Note: I began writing this post in June 2022, approximately one week after the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas which took place on May 24, 2022. Like many of my posts, this one is incomplete.
The gun debate only lasted a few days this time. More attention was directed at the Uvalde police because they waited over an hour before they entered the school. All cops are bastards, all of them. The Uvalde cops were waiting for the border patrol, or so it goes, I don’t even know, to be honest, the hyper focus on every mass shooting, the media infatuation, the social media clickbait, the endless theories and opinions, and then the gun control debate, yes, the same tired debate after every major shooting, it’s just another divide and conquer psyop, in a never ending barrage of psyops, they’re not going to take your guns, and if they try to take them by force, then shoot to kill, I mean, that’s what all the guns are for, right, to protect the family and the home from intruders, and to the other people who want to take the guns, why do you want the Feds to take possession of all the firearms? Why do you trust the police and military with these weapons? Why are your pro-war? You should be waving a thin blue line flag for fuck’s sake. And then there’s the people in the middle of the debate who want more laws. More background checks. More restrictions. Change the age to 21. Require safety and training courses, as well as a psychological examination. Require gun owners to pay for insurance, in case anything were to happen. Yes, all great ideas, but will they become laws in every county in every state? Will they prevent just one mass shooting? Maybe, maybe not. Will potential shooters find ways around these laws? Probably. Will we see future shooters 3D printing their guns and making their own ammo? Maybe. Will we see potential shooters stealing guns to commit their crimes? Maybe. But it’s worth a try, if lawmakers really want to make these changes, they can, and I will believe it when I see it, then let’s see if the mass shootings dissipate, let’s see the results of the new laws. But none of this takes place in a vacuum, and in the meantime, continue enforcing the laws currently on the books, and remember, there are hundreds of millions, 393 million for the record, civilian-owned firearms in the United States, and approximately 6 million of them are registered. Think about that. There are approximately (most likely many many more) 387 civilian-owned firearms in the US, enough for every person to own one firearm, and still have a surplus of 50 million firearms. Think about that. Among “developed first world” countries, the US has more firearms per capita than most other similar countries, not to mention, more mass shootings, and I do believe there is causation, rather than correlation, but there’s a distinct difference: In the US, there are 387 million unregistered firearms, so even if you upped the age to 21, required safety and training courses and/or tests, implemented a 30-day waiting period, conducted psychological screenings, required a license and insurance, or just simply confiscated all of the six million registered guns, what is going to prevent one of the other 387 million guns from ending up in the hands of a potential mass shooter? Laws don’t prevent criminal actions, they simply make the actions punishable at the hands of a judge or jury of one’s peers after the crime has been committed and the perpetrator apprehended. Remember that.
But, that’s not even why I started writing this post. Not even remotely close, but the ridiculous gun psyop gets me every time, I always get sucked into that silly rabbit hole, I mean, I no longer fall down that hole, now I just get sucked in, swallowed up, consumed. Divided and conquered. What if I purchase a vehicle, perhaps a large pickup truck with a dual axle, with the intention of using it to drive down a busy city sidewalk crowded with people, in order to cause death and carnage? Obviously the truck was not designed to kill like a gun, but it can kill just as many as the deadliest mass shooting, and it could cause major carnage, if I use the truck as a machine capable of causing the deaths of 20-30 people plus twice as many injuries? Well, there’s laws for that. You have to register and insure the vehicle. If you don’t have cash you will need a loan or credit card. You will need to purchase the title and get the car inspected. You will also need a driver’s license, which means that you will have to take a driver’s education course and pass a test and then you’re all set. Or, you could simply steal or “borrow” your mom’s car or your brother’s truck or your aunt’s SUV or some stranger’s RAM, and drive without a license, because who’s going to stop you? And what if the owner doesn’t have insurance or a title? Should we consider adding psychological exams to the requirements for a driver’s license? Or, should psychological exams be required for the purchase of a car? Any car, old or new. How do we check if a driver is registered and insured? How do we check if a gun owner is registered and insured? In an open carry setting, will there be checks? Just like the traffic checkpoints set up by local and state police, to look for drunk drivers or any other traffic violators. How do you know if So-and-So has a gun license? What if he’s open carrying an AR15? Are you going to ask him to show proof of license and registration? What about insurance? Are you going to demand to see his papers? And if not you, then will it be the state? What about the Feds? Should they have gun checkpoints in public areas where open carry is legal? It would be a great way to generate money through fines, as well as to confiscate unregistered guns, right? It would be a clear example of a police-state, right? What about vaccine checkpoints? Should there be vaccine checkpoints in public areas, or while crossing state lines in your vehicle? How about vaccine checkpoints at public office buildings and schools. At public libraries and parks. What about abortion checkpoints? Should we have those too for women thinking about crossing state lines to get an abortion?
