what is your GORF … a simple test to determine if you are a responsible (or reckless) gun owner

It used to be pretty easy to differentiate between normal gun owners and dangerous nut cases. But over the last few years it seems that some shifts have occurred, and now it is difficult to distinguish between responsible gun owners and reckless gun owners.

Being able to distinguish between these two groups has important implications in our society. Back in the old days we simply estranged the nut cases. But now it is hard to determine who needs to be estranged from our Mayberry-society.

So I devised a simple equation to help you figure out who is who … the GORF equation.

GORF is an acronym for “Gun-Owner Responsibility Factor”. I am leaving the equation in a simple form, though I should really re-work it to normalize its output, maybe using 0 or 1 as the benchmark value. But as it stands, the benchmark value is 3.5 (I’ll explain in a moment).

Here’s my new equation:
GORF = udRGH ÷ ud2AR
udRGH is the amount of time u discuss Responsible Gun Handling,
ud2AR is the amount of time u discuss 2nd Amendment Rights.

A good GORF value is 3.5 … If a person’s GORF value is less than 3.5 then that means that that person is reckless, and a danger to civil society; but above 3.5 means that that person is responsible and safe.

Families’ Bush and bin Laden Hashed Secret Agreement

It’s not anything new, really, so why am I even flustered by the anti-obama-ists plunging forward with a conspiracy theory about obama somehow being tied to the boston bombings?

Most moderate republicans suggest that obama’s security policies are the basis for these accusations, but extremist republicans are suggesting an actual direct link: that obama ushered out a guilty saudi kid and then scapegoated the whole thing on the chechnyan boyz.

OK, screw it! If you pinheads want to play that way then here you go:

After Sept. 11 the Bush Family got together with the Bin Laden Family and worked out a deal: “keep Al Qaeda away from America and we will let Osama run free”.

Well, this explains why we failed to find obama hiding in our ally’s back yard and that there were no more terrorist attacks during the Bush years, huh!

ooh_conspiracy_theory

Justifying Lynching

It has really been a phenomenal 4 years. Over and over again the republicans/FOX Country/conservatives have relentlessly blamed Obama for everything, and when there was nothing to blame him for, they created a mountain out of some irrelevant mole hill and then blamed him for that. But their real guilt comes in their guise to justify the blame.

justifying_lynching

A Solution to the Gay Marriage Question

In America our fundamental spousal construct is the marriage. The problem is that marriage is a religious concept, not a civil concept. And because our Civil State has adopted a Religious Ceremony as its fundamental spousal construct, other spousal-wannabe’s are running into hurdles.

The solution: remove Marriage as the fundamental spousal construct, and replace it with the Civil Union.

——————————————————-
This opens the door for many types of Civil Unions.

Indeed, “marriage” is actually a type of a Civil Union itself, owned, operated, and defined by the churches (going back to the BC religions I think).

Other possible types of Civil Unions:

  • the las-vegas-elvis Civil Union
  • the bungee-jumping Civil Union
  • the captain-of-a-ship Civil Union
  • the gay Civil Union
  • the human-mannequin Civil Union

Think about each of these: each is questionable in light of religious doctrines, but yet most are acceptable in our civil environment.

——————————————————-
County-by-county democracy should be the mechanism that decides what types are -or are not- recognized by the government for purposes of … what is the purpose of registering our marriages with the government?

Weapon Certification Programs

To me, Weapon Certification Programs are the solution that should make both sides happy:
- they would enable weapon ownership for the Law-Abiding people, but
- they would remove weapons from the Non-Law-Abiding and non-qualified people.

How would a Weapon Certification Program work?
If you want a pistol for home protection, you will need Level 1 Certification. It might require A) 10hours of classroom training, B) 10 hours of supervised firing range training, and C) bi-annual renewals.
If you want a pistol for CWP, you will need Level 4 Certification, etc …
There can even be a Certification Program for military-grade weapons, say, maybe, Level 7 Certification?

Anyone caught without the appropriate Certification for their particular weapon will lose their weapon, and have up to 6 months, say, to complete an appropriate Certification Program to get their weapon back.

———————————————————
What is interesting about Certification, is you can be certified without being “registered” … which a lot of the Tyranny-people are concerned about.

Here is a funny, but poignant, example of how you could be certified for something, but NOT registered: I can very easily train you for 2 weeks on Vulgar-Burping, then give you the Certification to prove you are qualified, but never submit it to any national database of burpers. I, the Certifier, keep a record, of course. Now, sometime later in the future, when you are accosted in a McDonalds for burping vulgarly, you can show the cops your Vulgar-Burping Certificate, and they will say, ‘ok’ to you … your Certification is all you need (yes yes, people will try to counter fit them … can’t we cross that bridge when we get to it).

