There isn’t an issue more divisive than abortion. Either you want to defend the liberty of the unborn or you want to to defend the liberty of women. Unfortunately, it seems like you can’t defend both. In a nation that defines itself by offering liberty to all it’s citizens (current administration aside), a legal stance that deprives one of the two groups of liberty is institutionalizing the removal of liberty from one of those parties. Which is to say, no matter which side “wins”. liberty loses. When liberty loses, America loses. None of us is on board with America losing, so we pick a side and call it the “right” one and once we’re all on-board peace is restored. That isn’t ever going to work for everyone.

Most politicians firmly pick a side to energize that segment of voters and secure a ‘base’ for election and re-election. This is usually (90%) the rationale of the politician. Their first concern is election. If they’re not in public office they can’t do what they perceive as ‘good’ for their constituents. If they have to espouse issues they haven’t thought through or don’t care about or otherwise compromise their integrity to get elected, then they will. Otherwise they’ll have done no ‘good’. So they take waffling stances and the problem remains forever. Not good, not good. So I will go ahead and take a firm stance since I have given it quite a bit of thought and I don’t approve of the lawyerspeak question dodging of politicians. Although I will say upfront that I have some bias considering I am in fact male. My body doesn’t have to deal with the consequences one way or the other.

Let’s break it down rationally, shall we? Abortion is the removal of an unwanted pregnancy by a doctor. This is often described as “unnatural”. Well, you’re not wrong (sort of). Anything humans do is considered ‘artificial’. We do these new things not found regularly in nature through merit of reason and intelligence not found in the rest of the animal kingdom. Before the technology to perform abortions with minimal risk to the woman came about, abortion was much rarer and much, much more dangerous. But in a way, as humans are a product of nature, literally everything we do and discover is in fact “natural”. No matter what planet you’re on or evolutionary path is taken to reach intelligence, light still moves the same speed. Which is to say that the universe operates on it’s own principles and we’re the natural result of infinite tiny events all interacting with each other based on an underlying mechanism that define the mechanisms of our universe. Artificial, is therefore natural. But that doesn’t give us an ‘answer’. How then, as a society, should we treat the (un)natural act of abortion?

We’re at odds about abortion for a slew of reasons. Most common in the US is religion in the defense of the child and feminism in defense of the women (vast generalization there’s countless reasons). In many faiths, the spirit of the child is born at conception and removal is murder. However many, many women don’t follow faith and don’t want faith intertwined with our government. In America, we are free to pursue faith (or not). If your faith doesn’t want you to get an abortion, don’t get one. It’s fairly simple. But what about the rest?

To be frank, it’s really not the government’s problem, and you shouldn’t make it one. The government recognizes any person born in the US to be a citizen. At that point all it’s laws apply. You don’t want *any* government EVER being in the position of defining when a person is a person. First, second, twenty-third trimester, whatever, you don’t want the government in the position of defining the cut-off for human rights. Because you don’t want human rights in any way, shape, or form defined by a legislature that changes every four years. You never know when they’ll make it harder to be legally human. Slippery slope, perhaps, but one we can avoid. So let’s avoid it. What is provided by the government? What is provided in the laws that pre-date abortion? Citizen at birth. What constitutes birth? Separation from the mother. Let’s go ahead and buff the legal definition of “birth” to be ‘post-separation viable‘. This is something that we can and should go ahead and legislate. It is something both sides can agree on as the new bedrock for abortion laws, as opposed to just ‘citizen at birth‘. In 1000 years, as technology improves, ending pregnancies the day after conception could instead lead to un(natural) gestation pods for the unwanted fetus allowing it a full life. Then we’ll have saved all the babies! (Hooray) This seems like a fairly safe definition (from abuse by the government) that increases protections to the unborn as time and technology go on. Now with this new rule in place, if you want more partially formed babies to reach adulthood you can study medical research instead of burning down clinics. Seems like a much more productive outlet to me, anyway.

Now, if you’re a religious person this might be a wholly unacceptable stance for me to be taking. Sorry, but it’s impossible to please everyone and here’s where it gets tricky to explain. So let’s go through the rationale: The government isn’t a religious institution and you’re trying to put your religious rules into law. This conflicts with the Constitution and the separation of church and state. We don’t tolerate Sharia law superseding our national laws, so what gives Christianity the right? If you want to lock down abortion in your religious community with strongly worded condemnations (no force), that’s allowed in America. Freedom of speech and religion. If you want to lock down everyone else with laws defended by law enforcement? Yeah, that’s less freedom for everyone you’re forcing your values on. America is a land of freedoms, remember? You can stand outside clinics and explain how would-be aborters are committing infanticide. Freedom of speech. You can’t go at them with pitchforks when they walk past. That’s assault. You also can’t go at them with legislative pitchforks. That’s tyranny; And unconstitutional. I get that you want to defend the kid. That’s great, you’re a good person. Thing is, it’s not your kid. It’s not your body. You have zero right to do that. Similarly, the government has zero right to do that. Given the choice between legal and illegal, the government should ALWAYS err on the side of legal. Everything that is illegal is a restriction of a freedom. In America we voluntarily surrender the freedom to murder others so that the would-be murdered are guaranteed the freedom to keep living. This more or less is (theoretically) the rationale that in some way, shape, or form extends out to all laws. America defines our society by what we are free to do and not free to do without repercussion. The law lays out what isn’t allowed, and law enforcement is simply the punitive repercussion for breaking those rules. If we want different rules, or improved rules, we elect officials to champion those positions. This is more or less what has gotten us to this crossroad, because those politicians keep trying to get re-elected. We should probably have publicly funded elections to stop the empty promises exchanged for donations. (Crazy, I know)

But here’s my twist: Why are we having this discussion AT ALL? I’m serious. Why are we fighting about whether or not to allow abortion? Why not prevent the issue altogether? Why not have a rule that men need to get one of those reversible vasectomies until they’re trying to procreate? Seriously. It’s a simple, (relatively) painless & risk-free, and results in almost ZERO abortions nationwide. Why are we dumping the abortion problem entirely on women? That’s sexist. It takes two, after all. We should make it like this:

Men that turn 18 are optionally encouraged to get a reversible vasectomy. Obviously, the government isn’t going to make you do anything. But the government can levee a hefty fine for any unwanted pregnancies that occur after you chose not to get the procedure. You want your female partner to engage in a technically elective procedure because you don’t want to deal with the natural consequence of intercourse, even though it is much harder on the mental health of the woman (regardless of faith). With Medicare-For-All you even want the taxpayers (everyone) to pay for it!! “But it increases the chance of prostate cancer!” Yeaaahh, but all birth control for women increases their chances of cervical cancer and breast cancer. Doesn’t really seem fair to women, does it? Sexist, even? So let’s legally define the limit for abortion as “post-separation viable” which protects the unborn more than the current laws. Then y’all can get to researching ways to keep them alive earlier. More medical research is always better! But let’s reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancy by making men do their part too: make it so unplanned pregnancies that end in abortions are paid for by the men who chose not to get a vasectomy or otherwise practice safe sex. (obviously failed vasectomies are excepted) So, men: freeze sperm in case your doctor messes up the hack job; But again, women face the same troubles with fertility risks, so man up. (puns intended)



Armament Regulation & Monitoring System


By William Bishop

“The progressive solution to universal background checks”

1. Purpose of the ARMS:

A cryptographically secure program which facilitates the ability of the United States government to institute universal background checks requisite to the sale or purchase of firearms without establishing any form of firearm ownership registry or infringing the right to bear arms. This will allow private and professional sale of firearms to be done in a legally binding manner agreeable to all citizens of the United States.

2. Definition of the ARMS

The ARMS is a relationship of two secure entities:

  1. The first entity is controlled by the Federal Government: a secure server which keeps a master list of every citizen in the United States and their status with regards to legal right to purchase and bear arms, as well as the reason for denial of the right to purchase arms should that citizen be denied. This list should only be visible to the ARMS and the federal employees responsible for it’s administration. Should the list contain a denial of rights without a reason, or a reason not approved by law, the ARMS will refuse the denial of rights and allow the sale or purchase of arms to that citizen.
  2. The second entity is controlled by each State’s Defense Force (SDF): a Peer-to-Peer run network of one server per state which runs the core program of the ARMS. The SDF is chosen as the host of the network as they can not become federal entities, and under 32 U.S.C. § 109 of the US Constitution they are not required to operate under the orders of the military or federal government. This is intended to protect the ARMS from possible corruption, especially by the federal or foreign governments for the purpose of creating a national or centralized armaments registry. Any citizen engaging in the sale or purchase of arms must do so by requesting a background check from the ARMS, and if cleared can immediately transfer the ownership of firearms to the purchaser/borrower.

3. Legal Changes that might be needed to implement the ARMS

  1. The federal government must create an SDF accessible and universally secure server to host the approved ownership list, called the Federal Armaments Consent Table (FACT).
  2. The Federal government is responsible for having this list fully updated and populated at all times. In the event data is missing, ARMS will allow unrestricted transfer of armaments between citizens.
  3. Each state government must create a publicly accessible and universally secure server under the SDF to host the ARMS for the purposes of conducting universal background checks.
  4. Every purchase, lease, rental, borrowing, sale, etc. of firearms must be done through the ARMS.
  5. No one can monitor or attempt to monitor the transactions between ARMS and the FACT.
  6. No one can publish or attempt to publish the contents of the FACT.
  7. No one can falsely register or attempt to falsely register armaments with the ARMS.
  8. No citizen may register a physical serial number they do not own.
  9. No one cantransfer armaments privately without using ARMS.
  10. It is a felony to attempt hacking into ARMS.
  11. It is a felony to attempt decrypting ARMS cryptographic functions.
  12. No one can use or attempt to use another citizen’s DART ID for the ARMS. *Note: necessary legal changes are not limited to those provided by this document

4. How the ARMS Works

Registering an armament:

  • Every citizen in America has the right and ownership of one virtual arms ‘safe’ (Digital Armament Repository & Tracker or DART) stored within the SDF’s ARMS network.
    • To prevent unauthorized tracking of citizen’s armaments and activities, an ID is generated for every citizen’s DART and the ARMS stores the relationship between that ID and the list kept by the federal government. It is must be legally impermissible to store which citizen is attached to a given ID by ARMS.
  • Every DART keeps track of the citizen’s legal ownership of any armament, and facilitates the legal transfer of title proving ownership of the armament.
  • An existing firearm can be added to a citizen’s DART by supplying the ARMS with the armaments/firearm’s serial number, which is used to create the armament/firearm’s digital identification code.
    • It does this by creating an identification code resulting from a secure cryptographic hash function on the firearms physical serial number.
      • When current security algorithms (RSA) become ineffective for protection of data due to advances in quantum computing technology, the ARMS must be legally required to transition to a post-quantum cryptographic model.
    • The federal government is not legally permitted to have ownership or knowledge of the function, the physical serial numbers of the armaments, or the relationship between any armament’s physical serial number and identification code with the citizen who owns it.
      • Should the cryptographic function or citizen’s physical serial numbers become known by any federal government employee or elected official, the public and SDF of each state must be legally required to be informed immediately so that a new cryptographic function can be created and the appropriate responses can be taken.
  • When a serial number is registered to a DART, the ARM System sequesters the the number preventing other citizens from registering an armament with a duplicate serial number.
    • ARMS does not need, and must be expressly forbidden from, storing the relationship between a physical serial number and it’s identification code.
      • This means that the government, federal or state, does not know who owns which arms. The system only recognizes that the citizen owns an armament with a given ID, and authorizes the transfer of that ID from one DART to another.
    • In the event the ARMS already has registered a citizen’s armament, the citizen with proof of ownership can flag the serial number for being falsely entered into the system. The system will flag the DART ID which registered it and the reporting ID; and bar both from any further ARMS activity until they go to their nearest SDF to adjudicate the case. The owner possessing the armament with the valid serial number can present proof of ownership to their local SDF, who can manually attach the arm’s ID to that user’s DART. The ARMS system can then flag the FACT to alert the federal government whom can utilize that data to determine which citizen committed a felony. The SDF must be legally forbidden from utilizing this function without just cause.

