Monday, April 12, 2021

Guns again

By coincidence, three days before the Parkland shooting, I did a blog entry entitled "Let's talk guns," which can be found at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2018/02/lets-talk-guns.html. 

I made a couple of additions to the blog entry in the following days.

After that I made much effort via Twitter and my blogs to engage with gun rights proponents about guns. I have not been able to obtain satisfactory engagement. 

With Biden's election and his gun related executive orders last week, the guns debate is up front again.

I will continue seeking engagement with gun rights proponents. 

 

4/17/21 [draft]
A. Framework from prior blog entry, and modifications

My "Let's talk guns" blog entry provides a good starting point for a framework of discussion, and I copy and paste below the following from the blog entry.

The reasons for guns would seem to be:
1. Defense of one's own person and property;
2. Resistance against tyrannical government;
3. Sporting pleasure; and
4. Psychological affinities and satisfactions that many Americans have from owning guns.
Let's put to the side for the moment reason number 2 of defense against a tyrannical government.
On reason number 1, defense of one's own person and property, if guns were outlawed, it is reasonable to believe that people would feel much safer and would think they don't need guns to protect their person and property. There would be much more effective policing for protecting citizens if every police call out was not suffused with fear of police being shot. Other advanced countries have increased safety of one's own person and property with gun restrictions. Collectively, Americans need to decide whether their persons and property are safer in the current circumstances or whether they would be and would feel safer with strict gun control laws.
That leaves reasons 3 and 4. Reasons 3 could be accommodated under a regime of strict gun control laws. Reason 4 also might be accommodated.
The tide may be turning in favor of tight gun control. The tide may be so turning that an amendment to the Second Amendment could get adopted if that was needed to get sufficiently tight gun control.

A main problem I have encountered is that gun proponents won't discuss the reasons for guns separately. I would like them discussed separately and then put them together under the limitations of the 2nd Amendment.

Also I propose that the above framework be modified by bifurcating reason 2 above about resisting "tyrannical government" into separate considerations of a tyrannical FOREIGN government (basically defending against a foreign invasion) and of a tyrannical DOMESTIC government, which would be primarily the Federal government, but a tyrannical state or local government may also be considered.

B. Heller case; 2nd Amendment is not absolute; changes in U.S. society 

In the 2008 Heller case, the United States Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Supreme Court was clear in the Heller case that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. 

Many gun proponents take the position that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right, and any restriction, limitation or regulation of gun ownership by the government violates the 2nd Amendment and is unconstitutional.

That position is clearly wrong under the Heller case, but it frequently ends any discussion with such gun proponents, who desire that there be an absolute right of gun ownership, and who act as if there is no legal basis for discussing any governmental restriction, limitation or regulation, and it is a waste of time to discuss whether governmental restrictions, limitations or regulation of guns would, on balance, be beneficial and desirable for the country.

Maybe such gun proponents can be persuaded to change their minds about their wrong position that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. If they won't change their minds, they can only be dealt with by outvoting the in elections of lawmakers and in the passage of laws by legislatures.

Discussion may proceed with gun proponents who do not believe the 2nd Amendment is absolute and who are willing to consider what gun controls are, on balance, beneficial and desirable for the country, subject to limitations on such controls under the 2nd Amendment, and discussion of what the limitations are under the 2nd Amendment. Such gun proponents may only want to minimize gun regulation as much as possible and not discuss the pluses and minuses of a particular regulation by contending the regulation is unconstitutional (even though the Supreme Court or other courts have not passed on the same, and the regulation may indeed pass constitutional muster in the courts. If so, such gun proponents need to be honest in discussion that such is what they are doing.

Related to whether the 2nd Amendment is absolute is whether gun proponents are willing to take into account changes in United States society, relative both to what gun controls may be beneficial and desirable for the country, and to determining what is permissible government regulation of guns under the 2nd Amendment. Some gun proponents may take the position that changes in United States can and should be disregarded for one or both of the foregoing purposes. For discussion to proceed, gun proponents should be clear in the views regarding the foregoing.

C. Resistance to tyrannical Federal government

First consider whether the 2nd Amendment gives rights to citizens to use arms against the Federal government on the basis of one or more citizens contending that the Federal government is or has become tyrannical.

The Constitution creates a government under the rule of law, the use of arms against the Federal government is inconsistent with such concept of a government by rule of law set up by the Constitution,  and it is dubious that the courts would hold that the 2nd Amendment gives citizens a right to use arms against the Federal government and hold, for example, that the Federal government is prohibited by the 2nd Amendment from defending itself and disarming the citizens who are using arms against the Federal government.

Think the American civil war, or the January 6th insurrection. 

Gun proponents who think the 2nd Amendment gives citizens a right to use arms against the Federal government should expressly advance that contention, and the contention should be raised and used as a legal defense by persons who are being prosecuted for their actions in the January 6th insurrection.  

If citizens do not have a right to use arms against the Federal government, gun proponents might argue that the 2nd Amendment gives citizens a right to own guns as a warning or threat to deter the Federal government from becoming tyrannical, even though the citizens will not have a right to use the guns against the Federal government. If gun proponents think that argument would have legal merit, it can be discussed.

D. Resistance to tyrannical foreign government (foreign invasion)

There is much historical support for the 2nd Amendment protecting the bearing of arms by citizens in militias for aiding in the defense of the nation. 

There are gun proponents who would use the militia language in the 2nd Amendment to expand the Heller holding about individual right to own and keep handguns for personal defense to cover military guns as the same are developed and come into use by the military over time. 

In the Heller case, the Supreme Court added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."

E. Guns for personal defense

The object of this discussion framework is to boil the discussion down to what regulation of gun ownership could be beneficial and desirable for society, and then consideration of whether particular regulation is constitutional.

For discussion purposes, consider regulation that requires all guns to be registered with, and licensed by the government, a ban on assault weapons, universal background checks, and requirement of a carry permit from the government.

There are numerous arguments on both sides about the benefits and desirability of such regulation. 

These include, on the gun proponents side, that such regulation is unduly burdensome on gun owners; it will not achieve the benefit of reducing gun violence because criminals will not obey, they will get, own and use guns unlawfully, and gun violence will not be reduced; much of the gun violence problem in the United States is a mental health problem and it should be addressed through mental health programs to  detect persons with mental health problems who should not be allowed to own guns.

The foregoing arguments are legitimate ones and merit discussion.

Gun proponents will make further argument that a gun registration requirement creates a risk that the government will use the gun registration information to unlawfully confiscate guns the ownership of which is protected by the 2nd Amendment, in other words, that the government will become tyrannical. Such government tyranny threat argument is discussed separately below.

Let's consider possibilities of how the suggested regulation could be beneficial, which possibilities would call for further investigation, and shall be spoken about hypothetically here.

Hypothetically, what if, in some communities, there was a strong and widespread sentiment that requiring all guns to be registered with the government would be beneficial to the communities. Registration could communicate a strong message that gun owners must be responsible for their guns and proper use. This could be reinforced by community members being able to report to the police if they think a person owns an unregistered gun, and police could investigate by knocking on the door of that person and asking whether the person owns an unregistered gun.

Further gun registration may allow police to significantly demilitarize their own policing.

It is at least plausible that a gun registration requirement could significantly reduce gun violence and reduce police militarization in their police. The effect of a gun registration requirement to reduce gun violence and reducing police militarization can only be found out by trying a gun registration requirement.

That puts it back to gun proponents and whether they are willing to accept the burden of gun registration for themselves if that will help improve significantly the lives of millions of Americans living communities prone to crime and gun violence and subjected to the violence of police militarization.

 G. Fear of confiscation of guns

[to be completed] 

AL business community [added 5/17/21]
I am soliciting the Alabama business community to support greater gun controls in Alabama because gun violence is not good for businesses. https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/11/silos-in-al-politics.html
AL TV stations [added12/2/21]
I cannot on my own get ALGOP lawmakers, candidates or right wing talk radio to have any conversation about guns. I am urging Alabama TV stations to get conversation and debate on guns subject.

