Feminist Ideology

What feminist don't want you to know

Ideology

Feminist seem unable to make a logical and reasonable argument for their position and they abuse copyright claims and site flag features to censor ideas online.  Their ad hominem [1] attacks are usually confined to a few words or phrases like rape apologist, misogyny, woman-hater, and sexist.  Usually this is their sole attempt at an argument or a method to end the discussion.   I have yet to find a feminist who can make a fact based argument with logic and reason based on evidence.

Their efforts are not limited to online venues.  Feminist have torn down posters about equality at a construction site in Canada. [2]   The sole issue with the posters was not the message but simply the ideology of feminism was being attacked. 

Feminist protested a conference held by the organization CAFE [3] covering issues facing men today.  [4]   After verbally assaulting several people at the conference, the feminist also blocked the entrance and the police had to be called.      During the lecture, they pulled the fire alarm to force the end of the meeting. [5]  I would urge anyone to look at CAFE's website and find a single sentence that is hateful of anyone.

A lecture [6] by Warren Farrell [7] was violently protested by feminist where he was discussing how men today are in crisis.  [8]    Mr. Farrell has been anti-feminism at times but nothing in his speech or books are anti-woman.  His lectures focus on issues facing men in our society.

After all, belief systems or ideologies like feminism are not allowed to be criticized.  Why would any reasonable person be against a discussion of issue facing men?

Right to Vote

The first claim about feminist working toward equality is usually a bumper sticker statement about a women's right to vote.  This claim is revisionist history because the right to vote for women wasn't done by feminist nor was it about equality.  The story of the right to vote is complicated and can't be explained by a simple statement.   The right to vote was only given to citizens and every state had a different definition of what a citizen was.  Most of the states didn't directly restrict a woman's right to vote and more than half the states allowed women to vote prior to the 19th amendment. [9]   The 19th amendment streamlined voting laws across all the states.  The majority of states coupled the vote with owning property and nothing prevented women from owning property.  Some restrictions were in place where property owned by a woman were under the control of the man if she were married.   When laws like this existed there were balances called covertures in place to protect the woman from abuse of the law by the man. [10]

The right to vote was different for each state and nearly all had some restrictions based on race, wealth, or religion. These laws were more about restricting the right to vote to the rich or the majority.  While the laws restricted a woman's ability to vote, it also prevented most men from voting too.

Many women at the time were against getting the vote because one of the conditions of being a citizen was conscription.  This was obvious by the "white feather campaign" and the suffragettes who helped enforced the male obligation by shaming men into serving the military. [11]  The suffragettes took time out of campaigning for the right to vote by giving a white feather to any male who was not in uniform.   This was to publicly label them a coward.    Children were often targeted by these women as well.  This method was so effective that wounded servicemen were given special silver badges to prevent them from being targeted by the white feather campaign.    This was only done after large numbers of veterans committed suicide after receiving a white feather thinking they cowards for not dying on the battlefield.

The supreme court ruled in 1918 that a citizen had to serve when called as a part of being a citizen.     There were few exceptions and were for religious groups like the Amish, Mennonites, and Quakers.  Men who refused service were sentenced to death or life in prison with hard labor.  The last execution for refusing service took place as late as 1917.    The draft applied to all men on average of 18 or older while most of those men forced to serve in the military did not have the ability to vote just on age alone.   The minimum draft age changed depending on the needs of the military.    However there were plenty of discussions of what the minimum should be.    In 1951 the assistant Secretary of Defense, Mrs Anna Rosenberg, proposed that the age be lowered to 18 from 19 because potential enemies like China draft at 16.  [12]

Most of the suffragettes were talking about rights for the middle class women and often ignored the lower class working women.  The women's suffrage movement didn't have much support among women.  In 1913, polls showed that the majority of women opposed it.  (85%) [13]   This anti-suffrage sentiment among women continued in 1915. [14]   It seems odd that in a span of 4 years public opinion would change from an overwhelming majority opposed to women's suffrage to a slight majority supporting it.     A possible motivation for this change was racism since many of the women leaders in the suffragettes expressed this sentiment:

"You have put the ballot in the hands of your black men, thus making them political superiors of white women. Never before in the history of the world have men made former slaves the political masters of their former mistresses"



Anna Howard Shaw, 1847-1919 (Physician, Methodist minister, president of the National Woman Suffrage Association.)
 
"The enfranchisement of women would insure immediate and durable white supremacy, honestly attained, for upon unquestioned authority it is stated that in every southern State but one there are more educated women than all the illiterate voters, white and black, native and foreign, combined. As you probably know, of all the women in the South who can read and write, ten out of every eleven are white. When it comes to the proportion of property between the races, that of the white outweighs that of the black immeasurably"

Belle Kearney, 1863-1939 (Orator, novelist, Mississippi state senator) 

"What will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers"
 
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1815-1902 (Social activist, abolitionist, author)
 
"The white men, reinforced by the educated white women, could ‘snow under’ the Negro vote in every State, and the white race would maintain its supremacy without corrupting or intimidating the Negroes"



Laura Clay, 1849-1940 (Founder of Kentucky’s first suffrage group)
 
"Alien illiterates rule our cities today; the saloon is their palace, and the toddy stick their scepter. The colored race multiplies like the locusts of Egypt".


Frances Willard, 1839-1898 (Feminist lecturer, founder of the National Council of Women, anti-child abuse activist)
 
"White supremacy will be strengthened, not weakened, by women's suffrage".


