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

The Hunting Liberalist

Remember this: To stay in one attitude for long is stifling.

Disclaimer: Read before you get your panties in a wad.

I never thought much of myself in the political arena. All the candidates seem lacking when I was at the ready to vote. I see members on social media that disdain a Liberalist. I wonder if they know what it truly means. Chumming the water with blood drives people crazy on the internet. Is it just another one of those Edward Cullen versus Jacob moments, where the onlooker has to pick a side for team somebody?

I thought of what it was to be a hunting Liberalist. I tried to fixate on the need by non-liberalist people to rigidly slot Liberalists into a tight definition. It doesn’t seem to matter. The argument is all about not finding solutions, more debates, who wins debates, and how rigidly we can hold people’s ideals and stances up to say, “Look here. You are drawing outside the lines again. That is not allowed.” I say open that box of crayons and gobble them down.

Progress does need order but progress also needs those people willing to move past a problem into a solution. Stagnation and failure to act will incite more suffering. When you have a vast population with varying opinions, the greater good has to prevail. When I state this, it is in the context of what is the core of the problem. Two issues of concern are the wording of sacred text and gun control.

Enter in: Bill Maher, Affleck, and the band of merry political argumentists.

I was watching the episode with Bill Maher and the Ben Affleck shenanigans. One of the questions or statements posed, if I am correct, was based around Liberalist inability to rectify a liberal's belief in freedom of religion when applied to an outside religion's sacred text. This sacred text incites murderous intent against a non-believe, which leads to death.

Then followers of said sacred text impose religious doctrine on a non-believe, as if the non-believe were a member of said religion yet didn’t know it. Thus giving followers religious right to judge, condemn, and murder a human being for breaking their religious doctrine. A religious doctrine said victim or non-believer is not interred into.

Using a sacred text given to you by a higher power, to bring order out of chaos and raise humanity up to commune with a God is found at the end of a knife. The hand wielding that knife kills for the justification of the Word. Purists, indeed.

I thought about Liberalism.

Liberalism is a political philosophy founded on the idea of liberty and equality. Liberals support ideas such as civil rights, freedom of press, free trade and freedom of religion. These are concepts writ in the Constitution.

Each man has a natural right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. I say here that when you buy a gun it is considered property. I have a right to my guns. Then there is the second amendment, which politicians and others want to re-interpret for their subsequent agendas.

The problem I believed Maher was pointing out was: in Liberalism, from an American standpoint, is that certain religions have sacred text stating the sanction of murder against another human being, follower or no, yet to be liberal is to support a religious groups right to hold sacred text as a justification to murder another. This stance is as literal as the purist idea of the Koran’s to kill people based on the word. There exists no other interpretation except the rigid boundaries of what is literally put forth.

I was watching the 700 Club. The commentator was stating his case against Islam and the sanctioned persecution, torture, and murder of Christians. I previously was doing a treatise on something from the bible and found this:

Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

The commentator was judging Islam for radical wordage and literal interpretation from a purist standpoint yet the sacred text used by this particular group states pretty much the same thing. The commentator seemed to be excusing the passive nature of the Christian application of dealing with the same wordage.

Here I illustrate how I can pick apart the literal information of Islam and Christianity much like Conservatives pick apart Liberalist thinking. “Quid pro Quo, Clarice.”

First one would need to acknowledge this situation exists. Any Christian can turn purist or extremist with the right rotten attitude.

If this were removed from the sacred text landscape, anyone taught such a thing would not have to bear the burden of hate, shame, or discrimination. I would think this would be showing love and compassion to someone that could enter into a heaven, if that is what you so believe. As a Christian or a believer in Allah, you have fulfilled a tenant of alleviating suffering instead of inflicting it. Love and forgiveness is the basis of religious doctrines. People ignore this.

I must admit here when I was on a googling rampage, this little ditty had 22 parallel versions of the same biblical quote. The bible has already been revised several times. Maybe we should rethink that murder-mayhem clause. I guess one could argue that to change one scripture or two would be blasphemous. Looks like it has made the rounds already.

The point I would make here is this:

There is nothing in Liberalism as a rigid doctrine that states a liberalist's has to embrace another's right to religious freedom, if that religion goes against your moral and ethical code by sanctioning religious murder. You can acknowledge the content of that religion but not support flawed doctrine. There is nothing wrong with stating your boundaries on what you will and will not support. If the group understands their behavior is causing harm and will not be tolerated, is to acknowledge their position in the global community. Nations need to grow up and put childish things aside, as does its people.

The offending religion can carry about its doctrines, either extreme or non-extreme but without the support of Liberalist thinking. At Liberalism's core there should be an inalienable right to protect your personal morals and ethics in the presence of another's view that is greatly flawed. There should also be the option of intervening on the part of a group or individual who is at the end of the knife.

There is the responsibility to not profile or stereotype followers of the sacred text in question. The glaring truth is: sacred text wording sanctions murder. To resolve this you would have to alter the sacred text. As a progressive society, not weighed down by conservative thought where religious doctrine is concerned, could look at this as a moment of trial. Does the creator, who gave humans free will, want sacred word used as a murder weapon? Does this make sense when paralleled with the mantra Thou Shall Not Kill? Is the trial really the Creator testing the follower with a choice? What weighs more for damnation, murder or being conscious of the Word? If you truly understand the sacred word, it is not the literal translation but the test.

I digress to Abraham offering his son Isaac up as a sacrifice. He could murder his son for God but no. He had a choice. He didn’t have to kill anyone. All he had to do was decide not to murder his son and find a better way; a better way being the main point here. You have choice. You can choose not to murder someone because of the sacred word. Neither God nor Allah wants his creations murdered in their name. To kill is to fail the spiritual test and God-Allah is known for his tests. You court damnation when you condemn another man.

Liberalism can be a forward thinking platform to politics and not rigidly tied to outdated dogmas. Liberalism should be an avenue to look at a problem, see where the weak spot is and plug the hole, not embrace every stupid thing in the name of freedom when it cast death on innocent people. Liberalism should also venture to be a revolving and alternating problem-solver that tries new things and moves society to a more efficient place while cause as little harm as possible. The founding fathers were liberal. The indigent people who supplied them with the ideas were probably liberal as well. The world will always change. People don’t want change because their idea of security is threatened. Things can only stay in one climate for so long, given the influences on it.

I don't consider myself a Liberal but when you apply the political definition I could be. I considered the argument for and against gun control, which is a hot mix of controversy in itself. I also reflected on my personal opinion. I have seen the online works of both sides. I wanted to take my time and look around to see where the solutions were, if any.

When I was thinking on gun control, I believe the issue is not the gun. Anything can be made into a weapon, as the truth goes. If someone wants to kill you they can find all kind of interesting ways to do it. I think of the board game Clue and Edward Gorey’s illustrations based on alphabets, people in cemeteries, and murderers hiding behind vases with assorted weapons. A good assassin could take you out with a paper clip if they wanted to.

I considered the school shootings.

Each one of these shooting incidents occurred because of the mental state of the person(s) doing the act.

Several problems present themselves here. The first problem is buying a gun with no requirement for a mental evaluation. The second problem is profiling to determine who might look like a mental risk and who does not. Third, the mental evaluation could be seen as incriminating, discriminatory, and could be considered private medical information in need of a subpoena. Fourth, when the purchased gun leaves with the owner it can end up in the hands of anyone. We go on the assumption the purchaser is using the gun solely for their purposes. I could go on.

I believe the core problem is anchored in society’s behavior to their fellow man, how we raise our children, the attitudes we pass on, the isolation, discrimination, exclusion, suppression, anger, resentment, suffering, and indifference to the infliction of pain while telling people to suck it up, hide their abuse, hide their feelings, not seek help, and be labeled a basket case or pariah because no one noticed when they start acting out or gave warning signs. The stigma with being honest about feeling cut off from society as a whole or even on the individual level can be deafening to some. As a society, we have been taught not to get involved, turn our backs, or look the other way. We stand and watch people burn all the time. We do nothing, feel like our hand are tied, and watch people die on a video. Somewhere in there we become addicted to the effect of a global violence. Society likes the feeling. People like being in each others faces raging with words, pushing, shoving, and getting nowhere. We stay in that bad relationship hoping one day it will get better but it never does as a whole, only in bits and pieces, here and there. It’s a form of suicide that never fulfills itself. Control and not being able to control vomits up wrath and war.

School can be a place filled with isolation for students. Things I saw were keeping up with the Jones, bad home training of students or lack thereof, not having proper counselors available to student when problems arose, teachers playing favorites, absentee parents due to work, and a form of communism. We’ve all been there with school cliques. You have the Goths, the Emo, the Plastics, the Yuppies, the Creatives, the Troublemakers, and God love the Nerd. These teenage groups can be as vicious as any animal out in the wild that can drag down a wildebeest. If there is a weak one in the herd, they identify that teenager then make its life miserable. I move on from bullying because it's torture.

Once this tortured mind starts to resent the treatment, especially when the teenager sees other people are immune to its infection, can devise all kinds of ways for retribution and revenge. Parents are so busy making a living they don’t introduce their children to consequences until rules are broken then the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Children and teenagers are ignored because parents are too preoccupied with more important things.

Society doesn’t spend enough time psychologically nurturing children. This is left to parents who are at work for eight to twelve hours a day while the child is at school for eight hours.

There is no class that I know of in my son’s old school that teaches children how to deal with their issues by questioning the thought behind the emotion, challenging ideas which are just thoughts, nothing more, how to counteract the thought before it turns rancid, and re-establishing better ways to perceive and approach problems, feelings, or actions.

I say school here because if parents aren’t conscious of this teaching technique they are passing bad habits to their progeny. Worse yet, the parent may be in denial or resentful of the need to have better mental health.

People do use religious mores to teach each other but that is not always required. The biggest problem with people is they don’t know what to do, who to go to, or how to handle things. Once you have all this pressure on you, the cup runneth over.

Life has become about the debate, not solution options. It’s more important to chew the fat.

The world has not had a holy man or high profile prophet in a long time other than the Dali Lama. There is no new voice to say to the world, this sacred text needs editing. If such a person existed, that person would probably be stones or killed. I guess the Creator has to come up with a more subtle, creative way to get the point across.

There are thing I am sure of. A Cosmic Creator, human angels, and the cumulative voice of billions of people telling the ears of the world to change, to rethink their consciousness, and realize things are getting out of hand. If you want a prophet, those voices could be considered the Word of the Creator because of the magnitude. This is the singular voice from plural sources crying out against great wrongs. Listen to them for they shall not steer you wrong.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Cyber-bullying; A Hunting Task Force.

Remember this: Commend those that look for solutions to problems. Be wary of those that instigate their own problem then act like the victim.

I was reading a post on Google plus. The post stated the U. S. Sportsmen Alliance met on 23 July 2014 to discuss acts of cyber-attacks towards outdoor sports participants by creating a Hunter Advancement Task Force to address these issues. My first thoughtful question: Was this the SWAT of hunting or what? I looked at the list of people. It was a who’s who of important people in the outdoor sports industry; so much for the little man. No money, no opinion. 

I did look for a detailed transcript of these talks to see what exactly was on the menu, as far as meat and taters. Nothing but vagaries. I felt this posting was publicity for the appearance of doing something, when in fact it was a loose interpretation of, what appeared to be, looking for solutions to cyber-bullying against the average hunter, when it fact it is for specialty groups or high profile individuals.

I commend this group for finally admitting a hunter-generated problem existed and needed some address. After reading this, I recognized the common theme penned of shared targeting by animal rights activists or people on the internet that didn’t like seeing dead animal pictures.

This task force group started to read like an initial coalition formed for the self-serving purposes of protecting high profile members and entities such as non-profits and foundations based around outdoor sports that were more important than the rest of us; not the little man. People like me that can’t afford membership fees, with no status or connections, do not seem to be invited to that party. Yet the question loomed. Exactly who is this supposed to benefit again?

I did see the wordage of ‘the average hunter’. The wording was to indicate average hunters are not of importance to animal activists because we are a bunch of little nobodies. It seemed slightly dismissive. The argument for hunting is hunter money makes the world go around. There is a sense of exclusion when certain things don’t serve specific purposes. Am I lead to believe that only television personalities, CEOs, non-profits and other entities are more important than the rest of us because they put themselves on display in the public more often? Is this really a small group of people trying to figure out how to protect their interests as industry elite, while publicizing this information as an attempt toward protecting all hunters? Good question.

The possible issue making birth is a governing body made of industry entities and people, pushing their agenda like lobbyists on capital hill, settling on a course of action for self-serving reason while dictating to excluded portions of outdoorsmen to form policies or procedures without including the average hunter. Then dictating how judgments will be doled out, to whom, why, and what constitutes speaking against hunters.

I see nothing wrong with protecting participants of the outdoor sports. What happens when these exclusive groups turn on the average hunter to squelch any kind of dialogue that goes contrary to their dictated storyline? I have been attacked by hunters before and it does happen. They don’t like what you say because there is some weight to your words that can’t be denied. Instead of taking your suggestion in as pertinent information to be regarded for problem-solving, you are instead referred to as a trouble source that must be ignored, made into a social pariah, or de-characterized within a social group and excluded.

I also thought of the key players in this little canto. I had followed Bachman and Waller on social media for a long time. Neither was my flavor of person but I wanted to keep abreast of folks in the industry. What I gathered from watching them and seeing how they or whoever was posting for each carried themselves was this: Negative actions should bear the weight of bad behavior. Bachman garnered more attention because of its inflammatory nature.

After so many posts, you begin to see people getting on the band wagon of advertising their abuse by anti-hunters. Some probably went as far as to find someone to fight with to make their promotion of this idea valid. There is nothing like bad press. It puts you right in the limelight. Look to Hollywood for examples.

If you are doing things to make your condition worse, how can anyone like that be included in a brightest minds meeting? The root of the problem is behavior. Yes, Bachman and Waller should be included in cleaning up the mess of their own making, as does anyone else. There should also be some degree, on their part, of admitting to antagonizing the situation for the promotion of their television personas. There are also male hunters that act the same way. So this is not strictly a female issue.

There is a growing trend to prostrate women out as shields. Shields are the protective armor from the attack of arrows and slings, etc. The shield takes all the punishment while the person or issue hiding behind it is kept from harm. Eventually the shield is broken, dropped, or tossed aside once the battle is over. If it is a sturdy shield then it may be used again and again until demolished. By pushing women out into the fray is to compound a terrible situation and make it escalate into something far uglier; which it already has turned into. Women have been perceived in the past as weaker and easier to beat down. If you were not weak then you were mistreated because no one could manage you and beating the crap out of you didn’t work.  

The other problem I see is the possibility of a Monsanto of Hunting. Monsanto has been documented to take drastic action against farmers that are opposed to the way Monsanto goes about doing their business. 

When a group tries to monopolize information, control meaningful content from their perspective only, and as a publicity release to clean up messes, then turn around an issue educational information control by them is disturbing. Now you are being sat down like a three-year-old that needs to be explained the potty because you are clueless. The more educated person with status and power must guide you over the cliff of their choosing. This harkens to the educated elite controlling the poor stupid casts who trust they are being lead to prosperity, when it is only a life of indenture to support their cause.  

How best to educate the public? Thanks for taking it upon yourselves to determine that for hunting participants. Undoubtedly, we can’t find that information, translate and interpret the facts ourselves. If I want education about my hunting, I go straight to the SCDNR. They govern my hunting license, write the tickets, and dictate my actions when out in the field. I don’t go to anyone else.

As an example of how I would deal with cyber-bullying when it comes to hunting is this: I can attest that I had some people using a fake profile on google plus in my early use. I use a faux name because there are people that seem to find it an enjoyment to stalk me in the past. They were also on my Facebook page. When this group began to disturb my calm, I realized early they were not who they said they were. I investigated the name then called the local sheriff’s department in that area. I found out the persons on the internet were frauds with harmful intent.  I was then told to fill out a complaint at my local sheriff’s department and provide all the information to investigate these people, even though the profile said they were less than four hours away in the same state. Now if someone makes a profile with a pen name, then bothers no one while minding their business or cause harm, I don’t care about those. As an average hunting participant, this is what I must do. Turn it in to the cops. There will be no task force or governing body to intervene on my behalf. I am naked an on my own but I am not afraid.

I read how this task force would attempt civil and criminal action against harassing non-hunting participants. When you think of the number of people online that get cyber-bullied over hunting, it could be financially overwhelming. There is no feasible way to pay a lawyer for that many people. Shorting my field of view, my eye went back to special individuals or groups.

I thought, what could be the short term goals? Putting a cap on imminent threats to industry elite so they can continue their cycle of livelihood and public profiles, unmolested came to mind. Another short reaching goal is to advertise the initiation of a task force to put fear in the minds of people who are vehemently against hunting to see if they back off. This is a form of false posturing.

Long term goals would be to lobby legislation against non-hunting participants who use the tactic of cyber-bullying to threaten people as a form of localized terrorism.

Reader beware, the animal activist machine will shadow this with their own form of task force. The road runs both ways. If a hunter gets on the internet and harasses a non-hunting participant because they feel protected under the wing of a task force against hunting cyber-bullying, don’t think you can’t get nailed if you instigate a fight. Evidence is evidence.

When it comes to controlling and monitoring individuals on the internet, this is an expedition to a place called Failure, to some extent. Entities such as Facebook and Google are not under the thumb of the outdoor establishment. They are only policed and sanctioned by their self-serving interests from within.

If I weren’t a thinking person, I would have read this and said, “Yeah! Great, someone is doing something.” When you break it down and mark your questions in the margins, you become quickly skeptical about the content and what it truly means long term and who it applies to. When it doesn’t apply to you in the collective, it’s pretty much another empty proposition.

People are too busy being reactionary and not thinking through things they read, see, or hear. We put all our trust into federations, foundations, non-profits and government to deal with our problems. They are problems of our making because of our behavior. We pass our decision-making abilities off on other people, then try to hold them responsible when things don’t work out. We stand idly by while people form groups to make decisions without including a larger portion of the group which gives them monopoly. There are too many people in positions of power that lack common sense when sensible people who are poor get locked out then suffer for it.

In my early blogs, when I wrote that hunting needed reform stands true just as the source I got it from stated. When I wrote about people getting threatened to the point of murder, the machine is driving it in that direction because of the activists showing up at Bachman’s door. When I wrote about the blurry face of hunting, it meant all hunters, not just outdoor industry teacher’s pets. When I wrote about abuse, it was the female hunters who have online strangers trying to molest them. This also went to the behaviors of both sides of the fence acting less than civil. My blog started looking like a self-fulfilling prophecy. When I see posts that indicate a divergence from my storyline, I think for a moment that there might be some positive change. I read, digested, and realized no such luck.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth (a.k.a) the woman with no pot to piss in and no window to throw it out of.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~