12/23/21
I sent the below email to my Senator and Representative in the Alabama legislature.

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: dan.roberts@alsenate.gov <dan.roberts@alsenate.gov>; jwcarns@gmail.com <jwcarns@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 23, 2021 5:32 pm
Subject: Will you engage in public discussions about upcoming gun bills?
Dear Senator Roberts and Representative Carns,
I am a constituent of yours.
Will you engage in one or more public discussions about the upcoming gun bills to be considered by the Alabama legislature in the 2022 legislative session?
The legislative bills in question of which I am aware would authorize permit-less concealed carry and would prohibit using state resources from being used to enforce federal gun regulations.
Other gun related bills may get brought up, and discussions about those bills would also likely be desired.
I will solicit Birmingham TV stations and other public outlets in the Birmingham area to provide venues for such public discussions. I will let you know what is offered by the TV stations and other public outlets.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

4/15/22 email to constitutional law professors
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: [Constitutional law Professors Smolin, Grove, Horwitz, Brandon, and Olree]
Sent: Fri, Apr 15, 2022 5:34 pm
Subject: Does Second Amendment gives citizens right to bear arms against the government?
Dear Professors Smolin, Grove, Horwitz, Brandon, and Olree,
I have been trying to publicly argue for more than a year that the Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to bear arms against the government.
I say the following in my blog entry Guns again:
The Constitution creates a government under the rule of law, the use of arms against the Federal government is inconsistent with such concept of a government by rule of law set up by the Constitution, and it is dubious that the courts would hold that the 2nd Amendment gives citizens a right to use arms against the Federal government and hold, for example, that the Federal government is prohibited by the 2nd Amendment from defending itself and disarming the citizens who are using arms against the Federal government.
Multiple times I have solicited from Alabama lawyers such as former U.S. attorney Jay Town, Alabama Supreme Court candidate Gregory Cook and (indirectly) Associate Justice Will Sellers, to set forth their views on whether the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms against the government. I have gotten no reply from these lawyers.
Thus far none of Mike Durant, Katie Britt and Mo Brooks have said that the Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to bear arms against the government, and statements they have made are suggestive that they believe the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms against the government.
I have not researched the extent to which the United State Supreme Court has addressed the issue of whether the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms against the government. In the New York City gun regulation case that is before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court may shed light on whether the Second Amendment gives citizens any right to bear arms against the government.
There is an April 15th Yellowhammer News article "Katie Britt: The Second Amendment is a ‘critical check’ against government tyranny,", which article quotes Katie Britt as saying, “The Second Amendment is a critical check against the timeless tyranny of government." The article says that Katie Britt intends to author an amicus brief in support of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association’s case against New York’s Second Amendment restrictions.
That the United States was created by means of an armed revolution of the colonies against England can cloud thinking about whether, after the United States was created by and under the Constitution, the Second Amendment and its support for militias gives citizens the right to bear arms against the United States and its government. On this, I think a distinction needs to be made between militias to defend the United States against foreign governments, and militias to protect the States and individual citizens against tyranny by the United States government over the States and individual citizens. In this regard, the Founding Fathers had concerns about a standing army of the United States, and assuring the existence of militias was a way to address that concern.
The Heller case holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Currently, the Supreme Court needs to give more guidance about what is reasonable exercise of the police power in gun regulation, and whether and how that police power is limited by citizens having a right under the Second Amendment to bear arms against the United States government as a protection against tyranny by the United States. government over States and individual citizens.
The purpose of this email to you as constitutional law professors is to ask whether you think Alabama politicians and the Alabama public are suffering from misimpressions about the Second Amendment, whether such misimpressions are detrimental to the political ability of America and Alabama to reduce gun violence, and whether you believe you have a civic obligation to correct any such misimpressions that Alabama politicians and the Alabama public have about the Second Amendment.
I think you should draft and send a letter to Gov. Ivey, Attorney General Marshall and the Alabama legislature, which letter is signed by Alabama constitutional law professors (and by other Alabama lawyers and Alabama professors of history and political science as you consider appropriate), and which discusses the right (or not) that the Second Amendment gives to citizens to bear arms against the government.
If you send such a letter, I would personally undertake to distribute copies of the letter to Alabama TV stations and other Alabama media outlets.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
Sincerely,

