Gun Rights

What Clarence Thomas Gets Wrong About the Second Amendment “[t]he right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan.” But in a world where consequences matter, the choice of the “orphan” metaphor is a particularly regrettable one: Guns in America have created real orphans in every city and state. No other right I can think of has done the same. To liberate black people all over the world, has sparked a lively discussion over whether he is a bad guy to begin with. What could be so bad about black liberation? “I fist-pumped in the silent, dark theater when he was laying out his plans.” I am using these excerpt from two totally different subjects to juxtaposition: the fact of two things being placed close together for contrasting effect, review an interesting phenomenon at play in our present day. Oddly enough, we have some non-traditional actors coming to the defense of gun rights after yet another mass killing this time carried out by an associate of White Supremacist. Clarence Thomas is an African/American Supreme Court Justice. He most famously faced a long and very public hearing where his former assistant Anita Hill accused him of in-appropriate behavior. That must of been nearly twenty years ago, but the vivid depictions of pornography remain fresh in my mind. I bring it up because in the twenty or so years after Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court which he was the first African American Supreme Court Judge, he has been mostly silent and has voted conservative. There isn't an issue with his conservative ideology or the fact that he has been silent in public hearings. The issue I see is his outspoken stance on gun rights. This is a man that has been obviously put in a position where his voice was limited from the very beginning. Not his decision making or his judgment has ever been in question, but for some reason his public voice has been silenced for two decades except for Gun Right cases? What’s wrong with this argument as a matter of law is that it’s being carried on in the dark, with no more grounding in facts than the average afternoon radio call-in show. A responsible course—as even Solicitor General seemed to admit—would be to remand the case for the creation of a factual record to supplant some of the airy theorizing the advocates (and the justices) engaged in. But that would allow it to carry on for another year or two. And that’s what’s really wrong with the whole proceeding. The conservative justices don’t even try to hide it: The case is really about politics—about their feeling that public-opinions on the NRA are not too powerful and that the policies they favor are hurting the country and they are all liberals who want Gun Control and they need to be stopped right away. In general, when we discuss government there are two sides to the conversation. On one side you have the Federalist perspective that advances Federal power and often times is called an over reach. On the other, you have state's rights advocates that believe in limiting the powers of the Federal government. To demonstrate this example let us hear from Anthony Kennedy who is also a Supreme Court Justice with what he had to say about this in a Labor case: "It can be a partner with you in advocating for a greater size workforce, against privatization, against merit promotion, against—for teacher tenure, for higher wages, for massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes? That’s—that’s the interest the state has?" Let's exmine each of his statements as separate ideas to interpret his opposition to them. "It can be a partner with you in advocating for a greater size workforce," remember he is talking about the power of Labor unions. "Against privatization, against merit promotion," It seems to be he thinks Labor's measure of achievement is anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. "Against—for teacher tenure, for higher wages," now this one, it seems he believes Labor advocates for only Union Members to see increased wages. "For massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes?" "That’s—that’s the interest the state has?" He's making it very clear that his stance is political. What sort of actor or actors do they answer to? It makes me wonder, "Who runs the Supreme court?" It's the legal branch of government and here we have members of the entity behaving in an obvious manner that is among other things out of step with legal pattern of behavior. A society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone, no court can save; that a society where that spirit flourishes, no court need save; that in a society which evades its responsibility by thrusting upon the courts the nurture of that spirit, that spirit in the end will perish. It was plain to see that this Court is often very precisely divided on partisan lines. John Roberts is a kind of mirror image of Barack Obama. President Obama thought he would bridge the partisan divide in Washington by explaining himself to Republicans and getting them to agree. But that’s not how politics works. In my opinion, when he came on the Court, Chief Justice Roberts also believed that, because he is so intelligent and such a skilled writer, he would win over those who disagreed. That of course did not happen; it could not have happened. In one of those “unanimous” cases, Bond v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia read his angry concurrence from the bench just as if it were a dissent – something that has seldom if ever happened before. There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” In that reading, the most protected participation is not the right to vote, but the speech-based right to spend money to speak independently and to contribute money to political figures. I think, democracy is a process in which those who have money and power necessarily and properly wield more influence than those who do not. Famous entertainers can raise more money than rich donors were allowed to give. This was unfair to the donors; the fact that rich donors can give more than ordinary citizens was not worthy of mention. I conclude that the Chief thinks that a level playing field is not simply impermissible but undesirable; that the hills from which some speak, and the valleys in which others are trapped and muffled, are what the Founders had in mind. “[i]f the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.” Now let's examine the powerful lobby effort of the Gun's Rights advocates keeping in mind that they already have a majority of the Supreme Court backing. This is to point out that no one is coming for their guns, but they use that as slogan to keep their supporters in fear that is happening. NRA head breaks silence to attack gun control advocates LaPierre made the customary moves: denunciations of creeping socialism, warnings that American’s gun rights could suddenly come under threat, blame of the mainstream media for its deceptions. At times, he sounded like Trump’s political identical twin. And we have this from French leadership, although not directly connected to the NRA, sounding suspiciously similar: Maréchal-Le Pen claimed French sovereignty was under siege. “France is no longer free today,” she proclaimed. “After 1500 years of existence, we now must fight for our independence.” She also claimed that after 40 years of mass immigration, Islamist lobbies and political correctness, France was in the process of going “from the eldest daughter of the Catholic Church to the little niece of Islam”. What do all these things have in common? Conscious and unconscious ideas, that an individual group has. A narrower scope than the ideas expressed in worldview. In other words, ideology! What we’re seeing is an extension of a dominant class an elite to all members of society. When post-Napoleonic governments adopted a reactionary stance, French nobility struggled to maintain their own rights in the matters of local government. Representatives of royal power in the provinces did much to undermine local control. Now I want to stop here to point out that This Conservative viewpoint is reversed here in America. We don't have a Monarchy, so the idea that Nobles & Royalty exist is more attributed to Wealth & Equality. Our substitute for servant based economy is as much a depiction of wealth inequality as any Monarchy. So earlier when I asked, "Who runs the Supreme court?" I think it's safe to say from the demonstrations we've witnessed in terms of the court's decisions becoming political, it's wealth. Now if wealth is controlling branches of government which it's also simply safe to say more than likely it is, "What type of Secret Society is it?" This term, "Secret Society," has been around for a long time and it applies to many ancient concepts, but what mainstream examples do we have today? For background into this concept, we go back to France. French Protestantism, which was largely Calvinist, derived its support from the lesser nobles and trading classes. Its two main strongholds were south west France and Normandy, but even in these districts the Catholics were a majority. in 1620 the Huguenots proclaimed a constitution for the "Republic of the Reformed Churches of France." Huguenots were allowed to hold religious services in certain towns in each province. Conservatives were on the defensive, and the government increasingly applied pressure. A series of small civil wars broke out in southern France between 1610 and 1635. They were long considered to be regional squabbles, but today we know they were between rival noble families. Let's consider the idea that our form of Democracy is at times, at it's core, an extension of French revolution. Peasants lead a revolt against the Nobles and succeeded. As for terms of seigneurial dues or tax, the majority refused to pay. I comparison, present day America. Tax cuts! Lead by wealthy Americans and signed by their leader into law. Founding texts of modern France. "They destroyed aristocratic society from top to bottom, along with its structure of dependencies and privileges." "For this structure they substituted the modern, autonomous individual, free to do whatever was not prohibited by law ... The Revolution thus distinguished itself quite early by its radical individualism." In America that is known by its current moniker, "Freedom." The old judicial system, based on the 13 regional parliaments were suspended and officially abolished. The main institutional pillars of the old regime had vanished overnight. Its central phrases and cultural symbols became the clarion call for major upheaval. What does this say about modern judicial activism in our society? Does Clarence Thomas want guns for the citizens to provide ammunition for a future revolution? Remember, I provided an excerpt from a viewer watching Marvels, "Black Panther," as the second phrase starting this narrative. By comparing modern culture and historical record, we can see a clear pattern of upheaval today, but what does it mean when the conservatives hold all three branches of government and are the current Anti-Proletarians? Who are they rebelling against? Inequality is broken into further classes of Gender, Education, Race, Social, Participation & Stratification. Stratification is where we find the differentiation of Upper, Middle