Author: BAJ

As I see yet another unarmed, innocent human being shot and killed by the police, I question why they reach for what should be a last resort tool. How did we get here? If I look at statistics from around the globe, it’s not even close. In 2018 US police officers killed 1011 people. In the same year, Canadian police killed 36, Austrian politzei… 18, Great Britain... 6.  Beyond that, Australia... 2 and Japan had zero. When you examine gun laws in each of those countries, you find some of the most comprehensive gun laws in the world, except the US, where it’s the most lax.

So why are US cops killing people at such an egregious rate? Did this behavior begin because of the abundance of guns on the streets? Or is there another reason for 36 times the number of police-related murders?

I tend to believe that with the surplus of guns in our streets, cops have been trained to expect a gun, which leaves them to always anticipate a gun, thus, a violent encounter.

I know this won't matter at all, but here it goes. Guns do kill people, that's what they are made to do. They kill people purposefully and accidentally. In the last 100 years or so, guns that can kill a lot of people at one time have been made available to the general public. In all of the most recent mass shootings, the guns were legally purchased, so, the "black market will never go away" argument doesn't hold water. As well, the idea that more people need guns doesn't stand up. In America, there are 101 guns for every 100 citizens. Clearly, there are enough guns around, if that were the solution.

In the UK, there are 50-60 gun deaths per year or about 1 gun death per 1 million in population. In contrast, the US has 160 times that rate, or 8,100 gun deaths per year (2014), even though the US population is only 6 times that of the UK.

No one in favor of gun laws is suggesting that enacting tougher laws will completely eliminate gun deaths. Only those opposed to gun laws seem to see that at the end goal, which, since it is unattainable, shouldn't even be attempted. Seat belt/car seat laws did not eliminate accident deaths, but they significantly curtailed them. Likewise, drunk driving laws did not eliminate drunk driving deaths, but they have decreased them by 51% since 1982. Since it didn't get rid of drunk driving deaths, should we go back to having no laws against drunk driving?

As someone without a background in law, I try to understand historical context, the development and adaptation of laws, and the analysis of historical facts. The Second Amendment was not written for an AR-15. Period. People living in the late 18th century could not fathom such a weapon any more than they could imagine rocketing to the moon and back. There is no practical reason for a person to own a weapon of mass destruction. None. An individual arsenal (or even a combined arsenal of like-minded people) would have zero chance of defeating the government/military, if it decided to become totalitarian.

So, I ask you, why continue to sell these killers of children and other innocents? I don't mean guns/rifles generally, but semi-auto, high capacity rifles, bump stocks, etc. No one is suggesting that you're automatically bad person for owning them. At some point, though, an individual's desire to do/have something (AR-15s, drunk drive, not seatbelt their children) is outweighed by the damage to society.

Please just think about this. Rather than immediately responding and calling me a liberal snowflake who doesn't know anything, just think about the stats. Think about all those kids, and the adults who died trying to save them. There has to be a solution.

A few months ago, former National Security Advisor John Bolton wrote a memoir, which—like literally every other memoir to come out of the White House—portrays Trump in an unflattering light.  Poor Donald Trump had to tweet a frowny-face emoji. But, every once in a while, someone special comes along in your life… someone so thoughtful, so supportive, so sycophantic, that she sees you for who you really are: a stepping stone to her own run at political office.  Pick up your copy of Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ new book: Speaking for Myself: Faith, Freedom, and the Fight of our Lives Inside the Trump White House It’s the heartwarming true story of how to flatter your boss so that he endorses your Arkansas gubernatorial bid. The first of its kind, this memoir tries hard to make Trump seem stable, focused, and anything other than a foreign asset.  But, trying not to come on too strong, too soon, Sarah admits that Trump failed to send a “clear message to Russia… not to interfere in our election.”  That’s okay, though, because Trump never admitted that Russia did actually interfere. Portraying her former boss as supportive and empathetic, she writes, “he defended me and reaffirmed me when the feminists and liberals were tearing me down with cruel and dehumanizing personal attacks.”  Elsewhere, she accidentally undercuts that entire claim by describing Trump’s degrading behavior and his offense to her Christian sensibilities.  For instance, when he goaded Sanders, a married mother of three, to have sex with Kim Jong Un.  “Sir, please stop,” she implored as Trump used an expletive in describing the North Korean dictator’s affections for her.  Trump continued and, in Sarah’s own words, “howled with laughter.” What a beautiful affirmation!  That’s how real men defend the women they love.  I bet those feminists are eating their words now. ‘Speaking for Myself’ by Sarah Huckabee Sanders—available at Hudson Booksellers, at any Airport terminal in the US, next to the Imodium, the tampons, and the inflatable neck pillows.