5/8/22
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, April 4, 2021

The dang truth

My dang truth
I think our country's governance will be impaired until there is a resolution of the toxic, existential political war between Republicans and Democrats over voting, and making it easier to vote or harder to vote. I think Republicans seek to make it harder to vote because they think that helps them in elections, and Democrats are vice versa.

Trump's allegations in the lead up to the 2020 election that the election was corrupt and rigged, Trump's loss in the election, and Trump's continuation of his allegations about massive voter fraud in the election are a main instigator of the existential political political war between Republicans and Democrats over voting rights.

Trump's allegations about voter fraud, and the role of Trump and those allegations in causing the January 6th insurrection in the Capitol, are further contributory to the intensity and dominance of the dire, toxic political war over voting rights, with Republicans claiming what they are doing is in the name of election security, and Democrats saying that is false and election security is satisfactory in the United States.

I think election security in the 2020 election was fine, and Trump and other Republicans are far off base in their claims of voter fraud.

Republicans and Democrats who desire a resolution of the political war over voting rights should endeavor a bipartisan investigation and evaluation of the amount of voter fraud in the 2020 election. The National Association of Secretaries of State is bipartisan in its membership and has an immense  amount of collective knowledge and experience regarding voter fraud and election security. The organization and its members should endeavor to distill the same, particularly related to the 2020 election, and put forth a statement and report to the American public. Such could help quell the destructive political war that is happening.


Others' dang truth
Dana Hall McCain has expressed her dang truth in a January 8th op/ed entitled "Alabama's sins of omission. 

Cameron Smith has the below op/ed, entitled "Voter suppression is for losers." 

5/21/22 

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 25, 2021

AL.com Facebook town hall

AL.com is hosting a first Facebook town hall today to talk about what’s going on in Alabama’s legislature. https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/alcom-hosting-first-facebook-town-hall-to-talk-whats-going-on-in-alabamas-legislature.html

The town hall will be hosted by Ivana Hrynkiw, and panelists will include columnists Roy S. Johnson, Kyle Whitmire. Dana Hall McCain and Cameron Smith.

The above article announcing the town hall indicates it is limited to being informational for those who are interested in information about what’s going on in Alabama’s legislature.

Yesterday Bill Britt published an opinion piece https://www.alreporter.com/2021/03/24/opinion-are-there-not-things-in-this-life-worth-losing-for/. In the opinion Bill said

Today in Alabama, a candidate doesn’t need to run on bread and butter issues like putting food on the table or better education or improved health care. To win a Republican primary, a candidate only needs to be seen as fighting “socialists,” championing the Second Amendment and being a Trump American with an “America First” agenda.
In today’s politics, problem-solvers have become irrelevant and nearly extinct because base voters prefer an evangelist for far-right ideas, even if the gospel they are spreading doesn’t improve citizens’ lives.
. . .
Alabama’s problems are many, but they are mostly solvable if elected officials cared more about finding solutions than running for the next election.
Many elected officials come to Montgomery wanting to do the people’s business, but far too often, the people’s needs take a backseat to the primary voter’s wants.
. . .
We are in need of political leaders who are willing to ensure that every citizen is represented, not just the ones that elect them, but that would mean losing on occasion.

Bill Britt's opinion piece cries for a call to action.

The host and panelists in today's AL.com town hall should consider whether to incorporate a call to action as part of the town hall being informational.

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, March 1, 2021

Reply to Sen. Tuberville

This is a reply to what Senator Tuberville says that Sean Ross reports in his article today: ‘God’s on our side’: Tuberville says 2022 is final chance to save America from being ‘too far gone’

Among other things that are reported in article, Senator Tuberville says:

“[Y]ou’re going to be shocked what’s going to happen to this country.”
“And it’s already happening,”
“It’s scary,” he added. “I told everybody on the campaign trail, ‘We’re in trouble.’ I didn’t really realize how much we were in trouble. It’s bad.”
“Folks, we’ve only got one more chance,” Tuberville stated. “One more chance and it’ll be too far gone. But, God’s on our side. Pray every day."
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, January 24, 2021

Open reply to Susana Schuler

Dear Ms. Susana Schuler, President & General Manager, WVTM13:

This is in reply to your TV news editorial last Friday on WVTM13.

Your editorial
Your editorial started with your quoting Joe Biden's inaugural words:

We have much to do in this winter of peril, and significant possibilities. Much to repair, much to restore, much to heal, much to build, and much to gain.

Your editorial then referred to Joe Biden beginning "in a time of incredible division and too much hate across our country."

You then said Joe Biden is not the first President to face division and pledge unity, and you quote the inaugural words of two other Presidents, Thomas Jefferson and George H.W. Bush.

You promised that WVTM13 would hold the new administration, and Alabama leaders, accountable for their promises.

You concluded your editorial by urging viewers to absorb the many memorable words they heard and pledge ourselves to be part of the solution. You particularly refer to the words of Amanda Gordon "to see the light, and be the light."

My reply
Just about everyone agrees about the need for more national unity to overcome the crises of health, the economy, race, and violence that the country faces. 

Many think that a huge impediment to increasing unity is that the two sides do not talk to each other, each side has its own set of facts, which is different from the other side's, and that greatly impairs the ability to have the unity that is gained from agreements and compromises and that impairs the government in legislating and taking action. 

(Note: I use the word "facts" but the foregoing applies to "characterizations" and "opinions," which either have some reasonableness, or which are grossly unreasonable and effectively not true. A lot depends on the words a speaker chooses, and how hearers of the words interpret and act on the words. The example that is discussed below will illustrate this.)

A contribution to unity that WVTM13 should make is to counter the foregoing phenomenon by forcing the two sides to appear jointly and test their willingness to say their facts when they know the other side is saying different facts, and, based on what viewers see and hear, viewers will decide whose facts they believe. In this situation, the two sides may back away from the facts they would prefer to say, and say facts that are not so contradictory to the other side's facts.

Take the example of whether the election was stolen from Trump. Many times Trump told his millions of supporters that the election was in the process of being stolen from him and was stolen from him.. 

"Stolen" is better viewed as a characterization (as opposed to a fact) and, as characterization, the world "stolen" is powerfully suggestive to a hearer that the hearer may think justifies certain actions in response. Trump's telling his millions of supporters about the election was being stolen likely contributed to the motivation of the perpetrators of the January 6th attack on the Capitol building as being justified to prevent the election from being stolen.

To build on this stolen election characterization, WVTM13 should press Rep. Gary Palmer and Rep. Terri Swell to look into the station's cameras and answer the questions of "do you think the election was stolen" and "do you think it was wrong for Trump to say the election was stolen." 

If Rep. Palmer tries to evade by saying "there were election irregularities that raised questions, yada yada yada," WVTM13 should answer back,

No Rep. Palmer, no evading the question. Trump used the word "stolen," it is reasonable to think the Jan 6th attackers were motivated by Trump's saying the election was stolen, Trump has been impeached by the House for inciting the January 6th insurrection, and you need to say whether it was acceptable for Trump to have said the election was stolen, or whether that was wrong and it is legitimate for Trump's words about the election being stolen to be taken into account by the Senators in the Senate trial.

If Rep. Palmer refuses to respond WVTM13 should lay out to its viewers what WVTM13 tried to do, and why, and that Rep. Palmer refused to respond. [Edit 3/15/22. Elsewhere I have referred to this as the "empty chair technique."] 

This example of the election being "stolen" illustrates how the two sides having, and saying, different facts (one side saying it was stolen, and other side saying not stolen) contributes to division that impairs the ability of government to do its job.

