Public Enemy #1

Remember this: When money is exchanged, is there really ownership?

Hypocrisy is becoming the epitaph of everything. We are drowned down in it. Even I am poetically hypercritical and hypocritical. I beg the Universe’s pardon, being a mere hooman.

I was reading this article on Range 365. Yes, the shunned do read other people’s fodder.  It was the article entitled, “World War II Vet Forced to Permanently Disable His Rifle” written by Daivd Maccar.

No, this is not going to be regurgitation of that content.

This is my observations on this unsightly event.

The gun has become public enemy #1.

My first concern was: The way in which governments and people treat war veterans.

This story about a United Kingdom Scotsman, that fought for not his country (Scotland), but Britain, had to hammer a bullet into his sniper rifle and fill it with weld metal, was a shame and blight on the United Kingdom.

How do you render a fellow veteran, who fought for your country to tears? Then incite him to do it to his property?

It appears that individual ownership of one’s own purchased property is merely a mirage of the government owning everything, even you. It is not bad enough that people have to pay taxes, which is looking more like a rent fee, but to be bullied into action based on someone else’s decision on what should be done to that item.

The next time someone signs up for war, maybe they should think about that. Oh wait, I forgot about the draft, that thing they do to eighteen-year-old boys against their otherwise free will.

This breeds anti-government sentiment by the government's own hand, and if insult is not enough for the injury, having the constituents bring about that ship agreeing to legislation; legislation that is going to be the slap of the constituents’ collective hand. Veterans have enough to worry about with impending war and fighting, seeing their ranks beheaded or attacked, poor health care, poverty, displacement, and just straight out shitty treatment. When regular joes have to start up non-profits to provide for war-torn veterans on their own, that illustrates the discrepancy. People are supposed to live life, not be incarcerated by its fear-based laws generated to control ineffectively the ones doing the law breaking.

Shame on you, United Kingdom. Shame on you for stealing your constituents’ liberty, cultural heritage, freedom and incarcerating them like little kids that can’t be trusted with a butter knife. With the threat of a rising extremist group, why would you not let them have the right to defend themselves? No one is able at the moment to stop that blight spreading.

Leaving the subject for a moment, I bid the question: Why is no one telling these people that are running from their country (Syria) to turn around and fight for what is theirs? Countries are taking on more people they will have to defend, that will not even defend themselves, or what is rightfully their homeland.

When you look at refugees from Syria, is that what it looks like when people get to the point they are disenfranchised and not able to protect themselves?

You can only run for so long. Eventually, you have to face the Monster chasing you. Countries can’t always be other countries Saviors, if countries-in-dire-straits are unwilling to even help protect each other.

I believe we should give asylum to displaced people, but also have that hard conversation with them about fighting for their life against evil. If they run from everything, wanting everyone else to fight their battle, they will never learn. That bad attitude could be applied to other issues like saving the planet, human rights, etc.

The behavior has to change, or it continues. I think of domestic abuse here, typical dysfunction.

Back on topic.

My second concern is: The way in which you take money and purchase property. As a consumer, you have no true ownership of the object, idea, or other.

When a person goes to a store and purchases an item, that person is under the assumption that object is their sole property. If a consumer purchases a gun, bullets, and a G-string for the wife, that consumer expects that money exchange to illustrate the age-old idea of trading money for goods. That gun, bullet, or G-string is now theirs. When the government shows up and says, “Hand over the G-string”, the consumer realizes the G-string was never theirs, but on loan.  Every purchase you have made up to this point that is still in your possession is not really yours. It is a loaner. Yet, there are laws stating someone can’t just come up and take your property if you can prove it is yours.

The same goes for land. Can someone show up and take your ancestral land? Did no one learn from the land grab imposed on the First Nations?

If you have a horse on your property, and a random stranger shows up proclaiming it theirs, either you or the person making the claim has to prove ownership through a bill-of-sale. Just on this principle, handing over your right to your property, because someone made a law, is not the way to handle that issue.

The issue might be: Ownership versus Non-Ownership’s implication at Ownership. Think about that.

Governmental officials can come take your kids, your house, your animals, and anything else they might have a need for. If they need so much land to widen a road. They are going to get it and give you a reimbursement. You fight that, they will take it but you won’t get any reimbursement.

As a human, do you really own anything? Or is that just a veil over your eyes you see when you look in the mirror?

Think about the American fight to keep public lands public. You would think the term “public lands” implies public throughout generations, but this is not so, or so it seems.

My third concern is: When a person not in possession of, what is clearly a cultural heritage object, can destroy that object with no thought of the damage to the owner, the culture, or its progeny as inheritors of Cultural Story, History, or ownership of who, what, or where they came from.

The Scotsman's gun had value, meaning, story, and Providence; culturally, ancestrally, and personally. 

When we observe the fight externally in the First Nations community for the need to protect cultural heritage objects such as effigy masks, historical beading practices and design, imagery negatively indicative to the identity of what it is to be First Nations, and the same could apply to this Scotsman and his gun. First Nations do have the genetic pen dipped in the Scottish world, even if it is begrudgingly. The act of taking an object of Providence and destroying it is against a law somewhere, out there.  That sniper rifle had history, it was in his possession, and it was forcibly destroyed by coercion from officials. The Scotsman has been emotionally damaged as well as denied his cultural and personal heritage. Any relative that is living or not yet born has been stringently denied their heritage. It is heritage genocide, as illustrated and still in practice it seems around the world.

People see guns as a bad thing, used by bad people, for bad acts. Other people, in the majority, see guns as memories passed down from their ancestors that are just as relevant as any other object that has meaning. Certain guns, have stories of fighting against the wrongs in the world. This fighting occurred when people not able to use words or compromised to peace came to a bad end. People using guns kept people safe until diplomacy won the day. Once the cultural heritage object is gone, it has no meaning or existence other than what use to be.

My faceless strangers, this is an affront to being a human being. What will be done to that lone Scotsman, will be done to you eventually if you stand there and take it.

My forth concern: The present endeavors to destroy history, any kind of history, without a proper investigation or reintroduction to the masses of corrected history; not a history germinated to line the pockets of people or pull a domination move on groups of people.

Everywhere you look domestic and foreign groups are literally tearing down archaic ancestors’ history. When you consider this, no one, and no place is safe against this onslaught. All those eons of years ago, our ancestors are being rubbed out like something to be ashamed of because a living human said so. If it is an article of shame, tear it down. Not that the object isn’t a memorial to what we were but chose not to be. People want to wash away things but it looks more and more like they are becoming the thing they wish to eliminate. I deduce it down to control. People are smart. You control the content, you control the people. The only problem with that is: If the person running the content is doing the manipulation for ill or selfish gains, the people will suffer. God help you, if they realize what you are pulling. The backlash is gonna hurt.

My fifth concern: Taking away people’s rights, any kind of right, in a hypocritical way that is going with the negative that only shows back up in another form.

Being contrary has its downfalls. When you tell constituents they have a right, but then imply they do not, that is contrary. Your argument for the right is argued loosely or stringently by a law, constituents will see the coercion in your words and behavior. You will appear much like a false prophet. 

Once leadership loses trust, the ship begins to sink, or they make you walk the plank. If government tells constituents, with aged documents, they have a right to bear arms, then try to turn the dialogue and interpretation away from the meaning or the words, problems will ensue. If you tell a country this is the constituents’ country, and a collective group of hired individuals start acting like a dictatorship, who knows best on every angle, losing the path that their decisions are for the country and not their personal gain, there is going to be a clash.

Of course, if you are a foreign or domestic entity with the knowledge of how to break down a society you compete with power for, using the government and its people, and usurping the outcome in your favor, could be a concern for people that see that coming a mile away. 

No conspiracy theories here, right?  

The problem starts with distrust. Distrust comes from faulty words or questionable behavior. Decisions that end from being told one thing, but doing another, and then saying, “Oh, but you misunderstood me” is deception.

My sixth concern: Marring and destroying of cultural heritage objects.

How often do we see news of archeological sites being plundered by individuals, foreign and domestic? I was reading one article stating the robbing of sacred sites of North American tribes for skulls and other parts. When these sites and antiquated objects are stolen, destroyed or marred, people are deeply saddened by the truth of disregard, lack of reverence for ancestors, and the evil of the human mind and heart. Because we do not dig a cultural heritage object out of the ground makes it no more important that the one in the dirt.

When tomb robbers steal things, we impose fines and/or jail time. Who is going to impose fines or jail/time on the United Kingdom officials or their laws that have robbed and taken something that has an altered meaning/value. Now the gun is representative of ancestral, cultural, and heritage theft, once again, by a country on its inhabitants.

My seventh concern: Having to register your property, for governmental discovery and control, then having to have what you thought was your property handed over to a non-owner for their disposal.

When you register an object you think you own with a governmental agency for tax-paying purpose, you expect to just pay taxes. It is not to be kept on lists for future destruction of an object you worked forty plus hours a week for thinking it was yours.

I digress to First Nations history. These tribes have always had to file for Federal recognition, and being carded to protect that tribe’s right at recognition or membership, ownership, privileges and monetary contributions from government. 

When you consider the idea of a gun grab, you could see why people should be concerned. First Nation tribes have always experienced this in some form or fashion. Now non-tribal people get to see what it feels like when the shoe is on the other foot, albeit that shoe could affect First Nations as well.  This is the same thing as the gun issue, except it has been on-going with First Nation tribal membership documentation. Is it to protect or to monitor? Think about it. It is literally being done to humans; lists of people for monitoring.

I am not being anti-government. Sometimes during elections, we hire bad employees. These bad employees are supposed to be working for the people. These employees get into the idea that they are little dictators that hide behind the fact they have a position, where their bad judgments are not accountable to the people who hire them through the vote. These bad hires do not even care if they go down in history as bad leaders. Yet we let them stay in office?

Why?

If the government can use a law to incite you to take your property, you have the right to use that very same law and fire them. In the United States, the government is for the people, not the office holders. They are our employees, not our little dictators.

When you see this kind of activity, it is the fear by government that their constituents are getting out of their control.

                                                         

In light of this travesty, I implore the United Kingdom to apologize publically to this Scotsman for coerced destruction of his cultural heritage and undo what has been done to his gun and his mental health.

You have got to give First Nations one thing. They fight for every little thing that is within their cosmos, when they shouldn’t have to. They don’t run. Think of all those years of displacement, broken trust, lies, coercion, losing parts of your cultural and ancestral heritage, and then no by your leave on the parts of the ones doing the abuse or coercion. 

You, my constituent, should be doing the same thing. It is not the object of the gun. It is the idea of the right to....own a gun, life, liberty, etc. It is not so much the gun. The gun is the diverted focus from the real problem of losing the right or the privilege. If it is a privilege, this could imply deceptive ownership because you are being allowed. 

On the other hand, how hurtful is it to tell and old man, "You are too feeble and obsolete to own a weapon." I think they are doing a Right to Die thing somewhere. That would push someone to end themselves. It is another shame how we treat the older generation like they are in the way of the younger people living their lives. Those old people have past knowledge. Don't disrespect them. 

Think about that before handing something that is truly yours, over.

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore