Tag: The Law

Posted on

Good God! Please make them shut up!

I’m totally sick of the Abortion shit!

Although there have been some headlines that have made me laugh.

Sex Strike! Abstinence trends on Twitter in wake of Roe v. Wade ruling

As if a man would want to have sex with this one…

She looks like she stepped off the set of John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars

Then there’s this one.

Not at all a flattering angle.

The general consensus among lots of Men seems to be; “Your Terms are acceptable”

Women, really need to realize, Men don’t need them to pleasure ourselves. We might prefer to have a woman in our beds. But if the pain in the ass level is too high, we’ll find alternatives.

One need only look at the sex toy industry, or even a single online catalog and you’ll find there are a multitude of very pleasurable substitutes that cost less than Dinner and Drinks on one date.

All of the above are reviewed at GQ The Best Sex Toys for Men

The beauty of some of these toys is that they’re easily cleanable, or in some cases entirely disposable. Oh… Don’t forget a decent lubricant!

Then there’s Pink.

Who is she? Why Should I care? I don’t think I’ve ever heard any of her music, and see zero need to do so now.

Then there’s this one from Elizabeth Warren…

Biden Needs to Make ‘Federal Lands in Place Where Abortions Can Occur’

When I read this one, I pictured this

We know how the US Government is about reservations…

Then there’s this from AOC

AOC: Arkansas abortion ban ‘will kill people’

That title was provocative enough that I pulled up the video. She does justify her statement somewhat.

All that being said…

Nowhere in the constitution does it say, “Sure, hack up that baby growing inside you, then scoop the pieces out of your womb.”

Abortion is not birth control it’s fucking murder. I don’t give a runny shit how you try to sanitize it.

I’m in favor of abortion in the case of rape. No question about it. A man who rapes a woman doesn’t deserve to reproduce, ever! Further I’d say castrate the fucker, cut ‘em off sack and all, when he’s caught.

Don’t bother with a nice clean surgery center, a decent knife, and four stout men. (Two to hold his legs open, one to pin him down, and one to wield the knife! As you can tell, I don’t have any mercy for rape.) That alone would have a chilling effect on rapists across the country.

I’m in favor of abortions in the case of incest. Our species shouldn’t be weakening itself by narrowing genetic diversity. Just look at the Royals of Europe.

I’m in favor of abortions in the case of mother’s life versus continuing the pregnancy.

What I’m not in favor of is abortion just because the couple, (Yes, the Man and the Woman) were too stupid, or too lazy, to avail themselves of the myriad options available to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

Abortion, generally speaking is not about women’s health it’s about covering up that the couple was irresponsible.

It’s about a woman taking the rights of a man too. There are some men, who want children, and who may only have one time in their lives when they can father them.

The implied message of Abortion is that men can always father children. Who cares if half a dozen of their potential offspring are murdered before they have a child?

That’s not always the case. Lower male fertility rate statistics show it clearly.

How many men find out too late that they’re functionally sterile because of pollution, hormones or chemicals, in the water, or other factors?

How many men look back on their girlfriends or fiancé’s who got abortions and wish they’d had the joy of holding their child in their arms?

I’ll grant you there may not be a huge preponderance. I’m willing to bet there are men jerking off into cups at fertility clinics for sperm counts, while their wife waits in the lounge, who wish they’d had a say when their ex-girlfriend took off to an abortion clinic.

My view will not be popular. Fine. It’s the way I see it. You don’t have to agree, just as I don’t have to agree that rampant abortion is just hunky dory, or empowering.

This SCOTUS ruling doesn’t ban abortion. All it does, is say that abortion is not enshrined in the Constitution. It kicks the issue back to the states for their legislatures to decide.

The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. That’s it, they’re not supposed to legislate from the bench. Congress makes the Laws.

And yes, theoretically this could reverse Gay marriage. It could also theoretically reverse rulings on inter-racial marriage.

I don’t think it will.

There’s a difference between marriage and abortion.

Marriage is about pursuing individual happiness, and living the life you choose to live, with the partner of your choice. Both parties enter into a marriage with open eyes and are presumably adults exercising their rights to live in freedom.

I hold that neither the State or Federal government has any say in the matter. Marriage is essentially a contract.

That laws and rulings had to be made to limit State and Federal interference in the lives of citizens regarding who they could marry, speaks volumes about the level of control the State and Federal governments unconstitutionally exercised.

Abortion fundamentally denies the right of an unborn child to life. This violates one of the first principals enumerated in The Declaration of Independence.

Looking at it this way, by extension, the unborn child could be protected by The Constitution. A case could be made, that the SCOTUS should stand to give voice to citizens who cannot yet speak for themselves.

The SCOTUS didn’t go that far. I think it would have make an interesting and compelling case…

If they had, then abortions in cases of rape, or incest would have to be denied too.

Reading through The Constitution, there are references to being “Born”. This implies a live birth, and could be construed to mean that an unborn child is not yet protected by The Constitution.

I could see this view too, and wouldn’t be surprised to find this was the reason SCOTUS enabled abortion in 1973. Using this line of reasoning, the woman’s rights would in fact supersede the rights of the unborn child.

This brings the whole issue to the question of, “When does life begin?”

For the founders, life began at birth. The squalling child drinking in those first deep breaths. They knew that a life was growing inside a pregnant woman. But for them the fruition of that growing life was birth.

Our technology has given us deeper insight.

If we could show The Founding Fathers images from inside the womb, if we could show them that still growing babies look human and react if they feel threatened or pain. I’m confident that they’d go back and revise The Constitution to include unborn children.

Some politicians say, “It’s just a clump of cells…” That is true at first. But once those clumps of cells differentiate into brain, heart, eyes, and take on a human appearance. It’s a human being in my book.

I’m confident that The Founding Fathers would be horrified by what the abortion industry has done.

I sure as hell am.

To all those politicians from other countries voicing their opinions about the SCOTUS decision…

Shut the Hell up!

This is our country. Our Constitution.

You have Zero say in how we govern ourselves.

Your input is neither requested or desired.

Posted on

Well, I watched the Biden Speech

I really don’t like The President.

However, I found that I leaned toward several of the points that he made.

I’m still processing on the points, Here’s a list of what I mostly agree with.

Shootings

The shootings must stop.

An animal that walks into a school or a store and just opens fire, is to my mind rabid. As such, they deserve nothing but to be put down as you would a rabid animal. No mercy, no negotiation.

Something that I have noticed is that these animals always seem to go for “soft” targets. Whether that is a school, a church, a bar, or a shopping center. One thing these venues have in common is that they are almost always a Gun Free Zone.

A notable exception was the church in TX where one of the parishioners dropped a shooter on a sunny Sunday morning.

More Gun Control Laws

I’m not sure that more gun control laws will prevent these kinds of shootings. The so-called “Expanded” background checks I think are toothless.

I can say from experience that the “Gun Show” loopholes are largely red herrings. I’ve never been to a gun show that was “Cash & Carry”. If you purchase a gun at a gun show, you still have to pass the background checks and the gun must be shipped to a licensed federal firearms dealer. The purchaser can pick it up after providing appropriate documentation, and paying a handling fee. The same is true of Online Sales.

Mental Health

Mental Health Care must be expanded. I honestly don’t care how that is done, but I believe it must be done.

Red Flag Laws

I’m ambivalent about red flag laws. I can see the point and their usefulness. Alternatively, I’ve read horror stories where an aggrieved party abused the law to settle a score.

There’s one story that pops to mind where in a bitter divorce, the wife activated the Red Flag law. Her husband’s collection of rare and antique guns was taken, then the guns “disappeared” from police custody. The collection was worth north of 100,000 dollars. The wife demanded her half of the cash even though the guns were gone and therefore couldn’t be sold for profit. Depending on the Red Flag law, it’s possible to misuse it in a way similar to “Swatting”.

Age Limits

I’m not sure about the age limits on gun purchases. I do applaud The President’s speechwriter for addressing the military versus non-military aspects of 18 year olds purchasing guns. Yes, we send 18 year olds to fight in wars and kill people. Then those young people come home and can’t buy a beer. I’ve always found that to be wrong. On the other hand if the drinking age is 21, then I can see the gun purchase age being 21 as well. It is for handguns in most places.

And yet, we still have the weekly Chicago teenage shooting fest. This tends to imply, that criminals will be criminals regardless of the law or their age.

I completely disagree with laws similar to the California law that proposed making it illegal to hand a weapon registered to you, to another person, or member of your family. That disrupts a father being able to take his sons hunting, or to a shooting range. It also creates a complication if, for example, you’re at a range with a buddy and would like to try out his new Glock to see if you’d like it. (I don’t know if that idiotic law passed or not in California. I’ll have to look it up.)

Gun Safety

The President mentioned trigger locks, and safe storage of weapons. I can see that. (Although trigger locks can be defeated fairly easily.) The problem I have with so called “safe storage” is that a gun locked in a safe is no damn good if someone kicks your door down in the middle of the night.

Now you know why I sleep with a baseball bat at hand and some kind of knife nearby as well. Just as with a gun, I hope I’ll never have to use either of them. (Then again, caving someone’s skull in or gutting them wouldn’t disturb the neighbors like a gunshot would.)

High Capacity Magazines

The President referenced High Capacity Magazines again. This time he defined what he meant by high capacity. I lean toward agreeing, that 30 or 40 round magazines are high capacity. I’m not sure why someone would want that kind of capacity. I don’t know enough about that particular subject to intelligently comment.

I’ve been looking a Henry Lever action rifles for hunting. Most of them, top out at 10 round capacities. Several of them top out at seven rounds. These seem like reasonable maximums if you’re hunting.

I remember being told once, (discussing the model 1911 pistol,) that if you couldn’t hit what you were aiming at with seven rounds, you probably couldn’t hit it with 70. In my family, we were taught it was a very bad thing to waste ammunition. So I might be biased about the number of rounds necessary.

Other things said

One thing I noticed in comments that popped up after The President’s speech was that a lot of people were just badmouthing The President based on some of his comments earlier in the week. He said things like he wanted to ban 9mm.

Because of his earlier statements, people heard what they wanted to hear in his address Thursday.

In this post, I’m trying to maintain focus on what he said in his speech.

If in fact some of the legislation his party is proposing contains bans on 9mm, or AR-15 rifle mechanisms then I’ll have to re-evaluate.

9mm is one of the most common calibers on the market today. Most law enforcement use them and honestly if The President did actually ban that caliber, it would create chaos.

Law enforcement goes through a lot of testing before they approve a particular gun and / or caliber for their use. Having to resupply every police force in the country would impose a large financial burden on police budgets nationwide. Including The President’s own security forces. I tend to think The President misspoke earlier in the week referencing 9mm.

Size wise, a 9mm slug isn’t terribly different from a .38 so I’m really not sure why The President spoke about 9mm at all.

Then again, time will tell.

Posted on

Democrats, Shut up about the FL Parental Rights Bill

To everyone who’s got their panties in a twist…

I’d tell you to read the bill. Unfortunately you seem to have a difficult time understanding English. I’ll chalk that up to your teachers spending too much time with silly fluff passing as education and not actually grading your work, thereby neglecting the more basic aspects of your fundamental education.

After all, it’s unfair to be mean to the village idiot or call them out for being an idiot.

I’ve read the bill. It’s here if you’d like to, or can, read it for yourselves.

I’d remind you Democrats, that you’re the same people who look at a man, a stranger, with suspicion ready to call a cop, if that man happens to see your child about to fall and catches the child out of instinct.

You’re the people who in years gone by attempted to destroy at least one California man because he happened to be naked… IN HIS OWN KITCHEN one sunny morning. He’d forgotten that a set of curtains was open. This allowed a nosey busybody to see his nudity from a sidewalk through a hedge.

You’re the people that call child protective services on parents if their child happens to mention they’ve seen Daddy or even Mommy in the shower.

You’re the people that have made changing clothes for PE and taking showers after PE something sexual and sick instead of what it is, simple functionality.

All of these things, you’ve created and nurtured with the mantra, “It’s for the Children.”