Very arguably, if Trump had not said that the election was stolen, the January 6th attack on the Capitol building would not have happened, there would not have been a second impeachment, there will not be more division in the country that the Senate trial of Trump is likely to engender, and the government would be more able to do its work for the American people in the coming weeks.

I hope WVTM13 agrees with the foregoing discussion and that it is suggestive to WVTM13 of things that WVTM13 might do to counter the problem of the two sides not talking to each other and the two sides having different sets of facts, and that might help in increasing unity, which the country so badly needs.

9/18/21 Obstructing the prevention of preventable deaths
Gov. Ivey, by opposing governmental vaccine mandates, has obstructed and continues to obstruct the prevention of preventable deaths and preventable hospitalizations in Alabama. https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2021/09/obstructing-prevention-of-preventable.html

You should do a WVTM-13 editorial at this time to help Alabamians "see the light" on this.

10/3/21
The above tweet is the last tweet in a thread soliciting WVTM-13 to help Alabamians "see the light" that, in opposing government vaccine mandates, Gov. Ivey has wrongfully obstructed the prevention of preventable deaths and preventable hospitalizations in Alabama. I don't know whether WVTM-13 has done anything in response to my aforesaid solicitation. Similar solicitations to other Alabama TV stations are appropriate, which I am endeavoring.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Possible attack from within

 

The foregoing will be responded to in due course. 

[response to be completed]

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, January 17, 2021

What AL can do about Big Tech

While you are waiting for Big Tech to change, are you open to exploring strategies and programs in Alabama that have the potential of reducing the power and influence of Big Tech in Alabama?


The political problems associated with Big Tech are censorship; facilitation of violence and hate; and disinformation and Fake News.

[to be continued] 

4/20/21 Resuming
The political problems with Big Tech are censorship; facilitation of violence and hate; and disinformation and Fake News.

Those problems are very large. 

Possible solutions to one problem may be inconsistent with or worsen another of the problems, or be violative of First Amendment rights of Big Tech. For example, imposing liabilities on Big Tech for  content which contributes to violence or hate or is disinformation or Fake News necessitates greater censorship  by Big Tech to protect itself. Apart from imposing liabilities, regulating how Big Tech censors content may violate First Amendment rights of Big Tech.

Big Tech is politically powerful, and may be an obstacle to Congress providing solutions that a consensus of the citizens desire but that Big Tech object to.

State legislatures may try to address the problems of Big Tech, such as is being attempted by an Alabama bill that seeks to punish Big Tech companies if they engage in censorship.

There is a veritable conundrum for Congress (or a state legislature) to fix the problems of Big Tech, and a veritable political mountain to climb to do so. 

Sen. Phil Williams' article suggest dissatisfaction with waiting on Congress to fix satisfactorily the problems of Big Tech.

If you are a citizen who feels strongly about the problems of Big Tech, in the face of the very little power you have, you need to decide whether to curse the darkness or to light a candle, and, if the latter, what candle or candles you will light or try to light.

My candles
I think the generic candle that citizens can light is in your own actions, conduct and words, and wherever those interface with other citizens, you endeavor to apply your own brain and your own reason to try to determine what is truth and facts. This includes ample engagement with other citizens who are endeavoring to do the same, with a view to reaching agreement about what is truth and facts.

I have tried to light numerous candles to the foregoing end, which included urging others to join with me in lighting the similar candles. See, e.g., Appeal to AL news directors, October 1, 2019, AL Project Veritas - Impeachment, October 6, 2019,  WVTM13 GOP Senate debate, February 27, 2020, Dear Aunie,  May 8, 2020, Open reply to Susana Schuler, January 24, 2021.

Perhaps these other persons think similarly as I do, and they are trying to light their own candles. If so, I wish they would tell me, and maybe we could light candles together.

Others may not believe in lighting candles like the ones I think should be lit, and in fact obstruct the goal I seek in the candles I try to light. Read, for example, Dear Aunie, and judge for yourself.


See also
Alabamians battling QAnon, Sept. 7,2021

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)