How the American Voters Have Become Political Orphans

You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that America is more divided than at any time in its history. More so than the decade leading up to the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during Great Depression or the turbulent 1960's.

In fact, the division today may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent elections (such as in New York City and Virginia as well as events in places like Dearborn Michigan) have served only to highlight our division. What have we've become?

One ideal our nation was founded on was the belief in a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government out of our private lives. However, now there are those who believed that government should be our primary source of our social and economic salvation. While our Founders believed that one succeeds or fails by their own efforts, we have those who think that government and by extension, society, “owes” for them simply for existing.

There are those who believe in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal than others and should be given special consideration for some historical slight or another. Another group believe success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to impart the skills one needs to succeed in society.

Meanwhile, others believe in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. As a result, society has to become a mediocrity. Meritocracy, where people are hired based on their skill and compatibility, is proclaimed “unfair” or “racist”. Successful people somehow "owe" those less successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or thought that playing sports  was more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a job just in the name of diversity or equity instead of knowledge or ability.

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They believed in the right to petition their elected representatives meant the right to question them, and if necessary, to recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our private affairs. Individual privacy was essential as was freedom of speech, press, and association. With just five corporations controlling 96% of everything we watch, hear, or read, including the news, we no longer have those freedoms. We have a propaganda machine.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”. Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They truly believed in "America First". They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proven to them that their mistrust government was justified. They understood that power, once obtained, is seldom willingly given up. They also knew, long before Lord Acton famously said it, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupted absolutely.

An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one (just look at England now). Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Most of our Founders opposed the creation of political parties as “cliques” who would, in time, seized power from ordinary citizens and use it to push their own agenda. They would be horrified by the control Big Business has over government.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That makes them the largest political bloc in the country. That also means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are in fact minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering pushing their own agendas without public input or approval.

Our Founders also supported the concept of the “citizen legislator”, where a citizens would serve one or two terms in office and then return home and allow another citizen to do the same; a form of term limits. In this way, legislation would also stay relevant and reduce the chances of corruption.

What that absolutely disapproved of was notion of a “professional” politician, which was seen as little better than leach living off their fellow citizens. As an aside, these “citizen legislators” were only to be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses and not given a salary. Serving in government was seen as the civil duty of each citizen.

Personally, I believe that once a newly elected politician raises their hand to take the oath of office, they automatically end any political allegiance. They aren’t there to represent the agenda of some political  party or corporate clique. They are there to solely represent the American People and those of their district. Nothing more and nothing less.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while We the People are left dealing with the mess and picking up the tab on something we had no say in.

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how one corporate clique wants more of our tax dollars. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule in politics today and not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you rarely see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws with loopholes so they can make more money while avoiding taxes (or better yet, passing those taxes on to us). They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms into cushy government appointments and back again. They are the corporate lobbyists and Beltway insiders.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources. Their goal is nothing less that control, be it of assets, market access, natural resources, and, of course, of us.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by national boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and proud citizens to mere global consumers “loyal” to one toilet paper brand, detergent or another product. If you carefully watch their programming, you’ll see just how interchangeable we're made to feel. We’ve become indentured economic serfs, hostages to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence.

They are the ultimate users and corruptors. We are artificially divided as every turn. We are pitted against each other in some way, be it work, entertainment, sports, and of course, gender, race, religion, and politics. As long as we’re divided, we aren’t focused on the real villains of our collective misery.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this manufactured divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Returning to our constitutional republican government will require more mere tweaking.

Many already recognize this. Given the dominance of Independent voters, it’s obvious that many are finally waking up. Some, however, may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Lady Liberty has been prostituted out by Wall Street. Our freedoms, once guaranteed, are being usurped and sold to the highest bidder.  Uncle Sam is on life support while his two incompetent physicians, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment for the disease they caused. Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice. 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?

 

Is Civil War on the Horizon?

 

You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that America is more divided than at any time in its history. More so than years leading up to the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during the era of Women's Suffrage, Prohibition, or the Great Depression. Even more so than the turbulent 1960's.

In fact, the division may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent presidential and national elections (such as in New York and Virginia) has served only as dark mirrors of our division. What have we've become?

One ideal is in the belief of a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government our of our private lives. The other ideal is one where government is the sole source of our social and economic salvation. The first believes in opportunities where one succeeds or fails by their  own efforts.  Neither the government or society  owes you anything.

The other believes in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal and should be given special consideration for one historical slight or another.  One believes success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to teach the skills one needs to survive in society, not to babysit. They believe everyone needs a helping hand from time to time.

The later believes in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. A society  where mediocrity is superior to a society of meritocracy; that successful people "owe" those who aren't as successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or playing sports is more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a living just for showing.

They believe they should be "forgiven" of their school debt because they received degrees which aren't marketable but fail to explain how taxpayers, who must pick up their defaulted debt, are responsible for their bad decision making. 

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They envisioned a nation free to believe what they wanted without being manipulated. They believed that the right to petition their representatives meant the right to question them and if necessary recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our personal business. There's’ no doubt this belief would extend to corporations as well.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”.  Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proved their mistrust government.

An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one (just look at England now). Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax as surely as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include those who are members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering and legacy media propaganda.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while we are left dealing with the mess. 

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how the other side won't simply roll over and let them have their way. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule, not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you are never allowed to see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws to allow them to make more money while avoiding taxes. They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms to government bureaucracy and back again. They are the corporate lobbyist and Beltway insider.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources while selling us illusions of how our lives could be in ten second TV spots or 8 x 10 retouched glossy magazine photos if we only bought their product.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by no boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and citizens to mere global consumers. We’ve become indentured economic serfs and captives to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence. They are the ultimate users and corruptors.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Our constitutional republican government is beyond mere reform. Many already recognize this. A few more are finally waking up. Some, however,  may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as the they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Uncle Sam is on life support while his two hopeful murders, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment, Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice any longer. 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?

Violent Crime in America

 

The recent murders of Charlie Kirk, Iryna Zarutska, Dr. Julia Gard Schnuelle and subsequent sympathy for their murderers is unreal. In the case of Charlie Kirk, it has included celebrating in the streets, defacing memorials, attacks on mourners, and remarks so vile that many have been fired from their jobs. Even talk show host, Jimmy Kimmel wasn't immune. Since when do Americans celebrate the death of someone over a difference of opinions? 

The glorification of violence and disregard for human life has once again underscored the vast and deep divide between the Left and Right in this country. It has also brought to the national forefront once more the growth of violence in this country, with some calling for confiscating firearms (all though two of the murders involved the use of a knife).

Along with this rise violence has been the dramatic increase in vitriol anti-White rhetoric. Black on white crime is at a all time high, with Black assailants and White victims accounting for  63.9% of robberies, 58.6% of the rapes, and 51.8% of assaults. By contrast, Blacks are the victims in crimes involving robbery where the perpetrator was White just 8.3% of the time, and in 2.7% of assaults, and 5.5% of the rapes.

Hispanics also face a far disproportional rate of victimhood when it comes to murder, rape, assault, and robbery. They are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime 65% more often than someone who was White and 54% more likely than a Black  individual. Asians too are facing higher rates of violent crime. What is happening in America?

According to FBI statistics from 2019, the latest available, 51.3% of those arrested for murder were Black. 45.7% were White, while 1.83% were Hispanic and 1.1% were Asians. When it came to aggravated assault,  Whites were responsible for 62.2%. Blacks committed 32.7%. Native Americans were 2.2%. Asians made up just 1.8% of those convicted on aggravated assault charges. Note these are raw numbers and not based on their percentage of the population

Another form of assault is rape. In 2019, there were some 13,799 reported cases. Whites were reported as the offender in nearly 70% of the cases. Blacks were reported as the perpetrators in 26.8% of the incidents. Asians were arrested in 1.7% of the attacks while Native Americans accounted for 1.5% of the reported rapes.

Note that many cases of rape are not reported or the charges are withdrawn for various reasons. As of 2024, there are an estimated 225,000 unprocessed rape test kits currently lagging in storage areas. While the judicial system does consider rape a serious issue, many jurisdictions lack the funding or staff to process the kits timely.

A ScienceDirect Study from 2020 reported that from 2016 and 2018, there were approximately 300,000 to 400,000 untested kits awaiting processing. A 2022 Congressional Study reported an estimated backlog of anywhere from 90,000 to a staggering 400,000 untested kits were still pending. Some of the worse offenders are West Virginia, Louisiana, Oregon, and North Carolina.  

One of the states with the worse record is Kentucky. It received a test kit on January 7, 1993 and didn’t finalized the results until 28 years later, on September 27, 2021! But if you think that’s bad, consider Washington State. It received a test kit on January 14, 1984 and didn’t return the results until October 3, 2022, some 38 years later! While there should have been repercussions, it should also be noted that the there is no federal law mandating the tracking, processing, and reporting on rape test kits, which is obviously unacceptable on any level.

When it came to robbery, the FBI report indicated that in 2019 there were 104,595 reports. Of those apprehended, Whites made up the overwhelming majority at 69.8%. Blacks were 27.3% while Native Americans were 1.4% and Asians were 1.2%. Hispanics were 18, 584 of those arrested and convicted.

Unlawful weapon possession is another serious crime the FBI keeps track of. Their data shows there were 97,466 reported arrests made in 2019. Of those busted, 54,167 were White. 40,827 were Black. 18,756 were Hispanic. 1,073 were Asian, and just 988 were Native American, which brings up to another topic—gun violence.

Despite the rantings of a few, the prospects of any political or government agency actually seizing America’s guns are highly unlikely. Based on 2024 data, there are approximately 107 gun owning Americans, or roughly 32% of the adult population of the United States. In all likelihood, that number is higher. Much higher. There are approximately 120 guns per every 100 individuals. In addition, roughly 40% of the U.S. population live in a household where is at least one firearm present.

Guns in the United States are as much a part of the culture as the Old West and the Declaration of Independence. They were written into our Bill of Rights, to be used as a tool to protect us from government overreach and tyranny. They were as any essential tool in the exploration and settlement of this country. We still use them to hunt and for sport. Guns are as much as part of the American character as our belief in individualism and our sense of freedom.

In terms of the demographics of gun ownership, it should come as no surprise that males own 40% of the firearms compared to women who own about 25%. Those living in the country or in rural locations comprise 47% of gun owners. Those who live in suburbia make up some 30% while those living in urban areas are about 20%.

When it comes to age, older Americans, those 50 and up, are the mostly likely to own a firearm at 46% followed by those 30 to 49 at 42%.  The least likely was those individuals between 18 and 29. Only around 32% of them own any sort of firearm. The number one reason for gun ownership---72%---was for personal protection. An average of 31% said it was for hunting and target shooting. 15% said they were simply gun collectors, and just 7% said it was required as part of their job.

Academically, 47% of those with at least some college are most likely to have a gun. Next are those education extends up to high school. About 43% of them own a firearm of some sort. About 40% of college graduates are gunowners while just 30% of those with post graduate degrees are.

When it comes to race, the majority of gun owners---38%---are White. 24% are Black while 20% are Hispanic, and 10% are of Asian heritage. No data was available for Native Americans or Pacific Islanders. Another interesting statistic is political registration.

According to the survey, 45% of Republicans own at least one firearm while just 20% of Democrats own one or more guns. The survey, conducted by Pew, ignores Independents, the nations largest political demographic, so it has to be “presumed” that the 35% difference between Republican and Democrat ownership must be Independents. Unfortunately, a rare case of poor statistics gathering by Pew.

In 2023 there were over 46,000 deaths due to gun violence. Contrary to popular opinion, most of these weren’t the result of a crime, but rather the result of suicide or other self-inflicted injury (there were 26,700 gun related suicides in 2023). Gun related deaths are the leading cause of children ages 1 through 17, largely to a failure to properly secure the weapons and in the case of older kids, a lack of adequate gun safety training. The graphic violence is often portrayed and glorified in video games and in movie are also a significant factor. Unfortunately, there’s no reset button to push in real life.

In terms of gun safety, 58% of those surveyed said they supported tighter gun safety laws. 26% said that the current level of gun laws were about right and 15% thought they were too strict. 88% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats support restrictions on those with known mental illnesses from owning a firearm. 69% of Republicans would like to see the age requirement to own a gun of any sort raised to 21 across the board. 90% of Democrats agree. Mandatory gun safety and care training is also strongly recommended.

So where are the gun related deaths the worse? According to a 2022 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), which keeps track of these figures, Texas had the most gun related deaths at 4,630. California had 3,484, while Florida was next with 3,232 deaths. Georgia had 2,163. Other states with a high number of gun related deaths included Pennsylvania with 1,941, Illinois at 1,798, and North Carolina reporting 1,831, matching Ohio.

Indiana had 1,211 gun related deaths with the majority being in Gary and Indianapolis. Tennessee had 1,480, mostly stemming from Memphis and Nashville. Kentucky had 840 with Louisville leading the way. The District of Columbia, the nation’s capital, had 154. Meanwhile, Vermont experienced only 84 deaths. Hawaii had 66, and in  Rhode Island there were only 37 gun related deaths.  

It bears mentioning that while the United States is usually portrayed as the gun related death capitol of the world, there are countries far worse than the U.S.  According to a report by World Population Review for 2025, the overall death rate by gun in the United States is 4.42 deaths per 100,000, but first, who are among the lowest?  

In Jordon, despite being surrounded by violence coming from neighboring Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq, the number of civilian gun related deaths is just 0.3 per 100k. In Australia, it’s 0.09 and 0.02 in Oman.  In Spain and Algeria, the figure is 0.11. In Switzerland where gun ownership is mandatory, gun deaths are only 0.14 per 100,000. As impressive as those numbers are, the nation with the lowest number of gun related fatalities is African nation of Zimbabwe which reported a remarkable 0.01 deaths by firearm.  

The countries with the highest deaths rates due to firearms include Ecuador, where it’s 39.5 per 100k, nearly ten times higher than the U.S. In neighboring, Mexico it’s 17.2% despite all the drug cartel reported killings. Nevertheless, the nation at the top of the corpse strewn mound is Jamacia. Once known for its tourism, Jamacia now has the dubious honor of having the most gun related deaths with a whooping 42 per 100k.

Will stricter laws reduce the number of violence crimes by gun? Perhaps. It will certainly make it tougher for law abiding citizens. Criminals, of course, will have no difficulty getting their hands on gun any time they want, but that doesn’t account for knife attacks with are on the rise.

Knives, not guns, were what took the lives of Iryna Zarutska and Dr. Julia Gard Schnuelle for instance. They were the third most often used weapon in 2023. Random attacks, particularly involving “sucker punches” (aka “coward punches”) are responsible for many of the assaults on the elderly and handicapped along with weapons of opportunity.

So, are we going to impose bans on knives or other sharp objects along with guns? What about bricks, rocks, or pointy sticks? Then too, how do we combat the rise in race based attacks, often brought on by vile racist rhetoric which serves only to promote the violence without violating the 1^st Amendment? Unless civility can be restored, the violence will only continue and grow. We are facing dangerous times not seen since the late 1850’s. We are at the point where any act, no matter how benign or unintentional, could potentially be the spark to set this nation on fire and neither side, regardless of the bravado, is prepared for the consequences. 

 

 Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

How many rape kits are awaiting testing in the US? See databy state.

America tested 100,000 forgotten rape kits. But justiceremains elusive.

End The Rape Kit Backlog

FBI: 2019 Crime in the United States

WPR: Gun Deaths per Country 2025

Gun deaths and violence in the United States by state

 

Gun Control: Getting History Right

 I recently saw a post on one of my social media feeds which, frankly, annoyed me. The post read "In the 20th Century, China, Russia, and Germany killed over 125,000,000 of their own citizens! All three were Socialist Governments. All three disarmed their citizens FIRST!  Now, considering the Liberal goals of Socialism and Disarmament in the U.S. remember this: "Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it".  The backdrop contained a grinning skull aside the Capitol building, which, I'm sure, was to reinforce the ominous nature of the message.

The obvious intent of the post was to inspire fear that the Left would strip everyone of their guns and usurp the 2nd Amendment, which has long been use by the Far Right to motivate firearm enthusiasts and those interested in self-protection for decades now, as well as push their fundraising drives.

I have no issue with the general nature of the message itself. I'm a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment, and I have no qualms when it comes to self-defense or protecting my family, friends, or possessions. If someone values my stuff more than their own life or want to inflict harm on someone I care about, they might want to reevaluate their life choices first.

However, as a amateur historian, I do have an issue with the part of the message concerning China, Russia and Germany. First, let's make it crystal clear, I'm no apologist for Communism, Marxism, Socialism, or Nazism. I am, nevertheless, a stickler for getting facts straight and not trying to bend or twist facts to fit a political message (especially one which tells me about not learning from history).

As I said, I am a published amateur historian (and political economist) with many decades of research under my belt. I regularly contribute to popular Q&A website, with emphasis on the two world wars where I've earned "Top Writer" status multiple times with tens of millions of views worldwide. I think that gives me some credibility. So, let's delve into this claim about China, Russia, and Germany being "Socialist" nations and disarming their populations.   

Between China and Russia, only China remains a Communist country. However, from 1917 until 1991, Russia was epicenter of global Communism. Revolution came to Tsarist Russia in February 1917 when a coalition of Left leaning factions forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate, leading to the formation of the Provincial Government led by Alexander Kerensky, a moderate Socialist and member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (aka the "SRs").

Kerensky helped form the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was the first democratic government body in Russian history. It's worth noting that the Assembly consisted of numerous political parties, of which the most radical, the Bolsheviks, were a bit player at this point. However, due to various internal and external events (including continued military defeats), Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks were able to successfully mount a putsch or coup (often called the "October Revolution"), which overthrew the Provincial Government and forever dissolved the democratic Assembly.

Previously, Kerensky had ordered all citizens (but not military) to turn in their guns out of fear of a counter revolution, but the possibility of a military led coup by pro-Monarchists and Far Right groups forced him to partially rescinded that order, returning them to the masses. However, those weapons mostly ended up in the hands of Lenin's Bolsheviks who lead an assault on the Winter Palace, thus overthrowing the Kerensky Government and ending Russia's experiment in democracy.  But it wasn't an end of the violence.

After Lenin's seizure of power, a bloody civil war (1917 -1923) ensued between the Bolsheviks and the pro-democracy and pro-Monarchists forces, as well as army units from Japan, Poland, China, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, England, France, and the U.S. In addition, there were the "Separatists" of the three Baltic states, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. As a result, weapons were disseminated to anyone willing and able to fight. The result was the death of some 10 million people.  

Following Lenin's death in January 1924, the "Man of Steel", Joseph Stalin began a brutal reign which lasted until his death in 1953. When we think of Communism, what we envision is Stalinism, which was not the same as Lenin's Communism which itself was even further from Marx's and Engel's vision.

Lenin had introduced "NEP" (New Economic Program), a type of limited free enterprise. Stalin eliminated it, along with private ownership of land and replacing it with "Collectivization".  It was disastrous for the Russian People; creating the largest man-made famine up to that point and the deaths of at least seven million people in an attempt to jump start the modernization of the economy and bring it on par with the West.

Simultaneously, Stalin instituted systematic statewide terrorism to "encourage" compliance.  Starting in December 1924, one of its first acts was, naturally, seizing all weapons (most were from the world war, and subsequent civil war). Only those authorized---the military and state security apparatus (like the NKVD---predecessor to the KGB) were permitted weapons. Those caught were sentenced up five years in prison per offense and/or fined.

There were a few exceptions, such as licensed ownership of smooth bore hunting rifles. In 1935, similar restrictions were applied to knives.  Beginning in 1941, citizens were encouraged to turn over all weapons (without question) to the Soviet military to aid in their war against Nazi and Axis forces.

Following Stalin's death in 1953, Soviet authorities began slowly loosening restrictions on firearms, including smooth bore shotguns, although registration was still required. To discourage illegal ownership, prison sentences were lengthened to 14 years. However, voluntary surrender of unregistered weapons carried no fines or punishment.

Communist China, founded in 1949 under Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Zedong), was based on the Stalinist model. Like Soviet Russia, it consisted of a all powerful central government under the direction of the Politburo with an elected chairman, who serves as a virtual dictator.  The system itself was intended to be repressive from the start.

When it came to gun control in China, one has to remember that China had been a autocratic monarchy for centuries until 1912 when the Qing dynasty was overthrown during the Xinhai Revolution. Private ownership was highly restricted. After China became a Republic, albeit a highly corrupt one, interrupted by a period small civil wars led by petty warlords (1916 -1928). It also endured invasion by the Japanese, marking the start of World War II and included a semi-covert civil war with Communist forces led by Mao, which ended in 1949 with Mao's victory. All of which made gun acquisition easier.

Nevertheless, gun ownership has always been restricted regardless of who was in power. There were a few exceptions, such as gamekeepers and licensed hunters. During the various wars and social upheavals, guns did occasionally fall into the hands of the masses, however, due to the strict punishment, most were eventually turned into the government voluntarily.   

Again, there were exceptions, such as Hong Kong, which was under British rule from 1841 until 1997. The same applied to Macau, which fell under Portuguese rule. The Miao people are allowed to own smooth bore muskets, though gunpowder is strictly controlled. Today, China remains highly repressive when it comes to guns---even toy guns---with very few exceptions.

Do you remember "Which of these is not like the other?" children's game? Well, in this case, it would be Nazi Germany. First, despite the official name of the ruling party, the National Socialist German Workers Party, Germany under Hitler wasn't "socialist" per se. Hitler's definition of "socialism" was actually "community". Thus, "National Socialism" actually meant a society or community of Germans by and for Germans.

It's true that under Hitler, Germany implemented a wide range of "social" (not "socialist") programs similar to what Britain, France, the United States and other Western nations did such as unemployment benefits, healthcare, mandated vacations, work safety laws, etc. He also legalized unions, albeit under a state union called "DAF" which stood for German Workers Front. Nevertheless, pre-war German workers did at least as well as their Western counterparts.

Also, unlike Russia and China (and Communist countries ever since) private enterprises remained private and thrived. During the war years, those key to the war effort received preference in terms of resources, contracts, and so forth. The Nazi Government did not, however, eliminate capitalism or seize control of private corporations as happens under Communism or Socialism.

As an aside, actual Socialists, as well as Communists, anarchists, and Social Democrats, were typically sent to detention camps for "reeducation" to use the political euphemism of the time. I suspect they wouldn't have been real fond of libertarians either.

As a point of historical reference, there was a "Left Wing" faction within the National Socialist movement, nominally led by brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser and SA Chief, Ernest Rohm. They wanted the concept of "socialism" to be much more literal than Hitler intended despite repeated warnings. 

However, that came to a quick end late June and early July 1934 during a purge known as "The Night of the Long Knives" in which Hitler and leading Nazis eliminated all non-Right Wing hardliners and political enemies. An estimated 150-200 individuals were murdered and hundreds more arrested; some were tortured and others imprisoned. Thus, ending any Left leaning tendencies within the Nazi Party.

When it came to gun control, one has to remember that following the carnage of WWI, there emerged a global pacifist movement. Everyone was sick and tired of death, bloodshed, and war. As a result, the new Weimar Republic's government, led by the Left Wing Social Democrat Party, instituted a policy of restricted gun ownership (the Weimar Republic was a democratic republic formed in 1919 followed the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II at the end of WWI). It was intended to be a literal attempt to turn "swords into plowshares", and was generally popular with the public.

As with Russia and China, there were exceptions for hunters, gamekeepers, and others with a demonstrable need. However, for the average citizen, gun ownership was curtailed through restrictions, aided by the creation of a gun registry. However, the Weimar Government wasn't long for this world.

 In 1919, Germany was hit with a period of hyperinflation. Unemployment and inflation hit record levels. One person in three was unemployed. In December 1922, a loaf of bread was 160 Marks. By December 1923, it was 20,000,000,000 Marks!  In November 1923, one U.S. Dollar was worth 4,210,500,000,000 Marks. Some used what money they had to stoke fires to keep warm or cook...or as toilet paper. The Depression of 1929 hit Germany the hardest of all industrialized nations, making the situation dire.

Crime, alcoholism, and drug use was rampant. Germany was forced to pay huge reparations despite the loss of its industrial heart--the Ruhr, and most of its commercial shipping and fishing fleet (thanks to the Versailles Treaty). The country survived mainly on borrowed money and in-kind trade. When the Nazis came to power in 1933 as part of a coalition of conservative parties, Hitler repudiated the Versailles Treaty and its reparations, retook the Ruhr, and began a massive rebuilding of the economy. 

When it came to gun control, the Nazis actually removed restrictions with several exceptions. Those exceptions included Communists, Socialists, anarchists, non-citizens, and Jews. Criminals were also forbidden from possessing weapons as well as those of "questionable character", which included prostitutes, drug addicts or dealers, and alcoholics. Later, it applied to anyone deemed "unreliable" by the State.

As for the average German citizen, gun ownership was generally open, provided the guns were registered (preference went to those who were Nazi Party members). The notion that the Nazis took guns away from all its citizens is not entirely accurate (neither is the notion that the Nazis were "socialist" or "Left Wing"). So, the next time you see someone post something like I mentioned earlier or bring it up in conversation, you'll know better. Want to know more? Check out the links below. 

 

Gun Control in the Soviet Union

Gun Control in China

How the Nazis Used Gun Control

The Nazi gun control argument

German Economy in the 1920s

The Assault on the 2nd Amendment

Why is the 2nd Amendment under such a pervasive and aggressive assault? So far 26 State Legislatures plus the District of Columbia have passed 67 sweeping, and some would say, severe restrictions on the purchase and sale of firearms. The most recent state was Virginia, when, in July 2019, the newly elected Democratic Governor, Ralph Northham, asked the state legislature for tighter gun control laws.

At first, nothing much happened. The Republican controlled legislature meet for all of 90 minutes before adorning for summer recess. However, eventually the governor got what he wanted...and perhaps more than he bargained for following the Democratic takeover of the state legislature in November. This was the first time since 1993 the Democrats had full control of the House.

Eight new laws were passed pertaining to gun control which will in effect the first of the year. One requires expanded mandatory background checks on all gun sales or transactions. That includes any purchases of used guns, be it at gun shows, flea markets, garage sales or private purchases. It even includes gifting a firearm to anyone, including family members.

In addition, handgun sales will be limited to one purchase per month per individual. Buying more than one handgun in a 30 period could cost you---up to one year in jail and a $2500 fine. Anyone wanting to purchase more than a single handgun within the 30 day waiting period has to apply directly to the Virginia State Police and undergo a more extensive background check. The only exemption is to licensed gun store owners.

Another of the new laws bans any so-called "dangerous" weapons or accessories including weapons labeled as "assault" rifles, silencers, bump-stocks (as was allegedly used by the Las Vegas gunman, Stephen Paddock, who killed 58 people attending a concert and wounded another 851 in 2017), high capacity magazines ( greater than ten rounds). The new law doesn't specifically define what constitutes an "assault" rifle but it will likely be any rifle or other firearm which has a military appearance, is a semi-automatic, has a detachable magazine and fires a high caliber round such as a AR-15 or a Tec-9. However, it should be pointed that there a numerous designs not classified as an "assault" styled weapon which can meet or exceed these requirements which commonly used for hunting or target shooting.

Other proposed laws are more common sense oriented such as reporting a missing or stolen gun to police within 24 hours of discovery. Failure to do so could result in a fine up to $250.00 per gun. Another law makes it a Class 6 felony to leave a loaded and/or unsecured firearm around anyone under 18 years of age (the current law, a Class 3 misdemeanor, set the age at 14 and carries a fine up to $500). A Class 6 felony carriers a penalty of one to five years jail time and a maximum fine of $2500. The aim of the law is to prevent adults from "recklessly" leaving a unsecured loaded gun, such as having no trigger lock, within easy access of juveniles.

Two other bills allow law enforcement or the courts to "temporarily" seize the firearms who anyone who is under a final protective order as well as anyone who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others, typically known as a "red flag" law. The intent is, of course, to protect those who are in some sort of abusive domestic situation as well as to prevent someone who may have psychological problems (which may or may not be related to prescription medication, drug or alcohol use) from harming themselves or others.

A Washington Post-Schar School Virginia Poll from the week of September 25th found that 58% of Virginians supported the laws calling for stricter gun control while 91% said that tighter gun control was important to them (all those surveyed were registered voters). Nevertheless, not all is well in the Old Dominion State.

Thus far, approximately 80 counties have declared themselves a "gun sanctuary" and have promised to ignore the new laws. Several local law enforcement officers have stated that they would "deputize" individual gun owners if they have to in order to sidestep the new laws (law enforcement is, naturally, exempt from some of the laws such as the restrictions on the types of weapons one can own, limitations on the clips and magazines, and number of purchases).

Both county officials as well as law enforcement have gone on record as stating that they were elected to uphold the Constitution of the United States and that these restrictions are in violation of their oath. The Virginia Governor has stated that he would ask the Virginia State Police or even the National Guard for assistance if local law enforcement refused to comply. This statement was backed by Virginia Congressman Donald McEachin (D).

Supporters of the new laws are flabbergasted. Many have stated that changes in gun control legislation were effectively on the ballot; that the Democratic candidates had made it a key part of their campaigns. Thus a vote for a Democratic candidate was a defacto vote for stricter gun control laws. However, those in the outlaying counties don't quite see it that way. They believed that any changes to the existing gun laws should be publicly debated and voted on separately; not decided solely along partisan lines.

As Virginians start choosing up sides, other states have enacted similar laws as I previously mentioned. California, which already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, recently saw its governor, Gavin Newsom (D), sign into law another 15 more this past October. Similar to Virginia's, these new laws restrict the number of gun purchases someone can make in a month, set limits on the magazine capacity, prohibits the sale of semiautomatic centerfire rifles to anyone younger than 21 years of age among other changes.

California already has a "red flag" law on the books which allows the courts to issue a "gun restriction order" and allows law enforcement to remove firearms from anyone deemed a threat to themselves or others. The Democratic governor also signed a bill extending the gun restraining order from one year up to a maximum of five years.

Vermont, which has relatively liberal gun laws, passed legislation to implement a "red flag" law. It would allow any firearms to be removed from anyone deemed by a court to be a danger to themselves or others. They also passed bills which would prevent anyone from bringing weapons into any K - 12 school, expanded background checks, and limiting magazine capacity.

Meanwhile, several states passed not just expanded background check laws, but also banned high capacity magazines and clips, bump stocks, and "red flag" laws (which included domestic violence restrictions), tighter conceal and carry laws, and anti-gun trafficking legislation. As an aside, despite some thinking this attack on guns is sort of Democratic witch hunt, it should be that noted that of the states where these new laws took affect, 14 occurred in states with Republican governors.

According to a October 2019 Pew Research Report stricter gun control laws have gained in popularity among Americans since 2017. In March of 2017, about 30% of those surveyed said that the amount of gun legislation was about right. 18% said it was too strict, and about 52% thought it should be stricter.

By September 2019 that had changed. 28% thought the gun control was at about the right level while just 11% thought it was too strict. However, some 60% said that gun control needed to be stricter. The poll also revealed that 80% of Republicans thought that 2nd Amendment rights were more important than gun controlled compared to 21% of Democrats. Interestingly, there was bipartisan agreement when came to barring those with mental illness from owning guns; 91% of Democrats and 92% of Republicans.

Perhaps one reason is that since Columbine in 1999, there has been 61 mass shootings in the U.S. resulting in over 667 killed and more than a thousand wounded. It seems that each incident was just a bit worse than the last. But this also begs the questions, if more people had been armed could they have prevented much of the carnage by stopping the killer(s) sooner or would it have made little or no difference?

The level of education also seems to factor as well when it came to gun control. 63% of those with four year degree favored increased gun control compared with 48% without a college degree. In fact, as one's educational level increases, so does their support for increased gun control. Along gender lines, 53% of men favored gun ownership rights compared to just 42% of women. Perhaps not surprising is that Millennials and Gen Z both strongly favor stricter gun controls laws compared to Babyboomers and Gen Xers.

Per a Reuters report, 61% of whites favored gun owner rights compared to those who wanted tighter control. Blacks, who statistically are more likely to be the victim of gun violence disagreed. 60% wanted tighter gun control whereas just 30% supported gun ownership rights. Hispanics agreed. 75% wanted tighter gun control laws while only 21% opposed. As an aside, in 1993, 74% of blacks favored tighter gun control.

The primary reason for gun ownership in this country is self protection. As the expression goes, "seconds count, the police are only minutes away". Everyone has the right to protect themselves and their loved ones. They also have the civic, if not moral, responsibility to protect others if that can be done relatively safely. People also own guns for other reasons such as hunting or for sport. Some are simply collectors, especially of historical arms. But the reason our Founding Fathers inserted the 2nd Amendment had little to do with hunting or sport, and nothing to do with collection.

The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights as a means for the citizens of this new nation to protect themselves from a government running amuck. They had just finished a bloody and costly war with the British Empire. They deeply mistrusted the government. They understood intimately what happened when you had a government asserting its control over the population. The citizens required the means to fight back on equal footing.

The Founding Fathers gave us the means to remove that government if necessary. That was the real purpose behind the 2nd Amendment. In today's political climate, I doubt there are many on either side of the political divide who do not see the potential threat. After all, we're no longer the democratic Republic our Founders intended, but an Oligarchy instead; a neo-fascist corporate/government surveillance state on the verge of becoming a full blown police state. We need to remember this as we continue to debate the need for further restrictions in our inherent right to own the means to protect ourselves, our families, and our country.


Virginia Democrats plan swift gun control. Gun right groups promise "a big backlash"


Virginia Gun Owners Prepare to Defy New Gun Control Laws



Virginia's Democrats: Send In The National Guard to Enforce New Gun Laws



After Parkland, States Pass 50 new Gun-Control Laws


African-Americans still favor gun control but views are shifting

The Shootings: What Can We Do?

Two shooting within hours of each other. The first, on August 8th, took place in El Paso Texas. An individual murdered 22 seemingly random individuals and wounded 24 other (the police identified one shooter while many of the witnesses said there were as many four. The next day, another individual, this time in Dayton Ohio, killed ten people while wounding 37. The tragedy, as with most, is almost beyond words.

We've already heard stories about some of those who died, acts of bravery, sheer fear, anger, pain, and I'm sure we'll heard hear many more such stories over the weeks and months to come, especially how those who survived attempt to cope with the senseless acts of violence and begin the slow arduous road to at least some form of recovery, although their lives will never be "normal" again.

But the dual tragedies didn't end there. Almost immediately, there were other reports of similar acts of attempted violence. On the same day as the Dayton shooting, there were four other shootings. Two took place in Chicago. One involved a single death with seven being wounded while the second had seven wounded and no reported deaths. In Memphis Tennessee one person was killed and three were wounded.

On August 5th, in Suitland Maryland, there was five shootings, resulting in one death and four injuries. On the 6th, we had four wounded in Detroit and the following day, in St Louis, two people were killed and two others were wounded. Of course, I want to mention the mass shooting which occurred in Gilroy California, at a Garlic festival on July 28. Four were killed while 15 were injured.

Thus far, based on what law enforcement classifies as "mass shootings", there has been 248 incidents. There has been 246 deaths and 979 injured. Of these, two deaths occurred in a school and one at a place of worship. Sadly, August has just begun and we have four more months to the year left.

Granted, the majority of these "mass shootings" were gang and/or drug related. Nevertheless, within a matter of hours following the El Paso shooting, there was a carefully orchestrated effort to somehow blame the shootings on President Donald Trump, complete with scripted press releases (written, taped, and live interviews) and even paid commercials calling for the banning of guns, ammo, and so forth.

Even Hollywood got in on it by going not just after President Trump, but especially Trump supporters (an obviously attempt as isolation and intimidation). Some as gone as far as to encourage people to attack or even kill Trump supporters (a couple have actually called for Trump's assassination. Once upon a time that would earn you a visit from the Secret Service or FBI). Obviously the "managed media" does its best to reinforce this anti-Trump rhetoric as well.

The overwhelming majority of these individuals and lobbyist groups responsible for the ads all blame a so-called "climate" of "hate" and "anger" promoted by the President and/or his supporters; often cherry picking Tweets, comments at events, and so forth. Lastly, they claim that Trump caters to "White Supremacy" and promotes "White privilege".

As usual, they all call for an immediate ban on guns of all sorts, but particularly "assault" rifles, which are simple semi-automatic rifles with military looking stocks, along with various add-on features. There is also a new call for so-called "Red Flag" laws.

Red Flag laws allow an individual or member of law enforcement to petition the local court to issue an order to "temporarily" remove all firearms from an individual and/or prohibit their ability to purchase any guns on the basis that the person in question is a danger to himself or others. The order remains in effect until the individual is evaluated by authorities (including a psychologist) and determined to be otherwise. Failure to comply is considered a criminal offense subject to jail time and/or a hefty fine.

At present 17 states, mostly the West Coast and New England have some version of the Red Flag law currently in effect. Many of those who are demanding greater restrictions on gun purchases and ownership are calling for a national version of the Red Flag law. While the overwhelming majority is coming from the Left, many Republicans are also warming to the idea, especially as the 2020 election cycle approaches (imagine that).

Of course, the Right isn't quite ready to throw in the towel by a long shot. Many point out the need for gun ownership not just as a means to protect family, friends, or self, but as a "inalienable" right bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers; a means to defend ourselves from a corrupt government intent on enslaving its citizens. The Founding Fathers, who had just finished a bloody and costly revolution with Great Britain as well as watched several failed revolutions throughout Europe, felt so strongly about this that it was the second right bestowed on the citizens of this new nation just behind freedom of speech and expression.

They also like to point out how totalitarian regimes love to confiscate guns in the early stages of their authoritarian takeover. Specifically they like to point to Soviet Russia, Communist China and Cuba, Fascist Italy, and of course Nazi Germany (as an aside, some are wacky enough to claim that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are actually "Leftist" forms of government, or even types of Communism). In short, both sides demonize the other. So what are the facts and what is the usual partisan rhetoric aka "propaganda"?

At least two and possibly as many as four of the recent events (including an attack by a machete and gun toting individual just recently) were either mass murders or attempts at mass murder. Is this Trump's fault or that of his supporters? No. Yes, Trump has made some comments and Tweets that makes one cringe, but none of them encourage violence or racism in any way (and by the way, while there are likely bonafide racist on the Right, there are also bonafide racist on the Left too).

In fact, those on the Right have been remarkably civil (and certainly non-violent) overall when compared to Antifa which looks more like Hitler's Brownshirts than anything on the Right. We also have college student demanding that individuals be denied the opportunity to speak (even after being invited to do so by the university), and have even stormed the stage, pushing the speaker either aside or off the stage! Where has that occurred on at conservative schools? The answer is nowhere.

The claim that these attacks are Trump's fault is simply without merit. Under President Obama there were 32 officially declared mass shootings, but no one seemed to think Obama was somehow responsible. Perhaps the most infamous of which was the Mass shooting at the Mandalay Casino in Las Vegas which resulted in 59 deaths and 851 injuries, including 422 by gunfire. We could consider San Bernardino in 2015 for instance. 14 people were murdered and 21 injured. How about Orlando Florida in 2016? 49 died while 53 were wounded or injured. Want more?

In Binghamton New York, 13 were killed and four were wounded. In 2010, eight were killed in Manchester Connecticut and two were wounded. In 2012, a total of 67 were killed and 68 were wounded. In 2016, 71 were murdered while 83 were wounded (Orlando Florida saw the worse of it). We can't forget the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in 2017. That's where an individual targeted Republican members of Congress during a practice game. Fortunately, only six were wounded (two critically), the only death was the shooter. I could easily go on, but I think you get the point.

Was any of these the result of President Obama or his followers? Was the result of the atmosphere he created through his comments? I certainly recall a lot of hostility during his two terms. Was this it then the result of "black supremacy" or "black privilege"? In my opinion, no to all of the aforementioned. It was the result of some very twisted minds just as it is now. They were able to take advantage of our existing freedoms such as gun ownership or the ability to freely by fertilizer or other supplies which could be used to make explosives or rent trucks capable of delivering their deadly cargo.

By the way, regarding claims of "racism", let's remember that blacks, not whites, Asians, or Hispanics, are the ones responsible--- by far--- the killing of fellow blacks; about 92% according to the FBI. In fact, blacks as whole are actually responsible for violent crimes against other races than any other group (likely the result of economics and social pressure such as gang influence). Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum, Asians have the lowest crime rate of any race. Perhaps, again, the result of economics and social norms, but also due to culture which places a high value of conformity.

Now, let's take that same fact and reinterpret it another way, we find that those of a particular race are much more likely to murdered by someone of the same race simply due to association (ie: about 84% of whites in 2016 were murdered other whites, etc). See how that changes our perception of the same information? Yes, in the case of mass shootings, many of the perpetrator(s) are usually white or Hispanic. Why? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it has anything to do with their race. It could the result of specific social norms which affect one group over another just like overwhelmingly mass murderers are male rather than female.

The fact is that evil will always find away. In the UK, which has extremely restrictive laws pertaining to gun ownership, extremist Muslims use machetes and butcher knives to commit their mass murders. Should we outlaws those? What about clubs, bats, slingshots, bows and arrows? Perhaps we could restrict boards, pipes, sticks, and maybe rocks while we're at it. Bad guys don't care about your laws. They will find a way to get their hands on one. Then, faced with an unarmed public, it will be like a pack of hungry wolves on sheep backed against a cliff.

Some of these mass murderers were/are mentally ill. Better access to mental care could have prevented a few killings. More aggressive enforcement of existing laws pertaining to gun purchases would have also cut down on the number of incidents. I agree that some form of "Red Flag" law would have also helped. I would also like to see mandatory gun safety training with periodic updates. As for restricting certain types of weapons based simply on how they look, that's ridiculous. Any gun, regardless of what it looks like or its caliber can kill in the wrong hands.

Lastly, we have to look at the media and current climate of hate and anger, not caused by President Trump per se, but the result of the virulent partisanship in Washington where rarely a civil word is exchanged between parties is ever hear. Part of this is the result of the Left not being able to get over the fact that Hillary Clinton failed to get her coronation. That seems to be what stunned the Left and the win by an outsider like Trump is what pushed them over the edge and into a never-ending vendetta.

The media, which, along with the government, is controlled by the ruling Oligarchy (90+% of all media, including entertainment, videos, radio, newspapers, magazines, TV, and internet content are controlled by just six corporations), has played a large part in contributing to the atmosphere is hatred. When was the last time you watched the "news" (perhaps excluding Fox) in which something was directly or indirectly derogatory toward Trump or his supporters? Even our nightly lineup of TV shows often include some sort of negative comment about Trump. Gone are the days when we got non-partisan reporting. We miss you Art, Walt, Chet, David, Howard, John, Frank, and Harry.

So, what can we do? The first thing, perhaps the most important thing, is to at least agree to disagree; to accept our differences along with our commonality. We won't agree on everything, or even most things as a country. Heck, we don't even do that within a family unit most times. We don't always get our way either. But we can respect each other's opinion and right to voice them, whether we agree or not. We each have that right.

We also need to consign the notion of race hatred, supremacy, privilege, or whatever, regardless of where it comes, to the proverbial "dustbin of history" where it needs to be. That means removing quotas, restrictions (including association), and so forth. It also means treating and respecting each person for who they are individually, not the color of their skin or any other manufactured differences.

We need to step up and enforce existing laws pertaining to background checks. Too often that's the first real break in the chain of responsibility. We do need to enact some form of "Red Flag" law, as well as impose mandatory gun safety training with periodic updates. We must do more---much more---to identify and treat those with mental disorders. Those are the most likely to be our serial killers and mass murderers.

Trying to remove certain guns based on their appearance makes absolutely no sense. Outlawing guns in general make zero sense. As I said, evil will always find a way around any law or restriction. Criminals are, in general, cowards. They tend to hide behind violence and prey on the weak. Someone who is properly trained to use a gun is much less likely not to become a victim than someone who is unarmed. We need to remember that in going forward.

Finally, we need to recognize that the ruling Oligarchy is all about control, be it assets, resources, or us. To do that, they will wage wars using us as their pawns. They will buy and toss politicians like yesterday's fruit. They literally own both parties and the government's bureaucratic infrastructure. Their interests are well protected through their well paid lobbyists and palms are always greased. But to completely control us, they must divide us, and they try in as many ways as possible.

They formulate hatred, division, envy, jealousy, and most of all, anger until we beg for their intervention. As long as we're fighting each other, we're ignoring them and that's the way they want it. We must fully understand this and approach it with eyes wide open. We must accept our few differences while embracing our much larger commonalities. Once we stop playing their games, then we can focus on what really matter to us. Then, and only then, can we truly become a "United" States of America.

Finally, as a side note, I intentionally did not mention the names of any of the mass shooters, past or present. I also chose not to use any of their pictures or descriptions. I decided that I would not give any of these individuals free publicity on this site.


37 Years of Mass Shooting in the US in One Chart

Red Flag Laws

Race and Crime in the United States

Why We never Talk About Black on Black Crime: An Answer to White America's Most Pressing Question