BAJ

When you were a kid, did you ever stay up past your bedtime?  Eat all your Halloween candy in one night?  Chew gum in class when your teacher wasn’t looking? In high school, did you ever write your name on a desk?  Smoke cigarettes in the boy’s room?  Play hooky just to get out of a quiz? What about college?  Did you hang a poster of Che Guevara in your dorm room?  Smoke a joint at a party?  Go skinny dipping? You knew it was wrong, but it felt so right.  What a rush!  Your parents would never have approved of half the things you did, which is why you never told them. Now, you’re a grown-up yourself, and you understand the need to model good behavior for your own children—and grandchildren.  That’s why you’ve long been a family-values Republican.  Sometimes, though, you miss being a rebel: that feeling of defiance.  Finally, there’s a safe and effective way to regain that feeling—with Joe Biden. Your friends and neighbors are all voting for Trump because they think the Democrats are coming to take away your guns and raise your taxes.  That sounds a lot like how your parents said candy would rot your teeth. They’re voting for Trump because they say protesters are all bad people who want to burn your neighborhood down.  That sounds like the “scared straight” lecture you got during health class. They say the stock market is going to crash if Joe Biden gets elected.  That’s like how they said your music had hidden Satanic messages when you play it backwards.  Don’t you just want to tell them to chill out? Once again, it’s time to rebel. A vote for Joe Biden is a license to sit at the cool kids’ table, wear a leather jacket, drive a hot rod.  And, because it’s a secret ballot, none of those squares will ever know how you voted! Joe Biden—the rebellious choice for conservative adults.

Written by: BAJ

The current President, Donald J Trump, called dead American soldiers “losers,” according to unnamed sources quoted by the Atlantic.  However, when the mainstream media quote anonymous aides critical of Trump, you always immediately discount everything they say because they are “unnamed” and, therefore, unreliable. When Donald Trump claims that mail-in ballots encourage voter fraud... that injecting bleach cures coronavirus... or that there were 3 to 5 million fraudulent votes cast for Hillary, do you ignore everything he says because he’s using “unnamed sources”? No?  Why not?  Does Trump have a solid history of telling the truth?  Is Trump noted for his bipartisanship and lack of political bias?  Do Trump’s statements typically align with what his own experts and agency heads are saying?  Does Trump retract his statements when they are proven false by fact checkers? No, no, no, and no. Even Trump’s supporters admit he is dishonest, but they support him anyway because of his conservative agenda.  If you’re going to support him no matter what, why do you refuse to accept a story that is critical of him?  Back in 2015, you already heard him disparage John McCain, claiming “he’s not a war hero….  I like people who weren’t captured.”  This didn’t come from an “unnamed source”, it came straight out of Trump’s mouth.  You can watch the video on YouTube. You voted for Trump anyway.  So, why do you now refuse to believe that he made other similar comments disparaging fallen soldiers and POW’s?  Would that really be out of character for Trump, who openly disparaged a Gold Star family in 2016?  Again, I’m not quoting “unnamed sources”, I’m quoting Trump’s own Twitter feed. You love Trump for his political incorrectness.  He says things that no one else would dare to say out loud.  Sometimes, he even says things that make his own supporters cringe.  If you’re cringing now, is it because The Atlantic used unreliable sources, or is it because in your heart, you know Trump probably did call dead soldiers “losers”? Is The Atlantic politically biased?  Maybe.  But, consider this: in their 163-year history, they have only endorsed 3 presidential candidates—one Republican and two Democrats.  Those candidates were Abraham Lincoln in 1860, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and Hillary Clinton in 2016.  When a magazine is that reluctant to make an endorsement more than once every century, you should listen to them when they do. You didn’t, and you’re already going to vote for Trump again no matter what.  Just come out and admit that The Atlantic was right, that Trump insulted those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, and that you simply don’t care.  If you won’t admit it to me, at least admit it to yourself when you look in the mirror.  I’m not trying to change your vote.  I just want you to be honest with yourself about why you are voting for Trump and what threshold of behavior you are willing to tolerate.  Don’t vote with your eyes closed, and don’t tell me a year from now that you had no idea what Trump was capable of.