Follow by Email


Sunday, January 31, 2016

Mainstream media & religious voter guide issues are ridiculous.

Long title version: Mainstream & issues are rediculous

As explained above, the mainstream media does not talk about truly important issues (except for gun control), and as a result, many Americans do not think or talk about the real issues.

Now, non-religious American voters have it bad already, and I've seen almost all. However, I haven't truly seen it all yet until I started to look for Ron Paul's approval ratings and I've cam across was astounded at how they depicted Paul. 
I did some more searching into the site, and looked the "Beliefs", and "Platform" sections, and let's just say that just looking through those pages was mortifying for me.

As of Paul's foreign policy, I hate China's government too. With Russia, I am concerned about their influence in the world (lookup on how Russia may set up its own New World Order).
For Islam, actually, it's nowhere near the threat that many think it is, and would die even quicker if some of the activity propping up more radical sectors are removed.

The other issues are not only relatively insignificant from a secular standpoint, but also, I'd like to add that it is a violation of natural rights to force prayer or religious study or to limit speech except in extreme cases (ie non-educational videos depicting real abuse). Anyone who has done real research about internet pornography doesn't have such one-sided views on the issue, and would probably see the way its presented on the site as bogus.
I'd also like to mention that the "Under god" part was added way after the revolution, and you can read up on how the founding fathers were pro-secularism, and some even voice not-so-religious views (
(None of these images belong to me. All belong to their original creators. The sites that they came from are linked above.)
Though the "Under god" issue definitely is going to the the last one I'll get into becuase it is so small in comparison to the others.

The main problem that I have with these types of people is not their views; it is them wanting to use the force of the state to impose their views and way of life onto others.

I follow more of what Ron Paul's true believes becuase of his voting history, involvement in the truth movement and overall intelligence.

I should've seen this all coming; the stereotypical views of an American Christian Conservative. In reality, their attention to important issues (or lack thereof) is usually not all that different from their Atheist Liberal counterpart; often, they pick sides and people like a sports team and celebrity event.

We can go to all of the websites mentioned in the long version of this article's title, search up the issues mentioned in the videos above, and they have little to no talk about these issues. Other than foreign policy (at least sort've), the only important issue that they would actually talk about is gun control.

Now, what can we do about this? First, hunt down the email addresses of people running sites like the ones mentioned above, take aim, and shoot them with a link to this article (I do not like real-life violence).

Also, show people my playlist, "Revolution: An Instruction Manual", and share posts like
Thank you for reading this article. Please subscribe to my YouTube channel ( and support the channels I support, follow me on Pinterest (, Google+ (, support me and Ryan Dawson on Tsu (

Philosophy, morals & ethics: Best Interests vs Greater Good, which life code would you accept & what is patriotism

Just to let you know, this post will heavily involve politics. So, please click on the links wherever they are.

Best Interests vs Greater Good
I am getting a bit tired of people who use the terms and ideas of "Bests Interests" and "Greater Good" interchangeably, with hardly a second thought. So, I wanted to talk about the differences that I see between the terms:
Best Interests: something that someone WANTS.
Greater good: something that is the best for an individual and/or group, usually society has a whole.

I'm sure that there are plenty of people who believe that an individual's best interests are good for them. But, this isn't always the case.
For example, let's say an individual wanted drugs for nonmedical reasons. It would be in their best interests of this individual to be able to get drugs for recreational purposes. But it is the greater good for them to not get these drugs for nonmedical reasons. 
Now, I am willing to deregulate drugs to take criminals out of business and thus, end the drug war.

For people who are against drug use, I would compare this to "Killing a wolf with a knife", which meant that you didn't like it, but you had to take the wolf down, and you were unable to get your hands on a firearm to more quickly, conveniently, and humanely kill the wolf at the time. (This is a reference to "Ken Burns: The Civil War", when it was said that before the American Civil War, slavery in America was like holding a wolf's ears while it's trying to bite you; you didn't like it, but you didn't dare let it go.)

But, there are less simple issues.

For example, for the greater good, should we make all middle eastern countries get secular governments, or, for the people's best interests, if they want, let the people keep theocratic governments? Which way do you think we should go?

Similarly, for the greater good, should we try to change cultures to achieve gender equality, eliminate involuntary body modification, certain taboos, animal abuse and so on and so forth, or for the best interests of people, should we leave them pure and as they are? Which way do you think we should go?

Another example is Japan and its weapon laws; for the greater good of its people, should we repeal Japan's laws that restrict civilian ownership, possession, and use of firearms, ammunition, knives and swords, and maybe mandate weapon ownership? Or, for the people's best interests, keep the status quo? Again, which way do you think we should go?

This is a serious question that I want answered.

Now, which of the 3 life codes you accept:
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death.

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory my chains are broken.

Or, if neither satisfy you:
I will do what I must to keep the balance.
The balance is what keeps me together.
There is no good without evil but evil must not be allowed to flourish. 
There is passion, yet peace.
Serenity, yet emotion.
Chaos, yet order.
I am the wielder of the flame, the protector of balance.
I am the holder of the torch, lighting the way.
I am the keeper of the flame soldier of balance.
I am a guardian of balance.

Do NOT scroll below here until you're done reading this, did some thinking and decided with code to follow.

Surprise, surprise! This actually came from Star Wars. These are the codes of the Jedi, Sith, and Gray Jedi respectively. Personally, in this case, I would choose the middle road, and go with the Grey Jedi and the way they do things. The main reason for this is that I consider myself to be "Neutral Good" is becuase while I am willing to work with authorities for the greater good. But, depending on the circumstance (authorities wouldn't do enough about something, me and/or my group or the group I'm working with is unable to get necessary equipment to combat evil due to regulations, etc), I would bend or break the rules. For more details, read and

Some do criticise the Jedi, often for their rather questionable inner workings. Go see this for details.

What is patriotism?
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.” - Theodore Roosevelt, found credit of
(Skip to 5:50 for this one).

To me, in America and perhaps other places, the definition of the word "patriot" is sometimes a bit skewed. Often, I see that people who identify as socio-politically conservative also stick on the label "patriot", though I've seen people who identify as socio-politically liberal consider themselves "patriotic" for supporting Obama.
However, the people that I'm describing are often left wing/right wing tribalists; self-proclaimed conservatives hold beliefs that are, from the perspective of those who know the truth, not as clean-cut as they present themselves to be, and Obama supporters have no idea what Obama really did, and both usually have dismal knowledge of real issues.
I do not doubt that these people care for their country. It is just that I am critiquing how they care for their country.

Thank you for reading this article. Please follow me on Pinterest (, Google+ (, and subscribe to my YouTube channel (, and please support the channels I support.

Philosophy & social issues rant: Savage vs Civilized dichotomy, oversimplification, gray areas, collectivism, hypocrisy & double standards

Before you read this, just to let you know, I do NOT simply critique European culture; I also critique others a bit. If you are not going to read the ENTIRE article and read EVERY word, then you'll be spending your time better subscribing to blog posts than read this post.

And, I do NOT identify as liberal. For more information, go read Opening a can of bloodworms: In case you're making assumptions about me, read this before debating me on social media, plus my political identity & religious views. An open message to liberals & conservatives.

Also read: The broken/convoluted uses & definitions of "racist".

When it comes to who's considered "Savage" and "Civilized", especially by western social conservatives, things are painted like a classic wild west film; good guys (light hats) vs bad guys (dark hats). But in reality, any thinking person should know that life is not always going to be that clean-cut.

Now, I know that the culture of some groups in the east (or anywhere for that matter, of course) that I certainly feel are wrong (mistreating children, involuntary body modification, attacking outsiders, mistreating animals, etc). But, are all westerners are civilized they think?

Let's go back in history. Just like some other places, Europeans had their own fair share of conflict and human and animal rights abuses for hundreds of years. 
Fast forward to Christopher Columbus "discovering" the Americas (you can look up on how earlier Europeans came thousands of years before) and European colonialism, as usual, the European colonists had a clean-cut black-white belief that their culture, beliefs and lifestyle was the best. Sometimes, they had some respect for natives and didn't use much force. But often, they forced the Natives to adopt their beliefs and lifestyle (ie with forced religious conversion), or took them away against their will, which is, depending on who's involved and who's doing what, is worse than letting others do as they please as long as, again, they respect the rights of others.
Similar things have happened in the age of Islamic conquest, and now with Islamist militants and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Anyway, I am sure that many agree that forcing people do adopt your beliefs and lifestyle when they're not infringing on the rights of others, taking people and/or making them do work involuntarily, not allowing females to vote or hold political office, and so on and so forth isn't exactly considered civilized. 

Also, the way that "Savage" societies are depicted are often very collectivistic and rather rigid. While there are tribes and cultures that are quite violent and can be said to be savage to some extent, of course, this is not always the case. 
Let's take the Trobriand islanders, for instance. I've heard that they don't exactly wear a whole lot of clothes, and their views on human sexuality are, let's just say, very taboo in mainstream western culture (I prefer not to voice my views on this yet). And, they were, at least for the most part, in compliance with the declaration of natural rights, even more than their European counterparts whose ancestors, like in many other places, slaughtered each other and enforced collective punishment. An example was how German minorities in Poland were being treated horribly pre-World War 2, and how after Germany invaded to connect east Prussia with the rest of Germany and later take over the rest of western Poland (the Soviet Union got the eastern half), the German military also enforced collective punishment, even again lightly armed to unarmed civilians.
In the early 20th century and before, and maybe sometimes to this day by some individuals, the Trobriand islanders would be labeled as "savage". However, I don't think that they're violent (hardly at all in fact), have decent respect for the rights of others, and females are actually treated pretty well! Do you think that a society like that is truly "savage"?
Then again, the word "savage" can mean several types of people, with the ultra-violent being grouped in with those who had taboo belifs but were nonviolent and, for the most part, respectful to the rights of others.

I'm not so sure about most other people, but I think that acting morally and ethically is infinitely more important than dressing modestly and practicing abstinence (before marriage) is combined.

Then again, an irony of American Christian culture is that anything that has to do with sex (even fictional) is very taboo, yet violence is openly accepted (not that I disapprove of violent fiction). To give you an example, I've seen articles where people, say, are criticising sexual fiction, but I have seen almost no one criticising, say, stories about race wars.
A more direct example is seen here. People are using written law more than a personal sense of morals and ethics, see the Seventh Sister (the woman dealing with Ezra) interact with Ezra in a taboo way (as in her taste in guys being seen as strange in the eyes of the audience). But, nobody ever minds that the characters are trying to literally kill each other. I know that it's primarily intended to be a kid's show, but hopefully you'll get the idea.

In case I didn't make it clear earlier, having a 2-way-only system with nothing in between is not accurate, nor is it a good way to classify people. If you think so, then let me ask you this: do you eat the most healthy food for you every time you eat food, or do you eat unhealthy and eat pure junk food like a hog? That should give you can idea of what a false-dichotomy fallacy is like.

I can guess what you're thinking (that the guy who wrote this article hates western culture and thinks western society is savage). Actually, I never said that I entirely hated western culture or thought that all westerners are savages. In fact, I hold much of the philosophy and way of life held by many other Americans (this almost definitely came from my upbringing), although I create a little of my own (I can also take a pinch of a few select attributes of certain religions and certain cultures. There is no need to accept or reject cultures as a whole). There will almost always be an aspect or part of a culture that I personally have no respect for whatsoever (rather it be involuntary body modification, the use of pressure or coercion, the non-defensive use of force, etc).

Going on a little tangent, except for a divine being or deity (ie god) being offended or certain things acting as distractions, I have little understanding of how things such as the sexual revolution, an individual's sexual orientation, marriage legality, or something like that significantly contribute, if at all, to the rotting or degradation of society or how it makes families go bad or anything like that. My views on the issue of marriage is the same as StormCloudsGathering's stance which is explained on Gay Marriage Beyond the Debate, along with Ryan Dawson's, Jesse Ventura's, and Skallagrim's through the rest of the linked playlist. 

Now, to get even deeper, I'll mention how there are hardcore socio-political conservatives out there and how hypocritical their beliefs are. The following will just be examples of the fringe that exist.
Also watch: Racism in all Races.
Some believe in the use of force to prevent females from wearing a hijab, yet are inconsiderate to other people when open-carrying weapons. 
Some gung-ho individuals are opposed to any type of marriage other than a single male and single female marrying, and believe that homosexuals are an abomination and any type of sexual activity whatsoever other than reproduction is completely immoral. Yet, they think it is perfectly acceptable to go to Muslim schools and Mosques and spray them with flamethrowers and machine gun survivors, and take all Muslims who surrender, and use them as Sarlacc food (at the least) and would jump and cheer in joy at the sight of that happening.
(Note: the videos below do not need to be watched. They are simply bonuses, with the top one to to spice up the drama and the bottom one to provide information to people who aren't familiar with the Sarlacc.)

(Could also mention the crazy events of World revolution & War stories.)
Okay, that was a bit extreme (and some can say dramatic), but hopefully you get the idea. Remember, I am not saying that all conservatives are this bad, this is just to give you an idea of the extreme fringe. I've also met quite a few more sensible and moral/ethical conservatives.

Onto more extremes.

On one end of the spectrum, there are Ron Paul, StormCloudsGathering and Martin Luther King type of Christians who are not only rational, but also, sincere and respect the rights of others. On the other end, there are the Adolf Hitler type who if not irrational (there is a difference between irrationality and evil; watch "Is Evil Rational?"), are not so sincere and severely disrespect the rights of others. There are also the Fred Phelps-like type of Christians who show views that I just talked about (not that Phelps holds every single one of them) and support the Republicrat Republican party.

On one end of the spectrum, there are the Malala Yousafzai type of Muslims who wouldn't hurt a Mosquito, and have full respect for the rights of others (even though she is slightly naive in my opinion becuase of her overly-pacifist views.), plus the Tarek Fatah types who have a clue about what's going on around them. On the other end of the spectrum, there are the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi types of Muslims who believe in and seek world domination.

On one of of the spectrum, there are the Albert Einstein type of Jews who are moral and ethical. On the other end, there are the Rothschilds type of Jews who seek world domination.

On one end of the spectrum, there are the Ryan Dawson type of Atheists who are rational, sober minded, moral and ethical. On the other end, there are the Josef Stalin type of Atheists who are, if not crazy, are just plain evil. And there are the American "LiberalDempublican Democrat tribalists who fussed about things that Bush did, yet became quiet about their politician's crimes and have contributed to turning Occupy Wall Street into a controlled opposition movement, not to mention labeling themselves as "Progressive" but are scared to bring real change if it meant not doing it the traditional way (using force against the government), even if it was non-violent and value obeying the government over protecting humanity.

On one end of the spectrum, there are the Mahatma Ghandi type of Hindus who would never use violence, especially outside of the defense of self or others, and promote tolerance for those who respect the rights of others. On the other end, there are the Nathuram Godse type of Hindus that are pretty much the opposite.

On one end of the spectrum there are the Dalai Lama type of Buddhists who are sincere and will only use violence for the defense of self and/or others. On the other end, we have the anti-Muslim Buddhists is Burma/Myanmar who enforce collective punishment and doesn't even give due process to those being persecuted or targeted.

Similarly, there are Muslims who abhor non-related and unmarried males and females being near each other, and believe in involuntary bodily modification (ie circumcision), yet think it is perfectly fine to kill those who don't follow their exact belifs or criticise their belifs and ignore verses 95:4, 4.119, 40:64, 23:14, 27:88, 32:7 and 80:17-19, which restrict body modification.

There are Jews who think that it is unacceptable to even question the Israeli government, yet view themselves as the best people in the world to the extent that all gentiles and other Jews who don't agree enough should be enslaved and celebrate the killing of gentiles.

There are Hindus who think that is is wrong to hang be anywhere near anyone of a different social caste yet think it is perfectly fine or even good to slaughter their daughter for some dubious (or in my view, outright immoral, unethical and astronomically archaic, and outdated) "honor" reason or refusing to take part of involuntary marriages (yes, there are parts of almost every culture that I have no respect for whatsoever. Like I said before, I am not as politically correct as some people perceive me).

And so on and so forth. Hopefully you'll get the idea.

I'd also like to throw in Colion Noir's opinion on the NFL not allowing a Daniel Defense advertisement, which is described as "It's like teaching a 15 year old how to cook meth, pin prostitutes and gamble, but then beat him for picking his nose" (not that I have a problem with the latter 2). Or, if I were to say it, "It's like teaching a teenager how to cook meth, grow non-medicinal drug plants, smuggle dope and steal things, but then beat their teeth out for picking their nose".

What I feel like what goes on in American politics is that some conservatives (and a few liberals) give those who disagree with them 2 middle fingers and a big "F*** U!!!" type of attitude and ego (which may explain how people such as Ted Nugent or Donald Trump get popular). I guess that this just might be a part of why we get so little done in politics and social issues.
(Start at 3:38.)

"You treat someone like an animal long enough, and they're going to act like an animal." - TheYankeeMarshal, from the "My Thoughts on the Baltimore Riots".

Thank you for reading this article. Please follow me on Pinterest (, Google+ (, and subscribe to my YouTube channel (, and please support the channels I support.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

No anti-gun person can defeat this article: the ultimate argument for the human right to self-defense & to keep & bear arms & armor, & ultimate critique of weapon control

Most of the following will be my paraphrasing based on two videos, called "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control" & “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part one will be mostly from "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control", while part 2 is more based on “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part three will be of my own creation. Everything is of my opinion. By no means is this article meant to represent the views of any other individual or group. BEFORE YOU READ, let me just tell you that I do NOT associate myself with the left-right paradigm like many other people do, I consider myself an agnostic-atheist, & I do NOT believe that entertainment media causes violence. I am NOT calling for an immediate overthrow of the government, for reasons explained in a video called “So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government?”. Also, PLEASE make comments. If you agree with this article, PLEASE share it to every single gun control advocate you know.

Part 1: A lot of people agree that we all have inalienable rights, which are rights which should not be taken away. Just to name a few, many agree that we all should have the right to access clean water, good food, peacefully assemble, speak without fear, practice religion (as long as others are not affected negatively) (&, at least to some of you, maybe even be helped or taken care of when necessary) & so on & so forth. But there's a right we often forget; the right to the defense of self & others, & thus, the right to keep & bear arms & armor. The strange thing about rights, is that, they are actually boundaries. Freedom of speech, for example, can't exist unless boundaries are established to prevent those in power from harming or imprisoning those who speak against them. But who's ultimately responsible for upholding those boundaries? You may believe you have to right the speak. But what happens to those rights when a group of armed men start moving from building to building, home to home injuring, killing &/or kidnapping those who disagree with them.

This exact scenario unfolded over & over again throughout history. It keeps repeating not really because history has been forgotten, but rather it hasn't been properly understood. What if the people who are the victims of the exact same scenario had a fighting chance?
You believe that the government should have the monopoly on force. But in reality, the gang of armed men that I described often IS the government.
It was the governments of the world which were responsible for the genocides, ethnic cleansings, & mass murder of civilians. It was the governments who exterminated political & religious dissidents. It was the governments which built the concentration camps & secret prisons. It was the governments who committed the worst crimes against humanity. Governments have been shown to be the most corrupt, most ruthless organizations on the planet. Even all of the worst mass shooters combined can not even come close to the scale of damage overpowered governments have caused. 
According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, in the 20th century alone, bad governments have killed an estimated 262 MILLION civilians. That is, shockingly, 6 times more than soldiers, in ALL pre 21st century wars, COMBINED. So they killed more mostly unarmed or lightly armed civilians in 100 years than military personnel in tens of thousands. Government may be a good thing for a large, technologically advanced society. But everything they give can be taken back. Thus, this is why I believe we need at least some form of hard "tyranny insurance" that could be used if all else fails.

When the people have no means of defense, the government has no real boundaries. We can not simply hope that their minions (often military & law enforcement who obey) to disobey. That only allows the process to start all over again. You may believe that government may be free of corruption, but in reality, positions of power attracts tyrants, bullies & psychopaths like manure attracts flies. It always has, & always will. Government attracts these types of individuals because of power over others. And for the icing on the cake, they get a paycheck! What more can such an individual possibly ask for?
Some people try to sidestep this issue by wanting things such as a stronger United Nations: essentially, a global government to keep the rest of the world in line. But this underscores a deep misconception. That will also attract tyrants, bullies & psychopaths like manure attracts flies. Again, for icing on the cake, they also get a paycheck! Do I really have to repeat that?

There's quite a few examples today that the U.N. & modern communications is not enough. Look at the Rwandan genocide. Look at the genocide going in Darfur & the violence in Gaza right now. The drone attacks Pakistan & other parts of the middle east being part of the fuel for terrorism.
Look at the very government the United States is living under right now, which is already brought out by corporations, foreign lobbies & international banks: the "Patriot" act, giving law enforcement the ability to search a home or business without the owner's consent or knowledge & access to business, library & financial records. National Defense Authorization act gives the military the ability to arrest, kill &/or hold literally ANYONE with NO trial & COMPLETE IMPUNITY. The CIA has conducted mind control experiments, where the CIA has conducted what it exactly sounds like. The Guatemala syphilis experiment & Tuskegee syphilis experiments, which you can do research on yourself, Where in the former, people often took part involuntarily, & in the latter, people were lied to. Oakville, Washington clear blobs, a probable government experiment. Department of Homeland Security buying about 1.6 billion buckshot shells & hollow point bullets, which are too expensive for training, but good for fighting, & the latter is banned for use in war, but perfectly legal for use on civilians, & besides, the DHS only works domestically. In the past, the U.S. government has, at best, negligently, & at worst, intentionally killed its own civilians, like in the Ruby Ridge & Waco sieges, & has knowingly killed civilians, like in the drone strikes going on for years. Nothing is a conspiracy.
Tell me what the United Nations is doing about all of this. Show me where in school's history books is this highlighted in. TELL MEE!!! Now how much trust do you have in them now to do anything real? NO! Lookup an article called "The United Nations Exposed: Who Is In Control?" to see who's really in control of the UN. Again, hardly an unbacked conspiracy.

There are historically & factually accurate examples of letting the wolf guard the henhouse (or having politicians being told to not mistreat their people & have no one other than themselves or people who are controlled by them enforce the rules). We should NOT solely rely on laws & the legal system: you can read up on how, on paper, people living in places such as the Soviet Union & communist China might've had rights on paper, but not in practice. This is what I mean by letting the wolf guard the henhouse: how are we sure that they're not going to break the rules? And how are we sure that if they do break the rules, how do we make sure that they get a sufficient consequence?

Once the types of individuals described get in, who would you turn to? You can not get safety by giving more of your power & rights away to someone else. The root of the problem is a total monopoly on force. The solution is to give NO MONOPOLIES PERIOD. We as humans simply are not mature enough to deal with that type of temptation. True power balance MUST be maintained. The right to self defense is that counterbalance. It is the boundary which truly makes other rights possible. We are ultimately the ones responsible for protecting ourselves & each other. However, the right to defense is meaningless without the MEANS of defense; this is when the right to keep & bear arms & armor comes in. This is why I believe the right to defense of self & others, & to access arms & armor is a core right of all animals (even non-hostile extraterrestrials), including humans no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender identity, national origin, color &/or other characteristics.
(Note; this video is continued in "Gun Control is Genocide")
Part 2: people who are rational, sober minded & follow a code of ethics & morals neither seek out nor create violence & de-escalate it at every chance. This should be how all people operate, especially those who are armed. Perhaps the best people we can find are those who despise violence, but are willing to unleash it on violent predators if they have no other way to stop the predator(s). The right to the defense of self & others should not be selectively right for some people, such as law enforcement officers & military personnel while selectively wrong for others, such as average people who do not commit violence. Besides, in my view, law enforcement officers & military personnel are just citizens granted permission and extra (but not unlimited) power by we, the average people. Law enforcement should directly protect our communities while the military provides an external defense, only to be deployed directly in communities if absolutely necessary (in situations such as disasters, invasions, major civil unrest or a crisis in that manner). Private security should protect private property & cover when law enforcement is unavailable. Fugitive recovery/bail enforcement & surety agents/bounty hunters should hunt down criminals at least in certain circumstances.
A lot of people would agree that it is right to cause pain, injury or even death to a violent psychopath who had already killed multiple people & intends on killing more. But a question that confuses some is rather or not it is right to do it to people, rather they be regular people, or a law enforcement officer or military personnel. While this may sound scary & be controversial, yes, it is the right thing to do rather or not someone is wearing a uniform. Law enforcement officers & military personnel are still human beings. They, like pretty much all human beings, are not perfect, & can still go bad, just as any other person can.

To round part two up, & science people may like this part, as explained in “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”, many plants & animals practice their right to self defense. Cacti, for example, have sharp spines which teach animals to stay away. Similarly, porcupines have spines which do the same. A bird that uses a ranged defense mechanism is the Southern Grey Petrel, which had a stomach which produces wax esters & triglycerides, which can be projectile vomited onto predators. Some Tarantulas what’s called “urticating hairs/bristles”, which can be flicked off into the air at a target using their rear legs. These hairs can irritate, & could even be lethal to small animals. Many species of insects have chemical weapons at their disposal. The Bombardier Beetle, for example, uses thermal chemical reactions to launch a boiling, noxious chemical spray in rapid pulses from special glands in their abdomen. Some ants (specifically, Wood ants) can spray acid. Some Geckos can fire a black or pale sticky fluid from glands in their tail for distances up to about a meter with good aim. The Spitting Cobra can spray venom from forward facing holes in their fangs, spitting up to 1.5 meters. The California ground squirrel has been known to fight predators such as snakes by kicking dirt into their eyes. Elephants have been known to throw various objects.
Some primates, including humans, have been known to throw various objects. And, as a bonus, I’ll mention that Turtles & Tortoises, along with shellfish, have protective shells, which is animal body armor, if you will. Nature's equivalent to today's bullet resistant vests.
Why is this important? A lot of politicians say that they want the human species to be disarmed. Though not only is this within itself is a violation of an inalienable right, but also, it is not possible to fully disarm every last human on the planet. To disarm people, the people doing the disarming must be armed, & thus it becomes more like power re-distribution than disarmament.
For example, let's say that the controllers of Place X wish to implement rules to restrict people from possessing functional weapons. To do this, they must must hire an enforcement arm (military, law enforcement, etc), WITH WEAPONS, to control others from having weapons. Someone must be armed: is is extremely unlikely to virtually impossible that everyone will be unarmed.

Part 3: so you think that a democracy (or republic) will always be sterile of corruption? Democracy is as sterile of corruption as religious holy books are of violence. Though this may sound cliche, I have changed this argument around, let's look at Nazi Germany. The Weimar republic was in a bad situation from the end of World War one to the start of Nazi Germany. Then Adolf Hitler came up, promising the people a lot of good stuff would come when he was in power. Guess what? He goose stepped his own people into a history of bloodshed. He disarmed everyone EXCEPT for the so-called "master race", which made it easier to kill Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political enemies, & so on & so forth. Adolf Hitler came from the right. Josef Stalin came from the left. Yet both were capable of doing the exact same thing. Not to mention how easily votes can be rigged & how easy it is for politicians to lie their way through anyway.
Part 4: Some make the argument that the weapons possessed by civilians is little to no match to those possessed by the government. However, not only do many of the individuals who use this argument have little to no law enforcement or military experience, & often don’t have much knowledge, or at least don’t think deeply think about history. Just ask people from Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, & Afghanistan just to name a few. Guerrilla forces from these nations, along with various criminal & resistance fighter alike (often from third world countries) resisted often better equipped militaries, & succeeded. Sure, in some cases they did get help from external sources (communist bloc governments supplied communist Vietnam during the Vietnam war while the United States government supplied anti communist Afghanistan), but neither the less they won. Besides, anti armor & anti aircraft weapons can be captured from government armories & military units. Things such as aircraft, armored vehicles & artillery are often meant for SUPPORT & will NOT guarantee victory. I will not deny that technology will be a factor, but it definitely is not the only factor. It is not easy for military or law enforcement units to keep fighting when they gain little to no progress for their hard work. Besides, the target isn't really the armed forces or law enforcement, but the politicians who caused the wreck in the first place.

I’ll wrap this part up with some quotes. Most from good people, others (Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler) being some of the most evil people short of their bosses (like some big international bankers, not that I intend to end all international banking). And I know that Malcolm X. WAS racist against whites, though eventually he changed his mind.

"Concerning 'nonviolence' - it is criminal to teach people not to defend themselves, when they are the victims of constant brutal attacks." 
"I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence." 
"Non Violence is okay as long as it works." 
"If you have a dog, I must have a dog. If you have a rifle, I must have a rifle. If you have a club, I must have a club. This is equality." - Malcolm X.

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — The Dalai Lama.

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” - Thomas Paine.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” - Martin Luther King.

"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." - Ron Paul.

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” –James Burgh.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” — Adolf Hitler.

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” - Mao Zedong.

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

You can verify all of these with Brainyquote & Goodreads.

Part 5:
Nope; the video that came before this can be found on Also, please watch a video called "Gun Myths- Part 1: More Guns Equal More Death".

Concerning the types of weapons used in violent crime & overall numbers: despite what the entertainment industry would have you believe, in 2013, rifles accounted for LESS than 290 deaths, according to the FBI's "Expanded Homicide Data Table 8". According to the same article, that year, shotguns were used to kill LESS than 310. Added up, long guns killed only 593 people that year. This is EVERYTHING that counts as a rifle (from low powered plinking rifles & single shots to high powered hunting rifles & semi-automatic "military style" rifles) or shotgun (from single shot .410 to semi-automatic 12-gauge) in statistics, so the deaths involving "assault weapons" are almost guaranteed to be even lower. Also, many want to restrict those while not mentioning cutting instruments & blunt objects, which account for 1,940 & 428 deaths respectively (then again, they're work tools). Altogether, firearm-related homicides accounted for a GRAND TOTAL of 8,454 people that year. Divide that by 290,000,000 and about 0.00002915172% of the population was, in homicide, killed with a firearm that year.

Also, many people tout the meme "more guns, more deaths". But how true is this? As seen in Wikipedia's "Gun politics in the Czech Republic" & in's information piece of the Czech republic, the latter of which has some of the lightest weapon laws in Europe (even compared to Switzerland), while the amount of guns went up over the last couple of decades & number of licenced gun owners peaking in 2001 & not changing much since then, crime went down. A similar case is also seen in Canada, in which, according to, in Canada, while the amount of licenced gun owners went up, homicide rates went the other way. Interestingly enough, while most rifles & shotguns are regulated less heavily than handguns in Canada, handguns are still more commonly used.

If more guns equals more deaths, then why is the U.S. #1 in guns per capita yet is actually does NOT even make it into the top 115 countries for homicide rate. Violence also varies. For example, Detroit, Michigan has a rather lengthy process to legally obtain functioning firearms (according to an article called "Gun Control Facts: Detroit Crime Rate is the Result Of Gun Control") & has a homicide rate so high that it would surpass El Salvador. However, there are places such as Chandler, Arizona that have light weapon laws & a low homicide rate.

Now, do you wish to keep our communities safe from crime & violence? Then we must address other issues, such as culture, economics, availability of services, education, substance (ie drug & alcohol) use, presence of chemicals, law enforcement effectiveness & even what counts as a certain crime & data manipulation just to name a few. There are places with a lot of guns that are not that violent, such as Kennesaw, Georgia (which requires every household to have a firearm) & Svalbard, Norway, which requires everyone to know how to use a rifle against polar bears. Restricting inanimate objects such as weapons (there are plenty of examples of homemade weapons & ammunition) is not enough to address the actual disease rather than the symptoms. 

If I had my way on weapon control, I may improve the background check system (specifically updating information about people), & make it illegal for a violent felon to own weapons or knowingly transfer weapons to violent felons. I'd only allow registration if an extremely high percentage (like 98+%) own suitable weapons. Though in the U.S., it's already illegal for felons to own functional firearms (except for antiques, airguns & crossbows, which are less regulated), I feel it is slightly overzealous (so people sometimes end up losing their right to keep & bear arms for a "white collar" crime such as, say, a fake insurance card vs a "blue collar" crime such as unjustified homicide). Along with this, I would take action against other causes of violence, such as the unnecessary use of physic drugs, which you can do research on how they can cause people to become violent. Finally, I would arm every law abiding able bodied person possible, which should prevent or at least cut down on the chances of power slipping into the wrong hands by distributing it.
While I would like to improve the mental health system, I would not block someone from the right, let alone the duty, the keep & bear arms (& definitely not armor) for being "mentally ill", for reasons explained in a video called "The Truth About Mental Illness and Guns", unless, they are obviously violent (though criminal background checks should already cover it & if someone wants an exception from the duty for reasons such as not trusting themself, being too mentally/psychologically damaged to use a weapon, etc). Part of this is that most people with mental illnesses do not do anything violent, nor are most violent people mentally ill, along with how tests can diagnose many people as "violent" or "mentally ill" on paper, but not in practice. Not to mention how people could get into the fear of being "blacklisted", then possibly stigmatized from merely being diagnosed with a symptom that would not provide a legitimate reason for putting them on such a list.
Do you want to support self defense and the right to keep and bear arms? Other than contacting politicians, visiting right to keep & bear arms rallies, liking or following social media pages dedicated to this and so on, there are many groups you can support. 
Non United States of America based;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Regional U.S.A. based;,,,,,,,,,

The author allows this article to be shared and used freely, as long as the original author is credited and no content is changed without permission. Translations are more than welcome.

Do you like my "Read if you're making assumptions about me" post?

Google+ Badge