Archive | Editorial RSS feed for this section

Anti-Québec logic

11 Jun
Alert the media! India's national football (soccer) team is turbanless! India must be racist and xenophobic!

Alert the media! India’s national football (soccer) team is turbanless! India must be racist and xenophobic!

By Evan Zenobia

ANCIENT ROME—It looks as if the Québec Soccer Federation has really stepped in it, this time.

It’s not really their fault though. It’s just that the English Canadian media has been dumping shit all over the sidewalk.

Yes, ever since the FSQ announced that turbans would, along with all other headgear, be impermissible on soccer pitches, everyone from rags like Maclean’s and the National Post to federal cabinet ministers have denounced the regulation, thundering righteous, theatrical indignation and hurling accusations of racism and xenophobia at Québec.

By now, you’ve probably heard or read the standard narrative. Driven by either a radical secularism gone mad or just by Québec’s innate and distinctly un-Canadian xenophobic racism, Sikhs were singled out by FSQ and swept off the soccer field. Now, Sikh children will be barred from the game, cruelly excluded by racist Québécois officials.

This isn’t the first time the Sikh community’s religious obligations have run across trouble in Québec. In 2010-11, a scandal erupted over the barring of kirpan (knife)-bearing Sikhs from entering the Nation Assembly. The FSQ faced similar criticism for banning the hijab. And, the standard reaction from the conservative English-Canadian establishment had been to accuse Québec of racism or xenophobia.

But that’s not what’s happening.

According to the FSQ, headgear is not allowed on the soccer pitch. You can’t wear a baseball cap, or a cowboy hat, or a tuque, or a crown, or a German war helment. The rule is no headgear. A turban is headgear. Therefore, turbans are not allowed.

So now Québec is being accused of racism because in Québec everybody, regardless of their religion, is subject to the same rules and regulations.

When you treat everyone the same, that’s not discrimination, it’s called equality. And I know that conservatives actually hate that, but they should be honest about it instead of accusing the 7 million people of Québec of intolerance and hatred.

In any case, the FSQ will follow FIFA’s lead if the international body allows turban. But until FIFA makes its decision, Vic Toews and Parm Gil and Jason Kenney and the esteemed “writers” at the authoritative rags of Canada’s business classes should quit their hysterics about “intolerance,” and maybe practice a bit of tolerance to Canada’s second largest province.


Celebrating Local Authors! Review of ‘The Bones of the Earth’

20 Feb

By Evan Zenobia

OTTAWA—If you’re a fantasy fan, history buff or an adventure aficionado, you won’t be able to put Scott Bury’s “The Bones of the Earth,” down.

The Ottawa author’s novel, which skilfully blends historical fiction, magical realism and swashbuckling action, follows a socially awkward barbarian youth in struggles against invaders, demons and dragons during the late sixth century. And while that may sound like the plot of an SNL skit, “The Bones of the Earth” is actually full of drama, heart-breaking tragedy and gore.

After the only life he’s ever known falls to pieces, Javor reluctantly travels away from his tiny village in barbarian lands towards the Byzantine capital of Constantinople. Javor’s journey takes him through fierce battles with both human and supernatural adversaries. Along his journey, his many experiences impart valuable lessons about life, relationships, politics, religion, magic and more.

All this makes for excellent, engaging plot that will keep the reader turning the pages without ever wanting to put the book down. Javor is a well-developed character with a personality distinct from most other heroes.

Javor’s character and personality certainly exhibits many traits associated with Asperger’s Syndrome, one of the more mild forms of Autism Spectrum Disorder. The novel uses this to draw attention to social exclusion against people on the spectrum.

The novel also touches on racism by illustrating examples of Greco-Roman chauvinism towards Slavic and Gothic “barbarians.” Throughout the novel, Javor finds himself on the receiving end of xenophobic hostility, derision and snobbery from Romans. The author also brilliantly ties racism together with imperialism. Of course, Javor may be the only tall, able-bodied, fair-skinned, blond, blue-eyed, straight cisgender male to suffer discrimination for these traits in all literature. But then, it is a fantasy novel. On the other hand, such a stark juxtaposition to the usual direction of imperialist racism may have the advantage of moving to racists to understanding the errors of their ways when they see one of their own as a victim.

The author is relentless when addressing absolutism and imperialism, highlighting the vicious atrocities of the practices with vivid imagery and through the grim anecdotes of the barbarian victims of Rome. The novel, thankfully, does not fall to romanticizing the Dark Ages.

But while the novel is thrilling and its commentary astute, it is, it must be said, a “guy story.” There are very few female characters in general, and the ones who do exist are relatively one-dimensional. Emotional volatility is almost exclusively confined to female characters. Many girls and women are made into archetypical “damsels in distress,” saved only the masculine virtues of courage and self-sacrifice. In a world filled with dragons, trolls, vampires and gryphons, the independent liberated woman is still mythical.

There are exceptions. Javor’s village’s shaman is certainly nobody’s subordinate, although her character serves less as a model for feminine independence than as the author’s excuse to feature her throwing an orgy party. A smart move on the author’s part, and a good way to reel the “young adult” crowd in.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with “guy stories.” The novel certainly has a universal appeal. But I grew up watching Xena, and I always appreciate using fantasies to explore sexism and push traditional gender roles.

It certainly would have strengthened the novel’s subtle but stinging critique of Christianity to have included the absurdity and cruelty of religious attitudes towards women. The author sticks to knocking the rest of Christianity though.

But if you’re looking for something filled with adventure and subtle commentary to devour in the next week, pick up “The Bones of the Earth.” It’s available on Amazon or something.

Conservatives are hypocrites, Part I: A critique of political religion from a Libertarian position!

19 Feb

By Qalina Tileli and Evan Zenobia

Individual rights and liberties are the battle cry of Western conservatives and libertarians. In their war on social programs and equality, they accuse all government measures that don’t serve the rich of threatening individual rights, property and freedom. Yet they are also closet theocrats, yearning for the reign of Christian values over our laws and society. This is utter hypocrisy. And we’re going to use their own tools to show it. That’s right. We’re attacking their nonsense with their other nonsense.

I would like to share with you all a few brief thoughts on religion and liberty, and I hope that my writings, while doubtlessly consuming far too much of very valuable time better spent with loved ones or at least laughing at cats, will nevertheless be readable and somewhat interesting. Essentially, I intend to argue that religion, organized as a political force, is counter-positioned to individual liberty. I will begin with a brief theoretical explanation and reinforce my argument with historical examples.

In the very first place, religion calls for a form of obedience. There is almost always a form of ritual worship or adoration of at least one supreme, supernatural being, or at the very least, as in animist cults or more meditation-oriented systems like Buddhism or Chinese philosophies, a ritual adherence to strict rules and customs that regulate behaviour as a means of connection to the divine or supernatural. Without this obedience, the promise of salvation is more distant.

In and of itself, this obedience only constricts the liberty of the individual up to her consent. The individual chooses her faith and chooses to restrict her choice of dress, diet, or whatever else the religion demands. The individual may ignore certain rules, all of them, or convert. And while it is obvious that the way of life in a convent or a monastery is one of strict, prudish routine, and that it could be hardly considered as free as a supermarket, tavern or boardwalk, every member makes the free choice to live that way.

However, adherence to a religion presupposes the supremacy of that faith over all others. The faithful are promised that their way of life, divinely-sanctioned, shall be rewarded with salvation. Therefore, the conviction of the supremacy of the faithful’s position, of the correction of their obedience, naturally leads to the conclusion that everyone should follow the same faith; if the faith is perfect, ordained by a supreme power beyond human comprehension, then why should anyone opt for another? It is defiance to not submit to the perfect faith. Besides, is it not in the interest of the unfaithful that they be brought to the light, to be saved from eternal damnation?

And, at that point, religion, inherently supremacist in the belief of its own perfection, becomes a social project and a collectivist vision. While it remains the choice of the individual to follow the faith to the point he feels correct, the faithful, convinced that theirs is the only righteous path, undertake the mission to turn everyone onto that path. And why not? Those who choose not follow are wrong, and missionary work is in the interest of the common good.

Once religion has become a social project, and once it is assumed that everyone should follow the one true path because it is perfect, it follows that the law should also follow the one true path. After all, why should the laws of men, imperfect as men are, defy the divinely ordained and sanctioned laws of God? Why should laws permit sin? Why should society fall into ignorance and the peril of damnation when the perfect way of life can be written into law? When one assumes her faith to perfect, it becomes difficult to argue against this.

Of course, God’s law often does protect individual liberty and property rights. Commandments banning murder, theft and lying come to mind. However, religion carries a wide and diverse array of rules that limit free choice. Again, when an individual chooses this way of life, there is no threat to the liberty of the people. But legally-enforced religion does.

