One of the more frustrating aspects of Donald Trump’s recent fascist maneuver of trying to hold 3700 migrant children for ransom so he can manipulate Congress into giving him money to build his ridiculous wall, is the inane conversations that continually erupt on social media where white-entitlement combines with The Dunning-Kruger Effect and statements such as
“They shouldn’t have come here illegally and this wouldn’t have happened.”
“Why weren’t you complaining when Obama was doing the same thing?”
are spewed forth ad nauseum by the informationally-impaired eager to regurgitate some alt-right propaganda they have mistaken for news.
Donald Trump “loves the poorly educated.” And they love him too.
In fact some of them will even defend him when he puts children in concentration camps.
I am discouraged by this America. It does not look like the America I fell in love with. I was lead to believe that this was a country of immigrants, where a family could escape destitution and work hard to provide a life for their loved ones. This was a luxury afforded my ancestors, but apparently has been rescinded for my generation. Who knew that “give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” had an expiration date. I never thought America was about separating families. This doesn’t feel like America. This feels like something else.
As it turns out there is a price to be paid for funneling 200 channels of reality TV into American homes while our education system simultaneously falls behind the rest of the developed world. Decades of Fox News propaganda consumed by brain-dead zombies fueled by chemical laden processed food has created a form of super-mutant that is impervious to facts and incapable of critical thinking.
George Orwell was right.
He just missed it by a couple of decades.
Still there are those Americans who justify this atrocity by repeatedly uttering
“Oh, but it was okay when Obama did it!?”
First off, no, it was “not okay when Obama did it.” Believe it or not, opposing Trump does not mean that one automatically sides with Obama. Your black and white thinking on this matter exposes some things about your character. It is entirely possible to oppose Trump’s immigration policy while previously having opposed Obama’s immigration policy.
These two things are not connected.
If a man cheats on his wife he cannot use the defense that her last husband also cheated on her. This is simply not a logical argument and will not make the wife feel any better. While I am aware that this failed argument is designed to point out the hypocrisy and identity politics that plague The Left, this straw man argument detracts attention away from the fact that right now, in real time, the President of the United States is holding children hostage and using them as a bargaining chip to build a wall simply to appease his base, because he knows that without the wall he stands zero chance at reelection.
The statement “Well Obama did it first.” and all it’s variants is logically flawed on every level. If Obama actually did take similar actions then why would you support the mimicking of the actions of a man you are so steadfastly against? If “Obama destroyed America” then why applaud Trump for copying his playbook? Oh, but we aren’t big on logic, are we? This is what happens when Americans isolate themselves inside of a social media echo-chamber. This is a danger we never predicted. Social media was supposed to bring us together. But politically it is tearing us apart.
Let’s examine the facts on Obama’s deportation policy vs Trump’s. Part of the Trump administration’s strategy is to simply tell lies about the previous administration, so it is understandable that you will have people believing that Trump is simply doing what Obama did. After all, this is what the administration and Fox News is telling them. But the facts of the matter are that Obama did not employ the practice of separating children and parents. It simply was not part of his immigration strategy. I am aware that there are people on the internet who post pictures of children in cages and say that this happened on Obama’s watch but it simply did not and there are no records of it happening in this manner. For all my criticisms of Barack Obama, he did not put children in concentration camps.
“But Obama’s nickname was Deporter in Chief. He deported more people than any president in history.”
This statement is both true and false. A simple understanding of recent historical events will elucidate the confusion behind this common fallacy. Obama inherited a new immigration policy implemented during the last year of the Bush administration. Prior to this policy change, migrants caught entering the country illegally were simply returned to border as part of a “catch and release” program that saved the government time, money and paperwork. The new Bush era policy commanded that all illegal migrants be arrested, fingerprinted and processed, before being released back at the border.
In other words, Obama’s administration was the first full administration to keep records of these events in this manner. The previous administration’s numbers had been artificially deflated. Obama actually deported fewer people than the Bush and Clinton administrations before him. Not because Obama was such a good liberal. The deportations numbers were down simply because living conditions had improved in Mexico while simultaneously deteriorating in the US.
There just aren’t as many opportunities in America as there used to be.
A few days ago Donald Trump made a comment about wanting to be “president for life” and a chill went through me. I had recently said to a friend that Bernie Sanders would be running as a Democrat in 2020 and that he would easily defeat Trump (just as he would have in 2016 without the shenanigans of the “Democratic” Party.) But I quickly added “But I do not think Trump will step down so easily.”
My friend queried me as to what I meant and I explained to him that I felt that Trump admired dictators and had zero respect for the peaceful transfer of power. I told him that I suspect that in 2020 Bernie Sanders will win and Trump will contest the election results and go crazy in the press accusing Socialists of having rigged the election and will use Twitter to rile up his base to civil war and potentially there could be millions of lives lost. I told my friend that I believed that Trump’s goal was to weaken the country’s already weak faith in the press so that he could declare the election results a media lie.
I explained to my friend how Wikileaks had already told Trump to contest the election if he had lost to Hillary Clinton and how their ultimate goal was to destabilize our democracy and to push our country towards and an alt-right fascist agenda. I explained to him how this same movement had succeeded in forcing Brexit and how hackers attempted to sway the French election towards alt-right fascist Marine Le Pen.
“Dude this sounds like the Twilight Zone.” my friend said.
“You’re living in the Twilight Zone.” I assured him.
We do not know if Trump was planning on following Wikileaks suggestion to contest the election, because the Democrats chose to run a pathetic candidate, allowing Trump to backdoor his way into power. But it appears that he was actually planning to contest, due to the fact that he suggested that “the Second Amendment people” could take matters into their own hands if he were to lose to Hillary Clinton.
Why would anyone be shocked if Trump pulled such shenanigans in 2020? From day one his entire presidency has been about disrespecting the very foundations of our country. This is how dictators take over. They stretch the very fabric of the country until it gives way. Trump’s constant attacks on the most vulnerable members of our society erode the foundation of what makes America great. The Trump regime has had this country in constant constitutional crisis since its first day in office and this is not by accident.
Nazi Germany did not happen overnight. It was a progression in the midst of desperate times. Hitler declared himself leader and already had a standing army of civilians ready to do his bidding. Does Trump not already have the same standing army at his disposal with the millions of heavily-armed supporters who are just waiting for the word to act on their patriotic duty? This is a very real possibility. Who will protect you from a heavily armed militia of alt-right rednecks going house to house and rounding up Socialists? The police? Not a chance. Cops love Donald Trump.
Trump’s presidency is a shock event to this country and the very institutions that hold it together. When Trump loses in 2020, I do not expect that he will have any respect for the peaceful exchange of power. I believe he will seek to rally his base to start a civil war in America and Americans will have to choose rather they have the temerity and weaponry to forcibly remove a dictator from the White House.
And you thought revolution only happened on your television.
I wanted to take a moment and tell you about an exciting new book I wrote that exposes corruption inside the “Democratic” Party in a way that no other book has the guts to tackle. My Bernie Journey – An Inside Look at the 2016 “Democratic” Primary Through the Eyes of a Bernie Sanders Volunteer is the result of two years of intense hard work and hands on research.
The first thing that makes this book special is that I was actually in the trenches, traveling from state to state, knocking on doors, attending meetings and rallies and chronicling the insane corruption that I witnessed first hand.
There is an entire chapter of this amazing book just dedicated to ELECTORAL FRAUD inside the “Democratic” Party.
There is also an entire chapter where I went BACK ON THE ROAD interviewing the people who took Bernie Sanders’ message to heart and actually took steps to take over their local government.
But this book is about SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT!!
It’s also a personal story of how Bernie Sanders saved my son’s life and an epic story that talks about how we were labeled as terrorists and teargassed by helicopters in the streets of Philadelphia when we went there to protest the corruption of the DNC.
This book is fire in your hands and I personally guarantee that anyone who picks it up will be absolutely unable to put it down.
In short, I wrote the book that I kept waiting for someone else to write.
I wrote the book that blows the lid off the entire rigged “Democratic” primary, while interweaving a personal story of inspiration that will get you fired up to take your activism to the next level.
Or as my former Hillary supporting friend put it:
“I never realized the depths of the depravity engaged in by the DNC in 2016 and now that I have eyes for it, I see this corruption continuing in every move they make. Michael’s book made me cry, but it also made me angry and it inspired me to take action. I had friends who worked really hard for Bernie. Honestly, at the time, I thought they were kind of crazy. If I knew then what I know now, I would have been out there knocking on doors with them.”
And THAT IS WHY I feel this book is important.
People need to know OUR story.
They need to know exactly what happened from someone who was actually part of it.
Going forward into the 2018 midterms and on into the 2020 presidential election, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!!
The first step to stopping it from ever happening again is to educate EVERYONE on how it went down in the first place.
I sincerely believe that My Bernie Journey does this in a way that is so fun and exciting that you could give it to the Trump or Hillary supporter in your life and they will come away with a new perspective.
Every Sanders supporter will want to read this.
And everyone who is not a Sanders supporter WILL BE by the time they put it down.
I really feel that strongly about it.
Here is a video where I talk about what’s inside the book in greater detail.
If you are in a hurry to order the book, you can skip the video, scroll down right under the video and order your FREE electronic copy (the E-Book can be read on your computer, phone or tablet) or if you want an autographed physical copy delivered to your door you can order that as well.
Thank you for believing in my work.
This book has been the hardest and most rewarding artistic endeavor of my life.
DO I EVEN NEED TO TELL YOU THAT THIS BOOK IS THE ULTIMATE CHRISTMAS BOOK FOR ANY BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTER OR MAYBE AN EVEN BETTER GIFT TO GIVE TO THAT FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER WHO LOVES HILLARY CLINTON??or maybe nothing can wake those people up – I’m not really sure)
Scroll past the video to order or watch the video if you need more details.
How to Get the Book
To get your FREE E-Book copy of My Bernie Journey simply send an email with My Bernie Journey in the title to GoBernieGoBernieGo@gmail.com
If you want an autographed physical copy sent to your door, along with the second book The Independent Thinker Chronicles (included for free) then send $27 through PayPal by clicking HERE (Be sure to put your shipping address in the notes section)
If you don’t like PayPal you can pay through Square or with a check or money order by clicking HERE.
If you don’t like any of those methods you can order through Amazon by clicking HERE (I urge you not to buy through Amazon as they represent the very corporate entities which we are standing up to!!)
I suppose you could even follow me by clicking HERE and pay through Facebook messenger (did you even know that you could send money through Facebook messenger? I didn’t either until recently.)
Also feel free to DONATE a copy of the book to a random person.
What this means is that if you already have a copy and want to get one for someone who can’t afford one right now, just write “Pay it forward” in the notes line and I’ll write Donated by (Your Name) and donate the book to a library, school or individual who has limited funds.
Consider it a nice way to give the gift of Political Revolution to a stranger.
Anyway, I hope you love the book regardless of rather you pay for it or get the free copy.
“A woman saying yes to a date with a man is literally insane and ill-advised, and the whole species’ existence counts on them doing it. I don’t know how women still go out with guys, when you consider the fact that there is no greater threat to women than men? We’re the number one threat to women. Globally and historically, we’re the number one cause of injury and mayhem to women. We’re the worst thing that ever happens to them.” – Louis C.K.
Men are pigs. Or dogs. Use whatever negative animal correlation you prefer. I promise not to be offended. I, like many men, live in a constant state of apology, for the embarrassing behavior of the seemingly never-ending parade of men who just don’t get it.
By “it” I mean that women are people, actual human beings, with thoughts, feelings, goals and dreams. And while I happen to really like both pigs and dogs, and feel that is completely unfair to belittle these amazing creatures by comparing them with the often destructive homosapien male, I completely understand our society’s misanthropy towards the male gender. I often say “I’m a complete sexist, because I believe women are far superior to men.” And, yes, I actually believe this.
One look at crime statistics shows that men, around the globe, and throughout history have committed more than 90% of violent crimes. When asked recently, on a podcast, what I thought would be the single best way to curb violence in America, I replied
“Testosterone causes most of the world’s violence, so regulating testosterone in the male species would be the quickest and easiest way to limit violence.”
This is not to say that all men are bad. I happen to know some very good men, strong, gentle men who try very hard to make the world a better place on their mortal walk through it. Yet still, I find myself often disgusted by the behavior of my gender-mates. When I see monsters like Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore and Bill Cosby treating women as if they were nothing more than sex-toys put on Earth for their personal amusement, it angers me. The men I know would never treat another human being this way. They would never abuse their power and they flatly condemn these sleazeball predators.
So why are so many of these same good men, feeling triggered by the Louis C.K. scandal?
Let me take this opportunity to say that it is absolutely ludicrous to expose yourself to a non-consenting person. I can’t really believe that it’s almost 2018 and I still have to say this, but sadly I do. Every woman I know, who has an online dating profile, is constantly bombarded by pictures of strange men’s penises.
Guys, no woman wants to see your penis, until she has decided that everything surrounding that penis is worth knowing. I know your body is raging with testosterone and you can’t wait to show off your amazing penis to the world, but try to remember that a dick-pic is no substitute for courtship. Just keep it in your pants until you are absolutely sure that she wants to see it. I know it’s difficult, but really, do us all a favor and stop exposing yourself to random women. Penises, isolated from the male body look like some kind of deformed alien baby, so most women just choose to laugh at your penis, but in reality showing your penis to a stranger is sexual assault.
So just stop it!!
As for Louis C.K., my thoughts on this are slightly more nuanced and I will attempt to explain these thoughts in a way that will not have thousands of women screaming at me about “the patriarchy!!” for I am a firm believer that the patriarchy must die and I have spent my life doing everything I could to expedite its demise.
But before I put away my soapbox let me also remind men not to glare at women’s asses when they wear yoga pants, not to try to use cheesy and/or offensive pickup lines, not to ask a woman at the gym to remove her earbuds, not to follow women to their cars or in their cars and just overall to not fucking bother women in public.
There are dating websites for this.
If you feel like you simply must talk to a woman in public, the only line you will ever need to know is:
“Hi, my name is (name).”
No trickery. No negging. No false pleas for recipe advice at the grocery. No interrupting them while they are busy.
Believe me, women get tired of being stalked everywhere they fucking go. It’s scary. You may be an alright guy, but they have no way of knowing this.
So just fuck off and go home and masturbate.
I normally avoid Hollywood stories, but I became interested in the Louis C.K. scandal when three different men, all of whom I am close friends with, all said something to the effect that the Louis situation felt scary to them and insinuated that they were unable to correlate C.K. as the same type of predator as Bill Cosby or Kevin Spacey and then added some version of “But I would never say that in public.”
This intrigued me, so I began reading about Louis. It seemed that Louis was in the habit of asking women if it was okay if he masturbated in front of them. Apparently this had been going on for a long time and rumors had circulated about his behavior. Finally a group of five women came forward and said that Louis had masturbated in front of them. Four of them said that Louis had asked for consent, and they granted consent, while a fifth woman claimed that Louis had masturbated over the phone without asking. It is important to note that two of the women were actually with Louis, in his hotel room, at the same time, when he asked if they would watch him masturbate, and these women say that they granted consent only because they thought C.K. was joking when he asked. Another detail regarding the two women in Louis’ hotel that has been hotly debated, is that the women say that when they tried to leave that C.K. “blocked the door.” I think it is important that we know if Louis “blocked the door” in an attempt to apologize out of embarrassment or if Louis “blocked the door” as an act of aggression, with intent to incarcerate. We do not have those details at this time.
Before I continue on I want to make it abundantly clear that I feel that ANY act done with consent is fair game for adults. While none of us want to imagine the image of some fat, middle-aged, bald guy masturbating, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that masturbating in front of a consenting partner is somehow perverted. It is not up to me to judge the sexual appetites of others. As long as no one is coerced, then all is fair game when agreed upon by consenting adults.
But therein lies the problem. The rules of our culture are changing. Sexual liberation is still somewhat of a new concept and we are working out the rules as we go. We have fluctuating rules on what it means to give consent and many people feel that due to Louis being such a powerful person in the entertainment realm, that for him to make sexual advances towards any woman in that field, be they fan or colleague, would constitute sexual coercion, due to the fact that the women may have felt like rejecting his advances could have had detrimental effects on their careers or simply because they were in awe of Louis C.K. due to his immense stardom.
I believe that it is only fair to differentiate the severity of Louis’ actions from that of Harvey Weinstein and Fox CEO, Roger Ailes, who used their positions of power to threaten women directly into sleeping with them. None of C.K.’s accusers have made any such claims against Louis.
In response to the Louis C.K. scandal, social media has suddenly become inundated with men who are saying that the women that C.K. exposed himself to are being opportunistic and overly sensitive. These same men share stories about times they have been in the same situation with gay men making advances towards them and how they “didn’t make a big deal out of it.” The more I hear these stories, the more it becomes abundantly clear that the men sharing them completely and totally miss the point of what it is like to be a woman in a society that constantly diminishes them down to their physical attributes, while completely ignoring the very essence of what makes them human beings.
This is not to say that men don’t occasionally have similar problems, but the constant bombardment of unwanted sexual advances that women are forced to endure by a sick society that belittles them from a very young age is vastly more crippling than the occasional threat that some men face at the hands of an overzealous suitor. For a man to compare an isolated incident to the lifetime of sexual harassment that all women suffer, beginning before they even hit puberty, is akin to complaining about the time rain ruined your picnic to a person who just lost their home to a hurricane.
I too, have been propositioned by men who held positions of authority over me. I too, have turned down their sexual advances and wondered if I would be receiving a pink slip with my next week’s paycheck. Once, I turned down advances from a female boss and was promptly fired on the spot. When I told her that I would sue her, she replied that no one would ever believe me, because I was a man and she was an attractive woman.
Sitting in my new apartment later that evening, looking at my life in boxes (I had to relocate to a new city for the job), watching my kids watch Spongebob, trying to think of how I was going to maneuver my way out of this mess, with less than $50 in my bank account and no friends or family in my new city, I picked up the phone and called my boss to save my job. I told her that I found her incredibly attractive (I didn’t!!) and that I had rejected her advances, because I was scared of getting hurt. She said that she understood and sent a car for me. I met her for dinner, laughed at her jokes and slept with her for the next three months, while I saved up money and secured a job back in my home city. Having no extended family, I honestly didn’t see that I had any other options. Had I been alone, I would have chosen to sleep on the street rather than prostitute myself to someone who disgusted me in every way. But I was not alone. I was a single dad with two children. I did what I had to do to take care of them and I never told anyone about it until just now.
Still, an isolated incident does not mean that I have empathy and understanding for what it is like to be a woman, to be objectified on such a consistent basis that I must consider every stitch of clothing that I put on in hopes of finding that unattainable balance between being attractive, but not so attractive that you attract unwanted male attention simply by going to the gym or the grocery.
