"Bear Arms. No Clause."

Devin Joseph Metz

Know what I find so very intriguing about the filter? No matter how much it endeavors to strain out all of the fluid and separate it from the pulp, there is bound to be a portion of that pulp that will slip through even the smallest nook along with all of that fluid. So what naturally would we do about that? Of course we'll strain once, twice, maybe thrice more; hoping to get rid of the remnants. There is a measure of success with this method; but we never get rid of the pulp entirely. There will be a grain here, a seed there, a string left behind, etc.

Some of us don't care about that rogue, disproportionate inkling. We hardly ever notice or even pay attention it; and if we do, it won't completely ruin anything for us. Hell, some of us actually love it and want to see an increase in it for whatever our reasons may be. Some of us, however develop a considerable distaste for these enduring bits of pulp. It is considered vile, disgusting, horrible in texture and taste, and highly invasive. Who really wants to spit seeds out when enjoying that glass of orange juice in the morning? Who wants to chew that grainy, stringy back draft while enjoying some soup broth?

I like my orange juice pulp free, by the by; but I digress.

My point here is that there are three main types of people that make their stance known and very clear when it comes to their response to control; be it their control over something or someone or the inverse:

We Who Concede

We who choose to concede control have either bought into our state of affairs out of a lackadaisical means of reasoning or in lieu of a realization of defeat per our perception of how things currently are; regardless of whether or not we have viewed the potential for things to change one way or another. After straining and separating, if that filter has not yielded our desired result, we calibrate our desires to that of our current situation, chug that pulp and keep it pushing.

We Who Want More

We who clamor for more and more of that control that have either developed it over time or have had it ingrained in us from inception crave an often substantial(or even in most cases volatile) increase in that control. We love the way things are, have become or will soon be and implore more of it; be it out of our love for the improvements or our seeing the depreciation that may take place from this change as a necessity. The more pulp, the better. Our motives are rarely ever clear enough by societal standards and our behavior may call into question those very motives even more; but the only time we will complain about the state of affairs is if that change does not take place at a rate that we would like it to or if it does not take place at all.

We Who Absolutely Hate It

Now this in no way pertains to one's distaste for control. Honestly, I think that among most anything ever hated in existence, control would be one of those things that may very well be viewed as an exception to a degree; because in my opinion, there will always be a desire for control in each individual in some capacity. We who oppose those in positions of power often want that power; be it for the means of personal increase, improvement across the board, or for the employment of our own form of oppression. This type of person truly abhors not being in a position of power over their situation(or in a broader scope of thinking, overall); no matter what manner of control is required. What I took note of is the fact that what usually drives us mad is that small, slight, meager percentage that eludes our influence consistently. That one seed that lands in our glass, those few strands that are discovered on our plate, those tiny grains that surface within our bowl become critical tipping points that incite our anger; many times causing us to lose control over our greater majority in lieu of our amplified focus on the minuscule that always manages to elude our influence somehow.

I can relate to each of these three examples. I'm confident that you can as well if you take each into careful consideration.

The hunger, thirst, desire, passion, drive, and sometimes blatant call for control is hard to ignore or deny; be it confined to the concerns of our country or expounded upon world wide. We will always have a demand for control; and it won't always mean that we require that control to come from us directly. We as a collective demand a lot of our government. We should, of course. They are here to govern us. There are times where this control is misplaced, misused, abused, mishandled or just pressed upon something that society at large may deem highly unnecessary compared to what one would consider more important.

Remember the "War On Terror?" Of course you do. That period where our POTUS at the time bombed defenseless Iraqi citizens, sending many of our family and friends over to Iraq to fight in a meaningless war and left them for dead with no idea when they will return? Remember our current POTUS cleaning up that mess, finding the terrorist that the prior incumbent couldn't find in his tenure and eventually bring our troops back home from where they should have never been deployed to in the first place? 

Was that biased of me?

Did you recognize that the above paragraph is purely rhetorical?

Really?