Carrie Chapman Catt, 1859-1947 (Founder of the League of Women Voters) 
 
"I do not want to see a negro man walk to the polls and vote on who should handle my tax money, while I myself cannot vote at all, When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to organize a crusade against sin; nor justice in the court house to promptly punish crime; nor manhood enough in the nation to put a sheltering arm about innocence and virtue—-if it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from the ravening human beast so then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary".

Rebecca Ann Latimer Felton, 1835-1930 (First woman to serve in the Senate)

In 1919, women were given the vote but never the obligation of service which men weren't allowed to refuse.  Men had to wait another 50 years before the draft was ended in 1970.  Men paid for the right to vote with blood while women got it for having a vagina.  Women are the only group who received the right to vote by asking for it and without bloodshed.  Even in the military today, men over 97% of all war casualties [15] and all men are still required to register for the draft which is now called "selective service".  According to the selective service website, those who don't register by the age of 26 will be disqualified for federal student loans, jobs, and job training.     They could also face five years in jail and/or a fine of $25,000.    Male immigrants who become a citizen before they are 26 are required to register to obtain citizenship.   On top of federal penalties, nearly every state their own penalties including denial of a driver's license.     Women are still completely except from the draft.

For more information on the suffrage I would recommend reading books on the anti-suffrage movement.   One book is titled "No Votes for Women" and it is available on Amazon.

What women want

For about the last 40 years women have been the majority of voters at the polls.  [16]   This majority is why most politicians pander to the women demographic during elections.    The fact is that women are a major influence in elections and they don't want to be drafted.

In an poll in 1957, more females than males thought the draft was needed and only 4% of the females thought women should be drafted compared to 40% of the males.  [17]

The Carter Administration wanted to make the draft gender neutral and in 1980 another poll showed that a majority of women thought the draft was needed but the majority of women also didn't want to be drafted.  This contrast with the majority of men who wanted women to be drafted too.  [18]   These opinions were nearly identical a year later in another poll.  [19]   

A poll in 2013 shows that opinions on the draft remain nearly unchanged today.     In the poll, 59% of men supported females being drafter while a majority of the woman (48%) opposed it. [20]

The majority of men (59%) in 1980 supported the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).   The major opposition to the ERA was the fact it would required women be subject to the draft because exemptions based on gender would be unconstitutional.  The opposition mainly came from conservatives in the southern states.  [21]

In 1981, congresswoman, Clare Boothe Luce, pushed for the draft to be made equal across race and class without any college exceptions because our military should represent all Americans.   Her ideas of being equal excluded women who would remain exempt from the draft.  [22]

The military in the United States has been opening up to females over the last decades and females still only make up 14% of the personell.  [23]   Israel probably has the most integrated military and actively drafts females.   Despite the draft, females only make up 3% of the combat forces and are given exemptions that are not available to their male peers.

Topics

"What feminist don't want you to know"

• Introduction
• MRA
• Rape Culture Myth  
• Wage Gap Myth

Sources: (Revision 2)


I would like to give special thanks to the people at Exposing Feminism for their assistance with the research.   The credit for the Suffragettes quotes goes to Kristal Garcia (@KristalDGarcia)

1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
2. http://youtu.be/3Jz63_lGuSE
3.  http://equalitycanada.com
4.  http://youtu.be/M2KPeMcYsuc 
5.  http://youtu.be/AY3dI3tpjrw
6. http://youtu.be/P6w1S8yrFz4
7.  http://www.warrenfarrell.org/
8.  http://youtu.be/iARHCxAMAO0 
9. http://constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw08_12159.html  
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
11. http://greatwarfiction.wordpress.com/white-feathers-stories-of-courage-cowardice-and-recruitment-at-the-start-of-the-great-war/ 
12. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2229&dat=19510204&id=EkVAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7v8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1454,3043993
13. The Tribune Republican, 11/14/1913; Page 16: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208179458/85-Percent-of-the-Women-in-Tue-US-Either-Opposed-or-Were-Indifferent-to-Womens-Suffrage-1913
14. San Francisco Chronicle, 10/21/1915, http://www.scribd.com/doc/208352464/Majority-of-Women-on-East-Coast-Opposed-Their-Own-Right-to-Vote-in-1915
15. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf 
16. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/11/08/exit-polls-the-gender-gap/ 
17. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19570207&id=WfxXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6PYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7082,1347485 
18. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19800202&id=U6ROAAAAIBAJ&sjid=z_oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6934,323561
19. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19810721&id=WKofAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iNYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=906,3278142
20. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/listen-ladies-uncle-sam-might-want-you-too
21. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19800131&id=ztJWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=c0INAAAAIBAJ&pg=1116,4335416
22. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19810309&id=94ZQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DhIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6761,1408605
23. http://www.statisticbrain.com/women-in-the-military-statistics/ 
24. http://www.idf.il/1086-14000-EN/Dover.aspx

 

MRA

What feminist don't want you to know

The newest tactic that feminist use against their critics is to call someone a men's rights activist (MRA).  (Also: Men's Human Rights Activist "MHRA") This is used as an insult similar to calling someone a jerk.  The basis of this insult is feminist accusations that all MRA's are hateful or bad in some way.   It is an Ad Hominem fallacy. [1]

I think of a MRAs as people like Paul Elam, John Hembling, Erin Pizzey, Karen Straughan, and Alison Tieman.  These are people who contribute to A Voice For Men.   They maintain a high standard, never incite violence, and have said nothing anti-woman.  They are against the feminist ideology which is not the same as being anti-woman.  The "NAFALT" feminist are quick to distance themselves from the extremist who call themselves feminist but hypocritically classify all MRA's by extremist or trolls they encounter.   This is an argument by a genetic fallacy. [2]  

I have never claimed to be a MRA because I don't do any activism.  I get into arguments with feminist because I am against bad information.   I base my opinions on facts and spend a large amount of time doing research.

