What can we do about the firearms check failure

Those who need to stop "drinking the (MSM) Kool aid", move out of the echo chamber etc can't or won't because the MSM is their emotional (confirmation) touch stone that they are part of something greater than themselves.

The media is a business to sell advertising. To do that they supply what the public wants (so long as it meets with their paying client's [business' interests]).

They have discovered pandering to the emotions is more effective (successful/profitable).

There is no commercial way that news rooms full of university communication grads would be *allowed* (by their employer) to sacrifice easy, cheap profit for a truth that would threaten their profitable target clients.

The consumer's contribution to their bottom line is the same as a tethered goat to a gristly bear hunter… trivial.

In reality the journalists’ role, in MSM, is that of the sheep dog to round up the sheep (the great unwashed consumer) for the farmer (MSM). Like all (always business men) graziers (sheep farmers) they are looking for cheaper production methods in order to make more profit when selling their sheep to the manufacturers ( to be fleeced or butchered in the name of profit). Telling the MSM to consider the welfare of the people would be as productive as an animal rights activist telling a glazier to build a music room for sheep to “chill out in”.

 BTW graziers have Fire arms and not noted for their ‘progressive attitudes’!

The real question to me is how to better meet the emotional needs of the “sheep” so as to better help the flock as a whole?

As Chomsky says (in the minds of the “sheep”) they have genuine (REAL) concerns” and yelling at or belittling them will only make them more agitated, frightened, defensive… achieve nothing positive.

In my mind the 75% public who say they  want to pass closing loop holes in Fire arm checks were given the vehicle and really had the will, could sink the gun lobby’s obstructionist campaign.

 Keep in mind to businesses (despite their rhetoric), it is a business decision i.e. cost benefit/ decision.

I'm proposing that the public, say with Congressional members support and other groups (Like PTAs, victims support groups, mother’s clubs etc)   start “an independent, single interest, *temporary*  group, to raise money to OFF SET only the lobby’s attack on incumbent congressional members’ seats (either party) it would be a game changer.

  IMPORTANT: the group must have a sunset clause in it’s constitution to stop it becoming anything else or going beyond it’s mandate. This would head off counter claims of being a front for the left 

This would de party politicize the issue;

Sharpen the Grass roots Public V Business nature of the issue;

*Raise the cost of opposition further marginalizes benefit to the fire arm checks* (Cost V benefit), at the moment it all one (the wrong) way.

Answer to conservatives arguments on Social security

re responsibilities to social Security

Let me start by rejecting as emotively biased unhelpful spin the term. No state by definition can be ever “ a nanny state” literally , figuratively or functionally. It's not a matter of common speak, it's an aggressive loaded term to stifle a objective two way conversation. It is a n old old sales technique call closed discussion.
Essentially it's designed to WIN a sale not negotiate where there is a possibility of an unfavorable result … it's simply a dominance (bullying) technique . One that most women understand who have dominating or over bearing husbands or bosses. The sub text is “I'm the dominant one here now here this ( I know best) .”
My stance is and always has been “ I’m examinator I examine not proselyte... what works for me may not work for anybody else... more on that later.

This might be a bit nuanced and expressed before but it's worth repeating.
*I always go back to REAL basics *. Social Security is part of a society so I ask “what is the purpose of societies?” The fundamental answer is MUTUAL benefit and protection. the key word is *mutual* as in everyone.
It is an empirical fact: that societies generally fail when they stop doing that either from insurrection and or external help. The obvious exception is conquest but that is another topic.

Simply put a society that excludes its own members builds lethal internal self destruction. There hasn't been a society ever that hasn't been subject to those conditions and factors.
Logic clearly dictates that one person living in an absolute profligate life style while others in abject hopelessness doesn't meet the above criteria. In equality must be relative to others in that society. What constitutes abjectness in America is different to that of African villages. However, combine the the two value systems and the more luxurious one takes precedence. i.e. the Africans want American life style. And an now you've created in equity and hostilities hence national conflicts.

In a pragmatic sense social security (welfare) is simply the price one has to pay if one lives in a society/country/state city et al.
Realistically the only way to avoid the responsibility is to become Robinson Crusoe and even then there is a price to pay, lack of amenities and technology.

We then advance the argument to the concept of Equity (not equality). By that I mean fairness/justice . And To some this is where (Objective) reasoning become gets very complex because emotional perceptions and self-interest kicks in.

Again I go back to the basics . Here one must read a bit to understand the nature and make up of homo sapiens.
At this point many people find the logic all too much and put in a coverall....religion because on the surface the answers are clear.

