Protect the 2nd amendment

Much like the Bible, people think they know what the constitution says but really they have no idea. So I'm here to help you all out. Here is the actual text of the second amendment straight from the constitution:

"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"

Here are a few quick definitions so we all know what we are talking about:

Keep: To retain possession

Bear: to carry. 

Regulated: control or supervise by the means of rules and regulations. 

Regulations: A rule or directive made or maintained by an authority. 

Security: The state of being free from danger or threat

Militia: A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency

Arms: Weapons and ammunition

Infringed: Act as to limit or encroach on. 

So in plain english:

A well controlled and supervised militia being necessary to maintain a state free from danger and threat the right of the people to retain possession of and carry weapons and ammunition shall not be encroached upon. 

It is fair to say that the wording of that amendment can be interpreted in many different ways, thereby causing the outrageous gun debate that we are now having in this country. It is also fair to say that we don't really have a need for a militia anymore. Our military is the largest in the world (one of the largest? I don't really keep track of the size of militaries), and the really great thing about having a powerful military is that the civilians can just not worry about it. (thanks soldiers). So that begs the question, if we can admit that we no longer require a militia, then do we still need the people to have the right to keep and bear arms? I mean, that was written so that average joe guy could protect himself during wartimes. 

Well, for protection, yes. It can be argued that the right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own protection is still important. (I wouldn't argue it, but it could be argued). We also need to remember that when the Constitution was written the only arms people were keeping were muskets and bullets. There were no handguns, rifles, AR's and definitely no 100 round magazines. So in order to be truly and honest logical about the Constitutional right to have guns, we have to think about what it means. 

The whole purpose of the right to bear arms is to ensure the security of the state. One of the best ways to ensure security back when America was just a toddler was with a militia. Our military then was not what it is today and the people needed to supplement the military with their own protections. The war was on our soil (we forget this, because wars are never on our soil anymore). But when the war in on your soil you have a much higher need for personal protection because the enemy (the actual enemy, not the figurative 21st century enemy) could very well appear at your home with guns blazing. 

Today, no soldiers are going to show up at your home guns blazing. Today we need to protect ourselves from modern threats like robbers and psychopathic murderers. While I will agree that there is a need to protect yourself and your family from threats of the outside world, that threat no longer requires a militia. You can get locks on your doors, alarm systems in your home, etc. 

There will never be a time when in order to protect yourself from a robber or other intruder in your life or home you will need a 100 round automatic rifle. One bullet will put the intruder out of commision if not kill him. 

That being said, the right to bear arms for the security of a free state basically ensures your right to a gun for protection. This in no way ensures your right to a gun for hunting, but hunting is relatively harmless, so fine we can include that. 

It's also important to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and people that will use their guns for evil. This isn't in the constitution but the soldiers in the revolutionary war did not give their guns to the british soldiers, why would you want someone to have a gun that could kill you? In today's world keeping guns out of the hands of the bad people means something different than what it meant hundreds of years ago. It means things like background checks, and controlling or regulating where the guns go, who gets them, and why they have them. If you are a law abiding honest gun owner, then your right to bear arms won't actually be infringed upon at all by gun control laws. 

Here are some of the things Obama ACTUALLY wants to do: 

~Create a national database to make sure background checks are run through all the systems and no criminal falls through the cracks. 

~Close the gun show loophole so that the same strict rules have to be followed at gun shows as they do at regular stores. 

~Start a national dialogue about mental health

~Encourage congress to pass an assault rifles ban

~Ban large ammunition magazines

~Train emergency responders to have an effective and quick response to shootings in public places

~Give incentives to schools with police officers. 

I know people don't like the word "ban" inherently. But instead of just getting mad at the word Obama or ban, really look at that list. What on that list is actually a bad thing and/or will actually take away the guns of a law abiding honest gun owner who is using their guns for protection and hunting? Keep in mind that the kids who took the lives of the students at Columbine got their guns from a gun show. Adam Lanza took his mothers AR that she got legally because ARs are legal. 

Think about how many lives would be saved just by not having automatic weapons around. James Holmes would have only gotten 5 or 6 shots off before having to reload, giving people way more time to run out of the theater. Eric Harris might have just resorted to only bombs, which he was bad at making and those lives would have been saved. 

What Obama is doing is not liberal or left wing. What he is doing is protecting his country, exactly what a commander in chief should do. Now I know this had lot of logic in it, so if that bothers you then go ahead and go back to posting memes about how Obama is black and probably on crack which is why he is banning all guns and allowing the gays to create hurricanes to kill all the good people. Otherwise, use your brain and think about how much better off this country would be if people weren't walking around with assault rifles. 

How to prevent rape: flow chart edition.