and finally Lower class in society. This is further described as Kinship, Clan, Tribe or Caste. Here is the connection between Social Conservatism and Kinship/Clan stratum of society. We all know that Caste System dictates wealth. If your parents are poor, you are born poor and so on and so forth. Conservatives claim that Middle American workers or Blue Color voters have been left behind by a government that has ignored them. I'd tend to agree with this sentiment, but where I start clarification between reforming governmental policy and reforming judicial precedent is with the "Hot-Button," issues, Voter Restriction, Abortion, Labor and Gun Rights. You can see where these issues are world view versus justice instead of one in the same. Law is not quite the legal theory where fairness is administered as the word Justice implies. When a Supreme court judge is allowed to be political in decision making and swayed by the influence of wealth or power, well that isn't exactly administering justice is it? It's not just the Legal Branch of government that I'm talking about here, but the last branch of government Americans want politicized. Politicians vote on law every day. A court judge reviews those laws when they come into conflict with existing laws, they rule it out of order. But, by becoming an advocate for gun rights before listening to a petitioner state a case, is a clear-cut sign of influence where this circumstance we are seeing, a "First Amendment right being compared to Second Amendment right." For me, that's a problem because the First Amendment is about speech and the Second is about the right to bear Arms. Speech, the last time I checked isn't quite as lethal. What we are witnessing is a judge making a ruling before any evidence has been heard. Does that make sense to you? Not only is he making a decision before examining the evidence he is strictly saying, "Don't bring this to me because this will be my response." Ideology is one thing, but bias and prejudice from a Supreme Court Justice. I know it's heard of and I can fathom it. I just don't understand the principle. How can a judge be allowed to sit in a elevated position, the highest court, and behave in a manner unfit for any court? Then you have elected leaders who choose to corral the impulse to do something to protect the public in favor of protecting themselves. It's pretty clear the GOP is taking a beating, but they're sticking to their guns. At this point the number of guns in the country has reached the saturation point of a one to one ratio of one gun to every person. How about a completely out of the box idea? If the gun manufacturers were thinking strategically they would be in favor of confiscation of certain types of weapons. With millions of guns taken off the market they could start a new sales trend to satisfy the death cult ideology of all those who were forced to turn in a weapon. While it seems counter-productive to the goal of less guns it would be an avenue to getting rid of certain types of weapons such as military grade and semi-autos and with the help of the manufacturers. There's also the disturbing message that this has become a nation of overripe adolescents more preoccupied with infantile comic book fantasies than in paying attention to realities like the ongoing assault on our civil rights. Attack a minority? Fine and dandy. Criticize my comic books and their childish world view? Outrage! Fascism! Yet there are people who don't think Americans have become childishly passive, docile, housebroken consumers. Now we see the same right wing conform-it-ism in broadcasting: A recent merger of the media company Sinclair Broadcasting with Tribune media would eviscerate the principles the FCC was created to uphold and defend. This will bring right wing politics into the homes of 72% of American Households. Principles such as diversity of ownership to foster competition, diversity of viewpoints to foster public debate, and localism to foster service to the community will be cast aside.. All three have been perched precariously on the sill since the Reagan administration. Speaking of presidents, let us examine a current one: These days, the denials serve instead to distract from the ever-clearer picture of a president surrounded by crooks and liars. The claim that this president was a business man is collapsing. Look at the latest development in the corporate hierarchy. It would be easy to write off this moment by saying these companies are simply reacting to an online mob, or following each other like lemmings. But the fact that companies, rather than Congress or the courts, are shifting in response to political activism in the United States says something profound—about American tribalism. This avalanche of companies abandoning the NRA is just the latest chapter in the gradual politicization of every square inch of the public sphere, which has compelled traditionally nonpartisan companies to take one partisan stand after another. I'm a little confused by all this because the GOP has for the most part been business friendly. Now they're attacking corporations for exercising their so-called free speech rights? Let's consider the reasons why this might be happening in the White House and the reason business is breaking partnership with this administration. “Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.” The discussion on bribery is quickly shifting from did he break the law to what laws did he break? The promise of the Kelly regime was that it would avoid hasty, poorly considered eruptions like this one. The prospect of Trump quickly signing a document without careful vetting harkens back to the earliest days of the administration. In part thanks to the president’s own impulsive statements at the time, the president signed a travel ban that was written without consultation by many of the stakeholders; that ban, and successive iterations, have repeatedly lost in court. This is not the only example of Trump shocking his allies with extemporaneous statements. Why might the president be emotional, volatile, and angry? There are, in fact, plenty of reasons. The revelation that the White House has been gaming the clearance system is not only an example of the kind of chaos that has rattled Trump—it is also a cause. One possible casualty is Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a senior adviser. While Kushner is not out of the White House, there are signs his position is weakening. Last week, he lost his top-secret clearance as part of reset by Kelly, with the president apparently opting not to overrule his chief of staff in favor of his son-in-law. Kushner’s close aide Josh Raffel this week announced he is leaving. But in Kushner’s case, given his portfolio, his demotion to the kid’s table could prove fatal. Trump flouted the anti-nepotism rules like every other norm, whether giving up his business, releasing his tax returns, or accounting for the money he promised to charity. Trump giving his daughter Ivanka and Kushner jobs in the West Wing was just another example of doing as he pleases with the swagger of a businessman from New York who isn’t going to make governing so much harder than it needs to be. Kushner was given authority to stick his fingers in every pie so that the wattage of any number of other experienced officials was seriously dimmed. Rex who? H.R. McMaster did what? Trump gave the crown jewel of our foreign policy to Kushner with a mandate to bring peace to the Middle East, as if what’s been lacking in the region all these years is for a fresh, untutored mind to take a stab at reconciling blood enemies. If Kushner were to leave, it would be another blow to a president who has few close confidants, tends toward paranoia, and detests changes to his routine. Given that the best the White House press apparatus can even hope for is maintain its head above water. It’s hard to disagree with the statement because Trump reopened his feud with Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday urging him to politicize the Justice Department and circumvent standard procedures. Trump’s previous interference in the Justice Department connects to another source of his recent troubles: the Mueller probe. Mueller has demonstrated the breadth and seriousness of his probe and offered proof of the concepts he's used. That includes a set of detailed indictments against anyone involved with the campaign to interfere with the last presidential election. It seems for the most part able he put to rest any suggestion that Russian interference is imaginary or a "Witch Hunt," like the president says. The president’s own personal business dealings, and obstruction of justice evidence is a reminder of how Trump surrounds himself with crooks and liars. The fact that Kelly and others were able to hold Trump off for so long shows the ways in which they had managed to channel the president’s energy, at least for a time. But the ultimate emergence of scandal demonstrates that any such efforts to handle Trump are doomed to fail. It’s not a temporary development, not a turning point, but the White House's impulsive decisionmaker who seems to feel no need to reconcile differences. “It is not exactly shocking when he betrays the people who elected him,” and "While he doesn't speak for millions of Americans, the vast majority who support him will be appalled”. “Every word is a betrayal.” These were the recent words of a prominent leader who I don't think it's necessary to name, but it goes to demonstrate the opinion changing. “I thought it made for really good TV but I thought some of what was discussed is going to make real bad policy,” he goes on. “We’re talking about punishing innocent Americans and stripping from them constitutional rights without due process,” the leader said. I find this statement particularly compelling coming from a conservative who in fact supports the very idea for everyone who isn't a republican. While Trump’s disdain for his national-security team is not as toxic as his shaming of his attorney general, it’s more dangerous. Intercepts reveal Kushner has gone rogue with impunity, taking and making calls to and from foreign leaders, some of whom only want to deal with ingénue Kushner because he’s so “naïve” and “easily manipulated.” The White House insists that multiyear lapses in clearances happen all the time when, of course, they do not. The only thing Trump can do for Kushner now is to grant him a presidential waiver, but more significantly it could lead to Kelly’s resignation when there is no one willing to take such a perilous job. He not only expected to enjoy the fruits of power and influence but to be rescued from the brink of bankruptcy on a flagship building on Fifth Avenue. There have been few glittery evenings to be had, no dinners in the residence with movie stars or historians, the first White House in decades not to hold a state dinner in the first year. This is all an experience of an anti-intellectual in the White House. "Fake News," a denial of facts. These issues of subjective bias versus objective truth were among those explored in 2016 - 2017 presidential year. I think we were able to get to substance. We were able to move from flame throwing to actual policy. I just think it’s good to hear it from the horse’s mouth and