Hey Bob,
I find your analysis of our second amendment to be right on target. I would
challenge any constitutional scholar to do better.
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 2:50 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Not again, it is the deadliest mass shooting in
America's modern history until now
I agree with what Carl and Bob said. I am still attempting to recover from the
broad shock I was recently struck with. Now, as to gun control initiatives, the
major battle has to be fought with the National Rifle Association. It is insane
to witness such enormous shootings at a concert. The question is, does the
Congress has the authority to legislate for gun control without being pitted
with rifle mongers? As for the second amendment constant contention, well,
first, here what it says.
"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."
The text is often misconstrued in my humble opinion.
I am not a Constitutional scholar.
With my primal discernment, here what I fathomed so far.
At its inception, the text talks about a well regulated militia.
What is a militia?
Militia is a term used to describe civilians who're trained to engage in
warfare situations but they aren't necessarily part of the formal army.
The subsequent segment of the text says, being necessary to the security of
a free State.
So, what does that mean?
It basically talks about a particular situation, where a necessity of security
purposes is extremely vital and it obligates civilians to bear arms.
In that particular and exceedingly exceptional situation, the right of the
People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I think that I fathom the text in its Constitutional context without any
misquote or prejudice.
Well again, I may not be necessarily correct in my amateurish interpretation.
I just find it a bit awkward the typical manner by which lay Americans or in
particular, gun boosters interpret this Constitutional constituent.
I may not be sufficiently adequate in English but, the second Amendment text is
strictly plain in its statutorily implication.
So to imply this element practically, I find the Syrian situation relevantly
applicable.
The government uses military force to subdue subverters.
Thence, the use of murderous weapons by defiant civilians is of duty-bound
nature.
It couldn't be properly construed, that someone, despite his temperament or
mental health status, has the right to bear arms and march to massive
gatherings such as concerts to randomly shoot innocents off.
I personally am not sure if I am convinced of that fallible rendition.
However, I have got no least expertise in the field.
Therefore, I wish we could consult someone who is specialised in American
Constitution scholarship.
Some people said, the second amendment text is a bit vague.
Well, I am not a native speaker nor a legal practician.
Therefore, I am keen to listen to more thoughts about this.
What are your thoughts folks?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:,"@freelists.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 8:37 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Not again, it is the deadliest mass shooting in
America's modern history until now
Bob and All,
A very good observation, Bob. Why does the government not call this
horrific crime an act of Terror, instead of calling it Evil? My
personal opinion is that the government is careful as to when to call
murder or acts of destruction Terrorists acts. If a Muslim or a
recent Immigrant commits a violent crime, it can be used to turn White
Americans against Persons of Color, or of different Faiths. But the
government does not want to have its White People to think of White
violence as Terror. That might turn the majority of working class
Americans against those White Extremists that the government counts on
to help direct the thinking of the nation.
How violence is presented makes the difference between it being "good
violence" or, "bad violence". So the uprising by the American
Colonists against England was presented as "good resistance". The
young United States set out to expand from Sea to Shining Sea. But
some people occupied the land. And they acted as if they believed
they owned "Our Promised Land". So we had to exercise "good violence"
to move them off our land and onto reservations. We labeled these
people as Red Devils, and Savages. When White men bedded native
women, they called the off-spring, Half Breeds, as if the White men
had bred with horses or cows.
As with the Revolutionary War, the Civil War pitted White men against
White men. This ugly war pitted two economic systems against one
another. When it was done and done, and the North had won, notice the
different treatment of the White losers as opposed to the fate of the
Indians? The North allowed the South to save face by continuing to
pretend that the South would "rise again". General Lee and Stonewall
Jackson, and even old Jefferson Davis were idolized. Streets and
schools and parks were named after them. And in time, statues were
erected to honor them and to prove that the "Spirit of the South" was
still alive. And rather than punishing the people who supported
secession and the establishment of a new nation, we all(Whites) took
it out on the newly freed Blacks.
The government, the ruling White Oligarchy, protects the violence of
White people, when it serves their purposes. So when a White man
begins murdering people at random, he cannot be labeled as a
Terrorist. But in order to protect "Good White Violence" he must be
labeled as Insane, Evil and a demented demons.
In this way, the Ruling Class is able to continue selling us its Fairy
Story, the one where we all find a pot of gold at the end of a
rainbow, kiss an ugly frog and watch her turn into a beautiful
princess, and return her to her powerful father, the King of All the
People, and marry her and live happily ever after. And the Ruling
Class always leaves just a little sliver of hope. Hope that next
election we will have a "People's Champion" ride in on a White
Stallion and make all our dreams come true.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/2/17, Bob <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello. This is certainly hideous, that is genuinely saddening and
injurious.
Last Sunday night, a demented torpedo opened fire at a concert in Las
Vegas
where he brutally murdered at least fifty nine and atrociously wounded 5
hundred and twenty seven. At its inception, I wholeheartedly offer my
condolences to the grave loss of these innocent souls that have been
taken
ruthlessly. My heart mourns and grieves with victim's families. I
unfeignedly implore to Allah glory be to Him, Allah, bless those who have
been grieved with patience and persistence.
Shooter's identification
Shooter was identified as Stephen Paddock, sixty four. Whether he was
abnormal, lunatic, serial murderer, misanthropist or psychopathic, your
dissonance of rectifying gun crisis won't ever be resolved. Because a
Muslim
wasn't affiliated with this mass shooting, Las Vegas massacre hasn't
been
treated as an act of terror. However, when a Muslim committed a lesser
mass
shooting at a nightclub in Orlando last year, the incident has been
treated
as an act of terror. This is how disingenuous and hypocritical many
Americans are. Donald Trump called what happened last Sunday night in Las
Vegas an act of pure evil. He hasn't mentioned the term terrorism.
Nevertheless, if the shooter happened to be Muslim, it would have been
listed as an act of terror. Why are Americans so infatuated with guns?
The
National Rifle Association is a powerful lobby that advocates the right
to
own and bear arms and rejects any gun regulation by the government. I
sternly remonstrate them for these innocent lives that have been taken
carelessly. They truly are hardhearted and pitiless. My question though,
what does really work for the United States? Law enforcement or lobbyism?
Hasn't your nation been dominated with greed and corporal establishment?
When Obama proposed gun control initiative, he was assaulted by
congressional lobbyists. However, when Trump proposed what seems to be a
discriminative ban act against Muslims, it was approved. Both sought
fending
for national security. As time passes on, the true face of Americanism
unfolds. Many Americans became numb to exercising precautionary
dissimulation. It is a sign of disgrace for any Muslim to be a greencard
bearer. It is incredibly shameful to these people as to how their
practice
of double standard is really obvious. Each and every incident of such
callous crimes reveals to us how counterfeit these people are. I couldn't
wish for this to be the last incident. Unfortunately, as long as greed
dominates law enforcement, the probability of hearing again and again
about
similar incidents is assuredly procurable. I still wonder though, how
just
one man was able to shoot these people without being instantly detected?
According to multiple news reports, he killed fifty nine and wounded five
hundred and twenty seven. That's a staggering number. I don't have
specific
stats but, that still is unbelievable. What type of deadly rifle he shot
with? Was this a machine arm? Was this in the context of expressing
warfare?
I am seriously taken aback of what I heard. I am lost for words. I am not
vindictive of what happened, I am just appalled. How could such incidents
be
prevented in the future? First off, honourable congressional members must
hasten to sue the National Rifle Association for implicitly aiding such
unfortunate incidents to broaden. Second, congress must critically seek
unbroken consensus on decisive terms of stiff gun regulation. This will
be
attained only if they truly care about guarding national security. What
happened last Sunday night in Las Vegas was a denotative act of heinous
terror. What happened in Orlando last year was absolutely an act of
flagitious terror as well. Despite whoever committed this and what were
his
motives, it was still an act of vicious terror in either case. I am
really
disturbed hearing about these terrible incidents deplorably recurring. I
just told my fiance, this has got to stop or they will just end up
shooting
each other in the street one day. Whether you are at a concert, a grocery
store, a movie theatre, an elementary school, a college campus or even a
house of worship, you are threatened with being targeted by some insane
shooter. Therefore, people of intellect must firmly stand for this. Law
enforcement is the definite solution for this longly and discreditably
remaining crisis. I do not intend to interfere. I just have good friends
in
this country and I am concerned about them. I certainly grieve and mourn
what happened. This has been really unfortunate.
Thank you for carefully reading, Bob
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