History is rife with examples of religious law codes and their repression of individual rights. Welcomed and demanded by the faithful and their shepherds the state has brought legally enforced bans on gambling, alcohol, foods, clothing, music, “blasphemy,” art, pre- and extra-marital sex, birth control, homosexuality, divorce, cohabitation and masturbation. From this short list, it is glaringly apparent that religion as a political force threatens, among other individual rights, free speech, free trade and bodily integrity.

It is worth noting that where religion reigns with legal authority, pleasure is almost taboo. Meanwhile, Opus Dei and extremist Shi’ites are revered for the devotion their self-flogging demonstrates. But, of course, masturbation is crime against God and the law. That’s political religion in a nutshell: feel free to cut yourself open, but if you play with yourself we’ll send you to jail and then hell!

On a more serious note, consider prohibition. In the United States, puritanical Protestants were powerful enough to push through a constitutional amendment banning the sale of alcohol in the name of the common good. It is now common knowledge that prohibition was a disaster that did nothing more than enrich the mafia while doing nothing to actually curb the negative effects of alcoholism. And it goes without saying that it violated the right of individuals to consume and purchase what they wished. Most Muslim countries still ban the consumption and sale of alcohol today at the behest of the devout and in the name of the common good and adherence to the perfect religion.

Consider as well the ban in the Republic of Ireland on divorce, repealed only after a narrow referendum victory in the 1990s, which the revered Mother Theresa herself ferociously opposed. This same country also maintained a ban on contraception until 1980.

The religious fear of sex does not end with the Emerald Isle. Virtually every society, perhaps excluding Pagan Rome, Greece and the Native peoples of the Americas, enacted strict legal bans against homosexuality and supposed promiscuity, inspired by the Biblical tales of God’s wrath against the Sodomites. In some US states, laws against cohabitation remain on the books. Islam takes first prize in violent hostility to individual sexual choice, with a Koranic death penalty for adultery.

Even dress is not off-limits when God’s law is involved. While it can be argued that bans on nudity may be legitimate to protect children (although, is the naked human body really so offensive and hideous as to traumatize the young?) religious law codes often seek to regulate hairstyles, cosmetics, the display of skin, and the femininity or masculinity of given articles. Again, Islam takes first prize here, with many Muslim countries enforcing the (ironically non-Koranic) veiling of women. Still, as recent as the Napoleonic Wars, the women of ultra-Catholic Spain were veiled as per the Biblical demand that women cover their hair or be shaved. In yet more recent times in Christian societies have come bans on cross-dressing, exposing women’s chests and regulations of skirt lengths.

Free speech, too, is ceaselessly under the attack of organized religion, which shields itself behind charges of “blasphemy.” As such, the state, egged on by the devout, has banned books, music, and all forms of art. Scientists, journalists and intellectuals have been blacklisted, arrested or executed as heretics or blasphemers. Recall the house arrest of Galileo, the repression of teaching evolution in the United States, the iron grip of the Church on Quebec’s intellectual development and its crusade against the Institut Canadien. Today, the Russian Orthodox Church shamelessly collaborates with Putin’s tyranny, complicit in the jailing of Pussy Riot musicians.

Even in cases where all this taboos are not legally enforced, the political power of religion still shapes society and represses individual liberty through stigmatization. It is dishonest to say that only the state can limit individual freedom and choice.

It is impossible to defend any of these regulations and constraints from an individualist perspective. They are only defensible on two intertwined principles: first, that they are mandated by a perfect religion, whose perfection is proven by the second principle that they advance the collective interest of society.

Religion therefore subordinates individual will, choice and freedom to the interest of the collective, in the name of addressing sin which is interpreted as a social ill. Because religion inevitable shifts from individual connection with the divine to a social project, reason becomes collective. As such, the problems that exist in society, such as addiction, perversion, blasphemy are not considered the personal failures of individuals to meet their responsibilities, but rather manifestations of sin that flourish because of collective impiety. There is absolutely no consideration of individual liberty in the reasoning of political religion. Religion in general and political religion in particular, is fundamentally collectivist.

Religion can be thought of as the earliest form of identity politics. It identifies the faithful with titles such as “Chosen People,” or the “Ummah.” This subordinates an individual believer’s identity to one of membership in the collective. It is also expected that the individual will sacrifice in the interest of the collective.