Transfer of ownership process:

  • In order to legally purchase or sell arms in the US, the transaction must be approved by the ARMS.
  • An exchange between buyer and seller can be considered complete after the ARMS verifies the sale is valid and the armament’s code is removed from the seller’s DART and is added to the buyer’s DART.
  • In order for the ARMS to transfer the arm’s code from the seller’s DART to the buyer’s DART, the buyer must pass a background check. To accomplish this, the buyer must supply the seller with their DART ID to request the check from the ARMS against the FACT. If the DART ID returns that the sale is valid, a prompt to transfer ownership of the armament is supplied to the seller. If the seller determines the sale is completed and the requisite funds are transferred from the buyer to the seller, the seller will accept the prompt and the armament code will be removed from the seller’s DART and added to the buyer’s DART.
    • The background check and the transfer of arms is thus completed in a manner which is anonymous from the perspective of the state and federal government.
  • After an exchange occurs, the transaction is validated by the other 49 states on the Peer-to-Peer network.
    • Should the other 49 states determine the transfer is invalid, the transaction is halted and it is upon both parties to request adjudication at the SDF to resolve the problem.

Adjudication of issues related to armaments:

  • ONLY with a warrant signed by a judge, the SDF alone has the ability to enter a physical serial number into ARMS and return the generated code for an armament in the system and can release that data to federal or state law enforcement.
    • The SDF can not be compelled to release any information for any other reason and is within their rights to reject demands for data from any entity.
    • The ARMS will have the ability to alert the other 49 states of any illegal attempt to access data.
      • Intentional abuse of this functionality must be legally impermissible.
  • In instances of false registry of armaments, the citizen which possesses the physical armament or proof of possession can give their permission to the SDF to transfer the code generated from the serial number to their DART from the offender’s DART. That offender’s DART is restricted from use until requisite fines or legal issues are resolved – which the offender can expect will be served by the state or federal law enforcement.
  • The governor of a state is legally permitted to alter or affect their state’s ARMS only with approval from the state legislature and notifying the general public ahead of any motions to pass through the legislature.
    • It must be legally impermissible for the governor of a state to affect the ARMS under any other circumstance.
    • The only instance in which the ARMS system can be accessed or altered in a way not previously covered is under martial law.

5. Other Actions the ARMS is capable of:

*Note: This document only outlines the universal background check as the desired function of ARMS and does not advocate for the uses listed here. These uses are just some of the possible extensions of the ARMS program should they be desired in the future.

  • Replace the current paper-based open/concealed carry gun permits.
    • Should law enforcement wish to check if the weapon being carried by a citizen is allowed to be carried, the ARMS could display that the citizen with that DART ID is registered with the necessary permit as permit status can be attached to a DART ID. This document does not advocate for this.
  • Institute limits on the armaments permissible to be carried on one’s person.
    • Armaments can be ‘checked out’ and listed as such in their DART. A ‘checked out’ firearm is permitted to be carried for use in self-defense. Law enforcement can, with a warrant, ask the citizen for the physical serial number of their arms. This can then be given to the SDF to validate that the resultant identification code matches the citizen’s listed ‘checked out’ armament in their DART. (View-able from any smart device)
      • Legislation could determine the maximum number of ‘checked out’ arms permitted to a DART to ensure that firearms aren’t being wantonly lent out for carry by citizens without permits. This document does not advocate for this.
    • This same mechanism can be used to check anyone bearing arms for red flag law violations
  • Allow for legally binding agreements of rental or borrowing of armaments.
    • Armaments can be ‘lent’ from one DART to another. During the lending period, the code would transfer to the other DART flagged as ‘borrowed’. The code would be displayed in the lender’s DART as ‘on loan’. This follows the same logic as an arms sale; But after an agreed upon period of time, the borrower’s DART would remove the code and the lender’s DART would remove the ‘on loan’ status of the arm’s code. Continuing to hold onto the armament by the borrower would no longer be legal.

Feed America

As part of a new administration that is increasingly concerned with green energy and eco-conscious trajectories for the future of the country we need to implement a new direction for the future of agriculture in America. The first part of this is a complete overhaul of the agriculture industry in a move to lower the cost of food for Americans, lower the taxpayer cost of Citizen Service Accounts, increase the strength of the American economy in agricultural exports, and reduce environmental impact by farms to combat climate change. It is not only a plan to increase the wealth of all Americans by cutting their food bills substantially, lower healthcare costs through healthier nutrition, and end hunger in America; but is a necessity and obligation to safeguard the future of Earth from global warming. I am calling this sweeping suite of progressive legislation “Feed America”. (Better name needed to indicate the Eco friendly aspects)

The first part of this initiative is the Farmer Bill. Much like the G.I. Bill, this bill is intended to reward farmers for keeping America fed and help them recover from the damage of Trump’s trade war. Destitute farmers who lost their farms and assets to the bank will be rewarded the equity they established on their belongings. The government will take ownership of their land, assets, and remaining debt from the bank at a renegotiated interest rate (lower rate over a longer period) to lessen the burden to taxpayers. In addition, these farmers will be given full scholarships to any public University to pursue a career and future of their choosing. This same exact deal will be available to any existing farmers that wish to participate in a 100% voluntary land buyback program from the government. Any participating farmers will also be awarded an increased amount of credits in their Citizen Service Accounts for four years (for helping with reeducation). This deal is only available to family owned farms and not corporations.

As part of the new green progressive initiatives there will be progressive tax cuts for farmers and corporations. These will come in two forms: A tax break for meeting a criteria for lowered carbon emissions, and a tax cut for efficient land utilization. What do I mean by land utilization? I mean the amount of nutrition produced per square foot of a piece of land. A pound of protein from beef requires 100 times the amount of land needed to make a pound of protein from soy. As such, the efficiency quotient of the land’s square footage from beef is much lower than that of soy. The cut will operate on a curve such that the most efficient crops will get a larger break than less efficient crops. Any crops requested by the government will be given exception from higher tax rates.

