Tag Archives: guns

Where Did All The Cameras Go?

31 Mar

Remember two weeks ago when we were talking about the shootings in Atlanta? Remember how there was serious consideration for new gun control legislation? Then the shootings in Colorado happened… and all that coverage suddenly stopped. Why?

The answer is: “It didn’t fit the narrative.” What the press was more interested in was NOT the shooting, or the epidemic of gun violence, it was white men shooting Asians. Right after the headline in the New York Times article were the words, “Six of the victims were Asian, the authorities said, raising fears that there may have been a racial motivation to the crimes.” The shooter? Robert Aaron Long, a 21-year-old white guy.

When ten people were gunned down in one of the most liberal (and most federal government employee living) towns in America, naturally that made headlines. But then they found the shooter. Sure, from the mugshot, it looks like a white guy, but his name is Ahmad al Aliwi Alissa, a Syrian immigrant who has lived almost his entire life in Colorado. Suddenly the press wasn’t that interested, and once the horror was over, they picked up and moved on.

Why? Because they want to show white guys killing minorities, preferably blacks. That’s what gets ratings. To quote the book Bias by Bernard Goldberg, a reporter who worked for CBS News for decades, “the true bias of the media is towards conflict.” I used to say they didn’t care about left or right, but rather what made headlines, but that’s not true anymore. Contrary to popular belief, mass shootings don’t keep eyeballs on 24-hour news coverage–the “impending race war” does. If minorities are killing white people, or worse, minorities are killing minorities, that doesn’t help keep viewers. They are appealing to their audience, and their audience believes “white man bad, dark man good.” They will tune out anything that contradicts that.

If you’ve read an article about a subject you know well, you’ve probably noticed that it is usually wrong. Take this screen shot from the AP, generally considered one of the most balanced news sources. On the same screen, they have two articles: “Indian farmers mark 100th day of protests with road blockade.” And right frickin’ below it, is “Indian farmers protest new laws with road block.” Well, gee… it’s not “new” if they’ve been at it for three months! The finance and the economy editors aren’t talking to each other. Their job is to get new content up as fast as possible. The headline gets the clicks, the clicks show advertisers that they get eyeballs, and the advertisers buy ads on their feed.

Let’s keep with the story of mass shootings and take another news story you didn’t read. On March 24th, guy walks into a Publix grocery store in Atlanta, Georgia. The manager goes into the bathroom and a shopper notices that guy suddenly taking out body armor and several guns. Manager calls the police and they get there quick enough to stop the guy from causing another mass shooting. it didn’t make the headlines for two reasons. One, no one died. Remember, the bias of the media is towards conflict. Second, the name of the would-be shooter was Rico Abednego Neequaye Marley. If you read the NYT article, you can’t guess the race of the shooter. Rico Marley could be anybody. “Neequaye” is a dead giveaway that the shooter is African-American. Doesn’t fit the narrative, doesn’t make the headlines.

Do we have a problem with gun violence in America, absolutely. Do we have an impending race war? No. In Chicago, where there are more murders than anywhere else in America, more African-Americans kill their fellow minority than anyone else. That doesn’t make headlines, but mostly because it’s a daily occurrence. My fear is that if the media keep pounding the drumbeat of “White Men Are Out to Kill You,” minorities will believe it, and will decide “I’m gonna get them before they get me.” You don’t want that.

Am I overreacting? Should we be more concerned about white men killing minorities? Let me know in the comments below! If you like my writing, pick up one of my books. But if you’re still not sold, download one of my stories for free! You’ll be glad you did.

“Don’t act surprised, you guys, ’cause I wrote ’em!”

30 Mar

After the mass shootings in the US recently, the gun control debate (briefly) raised its ugly head. However, instead of debating the pros and cons, I was more curious about the language of the 2nd Amendment. More to the point, what did the guy who wrote it have to say?