But these collective identities also divide the world into two groups, pitting the faithful against all others in an “us and them” mentality. Again, to assume one’s faith’s perfection is to assume the inferiority of all others, and it therefore follows that all those who believe and live differently are either stubborn fools or evil enemies of God. Therefore, it becomes legitimate to reduce their individual liberty to choose their own way of worship. After all, repression makes the prospect of conversion to a privileged faith more attractive, thus rendering the marginalization of infidels holy and part of the social project aimed at improving the collective. At its most extreme, this collective reasoning mutates into violence. Whether it’s Hezbollah, Zionist fundamentalists or Protestant fanatics in Northern Ireland, the collectivism of religion shoves the individual out of the way as it bulldozes rights and freedoms in the name of holy struggle on behalf of the faithful.

But, one might argue, isn’t political religion a conservative movement? Haven’t religious movements been loyal allies of the right? Indeed, Evangelicals were instrumental in Ronald Reagan’s victory and many conservatives and libertarians, including Ron Paul, come from devout religious backgrounds. However, many of these religious types are purely social conservatives. They have much less interest in reigning in government spending and reducing the power of the state than they do in preserving “family values,” which usually amounts to demands for prayer in public schools, teaching creation and abstinence, turfing out gays and banning porn and gambling, most of which is fairly antithetical to individual rights.

And of course, political religion has a very poor track record with other political movements. Consider the enthusiastic support of significant portions of the clergy and devout of the Catholic Church in Nazism and other European fascist movements.

It is clear, then, that political religion is a fundamental threat to individual liberties. Libertarians and others who claim to fight for individual liberty must not succumb to the temptation of enforcing God’s will. If we may assume God exists, and that God is good, let us conclude that God should want us to be happy as good parents wish for their children. As such, let us be happy, let us be free to please ourselves with God’s gifts. Let us be free, and reject all those who claim to speak for God and seek to impose their rules upon us.

Arts & Culture: Review of Fifty Shades of Grey

10 Feb

By Evan Zenobia

A meaningless setting. A cast of thoroughly unbelievable, unrelatable, one-dimensional characters. Add some poorly written dialogue and boring sex, and what do you get? The inexplicably popular jumble of words and paper that E.L. James has somehow managed to pass off as literature.

I’m referring, of course, to Fifty Shades of Grey, which I’ve spent the last two and half weeks subjecting myself to in tolerable doses. Now that I am finally done, I have no quandaries about calling it the worst book I have ever read. There are poorly written books that still contain good stories, or at least carry a good message. And there are well written books that may still follow a bad story arc. But Fifty Shades is poorly written and a bad story. It has literally n0 redeeming qualities.

The “plot,” if it can be fairly called that, revolves around utterly boring literature student/graduate Anastasia Steele and her “erotic” adventures with the mysterious and wildly handsome young billionaire Christian Grey. The motor that drives the dilapidated hull of a storyline along is fuelled by Steele’s trying to reconcile her sexual inexperience and romantic longing with Grey’s “kinky” sexual habits.

But really, for a 514 page erotic novel, I have never read anything so dull. And on top of the dullness, almost every aspect of the story is irritating.

Consider the setting. James sets her novel in Washington State, in the United States. Which is strange, considering that most of the characters speak as if they’re well-read 19th century British aristocrats, using words like “profligate” and “taciturn” in everyday conversation. Excepting, of course, Steele’s token Latino friend, José, who throws colloquial Spanish into his speech with the frequency of Speedy Gonzales.

Also irritating is that James has chosen to write her book in first-person present tense. That alone is not the problem. Chuck Palahniuk wrote Fight Club the same way. But in Fight Club, the protagonist is crazy and also represents a social critique. In Fifty Shades, the protagonist is an insufferable, stupid, and boring. As such, the audience is forced to endure every stupid and pretentious thought that comes into her mind, whether it’s expressing her distaste for rap music before a BDSM romp or this gem on page 28, “I feel the color in my cheeks rising again. I must be color of The Communist Manifesto.” (because, of course, Communist Manifesto is a shade of red you can find in any box of crayons or on paint swatches at Home Depot, and the Manifesto isn’t printed in black and white like every other book).

Meanwhile, the characters are almost all props leading up to the sex scenes, including Steele herself. Anastasia Steele apparently has three settings: blushing (sometimes the colour of communism), biting her lip (which arouses Grey), and drinking tea (again, mimicking the landed gentry of 19th century England). By her own admission, her favourite activity is reading old British novels by herself, and, at the age of 21, has never been drunk until Chapter 4 after finishing her final exams (newsflash to Steele: if you’re a literature student, and you’re not drunk until after your semester, you’re doing it wrong). She’s clumsy, and her hair never cooperates. Oh yes, and she’s a virgin.

Though this dull, sober virgin is pursued by José and her boss’s son, she is only attracted to the young, gorgeous billionaire with the personality of an anal-retentive Jack Donaghy/Gordon Gecko hybrid… only less interesting. Christian Grey is just a creepy guy. He’s arrogant. When Steele drunk dials him, he tracks her phone, drives to find her, holds her hair while she pukes, then drives her unconscious body to his hotel room where he tucks her into bed and removes her vomit-stained pants before sleeping (but not banging) her. Then he sends his personal assistant to buy her sexy underwear.

In what world is stalking, kidnapping, and partially undressing someone without their consent not creepy?

Oh, and speaking of consent. A huge part of Grey’s kink is that he doesn’t have sex without written consent. In fact, he’s got a pile of paperwork to sign before sex can begin. Now, personally, I can’t think of anything less arousing than paperwork. Filing taxes and writing incident reports never got my blood going. But for super virgin bookworm Anastasia Steele, it’s just the right thing. And even though Grey is an emotionally distant, creepy, stalker jerk, she is so desperate to be with him that she puts up with it all.

The only other character that needs mention is Steele’s beautiful blonde roommate, Katherine Kavanagh. She begins a deep relationship with Grey’s brother Elliot. What doesn’t make sense, however, is that she maintains it even as she develops a fierce hostility towards Christian Grey. The character is not at all developed, so her behaviour comes off as shallow and irrational.

Aside from all that, the book is just bad. The writing is awkward and clunky. James pretentiously jams her book full of obscure synonyms, obviously hoping it will make the story appear to be a fine work of literature rather than boring mommy porn. Meanwhile, she takes more than one occasion to remind the audience of the supremacy of the British, especially in terms of literature, and the unbearability of the French and others. While offensive, it fits in with the rest of the book’s undeserved pretentious snobbishness.

Further, the book appears longer than it actually is. A good chunk of the paper is wasted in blank space representing an excessively long chain of email correspondences between Steele and Grey. Apparently they never heard of texting.

I don’t want to spoil too much, so I’ll leave it at that. This is the worst book I have ever read. I can only award it negative stars.

Oh, and the sex is all really, really boring. You know you’re doing smut wrong when the actual smut of the pathetic filler you’ve cobbled together is actually less readable than the pathetic filler.

Michael Coren a Christian !?

25 Jan

By Evan Zenobia

OTTAWA—In the 20 December 2013 Arena feature “Justin a Catholic?”, Michael Coren and Sun News regular Jack Fonseca spent several minutes in righteous indignation over Justin Trudeau. Not over his policies or his positions, but because the Liberal leadership candidate has the nerve to call himself Catholic.

Imagining themselves to be senior clergymen, the two effectively excommunicated Trudeau from the Roman Catholic Church. Even though Trudeau was born to two Catholic parents, was married in a Catholic Church and never publicly converted to any other faith, Coren tells the audience that Trudeau is not a Catholic; worse he is a heretic.

Coren, of course, is lying.

Which really begs the question: is Michael Coren a Christian?

It’s not that anyone should really care. But if Coren wants to lower the bar past redneck speculation that Barack Obama is secret Muslim to the point where it is apparently legitimate to label political opponents heretics, I figure Eclipse News ought to take a stab at sixteenth-century-style religious paranoia.

See, Coren and Fonseca declare that Trudeau’s positions on social issues make him unfit to speak to audiences of Catholic School students. In particular, Trudeau’s advocacy for a woman’s right to choose is tantamount to violation of “thou shall not kill.”

But then, Coren works on Sun News, where he is constantly breaking that whole Biblical rule against LYING. A hobby he shares with most Sun News regulars, including Fonseca.

Then, of course, there’s the station’s hypocrisy, by which they bill themselves as champions of free speech, but then use Trudeau’s supposed religious impiety as an excuse to repress his.

So really, it would appear that Michael Coren is not, by his own definition, a Christian.

In Defence of “Happy Holidays”

21 Dec

By Evan Zenobia

OTTAWA – It’s December. The season when the snow begins to fall, traffic begins to slow, and students consume record amounts of energy drinks as they cram for exams before consuming record amounts of alcohol to celebrate their completion.

But on a happier note, it’s a season of celebration! Of decorations, gift exchanges, lights, and charity. Of egg nog, parties, family reunions and parades. Love, peace on earth, and goodwill towards men and women! It’s the holiday season!

But in spite of the joy the holidays are supposed to bring, it only whips up rage chez les conservateurs. Nothing boils a conservative’s blood more than two simple words: happy holidays.

To the ears of the right-wing traditionalist champion of family values, the cheer “happy holidays” is the battle cry of the politically correct Jesus-hating soldiers of the secularist “War on Christmas.” Anything short of the explicitly Christian “Merry Christmas” is an attack on the heritage, nay, the rights of Canada’s Christians, long the victims of a sinister agenda to marginalize them by treating them with the same respect as members of other faiths.

But of course, happy holidays is a completely harmless, and indeed the most sensitive and appropriate expression of goodwill this season.

In the first place, “happy holidays” does not express any hostility to Christians or Christianity. It doesn’t attack the Christmas spirit. So there is no problem with using it.

But not everybody in Canada celebrates Christmas. Many celebrate Chanukah. Others celebrate Kwanza. Some celebrate the Winter Solstice or Yuletide. And there are many many others.

Does it explicitly harm a non-Christian to say “Merry Christmas.” Well, no. But I don’t feel comfortable reminding the minorities who don’t celebrate Christmas of their minority status, especially in a time of year that stresses harmony and peace.

And of course, the state has no business using the taxes of Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Pagan, Atheist and other non-Christians to promote celebrations of Christian ritual.

So, happy holidays to all! Happy holidays, happy holidays, happy holidays, happy holidays. Peace on Earth sisters and brothers!

Mass murder means we need gun control

15 Dec

By Evan Zenobia

OTTAWA – A mass shooting has taken the lives of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown Connecticut. This atrocity can only be described as a tragedy, and no matter how conservative psychopaths try to pin this on God’s absence from schools and a lack of guns, those with an iota of common sense fully understand that the time has long since passed to comprehensively tackle the threat guns pose to the safety of the people.
Eclipse News wants to contribute to the discussion. So we are outlining for you some simple arguments against gun proliferation and some counterpoints to what conservatives and libertarian Sun fans try to pass off as arguments.

If everyone had a gun, these tragedies would be prevented and minimized

This argument for gun “rights” typically insists upon the persuasive power of widespread gun possession; that is, if everyone has a gun, would-be shooters will be too afraid to go on rampages for fear of being shot. It then follows that more responsible gun-holding members of society would then stop anyone who did attempt to shoot something up.

This only works in a world in which absolutely nobody has any mental health problems. A gun-toting maniac generally doesn’t care if he gets shot, and probably often enough doesn’t imagine he would be.

And widespread gun possession can hardly be considered an effective gun-violence deterrent. If it was, Somalia, Northern Ireland and Colombia would be the most peaceful places on Earth.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people

Right. Guns do not walk around of their own accord shooting people. But guns have no other function than killing. They are weapons designed to launch projectiles to cut through flesh and bone at high speeds. Simply enough, without a gun, it is impossible for shootings to happen

It’s in the Constitution

Gun enthusiasts typically cite the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution in defence of their position.

They rarely actually cite the entire text of the Amendment, since it does not accord Americans the right to carry guns without any control or regulation.
“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”

Notice that the Amendment conditions the right to bear arms upon a “well regulated Militia.” A militia is an amateur makeshift military force raised from the civilian population to aid the professional armed forces in emergencies, and it is controlled by the state to a “well regulated” degree. That means that when Chief Pontiac and the Odawa Nation attack Detroit, the people can use their guns to defend themselves, completely relevant today. It has nothing to do with any yahoo picking up an assault rifle beside the nail salon after buying a 12 pack at the gas station

It’s also worth noting that when the Second Amendment was written, the vast majority of the population was rural, and farm life made gun possession necessary for chasing off wolves and vermin. Back then there was also no police force in the countryside, so you were on your own when it came to bandits.

Lastly, in the late 1700s guns shot one bullet ball at a time, were highly inaccurate, and took a very long time to reload. A would-be shooter would be lucky to kill one person with his gun before being apprehended.

Switzerland has widespread gun possession and a low crime rate

Yes, but Switzerland also has mandatory universal conscription. That means everybody has military training and knows how to use guns responsibly; likewise, people with mental problems are screened out and thus have less access to these weapons.

This is not the case in the US, where any undisciplined yahoo or drunk can get his hands on a weapon.

We need guns to protect us from the tyranny of the government

That’s right. Your collection of glocks is going to protect your from squads of highly-trained military professionals. Good luck with that.


Eclipse News would just like to note that the heroes of this tragedy were not gun-enthusiasts. The people who saved lives were brave public school teachers, the same people Sun News loves to bash.


The Maple Rag

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics, it doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you." ~Pericles

mikailus photography

Just another WordPress photoblog (viewer discretion advised)