Ever since Todd Akin, Rush Limbaugh and a slew of other not so intelligent conservative old men opened their mouths to define rape, rape has been a hot discussion topic. You might think this is a bad thing, but actually it's a good thing. This means that maybe people will stop assuming they have a right to another persons body. Maybe if we talk about it enough boys will grow up understanding the difference between respect and rape. 

The funny thing is, we still have, in this society, a culture of victim blaming. I see more re-posts of how women should prevent rape that I ever wished existed. Women should carry weapons or mase, they should dress like nuns and have short hair. Women shouldn't walk alone at night, they shouldn't park in parking structures, they shouldn't lead promiscuos lives. Women should refrain from things like one night stands, because it gives men the wrong impression and they might get raped. Women shouldn't go to frat parties, they shouldn't get drunk around men they don't trust. I could go on forever listing the ways women are supposed to cease enjoying their lives in order to prevent idiotic men and  immature boys from raping them. 

But why? Why do women have to be in charge of making sure they don't get raped? Shouldn't the rapist be in charge of NOT RAPING PEOPLE! I mean seriously, why are we not raising boys to be less ridiculous? 

Just recently Jenna Marbles, a youtube famous vlogger, made a video of things she doesn't understand about women "sluts edition". This video talked about a lot of things, but skirted pretty close to the edge of victim blaming. Victim blaming, meaning that women who get too drunk, make bad choices, sleep around too much, or dress "slutty" in some way deserve the assault of the man who found her black out drunk when she couldn't make decisions. 

A number of other less famous vloggers then made response videos about the slippery slope to victim blaming. This one is my favorite:

She does a really good job of articulating the problem with labeling date rape as a "bad decision". She makes the important and too often ignored point that being raped is not the result a bad decision on the part of the victim, but the result of a horrendous violating attack on the part of the rapist. Watching the video will do more justice than my description, so watch it and then continue reading. 

The thing that really killed me was the comments section of this video. Of course there were plenty of people saying how proud they were and how much they like when this vlogger had to say. But naturally there were jerks also. Jerks that made comments like "How drunk does someone have to be for it to be considered rape?" and "people shouldn't intervene if they think they see someone being taken advantage of."  Is that a joke? I can only assume those comments came from the same sort of jerks that edited this wonderful point made my this women into this totally rape-y version. 

That is the original photo. This wonderful and amazing women took this photo of herself to make the point that no matter how a woman is dressed, she isn't there for you to have sex with. Some completely horrible people edited to this:

Seriously? They "fixed" it by erasing the words "still not" so that she is now asking for it. This is how much power people think they have over other people's bodies. A quick photoshop job and now they can have sex with that woman. These are the people you think don't really exist. These are the people that you get sick of "feminists" hating. This is pretty symbolic of the way women are treated by rapist types. And this is NOT ok.  Ok, so whatever these are just stupid uneducated horrible men. Fine, then I'm going to educate everyone. I made this handy dandy flow chart to help you understand when it is ok to have sex with someone. I know it is small, I made it in a word proccesor and kind of quick but I tried to make it large enough to see. If your computer has a zoom feature use that. 

Should I have sex with this person I think is cute?

So you see, most roads lead to no. This doesn't imply that women can't have sex all the time all day, but they have to say yes all the time all day. My point is that we need to get away from "no means no". That's insane. Instead, wait for a yes. It also answers the question that never needed to be asked about how drunk someone has to be for it to be rape. Doesn't matter, they can have had 1 beer or 20 shots. If they are too drunk, tired, unconscious, distracted, or whatever, to definitively say yes, then you can't have sex with them. 

Let's think about it another way. You know how in football if the ruling on the field is not a touchdown, the only way to overturn it is with IRREFUTABLE video evidence? Meaning it was NOT a touchdown unless it can be irrefutably proven to have broken the plane. Think about sex like that, unless there is NO QUESTION in your mind at all, unless there is IRREFUTABLE evidence that the person said yes they want to have sex with you then you should NOT have sex with them. 

Still not understanding? Ok, well how about this: if someone was about to do what you are about to do to your sister, mother, daughter, or best friend would you beat the crap out of them? If the answer is yes, then you probably shouldn't. (disclaimer: this doesn't include that fact that dads would probably like to beat up the people taking their daughters on dates and holding their hand). 

Until we change this culture around rape, and until we make preventing rape the job of the rapist and not the victim, we are going to make women feel like bad things that happen to them are their fault. If women sleep around as much as men that DOES NOT mean they deserve to get raped. Even if you think their life is terrible, they do not deserve to get raped. Even if you think they are unworthy of respect, they do not deserve to get raped. When Daniel Tosh said that the audience member who heckled him deserved "to be gang raped by five guys" what he was doing was perpetuating the idea that bad women deserve bad things. 

I will leave you with this: even if a woman makes the worst decisions ever, every single day of her life and dresses like a prostitute and walks along the streets at 2am without any weapons...she still DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE RAPED. Teach this to your children, that the rapist is the only one responsible for preventing rape.