But that’s not why I’m here, I really don’t give a fuck about the guns. If you think that more laws and psychological tests and waiting periods and age restrictions and licenses and insurance are going to prevent mass shootings, then you should push your lawmakers to write new laws. I don’t care if you own one thousand guns or like me, zero guns, I will believe it when I see it. Push your lawmakers, and we will examine the results. More children ages 5-17 have experienced myocarditis and other side effects from the covid vaccines. The evidence is easy to find. Vaccine side effects are rare, according to the trial data and subsequent studies. One example is myocarditis. The CDC has confirmed over 600 cases of myocarditis in children ages 5-17 after vaccination. Yes, it’s rare, but not as rare as being a victim in a mass shooting. And, when I say mass shooting, I’m not talking about a gang fight or drive-by or familial murder-suicide. When I say mass shooting I’m talking about Columbine, Orlando, Buffalo, Aurora, Vegas, VTech, Navy Yard, I’m talking about the real mass shootings like Texas Clocktower…
But, for some reason I have to keep coming back to the covid vaccines. I have to. All of this talk about body autonomy and abortion rights and so on, so I have to come back to the vaccines. Everyone should have control over their own body. Period. It is your body. It is my body. It is the only thing I truly own, because I can terminate it at any moment. Yes, you can also terminate my body, and I can terminate yours, too. But, no one can prevent me from taking my own life, therefore, I own it. It is my vessel. I am its captain. It is my body. It is your body. I have always been pro-abortion. Ever since high school in the early 1990s. It’s a woman’s body, it is her right to choose what to do with the cells inside her body. I will always support a woman’s right to choose. I am pro-choice, not that it matters, because it really doesn’t matter since I am a man, and I will never have to make the decision to have an abortion, but I wholeheartedly support a woman’s right to choose what she wants to do with her own body. The state doesn’t own her body. She owns her body. She is aborting the cells because she knows that she will not be able to provide for the child, no matter her reasons, they are private, her reasons are nobody’s business but her own business, and she knows her child would be neglected or abused and she would resent keeping her child, and her child would hate herself and hate her mother, and maybe her father too, if he is in her life.
Yes, I have a point. Each year in the US, there are between 600-800K abortions performed, and that number has been steadily dropping since the 1990s, but more importantly, the number of abortions per 1,000 births is 19.5. Think about that for a moment, and for ages 15-19, the number of abortions per 1,000 births is 5.8. Think about that too. Highest number of adolescent abortions occur 7-9 weeks into gestation. The age group with the highest number or reported legal abortions is 20-24 years. Think about all of these statistics. Think about women ages 15-19. For every 6 abortions, there are 994 births. Think about that for a second. I’m not asking you to think the way I do, I’m merely asking you to think.
