Entertainment...

Our lives are constantly bombarded with fantasy.
We are made to believe the make believe.
We are fed illusions by the hour.
Made to believe it is true.

Who is real?
What is real?
How do these fantasy affect our real lives?

How can we get away from these fantasies?
simple. If it can be turned off, turn it off.
Go outside and play.
Talk with real people about real things. Like their lives. Their history.

Assume that anything you are not directly involved in is not true.

Hell, things you are involved in are subject to deception.

Why I Don't Trust Politicians

None of them represent the people they have control over

Elected officials play a game
Say what you need to say to voters
Make promises you never intended to keep
Then when you get into office
you do the bidding of those who are funding you.
Most times at the expense of the greater public you said you would represent.

All in all I don't trust anyone who wants control over other people's lives.

How I use Holy Texts

When I read the Bible, I think,
How can I use this to make my life better
Never, How can I impose this on others.

Disciplined Restraint

Why are the Rules of Engagement more restrictive for military security forces in foreign lands?
Why are police forces in the United States allowed to take life with more leisure than military security?

Use deadly force triangle
Capability
Opportunity
Intent
Only when these three criteria are met, are you allowed to use deadly force.
And then it is only when lesser means of restraint are not effective or not reasonable.

Use of force continuum

Presence

Verbal commands

Bodily force

Less than lethal weapons

Police have this training. They have been trained to deescalate situations. There is no excuse.

Community Policing.

Being involved in the community they police. Getting to know the citizens of the community they police.

So that fear does not rule your actions. A person has a name. They are human. They are not a demon.

National institute of justice

Culture of destruction

Around the culture of Gun violence in America.
I used to say that guns are ingrained in our culture. They were a part of the American conquer. From Canada to the tip of Chile.
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms. State constitutions protect the right to bear arms to hunt and protect personal property.
Forces control our legislature through money. There is no way they will allow the ban of weapons.

I'd only hope to ask that automatic weapons would be restricted to the military and all weapons would be regulated like vehicles.

BUT, beyond all that, there is a deeper issue.
The lack of equanimity for life.
When particular humans are killed, the first thoughts of the public aren't of grief or dismay. They are wondering what the person did to deserve death. They are finding ways to justify the execution.
No one deserves to be killed. Killing another human being is only justified in self defense or the defense of others. Even in that case, that person did not deserve to die. You had no other option but to kill them.
As a people, we need to train ourselves to give ourselves more options

Where pro-life members want to stop at nothing to protect the life of an unborn child. Yet, they do not extend that passion to those living in poverty or prison.

Whose life is worth grieving?
What death is justified?

Notes on self defense

We should be clear about justifications of deadly force

Imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm

Use deadly force triangle
Capability
Opportunity
Intent

Understand that trying to get away from the situation or defuse the situation is the best form of self defense

Self defense is stopping the threat.

There is a line between self defense and retribution
If you have taken away a person's ability to harm you or their desire to harm you, you have successfully defended yourself.
If you continue to harm them after that fact, that is retribution

There should be no immunity for killing someone
All cases should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

overview of self defense

As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat.  The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm.  Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.

Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended.  For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended.  Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.

self-defense
n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or use excessive force. Examples: an unarmed man punches Allen Alibi, who hits the attacker with a baseball bat. That is legitimate self-defense, but Alibi cannot chase after the attacker and shoot him or beat him senseless. If the attacker has a gun or a butcher knife and is verbally threatening, Alibi is probably warranted in shooting him. Basically, appropriate self-defense is judged on all the circumstances. Reasonable force can also be used to protect property from theft or destruction. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved, as is the case in most burglaries, muggings or vandalism.

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html#sthash.SqNuIZvH.dpuf

Original 9/11/14
mar 28 2012

Weapon Control

Bill Of Rights
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The definition of a well regulated Militia and it's relation to the right to bear arms could be argued.
Constitutions of individual states secure the right for people to bear arms for self defense and hunting purposes.
Is this a right with no boundaries, no restraints?

Is it feasible or desirable to take this right away? To ban arms?  
What about simple controls?

What if the car regulations were enacted on guns.
You have to be a certain age to have weapons in public. Do whatever you want on your private property.
You have to pass a test. Written and practical.
You have to register the weapon.
You have to have insurance.
You have to have a license. You have to have special licensing and increased insurance to keep certain weapons.
If you violate the law, you can have your weapon taken away from you.
Your penalty will be greater If you have not followed these guidelines and you harm someone.


NO one can sell you a weapon unless you meet these guidelines.

Of course, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. BUT, clear guidelines can reduce the amount of people killed by other people.

Deep Thought

These reasonings are unconnected: 

 "I am richer than you, therefore I am better";

 "I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better." 

The connection is rather this:

 "I am richer than you, therefore my property is greater than yours;"

 "I am more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than yours."

 But you, after all, are neither property nor style. 

Epicurus