Oh, Ye of Faith...

I agree with the sentiment that people of 'faith' should not be belittled for their faith.

(Ain't I gracious?)

Many people of faith are dear to my heart. Many are not.

In some way, I respect their dedication to their faith. It takes steadfastness and resolution to adhere to a belief system based on nothing but garbled Bronze Age tales told in archaic languages.

My respect is not endless, obviously.

My kith and kin who are of 'faith' are well-aware that I have no tolerance for starry-eyed proselytes and proselytizers. If there are discussions involving their activities at their place of worship, I remove myself to a place out of earshot.

Rarely are there discussion about articles of faith, but I have been known to undertake the role of devil's advocate in arguing against the nonsense found in 'holy' books and accepted by those of 'faith'.
It's a wonderful mental exercise but very tiring.

I used to entertain myself by talking - willingly - to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons; the most active proselytizers of the day. I felt it was an obligation to at least present a viewpoint contrary to their dogma, if not for the proselytizer's, then for my benefit.
Not magnanimous but simply dutiful.

On one occasion, I invited a visiting pair of Witnesses to come into the parlor. (Odd how they travel in pairs - as if one cannot exist without a supporting 'other'.) It was dreadful mistake, as they simply wouldn't leave once I had tired of their intractability. I had to become quite rude; finally lying about a pressing engagement to induce them to go.

My roommate pointedly warned me that that should never happen again. From then on, I chose the stalling tactic; never allowing the door to open more than half-way. In effect, it was an unfulfilled invitation for them; I was conversing, their initial goal was achieved, but the implied promise of access was unfulfilled.

Since that time of youthful frivolity, I have become less willing to exert the energy needed to swat the flies that swarm around people of 'faith'. Willingness to engage has cooled to a willingness to tolerate.

Just so long as that person of 'faith' does not try to shove it down anyone's throat, my throat...  Fine.
Stew in your own juices.
Live and let live

People of 'faith' have the right to their beliefs and I have the right to ask them to keep it to themselves. 

'Praise Jesus!' all you want but leave me out of it. 

I think that sentiment is shared by many.

I See by Your Holster

Ammosexuals who bellow about their Second Amendment Rights (as perverted and pronounced by the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby) seem to have forgotten a vital and essential aspect to civic rights: responsibility.

All civic rights come with integral responsibilities. Voting rights comes with the responsibility to educate oneself about the issues and the candidates. So-called 'gun rights' comes with a concomitant responsibility of gun-safety. 

Ironically, cynically, many on the 'right' feel that all those of the Islamic faith must take responsibility for the dangerous few who wage jihad and commit acts of terrorism. 

A similar standard is applied to other groups such as immigrants, Blacks, Hispanics, etc. All immigrants are judged and condemned outright because of the criminality (or perceived criminality) of members of their group.  A social penalty is levied against the entire group; distrust at the least.

When confronted with the 'bad apples', the 'lone wolves', the 'sickos', who commit multiple-homicide with a gun, those same fervent god-fearing, gun-toting folk are not so inclined to perceive that their gun rights are unalterably conjoined to the responsibility of how the proliferation of guns in American society has negatively effected all of us. They are not so keen on being grouped with psychos who are also gun-lover.

Yet, in truth, they must be grouped together; for the law-abiding gun-lover and the psycho murderer do share a very blatant and obvious characteristic.

Any guesses on what that commonality is?

Hope against hope

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/rooney-hope-hicks-russia-cnntv/index.html

The culture of lying in Washington is so pervasive, so endemic that this GOP Congressperson, Rep. Tom Rooney, is defending Hope Hicks for lying.  He is outraged (outraged, I tell you!) that Dems would 'leak' (i.e. inform the public) about Hick's admission to telling 'white lies' for Drumpf. 

Rooney even went so far as to give an example of an 'acceptable' lie: to wit - his assistant lies to a constituent that Rooney is 'not in the office' in order to avoid a call.

So there you have it. Lying liars justifying lies in defense of the Liar-in-chief.

Poor little Hope...

Ammosexuals on Notice!

Taking the opposing view to David Hogg and the other activist survivors of bloody massacres is brazenly, callously stating that the murder of children is negated by the need of some people to own semi-automatic weapons of war.
Constitutional Rights do not come cost free.
Want to own guns? Fine... then take responsibility for that Right - not by fighting those who oppose the indiscriminate slaughter going on in America but by countering that slaughter by owning the fact that the slaughter is being done by fellow 'gun enthusiasts'.
Own that sh!t and end this epidemic of gun deaths.

Warning! The Teacher is Strapped!

A week after the Dec. 14, 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said Americans need more guns in schools. 

BOYCOTT the NRA!That 'arm the teachers' plan has been working pretty well already it seems.
From 2014 - http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/utah-teacher-shoots-herself-the-leg-while-school

Teacher down! Call for a substitute!
Do they have firearms training?
And will they be bringing their own gun to school?
If not, will the school have an armory to provide weapons to teachers?
Will each classroom have a weapons safe?
And how 'bout ammo?
Will there be an allotted number of rounds per armed teacher much like the number of photo-copies each teacher can make per semester?
And if the teacher brings his/her own gun, will they be paid an annual/semi-annual depreciation for using their personal weapon for school use?
And will they be re-compensated for use of any rounds fired? What if the rounds are fired accidentally? 

Or in error, say?
And how about liability for actually shooting someone?

...and this is the plan that the POS POTUS, the Blob-in-chief, the Drumpfen-feck, so glibly pronounces as the solution to school shootings from his 'crib sheet'?