The 2nd Amendment

 Regular readers know of my interest in shooting pistols and rifles.  I enjoy preparing for and shooting matches, as well as going to the range to decompress at the end of a tough day.  I've written several entries concerning gun violence and the AR-15, but what I've not done until now was comment on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.  As usual, buckle up, because I ain't gonna say what you think I am.

The 2nd Amendment is fairly brief and worded in an odd manner, with a comma in a really dumb place.  

"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."

But what the hell does that mean?  To reach that understanding requires a (hopefully) short history lesson.

First, during that period of time, it was common practice to keep a firearm for personal defense.  In fact, English law specifically allowed white protestant men to do so.  So, it was considered a given, with respect to being a personal freedom.  Also, Madison, Jefferson, and others endorsed retaining this freedom in correspondence amongst themselves.  

Militias

When the US won independence, our main fighting force consisted of militias from the colonies, each under command of a duly elected state leader.  These militias predated the Revolution and every fighting age man was required to serve, which meant drilling once or twice per month to ensure readiness.  The men were also obligated to own military grade muskets and appropriate uniforms.  Because these militias were wildly inconsistent in their capabilities, during the war, they were ultimately rolled under the command of George Washington, who built them into the cohesive force that defeated the British.  After the war, the various militias went home.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights

In 1787, our newborn country was attempting to get itself organized.  A bunch of smart guys spent a long summer sweating their asses off in Philadelphia hashing out what would become the Constitution.  The reason they were sweating was because it was summer and they kept the windows closed to prevent eavesdropping before the document was ready.  It might surprise you to learn the Constitution's ratification wasn't a slam dunk.  There were still those who wanted to remain a loose confederation of independent states, being justifiably afraid of a government that could do as it pleased.  But it did get ratified and life was good, right up to the point where the TJ, Jamie Mads, and the boys realized they'd screwed up by not including specific rights of the citizens.  Creating and ratifying the Bill of Rights wasn't a cake walk.  Those who took part in drafting the Constitution weren't in the mood to spend another summer in Philadelphia, sweating their asses off with the windows closed.  However, after much campaigning by James Madison, another meeting was convened.  

Many hours were spent narrowing down the various amendments to the ten that ultimately made up the Bill of Rights.  Some were written from a blank sheet of paper, whereas others were adapted from the various states' constitutions.  The Second Amendment falls into the latter category, having been mostly copy pasted from the Massachusetts constitution.  The adaptation and word jockeying is why it's so poorly written.  

A Standing Army

Because of how challenging it was to deal with separate militias, in the face of a large enemy, the Founding Fathers decided the best course was to establish a standing army, and included such provisions in the Bill of Rights.  This scared the hell out of many, because a centrally commanded army could easily be the enforcers of tyrannical central government like the one they'd just defeated.  Therefore, there were many influential men who wanted to preserve the states' rights to maintain their own militias as a check against this.  The Second Amendment did just that.

Second Amendment Meaning

Again, the Second Amendment was written solely to preserve the rights of the states to maintain militias, conferring no rights to individuals, except in the context of those serving their state militias.  Further evidence of this can be found in The Federalist Papers.  These were a series of eighty five anonymous "letters to the editor" written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and published in numerous newspapers, mostly in New York.  Their purpose was to expound on the reasons ratifying the Bill of Rights was so crucial as well as to allele the fears of the citizenry.  Again, the idea of a central government remained a scary thing to many in 1789.  The Second Amendment were only mentioned in articles 29 and 46, both of which referenced militias, omitting any allusion to a personal right to keep firearms.  Yes, I've read a lot of stuff on the subject!

In conclusion, based upon what I've read in various source material, I'm convinced the Founding Fathers considered personal ownership of arms for protection to be an uncontested norm of society.  Therefore, they didn't feel it needed to be enshrined in the Constitution.  However, the Second Amendment does not confer that right, which was confirmed no less than three times by the Supreme Court.  

As a footnote, that changed in 2008, with the Heller decision.  I've read the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia and it's a hack job.  The supposed originalist went off the reservation with more recent material that he misinterpreted.  But, it's the law of the land now, regardless of the Founding Fathers' intent.  And yes, I'm keeping my guns.

Record Profits By Evil Companies!!!

 Gotta get something off my chest about a type of news story that jacks my nads, the RECORD PROFITS proclamation.  This is usually tied to an industry that the news outlet wishes to vilify, either subtly or more overtly. Big oil is a typical target, and they've been attacked recently.  But a recent news story made a massive deal about how gun manufacturers have enjoyed record profits, while children were being slaughtered in schools.  How evil of them for getting fat off their products killing kids.  Before I go any further, it might be helpful to understand earnings and profits.  

Here's a simplified example:

If I sell something for $100 and make 40% gross margin on it, my profits / earnings are $40.

If customers buy 10,000 of this item, I make $400,000 profit (earnings) with $1million in revenue.

However, if my demand dramatically increases, and I sell 75,000 units, my revenue is $7.5million and I earn $3million.  In reality, my earnings would be greater, because I'm buying raw materials at better rates, due to the higher volume and more fully utilizing my factory, but let's not worry about that.

In case you missed it, Covid, civil unrest, and a Democrat being elected President drove gun sales through the roof last year.  Guns sold as quickly as they hit the shelves.  So, it should be of no surprise that Smith and Wesson shipped roughly 70% more firearms in 2021 than they did in 2020 with resulting revenue going from $530million to $1.1billion.  It doubled in one year!!!  So, of course their profits hit record highs because of math.  But not not one of these stories mention revenue increasing.  

So, the next time you hear a story about how some industry, who the outlet wants you to find nasty, has made record profits (with no mention of sales or revenue), you'll know it's likely a hit piece.  Not as though demand for petroleum has gone sky high with the pandemic over and costs have remained low...

Evangelicals, Abortion, and Other Contentious Subjects

Anyone who's read my blog knows I'm not a fan of organized religion.  My "position piece" on the subject is here.

I'm back to call out some of the most recent hypocrisy and generally offend fundamentalists, because I haven't offended enough of them this week.

I'll start with the contentious topic at the moment, abortion, where being completely up front, I think it's a woman's choice because it's her body.  Full stop.  

Of course, evangelicals scream that it's murder and life begins at conception.  Science says otherwise, but why do they hold such a position?  Their cherished book makes no mention of abortion or when life begins, so why would anyone pay attention to an entity that's mostly ignored science as a matter of course (except when it suits them)?  That makes as much sense as asking a blind man to review a silent movie.  If it wasn't your god, then the position could have only come from the church leadership.   

The evangelical church really didn't weigh in on the subject until the late sixties.  In fact, before that time, some (SBC) were expanding access to abortion.  Then the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe came along.  The evangelicals live and die by their belief in the patriarchal structure, meaning the man is the leader, with his wife being subservient to him.  Evangelical leaders saw ERA and Roe as threats to the patriarchal structure.  Women would have power over both their bodies and paychecks; they could demand equality in the family!  

Evangelical leaders couldn't allow such a threat to exist.  They needed to solidify their power over the women in the church.  So they caucused and decided God considered life to begin at conception and abortion was murder.  Who knew that God could change his mind like that?

This is one of reasons I despise organized religion.  The supposed word of God has been perverted and twisted so many times by power hungry white dudes, that there's no way it can bear any resemblance to true Christianity at this point.  Lest their be concern I fabricated these events, I highly suggest reading Jesus and John Wayne, by Kristin Du Mez.  She's an Evangelical scholar and pastor.  Even as an atheist, I found the book to be quite interesting.  She pretty much admits what I've been thinking for decades, which is literally everything the church does is about power.  

While I may seem pretty raw on this subject, I hold a great deal of sympathy for Christian women who've been betrayed by their church.  They've been manipulated for decades by men not fit to lead their flocks and it will certainly shake the core beliefs of those who finally wake up to the fact.  But the fact remains abortion was accepted by the church until they felt the need to tighten control over women.  

Evangelicals endorse having the baby and "taking personal responsibility", "rising to the occasion", and all that other bullshit.  That's a lovely idea, but expecting sixteen year old's to become adults overnight is pretty fucking unrealistic.  Let's say the new mother does make that leap, but has no support structure.  Evangelicals can't fathom this because they have the whole klan of cousins and spouses (who are typically one and the same) to help out.  In any case, if she doesn't have that safety net, she's not getting one from the right wing.  "Get a job."  Okay, how about some assistance for child care, because the kind of job an uneducated new mother can capture won't pay enough to cover half of that burden.  If those making these horrible laws truly believed in the sanctity of life, they wouldn't abandon fetuses after they pop out of the womb. 

Ultimately, I think most Republican politicians could give two shits about abortion.  You know damned well most of the men have knocked up at least one impressionable girl and paid to make it go away.  But they need the evangelical vote and abortion is a hot topic for them, at least it is now.   So they pander, laughing behind their backs.  Remember, with very few exceptions, your elected officials consider their only job to be reelection.  

A perfect example of this popped up in today's election news.  Mike Erickson has secured the Republican nomination for the House in Oregon's 6th district.  Here's a story about how gave a girlfriend $300, took her to the doctor's for the procedure, then later claimed he didn't know she was pregnant or having an abortion.  Many Republicans seem to share a brain defect that either prevents them from being aware of their surroundings or forget things they said.  Are they really fit to govern this country?

To those evangelicals who are amazingly, still reading, I'd love to hear how you reconcile the (recent) belief that every life is sacred, but don't give a thought to tossing that life aside, once it leaves the womb.  Also, please explain why you consider abortion to be murder, when your church didn't until recently.  I'd really like to hear from women anti choice politicians, who are actively working to help men bring women under control.  Evil or fucking moronic; no other option for them.

Baby Formula

 There's no other way to say this than the folks blaming the Biden administration for the baby formula shortage are clueless (those who know me should assume that word wasn't my first choice).  

We got here because Abbott Nutrition had to shut down their Sturgis, MI facility, which was producing tainted formula.  A point for Team Trump for removing a not insignificant number of FDA safeguards and dramatically reducing inspections.  Another point for Team Trump for putting protectionist measures in place that make it virtually impossible to import baby formula.  This is what the current administration is working on overcoming now.

But the FDA should have done more!!!  Like fucking what?  They shut down production of tainted product to prevent further infant deaths.  But they should have known this would cause an issue!!!  Newsflash, it's not the government's job to monitor capacity of a product, versus demand.  

Why was there a capacity issue in the first place and why didn't other manufacturers have extra capacity to take up the slack?  The baby formula market is controlled by three players, Abbott, Nestle, and Mead-Johnson, making it a controlled monopoly.  These companies' respective market shares have remained pretty static, with each of them enjoying some portion of various government programs (read fixed price).  And there's little any can do to capture significant market share from the others.  Baby formula has strict standards and takes a lot of work for new products to be approved by the FDA.  For damned good reason; it's for babies.  Unlike something like an automobile, where demand is variable, being impacted by economic conditions, adoption in developing countries, etc., demand for baby formula is known because it's directly tied to the birth rate.  Not as though there's an emerging market for it hiding somewhere.  And the birth rate in the US has been declining for decades.  At the end of the day, you have a product with incredibly static and declining demand, that you don't make much margin on.  Anyone at these companies who endorsed adding capacity would be fired for being incompetent.

So there it is, the perfect storm that got us where we are.

For the cherry on top, yesterday, the House voted on a measure that would make it easier on mothers who rely on subsidies (which is most of them) to get formula for their babies.  It shouldn't surprise you that the Republicans, who've been screaming loudest about how badly the administration fucked this up, voted against it.  Fucking pieces of shit continue to prove how they only care about controlling women and not actual children.  

Guns Revisited

 With recent events, I thought it a good time to revisit what I wrote on gun control, along with some additional thoughts.  Before I go any further, let me say that I'm saddened and outraged at what that piece of shit did in Buffalo.  The kid was a sociopath, but the blame for this falls firmly at the feet of Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and the right wing media.  A good chunk of piece of shit's manifesto was lifted right from Tucker Carlson and others promoting replacement theory, among other lies.  So, to all of you MAGA morons, go fuck yourselves.  Do the rest of the country a favor and bump that suicide rate, because you fucking deserve it for buying into the utter stupidity being thrown at you.  You're not conservatives, but fucking racist, misogynistic inbreds who continue to destroy our society.  Yeah, I'm fucking livid...fucking Trump managed to completely pervert what it means to be to be a conservative and has left the world worse off.

Also, lest you have any doubts this heinous act wasn't racially motivated, take note of how the shooter avoids shooting the white guy hiding between the registers and actually apologizes to him.  Below is a link to the footage.  I'll warn you that it's incredibly disturbing.

Shooter's Video

Mass Homicides

We'll start with the stats on mass homicides (I may use mass shootings interchangeably, because frankly it's easier to type), which is defined as an event involving a firearm that results in four or more deaths.  These events are the ones that grab the headlines and bring the most outrage.  Mother Jones maintains an excellent database of these events, that includes a lot of detail on the shooter, weapon used, etc.  Links to that and the FBI database I'll refer to will be at the end.  Also, I've stopped with 2019, because with everyone under lockdown in 2020, there weren't really opportunities for mass anything.

The data says there have been 102 mass shootings since 1982, resulting in in a total of 918 deaths.  If we break the data into time periods, an alarming trend emerges.  Between 2000 and 2009, there were 171 mass shooting deaths, versus 482 the following decade.  The number of mass shootings more than doubled as well.  Because Mother Jones' database lists the firearms used in each event, we can determine how many deaths were the result of the shooter using an AR-15 / AK. military style rifle.    Assuming any unspecified semiautomatic rifle to be an AR-15 or AK, that number for 2010-2019 is 254, or half of the the deaths from mass shootings.  The decade prior saw 5 mass shootings, using these weapons, with a death toll of 33, and 2 in the 80's, with a total death toll of 15.  This is reflected in average number of deaths per event, which peaked in 2017 at almost 20, although it's been in the single digits since 2018.  Clearly, the AR-15, along with the AK platform, represent a serious threat, with respect to mass shootings.  I'll dig into the AR-15 in the second part because there's a lot about this gun I'm sure most aren't aware of.  Worth noting is how Joe Biden is responsible for the AR-15's popularity.

Overall Firearm Related Homicides
Back to the stats.  Before we jump to any conclusions, based on the mass homicides, let's put some context around them.   According to FBI statistics, the total number of firearm related murders, from 2012 through 2019, was 78,162.  That's a pretty astonishing number, which we'll dig into a bit later, but the positive thing is it's been trending downward since 2017.  If we compare mass homicides with total homicides, using firearms from 2012 through 2019, the former represents roughly 0.6% of the total deaths noted above.  I'll say that again; mass shootings represent less than 1% of all gun related homicides.  For additional context, there were 60% more murders in Chicago (where you can't legally buy a gun) last year than mass shooting victims in the same time period.  

Again, please don't take my comments as being dismissive, but the fact is that, while mass shootings get all the headlines, they're statistically a footnote in the bigger picture.  Quite frankly, it would be dumb to base legislation on something of this magnitude, or lack thereof.  

Digging into the FBI numbers a bit more, another story begins to emerge.  The FBI statistics break down homicides by weapon.  I'm happy to report strangulations are trending seriously downward, whereas murder using explosives is showing growth, although not quite, um, explosive growth.  Firearms numbers are further broken down by type: handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.  There's also a category of 'Firearms, type not stated', which I find problematic, considering it's over a quarter of the total.  Looking at unmanipulated numbers, in 2019, handguns represented 62% of the 10,258 firearms related homicides, but were trending downward from 68% in 2013.  Rifles were only 4%.  Back to the not specified bucket, I think it would be cherry picking to not divvy that up a bit (although the Daily Caller had no issue doing so), knowing how much AR-15's have proliferated recently.  I went with 20% for rifles, which caused them to jump to 10% of firearm homicides in 2019, or 1,020 fatalities.  Taking supposition a step further, we'll err on the high side and say military style rifles account for 60% of that.   Military style rifles only accounted for 6% of firearms related homicides in 2019.  This is the first time when you ask yourself what impact banning such rifles would have on overall gun violence.

So what can be done to decrease the number of firearm related deaths?  First, I think rather than focusing on what trigger is being pulled, attention should be focused why the trigger's being pulled in the first place.  Anyone with half a brain should be able to make that distinction.  Having half a brain myself, that's what I'll focus on.  First, I think that more and more people live solitary lives without support structures and succumb to mental illness leaving them feel hopeless or that the world is against them. On a side note, why is it the greater a boring loser someone is, the more they're convinced the government is spying on them?  But people feel less included and more disenfranchised as time goes by.  However, I also think too many people have been raised to be self absorbed little racist snowflakes and don't understand the word 'resilience'.  So many murders are to 'get back at someone' for shit that is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  Being disrespected is part of life; get over it.  Your significant other dumped you for your best friend?  Get over it and bang his mother, not shoot both of them, you moron.  How many of us were bullied as children, but the thought of killing anyone over such transgressions never crossed our minds?  My dad grew up in a rural area.  Almost every guy had a rifle or shotgun in their car, at school, because they all went hunting after.  If you had a beef with someone, it was settled with fists after school; no one ever grabbed a gun over whatever it was.  

Finally, there are those who want their fifteen minutes of fame and are willing to kill to get it.  Finally finally, shitty parenting has a great deal of impact, beyond raising snow flakes.  Two perfect examples of how decent parenting would have prevented mass shootings - Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened if the shooter's mother had half a brain and not tried to connect to her mentally ill son through shooting. (He shot her and took the guns)  The Columbine shooters were a couple of complete sociopaths that had exhibited plenty of warning signs ahead of that shooting.  Where the fuck were their parents?

Make no mistake, I'm completely behind universal background checks and other reasonable measures to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.  Universal should be emphasized here, because not all states perform their checks in the same manner.  NICS is the FBI's national background check system and, from what I've been able to uncover, queries their terror watchlist on each inquiry.  However, only 36 states currently use NICS, the remainder either carrying out checks at the state level or using some sort of hybrid model.  As someone pointed out, the Boulder shooter was on an FBI terror watchlist, yet still received approval to purchase his firearm.  Colorado isn't one of the 36, instead using their own homegrown system.  Had CO been a NICS state, the approval likely would have been denied, preventing another mass shooting.  Again, universal background checks are a good thing, are effective, and that's a no brainer.  

But other actions have to be taken to decrease gun violence or we never address the root cause.  Banning weapons, aside from it not working, sends the message 'we've given up on our society'.  We need to begin taking better care of each other or things will only get worse; gun violence will be the least of our concerns.  

Dodging the Covid Bullet, Timing is Everything, and That's NOT Fucking Gumbo

Rather than post three different entries, I'll encapsulate last week into one.  

First it was my first week with my new company and it was spent exploring a massive trade show in NOLA.  My company had a big booth, but my purpose was to wander around absorbing competitors, products, and all that happy marketing type shit.  My manager was with me for 95% of it, including dinner both nights we were there.  On a side note, I walked 5.3 miles one of the two days in non comfort rated but very nice Italian loafers and my feet / legs bitched the whole next day.  

Today was the first we'd spoken after the show and the first words out of his mouth were "how are you feeling?"  Turns out he'd gotten Covid at the show and was sick for a few days and was concerned I'd fallen victim to the virus as well.  He'd been vaxed and boosted, same as me, but for whatever reason, I escaped without becoming ill.

I was excited about being in NOLA again, because I could just eat my way through that city.  Emeril's flagship restaurant was right around the corner from our hotel, so that's where we headed for dinner the first night.  I'd eaten there before and it was excellent.  We were a bit concerned about getting in, but fate stepped in to assist.  We walked in to find two rotund gentlemen having a slightly heated conversation with the maître d, followed by them exiting the restaurant.  I stepped forward and said I'd like a table for two; no, we don't have a reservation.  The maître d responded "would you like theirs?  We wouldn't seat them because they're wearing shorts."  Sometimes, timing is everything.

We sat down and I was looking forward to having some gumbo.  Last I was there, Emeril's served a solid, traditional gumbo and I enjoyed it (because I fucking love gumbo).  My manager had never eaten gumbo, so I told him he had to try it, particularly here.  

If you've never had gumbo, it's built on a super dark roux and contains the holy trinity (onions, celery, and peppers), chicken, andouille sausage, and shrimp.  It should look something like this, which is damned close to what I'd been served last time at Emeril's:

What we were served was this:

That is NOT gumbo.  The sauce was tomato based and had nothing in it.  Instead, you can see the perfectly formed little island of rice in the center topped with a whopping two cold shrimp and some fucking green garnish.  I had a difficult time not asking the wait staff "what the fuck????" and probably would have if I'd been with a friend.  

If I were to guess, I'd say gumbo, which has very humble roots, didn't fit with their step up in fine dining that seems to have taken place since I was last there.  To which I say, take it off the menu instead of serving that abomination.  Praise where it deserves, the rest of the meal was excellent; my lamb was literally worth writing home about.  

To wrap up the update, it looks like I won't actually move until end of June; apparently movers are beyond slammed and that's the soonest they could work me in.  Could be worse; I could be staying in Kansas!

Republicans - Working Title

I'll start this entry with undisputed facts, then move on to my own opinions, which readers should probably treat as facts (joking).

The Republican party has always been the party of conservatism which, for the purpose of this entry, can be characterized as being pro capitalism, meaning the government should let business do what it wants to, allowing the open market to work on its own.  A conservative's greatest nemesis is big government and high taxes or tax and spend.  How well are today's prominent Republicans adhering to their own credo and practicing conservatism?  Let's review the recent actions of two prominent Republicans and see.  

I'll start with Ron DeSantis of Florida, who pushed through a bill to remove Disney's self-governing status.  For those who aren't aware, before Walt Disney broke ground on Disney World, he'd reached an agreement with the Florida government that would grant the property its own sort of independence.  This was important to Disney, because he didn't want to deal with a raft of approvals every time he wanted to expand and add attractions.  It worked out for the state of Florida, because Disney took on responsibility for all the things government does; water and sewer, road maintenance, law enforcement, the works.  Not to mention having Disney in Florida has boosted tourism (and tax dollars) dramatically.  In short, it's been a win win for both parties.  

The reason DeSantis wanted to revoke Disney's status is because they spoke out against his Don't Say Gay law.  No one in the Florida government has claimed otherwise.  As of next year, Disney will no longer have this self-governing status and be folded into the rest of the state.  Because of this, the tax burden of every Floridian will increase by over $2k.  

Moving west to Texas, Greg Abbott implemented a policy of inspecting the fuck out of trucks coming across the border from Mexico.  He did this as a response for the Biden administration allowing Title 42 to sunset.  Title 42 was drafted to keep the border mostly closed to immigrants as a response to Covid.  Abbott's policy ground cross border commerce to a halt, with trucks waiting up to 24 hours to reach Texas.  Abbott recently rescinded the order, but not before causing a $9 billion dollar hit to GDP and $240 million worth of food to spoil.

Again, the above is completely factual and I've linked source data to prove it so.  

My opinion is that Ron DeSantis is a complete piece of shit, who cares more about appealing to the racist, bigoted, homophobic, and xenophobic inbred idiots that Trump's base consists of.  Right wing idiots complain about cancel culture, yet this guy could be the poster child for it, retaliating against a company for speaking out against his horrible law.  I'll refrain from commenting on the law itself or the recent resurgence of homophobia and transphobia in the US, because that's an entry unto its own.  But I will say that if you've used the word "grooming" in that context, you're a moron and shouldn't breed.

Greg Abbott is no better than DeSantis, plus he's fucking stupid.  Effectively halting commerce across the US / Mexico border is flat out criminal.  Doing so because you're pissed about something else is inexcusable and despicable.  Biden's been seriously considering renewing Article 42 on its own merits, which he's not made a secret of, you fucking idiot.  

Both of these scumbags are pitiful excuses for human beings and deserve a watery grave, before they further damage the economy or the moral fabric of our country.   

What's the verdict?  Today's Republicans are no more conservative than Barrack Obama or Teddy Kennedy.  They've become like a bunch of petulant immoral sociopathic children, who don't give a shit whose livelihoods they destroy, so long as they get their way, then torture small animals.  They're more committed to retribution and blocking the current administration than to the principles they pretended to govern by.  Cheeto face likes to use the term RINO's (Republicans in name only) for those who don't agree with him, but DeSantis, Abbott, and their ilk are the true RINO's.  

So, for those who want to blame all of their woes on Biden, perhaps you should take a closer look at your leadership.  They're the ones who are driving prices up and making life more difficult for the average American.