we don't have a bigger Jack Ass other than the one we have. So, I think that is valuable, but I understand that sometimes some of these things can be more heat than light. But I do really try to fight my way to the actual substance. So, I'm a bit interested in what Kushner might have to say after departing the White House, but I'm not holding my breath that he will reveal any more than we already know. I publicly broke up with President Trump — I just felt that it was just a toxic playground and he was the bully. I don’t miss it. I think my life has actually improved. I’m interested, obviously, in what others have to say. And obviously as an American I want to have my finger on the pulse. But I really don’t need to hear his insults. I don’t think that’s good for my psyche. I don’t think that’s helpful dialogue. I don’t think it’s helping kids. I like talking to real people. I think that it has helped. In some way, social media is the same in that you’re always up against an opposition, but instead of going all in for a "Money Shot," you hold out to calm your judgment then you can form an opinion. Believe me sounding rational on social media isn't a very popular fad right now, so it won't build a following that most would like to see. Being Raised in A Greener Pasture May Have Had Beneficial Effects on My Brain Development For this I have to offer about education. Primary schoolchildren who have been raised in homes surrounded by more space to explore tend to present with larger volumes of white and grey matter in areas of their brain. Those anatomic differences are in turn associated with beneficial effects on cognitive function. This is the main conclusion of a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives and led by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health. In contrast, confined young people have special circumstances. They are too hurt and shocked and angry to be calmed down. They are too social-media fazed by bots and trolls. Insane conspiracy theories were born in the 9/11 and are fearless. To be made to be backed up by bullies like the social media trolls they can easily spot the BS of a president. He ruined his hand when he had to palm a card to remind him to care when he speaks to them. Their terrifying experiences contribute to what they are demanding and it’s so irrational and impossible to argue against, but that is exactly what the presidents doing. After an armed security guard – a proverbial good guy with a gun – proved powerless to prevent this tragedy, even more extreme lobbying groups like Gun Owners of America have gone after each of these tragedies to push more guns in more places, more permission for gun owners to kill fellow human beings by ensuring they can get away with it via the law. This should give the average American pause to ask a serious question, "If the goal is to have an all-out war between citizen A against citizen B, who gains the upper hand?" I'll propose one outrageous theory, but it's no more outrageous than some of the ones we've already heard. Culture Vegetables & alcohol And yet, despite having better access to these institutions, it seems like it’s some white people who seem to feel culturally deprived. Here is an example of an average experience. Let's take a girl and call her Amanda. She's a colleague with the contempt for guitars. In 2015, she interviewed black psychologists to ask their opinion about Rachel Dolezal, a white academic who purposely misrepresented herself as an African American. Anita Thomas, an associate professor of counseling psychology at Loyola University, said: “In some ways it’s normal, but not at her age.” Thomas explained that many white adolescents behaved similarly to Dolezal, attempting to take on what they perceived to be the characteristics of another race while exploring their identities. Being “the other” sure as hell has its downsides, but it turns out that not being “the other” does too – especially if you’re a teenager. “For white [American] youth, who are disconnected from European heritage or legacy, it often feels like whiteness as a concept is empty,” Thomas added in a quote that has really stuck with me. It seems to tie together some disparate thoughts I have had on “white” as an adjective. Dolezal was treated as if she were a “bizarre” outlier, but she’s part of a much bigger pattern of white behavior. It includes Mezz Mezzrow, the 1930s jazz musician who declared himself a “voluntary Negro” after marrying a black woman and selling marijuana. It includes the millions of white Americans who take DNA tests and proudly reveal that they are in fact x percent non-white. And it’s a pattern that includes the white Americans who listen to a “rights for whites” album that includes songs titled Sons of Israel and Fetch the Noose. One reaction might seem laughable, the other frightening, but they are all ultimately about finding a concept of whiteness that isn’t empty. But what does all that searching yield? I’m not sure I can answer the question “what is white culture?” but I’m certain we should try. If whiteness takes no shape, then the concrete structures that shaped it (and often benefit from it) remain invisible too – the supermarkets, the marriages, and the museums that make these numbers what they are. If the “somethingness” of white culture is never quite pinned down, it remains both “nothing, really” and “well, everything”. If white culture remains vague, then it can lay claim to every recipe, every garment, every idea that is not explicitly “non-white”. That would mean that my identity is just a sum, that my “non-whiteness” can only be understood as a subtraction