Men simply cannot know what it is like to endure this constant onslaught. But, in all fairness, women cannot know what it is like to be male, attempting to navigate the ever-changing sexual landscape. And although I know that many women meet every male attempt to explain their feelings with dismissive comments like “Boo-hoo, the poor man has a problem and wants attention.” (an understandable backlash to centuries of male-oppression) I think it may be helpful for women to understand a male perspective on this particular issue, because to understand may result in both genders being able to have more effective communication, which will hopefully result in less unfortunate incidents like the one that Louis C.K. and his victims find themselves in. For the cynical among you, this means, as I was born with a penis, that I will be attempting to man-splain.
I will do so, using experiences from my own life.
Twice in my life I have been accused of sexual assault, yet I can say with an absolutely clear conscience that I have never and would never sexually assault another human being.
The first situation involved a woman who was a friend of a woman I was dating. The friend was always around when I would go to my girlfriend’s house. One day my girlfriend ran to the grocery to get an item that we needed for some cooking we were doing. I was supposed to stay back and continue dinner prep with her friend. As soon as my girlfriend left, her friend began making advances on me. I had no idea what was happening. I told the girl that I was not interested. I told her that I really liked my girlfriend and I promised her that I wouldn’t mention what had happened to her and that we could just forget the whole thing.
The evening continued on in a normal fashion. We ate dinner and had a few drinks. I went home and slept that night and didn’t think too much about the odd situation I had been put in by my girlfriend’s friend.
The following day my life turned to complete and total chaos.
It started with a phone call. My girlfriend was screaming and crying. I could barely make sense of what she was saying. By the time the call was completed I had become aware that the friend had told my girlfriend that I had tried to rape her, while my girlfriend was at the grocery.
I was appalled. I told my girlfriend what really happened, about how I had spurned her friend’s advances, about how her friend had told me that we could keep the whole thing a secret, about how she persisted even though I had resisted several times.
My girlfriend, who had only known me for a few months, told me that the girl had been her best friend since they were little and that “she would never lie about something like that.” Just like that, my new relationship was over.
But things would get much, much worse.
Soon, everywhere I went people would look at me strangely. I had physical confrontations with other males who felt justified in attacking me, because they were defending the honor of my poor, defenseless victim.
I kept the whole thing a secret from my friends and family. The last thing I wanted to do was share my humiliation with those who were close to me. I felt dirty, like I had done something wrong. But I hadn’t! This was the first time that I became aware that false allegations of sexual assault, were just as bad, for the accused, as real allegations of this nature.
My life was completely ruined. After several months of dealing with attacks on my self and my property, I opted to move. To this day, I am afraid that I will see one of those people who believed lies about me. What is to stop one of them from using lethal force against me? That is exactly what I feel like doing to rapists and pedophiles, after all.
Just as the victims of sexual assault will always have to live with their scars, so do those men who are falsely accused. I am not attempting to compare two different types of suffering. I am merely attempting to illustrate why some men might feel triggered by the events of the Louis C.K. scandal.
I believe what scares men about this situation is that Louie asked for, and received consent. Then later, the women said that they felt violated. Conscientious men live in a constant state of fear that perhaps a consensual sex act can be reframed in the mind of their partner, to fit a new narrative that is more in line with how they view themselves at the current time.
For example, I once knew a man who was accused of sexual assault for having a brief sexual relationship with a female coworker. The woman was in an on-again, off-again abusive relationship. When the man met her, she swore that she was done with her abuser, but for whatever reason, within a few weeks she was back with him. The abuser began constantly questioning her about her activities during the time when they were apart. One day, while going through her phone, he found text messages between her and the man. The texts clearly indicated that there had been a sexual relationship between the two of them. The abusive male turned up the heat on the woman, so in order to save herself and her awful relationship, she told her abuser that the sex was not consensual.
As you can imagine this incident completely destroyed the man’s life. The abusive man and his brothers stalked him mercilessly, destroying his house and his car. As the woman was a coworker, rumors spread quickly throughout his place of work and he subsequently lost his job. The man sat on pins and needles for months, wondering if he would face criminal charges for a consensual sex act that was reframed in the mind of his former partner.
So what does this have to do with Louis C.K.? C.K. admitted that he was wrong and apologized.
Perhaps my final example will help bring all of this together.
Not long ago a coworker of mine contacted me and told me that she was recently single and wanted to know if I knew of any eligible men that I could introduce her to. I told her that I was going to a party that weekend and asked her if she wanted to come. I told her that I would be more than happy to introduce her to lots of great people at the party.
I picked her up Friday night and escorted her to the party. In the interest of full disclosure I will add that I always found this woman very attractive, but as she had been in a relationship the entire time that I had known her, I never really gave it much thought. And when she asked me to introduce her to some of my male friends, I took this as her saying that she was not attracted to me.
Apparently, I was wrong.
The entire time we were at the party she hung on my every word. She told me that she was a huge fan of my work and that she had always admired and looked up to me. I had no idea!! I was incredibly flattered!!
As the night waned she ask me if I would take her home, so I did. All the way to her house she told me that she was attracted to me. I admired her for being so forthcoming, but her forthrightness made me question her sobriety. I replayed the evening in my head, monitoring how many drinks she had consumed. She had only had a couple of drinks and had stopped drinking several hours earlier. She was sober, just far braver with her words than I could ever imagine being.
When we got to her house she asked me to come inside. Once inside she started kissing me. I stopped kissing her long enough to say
“Hey, I don’t mean to be weird, but I’m kind of big on consent, so I just need to know that you are absolutely sober.”
She laughed and said
“I am completely and totally sober. I haven’t had a drink in hours.”
And she was sober. I am 100% confident in that. I went to school for addictions counseling and I actually did the math in my head (alcohol content/body weight divided by number of hours since last alcoholic beverage), but the math was just me being overly cautious, due to my immense fear of engaging in anything that could be construed as non-consensual sex. I had spent the entire evening with her. She was completely sober.
I left her house early the next morning, feeling really good. I really liked this girl. She was beautiful and intelligent and we shared the same passions. I was excited, thinking about the next time we would see each other. The night had taken an unexpected twist in my favor. I was floating on a cloud.
The next morning I awoke to a text from the woman, asking me if I had had sex with her while she was blackout drunk.
I was terribly confused.
According to the woman, she could not remember anything from the previous night. As we spoke about the events of the evening she had incredibly selective recall. She was able to remember everything except the fact that we had sex, sex which she initiated.