Moreover, I fear what kind of world my sons will grow up in.    A place where they can be kicked out of school or the military solely on an accusation without due process.    A world where marriage and having children is probably the worst choice they could make because the odds of a fair outcome are against them.

I think everyone should speak up when injustice is being done.   Historically, men have been treated as disposable objects that are valued only by their output.   Why are men's rights important?

Men are:

• 97% of all war casualties [3]
• the majority of violence crime victims [4]
• 80% of all suicides [5]
• to three times longer prison sentences for the same crime [6]
• have a lower life expectancy by more than 6 years [7] 
• 92% of occupational fatalities [8]

Men's rights are important because of these facts in addition to the topics I cover in this series of post.    Anyone who says they don't agree with MRAs are simply saying men don't matter.

Topics

"What feminist don't want you to know"

• Introduction
• Feminist Ideology
• Rape Culture Myth 
• Wage Gap Myth 

Source

I would like to give special thanks to the people at Exposing Feminism for their assistance with the research.

1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
2. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
3. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf
4. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
5. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html
6. http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing
7. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db115.pdf
8. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf
 

Introduction

What feminist don't want you to know

Recently, I got involved in an online discussion about feminism.   I decided to researcthis topic in depth and write a blog about the the common themes I encountered in the discussion.   The research for this post took longer than I anticipated. I am not the type who does a quick google then after a quick read assume the results support my position.   I will break this up into multiple post to make it more manageable.

The discussion I was involved in quickly turned to ad hominem and shaming by the feminist as if talking about social issues concerning men is being sexist and "blaming the victim".   To a feminist, the victim is always female and the perpetrator is always male.  The common tactic of shaming is used by feminist to silence critics because they are not interested in equality or openly discussing ideas.  When someone is advocating for the rights of one gender, it doesn't follow that they are against the rights of the other.   I accept that sexism exist in the world, but it isn't the sexism that feminist claim.  Feminism was never about equal rights and has become toxic to society today.

Definition

The claim is that feminism is about equal women's rights.  This is often the first fallacy [1] used by feminist to rationalize their position.  There are gendered equality issues on both sides and today there are far more male than female issues.    Even if you assume that feminism is just about equality, as the dictionary claims, then the problem is who defines what equality is.  Feminist only measure one side of the equation.  If a feminist was truly about equality then they would at least be willing to listen to men's issues.

The proponents of the movement give themselves an "ism" label that by it's definition excludes issues affecting half of the human population.   Feminist are pushing for special rights where equality already exists.

All feminist rely on an appeal to some form of "patriarchy theory" to explain their position.   At least I have never heard any other justification.    If they don't specifically call it "patriarchy" then they will define it during the discussion.   Patriarchy is the idea that women have always been subjugated and oppressed by men for the sole purpose and benefit of men.   For any theory to work it must be falsifiable.    This means that there must be an outcome or event that could destroy the theory and force the author to start over.   However, feminist play on both sides of the argument by claiming that anything that proves the theory wrong actually proves the theory making it impossible to disprove.  Patriarchy is a threat narrative by design and sets a "us versus them" grouping.  The basic idea of a threat narrative is to make a select group of people look like the cause of all the problems of another group of people.  This type of propaganda has been used through out time to justify the most horrible acts.

NAFALT

Almost every feminist I've spoken too will eventually claim "Not all feminist are like that" (NAFALT) which is a "no true scotsman" fallacy. [2]   Every group of feminist thinks those outside their group have the wrong philosophy.   Everyone inside the group thinks their brand is mainstream and the correct one.    It's amusing to witness a feminist call another one a "labia trader".

It's a fallacy because the argument isn't what all feminist are like because it varies from person to person.  There's no reason for a person to be attached to the word feminist.     Someone who supports equal rights would be better served calling themself a humanist.      The feminist I am talking about are those that matter in the world today and not the coffee shop variety.

They type of feminism we should be concerned with is the mainstream, scholarly, acedemics, movements, and the organizations.  Any feminist that matters is the issue because their ideology is toxic and inspires laws and policies.  The feminist ideology invents social issues and proposes solutions to the imaginary problem.  If men and women are equal then fixing imaginary feminist problems will shift the balance to biased against men.   I will show how some of the ideas are making into law and affecting us all. 

Feminism is not the same thing as women's rights.   There is a lot of ideology and philosophy under the feminism umbrella and nearly everything a feminist says is wrong because it's based on false statistics or can't be proven.   Even when a feminist hypothesis is shown to be wrong they won't let it go.   All feminist believe in common concepts.

Who are Feminist?

The problem is what people are doing in the name of feminism and these ideas are making it into law.  Looking at most of the leaders of the "2nd wave" feminism and you will see a collection of sociopaths who were abused at some point in their life.  Their mantra has been "make the personal political" which means to take your personal damage and make it a problem for other people.

