Did I just disprove that old 2nd Amendment NRA talking point?

"This is Merica!"

"You want to know what gives me the right to stockpile a ton of weapons, thousands of bullets, bump stocks, laser sights etc?"

"The Damn 2nd Amendment boy! That's what gives me the right. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Damn it! That right there means I can have any Damned weapon I want."

Do you have anything bigger?

That's not the actual entire second amendment though is it?

Amendment II - 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.

"Boy, when they are talking about militias they are saying we might have to rise up against the gubment! Damn it Boy, don't you know anything?"

Im'a here to protect you from tyranny.

It's a talking point we have had to hear literally thousands of times. The notion that one of the reasons the right wing of this country thinks it has the right to carry around any damn firearm they want. They think the constitution lets them and this view has been propagated by the NRA and weapon manufacturers until it has become literally ingrained in the heads of a majority of people in this country. Not just the right wing either. A lot of liberals accept this as truth even as they decry the results.

Let's first realize what the militia was. It wasn't a ragtag group of partisan volunteers and anti-government types. It wasn't there to protect the people from the government. In fact, membership was required by the government.  All able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 were considered to be in the militia. The articles of Confederation written in 1777 proclaim it the duty of each state to keep and arm a militia. (The Declaration of Independence wasn't ratified until 1787-1788)
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: Articles of Confederation, arts. 6, 9 Article VI. No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
This is a state-controlled and financed militia, and it included everyone.

The Militia act of 1772: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

Every able-bodied person was in this militia. So it makes perfect sense in that context that you couldn't infringe upon their right to bear arms. Doing so would weaken the militia.

So wait, how do we know that the Militia wasn't there to protect the people from the Government? These Founding Fathers were some pretty smart guys. Maybe they were envisioning a time when Billy Bob and his AR-15 would have to go toe to toe with a Huey attack helicopter. I bet that's it... I bet the right wing is at least correct about that part. Right?

Not so much...

Article 8 clearly states that the purpose of a militia is "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

So... everyone was in the Militia, the states were individually responsible for keeping them armed and well regulated, and they were there to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasion.

Not exactly what the NRA wants you to believe. 

If you're smart you'd pee your pants and run when you see this coming.

Homophobia in Star Trek Fans ~ Warning minor spoilers ahead.

First off, before I even get started let me say I have loved every incarnation of Star Trek. I have been a big fan of the series and its message of hope for the future for as long as I can remember. Gene Roddenberry was an absolute visionary and will always be remembered as such.

Okay, so the new Star Trek is out and personally, I think it is great. Yeah, the story is a little dark and gritty for Trek, but this is still in the early days of the Star Fleet. It is set after the events of Enterprise but 10 years before The Original Series.  I don't want to give too much away to those who haven't seen it and might want to, but right now it is mainly about the start of a war between The United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet) and the Klingon Empire.

New Episodes of Discovery air Sunday night on CBS All Access

The star is Sonequa Martin formerly of The Walking Dead (Sasha) and I think she is fantastic in her role as a human raised by Vulcans. 

There are lots of things Trekkies are complaining about...
1) It's on CBS All Access in America so if you want to watch it here you have to pay for it. Everywhere else it's on Netflix (which of course you still have to pay for).
2) They changed the look of the Klingons and gave them more than one race. Apparently, this isn't "Canon" because OMG we have learned everything about the Klingon Empire by now.
3) Klingons are cannibalistic. Also supposedly not "Canon" except for all of the times you know Klingons boasted about eating the hearts of their enemies, even Worf was afraid Dax would not get into Sto-Vo-Kor when she died because she had never done this.
4) It looks better than the original series graphically. You might want to have those campy 1960s graphics back, but this is a modern telling of the story and if the original had been this visually awesome it might have lasted more then three series. If you do truly miss those campy old sets and the banter between Kirk and Spock check out the fan made show Star Trek Continues (I can't explain how awesome a recreation it is, by the third episode you will believe he is Kirk).

Some of these may or may not be legitimate concerns... I personally enjoy the show and will continue to do so...

But one of the biggest complaints people have had regarding the show is the openly homosexual character Lt. Stamets played by Anthony Rapp, and while I can understand this kind of criticism coming from the extreme religious right I truly believe it should be antithetical to any true fan of Star Trek.

Lt. Stamets - Anthony Rapp

Star Trek has always been a series with a social conscience. It has always been about pushing the boundaries of technology and space, but also about pushing the boundaries of acceptance. We've seen such a diverse group of characters in Trek over the years. Strong black women like Lt. Uhuru. Amazing black captains like Captain Sisko of DS9. Russians, Asians, and Scottsmen, and aliens from other friggin planets all working together without a care in the world.... and you want to get upset that the new show has a gay character in it? Are you serious? 

Star Trek has always generated controversy
Several stations would not air Kirk kissing Uhuru

What part of Gene's vision of openness and acceptance do you people not get?  Gay people exist. Gay people contribute fully to society and have every right to love who they love. It's that simple. Hopefully, in the future, more people will understand that.

To those I have seen claiming that this is part of the gay agenda... damn right it is. What exactly do you think the gay agenda is though? Some shadow recruitment technique to turn us all gay thus saving the planets fashion sense for eons to come? No... the only gay agenda that is and ever has been is to be accepted just like everyone else. To be treated as human just like everyone else. To be able to love and be loved just like everyone else.

If you can't get that you shouldn't be watching Star Trek in any iteration at all. 

Oh... and just FYI Gene Roddenberry would have wanted an openly gay character on Star Trek at least according to his son. 

"I think he would be 100 percent in favor of a gay character in 'Star Trek," said Roddenberry during an interview. "There's so much going on in the world today. I think he would love any sort of social issue being brought into 'Star Trek.'"