I was completely traumatized. I know this may sound odd, but I was incredibly hurt and confused. I consulted with a female friend. I told her that this accusation horrified me. My friend told me that everyone who knows me knows that I would never take advantage of someone when they were intoxicated, but she also told me that several men she knew, had had this happen to them and subsequently had literally taken on the habit of pulling out their smartphones and making a short video of the woman they were about to sleep with, where they would ask the woman to say
“My name is (name here) and I am of sound mind and consenting to sex with (name here) on (date here).”
This was just too much for me. I can’t even imagine that there is any sex in the world that would be so enjoyable that it would be worth keeping a log of consent videos on file. I just decided that these kind of things were simply too dangerous and vowed to keep myself to myself.
My friend advised me to apologize to the woman and take full responsibility. I told my friend that to do so would be an admission of guilt and that I had done nothing wrong. My friend reminded me that the woman had changed the events in her mind and had became convinced of her new version of events and that as long as I continued to protest my innocence that the woman would press the issue, each time becoming more convinced that she had been victimized.
So I apologized.
Later on, I would find out from one of the woman’s friends that she had a long history of pulling this trick on men. I feel very foolish, even to this day, for having trusted someone, whom I only knew from working with them. I blame myself, even though I know I did everything the way it’s supposed to be done.
I believe this is why so many men have been triggered by the Louis C.K. scandal. Because many men have stories such as the ones I have shared with you. But they can’t talk about their stories. They aren’t allowed to. No one wants to hear them. And there is the very real danger that if they share their stories they will be ostracized by those whom they care deeply for.
I spend a lot of my time explaining to people how hard it is to be a woman in this disgusting culture. Please don’t think that I am trying to compare my sexual trauma to that of any woman’s sexual trauma. But they do share one key component. Whether you have been the victim of sexual assault or falsely accused of it, this will always hang over you. I am but a lowly columnist now (one of the five women accusing Louis of sexual assault is saying that the assault occurred when Louis was a simple staff-writer), but what will happen if I am so lucky enough to ever become a famous writer? Will my two “victims” come forward to tell the world their version of events? If they do, I know that it would be unwise to try to tell the truth on these matters, because no one would ever believe me in a million years. As a male, I am always a suspect and I will always be considered guilty of any false sexual allegations leveled against me.
I’m not trying to say that Louis C.K. is a saint. I’m merely trying to say that he asked for consent. Consent was given at the time, then later retracted and those who gave consent said that they did so because he was a powerful man and that they were afraid to say no.
Far be it from me to tell a woman how she is to react when a man asks her to engage in sex with her, when it is only the two of them in a closed off space. I understand that these situations can feel coercive, even when the one initiating it doesn’t mean for it to be. I understand that there are scary men in the world, who act like giant abusive toddlers when they do not get their way. But I also understand that good men, who actually care about gaining a woman’s consent, live in constant terror that any consent given will later be retracted, for any number of reasons.
Having undergone tremendous trauma in my own life, I would never tell any victim of trauma that they should have behaved differently in a situation other than how they behaved at the time. I would never say anything that would minimize the trauma that is felt by women every single day, as a result of clueless men, who do not know how to read a woman’s subtle cues.
But consent has to count for something. And I can’t help wondering if Brad Pitt had been caught asking for consensual intercourse with actresses he was on set with, would anyone have even cared. It feels like the image of an unattractive man masturbating is somehow more offensive to people than an attractive man having intercourse and that this is causing people to treat this situation differently than they would the aforementioned hypothetical.
I can’t equate Louis’ selfish cluelessness to the disgusting attacks of predators like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Roy Moore or Kevin Spacey. I believe, as men, we have to do more than to just verbally ask for consent. We have to realize that simply asking for consent may make some women feel scared and obligated to comply. I think we have to go a step further and say something like
“Hey, I really like you and I feel like you really like me, but I need you to know that you can walk out of here right now and you and I will still be friends and that our relationship will never be affected, in any way, by what happens or doesn’t happen here tonight and unless I know, with 100% certainty, that you know all these things and are CHOOSING to sleep with me because you want that as much as I do, well than I am not willing to go through with this.”
Maybe if Louis had said something like that we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.
But I think it’s a conversation that we all need to have and keep having until we build a society where women truly are treated as equals.
Maybe this is a conversation we can all learn from.
Since the Democratic National Committee was busted rigging their own primary in 2016, they have faced tremendous pressure from Progressives to move their platform to the left. Senator Bernie Sanders has infiltrated the party and has called upon his Progressive legions to perform a hostile takeover of this party in shambles.
Sanders position in the party, while still being out of the party, has caused a tremendous amount of confusion. One could even go so far to say that the party has been split into two factions, traditional Democrats who are so blindly loyal that they simply refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem, even as their party just endured a historic beating at the hands of an equally splintered GOP and a Progressive wing of the party, that is so disgusted by their antics, that they refuse to even identify themselves as Democrats and simply refer to themselves as Independents.
These Independents are angry and rightfully so. The party that had an opportunity to usher in a new Progressive age, has spent the last year spitting in the faces of the very people who are seeking to reform and redeem it. Once the party of the people, the Democratic Party has fallen under complete and utter corporate control.
Like most corporations, the party does not actually learn lessons, but merely tries to put on the facade of having learned said lessons. Instead of yielding to the voice of the next generation and embracing the changes demanded, it acts like a machine, throwing out smoke as it malfunctions towards its next huge embarrassing failure. It sputters along, crunching data and spewing out tired old tricks to please true-blue loyalists while continually touting how they are better than the other machine.
It is a party that has completely lost its way and its sense of purpose. It masquerades behind the facade of diversity, knowing all too well that the bar has been set so low by “the other guys” that simply parading out women and people of color will be enough to persuade their core constituency to show up vote for the next round of say anything and do nothing candidates, simply due to the sickness of identity politics.
So it should come as no surprise that the latest deceptive maneuver on the part of the DNC involves making false allegations of racism against Progressive members of the committee who were setting up to have Sanders officially join the party in return for making him the party’s nominee for President in 2020.
A recent ousting of Progressive members of the DNC was masked as a defense of diversity, when James Zogby and other prominent Progressives were purged from their positions in the party behind false allegations of racism, accusing Zogby and other Sanders’ loyalists of attempting to sabotage three prominent black female members of the DNC. These accusations were entirely false and it is absolutely disgusting the way the DNC used race and gender as a way to subvert the Progressive movement within the party.
To understand the shenanigans of the DNC, one must first understand that it has been divided into two factions; the Progressive faction is loyal to the vision of Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison, while the much larger faction is loyal to Tom Perez and the party’s corporate donors. While the Progressive side fully accepts that they are trespassing in a party that does not want them, the corporate Democrats are made arrogant by the embarrassing presidency of Donald Trump.