The poster child would be Valerie Solanas [3] who wrote the S.C.U.M manifesto.   The meaning of "SCUM" is somewhat debated but the contents of the book are not.      In her book she describes as the only solution to imaginary problems is to kill all the males in the world.   She later tried to implement her plan with a failed attempt to kill Andy Warhol.   She died in 1988 but many feminist still claim she is a hero of the movement.  

Feminist haven't improved much in recent times.   Women like like "Femitheist Divine" advocated a "National Castration Day" where any man who refused to be castrated would just be killed.   [4]  This person later faked rumors about her suicide to gain attention after she was largely ignored even by fellow feminist.   The video detailing her final solution appears to be removed but a Google search will still show a few mirrors. [5]   There was not a single feminist who denounced her message or protested it.

More examples can be found in places like RadFem Hub where feminist calmly talk about killing males.     The "Agent Orange Files" is a collection of evidence from the hub showing women openly talking about hurting and killing males of all ages for imaginary offenses. [6]   These people are not radicals in the shadows.   Some of the members are childcare workers, teachers, government employees, and women from every walk of life.   Where are the massive protest of the "NAFALT" feminist to get this group branded a hate group?    Where are the groups to flag their videos and material?

How about feminist who claim that every form of heterosexual sex is rape?   [7]   This idea isn't isolated to a few followers of feminism.   It has been recycled repeatedly since the beginning of the movement. 

How safe would your male baby to be in the arms of a woman who thinks he is the problem and a future rapist?   It should come as no surprise when someone decides the only solution is too kill men when they believe an ideology like patriarchy theory which asserts that women are the victim of men and always have been.

This is only a small list and more examples of mainstream feminist thought can be found at this site.    Here are a few quotes from prominent modern feminist.

Robin Morgan (Ms Magazine Editor)

"I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." [8]

"All the discriminatory practices against women are patterned and rationalized by this slavery-like practice. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." ^[8]

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”

Andrea Dworkin

"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." [10]

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice."

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."  [11]

Sandy Brown

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." [12]

Catherine Comins (assistant dean of student life at Vassar)

"They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions.'"

(Explaining how a man's life ruined by a false accusation of rape is a good thing)

Hilary Clinton

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children." [13] 

She is saying that men aren't victims of their own deaths and minimizing the suffering of half the human population.      Yet, If she had said something like "Whites were the primary victims of slavery..." then she would have been denounced all over the media and out of a job.

There are many more examples like this from feminist.  The goal of these post is to highlight the damage being done by feminist and not to focus on any single person.

Topics

• Feminist Ideology
• MRA
• Rape Culture Myth
• Wage Gap Myth 

Sources: (Revision 2)

I would like to give special thanks to the people at Exposing Feminism for their assistance with the research.

1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
2. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
3.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas
4. http://www.youtube.com/user/FemitheistReborn/videos (The video appears to have been removed)
5.  http://youtu.be/OSaT9utl4Ys
6.  http://agentorangefiles.com/
7.  http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
8.  "Lesbianism and Feminism: Synonyms or Contradictions?", in Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist, p 178.
9. Morgan, Robin, ed., Sisterhood Is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings From the Women's Liberation Movement (N.Y.: Random House, 1st ed. 1970), p. 537.
10.   Our Blood (1976)
11. Intercourse (1987) chapter 7, "Occupation/Collaboration"
12. "Against our will", Sheila Jeffrys
13.  http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html

Parenthood for Men

For this discussion, I am not including crimes but only talking about consensual sex between a man and woman.    Men don't have any reproductive rights and rely completely on the choice of the woman.       

A woman has her choice of about 50 different forms of birth control in various forms including pills and IUD. These are all medical procedures and her partners can't observe her using them or that she is doing so correctly. In fact, he has no right to even ask about it but can only trust that she is telling the truth. If those methods fail, then she may obtain a morning after pill or get an abortion. Even after she carries a baby to term, she can still give the baby up for adoption or drop it off at a safe haven. All of this is the woman's choice and she doesn't have to consult the father nor does he have any rights to the child. Most states don't even grant the father access in the case of safe haven or adoption.

The man has one choice of birth control. A condom. The woman can observe him using it and if he is using it correctly. She could even sabotage it and he would never know.

With all that, if the woman chooses to keep the baby then the man is legally liable for child support even if he never wanted the child, paternity fraud, theft, or rape.

Some would give the standard mantra of "Woman's body, woman's choice"    That's fine too!     Man's wallet, Man's choice.      If a man doesn't want to be a parent then the woman can still chose to have the child but she would have to be willing to do it without someone else footing the bill!       

Some have replied that it only means should not sleep around.      If that is the case then the same should apply to women and then abortion nor birth control would never be an issue!

My Story

It's a shame that I am writing about a topic that I should know the most about and yet I am having trouble figuring out where to start or how to describe it.    I'm going to keep names out as my intention is not to call people out.  This is probably more therapy for myself since real therapy is too expensive.   I think this is the first time I have actually wrote this out.   Perhaps its because of my mom's recent attempts to go on a talk show to air our dirty laundry to the world.   I wasn't able to go but it would have been nice to have a three day vacation in New York.

I know the stories from people in my family and my mother denies them all.  She refuses to take responsibility for any of her actions.  I grew up with her telling me how she was the black sheep of the family who was constantly victimized.    She refused to be involved in family events and the villain of her stories depends on who was alive at the time.    While my grandmother was alive she was always the one to blame.   My grandfather was to blame after she died.    Someone always corrupted me and set me against my her because I guess I could never have figured it out on my own. Now that both of her parents are done she has denied my relation to her.