Even there Christians and Muslims et al INSIST that “we are our brothers keepers” and that judgement is mine sayeth the Lord . And then comes a range of commandments most of which man generally tries his had at “attorney reasoning” using 'the letter of the law' from arcane unrelated texts to conveniently justify breaking those commandments. He also instructs us to forgive other trespasses .... etc. In short God commands us to look after the poor and unfortunate not just those we know and feel they're worthy (what ever that means)
Even in the echelons of the highest religious intellectuals/ thinkers most brilliant and competent theologians they wrestle with real mind cracking conundrums.
i.e. at what point does Science and logic cease and god(s) begin? Most Christians by number don't believe in “intelligent design” / creationism per se.

Almost every month new science comes out blurring the boundaries between how much ability we have to determine our life path. i.e. Are you aware that some of your actions prior to puberty ( the time of sperm creation) potentially effects the physicality and mental capacity of your children.... and maybe your grand children.
No! it doesn't mean my genes made me do it... it does mean that some factors in your health and development may have been effected by some physical activity of your Grandpa. ( it's called epigenetics those actions may effect the WAY the genes express themselves.) its no longer just a mix of genes and your environment. Anyone who breed animals knows that a gene or genes affect multiple factors i.e. blue eyed pure white cats are deaf.
Even Mensa The organization for people that have IQs in the top 5-10% of all people Acknowledge that there are achievers and non achievers.
The reality is making broad judgements about who to help and who not to with out specific and individual knowledge is a bit like saying help those with say strain XYZ flu but not someone with MS or Downe's Syndrome. because the latter two are currently incurable or may have genetic triggers.
How do you know that the 18 yo single mother while born pretty/sexy looking wasn't born with sub optimum IQ ( with all the urges but not the skills?) and the baby was due to some smart ass uni jerk on Summer break taking advantage of him. Or she's been a serial victim. Mum and dad are fundies and thrown her out what as a society are you suggesting we do ? Lock her up, Sterilize her? She's not bright not incompetent ?
Seriously, who's going to adopt a child that may or may not be retarded or worse? Parkinson's, Huntington's, MS or XX factor .

As a side issue the  Tea party and  are anti abortions and Chad is for being able to fund a child for their rest of their dependent life. Who plans for a foetus that is Downes, cisticfibrosis or a myriad other disorders ? Most of which can't be predicted before the foetus exists. In the conservatives' reasoning no one but the super rich would be entitled to have children. By both your reasoning why should you pay taxes that may or may not go to maintaining those mandated births and their life time maintenance ? By your standards most average families would be under the US system would be condemned to a life of poverty and derision, in ignorance of their specifics. Like trained (university trained)social workers etc can't be relied on to recognise a chancer from a person needing help. But some watch Pox News and read bald numbers and axe grinding senstionalizing MSM and thus feel themselves In a position to swing the financial/moral axe.. I think that is the definition of bias/ prejudice and bigotry.

For all those and many more reasons I'm not inclined to judge who deserves help and who doesn't. Nor am I inclined to follow some dogmatic (polarised ) notion of absolutes.... I examine not proselyte... what works for me may not work for others. Hence I'll challenge what a person says but resist attacking them personally with silly challenges like "You want to...." I don't and frankly neither should anyone else.
Any body want to challenge the logic or want further proofs of concept ? Don't hesitate to comment
Like the Buddhist Abbotess ( she's got 2 Doctorates one in religion, the other in sociology and a degree in psychology.) said on TV the other night I would welcome proofs that Buddha was wrong. The other religions all said that they were right and it is a matter of faith.... really?

Responding to BLACK radio TWib's perspective to forget the past and get on with the future

Ok you don't agree with the idea of forget about the past and get on with the future ... I get that, but why can't LL Kool J PERSONALLY believing in it. As a "half cast" I 'll be damned if I'll seek the permission of either side to express what I think. That folks

BTW the civil war was more than just over black emancipation per se. especially given that the Nth in the early days made much of their money slave trading and transporting. I'm led to believe that that is the origin of the term Yankee (yank the slaves from their homes in Africa and transport them to Where ever.) .

I would put it to you that the major cause was a power battle between the two the industrialists of the north and the Landed Gentry of the South. Slaves were simply cheap labor to support CAPITALIST PROFIT. Keep in mind that capitalism is built on the powerful exploiting the less powerful.

Have you read southern news papers of the day? The wealthy of any color or gender see the privilege wealth creates as a right/entitlement.

