind, the big bad guy in front talks to the little guy. You would think that no gun is necessary, wouldn't you? Little guy should be intimidated enough by now. But no, big bad guy number one pulls out a huge pistol and points it directly at little guy before the talking gets serious. This is absolutely typical in the movies, but not real life.

What is the problem here? Well for one thing, would you want to be the big bad guy number 2? If Number 1 misses, you're dead. Actually, even if number one hits, that bullet is probably coming through at a slightly reduced velocity, and you are seriously injured, enough to go to hospital. And what if you don't have health coverage?

But the convention is that one person is pointing the gun, the other one has to do as told and be respectful and tell then truth. So this is a great way to wrap up a movie plot and come to a happy ending. But it is just not realistic, and it definitely plants subconscious ideas in the heads of insecure people who then rush out to buy guns, thinking that they will be able to gain the same kind of respect that the movie actors do.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Prison_Break

Guns

With a couple of recent shooting rampages in the news today, the old question of gun control is going to come up again. I think there are good points to be made on both sides. In Canada, we have a gun registry, and it is more difficult to obtain a gun than in the USA. But politically, there is a lot of pressure to dismantle the gun registry even though it was the police support for the registry that got it passed. In the USA some groups are trying to get assault weapons banned, while the powerful National Rifle Association lobbies against it.

Those opposed to a gun registry say that it doesn't stop criminals from owning guns. The police point out that first, many law abiding citizens do kill people with their guns, and the registry also makes it easier to lay charges against criminals with unregistered weapons.

Some of the arguments are simply propaganda stories that play on fear and hate. Here is one that has flooded the Internet lately. This story is crafted to make it look like foolish liberals are siding with the terrorists. It describes a hypothetical situation where "freedom to bear arms" gives law abiding citizens a chance to defend themselves against terrorists.

You can google for "You're walking down a deserted street" or go to this link for an early version of the story that does not mention liberals by name, although you just know the guy who wants to raise taxes instead of shooting the terrorist is a liberal, and later versions of the story are less subtle.

The terrorist, for some strange reason , has a knife and no gun, even though "Freedom to bear arms" applies to everyone. Since the gun is better at offense than defense, if both sides were equipped with a similar gun, the family would all die in the ambush. And even more likely where the alleged terrorist had chosen to use his freedom to buy an assault weapon.

Motorcycle Self Defense

I wrote about bikers and guns a while ago (Do you still meet the nicest people on a Honda). It brings up a good point, kind of controversial also. Should you carry a loaded weapon for self defense while riding a motorcycle. I have never carried a gun while riding. Nor mace, or a tazer . No weapons at all, ever.

The fact is that as a motorcyclist your main threat is not from guns but from traffic accidents. I would guess accidents outnumber shootings about 10,000 to one. My main goal is to avoid the 10,000 chances of dying in a accident. Carrying a gun causes problems at borders, and statistically there is always a chance you will be shot by your own gun. (17% in the police force).

I have never been in a situation with my bike where I was really worried about my safety. People I meet are invariably nice or non threatening. So I shouldn't even be talking about motorcycle self-defence, since I seem to have no experience.

But much like driving defensively, I think there are preventive ways to look at self defence. My first defense is to never go where I am likely to need a gun. How do I know where to go? One way is to simply read the news. If there is a war going on, don't go there.

Also look for reports of tourists especially bikers being shot or robbed. But with stories of robberies, you need to dig a little deeper, because robberies occur everywhere - there have even been several holdups in our neighbourhood since I have lived here. I went to Baja, Mexico a few years ago, even though the day before I left, a story came out about Canadian tourists being robbed and left with concussion beside the road when bandits took their motor home.

Motorcycles do have some advantages when it comes to avoiding risky situations. Most people do not know how to ride a motorcycle, so your bike is not a good getaway vehicle. Even if a robber does know how to ride, he knows that not all motorcycles start easily, and all have different quirks - not like cars where you can jump in any one and drive off. If a gunman tries to "jack" a motorcycle, it can fall down and is hard to pick up. Also, if a lone gunman ever does try to steal your motorcycle, he will need to put the gun away when he starts to ride (remember clutch and throttle are both hand controls). So if you absolutely must fight back, your best chance is to give him the keys without argument, then wait until he tries to ride away. But if you are being robbed by an armed gang, I would say your chances of winning are slim to none, so avoid armed gangs at all cost.

I should not need to explain that a motorcycle cannot carry a lot of stuff worth robbing. Also your stolen bike is not easy to sell if it is not a Harley, and is all covered in dirt and bugs and looks like crap (I don't wash my bike during a trip).

Motorcyclists are always at risk, so are more alert than car divers.

Motorcycles are rare. Why bother setting up to rob a motorcyclist when you have to wait for a hundred cars to go by before you see one - and even then you may get two or three at a time travelling together. And motorcyclists tend to stop and help each other even if they are not travelling together.

Motorcycles are hard for bandits or terrorists to stop. They can go around and between things, and make u-turns faster than cars, and can accelerate faster than cars. To summarize, motorcyclists and farm tractors are equally unattractive bait for thieves.

I tend to avoid travelling at night unless I am sure it is perfectly safe. I try to stay where there are some other people - I don't look for free spots to camp. I check maps so that I don't get lost - getting lost is very bad for safety, in my opinion.

Be aware that motorcyclists always look a bit menacing, so innocent people, who may be carrying a gun might mistake you for a threat and shoot you. I remove my full face helmet before going into a gas station for example.

I suppose getting involved in road rage is one possible way to get shot or beaten up. I use politeness on the road at all time. Purposeful driving and politeness are not mutually exclusive. Don't try to teach other drivers a lesson, no matter how ignorant they may be.

I think I also have an instinct, like a sixth sense, about areas where there is likely to be violence. This I cannot explain, really. It might just be the angry expression on people's faces. It may be that people are gathering in groups. If I start feeling uneasy in a certain area, I try to go some place else. This may be as simple as getting off a back road and onto the nearby interstate highway.

One of the scariest places I have ever found myself was not on my bike, but in the car. Mary Ann and I had stopped at a motel in New Orleans the year before Hurricane Katrina. Most of that city is black, there is a high crime rate, and we were in a run down area. We decided to walk downtown, so asked the clerk, who was white, how long it would take to get to the French Quarter on foot. It depends, he said. "Half an hour usually, if you're being chased, about 10 minutes." We walked, and it wasn't so bad really. And the motel was really cheap.

Compared to New Orleans, Baja Mexico felt very safe. And many years ago, motorcycling in Sierra Leone West Africa (40 years ago) also felt totally safe at any time of day. Also anywhere in Canada or the USA, so far.

So no weapons for me, but I always try to be on the lookout for problems.