The fact is that none of my earliest memories include my mother.   I remember in the second grade I had a terrible time learning to read and it was my grandmother who spent the long nights trying to help me learn.  The few times I do recall are things that were traumatic to me as a child.

I do recall some of the time I spent in Tulsa with her during my first grade year.   I know it wasn't the full year because part of the year was spent in school at my grandparents.   I remember the wonderful stories my sister told me after spending one summer with our mother and her new husband.   On my sisters return, I decided to go to Tulsa for a while.   I don't recall if I was actually given a choice but I do recall how quickly those stories my sister told seemed to be lies.    The house she described staying in was not the house were in.   In fact, we had moved into a second story apartment in front of some low income day care.    I remember a large shopping center being across the street.

About this time was when Michael Jackson's Thriller album came out.    It was one of my first records purchased.  Initially, I remember being enrolled in a good school.    It was bright and fun.     That doesn't last as I was soon enrolled in a private school where a foreign language and computers were required for first grade students.  The place required a dress code and was cold. It was probably one of the worst environments for a child to be in because I only remembered being scared there.   The walls were bare red bricks for the most part.   The daycare had more in common with the bare metal buildings at the fair grounds.   It was like a large hanger with what seemed like army surplus cots in rows.    You laid down until someone come got you when you're parents arrived.   The food service was like a soup kitchen.    

This soon became worse as things got bad between my mother and her husband.     I recall my sister being there and my mother telling us to hide.     We ran for mom's bed room and crawled under the head board of the water bed crying in fear.     This soon gave way to memories of my grandfather coming to our rescue.   This was after step-dad had vandalized the apartment even destroying most of her clothes.   I recalling being in the truck watching my grandfather who was an old man at the time but still an opposing individual.    He slapped the keys from the hand of a soon to be ex dad.    

I remember the trip back to the only home I knew as a child which was that of my maternal grandparents.     The only reason I remember the trip was because a blue, round pillow that I had used nearly every night to cry into was packed lightly and blew out of the truck bed while traveling down the highway.     This pillow had been the only source of comfort while in Tulsa and it was now gone.  I lived with my grandparents after no more than six months and it was uneventful.   

My only other memory of her afterwards was actually caught in pictures.     I was living with my grandparents and "Laser Tag" had just come out and I got a set for my birthday.     I immediately put on the equipment over my pajamas and called my mom to tell her the good news.   She accused me of only calling when I wanted money and during her barrage I broke out crying.     It was about this time someone came around the door snapping a picture of me noticing afterwards the streams of tears.     I'm not sure if this picture still exists.

I have almost no memories of my real father from early childhood.    At nearly 11, I was told that I would have to stay with my mom during the summer because the judge wouldn't like it if I was living at my grandparents.    I remember being instructed to tell the judge that "I wanted to live with my mom" because grandma wasn't a valid answer.      I remember waiting outside the court room with my grandmother in case the judge wanted to talk with me.     Thankfully, that moment never came.   It did give me the first clear memory of my biological dad as he was being hauled out of the court in hand cuffs.    Prior to this, my only memories of him was during a birthday where he was sitting on a couch as I unwrapped a toy semi-truck and visiting him in a white house that had some fruiting tree outside the window.  (I still have that semi-truck which I gave to my son)  

Oddly again, my sister spent the previous summer with my mom and I was told the stories from my sister about the wonderful house my mom kept; complete with pictures of her pet bird comically being put outside during the summer to air out.  Looking back, I think that this was done on purpose to remove any objection I would have to being there.    My mother's previous comments and actions shows she didn't care much for my sister.   This is probably because I was the first born male in a family of girls which gave me a special standing with my grandfather.  This seemed to be confirmed as I was apparently used as a bargaining chip.   Her new home was a trailer and I remember begging my grandparents to come get me during the first storm because of how the trailer swayed in the wind.

The first year at this trailer started the summer before my 5th grade year and wasn't so bad as I often came back to my grandparents for weekends.   I spent most of my time outside with a few local kids or down at the ponds fishing.      I never ate the fish.  Usually I would start with a piece of lunch meat.  I would use the fish I caught as bait so I could go all day.   (Turtles made the best bait.)  This did not last long, as my mom was soon going to bars what seemed every night with her cousin.     I was left in the care of the cousin's delinquent older kid who was heavy into skateboarding and smoking.  Naturally, I used him as a role model and soon had long hair, smoking, and a skateboard.

I remember he had built a make shift ramp to practice tricks.    We would spend late nights during the summer laying out on this ramp smoking cigarettes.    Even though I had severe asthma as a child, the cigarettes seemed to help more than hurt.     I never really learned to skate well despite having skinned knees many times.

I was by no means a popular kid.     I had very few friends.    There are only two that I recall.  I only mention these two because they are the only ones I really had contact with outside of school.  The first lived down the street from my grandparents and we played all the time.     When I moved in with my mom, that friendship was lost.   The second was a kid I had known since kindergarten and at school we were inseparable.     We occasionally played outside of school.

My 5th grade year was probably one of the more difficult years I can remember.    I was having trouble adapting with the problems at home and by then I was being bullied by other kids.     I remember two kids specifically who gave me the most trouble.       One of these kids was extremely fat for his age and the other seemed to be extremely homophobic although at the urinals he was constantly trying to catch a peak of your junk.   The fat one constantly hit and pushed me around.   The other was mainly verbal until it climaxed into him slamming my head into the walls at school.   I never fought back because I was always told I would get in more trouble at home.       I had forgotten about most of this until I enrolled my kids at the same school.

I took a lot of this out on my school friend and started to gain a lot of weight.  About half way through the school year, I had burned the bridge with my last friend as I had become the bully.   Unknown to me at the time, the friend's parents divorced at about the same time and moved away.    I was alone and devastated even though I had been a complete jerk.

I started my 6th grade year at a new school in a new town with no friends.    We had moved to an apartment complex behind my new school.     The school was merely a walk across a large field from the apartment.   I spent a lot of time in this field setting off model rockets.  I think we only spent a few winter months there.

At this time, my mom was with someone new who used to have dreams of being a professional football player.   I suspect he had a lot to do with me being required to play for the school team.    Perhaps in an attempt to get new friends and to lose weight.    Most of the team had come up together from pee-wee with the coach.     I was banished to second string which never got to play, regardless of their skill, unless the first string had been injured.      In fact, I only recall being able to play during a game once.      My mother never attended my practices and rarely any games.     Her boyfriend was there nearly every time I wore the uniform.   I was never fully accepted by the other kids which seem only to drive me further into isolation.   The benefit was I dropped a lot of weight but still thick.  

I believe it was at this time I had met my new best friend in a computer programming class.     I think I joined the class because I recalled my confusing experience with computers in Tulsa and was curious to learn more.   I didn't really become strong friends with him until later.

We soon moved into the apartment complex ran by the boyfriends parents at the beginning on my 7th grade year.     It was a large complex and I did play on occasion with kids that lived there.   One was a small thing that always wore shorts no matter what the weather was like.     The other was probably your typical nerd who spent more time making model airplanes than playing with friends.   

I probably spent most of my time riding my bike around the complex and the neighboring houses.  I can even remember some of the horrible bike wrecks I had.   One specifically, was down a hill and I clipped a man hole cover with the front tire.     I went sliding on my stomach as the bike did a somersault over my head landing a few inches from my nose.  With a few new scraps I dusted myself off and I was back on the road.

As a pretend family, we visited almost every state park in Oklahoma.     I remember the time at Red Rock canyon and stopping along the road since the adults were tired to continue driving.    We had a pop-up camper and it rained all night.    I only remember because I spent the night soaked in rain water since the camper was second hand and in poor repair.    

I vaguely remember digging for salt crystals in the salt lake and robbers cave.    I clearly remember going to Turner falls.    I spent most of the time riding down the river on a raft.     By the time we came home, I was so terribly sunburned that I had blisters on my back and shoulders.     I remember the miserable week afterwards because I was unable to move and kept myself bathed in lotion constantly.      Looking back, I probably belonged in a burn unit.

Toward the end of my 7th year, we moved into a house that was closer to my new best friend.  It was fairly small but it was nice.   The old acquaintances from the apartments disappeared as I only saw them at school.   It seems odd that friendship as kids seem dependent on if you could see them outside of school.    I had a few other friends but I didn't spend a lot of time with them.     I do remember spending a large amount of time with an old TRS-80 entering lines of code.   I don't recall many of those programs working. 

It was also at this time one of my friends was able to get cigarettes.     When I spent time with him it was usually to smoke at the local park.     This continued on through the 8th grade year although the former football guy was out of the picture.    My mother said she had been bored with him and happen to be at the time she found her marriage wasn't valid because the divorce with her ex was never finalized.     This started the major decline of my childhood.    The time at this house had been one of the easiest times in my life.   Sprinkled with liberal visitation at my grandparents during the summer and weekends.      My grandparent's house was always home to me.  In addition, they had gotten a new Tandy TL2 that I played on all the time.   I spent the majority of my time playing civilization on the computer.

He was replaced by a drug addict who first introduced me to the YMCA's gym.   It wasn't long until the drug guy went on another bender and was gone.    Soon afterwards, my mom met a new guy and we moved outside of town to his house in the country.  

This is really where the dark ages began. . .

"Assault Weapon Ban"

This is my attempt to educate people who are ignorant of guns.     Like most people on both sides I have been caught in discussions on the topic.    The same old arguments are recycled and the next time someone copy/paste their argument I will just direct them here.     This is also an extension of my previous post:

• My opinion on guns
• The extreme left and their propaganda on guns in Australia

The AR-15 actually stands for "Armalite Rifle" because this is the company that originally produced the design.   The rifle has been the most popular rifle sold in the United States since 1963.  This is often called an "assault weapon" by anti-gun groups since about 1989.   It started in California to expand the definition of "assault rifle" for political purposes. [1]   The term "assault weapon" is a made up term that means nothing except in political discussions.   A "assault rifle" or "machine gun" refers to a military rifle capable of multiple shots with a single depression of the trigger.    According to Army Intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70   on page 67 in section III, part A, paragraph 68a, and reads as follows:

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

The paragraph concludes by adding:

"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."

These type of weapons have been banned since 1934 by the "National Firearms Act" that was later amended by The "Gun Control Act" in 1968 to modernize the language.     The last change occurred in 1986, the "Firearms Owners Protection Act" banned new "assault rifles" to the civilian market and restricted ownership to existing weapons registered prior to 1986.    This effectively banned the import of new weapons as well.

