Amendment Number Two

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.

As with most political issues, I'm very middle-of-the-road on gun control.  I have friends on both sides of this debate and can understand both points of view.  I think the first thing we need to do is look at the language and historical context of the amendment itself. 

A well regulated Militia: Regulated means "Controlled or Supervised by means of rules and regulations" and Militia has several meanings that might be applied here.  It can be a civilian military force, a rebel force that opposes a regular army, or all able bodied citizens eligible for military service.  

Being necessary to the security of a free state:  We need it to keep our hard won freedom.  

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms: "The People" is the crux of this section.  The People means all Americans, collectively.  Keep and bear arms means have and use guns. 

Shall not be infringed: Infringing on something is limiting or undermining it.

Paraphrased into more modern terminology, it says "Since we need a sort of civil army in case our government becomes oppressive, we shouldn't limit the collective American right to own and have guns."  Simple enough.  

But... and you know there is at least one... Is telling individuals they can't have an Uzi infringing upon The People's rights?    Is any given civilian a well regulated militia?  This is where the debate rages.  (Not that an actual debate would rage, but I digress.) 

Any comments on this blog or on links to this blog that fail to retain a civilized tone 

WILL BE DELETED. 

1. "No one needs an assault rifle."  Of course not, in normal day-to-day life.  No one needs Barbies, but I have the right to keep and bear them!  Yes, Barbie is not known for killing dozens of people in minutes, but bear with me.  I'll address that.

Remember the historical context, too.  The Founding Fathers want us to be able to stand against the government if it becomes oppressive.  To do that, we need similar weaponry and skills. To fulfill the desires of the Founding Fathers, We The People do indeed need an assault rifle.

2. "Barbies can't kill people like these guns can."  Of course not.  The analogy can be made with things that have that capability.  Cars driven into a crowd, for example.  Shall we advocate the banning of motor vehicles?  

3. "You don't care about the murdered" and "You wanna take my hunting rifle".  All of my gun-guys care about those who were killed and most of my non-gun-guys volunteer to take any leftover venison you might have.  All these statements are is parroting of propaganda.  The NRA in particular is really good at convincing people that any gun control at all is only the first step in a dastardly plot to disarm us all totally.  That's called Slippery Slope Logic and I was warned against it in high school. 

The Crux Of The Matter  

I try not to have opinions on matters I know little about.  Before forming an opinion, I become Research Whore (cue superhero music) and use sources from as many sides of the issue as I can find. My self-educated, but considered, opinion follows:

1. Any given individual is not a "well regulated militia". Chuck Norris, maybe, but I digress again.... Any given individual is not The People. 

2. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow me to incite riots.  Freedom of Religion doesn't let me commit human sacrifice.  Even "the pursuit of happiness" is limited... no matter how happy it might make me, there are things the law says I can't do without punishment. No reasonable human being believes any of those things are infringements, as they are needed for public safety.  

3. Allowing only screened and trained adults of sound mind to own weaponry is in keeping with what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Well-regulated means rules are applied.  Militia means trained and organized in a group. 

4. Most of the mass shootings that spur this debate happen in "gun free" zones.  Would the inevitable scofflaw be so willing to open fire in a public place if, for all they knew, most of the intended victims were packing heat themselves?  

5. In summary, the well regulated militia called for by the Founding Fathers can simply be a group of everyday citizens that have proven themselves capable of defending The People. Those citizens, and only those citizens, should be permitted to bear arms anywhere they go. 

Beggars' Night Is Not Halloween

Halloween (aka All Hallows' Eve or All Saints' Eve) is celebrated on October 31.  It is the Eve of November 1, All Hallows' or All Saints' Day. This is a time in the liturgical year dedicated to remembering the dead, particularly saints and martyrs.  It is not a movable holiday.  

Christianity is not the only religion to hold the date sacred. This is not a movable holiday for the Pagans, either.  Samhain is the end of summer and the beginning of winter, a sign of death and rebirth.  As my sister is wont to say "The veil is thinning" at this time of year.  What veil?  The veil between worlds. Thus all the ghosts and things.

There is currently a movement afoot to move Halloween to, I believe, the last Saturday of October.  They want to move a religious holiday for the sake, frankly, of profit and convenience.  And they don't even know what they are talking about.  

These people are talking about Beggars' Night, not about Halloween.  Many of the trappings of a secular Halloween are tied into Celtic and Gaelic harvest festivals and Beggars' Night (aka Trick or Treat) is one of those things.  This movement is rather akin to moving Christmas to make caroling more convenient and profitable.

All the local communities in my area already move Beggars' Night to the weekend.  Trick-or-treaters can hit one town on Friday and another on Saturday.  Spend Sunday with a belly ache... but I digress.  Since I don't hold the date sacred, I move my totally secular Halloween party in the same manner.  But for those who hold the holiday sacred, those for whom it is a holy day, Halloween cannot be moved. 

Why, if we're already moving around what they think is Halloween, are they calling for a law to do so?   In this age of diversity training, is Big Candy really this ignorant of the religious meaning of October 31?   

Mermaids

Oh, dear god, y'all!  First things first, not everyone objecting to the casting of the live-action Ariel are doing it for racist reasons.  At least, not that they're aware of.  Some people just don't like change and would be complaining if ANYONE but a blue eyed ginger got the role.  (Personally, I'm just upset that Divine can't play Ursula.) Put on your thinking caps, y'all, we're going in.

POINT: In the original tale, the mermaid is described as having skin "like a rose leaf".  So she was green? The mermaid also dies at the end, so there's that....

POINT: Disney named their mermaid after a male character in Shakespeare's The Tempest.  They gave her red hair for artistic reasons - something about wanting not-a-blond and brunette being hard to animate underwater, if I recall correctly.    There's also something about her being the only redhead in her family, but I'm not sure what version of the tale this came from.  Disney changed the ending.  Ariel is not, and never was, the original.

POINT: In historical sightings - and yes, I have a book here to back me up - merfolk have been described as follows:  Roaring. Scaled even in the human section. Having green hair.  Long green hair. Having purple blood. Mossy hair. Black or tawny skin. Different colors on belly and back. Gray.

I've listed only the descriptions that differ from the European-based archetype.  One description even says they are "frequently taken for Indian women bathing" until the tail is seen. 

POINT:  We're talking about nearly universal folklore.  Cultures all over the world have mermaids, sirens, lorelei, naiads, ri...  I could go on but you get the idea.  Merfolk come in all the same colors as humans.  And a few others if you believe the reported sightings.

POINT: Ariel is a Disney character and they can change her up any way they want. 

I personally won't be seeing the live action movie.  I just don't care for live action versions of classic cartoons.  The only live action Disney remake I've seen was Beauty and the Beast.  I only watched it because I wanted to see how it was possible to make it any more obvious Lefou was in love with Gaston. 

Bugs

It seems that every day I see at least one post on my social media about "This place has bugs!  Don't go there!"  I'm actually a little jealous of the ignorance of those posting such things.  Yes, it is possible that the place has an infestation, but there is no need to engage in possible slander and/or libel, especially if the situation has been handled.  Restaurants in particular go through periodic inspections and any sign of infestation is dealt with ASAP or the Board of Health will close them down.

I can't tell you how many times I've been told not to eat "there" because someone saw a roach there once.  Never mind the excellent reports the Board of Health gives the place, the apparent cleanliness, and the fact that I personally have seen no evidence of critters.  Never mind that the manager of the place either was not informed or dealt with the situation appropriately.  Just don't eat there ever because someone may or may not have seen a roach there.

A roach can climb into the bag of a schoolchild, ride to school in comfort, crawl out later.  From there, it gets into someone else's bag.  That person stops at the store on the way home, the roach crawls across the floor, up a cart, and into yet another bag.  Shopper stops at a local diner for a quick bite and the roach is now in a restaurant.  Probably gonna die soon, though, because public buildings and businesses use pest control.  That bug was in a home, a school, a grocery, and a restaurant - all in one day.  They get around, is what I'm saying.  All insects do.

Then there's the question of identification.  I was once shown a "bed bug" that looked nothing like a bed bug.  The person who identified this horribly deformed bed bug proceeded to tell anyone who would listen all about it.  Don't go there, she said, they got bed bugs. Even after the place was cleared by pest control professionals.  (I'm pretty sure the bug in question was actually a mayfly.)

Oh, and every red bump that appears on you after being in a public place isn't a bed bug bite.

Fraud is always fun.  I could use a stock photo of some sort of vermin and claim I took it in my hotel room (the white background is the sheet or wall).  I could falsely claim the management laughed in my face when I showed them the horrible infestation.  I could go all over social media making these claims and even people who do not know me, who have never even heard of me, are telling folks about the Hotel Filth.

I have no doubt many of those sharing these things have good intent.  Just please, everyone, stop and think before you hit share.  Are you sure this isn't an over-reaction?  A mistake?  An outright lie?  You could be ruining someones reputation, even their livelihood.  What if the accuser was talking about your workplace, your school, your home?

Invisible Issues

I saw an article - if you could call it that - titled something like "Five Things I Do When People Say I Don't Look Sick".  I don't know if it was meant to be funny or if this writer was legitimately complaining, but the thing made me angry on behalf of those who say "you don't look sick".  The things this writer does when people say that?  Eye roll, heavy sigh, etc.

If someone is honestly surprised to find out I'm ill, that's a compliment.  It means I'm doing a good job of coping.  An appropriate response would be "Thank you."  Not an eye roll.  Not a heavy sigh.  Not an etc.

I have actually had the following exchange: "Why are you on Disability?"  "I'm crazy." "You don't look crazy."  My response was not to get mad at him, but to chuckle and make a joke.  Something about leaving my straitjacket at home. My lack of eye rolls and heavy sighs led to a respectful discussion of Dysthymia.

Granted, my use of the word crazy is hyperbole.  It's a throwback to the early days of my diagnosis, when mental illness still carried a huge stigma.  I dealt with the stigma through hyperbole and humor.  One job I had, my co-workers nicknamed me the Psycho Dish Lady.  (I was a dishwasher.)  They also felt comfortable coming to me with questions about mental health issues.

Yes, sometimes people are attacking when they say "you don't look sick" or "you don't look disabled".  I'm not claiming that never happens.  But ignorance is not malice. If I get mad or even just annoyed, I'm closing down lines of communication.  This can be a teaching moment, if I  handle it well.

When dealing with the ignorant - and we're all ignorant about something - the worst course of action is to put them on the defense.  Even the jerks can be reached if handled well.

This doesn't just apply here, either, but in any area.  I've been called a racist because I said or did something in ignorance.  I've been called a homophobe for joking with my gay friends. I've even been asked to sign a petition banning a T-shirt that I owned.   Those who assume the worst about me, especially repeatedly, are no longer in my life.  And it's their loss.

Eye rolls, heavy sighs, etc, are counterproductive.  All they do is insult the well-intentioned.  Kindness and humor work a lot better and open the lines of communication.   The writer of this piece isn't helping any one's situation.

Abortion

Yep, I'm going there.  The narrative on this subject is driving me even crazier than I already am. 

My personal feeling about the subject?  Those days are behind me now, but the only way I would have even considered abortion would be if the Grim Reaper is involved with or without the procedure.  For any other circumstance, I much prefer the other options. 

"What about a girl that's been raped or in the case of incest?"  Personally, I'd see the former as a blessing in disguise, but I understand that many women would not, could not.  Generally speaking, a child of incest will be healthy, unless it's multi-generational.  (See pretty much any royal family in history for examples.)  In either of those cases, if the mother can't or won't keep the child, I'd recommend adoption. 

"The Bible says..."  First things first, what any holy book says has no bearing on the law in the USA.  But I will refer you to Leviticus 27:3-7 and Exodus 21:22-25 (a child's life has little or no value) and to Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4, and Ezekiel 37:5-6 (life begins at the first breath).  If it's a sin, that's between her and God. 

"Science has proven life begins at conception."  No, it has not.  It's proven that your DNA sequence is human at conception.  Everyone in the graveyard has a human DNA sequence, but we're under no delusion that they are alive.  No one can definitely say when abortion becomes murder. 

"What if it was you, or your daughter?"  I've had pregnancy scares.  I've seen some of my friends and minions (admittedly not daughters) through pregnancy scares.  Only once did I accept abortion as a option, since her life was endangered.  But ultimately it isn't my call.  It's the pregnant person's call, and federal law has already supported her right to an abortion (Roe vs Wade). 

"Women don't want babies, they should keep their legs together".  That's just laughable.  Rape aside, I'm willing to bet very few abortions are performed on women who never used contraception. 

"She should put it up for adoption if she don't want it." I agree.  But I'm not the law.  If I was the law, and was arrogant enough to outlaw everything I disapprove of, you wouldn't be happy. Trust me on this.

And on a final note:  To the best of my knowledge, none of these "bans" are actual bans.  A 12 year old who got gang raped at a family reunion probably can get an abortion.  Since they are state laws, none of them affect the entire nation.  Know what you're talking about before getting all up in my face. 

The Single Life

People act like being single is the worst fate imaginable.  I see them plunging into relationship after relationship, pining desperately in between.  I see them staying with partners who mistreat them, even to the point of actual abuse. And I try not to judge.  I used to be one of them.

As a single person, I have no one telling me my partner is cheating on me because he hugged some lady at Red Lobster. I don't get accused of cheating.  I don't get accused of being stupid enough to be tricked into cheating.  Nobody gets upset if I'm not "in the mood".  Best part - nobody cheats on me.

As a single person, I can pursue my own interests.  I no longer feel the need to pretend to be someone I'm not.  I see a lot of men and women losing themselves for the sake of a relationship. 

As a single person, I don't live in fear of being beaten.  I did always draw the line at physical abuse, but a lot of people seem to prefer it to being single. 

A healthy relationship is a fantastic thing.  One with mutual respect and good communication and lots of sex if you're so inclined.  But far too many of us are not holding out for that.  There are worse things than being single. 


And no, I do not want you to set me up with your cousin Bob.