You did?

Go you!

How very real that war on terror became once we saw a disturbing increase in terrorist activity here on our own plains; be it at a high school or movie theater in Colorado, a mall in California or an elementary school in Connecticut. For something that in my opinion should have been at least higher up on our ledger long before the Oklahoma City Bombing, The September 11th attacks or any war in another country that we've taken part in, we seem to have dropped the ball considerably. Fast forward to the gruesome, depressing and frightening acts that have taken place in our own country over the past two years, however and we find ourselves at one of the most ridiculously unnecessary forks in the road: Gun Control.

In the aftermath of the Columbine Massacre, parents in communities and government officials nationwide called into question a myriad of motivational factors for why Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold committed the murders. One glaringly obvious factor was the fact that Harris suffered with depression; evidenced by his initial prescription for the anti-depressant drug Zoloft. Harris was later prescribed the drug Luvox instead; which is what was found at therapeutic levels in his system at the time of his death.

Other factors were tossed across the perverbial table, of course. Among these included psychopathy to accompany the depression, bullying, the social climate that surrounded them, music that was listened to at the time and even a Goth subculture of sorts.

What was under perhaps the largest microscope, however was the controversy that surrounded video games. Harris and Klebold were fans of the video games "Wolfenstein 3D" and "Doom;" games deemed extremely violent in content. It was proposed that the violent nature of these games and games sharing similarities to them influenced Klebold and Harris; especially as it was uncovered that both often created additional levels for some of the aforementioned games that were heavy on graphic violence and gore. This brought into question the level of naivety that would coincide with a particular age bracket; definitively splitting factions completely down the middle as some believed that aside from the fact that Klebold and especially Harris were obviously mentally unstable, video games hold no indicative influence on the average mentally and emotionally sufficient teenager. It was not ignored, however that video games among other platforms for intrigue and development for children younger in age than the average teenager may potentially cultivate negative and violent behavior that can lead to actions and decisions that may be perceived as unpredictable and threatening as that child grows older; especially given the emotional changes that child is bound to experience.

Suffice it to say, a litany of incidents worldwide that have been linked to video game influence have done nothing to quell the flames in that back and forth debate. In my opinion, blaming something that cannot make a choice for you or forcefully sway your decision either way is just a base display of one's unwillingness to latch onto accountability.

This would be another one of those "control" issues.

Influence only spans as far as those who implore or abstain in response to it. If a video game, music or anything else created by those under a certain degree of control is allowed to have more influence on a child than his/her own parent or guardian(who exercised that control initially by issuing this content to the child), then it may behoove all of us who find ourselves in the role of a care provider to reevaluate our tasks considerably. 

As if the National Rifle Association(NRA) hasn't already found themselves surrounded by enough governmental backlash with their various battles with government officials individually such as their lawsuit against former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin in light of gun seizures in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 or their support in Brian Aitken's case against New Jersey for their imprisonment of him for seven years for transporting weapons without a permit in 2010, the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings called to the forefront both the NRA and the "discussion"(more of a pride and anger driven debate) regarding gun control in the United States. Communities affected by this massacre as well as certain government officials lobbied for the removal of certain weapons from their communities if not a way to make these weapons harder to obtain. Government officials in support of the NRA, however proposed the hiring of armed police officers in every American school to protect students.

In a rather pedestrian move on his part, President Obama responded by issuing a proposal for universal background checks on firearms purchases, an assault weapons ban, and(in a more disparaging and slightly humorous move) limiting magazine capacity to ten cartridges.

That'll show em, POTUS! Reduce that violence! Less head shots means prosperity for all!

Enjoyed that spirited sarcasm? Good. I'm an Avenger Of Truth. It comes with the package.

I'm sure that I am not the only one to have shaped this opinion in response to Barack's proposal; but I feel like he squandered an opportune chance to make a decision one way or another with his meager and rather head scratching proposal. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that I am for armed cops in elementary schools or against background checks or a weapons ban of sorts. I just feel like he is conceding to some degree. After a great deal of strain and effort by all parties involved, it just feels like he is content to sip that juice with seeds and grains of pulp now. If there is to be a weapons ban, why only limit it to assault weapons? Why leave some of that grainy pulp behind?

Now before our NRA supporters out there jump down my throat, I get it. I know what the constitution says regarding your Second Amendment rights:

"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."

I know what you're wondering; so yes: I did read that in Morgan Freeman's voice.

Needless to say, Obama found failure swiftly in his highly waffled exploits in response to the Sandy Hook massacre for heightened gun control; evidenced in January by the Utah Sheriff's Association criticizing what they described as his attempt to "demonize firearms." They went on to state that they would refuse to uphold federal laws that restricted the Second Amendment rights of their constituents.

Ouch.

Furthermore, the bill that would be short-lived in proposed form as the Manchin-Toomey Background Checks Bill failed to pass the U.S. Senate April of this year; leading to an embarrassingly epic stint of finger pointing between President Obama and the Republican Party in public fashion.




Now let's suppose that in some quirky turn of events that Obama's proposal actually went through. Let's say then that this proposal included zone restrictions. You know: businesses, institutions, buildings and certain areas where guns were prohibited as a direct result of Barack's proposal...

See how easy it is to tack this onto Liberal views? Why is this perceived as something that a Liberal would have to stand behind; regardless of whether or not they would? Production credit, POTUS. Production credit due.

So what actions would lead to this ban? This is taking into account that the massacre of small children wasn't sufficient enough, of course. What if that outcry from communities took a more dark, disturbing turn? What if this were necessary to facilitate some visible change...

This image brings into question why the game of dodgeball was banned for it's violence and an assault weapon has yet to befall the same ruling.

Remember those Kinder brand chocolates; especially their "Kinder Surprise" chocolate egg with the toy surprise on the inside? Yeah. You see where they are going with this one. Kinder chocolate eggs were pulled in majority off of the market in the interest of child safety. Still hasn't occurred for assault weapons as of yet.



Creeped out yet? Flabbergasted even? Hang in there...

This little dandy of a poster displays a child holding a book depicting the story of "Little Red Riding Hood" on the cover. This little girl has some nerve; what with her holding a book removed from school for the story revealing a bottle of wine in Little Red Riding Hood's basket. Assault weapons are dry county, though.

The three posters above are part of the Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America movement. Check out more about their argument and mission at momsdemandaction.org.

Suffice it to say, depictions as disturbing as these posters surely would drive me to forge some semblance of a more realistic change; but I'm not in the oval office.

At least not yet, anyways.

Still hypothetically speaking, of course; but lets say that this proposal(which would likely become a bill after the highly influential push from those angry mothers) did so well that it passed across the board. Lets also say that it did so well that Barack decided to extend the statutes of that bill to other areas............where people are accustomed to having their weapons as a means of protection or - as the rifle bearers would profess emphatically - as a representation of their Second Amendment rights. What conundrums, arguments and particularly sensitive gray areas would surface as a result of this extension?

Now hold your reservations about this cartoon long enough to allow me to use it to illustrate my next point. The huge machine gun here(or whatever the kids are calling it nowadays) alludes to my earlier elaboration regarding those of us who want more of that control. That's a lot of fire power....um...pulp. Instances where weapon wielding citizens who obviously oppose this bill will bring into the gun control discussion those who would challenge this bill with their right to protect themselves. There would be gripping, elaborate, disdainful stories told by families about how a father or daughter could and likely would have been saved had they not had their right to own a weapon policed under government sanction.

One would presume that in light of such, things likely would have never ended up completely in favor of one result or the other; even given the success of this bill. 

So what would be the governmental retort to the population's argument; regardless of how many people opposed them in that argument? Would they yield in lieu of the urge of the masses or would they get aggressive; decreeing that all who are deemed by government as law abiding citizens must honor the laws that apply to this bill? How would that go over with those who consider themselves unaffected as a result?