Civilians can own an "assault rifle" by registering with the ATF for a federal firearms license (FFL) and a Class 3 tax stamp.   The federal government has regulated guns by the tax code.  This requires a significant financial investment (Around $800) and months of probing by the government.    You will even get a free visit from the ATF where I'm certain they will be interested in all of your personal philosophies.     In addition, this also gives the ATF a say in how you store the weapons which is why most gun stores have burglar bars.    This process and required paperwork drives most people away from getting a FFL.     Another problem is due to the limited supply of weapons the cost of an "assault rifle" is very high in the tens of thousands.    This makes any "assault rifle" more valuable than gold by weight.



A fully automatic weapon is difficult to fire with any accuracy because of the recoil and barrel climb.  There's also the problem of the barrel overheating.  The military doesn't issue full auto weapons for much else than suppressive fire.   The average soldier gets a M4A1 or M16A4 which don't even have an option for fully automatic.

What has become known as an "assault weapons" is really a semi-automatic weapon with certain cosmetic features.   A semi-automatic is when the trigger is pressed one round is fired, the empty cartridge is ejected, and a new round is chambered.  This simple definition would include many pistols, shotguns, and rifles. [2]   The images below are all semi-automatic

The anti-gun crowd like Violence Prevention Center and the Brady Campaign has specifically coined the phrase "assault weapon" to confuse the public into thinking these weapons are machine guns used by the military to gather public support for a ban on guns. [3]    These groups are extremist and polar opposites of the NRA.  If you don't trust what the NRA says then you shouldn't trust the others either because both are extremist.

Their work came to focus in 1994 with the Federal Assault Weapons ban (AWB).    They defined "Assault Weapon" as a semi-automatic weapon sharing two or more characteristics such as a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, and pistol grip since an "Assault Rifle" was already illegal.   None of these cosmetic features affect the lethality of the gun.

On top of that, "Assault Rifles" only make up 2% of the gun crimes in the United States.  [4]   History is littered with mad men like Charles Whitman to McVeigh willing to use a variety of methods to kill as many people as possible.  In the UCR statistics for 2011 the total number of murders using a rifle of any kind accounted for only 323 murders (2.5%).    Blunt objects (hammers/bats) were used 3.9% (496) of the time and personal weapons (feet/hands) 5.7% (728).     These statistics show that you are more likely to be murdered by a hammer and twice as likely to be beaten to death by someone's fist.  [12]     The murder rate has been dropping for the last several decades and rifles aren't the primary weapon used.

Some will point out that most of the murders are done with a gun of some kind.   It is true that 67% of all murders are committed with a gun.  Remember, we were talking about evil "assault weapons" and not about banning all guns which has become a mantra of the gun control proponents.  I can't think of a single person who would claim all murders would stop even if all guns disappeared from the Earth tomorrow.    The problem isn't the weapon used to commit the crime and I would challenge anyone to show that people only kill because a gun is available to the attacker.    The lack of gun ownership have not lowered the suicide rates in Japan but no one is talking about banning trains.   [19]

The goal of the anti-gun crowd is to ban every gun in America and has even been repeatedly said by senators such as Feinstein (D-CA) [9] [22]    Moderates have said people like Feinstein are extremist and don't matter but the problem is that Feinstein has single handedly lead the charge against guns in California and has sponsored all the anti-gun legilsation that has been proposed in the USA congress.  She has even suggested making a mandatory government buy back. [21]  The AWB was passed largely due to her efforts.   Bill Clinton, in his memoirs, said this was the most costly political action he took since the democrats lost control of congress and perhaps the 2000 election.     What she says matters because it exposes the goals of the anti-gun lobby.   It  also shows they are willing to sacrifice their careers over a belief.

Aside from giving a legal definition to "assault weapon", the AWB also limited all new magazines to 10 rounds and grandfathered in the existing higher capacity ones.     Many of the mass shooters during the AWB just bought more magazines to get around the limitation.  In Columbine, 13 (10 round) magazines on Harris and he fired over 96 shots which amounts to 73% of the ammunition he had on hand.  (13X10=130 total bullets)  In Virginia Tech, 19 (10 round) magazines we found and he fired over 140 shots.   These planned attacks didn't seem to have any issues since a majority of the rounds were fired in each instance.    It only takes a little practice to learn how to change out a magazine with some speed if you don't care where the empty one falls.   This can be done with a revolver and speed loader in a few seconds.  

In 1999, the National Institute of Justice released a study showing the "assault weapons" were rarely used in crime and the AWB had no impact on criminal activity.   [16]  In 2004, a Department of Justice (DOJ) article found that the AWB had too small of an effect to measure reliably since "Assault Weapons" were rarely used in crimes even prior to the AWB.   It also stated it was not clear what affect magazine restrictions had on gun attacks if any. [4]   In light of this failure it was allowed to expire.

They have been talking about the "gunshow loophole".    The theory goes that criminals will go to gun shows to buy their weapons because there is no background check done.  This would only be true for private individuals selling their guns.   This is an absurd claim to anyone who has gone to a gun show, since most of the sellers are businesses with an FFL (and required to do a background check).  The few individuals selling guns take on a liability because if their gun is used in a crime they could be held accountable.       What they are proposing is requiring a background check on any private transfer of a firearm.   This means that anyone who wants to buy a gun for their child would have to have two background checks performed; one for their child and one for them.     It's hard to imagine why there is focus on this area when even the Department of Justice reports that a mere 1.9% of guns used in crime come from gun show or flea market.  This is only the location it was bought and not whether a background check was performed.  An over whelming majority of 74.6% come from illegal sources or family.  (Both are about 40%)  [17]        The effect of implementing this "universal background check" would be so slight that it would be impossible to measure.

