The Youtube Sexual Assault Scandal

Tom Milsom
Mike Lombardo
Alex Day
Ed Blann
Tom McLean
Josh Macedo
Kelly Montoya
Danny Hooper
Alex Carpenter
Adam Roach
Luke Conard
Corey Vidal
Travis Neumeyer
Alex Odam

Gregory Jackson

Stephen Purcell

Bryon Beaubien

Harry Gilliat

Ricky Richards

Sam Pepper

Jason Viohni Sampson

Neil Johnson

Destery Smith

King Russell

Know any of these names? I know it's a lot, but are any of them familiar? These are all youtubers, some of them very prominent. And all of them have been accused of sexual assault, some by multiple people. And many of these allegations have turned out to be true. 

These assaults have been going on for years, but for some reason, the stories are just coming out this year. I've seen videos created about early as March and as late as a week ago. But no matter when the stories came out, even if it was old news, this is something we should never forget and never stop talking about because a good number of these criminals are still walking free! Some not even under investigation and they are still uploading videos on their youtube channels with fans and supporters. It's disgusting.

I know the story about Mike Lombardo happened in 2012. I watched a video made by a girl he was being sexually inappropriate to when she was a minor and the FBI found tons of child pornography on his computer and he is now serving five years in prison. So yay for that, but what about these other guys? This isn't over, people. These guys have been doing this for years to fans, fans-to-friends, and close friends and some of them are still doing it. They must be stopped.

Video about Mike Lombardo

All these stories came to light basically because of Sam Pepper and the "prank" video he made. Don't know what I'm talking about? I don't really want to take the time to explain because I have a lot say so watch this:

Anyway, I don't for one second believe this was "social experiment" as Sam claims. You don't sexually assault people to bring awareness to sexual assault. That's just not how it's done. As you heard if you watched the video (and if you didn't then you may not know) after he came out (after his video was taken down by youtube and people were calling him out on sexual assault) and said it was a "social experiment" many, many, many girls, some very young (13, 14, 15) came forward and said that they had been sexually abused, harassed and assaulted by him on various occasions.

I don't know if you watched any of the testimonials from girls about Sam Pepper that lacigreen linked to in her video, but you really should. Here are a couple of them:

This last video I am leaving as a link because it is much more explicit than these other three, but it is so, so, so, so, so important that these stories are heard and spread around until Sam Pepper and these other abusers are behind bars and even after that because this issue needs to be taken more seriously. Sam Pepper is abusing, and in some cases violently raping underage girls, fans of his. This has to stop. He is a criminal and being a youtube star/celebrity does not excuse him from being a rapist.

Anonymous video 

So, when all these allegations started coming out about Sam Pepper, other girls came forward with sexual assault allegations against all these other youtubers as well. Tons and tons of stories were coming in, some turned out to be false, but many did not. 

Here is a masterpost that was created many of the allegations and responses and was continually updated as more information was discovered:

Masterpost

Take some time to look through that if you want and see what you think. 

To me, this was overwhelming as I was learning all this information within a couple of days. Some of these youtubers I subscribed to and really liked and I was shocked to discover all this. I know some of them made responses to these allegations. The ones I have read/watched so far are Alex Day and Luke Conard.  They can be found in the masterpost but if you don't feel like searching through it, here you go:

Luke Conard

First Response

Second Response

Alex Day

One Defense

Another Response

Defending on Facebook

Another Response

Defending Another Perpetrator

Video Response

So, as is quite obvious, Alex has had a bit more to say than Luke and I have yet to go through all the other posts. I started with these because they are the two I was most familiar with. If you've read those responses/defenses I suggest you next take a look at this post. It was written by a probation officer who works "almost exclusively" with domestic violence cases and her insight is invaluable in this area. There is one part of her post I want to draw your attention to, and it is where she describes how perpetrators of domestic violence typically defend themselves:

When confronted with the full details of their actions - which sometimes include my summarizing it back to them, or even, if warranted, reading it to them from the police report, most of my offenders have reacted with disgust and repulsion - not at themselves, but at the suggestion that they would be capable of doing any what I had described. This is because of a mis perception of their own actions. They tend to honestly believe that what they are doing was warranted, fair, and not wrong. I don’t doubt that every person who walks into my office sincerely believes or believed at one point that what they were doing is okay. THE BELIEF DOES NOT MAKE IT SO

Most offenders know better than to directly blame the victim in my office. But these are some examples of some of the things that I’ve heard:

• "People make mistakes."
• "There are two sides to every story."
• "Not every relationship works."
• "I know how terrible [being dumped/abused/heartbroken] feels"
• "[Name of victim] is important to me."
• "[Their conviction, the fact that they were charged] is confusing" (because they’ve done nothing to warrant it)
• "I wish they had said something to me" about the abuse, how the abuse made them feel, etcetera.

 They will also dwell on small details (the miscommunications prior to the event, for example, rather than the assault itself), rationalize behaviour by claiming that they didn’t understand it was abuse, and apologizing for ‘misunderstanding’ rather than for ‘doing.’

If you hadn't noticed, pretty much every single one of the things she mentioned can be found between both Luke's and Alex's "apologies". Almost word for word. And if you watched Alex Day's 30-minute video about "his side of the story" there is an excellent video response that I think everyone should see. 

The bottom line about these responses is that they are avoiding the real issue, avoiding accepting responsibility and trying to manipulate us, the public, to believe their ignorant innocence. And let's be honest, some of them sound very genuine. But these guys weren't able to manipulate people into sex because they are bad at manipulation.

But if you watch the video above (and I highly suggest you do) it really helps to show how insincere Alex's video is and how is he's definitely not saying he didn't manipulate or coerce people into doing sexual things. I mean, even without this response to Alex, we can see in these peoples' own words that these things happened and their only mistake was they "didn't understand it was wrong" or that the person "didn't want to." 

And that really aggravates me. Alex Day and Luke Conard are not the only perpetrators coming out with responses but they are all very similar in nature. Let's talk about that.

None of these men were under 21 when they initially targeted these girls, many of whom were under 16 when the relationships began. And that right there, even if nothing else happened, is enough to get you arrested. You are adults dating children and you don't have to be a genius to know it's wrong and disgusting. But let's pretend for a minute that all these relationships are perfectly consensual and the girls aren't manipulated or pressured into anything. Even in this scenario, if the girl is a minor, she cannot legally give you consent. Which means if she consents and you engage in sexual acts then you are committing statutory rape and you should go to jail. But that's just a hypothetical situation to illustrate that even if these experiences had been consensual, most of you would still be guilty.