As part of the Green New Deal, agriculture reforms will also take place over a lengthy period. The goal is to transition to eco friendly means of feeding America over the years. This means gradual but increasingly severe tax penalities on farms and corporations which have the highest greenhouse gas emissions, polluting chemicals, and inefficient land use. The farm bill and tax cuts are the ‘carrot’ to incentivize the necessary changes and give farmers and corporations enough time to adjust or make the necessary arrangements. After a few years, however, a new tax on carbon/methane, dangerous pesticides, or underutilized land will start and incrementally increase. The changes will start small: 2% for CO2, 5% for dangerous pollutants, 1% for low efficiency quotient but will gradually increase as we head towards GND 2050 timeline to something like 20% for CO2, 50% for pollutants, and 5-10% for low efficiency (less necessary, but higher efficiency farms lowers the cost to feed all Americans). [Note: I made up the numbers. I’ll have to do more research to know the scenario]

These are some of the necessary changes that I will be researching and drawing up a full platform for which we can operate as part of the goal of fighting global warming, reducing grocery bills, lowering healthcare costs (soy is healthier than beef in addition to being cheaper), and keeping farmers employed (I will expand on how this works a bit later. I am writing this from my phone as we’re headed to the grocery store of all things!)


Speech to VA senate on Gun Control

AKA Why we have gun rights AKA this ended up being LONG

It’s 10AM on January 3rd, a Friday. At the moment I’m thinking about going to speak at the VA State senate about the gun legislation and how they need to not erode gun rights and attempt to void the constitution. I’m hesitant because my mental health isn’t great with long drives, public speaking, or angry people holding guns. (Trifecta! where’s my prize?) If I do go, and they manage to televise the inside… Well, don’t judge me if I’m wearing brown pants. Here goes..

Honored senators and distinguished members of the public,
Today we are all gathered here to discuss the legislative changes brought before us with regards to the keeping and bearing of arms. Gun rights or gun control. These are the two terms that seem to reflect which ‘side’ of the issue you’re on – as how it is painted by the media. But really, any terms we use to discuss the issues here today – call it gun legislation, rules, rights, controls, regulations, laws, whatever you’d like! – are all just different ways of talking about the same thing: Amendment 2 of the United States Constitution. This article states: 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. This is what we are here to discuss today.

Now, let me remind everyone listening that this is America. America, the shining city on a hill. In America we are proud to be citizens of the strongest and most successful nation in the world. We have our problems, yes. People who suffer medical emergencies are at risk of bankruptcy if they don’t have insurance or their insurance denies their claim. People on minimum wage can’t save enough money to replace appliances, fix their cars, or even get everything for their children from goodwill. Others are living comfortably. They lived in a time where the do’ers put themselves through college and the American Dream of working hard and being middle class was still true. Or maybe they’re the lucky ones who got a high paying job out of college today and are able to afford the increasingly unavailable path to a middle class life. America. Has. Problems. But there are two thing that America has that are more American and more true here than anywhere else. The first, equality. Every person under God is equal in America. It doesn’t matter if your skin is white, black, olive, brown, or any other color. It doesn’t matter if you’re tall or short. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got six fingers or five. It doesn’t matter if you walk or use a wheelchair. It doesn’t matter what gender you have. It doesn’t matter if you love women, men, or anything in between. It doesn’t matter if you believe in one God or many. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican, a Democrat, or any other ideology. Rich or poor or anything else – doesn’t matter. First and foremost, before anything else, in America everyone is equal. (slight pause hopefully not crickets, but hey I’m awkward no matter what) The second and final thing we do best in America. WE. ARE. FREE. Americans love freedom. Freedom is the founding principle upon which this country had it’s origin. The forefathers fought off their oppressors to establish a land of equality and freedoms. We have fought and died to defend freedom and America nearly countless times in America’s relatively short history. What do we have to show for it? America is the longest standing constitutional and democratic republic in human history! Period! America is the land of freedom where at least we know we’re free. I love America. America isn’t just some land on some planet. America is a state of mind. America IS Freedom and Equality. And everyone who owns a gun and is here to fight to defend our right to own a gun is an America loving PATRIOT, and deserves your respect. Plenty of people can be against guns. Plenty of people can be for guns. No matter which side you’re on – and this applies to everyone here that speaks against against guns too – you’re all making your voices heard instead of sitting at home. It is ONLY in a free country that you are even ALLOWED to do that. People against guns came in to a heated debate against heavily armed people doing the same. That takes immense courage. Even if you disagree with each other, I think we can all take a moment to respect that they came here instead of staying silent. This is what America is all about. People equally free to express themselves. The same is also true for the patriots who came here to defend our rights to bear arms. The founders who wrote the bill of rights knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that in order for America to remain free and equal, people needed to have the right to keep and bear arms. I will get to that in a moment but first let’s all just take a breath to remember this: Neither side wants gun violence. All Americans do not wish for violence. Life is hard. There are so many problems in America even though we’re number one in the world. People have enough stressing them out. Look, I don’t know why we’re all here living life on Earth. We didn’t ask for this. We were borne into life to our families because our parents love each other and we’re living proof of that. But they don’t know why we’re here either. Some of us believe it’s God’s master plan. Some of us believe it’s the inevitable conclusion of the laws that define our reality. Others believe it’s all one cosmic accident and we’re just making it all up as we go. None of us knows for sure what we’re all really doing, but we try anyway. All of us sometimes feel lost, confused, and alone. But you know what? We’re all in the same boat. We’re all in this thing called life together. So have faith and hope. We have empathy and with that, compassion. We understand the circumstances of our neighbors so we help them when they fall. How would we all feel if we were the ones who were down? Would we not want a kind hand to help us back up? We are good people because we understand that golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We want to feel happy and safe. Life is hard enough already.