If nothing else, these two understood what would be verbally outlined by the government's decree; deciding that they can claim immunity from the law since they do not abide by it. Government reaction would likely be reminiscent of those of us who hate that gray area. That grainy sediment that finds ways to be contrary no matter what the circumstance is more realistic in this real world than the one that I've fashioned for the sake of discussion here in this post. It serves none of us to honestly believe that everyone will at any point be on one accord with what has been and will be discussed in the issue of gun control; and that covers the entire nation from the family mourning a loss due to weapons violence to the community at large scared straight due to violent acts to the government itself that consistently squabbles back and forth without reaching a level solution to the problem around them.

This does not render us as a nation hopeless, though.

There is always hope that our government will get things together at some point; no matter how bright or bleak that glimmer of hope may be. I do not consider myself a radical; but I do fancy myself a Revolutionary. I have faith that a time will rise when government will have to set aside what they don't like and focus on what their nation needs once more; especially when most of what this nation needs becomes what the majority wants after all. There will be a time when government will be compelled to cease debate and embrace productive solutions that will eliminate problems instead of just expounding upon them. 

The Truth Will Not Be Ignored.

This is our mission as Avengers Of Truth; but it isn't confined exclusively to what you are reading. Avenge truth for yourself and those you care about. Avenge truth for the empowerment of positive influence; an influence that can eventually reach further than just our country. Demand that power be drawn away from terrorists and criminals so that it may be placed back in the hands of those that can use it to improve our overall state of affairs. It would be optimal if we could trust our government with that power...........not like the President is concerned with other things.......right?





http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-signs-executive-order-to-allow-shut-down-of-all-us-communications





Well, if you placed the above link in your browser and read the article(initial credit to Melanie for the link, by the way), then maybe there is reason to be concerned after all; but I'll save that for another time.


We are not defenseless; no matter how vulnerable we may appear in response to what has occurred over the past few years in this country as a direct result of widespread gun violence. Power wielded by those who take part in these crimes is only as potent as the fear that they look to invoke with their actions. I'm not saying that we should stare down the barrel of rifles and place a marigold in them. That time has passed and those people will be and have been held accountable for their actions. That same accountability, however must be firmly pressed upon the minds and hearts of both those who have committed these horrible crimes and those who harbor the intent to do so. We are all fully aware that there are individuals that have no remorse at all. We are also aware that just because one may have intent to harm, that does not guarantee that he/she will inform anyone of that intent. 

One thing that we do know for sure about those with the intent to harm is that even if they are perceived heartless, they most definitely have a capable thought process; and that thought process deserves to be aggressively jarred against his/her individual contemplations. 

For all the opposition that music receives in these arguments regarding public safety, gun violence, or any other occurrence that music can be folded into, there is a large amount of strength and levity for the masses amid the intelligence employed by our artists. I am led to recall a quote from Hip-Hop artist Kendrick Lamar:



"Everybody gon' respect the shooter, but the one in front of the gun lives forever." - From Kendrick Lamar's song "Money Trees"




I love how layered this quote is. It has a very poignant and powerful meaning behind it as well. It means that although the shooter is all but guaranteed to garner attention for committing the murder, the victim will be honored and remembered forever. This also tells me that the criminal will have the weight of his/her act of violence exponentially increased with every memory and slight thought given to the victim. 

This analogy insists that the regime(or in this case, the criminal) will always get fleeting respect; but "the one in front of the gun"(we the people) will always exist no matter what threats are issued.

So when is the victim not a victim? I'd venture to say that this occurs when that "victim" lives on further than this life as that one seed at the bottom of the glass, that grainy sediment that couldn't be removed from the soup or that small yet very significant amount of pulp that drives the criminal crazy because there is no way to get rid of what will always exist.

True power in the face of fear.

Offer those who would threaten our safety and freedom a glass of juice. Leave them the option of how many times they'd like to filter that beverage.