The only other claim by anti-gun proponents is that 40% of guns were purchased by private sales.    The source of this rounded figure is a 1997 study done by the National Institute of Justice based on survey data in 1994 involving 2,568  homes and only 251 answered the question about the guns origin.   The first problem is we shouldn't worry so much about where law abiding citizens get their guns but where criminals do.    This survey included people who were unsure or couldn't remember if they bought from a licensed dealer.   The small survey was done before background checks were required and only measured gun owners perception.

Since Newtown, there have been calls for a new AWB because initial new reports said an AR-15 had been used.     Apparently, these initial reports were wrong and an "Assault Weapon" was not used in the shooting but instead was four pistols. [7]   Furthermore, Connecticut already has a AWB which didn't prevent the crime from occurring in the first place.     The problem is not the gun but the person committing the crime.

Often the response is usually something like, "then why have laws?"       Criminals by their very nature do not follow laws and it is possible for a law abiding citizen to go to criminal in a manner of minutes.    Laws are general for punishing people for doing bad things and rarely act as a deterrent.       You would think since murder is illegal that it would be enough to deter someone from a mass shooting especially since it can carry the death penalty.  I have yet to hear anyone argue they didn't know murder was illegal.    I personally do not kill people because it is immoral.  If you are one of those that don't kill because you don't have a gun then please seek help immediately from a qualified psychiatrist.

The NRA has also been taking a lot of heat for suggesting we arm teachers because of the "wild west" or accidents that will then kill our children.    These are appeals to emotions and have no basis in any facts.   Some Texas counties have been doing this since 2007 with no incidents.   [11]   If a shooter is in the building then we already have a blood bath.     All the people inside can do is be killed while waiting on police to arrive.     If these shooters didn't care about their victims being armed then they would go to police stations, shooting ranges, or gun shows.

Unless Steven Seagal is available, the only way to stop these attacks is by a gun.     Most of these shooters crumble with the slightest resistance by committing suicide or surrendering. [8]   At Newtown, the shooter had an unopposed 20 minutes to shoot.     Had there been an armed guard, it is possible no life would have been lost at the school.  [10]    No one is claiming that these are perfect solutions but providing any resistance is better than leaving them unopposed.

The AR-15 is accurate, light weight, easy to maintain, and a low recoil make it good for sports, defense, and hunting [8].   Even the Department of Homeland security has stated that it is suitable for personal defense. [20]   It was even used  in this manner during the LA riots.  The bullet it uses is popular and used in many other rifles.    Feinsteins recent ban would affect the AR-15 and provide an exception for the mini-14 which uses the exact bullet.  Anyone claiming otherwise simply refuses to learn about guns because I have yet to hear an argument that can give a good reason and didn't resort to "so everyone should have nuclear bombs?"    Bombs can't be used for hunting or personal defense and no one is advocating making them legal.      Even if they were legal, they cost millions of dollars and extensive knowledge to build and operate.   If you could afford one, then you would probably kill yourself and all your neighbors first.   Are you seriously going to wipe out a city to stop a home invasion?  We call those people terrorist and they are worse than mass killers because we invade countries to get them.   

The actual test of a weapon was established in US vs. Miller where the supreme court decided that the 2nd amendment protected any weapon that could be used in common defense or ordinary military equipment.     This would seem to indicate that more weapons should be available to the citizens not less.     In fact, in the past weapons were available by mail order and hardware store while at the same time we had less school shootings.    

So do I care about saving lives?   Of course but there are many other ways to work this problem.   Ending the failed drug policy in the USA could be a way to fight violence because most of those murders are gang related and probably fueled by the drug trade.  [13]    

Another way would be to change how to treat the shooters in the media.     After each event the media reports on every aspect of the life of the person.    They report on the shooter more than even the victims.     If you don't believe this then simply name as many shooters as you can in 10 seconds.      If you remember even one person then it is just sad.    Who was the person that tackled Gifford's shooter in Arizona?   Who confronted and deterred the Oregon mall shooter?  [15]  Who prevented the shooting at a movie theater in San Antonio?     The facts are the media doesn't cover these hero's in any detail and no one remembers their name.   Most of those heros had stories with a couples of sentences or were omitted completely.     The stories on the Newtown shooter was paginated.

(Revision 2) Sources:

1. http://saf.org/LawReviews/KobayashiAndOlson.htm
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html
3. http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm
4. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32842_20121114.pdf
5. http://washingtonexaminer.com
6. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/harris-perry-ending-drug-war-may-be-best
7. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk&feature=youtu.be&t=5m1s
9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTB_aXTCUs
10. http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9025899 
11. http://www.ncnewsonline.com/topstories/x1303497676/Texas-town-letting-teachers-carry-guns
12. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011
13. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/harris-perry-ending
14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec
15. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
16. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
17. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt  
18. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
19. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/06/world/kunitachi-city-journal  
20. https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form
21. http://www.c-span.org/Events/Democratic-Senators-Respond-to-NRA/10737436852-1/ 
22. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7380236n