The point you are missing is that the landed Gentry " southern White gentlemen" were the 1%ers of the time. The bulk of the white population weren't rich nor necessarily slave owners.

What you fail to take into consideration is that like the black slaves most of the whites came from many different 'cultures' and were hand to mouth poor. They , both black and white, had nothing in common except their skin colors and shared experience (suffering).

Humans black white or anywhere in between come from the same genetic stocks (out of Africa 1,2 &3). They share the same genotype and therefore the same generic motivations despite the differing phenotypes. One of the most powerful is to protect what they have and what they know or most comfortable with.

It therefore should not be a surprise that the Sthn 1%ers stirred up the the poor white (trash) most of whom were power naive under educated by way of fear of loss of individual rights etc... (As LJoy indicated negative is a better motivator of the rump than high minded complex principal).

The southern flag to a son of the South is more about their personal rebellious spirit and pride in the only difference they have....their white skin. Everyone want's to feel special or else we wouldn't have invented religion

Of course there are consequences even extremes (anybody want to argue , there isn't black extremists? or blacks that don't exploit their own kind(sic)?) but as the song says they are still hurting over the emotional defeat 150 years ago. Keep in mind these are the people who gave rise to the 80yo+ feud between the Hatfieds and the McCoys.

Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick the Irish are still warring over 1066 and the "battle of the Boyne" and the riots of 1927.

The converse is true of your view that the southern flag represents suppression of the blacks ... i.e. to them it is celebrating them being white.... as the Japanese flag means being Japanese... you want institutionalised racism study their laws a bit I think you'll be horrified?

Yes the flag is abused as is being 'merican. I'd like a $ for every USA tourist who has tried it on, being a bully or simply an ass hole in other countries. " we're American we demand better service ... why can't you(Asians)speak properly" (really?? how problematic is that?) Fortunately I carried an Aussie passport too so I avoided the oh so inscrutable push back.'solly I no speak ENGLISH'... when they did, with a mid Atlantic ascent.

Consider for a moment what the Stars and stripes means to say the semi or uneducated natives of PNG or East Timor. It is offensive to them as it represents to the latter US backing of the nation ( Indonesia ) that nearly exterminated their entire race and culture... they are of different stock and religion (Christian and Melanesian ) to the Indonesians (the world's most populous Muslim nation and essentially east Asian)

So who's perspective is right ? Isn't it smarter to do as the song suggests ? The same as Sth Africa and yes East Timor.

Also note I lived in SC for 18 years and I couldn't count the number of whites I knew who despised the Tea party and/or the religious extreme right (you parodied, not particularly well. The accent was all over the place Their speech pattern and word choice would be far more simple. They wouldn't use your favorite word "problematic" and oh yes not all Tea baggers and their 125th st logic are from the South ... if you check Wapo and Rolling stone you see they are stronger in the mid west and central US. As Chomsky rightly points out they have concerns and legitimate gripes... But circumstances limit their deductive powers and their flawed rhetoric and methodology are the inevitable consequences.

Think of it like this in the 1930/40 there was a popular radio show where two white men pretended to be two loveable (if very white stereotyped)scoundrel poor blacks "Amos and Andy". If it was played today there would be hell to pay.

Now consider your ' Southern White Gentlemen hour' in the above context why isn't that stereotyping and offensive too? Two wrongs might add up to a republican but they never add up to a right or equity. It is in fact a battle of stereotypes and the good get lumped in with the bad.

BTW Kentucky and other rural areas are suspicious of strangers regardless of color. Imagine me not black or white with a southern accent walking into a some bars in the hood at night. Our son was in East LA and walked into a local bar and in his words was fearful of getting out alive now he's white. His solution was to make sure they heard his over emphasised Aussie accent “ g'day mate... what's good in beer here in America”. In the aend he was drinking with some locals as he worked through the beers and telling them about Australia's fearful 'drop bears' and ' blue ringed possums'.

PS he went to school in Charleston but went back to Aus to university and stayed with his Grandma.

You being lynched Hmmm me thinks you were projecting a bit.

PS

Tell L Joy that Maori is pronounced M- our- re and as a Polynesian (Hawaii) ancestry Blood (period) was important to them as was cannibalism. The don't practice the period blood bit or cannibalism any more.

They arrived in NZ about 1000 AD and didn't form separate cultures although they did separate as tribes. They differ from the Aussie Aborigine in that they arrived in Aust about 40-50 thousand years ago ( first out of Africa) and formed over 200 nations and cultures and even started to change phenologically. They had regular regional meetings for dispute or issue determination similar the the Native Americans (see the book 1491) .