You’re the people that have so confused things, that multi-urinal men’s rooms are going the way of the Dodo. I can only attribute this to penis envy on the part of some very angry harridans who felt it unfair that men could go into a men’s room and relieve themselves in a couple of minutes. As opposed to the harridans waiting in line while their sisters occupied the ladies room for 15 or 20 minutes.

Now, you village idiots are screaming bloody murder because parents and real people who have nieces and nephews are pushing back against discussing sexuality, any sexuality, with Elementary School children aged 4 to 9 in a classroom environment.

There was a time when that would have gotten you on a perverts list.

So you’re saying it’s bad if a child sees Daddy or Mommy’s privates at home, but it’s perfectly okay for that same child to be taught and shown the ins & outs of all kinds of sexual behavior well before they’ve got any clue about what their parts are for.

Until I was 10 the only thing I knew my penis could do was pass urine. Fortunately, somewhere between 10 and 12, one or both of my parents realized that I’d discovered an alternate function. They provided a very helpful gender specific, age appropriate book, that explained the changes that were happening. The book just appeared on my bed one day.

Inside the book in my father’s bold handwriting was a note. The note said, “You’re normal, If you have any questions now ask myself or your mother. You and I can talk whenever you’re ready.”

As I recall, there were very helpful line drawings that showed me the internals and externals of my plumbing. They were relatable and informative, as was the text of the book.

This was 1970. I remember feeling safe and not threatened. They knew, I knew, they knew I knew they knew, and in all we were a knowledgable family. (To paraphrase Hepburn from The Lion in Winter.)

What my parents didn’t know, and I didn’t admit to myself until I was between 18 and 21 was that I had rather broad sexual tastes. I tried both genders, choosing whichever one was at the time, more interesting.

Looking back, knowing there was the freedom to be who I was, would have been helpful. That being said, in the 70’s and 80’s men who “did” with men were still subject to arrest and imprisonment. For that matter, in some states, any sexual activity other than putting tab A in slot B was illegal. Yep, oral sex was illegal even between married consenting adults.

Talk about government overreach!

I’m pro sex education for teenagers. I think that it is something that could be very good especially if it dispelled fear, and shame, and made it clear that sexual expression is natural and healthy.

I’d also say that letting appropriately aged children know that whoever they want to be with is okay. Perhaps it would be helpful to explain what responsibilities come with sex. Tell the students that their bodies are theirs, and they don’t have to do anything they don’t want to or are not ready for. There’s no shame in saying “No.”

When I was 10, I was developing a bit early. None of my friends in that age group were close to the “discovery” I made. By the time I was 12 things had changed. That book my parents gave me was read cover to cover by all my close friends. They also read my Father’s note to me. The note itself was the perfect size to be a great bookmark.

They were ready and knew I had resources.

I will not discuss the projector incident(s)… 8mm was a very popular format. That’s a funny story, because 25 years later I found out that the projector and associated films were not owned by my Father or Mother. They belonged to a close family friend who hung around after my parents were divorced. A bunch of 13 year old boys watching silent dirty movies projected on a nicely painted flat white closet door must have been a sight. Ahh, the good old days!

I am absolutely opposed to talking about sex with children in elementary school. I believe that the innocence of children is to be protected and cherished. Let children be children and let their bodies tell them when it’s time to start growing up.

I started that process young, and I had parents that understood. I realize that not all children are as fortunate but I can tell you without question, at 10 my body showed me a neat trick. I wouldn’t have been ready for all the permutations and combinations of human sexuality. It was all I could do to just understand what was going on with me.

I didn’t care then, that in the future my tab A was supposed to fit inside someone. At the time my personal tab A was making me very happy all on its own. The very concept of putting a part of me inside someone was, in the vernacular of my 10 year old self, “Icky”. I didn’t want or need to know about the wild world of sexual sports.

There’s stuff I’ve seen and done, that I wish I hadn’t. Once you see or experience something you don’t forget, even if you want to. I think that is probably more true of children because they don’t have filters. It’s the adults in the room that are supposed to provide the filtering.

So Democrats, quit mislabeling the FL bill as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Call it what it is, “The Protect the Innocence of Children Bill”

After all Protect the Children is your favorite chorus isn’t it?