Gun Rights And The Second Amendment, The Reality Behind The Arguments Ignore - Rev. J.T. Smith

Am I the only one who finds it outrageous that any member of the American military and police forces must be fully trained in how to use and store any weapon before they're ever issued that weapon, yet a civilian can just buy any weapon they want without ever being trained or demonstrating that they've been trained first?  Am I the only one who thinks that everyone in America who even wants to purchase or even use a gun must be fully trained in how to properly use and store that weapon first? 

First things first, the Second Amendment of the American Constitution:

It would help to no end if Americans, especially those members of the NRA and their sycophantic followers, would actually learn the most important and opening words of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia".  Having enough money to pay for the gun and requisite ammunition as well as the patience to wait out any waiting period does NOT make a person a part of "a well regulated militia".

A bit of history which used to be taught in high school and probably still is but gets ignored or glossed over:

The United States began as the loose coalition of states, originally the 13 British colonies, that were brought together under the Constitution thus forming a central government that gave both unity and some cohesion to those states.  While there was a standing army (in this context, this term is simpler to use than "armed forces"), the Continental Army, that was controlled by the federal government, it was still necessary in time of war to augment it with militias that were formed, controlled, and maintained at the state level.  Militias were then what the National Guard is now.

This was the most expedient solution as those militias already existed and were the armed forces used to defeat the British army during the Revolutionary War.  What's more, it was believed that every able-bodied man (in this, yes, they were sexist) in a given age range as determined by the individual states would eventually serve in their local militia, and that they would maintain their own small arms equipment as needed.  Equipment that they would actually be trained thoroughly in how to properly use and maintain prior to being allowed to ever have such weapons.  Larger weapons, such as cannons and requisite ammunition, were stowed in the armoury when not in use.

It was specifically those very militias that are referenced in the Second Amendment.

[Related:

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/06/its-time-democrats-stop-agreeing-second-amendment-protects-individuals-right-bear]

Next, guns themselves:
The sole purpose of a gun is to maim and/or kill at a distance quickly and efficiently.  Any argument of what physically does the killing demonstrates a distinct mental disconnect (not to mention a severe case of cranial-rectal inversion).

What's more, all a drawn gun demonstrates is two things:

First, whether it's drawn or holstered, empty or loaded, a gun simply demonstrates fear.  The fear felt by the person who's carrying and holding the gun.  This includes the American police and military.  Other nations (e.g. Great Britain) have police forces that are not constantly armed with a firearm and are further trained to do something Americans find unthinkable: they actually talk down the criminal with the gun and disarm them without firing a single shot or brandishing their own weapon.  They're not completely defenseless as they do have collapsible batons and tasers, but those are not their first used option.  Instead, they use a far more dangerous weapon: their BRAIN.

The second thing a drawn gun demonstrates is that you are immediately the prime target of anyone else with a loaded gun.  This obviously includes the police, who actually are properly trained in the proper use and storage of their weapons before they are ever issued their weapons.

I have an idea: Everyone in the NRA hierarchy and everyone who panders to them (including every politician who accepts any money from the NRA) should be shot, preferably embarrassingly and unexpectedly.  Note I said shot and not killed.  This way, they might learn from the experience.  Especially if it's done in such a way that even if they're armed themselves it wouldn't actually help them in the slightest.  Though I think the exercise would need to be repeated several times for each gun worshiper before they wake up to the outrageous danger their lust for guns puts everyone in.

Another suggestion would be to start heavily taxing ammunition.  People will definitely stop and think before firing a bullet that costs $1000 and can never be reused.

It is long past time that the carnage made so readily enacted by guns comes to an end.

by Rev. J.T. Smith 

Perhaps A Reason Why The Right Is So Willing To Push For Eliminating Contraception & Abortion Coverage? - Rev. J.T. Smith

I think I've figured out a large, though not consciously acknowledged reason why the Right is so willing to push for eliminating contraception and abortion coverage that has nothing to do with religious teachings even though those teachings provide a handy cover. We must remember that the mindset of slavers of old still exists, albeit in a new guise: Corporations. The wealthy few have found a new way to create a slave class in America, and the only way to make sure the money, which is invariably equated with power, keeps pouring in is to continually grow the worker base, which simultaneously grows the consumer base. And if the slaves, who also don't realize they're slaves, are allowed to have easily accessible and safe contraception and abortion, well that threatens the growth of that worker/consumer class. And allowing bigotry and misogyny at all levels has the added bonus of acting as a handy diversion from the reality that unless they're one of the wealthy few then they're also slaves. Amazingly, while they have more power than the peons, even the millionaires are slaves to the ultra-rich.

by Rev. J.T. Smith 

A Challenge - Rev. J.T. Smith

I already know that I'm not likely to make any friends by this, but that doesn't really matter.

I constantly hear how "American troops are  protecting [my/our] freedoms."  Yet I never hear anything specific about just which freedoms are being directly threatened by foreign powers that are not the result of Americans curtailing their own freedoms.

I challenge any American soldier in any branch of the American armed forces to not only name me a single freedom that any country in the Middle East (or any other nation in the world for that matter) in the last 50 years [i.e. since 1967 as it's now 2017] that has ever been jeopardized, but to also explain IN DETAIL exactly how that freedom was jeopardized!

One thing, the answer must involve direct action(s) on the part of that foreign nation.

This is my challenge to any American soldier who can answer in detail since, other than the media, they're the most vociferous in this claim. 

- Rev. J.T. Smith 

Agreed

This won't make me popular, but I completely agree. - Rev. J.T. Smith

The Shortsightedness Of Blaming Religion - Rev. J.T. Smith

Obviously, not everyone shares the same religious beliefs.  Right and wrong, good and evil, those are subjective rather than objective terms and ideas.  What's right and good for some can be considered wrong and evil by others.  Everyone is the hero in their own life story.  An often overlooked example of perspective is that America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan purportedly to fight the terrorists, yet to the noncombatant Iraqis and Afghans it's Americans (who invaded their countries, drop bombs, and launch missiles from planes and drones that destroy their homes, culminating in the combination of the missiles, bombs, and soldiers that kill their children and families) who're the real terrorists.  There's the adage that “there's two sides to every coin,” the obverse and the reverse (heads and tails).  Coins have a third side that people either forget or completely ignore: the edge between the sides that you can spin the coin on.  And just like situations involving contention, there are three sides: You're side, their side, and reality.

Regardless of your faith leanings, even if you're an atheist, the reality is that the three largest religions practiced in the West (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all worship the same God.  The only difference between Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah is the same difference between Michael, Miguel, Mikail, et al.: Language.  Yahweh is the Hebrew name for God, Jehovah is one of the Christian names for God, and Allah is the Arabic name.  This matters because it's the perceived differences that are used as excuses by all sides for the current strife in the Middle East.

And there are those who will say that religion, regardless of its name, is nothing but superstition in the first place and science “provides all the answers,” and it's those superstitions that are the real cause for the various wars.  Yet they'll still proceed to use science as a tool and weapon and religion as an excuse to commit heinous acts of violence.

And because that excuse is usually stated both loudly and repeatedly regardless of the theatre of combat, both the targets and those who witness the senseless violence, killing, destruction, and overarching tragedy will typically have an overriding fear/anger response and blame the religion (especially if they're not practitioners of the blamed religion) of their enemy.  It's the easy answer.  The over-simplified and fails to look at the entire picture answer, but still the perceived easy answer.  And who doesn't like simple, easy answers that require little to no thought?

The thing is, while not only is there no religion safe from blame or being targeted, religion in and of itself is never the culprit.  The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were perpetrated by Christians and were just as violent (relative to available technology) as what ISIL is doing now in the name of Islam.

We, this means all of us regardless of ethnicity or religious beliefs (including atheism), need to stop blaming religion for the actions of its purported followers and to stop accepting extremists' claims of following their religious beliefs when their actions demonstrate their real motivations are of feeling the need for perceived superiority and their evident desire to bully and dominate others.  Just because someone uses something as an excuse does not automatically make that excuse the cause for their actions.

Islam is not the enemy.

Judaism is not the enemy.

Christianity is not the enemy.

Religion, regardless of the flavour, is not the enemy.

Greed, intolerance, hatred, those are the enemy!

Even science and religion really can co-exist without being at odds with each other if people would just get over themselves.  Now if only the same could be said of humanity in general.

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Immigrant Neighbours

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” - Statue Of Liberty

Our Communities Stand Tall

This House . . .

Stop Trump

Trump really can #MAGA

Educate, Don't Legislate - Rev. J.T. Smith

Americans need to start implementing some common sense rather than trying to legislate everyone else's lives based on their own beliefs.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender.

Regarding the debate over abortion ("pro-life" vs "pro-choice"): In a recent Salon article, writer Irin Carmon said, "Abortion foes would like nothing less than to focus the debate on later abortions… because they make more people uncomfortable."  But what anti-choice zealots are refusing to recognize is that it's cruel to ban abortion at a time when most women get prenatal testing to find out about their own health and the health of their pregnancy.  It's callous to disregard the complicated circumstances that cannot be diagnosed until later in pregnancy.  And it's morally wrong to deny women the essential medical care that they may need.

For every woman who's gone to Planned Parenthood regarding a pregnancy (i.e. to determine if you are pregnant and/or what to do about it), you need to realize that what happened next was your choice.  There is neither accusation nor admonishment in that statement.  You made a choice based on the options given.  If you feel that the wrong choice was made, that means you have regrets; it does not mean Planned Parenthood forced you into anything.  Their job is to advise based on the information given to them by the patient.  Blaming them for a decision you now regret is not the right answer.  Taking away the ability of another person to make their own choices because you regret the one(s) you made isn't the right answer.  We all need to come to terms with the choices we've made in life.  The reality is that every choice and decision we ever made was done for the same basic reason: Because it seemed like a good idea at the time.  And making bad choices is, unfortunately, the best way for us to learn.  While, yes, it is better and less painful to learn from the mistakes of others, ultimately we cannot force others to "learn from our mistakes."  At the end of the day, everyone needs to learn from their own mistakes regardless of what we may think/believe.

If you don't agree with abortion (for whatever your personal reasons are), then don't have an abortion.  

If you want your children to learn about the Christian concept of God, take them to a Christian church.

If you don't like the personal choices that other people make for themselves, then don't make those choices for your own self.

Trying to create laws that restrict other people's personal decisions is the wrong way to go about doing things.  We need to educate people rather than legislate them!!

by Rev. J.T. Smith

I Do Solemnly Swear - Rev. J.T. Smith