We don’t need to attack the other side or buy into what the media is selling about each other. And remember, the media is a business – so it is selling. Now, what happens when we read the next piece of click bait pulling each side away from common ground? We gradually leave open a space where discussion is no longer happening between two sides. Suddenly in this unknown the media shows us a twisted facsimile of our fellow countrymen, our fellow human beings. They are purposefully energizing us into these hostile states of tribalism where everything is partisan and no one wants to bring Americans back together under common ground. That’s what really makes America great. Instead, they are making money by stoking the fires of negativity and fear. Why should we care about how poor we are or how unfair our wages are or how bad our lives are when people are at risk of violence and now we are here, fighting over guns. They sensationalize random acts of violence but not random acts of kindness. The sad truth is that the media is owned by the billionaires. They’re profiting off of our division. While profiting off our civil strife they are also distracting us by funneling our energy and political willpower into fighting each other while they live comfortably and laugh down at us from upon their gilded thrones and ivory towers. But I digress. We are here today. They have succeeded in driving a wedge right through the center of the American people. We’re here because the Democrats in the state senate and the governor want to end gun violence by removing gun rights – however small a change they think they are making. They believe, correctly, that if there were no guns there would be decreased gun violence. They are absolutely 100% correct that a world without guns has no gun violence. Sadly, this just means violence will be committed using fists, explosives, or knives. Criminals will still have guns but good people won’t. They believe that changing the laws around will make it that much harder for the criminals or the crazies to get guns. And you know what? They’re right. The criminals will still get the guns, but it will be just a little bit harder. That makes it a change worth doing, right? Unfortunately, this line of thinking is a bit shallow – albeit well intentioned. The real motivator of violence – gun or otherwise – is desperation. We need to combat the societal ills that make people desperate. Whether it’s being so poor that people need to steal to stay off the streets or whether it’s delusions brought on by mental illness that make people feel they need to do violence to fight their delusions. We can stop the violence. This can be done by fighting back against the billionaire class that is taking all the profits off our labor and the stock market. If half the value of your hard work is taken from you as profit and passed off to shareholders how is that any different from a pyramid scheme? The top of the pyramid does nothing while the bottom does everything. When your job is lost to a robot or is sent overseas the value your work was producing didn’t just disappear. The value that you were being paid for was taken from you and given to the shareholders. We need a new deal with the billionaires atop the shareholder class. They have more than enough to pay for all Americans to have food, water, housing, healthcare, and public works and STILL be the wealthiest people on the planet. This is how we end violence in America – gun or otherwise. But instead we’re here because the media sensationalized that guns were the problem and removing them was the solution. And if you don’t think too deeply about it, it sounds like a great idea. Gun owners are just bigoted rednecks like on TV. TV stations they own. I understand why a lot of you want to increase gun control – I really do. The guy who wants to take guns the most – Bloomberg – is even buying his way into the race for President. He literally is running a media giant and hopes to take guns away as President. Him and his buddies from the other media giants are in the same boat – living the high life off our backs. They stick together to make sure things go their way. Look at all the corruption in politics. Look at the Bernie blackout. It’s more obvious than ever – to the point everyone can see in a clearly documented way how much influence they have over the information we need to understand the truth. I challenge anyone unfamiliar with the blackout to google it themselves so they can see how the truth is being manipulated. They’re afraid of the truth and fighting for freedom. Why? They don’t serve the people. They serve themselves. It’s obvious isn’t it? If they’re living like kings and they don’t care about the people they’re going to find a way to keep living like kings. No one here is stupid. Watch out for any politician that takes money from Bloomberg and people like him. Now, there are plenty of academic reasons to argue for or against guns, which I’m sure you’ll hear today. I tried to paint a picture of what the real solution is and what led us here today. End the corruption and give people a better standard of living and mental health treatment. I hope everyone can search for themselves and decide what’s really important to you and which politician is actually fighting for your best interests. Now, let me explain to you what Bloomberg and his filthy rich brothers are trying to do here today and why we need to reject it.

Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren. A wealth tax. Do you know what the proposed wealth tax caps at? 8% a year for any persons with more than 10 billion dollars. Michael Bloomberg has a net worth of 55 billion dollars. One year into a Sanders presidency he would pay 4.4 billion dollars in taxes. One year alone would cost him 4.4 billion dollars. A four year term? 16.5 BILLION DOLLARS. If Bernie Sanders was president, Bloomberg, the guy who is behind wanting to take away our guns, will pay 16.5 billion dollars in taxes to help fund Medicare-for-all, easing debts, ending homelessness and hunger, keeping people employed, and improving all our lives. Bloomberg, the guy who is behind wanting to take away our guns, will pay 16.5 billion dollars to improve the lives of every person in Virginia. It isn’t just Bloomberg. All the billionaires would have to pony up to make sure we have greater wealth equality and fairness in America. People are impressed Bloomberg has spent a few hundred million of his own money to run for president. In case this isn’t making it very clear, he’s running purely out of self interest. A few hundred million or even a few billion is chump change compared to what he would have to pay out under Sanders or Warren. Do you honestly believe that the billionaires with their ability to manipulate the media and the economy are going to take that lying down? Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. How are the wealthy employers going to fight a Sanders presidency? The Bernie blackout didn’t work. Bloomberg’s campaign isn’t going to work. They’ll keep running political ads to tar and feather a wealth tax and any who want one. They’ll keep trying to push people towards Biden or maybe even Trump. If all else fails, what will their final recourse be? Those people living paycheck to paycheck will lose their jobs. How many weeks can America last if we protest when they unilaterally subvert Democracy to deny Sanders the nomination? Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. How long before most Americans run out of food and the funds to pay for it? How long before they’re forced to go back to work to pay for food for their families? How long before they starve the political momentum to enact real change in America? What power to the people have against tyranny from those who rule them? Our founders left us but two things: a vote and the right to bear arms. Do you believe the thin blue line will help desperate people who want a better life? Do you believe that you will be safe from riots and looting without a means to defend yourself? Bloomberg has done this before in New York. When a registry of gun owners was found by the media they published it online for everyone to see. Suddenly law-abiding citizens who only wanted a peaceful live and the means to protect it were under public scrutiny. How many were denied a promotion because their boss hates guns? How many were given sidelong glances by once friendly neighbors? I don’t know but I can tell you that many, many of them became the victims of crimes. Guns aren’t cheap, and criminals were given a shopping list of which houses to target when people weren’t home. All of this happened because of these same EXACT “common sense” laws you wish to bring to Virginia. These laws sound good to Democrats because no one supports gun violence. I don’t. No one here does. But that doesn’t mean these laws aren’t just sugar coated pills designed to remove our ability to fight back against tyranny. These laws have been proven in New York and throughout modern history to be ineffective. There has been no successful gun legislation in history. All it does is remove liberty and defense of liberty from the people to benefit those who have power. Countless times the removal of guns or lack of free access has stopped armed resistance of genocide, just like the holocaust. Look it up for yourselves if you do not believe me. History has time and time again validated this position. When the price of bread goes up and your wage goes down what recourse will you have? Can you fight back? You and what army? You wish to strip the freedom and power of 350 million Americans in the fight against tyranny for empty legislation that sounds nice but fixes nothing. It actually makes gun violence worse, as criminals will no longer need to fear if the homes they rob have armed defenders. It actually makes gun violence worse, as terrorists know that only the police can stop their plots. So you are stripping away the strength of 350 million Americans for an empty promise. Does that sound like the right thing to do for Americans? Are you sure you truly understand what it is you are doing here? Are you sure that it is the American people these laws will serve?