And now let’s go back to the guns. The guns. Guns were created with one purpose: to kill living beings. We all agree on that. Guns can be used to kill animals and humans. Killing animals for food, most people agree, is okay, no problem, self-sustaining lifestyle, no harm being done. Animals aren’t tortured. Skin and fur is used for clothing and other things, all good. Now, guns can also kill humans. They can be used to commit premeditated murder, first degree murder. They can also be used to defend against an attacker or intruder, in most cases, justifiably within reason, of course, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. If someone lunges at you with a knife, in nearly all circumstances, if you are a legal gun owner, possessing a registered gun, you can defend yourself against someone wielding a knife, of course there are exceptions to castle doctrine and stand your ground laws, but the basic idea is that anything which can be viewed as an imminent threat, such as a knife, bat or pipe, and of course, a gun, can be met with equal deadly force, so if I come at you with a knife and you cannot flee or escape the situation, then you are legally justified to put a couple of bullets in my chest to stop me from using deadly force against you. This begs the question: were guns designed as offensive or defensive weapons, and which one is more important? Which one defines guns without question, without debate? I can kill you with my gun, but you can defend yourself against me and my gun with your own gun. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Seriously though, which is it? If guns were originally designed to be used to hunt animals, then the idea of using them as a defensive weapon perhaps wasn’t considered because the originators of guns, and any weapon that shoots a projectile for that matter, were most likely all created for offensive purposes, not defensive purposes. But, if you go back to a time before guns, back to arrows, darts, stones, etc, then you realize that most weapons were designed to kill other animals for food, clothing, and weapons (yes, bones can be transformed into sharp or blunt objects that can be used to kill animals or humans. But, the idea of creating weapons for hunting purposes does not negate the fact that weapons are also used for defensive purposes. Even catapults were used to breach walls and cause catastrophic damage to infrastructure, as well as produce casualties from falling debris or being in direct path of the catapult’s projectile(s). Look at the crossbow, it too was designed with the intention of killing animals, it is extremely effective, and almost guaranteed to kill if you hit the right spot(s). Once again, offensive weapons. Now, I’m going to make a leap here, and I’m making this leap so you can see for yourself if there are any similarities between the two examples. Cars. People like to talk about cars in relation to guns and gun control and gun laws, etc. Cars were designed to take its occupants from point A to point B in a fraction of the time of a horse and buggy. They were designed for travel. But, somewhere along the way, someone decided to use a car or a truck or any vehicle, whichever was the first mass vehicle event where a driver used a vehicle to run over pedestrians with the intention of killing them. Somewhere along the way, someone, probably a man, decided to do that, to use a vehicle as a weapon of mass destruction, including truck bombs, and I would say McVeigh’s truck bomb (no, I don’t feel that he acted alone, or if he even knew the full extent of what he was going to do before he allegedly did it, seemingly on his own, but with a little help from his friend Terry Nichols, according to the official story) is an excellent example of using a vehicle for an offensive purpose, because remember, vehicles were not designed for offensive or defensive purposes, rather, they were designed for practicality, convenience, efficiency, expediency, etc., but somewhere along the way, someone decided to use a vehicle for an offensive purpose (not including war, because for war purposes, vehicles were designed with both offensive and defensive measures at the forefront, whereas the early automobiles and trucks for civilian use were death traps, and including very few, if any, safety features (defensive features due to the fact that vehicles can be extremely deadly, both due to human and mechanical error) but I digress, since I forgot what it was I was trying to articulate. 😂
To be honest, I really don’t care which came first, the chicken or the egg, because they both exist, and why does it matter how they came into existence? Similarly, I don’t care if weapons were first used for defensive or offensive purposes, because currently they are used for both, and why does it matter what they were originally designed for? For every argument claiming guns are only offensive weapons, there is a counterargument claiming guns are also defensive weapons. For what it’s worth, 99.99% of gun owners will never use their weapons offensively except to kill animals (mostly for food, but also for trophy hunting, which I despise) yet all of the attention by government, media, NGOs, advocacy groups, human rights orgs, etc, is focused on the 0.01% who use their weapons to kill other people, rarely in mass shootings, most commonly in domestic situations between spouses, family members, friends, coworkers, neighbors, and lovers. As for abortion, the human body has been aborting fetuses for millions of years, just like all mammals, as a defensive measure to protect the mother. Defensive security. Naturally occurring defensive actions. Why is a woman’s body allowed to miscarry or abort, but the woman herself is not allowed to make that choice? What makes the woman’s reasons (using her own thinking processes) any less natural or acceptable than her own body’s physiological/chemical/biological reasons? Seriously, ask yourself that question. Who should have ultimate control over a woman’s body? Herself (whether through biological processes beyond her control, such as spontaneous abortion or stillborn, or through thought processes where she decides to terminate the pregnancy of her own volition) or the state? Her body can choose to end the pregnancy at 38 weeks or she can choose to end it at 10 weeks, or sooner, or later, and it’s not the state’s business. End of story.
Now, back to the guns. Just seven hours ago, Creepy Joe said it’s time to ban assault weapons like he did when he “took on the NRA” back in 1994.
