And here I briefly thought that May might be a better month for whatever reason, but that turned out to not be at all true for large swaths of the US.
On Wednesday, May 4th, the United States reached 1,000,000 COVID-19-related deaths with a total count (as of June 1, 2022). That is a lot of people. That is the only way I know how to say that, so we will leave it at that.
While it might be easy to say that there were only (fucking hell, "only") two mass shootings, an event where ... multiple, firearm, homicide incidents, involving 4 or more victims at one or more locations close to one another", occurred in May in the United States, in Buffalo, New York on May 14th, and again in Uvalde, Texas 10 days later on May 24th. But no. There were 63. 63 separate incidents across the United States where someone decided that using a gun against someone else was their only recourse of action in whatever was going through their minds. Sure, no one died and 12 people were injured in Lafayette, Louisiana on May 1st, and no one was killed in Henderson, Nevada following a Hells Angels shootout with the Vagos motorcycle club. And this doesn't even touch on the mass shooting that was reported after I wrote that last sentence while I was driving home from work.
Sure, the Constitution of the United States does state that "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", but it doesn't specify what constitutes an "Arm" that can be beared. For all of the pearl-clutching that Originalists do (who are often those who are outspoken about any and all 2nd Amendment infringements), the Constitution does not specify what that "Arm" is. So why could I personally not have a switchblade? Sure they're illegal, but doesn't the 2nd Amendment protect my Constitutional RIGHT to bear this type of arm? The Constitution doesn't specifically say anything about switchblades. Well, you're right, it's not a gun. So the Constitution doesn't say anything about sawed-off shotguns, and that is an arm the same way that the Constitution protects my right to own a DDM4 Rifle along with any number of high capacity (10-15 rounds of ammunition) magazines. Do I want to actually own a sawed-off shotgun or a DDM4 Rifle? No, because the only purpose of either of those weapons is to kill someone and feel free to tell me how I'm wrong that they're really there to protect me from intruders, both foreign and domestic.
Let's jump to a different topic now that feels like it happened longer ago than May 3rd, and that is what feels like the inevitable rolling back of privacy rights and access to women's reproductive healthcare written and advocated by people who do not have ovaries or think that you can fix an ectopic pregnancy simply by putting the fertilized embryo back where it's supposed to be. "Well, they could just give the baby up for adoption" argument is about as asinine as it sounds because it's not like someone just gestates a fetus into a birthed baby after nine months. Are these people going to front all of the financial costs of pregnancy including hospital costs, medical costs, lost work costs, and emotional therapy due to forcing someone into giving birth? And if you come at me with, "Well then they shouldn't be having sex if they're not ready to have a child" then someone will inevitably yell about birth control needing to be outlawed or that they shouldn't have to pay for insurance that covers someone else's birth control pills "AnD AReN'T BiRTh ConTROl PiLLs JusT An ABORtIoN PiLL AnyWAy!?!?!?" First off, no. Second, seriously, just say that you want to control every aspect of someone else. Period. But don't teach kids about periods, because that's gross and they're too young to know about heterosexual sex. And homosexual sex. And take the word "homo" out of Homosapien while you're at it because science makes me uncomfortable (I hope someone takes those sentences out of context because you have no other recourse but to distort anything to create a point).
And then the likely attempt by socially conservative members of society to then try and roll back additional privacy protections and say that each state should be able to say whether or not two people of the same gender can legally be married. What about if two non-binary people want to marry each other? What will you do then? Say it's against your god's will or that you personally find it disgusting? Or will you just go back to yelling that your book of god doesn't allow marriages that aren't a man and a woman by citing out-of-context passages? Ignoring the fact that those are your beliefs and they are infringing on the rights of others.
I am not being of any use right now because all I seem to be doing is getting upset at other people and their socially backward opinions. Yes, saying you need to have a gun and that the only solution to the 234 mass shootings in the United States in the last 153 days is to give everyone guns, take any form of decision-making process away from women or any group that isn't a cis white male and to convert everyone to Christianity or else.
And I am playing some video games, that is what we are here to talk about normally.
~JWfW/JDub/The Faceplantman/Jaconian
Wrathchild's Afterglow
No comments:
Post a Comment