Quick recap of American History: After the Declaration of Independence, the United States were not… united. The Continental Congress sounds rather impressive in the history books, but it was still a voluntary conference of independent state governments. If Rhode Island’s legislature had decided to declare its undying loyalty to George III, they could have. It wasn’t until March 1st, 1781, five years after war was declared, that the Continental Congress signed its first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. This gave nearly all power to the states. This didn’t work and the cracks in the union were showing. Eight years later, some folks decided to scrap the articles in favor of a new working constitution.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were afraid that giving power to a national government would create a tyrannical government just like the one they had spent seven years fighting. After the compromises and debates, the states still had to ratify the Constitution, and the biggest objection to that was that their rights were not enshrined. So one of the things James Madison, one of the major drafters of the Constitution, wrote a Bill of Rights with 12 amendments to ensure those rights were protected. Ten of those were passed, including the Second regarding guns.

Fun fact: one of the unpassed amendments was passed two hundred years later as the 27th Amendment. The other dealt with changing the number of reps per state through mathematical formula, it doesn’t really work in a country of over 300 million.

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.

2nd Amendment to the Constitution (1791)

A lot of attention is paid to the commas (see what the Supreme Court says about it), opponents talk about the focus on the word “militia,” and how the founders were focused on national defense, not individual gun ownership. But again, I’m not debating what I think about it, but what James Madison thinks about it… the guy who wrote it.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

“Publius” (Madison’s pseudonym), The Federalist Papers, Number 46

What Jimmy Boy was more concerned about was tyranny–an overpowering national government able to crush all dissent–which you have to admit, is a lot easier if the citizens aren’t armed. Opponents would say that’s not really possible in the modern era; to quote a French officer in WWII, “you can’t fight tanks with rifles.” Madison would agree with you: “And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.”

But that’s not the point. When the folks want to shake off their yokes, they have the choice. Otherwise, you have to stand in front of tanks and hope the army soldiers are more interested in protecting life than stopping dissent. In 1991, that worked in Russia… and didn’t in China. The difference? Organization. In Russia, Boris Yeltsin was the president of the Russian SSR–the equivalent of a state (the biggest and comprised most of the country, but not the national leader) and refused to back down in the face of the “Gang of Four.” In China, it’s was pro-democracy protesters, and didn’t have the backing of a local or state government. The American Civil War wouldn’t have happened if the states themselves didn’t want to secede, but if they didn’t have the guns in the first place, they wouldn’t have even got started… and history would have been a lot different.

This doesn’t address the issue of daily life and the problems of having the wrong person owning guns, but all ye liberals, consider this. If you aren’t allowed to own a gun, the only guns are in the hands of the police and the military, the same ones you want to defund. The only ones who are authorized to protect you can not be everywhere at every time. Even assuming a criminal can’t get a gun, can you defend yourself against a man who’s ready to kill you for your wallet? As was said of the first revolver manufacturer, “God created men equal. Colonel Colt made them equal.”

But I’m biased… I’m just not adamant about it. What argument did I miss? Did Jimmy have too much faith in the power of militias? (Answer: Yes, he did.) Could Jimmy imagine a world where people had more than single-shot muskets? Was Jimmy too much of a weakling to fight? Let me know in the comments below! And while you’re down there, click on the link for my books and buy one! Not ready to commit to that? Download one of my stories for free!

American Legion Post 138

Damn Straight 138!

Tales from a broken doll

Short stories, poetry, musings and rambling.

Crack On

We have this treasure in cracked pots

Poteci de dor

"Adevărul, pur şi simplu, e rareori pur şi aproape niciodată simplu" - Oscar Wilde


Human Trying to Be

O Miau do Leão

Uma pequena voz da Flandres

A Life's Journey

Little things matter 🌼


A dreamer, who loves to muse her world and penned it down✍️ Each words in this blog lay close to my soul🧡

Harley Reborn

♠️Rip It Up & Start Again♥️

Talkin' to Myself

I'm listening

Nature Whispering

From Sunset to Dawn

Riverside Peace

The Official Website of Australian Writer Chrissy Siggee

I didn't have my glasses on....

A trip through life with fingers crossed and eternal optimism.

Looking to God

Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. (Matthew 6:33)


We may see things that we don't even imagine.

Decaf White

No sugar