Sunday, May 11, 2014

Once again, "They only meant it for MUSKETS,

not the guns of today!" rises.  And once again they either ignore the "So the 1st doesn't cover modern means of spreading news and information?" factor, or consider the 2nd to be the only amendment to be so affected.  Also ignore that there were repeating arms at the time; and that private citizens owned artillery(without a background check or tax stamp).

But back to the original question of bazookas. Why shouldn't their possession by private citizens be protected? It's not as if governments never use tanks against private citizens (see attached video), and nor can it be denied that enormous, heavily armored vehicles are becoming more and more routinely part of civilian police agencies' equipment in the U.S. 

We're told all the time (here's a recent example) that the Second Amendment no longer matters, because the government commands far too much military power for private citizens with small arms to thwart any tyrannical ambitions it may have (meaning we should just sit and take it, apparently), but at the same time, if anyone dares discuss adding some heavier firepower to private citizens' arsenals, we're hysterically accused of treason.

A lady with experience in the matter speaks of Boko Haram and the reaction:
The kidnapping of the schoolgirls throws into bold relief a central part of what the jihadists are about: the oppression of women. Boko Haram sincerely believes that girls are better off enslaved than educated. The terrorists' mission is no different from that of the Taliban assassin who shot and nearly killed 15-year-old Pakistani Malala Yousafzai—as she rode a school bus home in 2012—because she advocated girls' education. As I know from experience, nothing is more anathema to the jihadists than equal and educated women.

How to explain this phenomenon to baffled Westerners, who these days seem more eager to smear the critics of jihadism as "Islamophobes" than to stand up for women's most basic rights? Where are the Muslim college-student organizations denouncing Boko Haram? Where is the outrage during Friday prayers? These girls' lives deserve more than a Twitter hashtag protest.
But actually DOING something would be messy.  And require that military stuff the progs hate(except when they're using it against some class enemy), and would cause the Usual Suspects to call us racist and colonialist and stuff.  So better to put pouty-face or stern-look pictures on twitter of themselves holding signs.  And then crap bricks of outrage when someone points out what bullshit it is.

The Southern Poverty Bullshit Center strikes again:  the new 'proof' of far-right extremism: opposing Common Core.

Unless you're a leftist/Democrat who has a problem with it, YOU they don't talk about.
The report largely ignores the large number of critics on the American political left, including the Chicago Teachers Union, who deplore Common Core because it mandates evermore standardized testing. It also largely ignores the complaints of a multitude of critics on the right, who oppose a technocratic takeover of public education that wrests education decisions out of the hands of local school boards and parents.

Instead, the SPLC report insists, opposition to Common Core comes from “far-right extremists” who oppose Common Core out of fears it will “indoctrinate young children into ‘the homosexual lifestyle’” and “turn children into ‘green serfs’ who will serve a totalitarian ‘New World Order.’”
If that's not goofy enough for you, they provide this for your amusement/enragement:
The conspiracy theorists behind the SPLC report theorize that “the radical right” hopes to use opposition to Common Core as a proxy in a broader fight to terminate all public education for some 50 million schoolchildren in the United States.
Yep; wanting your kids to actually, say, learn how to count in a proven successful manner means you want to 'terminate all public education '...

No comments: