assualt weapons myths

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/nramyths

this is from the brady campaign site.
the nra stance and the anti-gun response to weapon ownership. i want to share some thoughts to these stances and offer a more objective perspective to firearms. here are the 1st three.

NRA MYTH #1: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON

Response: Wrong. The guns covered by the Assault Weapons Act are semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use. Whereas an automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied), a semiautomatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Even semiautomatic assault weapons can be fired with extraordinary speed. When San Jose, California, police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic, while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semiautomatic.

Playing word games, the NRA often claims that the only true "assault weapons" are guns that can be fired in the fully automatic mode and that fully automatic guns have been strictly controlled since 1934. The NRA's efforts to mislead the public in this regard, however, have been exposed by the gun industry's own experts, who have used the term "assault weapons" to describe military-style semiautomatic firearms. For example, in 1989, Gun Digest, considered by many to be the Bible of the gun industry, published The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons. In the book's introduction, the author stated: "[T]here will always be a place for what are collectively termed assault weapons. ... Most of them are effective for the type of warfare for which they have been designed: close range assault work. That's where firepower is a necessity either to make the enemy keep his head down so you can maneuver or, more permanently, to remove him from the action. ... There is also an element of the civilian population that is showing an increasing interest in this type of weaponry. The vast majority of these shooters and gunowners purchase assault-type weapons limited to semiautomatic fire."1

The gun industry has also used the term "assault" weapon as a selling point to urge civilians to buy semiautomatic versions of machine guns. For example, Intratec, which made the infamous TEC assault pistols banned by name in the federal statute, advertised its line of semiautomatic pistols in magazines such as Soldier of Fortune, Combat Handguns, and S.W.A.T. this way in 1989: "At two-thirds the weight (and price) of an Uzi, the TEC-9 series clearly stands out among high capacity 9mm assault-type pistols."2


first off, i want to present something to you.

Main Entry: 1 as·sault
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈsȯlt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English assaut, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *assaltus, from assalire
Date: 14th century

1 a: a violent physical or verbal attack
1 b: a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces
1 c: a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2 a: a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact — compare battery 1b b: rape 2

weapons were intended to kill food at the beginning of time; whether aminal or human. weapons evolved into either defending ourselves from one another or to attack one another at the beginning of socialization. we don't know which was first. weapons are a symbol of freedom and protection. now human nature has shown that the same weapons are used to destroy and oppress people. that is our history. assault has been defined as negative humans action towards others. it's this association to the term assault that anti-gun lobbies are using to demonize weapons. while we can use weapons to assault others doesn't mean they are assault weapons. criminals and people that are reckless in society assault others with weapons. it's their actions that is the assault. all weapons are versions of military weapons; from arrows to swords to firearms. their history is in combat innovation. semi-autos are civilian compliant full-auto versions of military weapons. simply because the military used a weapon doesn't mean that civilians can't or are unable to respectfully use and own them. the problem is when criminals use them they use them for what? crimes. if people can respect and responsibly own full-auto military weapons, keeping the law, is there any problem with that? no. but criminals and the degenerates in our society run lawless. and they are the ones damaging our peace and security and simple right to own weapons. What does it matter if a weapon is a semi-auto version of a full weapon? full-auto weapons are not illegal to begin with. a semi-auto version of a full auto weapon doesn’t make it any more dangerous in the hands of law abiding people.

you know, humanitarians scream that americans shouldn’t blame and discriminate muslims for terrorist actions, why are law abiding citizens being blamed and discriminated against for respectfully owning weapons that criminals use for their crime lifestyle?

implying that these weapons are "assault weapons" and the people buying them are going to potentially endanger society is ignorance - no wonder people demonize on gun ownership. not to mention the idea we have in our heads about the term assault. people don't see this, and the nra made a big mistake in buying into this nonsense fear mongering, not to mention that morons using assault weapons like features in their advertising. rifles, handguns, shotguns, and any other type of weapons are simply weapons. but now it's how they are used by criminals that classify them?

people that don’t know anything about guns shouldn’t talk about guns, or pretend to know what is and isn’t suitable for civilians hobbies.


NRA Myth #2: Firearms covered by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban have only "cosmetic" differences from thousands of other semiautomatic firearms.

Response: Wrong. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semiautomatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, the military features of semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to enhance their capacity to shoot multiple targets very rapidly. For example, assault weapons are typically equipped with large-capacity ammunition magazines that allow the shooter to fire 20, 50, or even more than 100 rounds without having to reload. Pistol grips on assault rifles and shotguns help stabilize the weapon during rapid fire and allow the shooter to spray-fire from the hip position. Barrel shrouds on assault pistols protect the shooter's hands from the heat generated by firing many rounds in rapid succession. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun sacrifice accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. Far from being simply "cosmetic," these features all contribute to the unique function of any assault weapon to deliver extraordinary firepower. They are uniquely military features, with no sporting purpose whatsoever.

As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") has explained:

"Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem."

ATF has also described semiautomatic assault weapons as "large capacity, semi-automatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire, combat use. ... Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces. They have distinct features which separate them from sporting firearms." Accordingly, ATF has concluded that assault weapons "are not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes" and instead "are attractive to certain criminals."


no gun is meant to be shot at the hip, who does that? people in hollywood movies. i had to laugh at that because these brady campaign and anti-gun people are ridiculous. seriously.

all rifles are meant to be shot from the shoulder, aiming at your target, with accuracy. how are you to hit your target otherwise? pistol grips for shooting at the hip?? this paints a picture of our military running around battle like a john woo film. go to any range across america or any military training facility and tell me who’s shooting from the hip there? no one. no one. no matter what rifle, no matter what weapon features, everyone is sighting down the weapon sights at their target from the shoulder. most ranges have rules against rapid fire as it posses some dangers to the shooter and the weapon.

today weapons do have large magazines but rarely do people fire them rapidly or spray fire at a range. One shot, sight in the target and fire another shot. i myself, seldom load up to full capacity when target practicing. the only time i do is test a full magazine feed for weapon safety reasons. I won’t speak for everyone, but everyone I know does the same at the range.

barrel shrouds are for the shooter’s protection, not to burn yourself and accidentally fire the weapon if coincidently you have your finger on the trigger.

Folding stocks are for compacting the weapon for transporting in a case, bag or on duty. Yes this makes the weapon concealable. there are a handful of weapons with this feature: certain models of aks and ak clones, certain types of uzis, but what about the number of other rifles that don’t have this feature not a barrel shroud that are listed in this ban?

all of our weapons are designed and tested for the military. today’s weapons are more accurate, durable, reliable, safer, more innovative. those designs cross over to the civilian market. when did it seem that this crossover is somehow unethical? unmoral?, or unsafe? or mass mayhem? they become "sporting" semi-auto, single purpose, stripped down in feature set variants of military weapons. are civilian weaponry not supposed to come from military weapons when that's been the case since its inception? the sporting reference is target shooting for marksmanship or leisure and hunting. no where does it mean olympic shooting. who made that distinction? the anti-gun lobby did.

who has the final say on what is a sporting rifle or not? the gun makers? the anti-gun lobbies? pro gun civilians, anti-gun civilians? these people claiming that military "style" weapons are dangerous in nature simply have a personal opinion and feeling about weapons, regardless what the weapon purpose or function is, and it's fueled by what criminals do with what is legal by law to possess. that is not balanced, fair, or objective. civilians can own full-auto weapons legally, by law. why is that wrong? because of the notorious glorification we see in movies, tv, music, the news and biased web sites like the bradycampaign.


NRA Myth #3: Assault weapons are rarely used in crime.

Response: Not true. Crime gun traces performed by ATF showed that between 1986 and 1992, assault weapons were traced to 1,578 murders, 940 assaults, 224 robberies, and more than 4,500 narcotics arrests.6 Because only a fraction of the guns used in crime are traced by the ATF, these figures understate the criminal use of these guns. The real number of crimes committed with assault weapons may be up to ten times higher.7 Moreover, before the Federal ban, assault weapons were used in some of the worst mass murders ever committed in the United States. For example:

The McDonald's shooting - On July 18, 1984, James Huberty killed 21 people and wounded 19 others in a San Ysidro, California, McDonald's using an UZI assault pistol and a shotgun.

The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children and wounded 29 others and a teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.

The Louisville, Kentucky, workplace massacre - On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker killed 7 people and wounded 13 others at his former place of work in Louisville, Kentucky, before taking his own life. Mr. Wesbecker was armed with an AK-47 rifle, two MAC-11 assault pistols, and a duffle-bag full of ammunition.

The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Kasi used a Chinese-made semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.

The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve Federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a Federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.

The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.

The firepower of assault weapons makes them especially desired by violent criminals and especially lethal in their hands. Prior to the Act, although assault weapons constituted less than 1% of the guns in circulation,14 they were a far higher percentage of the guns used in crime. ATF's analysis of guns traced to crime showed that assault weapons "are preferred by criminals over law abiding citizens eight to one. ... Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless."

The NRA and its supporters have cited Justice Department studies based on surveys of state and Federal prisoners to claim that assault weapons are used in only 2% of crimes nationally. These studies, however, actually confirm the disproportionate use of assault weapons in crime. More than 80% of these prisoners used no firearm in the commission of their crimes. Within the category of inmates who used guns to commit crimes, semiautomatic assault weapons were actually used in 6.8% of state prosecutions and 9.3% of Federal prosecutions.16 Both percentages are much higher than the estimated 1% of guns in circulation that are assault weapons.17 They are also far higher than the misleading 2% figure cited continually by the NRA.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/guic.htm

this is the latest report referred to by both the nra and bradycampaign. 2% of all crime involved an assault weapon is not clear, however compared to crimes involving guns - handguns were used 86%of the time as type of weapon preferred by criminals. this is from the report.

The predominant type of handgun produced has also changed duringthe last two decades from manual revolvers to semi-automatic pistols. Firearms used by offenders reflect a trend toward semi-automatic pistols. Last year, nine of the 10 most frequently traced guns were pistols. Abouta third of the 83,000 traced guns were 3 years old or less and one-fifthwere 1 year old or less.

Most firearms in circulation are rifles and shotguns, not handguns. While precise estimates of the numbers and types of firearms in operatingcondition are not known, about one-third of the 223 million firearmsmanufactured for domestic sale or imported into the United States from1899 through 1993 were handguns (77 million) and two-thirds were rifles(79 million) or shotguns (66 million).

Surveys of inmates show that they prefer concealable, large- caliberguns and that juvenile offenders appear to be more likely to possess semi-automatic weapons than adult offenders.

this is very clear. the ak-47, ar-15 and the tec pistol are the main weapons in crimes, because they are cheap, costing less than a handgun in most cases, and are compact. these are the "assault" weapons at the heart of this ban and problem. yet the anti-gun lobby has done everything to let you know that we are in a an assault weapons predicament, when handguns are the true problem in assaults and homicides. why is that? when you read what the waco people had, all those weapons immediately become a danger to society, because these people just happened to have them?

we own many things during our lives; bats, knives, clubs, cars, pens, etc. these things are a part of ordinary life, but when criminals use them must we re-examine their meanings? reading these statements, i understand the power of firearms, but i also understand we are not attacking the problem of crime. taking away guns doesn't stop crime, however these findings by the bradycampaign suggest they are part of the problem. they are not. this ban and the ideas behind the anti-gun lobby simply state that american civilians are not capable of owning guns. it doesn't even matter what type of gun is at the heart of the discussion. if a criminal picks up gun x, we must ban gun x. how does that really, truthfully solve our problems?

more mpg

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/12/01/153497.html

"The simplest, most cost-effective way to reduce the United States' consumption of oil is to increase the fuel economy of motor vehicles. Improving the fuel economy of passenger vehicles to an average of 40 mpg would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, cut global warming emissions and save consumers thousands of dollars annually at the gas pump. Detroit has the technology to accomplish this while maintaining the power, safety, and performance that consumers demand."-- Union of Concerned Scientists

http://40mpg.org/

"The simplest, most cost-effective way to reduce the United States' consumption of oil is to increase the fuel economy of motor vehicles. Improving the fuel economy of passenger vehicles to an average of 40 mpg would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, cut global warming emissions and save consumers thousands of dollars annually at the gas pump. Detroit has the technology to accomplish this while maintaining the power, safety, and performance that consumers demand."-- Union of Concerned Scientists

The technology already exists to achieve 40 mpg and beyond.

Gas pump savings for consumers will exceed extra costs of fuel-efficient vehicles.

More fuel-efficient cars could significantly reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

The fuel efficiency of our national vehicle fleet is getting worse – not better.

More fuel-efficient cars = a cleaner environment.


when you look between the lines, you get a good picture of how corrupt and greedy and reckless american companies are. u.s. auto makers have the technology and often supply the technology for better, higher standards in fuel efficiency, allow for longer car life and reliability, and save you money in the long run. yet they refuse to give americans these cars.

why? because we accept whatever they give us without question. we need to start thinking about the future of america. it's obvious they are not.

EPA-EST. 30 HIGHWAY MPG IS PRETTY COMMON AT CHEVY.
http://www.chevrolet.com/fueleconomy/?seo=goo_fuel_economy

this is from chevy. 30 mpg? like that is any good. japan has had cars that have done better than that for some time now. next year chevy will probably announce their 32 mpg!!!!! and take more of your money. and next year they are going to announce the 34mpg!!!!! car and take even more of your money. and after that 35!!!!! and guess what? take more of your money.

it's sickening how american companies hold back technology to squeeze every bit of money you have, and then they act like they are moving forward and making change. it's completely sickening.

you should see how much asia pays for broadband internet and what kind of broadband speeds they have...

mpg

it's such a shame to see the american auto industry refusing to make more fuel efficient vehicles for us. they threaten the common sense request with "too much high cost" and "cutting american jobs."

so making more fuel efficient cars will cut jobs? how do you figure?

well everyone at the top want s to keep making their cut; so higher cost in process and manufacturing means they won't take a small cut to fund the transition, no, they will keep making their billions and cut the little guys jobs at the bottom to fund the transition then blame us for the unemployment rate because we want better cars. such greed and lack of motivation to move into a positive future is so, infuriating, distasteful...i don't even know what to call it, but these people running these companies should be allowed to be here.

if we as americans want better cars, better fuel efficiency, better environmental impact, it would be in our best interest to completely boycott all american cars. buy only foreign cars. threaten them to close down or meet our demands for better productions. the problem is there are good, decent working american people with jobs there, and i wouldn't want to jeopardize their livelihood. what can we do in such a situation? 30 mpg is nothing and they tout that like it's sliced bread. and our emissions are no where near what they are in other countries. why? why is the industry forcing us to pay for more gas? why is this industry forcing us to lose money? why is this industry so against the american people?

foreign car manufactures are already turning to and using more efficient fuel sources, allowing cars run 40-60 mpg. they have been experimenting with methane, corn and hydrogen. yet we are still in bed with OIL. your life as an american isn't worth anything compared to OIL. our desired for a better america is worth nothing compared to OIL. as long as there is OIL you will never see the benefits that people around the world have.

back in the 90s saturn had an electric car that meet all these demands we are screaming about today and the auto industry destroyed that option for us just to keep billions in their pockets. it's enough to make you not have any kind of pride here.

american pride isn't about owning and buying everything that's american no matter how they are made. i consider myself a patriot and believe in the rising of american pride but most of my purchases and car i drive are japanese. they have it right over there. they make the initiative to innovate and better the life of people without having to make such a big fuss about it. i know it has happened in the past, but not like it happens here.

we don't really care about pollution, we don't care about our environment, we don't care about the cost of energy, we only care about "our time", what's on tv?, entertainment, drinking, having a good time. we are sending the message to all american businesses that "yeah, we like getting screwed by you", because we take it. we don't stand up for anything as a whole. that is why we are in the situation we are now. and guess what? it's too late. high gas prices. inefficient cars, poor environmental repercussions.

it's our faults and all the american industries took advantage of american selfishness and lack of pride and made damn sure it stayed that way - because we keep paying them.

do america a favor, buy japanese.

guns and american violence

this is from msnbc http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15111438/ written 2007. it states Myth No. 3. “No one knew.” Myths about school shooters.

Before most of the attacks, someone else knew about the idea or the plan. "In most cases, those who knew were other kids: friends, schoolmates, siblings and others. However, this information rarely made its way to an adult."

here's the complete section of the report by National Institute of Justice Journal, No 248--Preventing School shootings

This article summarizes USSS Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention
of Targeted Violence in Schools (Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service, National Threat
Assessment Center, 2000). The summary is published with permission from NTAC

Prior to most incidents, the attacker told someone about his idea or plan. In more than three-fourths of the cases examined in the Safe School Initiative, the attacker told a friend, schoolmate, or sibling about his idea for a possible attack before taking action. In one case, an attacker made comments to at least 24 friends and classmates about his interest in killing other students, building bombs, or carrying out an attack at the school. Some of the conversations were long enough that peers conveyed detailed information about the plans, including the date it would happen.

However, the study identified a major barrier to the prevention of targeted school violence. In nearly all of the cases, the person who was told about the impending incident was a peer, and rarely did anyone bring the information to an adult’s attention.

i'm wondering if these people that knew prior are being help accountable and tried as accessories to these shootings. probably not. you never hear about this side of the story. if they are not, there is no real urgency in doing everything possible to prevent school shootings. these people need to start being held accountable. let me ask you something, if your child was killed and you found out that someone knew about it and didn't say anything what would you feel?

firearms are a really big problem in america. crime, school shootings, accidents. there is a lack of understanding when it comes to guns. guns are a sensitive subject. but i stand behind the right to own them. i'm a gun owner, but these kids, criminals and some nra stances are making it very difficult be seen as a good law abiding person and makes it so easy to demonize gun ownership.

guns stand for freedom and they stand for independence. but not today because of what's going on. you can't demonize guns or the people that lawfully, respectfully, and responsibly use them. we need to demonize the criminals and the corrupt dealers that sell guns to criminals.

when it comes to these kids shooting other kids, not only are they held accountable, but the parents should be held accountable too. i grew up ok, and so did many others. we had parents that cared for us and taught us right, even in the presence of other trouble makers and people that had no respect for what's right, we grew up ok. the parents are at fault too. these parents didn't teaching their kids right. if we started holding them accountable, you can bet that the leniency and lack of discipline parents today give their kids would quickly stop.

people that don't know anything about guns shouldn't talk about guns. all guns have one thing in common, they are dangerous in the wrong hands. it's a tough thing to talk about especially when families are victims of gun violence and they speak out against guns. but we can't simply run off to ban them. a gun is a gun for someone that is a victim, i understand that. but a gun is not a gun if you know about them.

there was a study done by the justice department or if you search "Guns Used in Crime". it states that the majority of guns in crimes are handguns and assault rifles are less used. the percentages of rifles used are small in comparison. it's an old report, but i imagined not much has changed up to today. but i'm wondering why is there such a big push to ban "assault rifles" and not ban handguns if they are the ones criminals prefer to use? it doesn't make sense. most crimes are committed with handguns, why are we not pushing to ban handguns? instead we are making so much effort on banning rifles that are rarely used?

but it doesn't matter when talking about guns. guns are guns. you either have respect them or you don't. you either respect them or you fear them . owning a gun is a big responsibility. most law abiding americans are responsible, i think. but that isn't the issue. the truth about all this hasn't even been touched. the truth is even if you got rid of all the guns in the world, we would live in danger from criminals. with no guns around criminals would turn to other weapons. guns are only a small portion of our history, before guns there was the sword, before the sword, there were arrows, before that we threw rocks at each other. we can ban the right to own or buy guns, but what about the guns in the hands of millions of criminals? there's a big gun trafficking problem here; you think a gun ban will stop that too? it won't. a gun ban will put our lives in danger from criminals that don't follow our laws.

let's say for argument's sake, we got rid of all guns and ideas of violence in all mediums; got rid of every person that has knowledge of violence, got rid of all weapons and gave this world to our children to rule without any trace of violence - i can see in the beginning that things would be peaceful, but i guarantee with my life, that one day, one of those people, or maybe their children will introduce violence into society again. and eventually one day, someone will throw something at someone else and kill them.

does anyone feel differently?

has our history shown anything differently? violence can not be stopped; no science, no law, no religion, no intellect, no books, no speech, no ideas, or will of the people, morals, or values will ever change that fact. we can do all we can to prevent violence, but we must start with issues that are a factor in violent behavior; not the means-to-an-end once violent behaviors are carried out.

guns aren't the problem. we can make efforts to stop guns from being used but that isn't the problem. the problem is we will never stop crimes. we will never stop criminals. we will never stop violence. that is human nature. if we killed every criminal today, we will have to kill many more tomorrow. it's in our human culture. it is human design. that is something no one wants to hear, but that is the truth.

we are missing the point.

the lesser of 2 evils

i can't understand for the life of me - people that say, "well, looking at my voting options, i'll vote for the lesser evil of 2 evils." evil, right... you do know what that implies? "well if you don't vote you have no say in what goes on." WHAT? are you kidding me. i don't understand how that propaganda sank so fast in the minds of americans.

being presented with a line up of people that are worthless and i have to choose one, i'd choose none. that is an option as well. that is my option. i choose not to put anyone in power that i don't feel i can trust, or is a leader for the people. you can't trust any of these people. they don't care about you or me. they will only make there lives better and forget about you. in fact we don't even exist to them. we exist as stepping stone votes, not as individuals.

the truth is if we all didn't vote for any of these people, you can believe that will make the biggest impact and have the loudest voice ever in american history.

imagine that...

but that is unpatriotic. that is undemocratic, that is plain ignorant. that is dangerous. that is not american. why? because we wouldn't be "behaving" the way they expect you to behave. to follow the painted line they want you to follow. it's interesting that the more they tell you "you need to follow these rules, you need to participate this way, you need to believe in everything we do." the more our freedom to question and to even demand change seems to be unamerican.

your vote is not your voice. i choose not to vote because these people set in place by the system are not on my side. that is the voice i want america to hear. not "gee, i'll vote for the lesser of 2 evils like you want me to; rock the vote!"

reconstructive thoughts

my first posting is a little negative. it's the cause of years of looking at what's going on around me, and how everyday, the controlling class makes us believe that things are not as bad as they seem. and even worse, how the people around me succumb to the propaganda.

i should deconstruct my thoughts and present them again in a more absorbent way. like i said it's important not to rant. but it's part of humandesign to get so passionate and infuriated by the evolution of america. it truly is tough to see nothing but the negative when the more you live the more you notice how things really are designed to work against you.

we need leadership

i'm not an authority, i'm not an expert. i haven’t written a book, studied law or politics for school or credit. i’m not involved in politics. i'm just an american. a person, like you and everyone else, with perceptions, thoughts, and feelings about america and us as a working system. i see this system not working because there is no true leadership.

i've thought for some time now that it's time speak about this place; to the people. things need to be said and we need to start listening to people that are willing to tell you the truth. the times are turning downward; to black; to ashes; to smoke - in most places, but in america, it seems we have a little more time to make the 180 out of the downward spiral.

but my truth is sometimes harsh and hard and, well, too inhuman for people with a blinding pursuit of hope to swallow. I don’t blame them. It’s good they are that way and haven’t given up. We need more people like that. On the other hand, blind hope sets us further and further away from reality and when it comes time to face it those people have prevented themselves from being completely prepared to deal with and accept reality. the truth can’t be generic, or softened, or pc, or void of passion, or what’s accepted by the “experts”, endorsed by the hand that feed and control us, or one liners. truth is complex.

the truth starts with leadership; passed along by leadership; and protected by leadership and is not swayed by anything. there in lies the problem. people are easily swayed. and our leadership has been swayed for many, many years.

leadership needs to start coming from the youth of this country. we need to take notice and start climbing up to those positions. there are too many older generations at the helm, trying to direct this country down old rusted, warped tracks that worked a long time ago., but america today is different, i don’t need to tell you that, we all know that. Unfortunately that hasn’t really sunk in yet. the generations of tomorrow are getting lost; getting tired to fast; getting overstepped; getting sloppy; getting too apathetic; getting too destructive, getting lied to, getting distracted, getting forsaken. all these people fighting to take control of our lives and direction of america are just trying to make a name for themselves, etching there names in history; making a career in “making a change”, “we need change”, “change”, “this country needs change”, “the people want change”. undoubtedly over the decades we seemed to have gotten worse and worse and worse, a little more here a little more there; masking the bad with 20 or 30 band-aid policies and laws that will eventually, progressively fail the people and the rare one good change coming out of every 2 or 3 administrations that makes little impact to the overall failing machine. and then they distract our attention daily to make us forget the little things here and there that are corroding our land, our home, from the inside out.

i know for sure the systems we deal with everyday, in schools, in medicine, for consumer goods, of corporations, of our finances, in banks, of credit cards, for family expectation, even of entertainment work against us. i know for sure the law doesn’t really work for people. i know for sure the police don’t serve or protect us. i know for sure this government doesn’t really work for people. i know for sure we don’t care about each other. there’s just too many things to name that work against us.

i don’t pretend to know all the answers for everything, but i can offer some answers to some of our problems that we seem to ignore, or simply don't realize. the truths about us and america are hard to hear and accept, but it's important to not rant about them, so i want to take some time thinking about how to present them to you. it's important to not get the wrong message across. i have hope in a better america. i'm also blinded by hope. maybe some of you out there will understand and see some truth in what i say. others may not, but the great thing about that is with the willingness to discuss we can come to an understanding. something lost in america today. true understanding.

i wish i could be a leader. we desperately need good leaders real bad these days. i wish i could become a leader, but i’m not charismatic or elegant in speech. unfortunately that is one trait that matters more than what is actually said by most "leaders."