The corporate, third-way Democrats, are willing to suffer the interlopers as long as it works to their advantage. They smile and pretend to align with Sanders’ progressive values, while promising their corporate donors that these positions will never come to pass. The party would love to have the support of Sanders’ legion of followers and are willing to pay lip-service to their demands, but when it comes to actually making real changes to the party platform, they would rather alienate Progressives and count on anti-Trumpism to pull in new voters to replace the Progressives they purged for having the audacity to rock the corporate boat.
So what are Progressives to do?
While Progressives are right to be angry and it certainly makes sense to want to abandon the party, to do so would be to play directly into their hands. The Democratic party is actually counting on you to DemExit. In their eyes, it is better to shake out the rabble-rousers and take their chances on using Trump’s utter incompetence to lure in new voters to replace you. Their goal is to use their corporate media arms to scare the masses into showing up in record numbers to vote for corporate Democrats in 2018 and 2020, while leaving Sanders and his followers out in the cold. By this point, they are hoping that we will have grown tired of failure and will simply give up and disappear.
In addition to traditional media manipulation, organizations like David Brock’s Correct the Record are still wildly active on social media, spreading misinformation on Bernie Sanders and espousing faerie tales about third-parties in hopes of splintering Progressives further and prohibiting them from taking a meaningful role in reforming the Democratic Party.
If someone is trying to convince you that you should stop trying to infiltrate the Democratic party and should instead invest your energy in some pie-in-the-sky third-party, then chances are high that these people are actually paid operatives hired by a Democratic Super-pac.
So what is the solution?
The solution is to simply follow Sanders’ example and remain Independent while infiltrating your local Democratic party. Do not donate money to the party and do not succumb to voting for corporate stooges like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris.
If you are in a state with closed primaries, then you will have to register as a Democrat or else you will be completely shut out of the process. But this doesn’t mean that you are a Democrat. It means you are simply operating behind enemy lines, as Sanders did in 2016. You still won’t vote for corporate candidates and you still won’t donate money to their corrupt party.
In addition to boycotting, we must also donate our time and money to Progressive candidates and the media outlets that support them.
Destroy the current Democratic party. Infiltrate it and take it over. Knock down the corruption and rebuild it in the image of Bernie Sanders.
It’s really hard to talk about guns and gun violence, primarily due to the fact that the NRA has spent an insane amount of money brainwashing American citizens with catchy bumper-sticker type slogans that sound logical, but fall apart upon careful examination.
To make matters worse, gun-prohibitionists often take leave of their senses and attack decent law abiding gun owners who would never consider using their gun to take an innocent life.
In hopes of bridging this gap, I have created a comprehensive list of the most common fallacious arguments used to attack basic control measures, which 90% of Americans believe will make our society a safer place.
Before we begin, let me say that I am a gun owner and I have no issue with citizens owning guns. My father is an antique gun collector. My brother works in a gun store. One of my good friends is a national champion sharp-shooter. But as a passionate proponent of logic and reason, it pains me to see people making emotional arguments masked as logical ones.
If you want to own guns, then you do not need to defend this decision to anyone. You can simply say “I really like guns.” or “My gun makes me feel safer.”
Most reasonable people will not have a problem with this.
The goal of this document is not to discourage people from owning guns, but rather to dismiss with the foolish illogical arguments that proliferate nearly every discussion on this topic, making it virtually impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the matter.
If we are going to talk about guns, let’s use facts and ditch the rhetoric.
Can someone please fire a pistol into the air so that we can get started?
Logicians to your marks…get set…
Fallacious argument #1
If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.
On its surface this seems like airtight logic. It is absolutely true that gun prohibition will not stop someone who is overwhelmingly committed to obtaining a gun from achieving their goal.
But history shows that gun prohibition makes obtaining a gun EXTREMELY difficult.
As 99% of gun violence is committed in the heat of the moment, any difficulty in acquiring a firearm means that the person who was preparing to commit an act of violence will still be able to do so, using any number of methods.
People will still strike each other with their fists.. They will pick up nearby objects and strike with them when angry. They will stab one another.
If guns were outlawed, then average normal everyday people would not risk incarceration and passion-driven gun violence would drop exponentially, but other types of violence would rise. Still homicide would drop proportionately as people simply are less willing and able to kill one another using such up close and personal methods.
Of course, there is some truth to the outlaws with guns argument. There will always be deviants who will go to great lengths to acquire guns. But in a gun prohibitionist culture, these outlaws would have to have some measure of wealth to make their gun-ownership dreams a reality, as black-market gun prices soar in countries where it is illegal to buy guns.
A quick look at the mass-shooters in America illustrates that there is simply no way that the average spree-shooter could afford to own a gun if forced to pay black-market prices.
In addition to lack of funds being a large obstacle to gun ownership for those with ill intentions, it is also laughable to think of entitled suburban white boys like Adam Lanza, pulling into a dark alley with several thousands dollars in his pocket to buy a black-market AR-15. Even if these spree-shooters had the large amount of cash required to purchase a black-market firearm, it is unlikely that they would have such deep criminal connections and even more unlikely that they would leave the scene of the attempted purchase unharmed.
This is not to say that these shooters would be unable to obtain firearms, but we can all agree that it would certainly be a greater challenge for them and would undoubtedly drastically reduce the number of mass-shootings.
This commonly used fallacious statement would be more apt if it were amended to say
If guns are outlawed then only wealthy outlaws with criminal connections would have guns.
Fallacious argument #2
I need a gun to protect myself from my corrupt government.
Again we find ourselves in agreement. The government is certainly corrupt, but they don’t want you dead. They want you alive, working your entire life away, paying taxes and buying products from the corporations that sponsor their campaigns.
If the government wanted you dead, then your AR-15 or Glock 19 would be of absolutely zero assistance to you. Our military has the most sophisticated weapons and armor the world has ever known. There simply is no civilian weapon that could stand up to their tremendous military might. You could stand in front of an M1A2 SEP and fire thousands of rounds into it without impairing its function whatsoever. You would have even less chance of defending yourself against a drone strike that was absolutely invisible to the naked eye.
This isn’t 1786. You can’t simply load up your musket to defend against the British.
If you want to own a gun, then own a gun.
You don’t need to justify this to anyone.
But for the sake of putting our heads together and figuring out ways to keep guns out of the hands of evil-doers, let’s stop using justifications that don’t make sense in real world practice.