Unlike the Maori they were way less savage and lived far more WITH the land. The Maori simply ate and exterminated their mega fauna and their enemies and each other. (see Maori wars and Moriori).

Pope Frankie Becomes Rome

Where do I start ? I have so many objections and questions of Latin America’s “Frankie goes to Rome” (80′s pop reference).
1. This particular person has ( in my mind) sectarian questions to answer if what I’ve read is even partially correct i.e. the close relationship with the previous Military Junta during the time when ‘people disappeared’, poor children also disappeared and some were ‘adopted’ by the Junta ‘s friends. His reasoning in defrocking priests that were opposition to the junta. And those who assisted i.e. referred rape pregnancies to a free clinic
2. in a country like the poor areas of Argentina forcing births isn’t just a matter of 6th century structure and 15th century dogma to breed faster than protestants, it a matter of survival of whole families. In today’s context such with nearly 8 billion people in comparison with perhaps a few hundred million in 540 something AD the whole notion is nothing short of Obscene.
3. The notion that people need someone to intercede for them with their * ‘omnipotent’ personal God* is intellectually preposterous.
4. Organised anything tends to be become a vector for individuals to seek power.
5. by definition the primary purpose on an on going organization is its own longevity not the people it was created to serve. i.e. the coverup of kiddie fiddling priests to protect the ‘good’ (sic) name of the Catholic church. Pity about the kids fiddled with.
6. Frank is the product of a 6th century Patriarchal kingdom dogmatised mindset . This includes expunging women from anything but servants of the Church (Institutionalised) as opposed to any spiritual sense. As for Vilifying homosexuals the hypocrisy with ‘Christian’ teachings is beyond belief.
7.Frank was elected by the politics of the ‘princes’ (Cardinals) of the church not by the people and certainly not by merit. As Machiavelli put it in the ‘Prince’ “politics is the art of the possible” and as such the axiom One can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear rings true. No matter how pure his starting morals/principals were he is constrained by the system
In short he is the product of a fatally, past its use by date horrendously corrupt(ed) system. To succeed in this system one needs to be morally flexible (restrained corrupted) much like Obama.
8. I read in the paper here that Cardinal Pell of Sydney has been appointed as advisor to Frankie on how to reform the Church….. you have to be kidding!! This guy thinks its 1940/50. He’s so out of touch he is no longer allow to speak on the sexually predatory paedophile priests because he cocked it up so badly … while he might be a nice enough man as such, but as a leader of anything talk about ‘barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen for women’ and ‘gay is a treatable ailment… all they have to do is be celibate’ type of theologian.
Conclusion, I think its time for the rusted rigid edifice of Catholic Church to be sold for scrap use the money to benefit those who need it and start again. Clearly Frankie is to me More of the same and needs to go the same way as the dinosaurs.
No I’m not impressed. Play in excreta and all you get is disease.

My answes to Kyle Rogers' racist tweet on 'Obama's children'

#tcot pic.twitter.com/Usx0rluZpd
My thinking is that this guy’s tweets are in the Asshat zone (period).
First of all I’d want to put him in proportion/perspective.
But rather than see his BS as proof of wider racism as a disease I’m inclined to examine why what is HIS motive.
If one looks at statistical distribution bell curves on any topic the most obvious feature is that the vast majority of people ( 66% approx) are within a bulls roar of the average (central “Standard Deviations”). Asshat ideas like Kyle’s actually relate to perhaps the far 15% of numnuttery.
15% of 330 million is a big number but it is still a minority… a noisy monkey poo throwing one but still a minority.
The key point of the distribution is where the average is.
And how many people who can be swayed to move to the same side of the the opinion as Kyle.
I’d point out that there are several types of racist . if one looks at his wider tweets a pattern appears (to me). I’m almost comfortable to suggest that it’s self serving (politically) motivated rather than racist per se i.e. if Obama was JUDGE Thomas ( a Republican)my bet is Kyle would be tweeting something about the Dems (socialist [sic]) policies. In reality he’s simply reaching to the bottom of cesspit to stir up the frightened rabble.
The second type of racist are are those who see being white as their identity in the similar ways as Twib’s Elon sees himself as Black a perfectly understandable position in either case. In the case of ‘rednecks’ ( the origins of which is red necked from working in the fields) given they have precious little else to distinguish them and their historic fear that poor blacks would deprive them of unskilled jobs it’s not surprising at all.
Let me illustrate the issue in terms of team sports like real FOOTball (Soccer .. a game where only feet are used, not mobile wrestling like gridiron ;-P) …… in truth I don’t like either. I choose this sport because i’s often a proxy for the same sort of identity bias/bigotry extremes as racism.
In Scotland two teams Celtic and Rangers are perfect examples . One nominally Catholic the other Protestants when they play police have to be vigilent and physically separate the two lots of supporters. The police have video surveillance outside the grounds to catch and exclude a minority of agitators. these thugs come ‘ tooled up’ with everything from iron bars, flares, mega phones to Cut throat razors… they mean lethal business..
Coincidentally there is a rough profile of them in that they are from deprived areas ( like Clyde side where the ship building industry collapsed , they are unemployed or have menial manual jobs . They are bitter and angry and actively look for someone to blame. Often fiercely Scottish as opposed to British and often White Supremacist (sound familiar?).
Going a little more afield if we examine say Polish fans when they play Germany the same extremist incendiary situation applies. The poles resent that they’re the poor cousins to the Germans because of their fate in and after WW2…. the German Thugs despise the Poles because they blame them for “stealing” their jobs by setting up cheap labor zones.
Occasionally there are in all examples a person who is sufficiently smart and articulate to be able to direct that unarticulated angst for their own benefit/ purpose. The end justifies the means. Kyle is one of the agitators I’d suggest that in all probability he is narcissistic , lacking in empathy and selfish.
Sadly USA has elevated this borderline sociopathic tendencies to desirable features to succeed in this objectifying capitalist (version 2.3) culture.
I guess my point is one must be certain one is diagnosing the correct problem before getting excited i.e. Kyle’s ‘racism’ is a symptom not necessarily the disease.
I accept to most black Americans the difference is moot but if one seeks a resolution cure well you see what I mean.

Will the church change its doctrine under the new pope or in todays droping numbers

As the illegitimate son of JC (the one he never speaks of. The bible, thousands of words and not a mention of me or others, talk about the unfairness of PR !) .... what do you think that being a god means one needs to be celibate? or 1000's of years between side nooky? Cripes! that's a bit ...well fundamentalist doncha think?

Well I mean all the other gods were involved in a lot of homo sapien female exploitation Odin, Thor, (Norse); Zeus um Hercules et al were at it like Aussie Pygmy Possums. you've heard of him but have you heard of Examinator half god extraordinaire? No! it's the attic for me and denial ....gees I feel like the man in the iron mask!

Then there's, the Hindus well, I mean turning into a buck deer so he could "perve" on a chick .... then he ejaculated in the water at her beauty! Then the gold digging bitch got pregnant ... welfare single teen age mom and all that .... yarder yarder... Ganesh . his wife does a hissy and well lops the kid's head off, as you do . he was saved by sicking on an elephant head instead ... an elephant head!... hey ask the elephant? No! ( did you know that's why the Indian elephant has two nostrils not one like the African with one ) You'd think they'd know that elephants are endangered species ! especially if their gonna go around beheading their illegitimate children then replace their heads with elephants ... Duh!...well you get the picture.

Nonsense aside, the above whimsical romp through comparative religions show a number of points as to why Voltaire wrote "if God didn't exist man would have to invent him"! For a number of reasons

Some people simply need the symmetry of the two column accounting system in life ( both sides must equal each other.) issue one side explanation the other... God is simply the (fudge) balancing factor. And others it supplies a sense identity, community and even importance particularly the otherwise dispossessed or marginalised (e.g. Jews , early Christians, Black slaves in America and even the poor poor whites of the south (called red necks the origin of which was so poor they couldn't afford slaves so they had to work in the fields so their neck were red [sunburn]... aint capitalist mores wunderful!). Hence religion becomes part of man made culture .

If one looks at humans nature from a biologic behavioural sense one can't but observe that they are very diverse in behaviour and intensities there of . Over all, despite their protestations ( for specialness) they are still fundamentally animals with all the hard wired instincts. In the human context it seems to me all that is different is the the different ways in which they express in themselves. One of their primary instincts is survival. One aspect of this I would argue is the variations of fight or flight reflex. Like us is good, known to us acceptable, not like us a threat. One other expression of the survival instinct drives *some * humans to explore, investigate etc. and the majority not. Even those who follow the explorers tend to make the new environments more like those they left...old techniques mind sets. i.e. The new world settler both sought to 'civilise' the natives. If there is a more problematical intention I've yet to find it. And they tried unsuccessfully tried to grow familiar crops . The first colony in Virginia was a monumental disaster and had it not been for the largess of the 'Indians'(sic) the puritans might have gone the same way. Given what followed it's arguable that it's a pity they didn't.

On a distribution curve of this expression of the instinct the explorers/investigators would be in the standard deviations furtherest the from the mean approximately 15% of the whole. Where as the staunchest non adventurous would be at the other extreme. In short it's part of the hard wiring fundamental to survival instinct of life.

At this point it's apposite to delve into where the ever increasing complexity comes from. We all know about genes etc but what is less commonly understood is that very few genes (I suspect none) actually has a sole purpose. e.g. A pure white cat / dog with blue eyes is invariably deaf . Hair color, hearing ? WT ?

If you want a gentle wolf /fox by selective breeding you get floppy ears (Russian studies over 30 years )

Also in evolution there is a function called convergent Evolution where two totally different animals from different Taxonomic families or above arrive at a similar solutions for similar problems albeit from slightly different pathways. Clearly the functioning of genes is far more complex than commonly thought .

Conditions in-vitro can also effect the expression of the genes of the offspring . In some species temperature defines gender. Hormone imbalances in the mother can cause a myriad of issues.

To add to further complexity to the mix the fathers actions years earlies can vary alter the expression of genes in unexpected ways a recent study shows that If a male smokes before puberty ( the sperm creation setting chemical setting period) it can have developmental (weight) impacts of the next two generations. i.e. If your grandpa smoked before puberty impact the way * your * genes express .... obesity. This is effect is called epigenetics.( http://www.epigeneticsandchromatin.com/)

You want more ? Well then we factor in the variation the impact of conditioning, environment thought broadly to account for up to 30-40 % of the end personality.

Much of what human behaviour is in fact explainable by various expressions of these instincts and their under lying genes et al in ways that are practical functional impossible to comprehend (predict, test or repeat) complexity of variables, options and combinations. The sheer number of binary options collectively give the impression in most minds to be analogue, as in a continuum of intensities as appears in statistical bell curve distributions. This is opposed to the reality that what is actually being measured is a progression specific binary one off observations (on or off) .

In essence the point that I'm making is that because of this ever increasing complexity it stands to reasonable deduction that there is so many variable and combinations to the ways those hard wired 'instincts' express themselves in the individual . It isn't that far from the truth to say than in a multiplicity of ways some small and others large we, in fact all creatures are truly individually one off.

There are two relevant corollary to the specifics of why god

The need for 'god' has little to do with intellect per se.

secondly to answer your comment the need is emotional ( and or conditioning) regardless of intellect or logical acceptance that god is pure mythology. This is why the biggest growth area for churches is the 3rd would. i.e. most Catholics and Episcopalians (C of E) are in Africa and South of the US .

The catholic Church is like all Corporations' first concern is it's own longevity and is a massive vector to personal ambitions and power.

See also the rise of cults.

There is a stark correlation between knowledge of reality and fervent need for the god effect.

Dawkins thinks and talks like a biologist rather that a neuro-psycologist or behaviourist, even an anthropologist. The problem with science today is best illustrated by AGW (and the inter specialist rivalry i.e. geologists are often the most vociferous critics) In truth most big issues need what is practically speaking impossible today. The old fashioned Polymath to draw all the specialities together to explain a whole picture in total perspective . But then again the ability to accept and comprehend what they hear is relative to the above discussed combinations.

Having established the reasons for god regardless of the empirical truth we are now in the position to offer a meaningful differentiation between the personal need of religion a the institutional churches . The latter being the focus of your question.

As stated previously it is inevitable that any institution/ corporation will become an entity in of its self and as such its primary purpose is to maintain its own existence. Aided and abetted by those who use the entity as a vector for personal power

It is only once they have milked the power Cow dry and unable to sustain its existence then then and only then they'll diversify/ morph the institution to nominally serve a different function. Probably a more conventional money making, while essentially remaining what they are organisations to create and maintain power. Perhaps under the guise of a welfare services conglomerate or banking et al. ( see the history of the knights of the Hospitallers ( St John Ambulance)/ knights Templar who after the crusades became an international banking organization which ultimately became perceived threat to the King of France. Simply raided them and effectively eliminated them ...for their wealth.)

The churches still have the not fully saturated/exploited 3^rd world .

Off topic The problem with the Republicans is that they haven't yet realised that, by analogy “they're still selling a the security/comfort ( of the well known) of wall phones (one solution many variations) but the fragmented markets, the public are demanding many different solutions to suit the multiplicity of interests.

Well you asked for it !

Sundry Posts on Fire arm control in the US

@Keyserling -  concerned about  Stephen King's booklet for fire arm control and if it'd lose him audience
I think you'll find that those who bother to read will tend to agree with him .
Correct me if I'm wrong but the number of firearms does not equal the number of people with firearms , the latter is very much lower.
Apart from that the number of actual fire arm owners does not equal those who have or obsessed with semi or automatic rifles and/or large ammunition clips.
In reality SK is arguing for CONTROL of Fire arms and the banning of semi and automatic rifles and large clips NOT the elimination of Fire arms per se . e.g. He has three pistols, and his firearms count for two other non firearm owning house holds. In truth some over cooked nutters own virtual armouries. Those that would take offence at his stance are definitely a minority. Apart from which I'd suggest World Wide more people would read his books anyway and his domestic stance would be moot.

@peternh -  was concerned that only 3% of  firearm murders were with semiautomatics
Ah but WHO are 3%?
THAT is the key issue.
I'll grant you that only a minority in the US care about gun violence per se (maybe 40%), but 20 innocent children and their teachers or innocent people at the movies THAT IS a different issue.

As an example and to show I'm not simply ANTI FIRE ARMS.

 I learn how to shoot about the time I started school. But interestingly I grew up. and recognised the difference between a NEED and a WANT.  I might want a semi automatic fire arm but do I need it for the activity I engage in.
PS I used to smoke a pipe and it gave me pleasure but then we had children and I asked the question is smoking worth the cost/consequences to me , our family or others?  I apply same reasoning having fire arms not correctly stored or used. 
I don't begrudge a person who shoots competitively or someone who uses a fire arm to control feral animals etc. But hunting (misnomer) ? their choice of course but killing for pleasure ? why seems decidedly psychologically suspect to me. And the risk to others unacceptable ...look at the number of legit weapons stolen and used to kill innocents and of course accidental shootings or domestic violence? Those numbers are far more significant. As are the consequences.
BTW Obama's plan includes mandating safe storage
I don't accept your myopic reasoning nor you Lamarkian sense of population control.
Cheers

@Atavism - Was Peirs Ackerman partisan in the debate with the firearm spokes person 

Piers is a performer an entertainer... a deep complete thinker of high moral character (hmmm. I 'm not so sure.)
The interview in fact any interview with Jones (? ) (eminately forgettable limited perspective individual) The type of individual who you'd find in football pub after his team lost. The Interview (?) was always going to be a "colourful" and it was.
Jones wasn't there to discuss anything merely to tell the audience in as brutal terms as possible why the majority of Americans shouldn't take away his means of pleasure and oh yes defence against the US government in it's march towards a liberal (read C21st Democracy) dictator ship.
Peirs merely pointed out the flaws in his argument i.e. a bunch of men with rifles are going to stop the worlds biggest most well equipped military how?.
Jones then proceeded to threaten civil war etc.
was Peirs partisan? not in my view.
Yes the 'spokesperson' was set up by his own extremist arrogance.
great TV abit like watching a re run of world championship wrestling. The outcome was never in doubt.
Personally that man shouldn't be allowed to speak in public on such issues he didn't do the cause any good.
his supporters had a rally Piers was anti the 2nd amendment! a total fiction . Piers got massive free publicity . I guess both sides got what they wanted.

@p4451d - you are generalising badly. not all firearm owners are either backwoodsie or male.
The truth is that the key issue here is the weapons manufacturers have a lot at stake ...If they were stopped from selling firearms to anyone except a US authority police , customs FBI etc their profit would plunge.
Imagine what would happen if there same manufacturers were excluded from selling to overseas ? i,e. gun dealers , war lords militias etc.
It is a natural part of the military manufacturing complex DNA that prohibiting them as a business from doing so is .....Un... American.
Look at the Tobacco industry's fight to continue selling their product with impunity.
US business in particular is well experienced in thwarting anything that may imping on their 'Right to be free to do as they want.
Look at their opposition to their EPA it's borderline frothing at the mouth.
NB the USA already has a department and 20+ laws to control firearms but the manufacturing industry have made the department a toothless tiger. Over time the GOP has inserted restrictive clauses in funding laws that ties the hands of the department.
i.e. they still don't have a permanent head; their shop reporting laws are unenforceable and the department officers all 200 of them can't visit a shop more than once in 2 years( in reality with 10s of thousands of shops its nearer 9 years between visits).
The data can't be centrally collected or collated across state lines.
Add to this many country communities rely on the Military Manufacturing Complex for jobs. Any congress member who jeopardises these jobs is courting political suicide. It is naive to think that the industry doesn't use this as a pressure point.
If one looks at the electoral districts that depend on the MMC for jobs they are predominately (strategically?) in marginal or GOP seats .