———————————————————
Here’s a little bit more about the Weapon’s Certification idea:

- the Certification programs could be run by the NRA,
- but be liable to the people through our judicial system (civil and maybe even criminal).

So, suppose the NRA is the Certifying agency, and suppose that over the years they slowly relax their Certification Programs standards, certifying basically anyone and everyone, and then Bad Guys start exploiting the lax certification programs and begin mass murdering, the NRA would be liable in the courts to lawsuits from victim’s families. We all tout our judicial system as being the greatest in the world, so can’t we trust it to handle this particular aspect?

This judicial liability would keep the NRA in balance between:
- their desire to sell guns at k-mart, and
- civil people’s desire to have a sane experiences when they venture outside.

———————————————————
Share with your friends if you feel these ideas have merit.

Donal Trump has complex enemies

I have a couple of enemies: the guy whose parking space I took, and the occasional random mugger. But these enemies are simple. I can take care of them with a few shots into their guts. Easy.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has complex enemies due to his fame and fortune. Anyone in his family would be a valuable ransom to well organized kidnappers, such as those damn mexican cartels who have demonstrated time and time again that they can organize and penetrate an enemy encampment, pulling off any number of different types of insurgency’s.

And because of this Donald Trump cannot resolve to a simple pistol for his protection, or even an assault rifle (which does no good when 20 armed mexicans come jumping over your fence). Fortunately he has the 2nd amendment giving him the right to arm himself accordingly, with rocket launchers probably and Black Hawks.

Wait … he can’t have these?! His rights are being infringed. We need to stop all this simple talk about assault rifles, and start focusing on the bigger picture. Donald I am with you: build your personal IED’s, and defend what is yours.

The C’s accuse me of being an A

There seem to be 3 different arguments in regards to the gun issue:

A – get rid of all guns (I have never actually heard anyone say this)
B – regulate guns (the ‘how to’ is up for debate)
C – sell guns like bubble gum: anytime, anywhere, anybody

————————————————————-
The C’s are accusing everybody else of being an A.

would you accept Constitutional Rape

Here is a thought experiment …

We probably all agree that the bill of rights (as well as a good bit of the constitution) is supposed to embody the idea of ensuring the protection of people’s natural will (as opposed to suppression). I suppose most Americans will agree with this.

Here is another example of natural will: my natural reproductive drive.

So imagine if the bill of rights included an amendment to protect my right to fulfill my natural reproductive drive … would you support it?

In the hands of ‘common sense’ this clause might work without disrupting a civil society. But as soon as someone starts twisting that clause, interpreting it to suit their own agenda, you could effectively end up with constitutional-rape.

The 2nd amendment has similarly been twisted.

Re-defining the term Gun Control

Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership.

  • If you simply want a pistol for home protection, you need a Level 1 training/certificate;
  • If you want to hunt with a shotgun, you need Level 4 (or whatever);
  • If you want to operate an assault weapon for sportsmanship, you need Level 7 (or whatever);
  • If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you need Level 2 (would include in-action training);
  • etc.

CTC should make both liberals and conservatives happy:
- the liberals want a sensible, civil society;
- the conservatives want guns, and they say responsible gun owners are safe.

CTC legislation would create many jobs in the firearms training sector; and it would weed out a large percentage of irresponsible people, as well as incompetent people.

————————————————————
Further Reading
Level 1 training would be geared toward the most fundamental of gun claims: protecting the home. Included in Level 1 firearms training should be psych evaluations and proper training about storing the gun in the home. Level 1 might require 3 months of weekly sessions. Trainers would be certified by the NRA, but liable to civil and criminal courts for failure to uphold high standards (now you have a check & balance between the NRA’s desire to spread guns, and the public’s desire to have safe, qualified gun owners). Level 1 would probably only cover low-shot hand guns, which are appropriate for home protection.

A concealed weapons permit would require Level 2 training, specifically some type of Action-based Training (something that probably only military, police, and the most hardcore gun sportsmen ever get). The Ab-T portion of CTC Level 2 would demand probably 30 hours, maybe much more.

Why should CWP holders be required to satisfy Level 2‘s Ab-T requirement … because a CWP holder is implicitly saying, “I am taking my gun into the public, where all the action is, and if there is trouble I’m going to pull my weapon out into the public space with the intent to pull the trigger.” With that being said, I believe that CWP holder should have to prove that he/she can handle the action: people running, screaming, shots already being fired from some undetermined direction, maybe darkness, wounded on the ground. Level 2 would probably also only cover low-shot hand guns.

For hunters they would need a Level 3 certificate. For sportsmen, a Level 4 certificate. Etc.

————————————————————
What do you think about the idea of Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership?

The NRA inhibits meaningful discussion … day 3 of 26

If someone like me says, “gun regulation should be discussed”, some NRA person will respond, “you’re not american, you’re against freedom, you’re stupid, you think hugging criminals will work.” So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet! Consequently, our country has not had a real democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers. The NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for a populace to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for individuals that hunt.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Gun Ownership Only With Qualified Training
Any reasonable person should be ok being required to be trained to own a weapon.

Basic gun ownership would require Level 1 training.
Level 1 training would be geared toward the most fundamental of gun claims: protecting the home.
Included in Level 1 firearms training should be psych evaluations and proper training about storing the gun in the home.
Level 1 might require 3 months of weekly sessions. Trainers would be certified by the NRA, but liable to civil and criminal courts for failure to uphold high standards (now you have a check & balance between the NRA’s desire to spread guns, and the public’s desire to have safe, qualified gun owners).

Level 1 would probably only cover low-shot hand guns, which are appropriate for home protection.

A Concealed Weapons Permit would require Level 2 training, specifically some type of Action-based Training (something that probably only military, police, and the most hardcore gun sportsmen ever get). Ab-T would last probably 20 hours, I don’t know, maybe 100.

Why should CWP owners be required to satisfy Level 2 requirements … because a CWP holder is implicitly saying, “I am taking my gun into the public, where all the action is, and if there is trouble I’m going to pull my weapon out into the public space with the intent to pull the trigger.” Therefore that person should have to prove that he/she can handle that action: people running, screaming, shots already being fired from some undetermined direction.

Level 2 would probably also only cover low-shot hand guns.

For hunters they would need a Level 3 certificate. For sportsmen, a Level 4 certificate. Etc.

What do you think about the idea of appropriate training for weapons permits?

Republicans want their trees … and they want them now !

The Republican position in the oil discussion has got me thinking: republicans are only seeing one point of view, and they want it adhered to now.

There are many trees in the forest. Ignoring the many for the benefit of a single is a form of falsity. And if your one particular tree happens to causes damage to the others, then, well, you become liable yourself for your approach.

Furthermore, and more complicating, you must consider each and all trees over the long-term. Defending your tree today (or denying someone else’s today) without understanding the projected behavior of those trees is potentially dangerous to the forest as a whole even generations from now. Consider a tree that may eventually grow to overshadow all the rest, killing them off.

But this has made me wonder if Republicans deal with all of their issues with a similar stance: single point-of-view focus, and only respective to the immediate term?

The relationship between the Federalist Papers and the Constitution

Over the last couple of years the Federalist Papers have been referenced by armchair politicians (and Supreme Court Judges) in their efforts to justify certain political agendas.

It is important to know that the Federalist Papers are NOT:
- the Constitution, nor
- an amendment to the Constitution, nor
- a supplement to the Constitution.

But rather the Federalist Papers were Topics of Debate during the development of the Constitution (of course we all know that they were essays written by various very important historians, yes yes). And as they were topics of debate, some of the points from those essays were approved ( by the other Constitutional Convention participants and the debating public), but other points were disapproved.

If you find something in the Federalist Papers, that happens to not be in the Constitution, there is a reason for it: it was disapproved by the collective of the Constitution authors … in other words, they specifically don’t want it in the Constitution. … it was voted out.

However, if you insist on quoting certain parts of the Federalist Papers to justify your political agenda, then be sure to also quote these things as well:

  • Federalist No. 2: “the people must cede to (the government) some of their natural rights”
  • Federalist No. 84: “… bills of rights … are not only unnecessary … but would even be dangerous.”

Recklessly quoting these is misleading, and not understanding that these papers were debate points is where you may be going wrong.

It took Reagan 5-1/2 years to get unemployment under control

It took Reagan 5-1/2 years to get unemployment under control.

He began with about a 7.5% unemployment (seasonably adjusted), and 4 years later it was roughly the same, but only after a huge spike. Then it was about level for another 1.5 years, and finally it starting coming down.

Most of what the republicans say is true … but there’s a twist

Here’s the thing: most of what the Republicans say is true.

The problem is that usually:
- their truths are not the only truths (on many political and social issues multiple sides of the coin can land face up simultaneously),
- their truths are often only true if other important considerations are not considered.

If you are a Republican repeating the Republican mantra, you are Wrong, even though most everything you say is true.

Upstate South Carolina to be annexed back to Catawba Indians

A re-patriation effort has begun on behalf of the Catawba Indians by the United Nations. The Catawba Indians ceded their land in 1840 to South Carolina in a contested treaty that has never been validated by the United States.

The UN proposes the new territory to become the newest internationally recognized independent state and to be called Catawbistan. The tentative plan currently has the support of the UN Security Council. The re-claimed territory will return nearly all of the Catawba’s original national land back to the Catawba tribe.

most of the original Catawba territory will be recognized by the UN as Catawbistan

The UN has suggested a 10-year plan for removing the current residents of Upstate South Carolina, many of whom have been residing and farming their upstate lands for many generations. The lower-state cities of Aiken and Columbia, SC are expected to be the primary beneficiaries of the population move, estimated at roughly 2,000,000 persons.

———————————————————-
This ‘news post’ is of course a fiction, a metaphor. For me, personally, I have struggled for a long time to understand the Israeli/Palestinian issue, and maybe, more importantly, how that issue affects muslims in the middle east – why they act so crazy.

This metaphor helps me to understand.

In this metaphor the Catawbas represent the Jews, who were relocated into their traditional homeland by the international community.

And the Upstate South Carolinians represent the Palestinians, who were forced to leave their homes.

And Americans, in general, who sympathize with the removed South Carolinians, represent the muslims throughout the middle east.

Pretend it’s Jan. 2009

Pretend it’s Jan. 2009 … what would you choose?

  • A – Great Depression.
  • B – Great Debt.
  • C – Great Fix.

Sure, everybody will say ‘C’. But think … what does it take to actually accomplish ‘C’? And here is an even more important question: how many years will a Great Fix take?

Suppose that in January 2009, our government was functioning like an efficient machine, both parties working together, and immediately it began working on a solution that required 3-5 years to accomplish. 3-5 years I said, because there would not be a way to fix our problems any quicker. Complete domestic and foreign policy changes were needed. So until those 3-5 years (or maybe even 7-10 years) were completed, what should the government have done? Should it have stranded people (that would equate to a Great Depression)?

A Solution to the Gay Marriage Question

In America our fundamental spousal construct is the marriage. The problem is that marriage is a religious concept, not a civil concept. And because our Civil State has adopted a Religious Ceremony as its fundamental spousal construct, other spousal-wannabe’s are running into walls.

The solution: remove Marriage as the fundamental spousal construct, and replace it with the Civil Union.

——————————————————-
This opens the door for many types of Civil Unions.

As it turns out, Marriage is a type of a Civil Union, so its ceremony will remain in tact, and unaffected by the civil union debate taking place in our democracy. The churches own Marriage: it is theirs.

Other possible types of Civil Unions:

  • the Las Vegas Elvis Civil Union
  • the bungee jumping Civil Union
  • the captain-of-a-ship Civil Union
  • the gay Civil Union
  • the human-mannequin Civil Union

… all of which are questionable in light of the religious doctrines that created marriage.

But in the hands of county-by-county democracy, who knows.

——————————————————-

Natural Roles in the Natural World, but in the Artificial World?

In the natural world, such as the jungle, the societal roles of children and adults are pretty natural: hunting (…for the children: learning to hunt), gathering berries and crushing them (…for the children: learning), building leaf-covered huts, etc. These tasks are at some core level in us instinctive.

On the other hand, in the artificial world, such as the suburban commercial district, roles are not so naturally instinctive: filing the blue copies in the executive file cabinet, and forwarding the pink copies to the inventory controller.

————————————–
None of us really have a choice about being born. We come out and immediately we are told that we have obligations. Well, that’s life. But the question is: what types of obligations can be expected of us? The key word is ‘expected’. It is certainly fair to say that mega-complex obligations are wanted of us.

Fair enough: society wants of me to build rockets using new physics that I invented while simultaneously investing in high-yield bonds … but can society expect that of me … expect?? After all, there is good reason to believe that my high-end multi-tasking in the industrialized marketplace is not natural, not instinctive, but rather the product of my upbringing, a specialized training, if you will, begun by my parents, and fostered by the schools that they put me in.

In my opinion society can only expect of me what is natural with respect to natural human instincts. Anything more is a bonus. And of course society can strive to foster the higher competency, but can not expect it of me.

Capitalism has many positive offerings, but it is a competition. And in a competition there will be losers.

To Have Guns, Freedom, and Safety Too

I’m a fan of qualified training. Any legitimate person should be ok being required to be trained … I would be fine with it.

healthy discussions lead to good things


Trainers would be certified by the NRA, but liable to civil and criminal courts for failure to uphold the appropriate standards set by legislatures as wanted by the voters. This is important because it establishes a check & balance between:

  • the NRA’s desire to spread guns, and
  • the public’s desire to have safe, qualified, responsible gun owners.


Basic gun ownership would require Level 1 training. Level 1 training would be geared toward the most fundamental of gun claims: protecting the home.

Included in Level 1 firearms training should be psychological evaluations and proper training about periphery issues such as storing the gun in the home. Level 1 might require 3 months of weekly sessions.


Concealed Weapons Permits (CWP) would require a higher level of training, specifically some type of Action-based Training, something that probably only military, police, and high end gun sportsmen ever get. Action-based Training might last another 1-3 months.

I feel this way about CWP because a CWP holder is implicitly saying, “I am taking my gun into the public, where all the action’s at, and if there’s action I’m going to pull my loaded weapon out into the public space with the intent to pull the trigger.” Therefore that person should have to prove that he/she can handle that action.