Fallacious argument #3
Well knives and cars kill people! Do you want to outlaw knives and cars too?
Before we tackle this, let’s establish that ANYTHING can be used to kill someone. You could simply pick up a chair and hit them over the head. Personally, if someone is going to murder me, I prefer they use a method such as this, so at least I would have a sporting chance at defending myself.
But, you’re right. Cars and knives can be used to kill people and in fact they are used this way, every single day. The fundamental difference is that cars and knives have other uses besides killing. These things are actual tools that we use to make our daily lives easier. As a society, we all agree to a certain degree of acceptable losses accrued by the misuse of said tools, as a trade-off for the convenience that they provide to our lives.
A gun, on the other hand, only has one purpose. It is an instrument designed to kill or injure.
When a knife is used properly, you get to cut your steak.
When a car is used properly, you get to where you are going faster.
When a gun is used properly, someone or something dies or is injured.
Let’s also add to this the fact that cars and knives lack the killing efficiency of a gun. While it is true that people will use knives and cars to murder people, they will not be nearly as effective as they can be with a gun.
This is not to say that killing or injuring is always bad. Sometimes it is necessary to subdue someone with malicious intent. But let’s not murder common sense in the process.
Let’s conduct a simple thought experiment.
Someone standing 20 feet away from you says that they are going to try to kill you, but because they are a fair and sporting person, they are going to let you decide whether they drive a car at you, charge at you with a knife, or shoot at you with a gun.
Which method gives you the least likelihood of escape or counterattack?
The answer is obvious.
Let’s stop using cars and other useful objects as a comparison to guns. For the reasons listed above, this is an extremely flawed analogy.
Fallacious argument #4
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
While it is true that guns are not going to just go around killing people on their own, let’s not be intentionally obtuse just for the sake of trying to win an argument.
While it is definitely true that a gun is unlikely to discharge on it’s own, to eliminate the gun from the equation of gun violence is like someone saying
1+1 does’t equal 2. It equals 1.
It is abundantly obvious that guns are an essential part of the equation of GUN violence.
I am quite confident that even the most ardent Second Amendment advocates are aware of this, but they refuse to acknowledge this point due to an emotional backlash against the media’s manipulative fear-mongering about how the extreme left is constantly threatening to infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners.
We can understand the problem of massive gun-proliferation by imagining a hypothetical scenario in which everyone in America woke up one morning to find out that they had an app on their phones that would murder a nearby person every time they touched it.
Most of us would be appalled by such an app. We would want to immediately remove it from our phones. We would never, in a million years, use the app to kill anyone.
But some would!
And they would use it often!!
And having the app on your phone would offer you zero defense against a person using it with malicious intent, unless you walked around tapping it all the time in an attempt to keep nearby people from pushing the app on their phones.
Returning from the hypothetical realm, we know that this logical fallacy needs to be amended to say.
Guns don’t kill people on their own. But guns in the hands of the wrong people will kill the innocent.
Let’s stop using logical fallacies, in hopes that we can have an intelligent discussion, as a nation, that can result in minimizing gun violence against the innocent.
Fallacious argument #5
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
There is some truth to this argument as well, but again it has been oversimplified.
We certainly don’t want to be at the mercy of a “bad guy” who has us outgunned. It is incredibly important that we have responsible members of our society who are trained to handle crisis situations or else we could fall victim to armed thugs with malicious intent.
Still, simply owning a gun does not offer much advantage versus “a bad guy with a gun.”
A gun rewards first-strike initiative and mutually assured destruction is not a factor once the aggressor has their gun already trained on you.
Imagine you are a responsible gun-owner, walking to your car one evening, when out steps a desperate man, gun drawn. The man begins telling you to give up your wallet. If you reach for your gun, you will likely be shot immediately. There simply is no time to access your gun when a gun is already trained on you. In the world of guns, he who draws first wins.
But imagine a scenario, where you are in a public place and there is an active shooter. A “good guy with a gun” can save the day, right?
Possible, but unlikely. As the assailant has first-strike initiative and strategic placement advantage, it will more than likely take several good guys with guns (usually in the form of the police) to stop this situation. If another citizen pulls out a gun against an active shooter, this will add to the confusion of the situation, and the good guy will likely be shot when the police arrive.
This is not to say that a “good guy with a gun” should not be allowed to own guns. But it is important to dispel the myth that a well armed populace makes us safer during a mass-shooting.
Guns are excellent for home-protection, but in an active shooter situation, first-strike combined with the superior fire power of the shooter, who usually strikes with a weapon that can spray bullets at a much faster rate than a handgun, makes it all but impossible for a responsible handgun owner to stand their ground, even when properly trained. And adding another gun at the scene usually creates additional confusion for the police and victims alike.
Unfortunately the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is doing everything in our power from keeping him from getting that gun in the first place.
Fallacious argument #6
Gun control doesn’t work. Chicago has incredibly strict gun control laws and they have a huge gun violence problem.
Again there is some measure of truth in the above argument (noticing a pattern yet?)
There’s a saying in Chicago that goes
“Chicago has a serious gun control problem. It’s called Indiana.”
In other words, stricter gun control laws in one city only serve to encourage the importing of guns from neighboring cities with lax gun control.
While getting guns into Australia or Japan may prove to be next to impossible due the obvious challenges of getting guns onto a plane and then past border agents, getting guns into a neighboring city is as easy as loading up your car and driving them in.
Chicago’s gun-control laws are impotent and will remain so unless the same laws are passed as a blanket measure across the entire United States.
Tight gun control laws in an individual city are unlikely to have a major effect. Gun control laws would need to be passed on a national level in order to truly have a noticeable impact.
Fallacious argument #7
What about Switzerland? They are required to own guns and they don’t have a gun violence problem.
The Swiss are NOT required to own guns, but this is a common misconception. Still Switzerland is worth discussing because they are an example of a culture that actually has a well regulated militia. Exploring how Switzerland maintains a gun culture without having excessive gun violence could provide some insight into how Americans could improve our own gun culture.
First it is important to note that it is mandatory to join the military in Switzerland for all able-bodied males. After military training is completed a non-assault weapon may be purchased from the government, by the graduated soldier. As you might imagine this means that every gun owner in Switzerland has a high-degree of gun training and is taught a healthy respect for gun safety.
Swiss citizens are required to undergo a background check for every gun purchase and the Swiss government reserves the right to strip citizens of their guns for criminal offenses.
It is also important to note that being required to have a career in the military makes gun ownership a prestigious honor in Switzerland, versus in America where owning a gun simply means that managed to accrue a few hundred dollars.
Swiss gun owners often speak of a deep sense of Nationalism that comes along with their gun ownership. Whereas in America citizens often speak of needing guns to defend against other Americans, in Switzerland the gun owners speak about using their guns in the event of having to defend their country from invasion.
Switzerland is the embodiment of a well regulated militia.
Gun advocates would be wise to take notes of the differences between the two cultures and our relationship with our firearms.
Fallacious argument #8
What about Hitler? He took away all the guns and look what happened there.
This is a commonly believed myth, when in fact the opposite was true.
After World War I, stiff gun regulations were placed on Germany as part of the sanctions for losing the war. Adolf Hitler actually loosened all gun regulations when he rose to power in 1938.
While it is true that Hitler did ban gun ownership for Jews, he simultaneously allowed all citizens with a hunting license to open carry and lifted regulations on gun and ammo purchases, while simultaneously extending all gun permits to be extended from one year to three years. Hitler’s gun control laws were so lax that German citizens under the age of 18 were allowed to apply for guns and were often successful in obtaining them legally. In other words, the citizens of Germany could have offered an armed resistance to their fascist government, but chose not to. The German citizens were tired of being poor and fell in line behind Adolf Hitler’s message of German superiority. Hitler did not support gun prohibition.
Fallacious argument #9
Well, drugs are illegal and yet we still have a drug problem in America.
The goal of laws is not to eliminate crime, but to limit it.
As we have discussed previously, there will always be those who choose to break the law, which is why it is important to have a criminal justice system. But no one would be so asinine as to suggest that just because some people choose to break laws, that this means that we should just give up entirely on law and order.
There will always be people who will seek to obtain illegal guns, if they are not allowed to obtain them legally.
There is simply no logical reason for making this easier on the criminal element of any civilized society.
Fallacious argument #10
Gun prohibition would never work. With 300 million guns already owned in America, you could never collect them all. I sure as hell wouldn’t give mine up!!
No one is asking you to give up your gun.
But since you brought it up, gun-prohibition actually does work.
It is worth reading up on how Australia accomplished this after the Port Arthur mass shooting of 1996. They enacted sweeping gun reform, offered amnesty to those with illegal guns and began a gun buy back program, offering fair market value to encourage people to sell their guns back to the government for destruction.
This is not to say that everyone in Australia participated in the gun buyback. Approximately 80% resisted and kept their guns. The same would undoubtedly be true in America. It would take decades for the idea of gun prohibition to become a reality. Over time guns break, people die and relatives turn over their deceased loved one’s guns and other guns are ceased when people break laws and there is a search and seizure.
This is not to suggest that America should follow suit and demand gun prohibition. The point is to acknowledge that where gun prohibition has been instituted that it has absolutely worked. It works in Australia, Japan and in every other country where it has been applied.
It is common for people to argue this point by posting a meme laced with false information or by pointing out an exception to the rule where someone actually did get their hands on a gun and used it in a country that practices gun prohibition.
Science is never at the mercy of anecdotal evidence, yet still the unscientifically minded will continue to argue by posting the exception to the rule. For example someone might point out that there was a mass-knifing in China or produce an article that shows how Japan still has six deaths per year from gun violence.
It is difficult to argue with people who are determined to use the exception to the rule as evidence that the rule is incorrect, when no sensible person is trying to make the argument that any method will work 100% of the time. What we are speaking of is minimizing unnecessary gun-violence, while acknowledging that eliminating the problem entirely isn’t feasible.
It’s okay to say that you love your gun, but let’s deal in facts.
Gun prohibition has been proven to work in countries where it was enacted.
Fallacious argument #11
You can’t take away my right to own a gun!! It’s in The Constitution!!
Once again, this is not an article about gun-grabbing, but rather an article about fallacious arguments surrounding American gun culture. But let us remember that The Second Amendment is just that, an amendment. It was an addition to The Constitution by the government of Virginia, because the slaves outnumbered the plantation owners and Virginians were worried about slave rebellions.
The United States Constitution can and will be amended to change with the times. Just as the 21st Amendment overturned the 18th Amendment, an amendment can be passed that would overturn The Second Amendment.
If we are to keep that from happening, responsible gun-owners may want to examine what it means to have a well-regulated militia and also to examine what it means to keep and bear arms.
Obviously there is a limit to this right. American citizens are not allowed to own tanks, rocket launchers or nuclear weapons, for example.
The greatest threat to our Constitutional rights as gun owners is to continue to allow guns to fall into the hands of irresponsible citizens whose actions reflect poorly on those of us who believe that owning a gun is a responsibility to be taken seriously.
I need my gun to hunt and for home protection!!
This is the best argument for owning a gun. It is logical and respectable.
Licensed hunters are an important part of keeping ecosystems balanced and it is my personal belief that every person has an inalienable right to protect their home and personal property.
I would like to take a moment to speak on the subject of clip capacity. Coming from a family of hunters I can say that I have never seen anyone use more than four bullets to take down an animal.
In the event of a home invasion, it is highly unlikely that there will be a need to fire more than a few bullets to thwart the invader(s). If your argument for gun ownership is based around hunting or home protection, I assume that you would be in agreement that we should limit round capacity to between six to ten bullets, as no one needs a military grade weapon that can fire 120 rounds per minute.
I fully support the rights of people to own guns for hunting and self defense, but if those are your actual reasons for gun-ownership then you would have no need for military grade weapons anyway.
These weapons should be reserved for the heroes who are brave enough to enlist and serve in the United States military.
Fallacious argument #12
Okay, you made some great points, but now is not the time to discuss gun control. It’s wrong of you to politicize a tragedy.
Sadly, there is never a time in America where there is not a mass shooting, as America averages more than one mass shooting every day. Mass shootings have become so prevalent that they usually do not even make national news unless they involve ten or more victims. If we wait until there are no mass shooting to have this discussion then we will never have it.
The time is now for responsible gun owners to stop regurgitating fallacious arguments and demand common sense gun control laws that protect their own rights, while keeping guns out of the hands of the worst members of our society.
While it is true that we will never be able to completely eradicate gun violence, it is incumbent upon all law abiding gun owners to do everything they can to keep guns out of the hands of street thugs and the mentally ill.
Hopefully this article will help you have more productive gun discussions with people on all sides of the gun debate.
Using flawed and fallacious arguments belittles us all.