I do not adopt and project the messages we have been fed by the ‘blue team’ or the ‘red team’. Neither side is serving the interests of the American people, only their own. Why should all Americans seeking to defend their right to bear arms be forced to vote for a tyrant like Trump in order to keep it? Let me remind every senator here that this is how these people gathered here and their loved ones will vote. You are giving Virginia to Trump. On the other hand, why should all Americans seeking to adopt greater equal rights and fight wealth inequality be forced to vote for a stooge of the corporate fascists like Biden or Bloomberg who wants to take our freedoms away? Why is politics in America a zero sum game where the only players are kleptocrats and their puppets? How did we get here? I bet the media and the billionaires running it might have a few answers all Americans need to hear. Heresy, I know. I realize that giving this take will make me unpopular with both sides. But you know what? I’m on the side of freedom, equality, and the American people. So if those things are unpopular, then I’ll just fight for what is right on my own. That’s just who I am. No one asked me to come here. I was not paid. I am here of my own free will. I’m not wealthy. I’m not a member of any party or caucus. I am just a regular guy with an irregularly large melon, and constant neck cramps to prove it. If you wish to read this speech in it’s entirety, find it at yourwjb.com.

I digress. Let me conclude my remarks. We’ve seen what has happened in the House of Representatives with the impeachment of President Trump. All Americans know full well that the president is preventing the people from knowing the truth about what happened. Is it sham? I have no idea. How can any of us possibly know if we are blocked from viewing the evidence of what transpired. We cry out against the authoritarian direction of the administration and their attempts to weaken Congress or interfere in our free elections. Like the second amendment, the founders put these checks on a corrupt president into our constitution so that our government would be a lasting haven of freedom and equality. This is why we denounce the Republican congressman who put their party over their country. Like all of you here, they rely on their party’s support to help their re-election campaigns with staff, leadership, and funds. They too rely on wealthy donors. The Koch to your Bloomberg. They chose to be fair-weather friends of this country, to be summertime patriots. They chose to be cowards and refused to speak truth to power. They were afraid of losing their jobs even if it meant fascism gains a bigger hold over America. Are you the same? When you decry the president and his Republican allies are you also fair-weather friends and summertime patriots? Your country needs you today in this moment to support Freedom and the never ending fight against tyranny. This is the moment you decide if you truly love America or if you allow tyranny just because it’s convenient. You decide if you allow tyranny because it’s easy. You decide if you allow tyranny because popular. You decide if you allow tyranny so you can keep your jobs. I reject tyranny in all forms – whether it is from the right or the left. It doesn’t matter if it’s popular or not. IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. The founders gave us a republic to protect the rights of the minority from the unrestrained will of the majority. Unrestricted democracy is mob rule and it is this same mob rule that the majority abused to harm minorities throughout our history and even today. “There are more of us”, therefore this is the way. Tyranny of the many instead of tyranny of the few. Now when it is wielded the way Bloomberg and the billionaires wish to use you to remove our rights and restrict our freedoms you are advancing their mission of tyranny. This is what we are fighting. This is why we were given the right to defend freedom in America from tyrants – using the second amendment of the constitution to keep and bear arms. The men and women protesting these legislations are people who are willing to fight and die to protect their right to bear arms because they are true America loving patriots who respect the warnings of our forefathers that an armed populace is the final and most effective way of defending America from tyranny. So can you say with full certainty that your actions here today are not eroding freedom in America? Can you say with full certainty that at some point in the future this legislation doesn’t put us on a path which is one step closer to tyranny? I am a rational and highly intelligent human being. So let me say emphatically, I can only see this legislation advancing the goals of tyranny and not freedom or safety. So are you hypocrites when you deride the Trump sycophants in Congress? Or are you true Americans who will defend Equality and Freedom when your country asks you to choose between America and tyranny when the time comes? … Well. Your country is calling on you NOW to make your choice. The time to decide if you love America and will defend her is now. Please, please, choose wisely. Defend your oaths, we the people, and this country of freedom and equality. Thank you.