from the totality of “whiteness”. I refuse to be a remainder. In comparison, let's now take a look at the opposite perspective. Reviews of Black Panther I loved the movie and am appreciative of the scale of the project and its success. This review made me dig a lil deeper which leads me to agree with the review. I can only hope the success will lead to more offerings that will go a lil further however I THINK if the movie had more political substance perhaps it wouldn't be so successful? I thought the connection with Oakland and the Black Panther Party was daring, useful but unless one knows a lil history, it was probably completely missed. So hopefully we will now see more positive offerings with the Black (American) experience in the lead, like doctors, Charles Drew or inventors George Washington Carver or lawyers Thurgood Marshall. These stories have never been told on a large scale and considering the obstacles of their eras, how could they NOT be compelling? Now see that is my juxtaposition on the entire situation. On one hand, we have the usual suspects behaving in a predictable manner. On the other hand, we have a single solitary member of the highest court in the land behaving in a different manner. I'm not saying because Clarence Thomas is African American I feel I should be able to count on his judgment to fit my world view because that would be foolish. What I am saying is that it's very obvious I cannot count on a lot of individuals to even come to the table to discuss what we might have in common. That bothers me and I want to figure out what are the reasons we are so divided because it's very obvious foreign actors have figured that out and intend to keep us divided. “Unintended consequences” isn’t a supremely appropriate title under which to write the misbegotten history since 9/11 American politicians love to say, “the indispensable nation,” as a matter of fact and I agree with the sentiment, but let's examine if we are a self-proclaimed “sole superpower?” George W. Bush’s administration were stunned as they scurried for cover for al-Qaeda's attacks of that day. As all Americans, at least we should have been better prepared, given the warning offered to the president only weeks earlier. Yet in America, there are remarkably few connections ever made between the present and that blowback moment against the Soviets nearly 40 years ago. al-Qaeda, would be nurtured into existence by an all-American urge to give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam. Bin Laden’s 2001 attack brought official Washington to its knees, to its deepest post-Cold War conviction: that the world was its oyster; that a single great power potentially had it all, a shot at everything, starting with Afghanistan. In a post-Soviet world where America’s leadership felt it' deepest sense of triumph. Back in time, Afghanistan set the stage for America's peril. If we would have just looked at the Soviets history there. Gorbachev, would call it, its “bleeding wound.” Google It! You want to see “blowback” in action? Type in phrases like “warmest years,” “rising sea levels,” “melting ice,” “lengthening wildfire season,” or “future climate refugees,” and you’ll find yourself immersed in the grimmest of blowback universes. Quite the Blowback to conservative idealogy! We don't need to search far when we want to find examples to Blowback in action. Although Great Britain once had global reach, with its dominant navy and far-flung imperial possessions, it alone could not impose its will on its most important international competitors—the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia. Eventually, and predictably, it was eclipsed by several of them. The United States is a unique imperial power. This country stands as an international colossus. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it dominates the world in a manner not seen for least 150 years. America is an empire. Foreign commitments were considered alien to America throughout most of its history. It's a fact that, a decade after the end of the Cold War, hundreds of thousands of American troops, supplied with the world’s most advanced weaponry, sometimes including nuclear arms, are stationed on over sixty-one base complexes in nineteen countries worldwide. Unfortunately, the cost of this policy is high. Among the costs is what the term blowback means. "Unintended consequences of policies." Osama bin Laden, “only turned against the United States in 1991 because he regarded the stationing of American troops in his native Saudi Arabia during and after the Persian Gulf War as a violation of his religious beliefs. In a nutshell those actions, "Radicalized," him. Maligned acts of ‘terrorists’ or ‘drug lords’ or ‘rogue states’ or ‘illegal arms merchants’ often turn out to be blowback from American operations. Osama bin Laden would prove to be the poster boy of blowback. Yet in America, remarkably few connections are ever made between the present war and that blowback moment against the Soviets nearly 40 years ago. So Osama is gone. Obama killed him and here we are dealing with the Soveit Union. This writing is an attempt to see that these things are connected. That Gun Rights in America isn't just something Americans have a stake in, but the discourse is being amplified by foreign interests as well. You can keep crying foul and conspiracy theory, but if you don't become, "Woke," to the facts, you'll never be able to grapple with the challenge before you. Every straw man and scapegoat has been exhausted to the point that were fighting and killing each other. Do you think other countries hungry for power have an interest in that?