They don't have to. Many factories are 'strategically?' located in marginal or low income seats. The people see their jobs threatened .
Added to that the corporate spin heightens this fear and gives the workers etc someone to blame ...anyone not in favour of business and the 2nd amendment.

Steve,was concerned about the argument about a fire arm is just a tool and it's impact on the debate over all.

Hyperbole and sarcasm aside fire arms *are* just tools as he says.

They are useful for those people who raise live stock/ fowls but have a problem with feral animals.

Also when putting down large numbers of stock damaged beyond reasonable recovery from disasters famine, fire or even disease.Of that there is no doubt. That is clearly a NEED.(must have)

on the other side there are many who derive pleasure from target shooting/competition. That is a WANT.(desire ..emotional)

As for 'hunting' for pleasure. Killing some thing for no useful purpose is either a learned activity or something of concern to a psychiatrist particularly if it manifests as an obsession or a NEED!

There is NO SUBSTANTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that Hunting is a primal instinct.

It is simply emotionalised spin confusing the primal need to survive with the methodology.(standard Conservative 'associative spin'.)

in all but the first case multiple shot fire arms are clearly superfluous/unnecessary to the task. I'd challenge anyone to demonstrate how any of the wants even hunting can't be done with a single shot then reload fire arm.

Having established the two different reasons and the appropriate fire arm for the task.

We then ask what is the problem we're trying to solve?

It is stated that 3% of firearm killings (murders) are with semi automatic firearms so why the fuss. The answer is WHO and HOW many are killed in each incident?

As I've said before I'd rather that there are NO MURDERS. However, in the real world there are. The question then becomes how do we reduce the number of the deaths of mass innocents? (the who and how many)

The remaining question is who are the people committing these mass killing etc. By and large they are people who psychologically shouldn't have access to fire arms period even if it's just a tool. by analogy who is at fault if a parent allows a child under the age of ten (the average age of spacial judgement) to have a chain saw or circular saw; Or under 16 the (average legal age of clear cognitive understanding of right or wrong... a minor) the above tools or drive a vehicle; on their own?

Or a mentally challenged or psychologically unstable child?

Well both are all just tools!

The answer is common sense is the person using the tool and the different degrees of deadliness of the same. A vehicle can easily kill more people at once than a circular or chainsaw (Texas excluded but that IS Texas everythung is diff'rent there)

One doesn't go and git a car licence then start driving 32-38 wheelers at 16. (“road trains”... powerful 18 wheelers with 3 dog trailers ...used for hauling stock in the Australian outback).

it would be a very rare child/very young adult (given that frontal cortex development(judgement area of the brain)isn't , on average fully mature until 24-26 YO who would actually be allowed to captain/fly a loaded Jumbo Jet.

Common sense on average dictates there people should have limited if not no access to firearms Period.

Likewise, the same logic that applies to vehicle licences the would be owner should have to PROVE they are appropriate to drive and have an appropriate firearm.

As with vehicles In most countries the vehicle MUST be registered and transfer duly reported.

Insurance insists that the vehicle is appropriately stored so why not firearms. If you have a history of dangerous behaviour you can be refused a licence. There is noting new there, no new principles.

So having established the clear logic we have to ask why the hostility?

Answer the firearm manufacturers are part of the Military Manufacturing Complex (MMC) and they are (Feral/Vulture) Capitalists who hold the notion that they have the RIGHT to make money anyway they can.

Why their support? Well Bears is right the manufacturers have sold the less mentally agile and therefore more prone to faux fear, the 'associative spin' equating their (manufacturer's assumed rights) with the firearm owners rights by twisting the intended meaning of the 2^nd amendment. Also by associating fire arms with defence personal and public.

They have been very successful in both this and neutering both the Department whose job it is to control firearm and the 20 or so laws that exist to that end. This they've done by corrupting the political system and by strategically placing their (MMC) factories in locations where they constitute a large local employment supplier. This in turn means the locals are more worried about their ass than some 'liberal idea of peace and love' . Finally which elected representative is going to be seen as voting for UNEMPLOYMENT in their electorate ...Oh yes there are reps who lobby for a factory and funds in their electorate .

All this leads me to the conclusion that playing Whack Em O with the the gun nuts and the manufacturers stooges is exactly what they want. If I was leading the firearm control I'd go for the 'head or heart shot' not the legs. The latter need more bullets for the kill and isn't as reliable as the head or heart shot.

Fire arms are just tools but most people are concerned about the tool at the other end.