Thoughts on Gun Control

Note: I will continuously update this as I get more information

Because this is such a divisive issue, my procrastination drive is in full gear. It isn’t obvious to you reading this, but this is really hard for me to write about because I need to walk a real fine line here. Before all else, I remind you that my two biggest core tenants are freedom and egalitarianism. So. Let me start this piece by giving you my very brief off-the-cuff one sentence thought on the issue. Hmm. Private ownership of weaponry or armaments for use in personal, home, or state self-defense is provided for under the second amendment of the Constitution, the act of owning a weapon doesn’t harm the bearer or their countrymen, and as such people are free to own them as it is their right and freedom to defend themselves from all threats both foreign and domestic (whether a burglar, a Russian soldier, or a fascist US government). That was entirely off-the-cuff (and atrocious grammar), but I think it more or less works. What I think that people who want stricter gun laws need to remember is this: Let’s pretend I’m able to write any law into effect right now. Any and all gun control legislation isn’t legislation that is giving people more liberties and freedoms. Any and all gun control legislation is legislation that is removing liberties and freedoms. Yeah, it’s basic stuff. You might be thinking, “Gah! William. Come on kiddo, how is a training, tests, registries, etc. taking away freedoms? It’s just a tiny change that inconveniences a little but potentially saves a lot. I hear you. I am fully empathetic and understand you. But I am also fully empathetic and understand gun rights advocates too. I want to find new solutions to bring all of us together. That’s just who I am. If you want your way, other side be damned… Well. I’m not your guy. Tyranny isn’t limited to only the right-wing like Trump. The soviets were left-wing tyrants. I love freedom and I love America. I feel, I really feel for every American. (Except the lizard-brained oligarchs that want people poor to stop overpopulation. You people are the worst.) If you’re even reading this you probably understand this much about me. So have faith that I will try to get to a solution amenable to both sides, and stick with me. Maybe you didn’t like my original answer on the stance page. Maybe you won’t like this new one. But this one is in part informed by feedback I’ve been given. I listen (crazy, right?). If you find issues with this post, let me know. I can honestly promise that I will hear you and give it some thought. I won’t just tuck new information under confirmation bias, but really analyze it. So. Back to guns. (procrastinated, sorry) I will endeavor to break down these questions: What changes do we want? Why do we want these changes? How does this conflict with the law and gun owners? What are some compromise solutions I can pitch to you?

What changes do we want? Well, let’s just go ahead and use the demands of the legislators that are pushing for changes: the DNC in Virginia. Are some people in favor of much more restrictive laws than the DNC? Sure. If you think the DNC isn’t doing enough with their goals, let me know. I will try to add a poll to this page so we can see if we as a country actually support what the DNC wants. (gripe: the DNC wants what the DNC wants. Not necessarily what their constituents want. Just look at how gun control is being handled in Virginia. Do you want gun owners to vote for Trump? So stupid.) That said, I am not in favor of taking guns from people and I seriously doubt you’ll ever change my mind on that. We’ll get to why that is in a bit. So these are the changes that the Virginia state legislature passed (to the ire of Virginians. Way to represent your constituents. SMH) They are adding:

(Note: To understand a gun rights advocate you need to look at every law and assume a lawyer (like Senator Palpatine) in the future will try to use it as precedent for taking away all guns in subsequent generations – it’s that simple. That same lawyer could be doing it as a way to bring about fascist control of the populace, we don’t know but it’s worth preventing)

(Note: To understand a gun control advocate you need to understand that they believe (correctly) that if guns were strictly regulated there’d be greatly reduced levels of gun violence by criminals and psychos. (I predict that this would really increase knife sales, though. Good luck to smaller men and women in a world without self-defense via guns) )

[the Jedi are gun rights advocates in cased you misread the metaphor, I suggest listening to the whole story of Palpatine’s rise]

* Universal background checks, closing a loophole allowing private citizens to sell guns without getting background checks.

This is just another way of saying something you’ve heard of before, “gun show loophole“. Basically when you buy a gun from a retailer, they run a check on you. But if you want to sell/give a gun to a friend privately, there’s no requirement to get a check. Essentially the laws want you to do the exchange through a licensed vendor so that a background check can be run first. I understand why they want it closed: anyone can claim a sale was private which in effect allows anyone to avoid running a background check. I will point out that it is a felony to sell a gun to anyone who the seller suspects wants to use it in a crime, or is currently wanted for crimes. I actually have some thoughts on this. I’m going to draft a proposal in a few days.

* Bans on assault weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines, silencers and devices that increase a gun’s firing rate (such as “bump stocks”).

So I’m going to go ahead and say that any bans are already a slippery slope when it comes to eroding gun rights. I mean, people can’t even agree to what assault weapon even means. If I slug you in the face, that’s considered assault. So is my fist an assault weapon? High capacity? What’s the delimiter for “high capacity”. That is also more or less completely arbitrary. I get that people don’t want AK-47s mowing down pedestrians, but even if we make all guns illegal – smugglers will still get them to criminals. It’s just a fact. It’ll only make them more expensive – unless they’re being supplied by a hostile government like Russia (who would give them to any murderer for free because, well, they get to hit America with little effort and that makes them happy). Same thing with ‘bump stocks’. Once these things have been banned and subsequently normalized in the public’s mind for 20-30 years some politician will stir people up by dramatizing acts of violence in the media until it becomes the new hot button issue. That’s what incrementalism is. The gradual erosion of a right provided under the Constitution. That would never happen? It already has and does. That’s where we are.. So I would vote ‘no’ if this ever came to discussion. Once we improve mental health screening and getting civil and societal mechanisms in place to combat delusion disorders and poverty then these people will get the help they need instead of becoming so desperate they feel the need for a weapon – gun or otherwise. Anyone can make a mass murder device out of a bucket of nails, a potato gun, and a handful of batteries. Just saying. Additionally, once we have social protections in place that prevent people from getting so hungry or cold they become desperate enough to use guns to stay alive or off the streets, those criminals will disappear too. The only would-be high-tech weapon murderers at this point are terrorists and they weren’t going to purchase a gun legally anyway. In that case you might appreciate a good Samaritan wielding one of these weapons in your defense.

* Reinstating a law repealed in 2012 that limited handgun purchases to one per month.

While slightly less arbitrary, this is still incrementalism. The constitution provides for private citizens to bear arms and create private militia. This was put in for a reason. We’ll get to that a bit later.