It sickens me to hear these men say they didn't realize they were being manipulative or that the girls felt pressured. That's a load of crap. I hope you read the post Alex Day wrote about consent because there are some specific things he wrote in there that I would like to address.

*Warning: As I am taking these passages directly from Alex's post, there will be some language

Until yesterday, I thought that I had had only appropriate, though occasionally manipulative relationships with women. However, the model of consent that I followed, not that I specifically thought about it at the time - was that only “no” meant “no.” That is not what consent is.

The result of that belief that ‘only no means no’, is that I spent a long part of my life doing shitty things to good people and barely ever realising or acknowledging that I was doing the shitty things.

I don't really want to spend the time to pick every little thing apart, but I really feel it's important that everyone see what Alex is saying here. Honestly, the very first sentence makes no sens to me: "I had had only appropriate, though occasionally manipulative relationships with women". This sentence is contradicting itself. "only appropriate though occasionally manipulative"? It can't be appropriate and manipulative. Manipulative cancels appropriate out. If you had only appropriate relationships, they would never have been manipulative so I don't understand what he means by that. 

The next part I want to address is where, in the above paragraph, he states "However, the model of consent that I followed was that only “no” meant “no.” That is not what consent is." So basically Alex figured that if a girl clearly didn't want to have sex with him but didn't say the word no, then she was consenting. I'm not buying it. He was an adult at the time of these assaults, he knew they didn't want it and he did it anyway. And now he's admitting that his warped and disgusting view of consent wasn't consent as if saying it was all a misunderstanding makes it okay. That is unacceptable. If you don't know what consent is, you should not be having sex. Period. 

"The result of that belief that ‘only no means no’, is that I spent a long part of my life doing shitty things to good people and barely ever realising or acknowledging that I was doing the shitty things." Right here, he's basically admitting that he sexually assaulted lots of women. Because he says right here that the result of him ignoring the laws of consent is that I spent a long part of my life doing shitty things to good people and barely ever realising or acknowledging that I was doing the shitty things. If you hurt people as a result of ignoring what sexual consent is, then that means you are pressuring people into sexual situations that they don't want to be a part of.

So, really, the first paragraph of his post is an admission of guilt and enough to get him arrested. That's really all we need to see but he goes on, digging his own grave.

In my sexual experiences with people, nobody ever outright told me “NO, STOP” or pushed me away, or I’d immediately have stopped doing whatever we were doing

So, to Alex, simply not wanting to do it isn't enough. They need to outright say, "NO, STOP" or push him away for him to take their discomfort/resistance seriously. And notices he phrases it like "I would have immediately stopped doing whatever WE were doing." If the girl is saying "NO, STOP" or pushing you away, what in the world makes you believe that this is something you two are doing together and not something you are forcing upon her?

Either way, Alex, if you are old enough for sex, you are absolutely old enough to know that the absence of a no is not consent. A woman is not an object you can just do anything you want to unless she says no. She must give you permission before anything is done.

But there were clearly times where I would try to initiate something, because I thought the other person wanted it, and I trusted my own read of the situation (“they agreed to stay over/they said they wanted it earlier/etc”) rather than paying attention to what the other person was doing and saying in that moment. That’s where I massively fucked up.

 Again, practically admitting he committed sexual assault. This paragraph makes me seriously angry. He is telling us that he violated these women and trying to make it sound like he just make a little mistake but now knows better for next time. "I would try to initiate something, because I thought the other person wanted it". There are several things wrong with that sentence. You never, never, never initiate sex because you think the other person wants it. You make sure the other person wants it by asking them. And, most importantly, you RESPECT THEIR ANSWER! And it's just common sense that we can't judge what other people want, especially if we don't take the time to find it out.

"I trusted my own read of the situation (“they agreed to stay over/they said they wanted it earlier/etc”) rather than paying attention to what the other person was doing and saying in that moment." Agreeing to stay over is not consenting to have sex. Saying earlier that they want it is not consenting to have sex, or saying go ahead whenever you're ready. The part he ignored was the only part that mattered! If the other person does not agree in that moment, then they are not consenting. And if you ignore what they are saying in that moment, it is sexual assault. And by Alex's own words, that's what he did.

"That’s where I massively fucked up." Uh, yeah, to put it lightly. But, in actuality, that's where you committed sexual assault. That's where you violated young women. That's where you did something illegal. That's where you committed a crime that should put you in jail. That's where you pressured young women into sexual situations they were uncomfortable with and emotionally damaged them and some of them are still dealing with it. You can't make it less important or less of a sexual assault by saying, "whoops, my bad."

I know it seems like I'm mostly targeting Alex Day here, but he is the only one who wrote a post on consent to try and defend himself. His view of consent was basically if he could convince himself that the girl wanted it, despite what she said or how she behaved, then that was consent. That is disgusting and just what I would expect someone who commits sexual assault to say.

And just to make something clear here, when talking about consent, because apparently it's confusing to understand that it's only consent if the person agrees in the moment, it doesn't make it consent just because they don't say no. You don't automatically have the right to touch someone sexually unless they tell you not to. You automatically do not have consent. Consent is something you are given by the other person, it's not something you have unless otherwise stated.

For people who don't understand, if someone says they don't want to have sex, they don't want to have sex. End of story. There's no secret desire, they're not saying no because they want you to keep asking them until you wear them down. No is no and that's that. Even if you think the other person wants it but they just don't know it, you leave them alone. Consent isn't wanting it, it's agreeing to it. Even if someone does secretly want it, if they tell you no, you don't have consent. And if you try to convince someone they want it, that's sexual harassment. If you have to convince someone tp have sex with you, that's not consent. And if they agree only after you've been harassing them, that doesn't mean you unlocked their secret desire, it means you pressured and manipulated them until they felt they didn't have a choice anymore.

If someone is uncomfortable with it and clearly doesn't want it, then that means you don't have consent and it's not happening. No matter what you think you know about them. You see, with consent, it doesn't matter what you "know", it doesn't matter what you want, it matters what they tell you. And if you don't pay attention to that and go ahead and do what you wanted to do anyway, that's sexual assault.

One of the other youtubers who were accused is Jason Viohni Sampson and I believe his youtube channel is Veeoneye. When he was 20 he got a 15 year old girl drunk and then had sex with her. As I said before, that's statutory rape. He made a video where he admitted this.

 Jason admitting to rape

In this video he is excusing it by saying he was young and immature, he made some mistakes just like everybody does, no one ever told him rape was wrong, blah, blah, blah. If you rape someone, you're not making an honest mistake that anyone would make, you're committing a violent crime which is a conscious decision. Rape is not something you shrug off as a mistake. You sexually violated a child and that "mistake" should put you in prison for life because you are a sex offender and a criminal. I don't believe for one second you didn't know rape was wrong. You were 20 years old. Anyone with half a brain knows it's wrong. No one ever straight out told me rape was wrong either but that's just something you know because you live in a world with people. My parents never sat me down and said, "Rape is wrong." But I didn't need them to. I figured it out on my own. It's not that hard. But even if you don't know it's wrong, that doesn't make you innocent or less guilty of rape. Rape is rape and he deserves to be in jail.

Not understanding consent doesn't make you innocent of assault. And many of these youtubers have come forward saying they made a mistake. No, no you did not "make a mistake." Sexual assault is not a mistake. Rape is not a mistake. It's a crime. You knew what you were doing. You knew you didn't have consent. That's a choice. Don't try to minimize the massive wrong you did by calling it a mistake.

The last thing I want to say is that there are so many victims of the crimes these men committed and many of them were 15 year old girls. This has been going on for years and people are only coming forward this year to tell people what these adult men did to them. And it's because they are afraid. They are afraid of being judged and blamed by us. And I understand why they are afraid because victim shaming is a real thing. And it's awful. We need to be after the men who violated these girls rather than the girls who got violated. They are not to blame for the actions of others. They are not to blame for being sexually assaulted. The one to blame is the one who committed the crime.

Please don't grow silent about this. These men need to be put behind bars where they belong.

Frozen is Overrated

I'm sorry that I'm not sorry that I don't like Frozen. I may be the only person in the world who feels this way about it, but, seriously, I don't get all the hype about it. It was worse than your average film.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I had high expectations for this film what with it being referred to as "the greatest Disney film since The Lion King." - The Daily Beast. That's certainly saying something, so why wouldn't I have high expectations? Before I saw it, I hadn't heard a single bad word about it. EVERYONE absolutely loved it. Let It Go was being parodied and covered everyday. My Facebook account was going crazy with everyone saying what a good film it was. My family adores it. I love Disney, so why wouldn't I see it?

I was pretty excited to see it, actually. Really looking forward to it. I think that's the main reason I dislike it so much. I was expecting a really great film and I got Frozen. Frozen is pretty bad for a Disney movie. I mean, I know what Disney is capable of and Frozen isn't up to their standards.

And, though, logically, I know there must be at least one other person out there who doesn't like Frozen, it feels like I'm the only person in the world who missed what made it such an amazing movie. And it's not like I just don't like it. I have my reasons.

1. Plot, Plot, Plot
The plot in Frozen is weak, to say the least. It unfolds so clumsily, hopping from scene to scene as if the filmmakers forgot about the concept of transitions. Every scene is a movie is supposed to advance the plot in some way. If it doesn't advance the plot, it needs to be thrown out and Frozen had several scenes that could have been kept out. It was a sloppy movie and had random action sequences, not because it made sense with the plot, but because the movie needed some action.

2. Who's the Villain, Again?
Did anyone else notice Frozen had no villain song? Think about it. A Disney movie with no villain song! And, no Love is an Open Door does not count even though Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez say it's the villain song disguised as a love song. All that says to me is that "We didn't feel like writing another song so we're just going to put two songs into one." No way is Love is an Open Door a villain song. Even if there are different ways to interpret some of the lines. So, sorry kids. No bad guy song. I'm sorry, but squishing two songs together is just lazy. But, I guess, to be honest, there's no real villain in the movie anyway. And now you're all saying "Of course there is! Prince Hans is the villain, duh!" Um, okay. He's the villain for the last ten minutes of the movie but if was really a villain, there should have been some foreshadowing, some sort of hint, some kind of something leading up to this plot twist! At first, we're led to believe that Elsa's powers are the antagonist of the film, then we start thinking that maybe this goofy duke guy is our villain, but no, just a goofy duke. Then, surprise, it's Hans! At the end of the movie, we get our villain. But it didn't seem planned. It seemed like the movie makers realized they didn't have a villain and had to squeeze one in somewhere. And I'm sure it was the plan the whole time, but it just didn't look that way. It should have been more obvious to us viewers that something was up with Hans.

3. Kristoff
Kristoff is a nice enough character but completely unessential to the plot. Usually that means you need to get rid of the character. I mean, all he did was help Anna through a couple of situations, but, let's be honest, if he hadn't been there, she still would have been fine. He served no purpose other than to be the love interest. If they really wanted to keep him in the movie, they should have made his role significant to the over-all plot. As it is, he was just kind of there most of the time.

4. Could You Please Make it a Little More Obvious That Frozen is a Progressive Film?
Hopefully, you caught the sarcasm in that. Frozen is shoving in our faces how progressive they are, making almost no effort with the story and plot just to make sure we all get that they're saying "women don't need no man." Give your audience some credit. We get what you're saying without spelling it out for us. Tangled is a progressive film with a strong female character who can obviously take care of herself but the movie is so much better because they didn't shove it in our face.

5. The Music
Everyone is going absolutely crazy over the music in this film and it's not even that great! Compare the music with any other Disney film and hopefully you'll see what I mean. The music had less effort and just wasn't great. It was just basically pop and it wasn't memorable. Let it Go was the best song in the film, sure, but that's not saying much. Let it Go is overrated and doesn't hold a candle to other Disney songs. Are we really going to say Let it Go is up there with Part of Your World, I Just Can't Wait to Be King and A Whole New World?

6. What is up With Elsa?
 The character of Elsa is just a big huge mess. I mean, what happened there? So she hurts her sister once when they are kids and the only solution is to lock herself in her room for ten years, completely ignoring her sister's existence? Anyone else think that was a bit dramatic? Her family could have worked on trying to control the power, but, no, they just lock their seven or eight year old daughter in her room and let her deal with it. And then, ten years later, she comes out for the coronation, and is absolutely no better at controlling her power. It's even worse than when she was young, so obviously, living inside her room and ignoring her sister isn't the solution (and where did these powers come from, anyway?) Then stuff happens and she has to run away and build herself an ice castle high up on a mountain. She must be really self absorbed because she didn't even realize she froze over the entire kingdom and when she did find out, she didn't care much. I thought the whole reason she was locking herself away from her sister is that she didn't want to hurt her, but she obviously doesn't mind casting her out into the cold, high up on a mountain where she is likely to freeze to death or sending her to live in a kingdom where she'll freeze to death. She also creates like a ten foot monster to throw her out which could easily have killed her. I don't get the thought process here.

7. Cliché Ending
This movie made me role my eyes at the ending. They were so busy trying not to be cliché and their ending couldn't have been any more cliché. What's more cliché than love being the answer? "Love" will control her power. Elsa literally laughs when she realizes love is the solution as if she's saying, "Duh! Of course it's love! How did I not figure that out?" Which means the whole movie didn't even need to exist. It took her ten years to find out love was the answer. And then it's just "Of course! I guess I didn't have to hide in my room and ignore my sister for ten years, or run away and build myself an ice castle." It's so annoyingly simple you wonder why it took them that long to get it. I guess everyone in the movie is just dumb. And then, get this, her entire life she hasn't had any control over these powers of hers and now that she realizes love is the answer (to what question, I'm not sure) she has perfect control. No practice necessary. Trying hard to control them her whole life with no success. Was she just an unloving person until the realization hit her? She didn't seem very unloving to me. I just don't get it. 

Well, those are my main reasons for Frozen being a terrible Disney movie. And, like I said, I know most people don't feel this way, but I honestly can't stand to hear another person say how great it is without putting my opinion out there. It makes me want to tear my hair out to hear people calling it the greatest Disney movie ever. And I really haven't had an opportunity to share my distaste for the film because everyone I know loves it and no one wants to hear a film they love be criticized like this. But now I've done it and getting it off my chest feels nice.

The All Women's Talk website posted an article about why Frozen is the best Disney movie ever made and, I kid you not, these are the reasons:

1. There are tear jerking moments
2. The visuals are perfect
3. Olaf is hilarious
4. Anna is relatable
5. There is a lesson to be learned
6. The plot is engaging
7. The music is catchy

Really? Those sound like reasons you personally like the movie, not why it tops every other Disney movie ever made. If I hadn't said it wasn't talking about Frozen, would you even know? What Disney movie does that list not describe?

I could use this exact same list and apply it to any other Disney film. Watch. This is my argument for why The Lion King is the best Disney movie ever made.

1. There are tear jerking moments
2. The visuals are perfect
3. Timon and Pumbaa are hilarious
4. Simba is relatable
5. There is a lesson to be learned
6. The plot is engaging
7. The music is catchy

So how does this list, when applied to Frozen, make it better than other Disney movie? That's quite a claim, backed up very poorly.

But, anyway, you are free to think what you want, but don't call it the best Disney movie ever made unless you have better reasons why.

Bieber Arrested

Wow, Justin Bieber was arrested. Anyone surprised by this? I'm not. Not one bit. The little tyke was bound to be arrested sooner or later what with the behavior he's been exhibiting recently. It's usually the type of behavior that ends up getting people arrested. Guess he's learning celebrities aren't above the law.

Guys, I'm not a fan of Justin Bieber. Never have been, never will be. I don't follow stories about him because I don't care for him. I only know about this arrest because the internet has been blowing up about it. I don't know if this is his first or second arrest, but I do know he deserved the arrest.

Anyone who drives drunk, resists arrest, drives without a valid license, and is racing his vehicle deserves to be arrested. I don't care how much money they have or how famous they are. Not to mention he was on drugs at the time.

He and his racing partner were driving at least 30 miles above the speed limit in a residential area! That is dangerous and stupid.

So now that we got that covered and we all understand it's a bad thing to do, let's move on to what I'm really talking about: our reaction. That's right, folks. The way we have reacted to this not shocking news is ridiculous.

So this photo has made lot of people angry. Does it make you angry? People are upset he had the guts to compare himself to Michael Jackson. But, is he he really? Does posting a photo of him and MJ mean he's comparing their music? Not really. If anything, he's comparing their release from prison. And everyone's whining about it! They're mad he "compared" himself to Michael Jackson who was being released from prison for charges of child molestation.

Honestly, I think it's silly to be mad about this. Who really cares? This is hardly important.

Here's a picture of his mugshot, though, where he's giving us all a big old grin. Now, I don't want to judge or anything, maybe the kid is just used to smiling in front of a camera and did so without thinking....but, still. It's a mugshot. He is guilty of endangering the lives of others and he's grinning about it.

Bieber does such a great job of showing how not to behave when getting arrested and how to not to pose when getting a mugshot. I wonder what's going through his mind. Is he trying to show us all he doesn't care? Because he absolutely should care and learn a very important from all this.

One of the worst parts of this whole mess is the beliebers. It's really disgusting how they've reacted to this, coming out and vowing to support him no matter what. Look kids, you can be a fan of this dude's music as long as you want, but we do not ever support drunk driving no matter who is doing it! And we don't support people's decisions to be a jerk, either.

There were was a horrible tweet by @justegirlthings "joking'" about how they would always support him even to the day he decided to shoot up a school. Absolutely disgusting. It's bad enough to support someone for driving drunk but when you go as far to even "joke" about supporting them when they shoot up a school, there's a real problem. #FreeBieber was actually a trending topic. You beliebers just don't get it.

Justin Bieber did something wrong. It was very bad and extremely dangerous. We don't want to free people who do those things. We want them to be arrested so they don't kill anyone. I don't care if he's your favorite singer, he's subject to the same laws you and I are and he must abide by them.

Let me put it this way for those of you who still don't get it: If my favorite celebrity did something as stupid as drunk driving, I might still enjoy their talent, but I would definitely not support their decision. I would want them to be arrested and to accept the harsh and rightfully deserved consequences of doing something so dangerous.

You're free to listen to his music, but do you really want to support drunk driving? What does that say about you?

Thank god he's quitting music, though. I've had enough of him. Just wanted to throw that in there.

This Wrecking Ball Can't Be Tamed

Can you guess who/what this post is covering? Yes, good job. Miss Miley Cyrus has caught the attention of Miss Opinionated. But, that's not surprising. It seems she has has captured the attention of the entire nation and goodness knows why! Who would have guessed that sweet little Hannah Montana would end up portraying herself as nothing more than a sick sexual pervert?

We all knew she would grow up one day. She couldn't be Hannah forever. Growing up was inevitable. Now, after all these years, I find myself asking: did she actually grow up at all? She is certainly older, but I would not call her behavior grown up. Sad to say that I think Hannah Montana is more grown up than Miley Cyrus.

The evolution of her image is actually quite stunning.

She started as this:

At this stage, she was a sweet, beautiful, respectful and happy young lady that I would see as a role model for, really, anyone. She was always smiling and always happy. Something that we need more of in this world. She was, as a role model, pure and decent and someone to look up to.

And then we had this:

Okay, she's growing up and maturing. She is making more serious music, she has a movie, she looks like she's on the right track. Still a decent girl with pleasant music that gives inspiring messages, which are the best kind. Still someone I would be proud to have my child (if I had any) aspire to be like. At the this point, she was the kind of celebrity we needed. She was a mainstream music artist that didn't sing about sex or drugs and gave us something to think about. She was different.

Then this happened:

Obviously, she wanted a more a dangerous edge to her image. This was a little strange, but I didn't think much of it. She was just trying to get rid of her Hannah Montana image. Less of a role model, less original, less inspiring. Certainly not someone to look up to. She was now just another music artist. Exactly like the others.

And now:

I can only think of a few words to describe this. Shameful, awful, horrifying, trashy, disgusting. Someone get this little girl out of the limelight. It has destroyed her. Where is that inspiring, beautiful music artist she was just a year or two ago? Miley has obviously done away with her to become a much less attractive and admirable whatever this is. If you haven't seen her 2013 VMA performance, this is a photo from it. I highly recommend you don't watch it. It's nothing special. You'll regret it as it will be five minutes of your life that you won't get back. She's not worth it.

She has thrown away her originality to become another clone of the Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, sexual pervert type that we don't need another of. We really don't. Someone please show us that there is more to people than being sexy. Although there are many words I would use to describe Miss Cyrus, sexy is not one of them, though she is desperately striving to be just that. It's very sad. People think that the greatest achievement in life is to be considered sexy and celebrities like Miley Cyrus don't help with that horrible idea. They promote it. 

So, what to do? How to react? My friends, I don't know. We really can't do anything. Although maybe if we responded less positively or acted less interested in her repulsive behavior, she would stop twerking (so disgusted that's an actual thing) around in her underwear. Seriously, the image is not attractive. It gives me nightmares.

Though it may sound like it, I have never actually been a fan of Miley Cyrus. I didn't hate her and she didn't disgust me on every possible level as is the case today, but I wasn't a fan. She has a pretty voice and I thought she had some real potential. But she has thrown away all potential she had to be something great.

What she doesn't understand is, right now, she might be the topic of discussion and everyone knows who she is and what she does, but five, ten years from now, we will be saying Miley Who? She has not made a lasting imprint or done anything memorable. Soon, we will forget all about her. There are great musicians we will remember forever who never had to twerk to get noticed. A few examples:  The Beatles, Billy Joel, Elton John, Frank Sinatra, Amy Whinehouse, Aretha Franklin, Johnny Cash, Freddy Mercury, Van Halen, The Rolling Stones and that's not all. But Miley Cyrus will never be one of those people. She will be stuck on the list with people we won't know in ten years like Britney Spears, Amanda Bynes, Lindsay Lohan and the Kardashians. In six or seven months, no one will care about her VMA performance anymore. Sure, we might be shocked right after it happens and have a few words to say on the subject, but tomorrow, we won't even remember it because it's not worth remembering.

The sad truth is that she is a young lady that does not act like a lady and she is proud of the fact. She thinks she's "being herself," but I don't think so. I think she's doing whatever she can to get attention be it positive or negative. So, any young ladies who have been a faithful of Miley since she started, please, please, please, give her no more attention. Think nothing more of her. She has not done anything that anyone should be proud of. She is disgusting and not any type of role model. You are better than that. You don't need her. There are plenty of people out there that have good music and act decent at the same time. People we shouldn't feel ashamed to respect and love. Miley, sadly, is not one of them.

So, now that I've addressed our reaction to Miley, what do I think she needs? A lot. Miley needs a lot of things. First off, she needs Jesus. Badly. She might not be able to be tamed, but she needs to be tamed. She needs a good old fashioned spanking. She needs her parents to put their foot down. She needs to put her clothes on and keep her tongue in her mouth. She needs to stop the indecent behavior. She needs to stop with the disgusting and highly inappropriate music videos.

I don't know if you've seen her We Can't Stop or Wrecking Ball videos, but I suggest you don't watch them. They are a waste of life. Miley obviously knows how she wants to be seen and it is not how anyone, anywhere should ever want to be seen. I don't know if she realizes it, but she has disgusted the entire country. More people hate what she has become than approve of it. She's not famous because people adore her, she's famous because people hate her. Even other celebrities are appalled at her.

Rhianna, One Direction, Taylor Swift and Selena Gomez react to Miley Cyrus' horrendous VMA performance.

Others tweeted their thoughts:

"I just watched the #VMAs & I know I'm going to have nightmares about Miley Cyrus playing a tiny harp where her "red light area" is." - Jesse Tyler Ferguson

"Things I learned watching the #VMAs2013: There's nothing you can do with a foam finger that you can't air on MTV." - James Van Der Beek

"Watching VMAs. Haven't been in a strip club in a while, but good to see nothing has changed" - Bill Maher

Brooke Sheilds, who played Miley's mother in some Hannah Montana episodes responded by saying, "I was Hannah Montana's mother. I do not approve. Where did I go wrong? I just want to know who's advising her and why it's necessary? Our children can't watch that. I feel like it's a bit desperate."

More like A LOT desperate.

That Parents Television Council was extremely upset with the performance and even Miley's team was a little shocked. A source close to her said, "They saw the rehearsals, but those were really played down compared to the live performance."

So, say what you will about her, but she has certainly gone downhill. She is someone we don't need to see anymore of. She doesn't needs fans, she needs a time out. Just....I don't know....pray for her. She needs help. Lots of help.

Westboro Baptist "Church"

Cult: A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Westboro Baptist Church claims a lot of things, but one thing they don't claim is they they are a cult. However, according to the above definition, it is easily seen that a cult is exactly what they are. In fact, they fit that definition so well that we could just as easily put this in the dictionary:

Cult: Westboro Baptist Church

and no other explanation would be needed. If anyone wanted more detail, all they would have to do is look up said cult.

Why am I writing on Westboro Baptist, you may be wondering. No, I haven't seen any recent news on them but that doesn't change the fact that I HATE THEIR SLIMY GUTS! Okay, maybe I shouldn't be so harsh, but they are a hard group of people to love.

 If you've never heard of these people then lucky you. Life is better when you don't know they exist. You would be happier if you didn't finish reading this post....but I can't stop you. All I can do is warn you.

I don't remember how I first heard about this cult but I think it was on YouTube. I was watching some sort of video and they happened to start talking about this church. The things they said about the church were awful and horrifying. They slammed the church and the things they claimed the church did and said. I figured if the church was truly all they were saying then the church deserved this. I looked up the church. I watched their videos and read their website and to my horror they were ten times more horrible than the video had claimed. The people in the video hadn't been harsh enough!

Now you're probably wondering (if you're unfamiliar with them) what they could possibly do that is so terrible. Don't worry, I'm about to tell you. Brace yourself.

The church is relatively small made up of seventy-something or eighty-something people. Not surprisingly, most of them are related in some way. So it's basically a church made up of one big family.

This cult is the most hateful group of people I have ever heard of and they don't hide their hatred. They make their hatred very public. They hate everyone on the planet except themselves. Everyone, except them, is going to hell. Or so they believe.

The church regularly travels around the country "warning" people of God's wrath and how we are all headed to hell. They picket everything. Funerals, concerts, parades, the President, people, everything. They picket everything good and have the audacity to hold up hand made signs thanking God for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But that's not all. They thank God for dead soldiers, for earthquakes, for school shootings. They picketed what was a Sandy Hook memorial or funeral thanking God for the shooter that came and killed elementary school children. It's horrible. It's hard to believe, but see for yourself:

This is just one of the many signs they parade around with in public, thanking God for the heroes who die defending our country. What's funny is that they are very careful to make sure they do nothing illegal and their right to free speech and peaceful protestation (or picketing) is protected by the constitution. Yet, they thank God when people die for defending their right to picket. And I don't mean funny as in "laugh out loud" funny. I mean funny as in sick and twisted.

Here is a photo of one of their horrible signs thanking God for a tragic terrorist attack along with a sweet little reminder that God hates us, while treading on the American flag.

I can only imagine that this is a reference to the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. I know that they picketed it because they never fail to make their schedule public. They LOVE it when people know where they are going to be. They love being in the spotlight because it helps to spread God's "message."

 

A tweet from Shirley Phelps-Roper (daughter of the pastor and in charge of all church publicity) saying they will picket the elementary school. Picket the victims of the shooting. Not the shooter.

Why all this hate? Why do they believe God hates everyone and everything? Why do they think all bad things that happen are judgements from God and why do they believe we are being judged so harshly? Well, ladies and gentlemen, after everything I've learned about the church, what I find it all comes down to is this:

Yes, my friends. According to Westboro Baptist Church, God is our enemy (that phrase is on several of their signs) because of homosexuals. Although, as you can see by these signs held by Fred Phelps (their pastor who they basically believe to be second in command to God himself) they prefer to use a more vulgar word to refer to this group of people. And it is the only word they use to refer to them.

Apparently, God hates us and is punishing us so harshly because we live in a country that tolerates homosexuality. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about homosexuality or gay marriage. If you live in the United States and don't belong to their church, then God hates you because, as they say, you are one of the

This is how they refer to every straight person outside of their cult. If you're not gay, no matter your personal views, you're automatically an enabler. All it takes is living in the United States. Speaking as an enabler, this label is much less offensive and distressing than they intended it to be. They use the most vile and disgusting language and images (if you browse their various signs) to try and speak for God, but what they don't realize is that I will proudly bear any name that means I am not one of them. They don't understand that they are being counterproductive. Are they achieving what they want to achieve? They think they are warning us about our "impending doom" but they are just dishonoring God. Nothing more.

One of the saddest things about this horrible church is how they involve the young children. As you can see in the picture, they are taught these awful things young in life. They will take five-year-old children on pickets (even though people often get violently angry with them). These young kids hold up these signs and don't even know that they mean. I know this to be true because I watched a Louie Theroux documentary on them (The Most Hated Family in America) and he asked a little girl if she knew what the sign she was holding meant and the girl shook her head no. Shirley Phelps-Roper then tried to explain it to the child but she might as well have been talking to herself. There was no way the girl could have understood the complexity of the language she used. It's very sad the way they brainwash these children into believing lies about God.

I don't know why these people want to believe that God is some hateful, judgmental being sitting in heaven and torturing us with every tragedy he can think of, but that's not the impression I get when I read the Bible. Rather, I find him to be a loving, merciful and forgiving God that died for the whole entire world that we all might go to heaven; not just Westboro.

It sickens me that they twist the verses in the Bible and take them out of context to fit their distorted belief. It's awful to know that they genuinely believe that God delights in our misfortunes. They seemed to have skipped the numerous verses in the Bible that disprove everything they say is true.

I don't know why they like to think that everything bad is a judgment of God. That God does the bad things and none of the good things. They think God sent the planes into the world trade center and pentagon on September 11 of 2001 when I don't believe God had anything to do with it. They don't understand that God gave everyone free will. Even terrorists. If someone does something bad to someone else, they think God did it. They don't think the person sinned.

If someone is murdered, they don't believe it was the murderer making his own choice to do something bad to another person, though the Bible clearly states we are not to murder each other. No, the murderer is carrying out God's wishes. It is the unfortunate victim that is the sinful one.

Do they just flat out ignore verses like these?

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.  - Jeremiah 29:11

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.- John 3:16

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.- 1 John 4:8

For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. - Psalm 22:24

Just from these few verses, although there are many more like this, I don't see how they can call God hateful. The verse from Psalms contradicts their whole belief system in one sentence. They just don't get it.

They think everything that happens is a judgment of God and has nothing to do with our free will, unless, of course, that thing is homosexuality. Or being a soldier. Or not being part of their church. Their ignorance is astounding.

There is a book I highly recommend if you find yourself as interested in this cult as I am (not interested as in you would like to join them, interested on an intellectual standpoint). It is called Banished: Surviving my Years in the Westboro Baptist Church. I finished it in a total of two days, but I could have finished it in one. I literally had to make myself put it down so I could do things like sleep. Anyway, it's written by a young lady who grew up as a member of the church but was eventually banished. Banishing, by the way, is what they do to people who become smart enough to think by themselves and start to ask questions that contradict the church's doctrine. They banish you when they become afraid that you will prove them wrong.

If you're very interested in them, they have several websites that you are free to look through. They copyright all their material but allow anyone to use any of it for free for any reason. I'm not going to list their websites or anything, but if you google the church they will pop right up. They welcome you to write them emails if you have any questions about anything. They ask for "intelligent" questions. Of course, what is or is not intelligent is completely up to them. If they don't have an answer for your question, that's usually when it's deemed unintelligent and you'll be called stupid.

One last note before I end this post, if you are in the least bit anxious about the things Westboro says and think that maybe God does hate you, Westboro is wrong. You are wrong. God loves you. He loves me. He loves everyone. He created you. He didn't just snap his fingers and add another human being to the world, he specifically molded you into exactly what you are because he has a purpose and plan for your life. He didn't create you to hate you. You're his child and he loves you more than anything. The sooner Westboro understands that, the better. They don't speak for God. They have no possible way of knowing who goes to hell and who doesn't. They are disobeying God just by judging everyone. God clearly says not to judge others several times. He also says men look at the outside and he looks at the heart. Westboro missed that completely. They are also a perfect example. They harshly judge you by your outside, but God does not. He sees your heart and that is the only thing that truly matters.

All I have left to say is that, when I die, I sincerely hope that Westboro Baptist Church pickets my funeral. It will mean I did something in my life that I should be proud of.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

I don't really watch courtroom dramas or follow real life trials, but, for some reason, I have found myself hooked on the Jodi Arias murder trial. I mean, what can I say? I was flipping through channels on my television one afternoon and happened upon the channel covering her trial and, since then, I haven't been able to stop watching it - not literally, figuratively.

If you're not familiar with the case, I suggest you read up on it. I'm not going to recount every detail in this post - as there's a whole lot of them - but I will go over the main issue.

So, basically, a man named Travis Alexander was found dead laying naked in his shower back in June of 2008. He had been stabbed 29 times, shot in the head, and his neck had been sliced from ear to ear. Right from the beginning, people were accusing his ex-girlfriend, Jodi Arias, of doing this to him and now she is on trial for murder and, if convicted, will receive the death penalty. Jodi has admitted to brutally killing Travis, but claims it was done in self defense.

I'm not buying that for a second.

I know that some people think she's innocent and that Travis was a monster. In fact, there is a whole website devoted to her innocence. But to me, it seems like most of what being's said there is speculation and the same people also had a site that claimed Casey Anthony was innocent so...yeah. That speaks for itself.

One of the main reasons I doubt Jodi is because she's a liar. She has been lying to detectives since day one. First she claimed she wasn't there and didn't do it, then she said she was there but two intruders did it, then she said she did do it but it was self defense. Sure, Jodi. We believe you this time. Not.

So much has happened during this trial that has been going on for over a month, I can't possibly recount everything.There has been witness after witness after witness. Jodi herself has been on the stand. She was on the stand for a long time. The news commentators say that she has been on the stand longer than anyone they have witnessed in their careers.

There are several reasons that I don't believe Jodi is innocent of first degree murder - not just because she's already admitted to lying about several things. Her behavior has been strange from the very beginning. Not only did she deny killing Travis, but she made up a ridiculous story of two intruders who came in and killed him but she was somehow able to escape and, get this, never called 911. Never went to any authority of any kind. Didn't tell anyone. She just drove away and left him there to die.

I don't know about you, but if intruders broke into a friend's house, and it was only me and my friend there and they killed my friend and I got away, the first thing I would do is call the police, especially if I wasn't 100% sure that my friend was dead, which Jodi claims was the case.

Now that she's admitted to being the killer, things are a little different. Jodi claims self defense, but there isn't any evidence to suggest that he was ever violent with her or anyone else. Everyone else that knew him says he wasn't abusive or violent, even his other girlfriends. They all say that they always felt safe around him. Jodi is the only one who says he behaved this way and, ironically, she's the only one who needs that to be true. She says he attacked her when she dropped his camera. He was so angry she had to kill him. I think if dropping his camera was enough to make him so violently angry that he could have killed her and the only way out was to kill him, then someone else he knew at some time in his life would have seen at least a sign of such uncontrollable aggression. But, strangely, no one ever did. All we have in respect to him being abusive is Jodi's word and she tends to lie a lot. People also say that, at one point, Jodi slashed the tires on Travis' car. He knew about that. He didn't try to kill her then or get violent. So slashing his tires is fine, but don't drop his camera or he'll kill you? I don't think so.

Not only that, but Jodi doesn't have any injuries from the abuse she claimed happened. She would tell people of the physical abuse she had received and where she had been hurt, but the wounds always seemed to have already healed so she couldn't show them to anybody. There was one injury, though, a broken finger that she was able to show the jury. She claimed that her finger broke after Travis kicked her hand. She never went to go see a doctor about her "broken" finger.

I put broken in quotation marks because I don't believe it was ever broken. If she did in fact injure her finger, I think it's more likely that it was while she was stabbing Travis one of the twenty-nine times.

Take a look at the video below*. There are a couple of foul words in it, just to warn you, but if you watch the whole video, Jodi's injured finger is being discussed. She can be clearly seen showing a bent finger to the jury but if you watch up to around the five minute mark, her left hand (the one with the injured ring finger) is shown several times and I see no bend at all. Do you?

*For some reason, I cannot get the video to post, but here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU_bl67g4Pk

And I find it hard to believe that after being body slammed, thrown to the ground and kicked by such a large guy that an injured finger is all she has to show for it. Her body must be super resilient.

I don't want to post any pictures because I don't want to get into copyright issues, but if you look, you can clearly see that Travis is quite a bit bigger than Jodi is. It's unreal the amount of injuries she doesn't have if he was as violent as often as Jodi claims.

This injury thing is important because it will help the jury decide if he was violent with her in his last moments. Jodi says after she dropped his camera, he attacked her. She was pushed and thrown around and body slammed twice. No injuries to show from this attack. Just the injured finger that happened a few days prior. 

Another thing to pay attention to is her behavior. Ever since she killed Travis she has not been acting like a victim of abuse that had to kill someone in self defense, she has been acting like she loves the attention. Go look up her mug shot. She's smiling in it. She said she smiled because she was thinking "what would Travis do?" Yeah, right. My dog could come up with a better lie than that.

Her interrogation videos are strange, too. If you watch them, she just doesn't look like someone who cares about her friend being dead. She's more concerned about things like her makeup and whether or not she's being recorded. In fact, when she was first arrested, the first thing she said was "Do I have time to get my makeup?" She is not acting like a victim of abuse at all.

In one of her interrogation videos, she's in the room by herself. She starts singing. She sings a song called Here With Me by Dido and then she sings O Holy Night. In the middle of the latter song - and remember she's in here alone - she stops singing and starts laughing. Legitimately giggling! Then she starts singing again. Is that the behavior of an abuse who was forced to kill someone so violently in self defense? No, it's not.

Besides the fact of all this strange behavior, she took the time to cover her tracks after the crime. She tried to get rid of the evidence. Before the killing, they were taking naked pictures with each other. The last photo of him alive is him naked in the shower. She's dressed now. After she murdered him, she deleted some pictures, put the camera in the washer and ran it. She disposed of the knife and the gun and they haven't been found. She put the license plate on her car upside down. She called his cell phone after she knew he was dead and left a message. Then she drove to another man's house and made out with him. She's guilty.

She is so good at playing the innocent little girl, though. She's all sweet and polite, and it's just horrifying to know that hidden underneath the sweet, innocent girl lies a cold blooded killer. But it's the truth. She was interviewed by 48 Hours and you can watch the video below. You can see her smile and laugh the whole time. She is loving this attention! She's not acting like she misses Travis or is even sorry that he's dead. She gave this interview during the time she claimed intruders killed Travis so it's full of pathetic lies and she plays them so convincingly, you have to think that this can't be all she's lying about. If she lied about this, she lied about something else. I think her self defense story is as fake as the story she told in this interview. Just watch it. She doesn't look like an innocent victim here.

There are several other reasons I think she's guilty as well. I mean, this trial has been going on for four months and every witness has contributed to the case and there is so much to go over that I can't cover nearly all of it. You watch the trial coverage on HLN. It's pretty interesting.

Other factors of the case are that Jodi says she got the gun out of his closet during the attack, but everyone who knows Travis says he didn't own a gun. Even Jodi said he didn't own one during her interrogation, but I guess she changed her mind when she decided to claim self defense. Something fishy, though, that happened a few days before the she murdered Travis is that a gun was stolen from Jodi's grandparents' house. Just a gun. Just one out of the several different kinds they owned. It just happened to be the same kind of gun used to shoot Travis. Jodi had been at her grandparents' home around the time of the robbery. This is looking more and more like premeditation.

It seems as though Jodi was holding the camera while she brutally killed Travis because there are some accidental photos on it of the floor and the ceiling and one of Travis after he's been murdered and Jodi's foot in the same picture. Travis is naked. Jodi, as seen from the picture, at least has on socks and a pair of pants.

Something interesting, though, is that these pictures are date and time stamped. There is a photo of the ceiling which Jodi says is a picture the camera took as she dropped it. So it's a picture that tells us when Travis attacked her then there is a picture of him after he's been murdered. These two pictures, before and after the attack, are 62 seconds apart. That is not enough time for everything Jodi says took place to have taken place.

Other witnesses that the defense has called up hasn't really helped their case, in my opinion. They called up a psychologist that had seen Jodi four times during one year and gave her a diagnosis of PTSD but I think that discussion was a waste of time because if she does have PTSD (even though I don't find the psychologist to be very credible) I don't see how that helps prove self defense as she would have developed the disorder after the killing.

They've also had a domestic violence expert on the stand who appears to be buddy-buddy with the defense team. She was very rude to the prosecutor while on the stand and, frankly, I don't think her testimony should be given much weight to the final outcome.

Just to add another piece of evidence against Jodi, while on the stand, Jodi says she shot Travis in the bathroom. But apparently she told the domestic violence expert that she shot him in the closet. Make up our mind!

Anyway, there is so much more to this case out there, every little thing just shows how guilty she is. I am just going over the evidence that I find the most damning. But explore the case yourself and see what you think.

****

Jodi Arias is tweeting from jail. Her twitter account is Jodiannarias. Sometimes she tweets about the case, which is mostly just insulting the prosecutor and HLN, but mostly it's about her website where she is selling her artwork. Seriously? Not much of a victim, is she? Please, please, please, don't give her money. She is a violent, cold blooded killer who deserves the death penalty. Not money. Don't support murderers.

****

If you want to know my opinions on this case as it continues, you can follow me on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/OpinionMiss
I will be tweeting what I think as I watch live coverage of the trial. Hope to see you there!

Dude, Where's My Gun?

It's 2013 and the world is still here. That can be good or bad news depending on whether you're a glass half full or glass half empty type. Anyway, I haven't been around to post on my blog recently because life outside of the computer has been crazy. But, I'm back now. And I thought I would start off my blogging year with a post about this gun control issue that people have been getting pretty serious about since the elementary school shooting. I don't know that you care about my position on this issue, but if you don't care, don't read it.

School shootings. Wow. That phrase looks and sounds terrible, like it shouldn't be a real thing. But it is a real thing. It is a very real thing. It makes you want to do something about it. But what can you do? The fact is, there will probably always be school shootings because there will always be messed up people. Now, in short, I'm all for taking care of criminals and getting them off the streets, but I don't think taking away guns is going to fix that problem. At all.

Gun does not equal criminal. We can't punish everybody in the country because some people out there use guns in ways they shouldn't be used. I mean, think about it, if someone really wants to kill someone, is the lack of a gun going to stop them from committing murder? There are plenty of ways to kill someone without using a gun. Taking away guns from people may reduce the number or crimes committed with a gun, but it won't reduce crime.

And let's be logical here; criminals are criminals because they break the law. If they want to murder someone with a gun, they are going to. Murder is against the law but people are still murdered . Gun control will make it harder to get a gun, but it won't make it impossible.

I'm a firm believer in the constitution. That doesn't mean that I don't think nothing ever needs to change, but I don't think it needs to change unnecessarily. The second amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is a day and age when we need to stand up for rights, not consent to them being taken away. We give the government control of our guns, we are giving them another piece of our liberty. We are supposed to be a free country but we are slowly having our freedoms taken away.

If we take guns away, not only are criminals who want a gun going to ignore the law, but innocent people will have lost a way to defend themselves. If someone has a gun pulled on them after we take away the right to own a gun, that person is basically doomed to die if the one with the gun decides to shoot. Hypothetically, what if one of the teachers at the Sandy Hook elementary school had had a gun on them? They could have shot the gunman down and maybe the number of lives lost would have been lessened.

The founding fathers were all for citizens owning guns. George Washington said "a free people ought to be armed" and Benjamin Franklin said "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," and, frankly, I agree with them.

Instead of pretending that gun control will fix the problem, why don't we focus on the underlying issues? Why are people killing each other? Why all this gun related crime? We should focus more on things like mental illnesses, parenting, education and the things that shape people into who they are. We need to work on the reasons people are committing crimes, not taking away the tools they use to commit them.

This is just my opinion here, but I promise you that gun control will not stop crime. There may a drop in gun related crimes, but there will not be a drop in crime. We need to understand that guns aren't the problem: people are. Guns don't do anything wrong: people do. Guns are a tool that are very useful and necessary when used in the ways they are intended to be used. Anything can be abused, though, and used wrongly.

Instead of whining about it, though, why don't we work more on educating people about guns and gun safety? Why don't we stress the importance of using guns wisely? Granted, this won't stop the criminals from using them, but neither will gun control.

Let's work with the people, not with the guns.