* Requiring anyone whose firearm is lost or stolen to report it to police within 24 hours.

This seems like a common sense law, but I was convinced otherwise. (Basically this needs to be done in a way that a registry isn’t created from data given to law enforcement). You’d report a stolen car. (I looked up if you legally had to report a stolen car. You don’t. That’s weird. Cars can be used in a crime too. Let’s add that as a law while we’re at it? Seems only fair.) It’s inconvenient but guns are dangerous and the potential catastrophe caused by a stolen gun outweighs the inconvenience of filing a police report. File the report. My way of writing this one would be this: You would only need to let law enforcement know a gun was stolen, and won’t be required to submit any data which could be used to create a national registry. If a stolen gun is used in a crime within 48 hours and law enforcement can prove you knew it was stolen for 24 hours beforehand and didn’t report it – it would then be a felony. We want to encourage reporting theft without having owners afraid they’ll end up on a registry. You know, a law that improves safety by whatever small margin while still keeping civil liberties intact (Extreme, I know).

* Creating an “extreme risk protective order” allowing courts to seize guns from people who a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. This is also known as a “red-flag law.”

The biggest red-flag here isn’t the people who are red-flags but the law itself. This is definitely never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to fly with gun rights advocates. While I am slightly amused at the notion that they expect people to follow this law, it’s not funny what people will do to defend their right to bear arms if the government tries to enforce this law. The “red flag law” essentially is giving the government the legal right to come and take your guns away if any lawyer convinces any judge that you’re dangerous. In Salem, the judges were convinced women were dangerous witches. That turned out pretty good. This opens the door to some next-level fascist crap so stop threatening to call in the national guard. By the way, DNC, the judge you want to give this power to was probably appointed by Trump. Did you think this one through at all? Yeesh. I reject authoritarianism from the right and the left. I love America and Americans love freedom.

* Prohibiting anyone subject to a court’s final protective order from possessing a gun. Current law applies a ban only to people who are subject to a protective order for family abuse.

So a protective order is something filed to prevent domestic abuse. It’s like a restraining order against people you are involved with, past or present. This restriction seems to only get put in place if your spouse or family members who are in or were in a household with you were abused by the gun owner. If one beat their wife and she gets a protective order against them, they lose the right to legally possess a firearm while it’s in effect. Since it’s so specific this might actually be okay, so long as there is writing on the law that says it becomes invalid if they want to increase it’s scope at any point in the future. To me, it seems fine and relatively protected from abuse by the government. People afraid their newly divorced abusive spouse will seek armed revenge should be a little safer if a person with a logged history of violence against them doesn’t own a gun. I would suggest they buy a gun to defend themselves just in case he does manage to get a gun, or comes by with a knife. Good thing the victims can buy a gun, am I right? So long as this is worded right, I support it. Note: Harsh penalties would be put in place for anyone who bears false witness to punish former partners and have their arms taken.

* Allowing cities and counties the ability to pass gun laws stricter than state law, such as banning firearms from public buildings or events.

This is probably the most subversive addition. When an entire state loses their gun rights or threatens to take guns away, gun rights groups are able to quickly respond. When a small city manages to pass it under the radar then suddenly there are significantly less people banding together to oppose the violation to their rights. They have less leverage when it comes to litigating their defense as well as less resources with which to litigate, unless the NRA is willing to shell out the cash to sue that city. This is actually the most open ended and abuse-prone addition. There was never a chance that any gun rights advocates were going to be okay with this. (How can you be a good person or gun control advocate if you don’t want to make guns illegal?!? Do you watch the news?!?! So bear with me please if you’re thinking this way. There’s a reason why I think the way I do and it’s a good one.)

Cool. So those are the changes. In case you didn’t already know, background checks that the NRA and gun rights advocates are cool with already exist and are part of existing federal law. They are being used as we speak and they prevent a lot of people from getting hands on guns who shouldn’t be able to. That’s great. I am in favor of ending the loophole through technology. When any gun goes through a private sale a background check can be easily run from a phone app. Just put in a person’s name and the last 4 of their social (or something I’m just generalizing) and it runs a quick check against a database for person’s with a red flag and then spits it back to you within a minute. If they’re clear the exchange can proceed legally. This wouldn’t be enforceable without creating a registry which is a solid no-go for good reason. So by opening up the NICS to free use by the public we get 100% more voluntary checks during sales than we do now (WHICH IS ZERO). However, if a sale occurs after a failed check and law enforcement finds out you sold a gun to someone who failed a check and they commit a crime… well, that’s a felony now. If the app takes longer than 10 minutes to respond and you weren’t doing anything to circumvent it from properly functioning, it would no longer be illegal at that point either. (No de facto bans where the government is purposefully stalling the app to prevent the sale) I would put into the writing for this that the law is reliant on free nation-wide broadband. (something we should have with President Sanders) This way no one needs to purchase internet access to be able to run a check from their smart devices. If neither party has a smart device, they can go to the library or a gun vendor. This makes sense and seems fair. Sadly it’s not this easy right now. The government also needs to be restricted from pulling GPS data on your phone when running this app, as well as passing any information onto any other agency. We want people to use the app, not scare them because of potential abuses. Gun owners have a healthy mistrust of their government, as tyranny can come from the right or the left or any ideology. Just because Sanders is (hopefully) a good person, it doesn’t mean the next progressive president won’t be a tyrant.

So what does it mean I’ll support?

Universal background checks — Yes! Make it as easy as a safe and secure phone app (or something).

Any kinds of bans of firearms or accessories — No.

Time-gated purchases (one a month) — No. Militias have to right to be formed and ready in a minute. Minutemen, if you will.

Losing gun rights for domestic abuse and protection orders — Yes, this seems fair while safe and free from would-be tyrants.

Allowing counties to make rules stricter — No. WAY too much potential for abuse.

I am working on a proposal for how we can go forward, stay tuned

Why we have guns and why people are right to fight to keep them

(I’m making this a separate post, will try to have it out 1/3/19)