Ripped from the headlines of the day -- well, actually, December 14, 2012, I reworked the lyrics of Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth." Yes, I give Stephen Stills co-writing credit. :P
There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Dead children everywhere
I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
One side is right; the other side is wrong
Which side are you on?
Children singing songs over here
Merchants of Death over there
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
They open their bloody coats by the neck
Pull out their blood-stained wallets and cash their bloody checks
While singing "Hi Ho Hi Ho"
"It's off to work we go"
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
Blood is running in the street
The paranoia of the Merchants Of Death runs deep
They are always afraid
Step out of line, the Man comes and takes your gun away.
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
P.S.: To my gun-loving buddies, I actually favor an EXPANSION of gun rights, but "Merchants Of Death" is an effective poem. Just trying to keep the ol' mind nimble by trying poetry....
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Friday, April 19, 2013
Post #367 April 17: A Date Which Will Live In Infamy
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
Sent: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:24:12 -0500
From: "The White House" <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>
Subject: Shameful
The White House, Washington
Wednesday, President Obama stood with parents who lost children in the Newtown tragedy and said: "All in all, today was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
"That's because a minority of senators blocked legislation that would have made America safer and better protected our kids. Forty-five lawmakers stood in the way of improvements to the background check system that would keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable -- something that 90 percent of Americans support.
"A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies -- including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who's here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers -- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.
"Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders -- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn't worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.
"By now, it's well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We're talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that's already the law.
"And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it's not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.
"A majority of senators voted "yes" to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.
"I'm going to speak plainly and honestly about what's happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with "A" grades from the NRA -- come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.
"As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.
"Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both -- she's a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.
"In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn't contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That's why 90 percent of the American people supported it.
"But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of "big brother" gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn't matter.
"And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they're all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.
"But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn't want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics -- the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.
"And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- to vote "no."
"One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn't prevent all future massacres. And that's true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand -- if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.
"And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.
"I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn't make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?
"I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. "A prop," somebody called them. "Emotional blackmail," some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?
"So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
"But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don't give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We're going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We're going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We're going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.
"But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.
"To all the people who supported this legislation -- law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are -- you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don't act this time, you will remember come election time.
"To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn't represent your views on this one.
"The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they're better organized. They're better financed. They've been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that's the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can't get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.
"So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you've got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.
"And that's the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don't know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they've doing over the last several weeks, last several months.
"And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We're going to have to change. That's what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn't happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.
"And I'm assuming that the emotions that we've all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we've all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago -- the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who've lost a loved one to gun violence -- I'm assuming that's not a temporary thing. I'm assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.
"I believe we're going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people.
"Thank you very much, everybody."
---- End Forwarded Message -----
Sent: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:24:12 -0500
From: "The White House" <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>
Subject: Shameful
The White House, Washington
Wednesday, President Obama stood with parents who lost children in the Newtown tragedy and said: "All in all, today was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
"That's because a minority of senators blocked legislation that would have made America safer and better protected our kids. Forty-five lawmakers stood in the way of improvements to the background check system that would keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable -- something that 90 percent of Americans support.
"A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies -- including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who's here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers -- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.
"Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders -- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn't worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.
"By now, it's well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We're talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that's already the law.
"And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it's not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.
"A majority of senators voted "yes" to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.
"I'm going to speak plainly and honestly about what's happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with "A" grades from the NRA -- come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.
"As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.
"Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both -- she's a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.
"In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn't contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That's why 90 percent of the American people supported it.
"But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of "big brother" gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn't matter.
"And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they're all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.
"But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn't want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics -- the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.
"And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- to vote "no."
"One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn't prevent all future massacres. And that's true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand -- if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.
"And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.
"I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn't make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?
"I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. "A prop," somebody called them. "Emotional blackmail," some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?
"So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
"But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don't give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We're going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We're going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We're going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.
"But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.
"To all the people who supported this legislation -- law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are -- you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don't act this time, you will remember come election time.
"To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn't represent your views on this one.
"The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they're better organized. They're better financed. They've been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that's the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can't get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.
"So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you've got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.
"And that's the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don't know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they've doing over the last several weeks, last several months.
"And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We're going to have to change. That's what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn't happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.
"And I'm assuming that the emotions that we've all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we've all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago -- the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who've lost a loved one to gun violence -- I'm assuming that's not a temporary thing. I'm assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.
"I believe we're going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people.
"Thank you very much, everybody."
---- End Forwarded Message -----
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
ost #366 Re: BIG Dance
I will be pulling hard for Miami and Duke. I hate Duke --pure jealousy here -- and will routinely pull against them in the conference, the ACC, but I also realize that it makes the conference look good for Duke to win out-of-conference. Thank Goodness North Carolina is already gone. I will NEVER pull for Carolina, tho -- yes, my hatred runs deep!
You probably want to know: Why not give Carolina the same benefit as Duke --that is, hate them in the conference but pull for them outside the conference? Is not your deep-rooted hatred irrational and unhealthy? Maybe. I hate Duke for their success; I hate Carolina for their success. Indeed, the ACC used to be popularly known as the All North Carolina State Conference at its beginning -- now it is the All Carolina Conference. But that is just jealousy, too. Well, actually, my hatred runs deeper.
Sportsmanship, a sense of fair play -- players shake hands and compete on a level playing field. But Carolina has titled the playing field. The University has stepped in with their own institutionalized fraud -- bogus classes, bogus degrees, a scheme to pass athletes through the system while helping them remain academically eligible. This unfairly gave Carolina a significant competitive advantage over their fellow ACC and NCAA members which led to bragging rights and untold extra money in endorsements, booster donations and brand awareness. That is why I hate Carolina -- they don't play fair and refuse to even acknowledge their cheating ways.
Read the Martin report, a look at Carolina academics prepared by the former governor of North Carolina, Jim Martin. He found 670 instances of cheating -- 216 bogus classes which had little or no instructions and 454 unauthorized grade changes (for those keeping score at home, that is a little more than 44 instances of cheating per year) -- dating back to '97. He said this was isolated in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies and blamed one rogue professor (who, incredibly, would have had to taught a little more than 14 bogus classes per year) and one rogue administrator. Of course, Martin, a UNC grad, holds no one accountable -- not even the two rogues. [rolleyes]
When Chancellor Holden Thorp finally 'steps out the door.' (he is retiring, not because he instigated the scandal but because he oversaw the exposure) he ought to issue an apology -- expressing remorse and regret and an acknowledgement of what happened, how it happened and why it happened and a promise to fix things. "We're sorry. We cheated. We empowered Jock-Sniffing Professors to step in with their own institutionalized fraud -- bogus classes, bogus degrees, a scheme to pass athletes through the system while helping them remain academically eligible. This happened because of our mis-guided faith in The Carolina Way which enabled us to fail to properly oversee The Carolina Way to make sure that it was working as advertised. It wasn't. We did this to unfairly give ourselves a significant competitive advantage over our fellow ACC and NCAA members which led to bragging rights and untold extra money in endorsements, booster donations and brand awareness. We promise to never do this again and are taking steps to tighten our oversight. Again, we apologize." No names were besmirched, no reputations ruined. Is that too much to ask?
You probably want to know: Why not give Carolina the same benefit as Duke --that is, hate them in the conference but pull for them outside the conference? Is not your deep-rooted hatred irrational and unhealthy? Maybe. I hate Duke for their success; I hate Carolina for their success. Indeed, the ACC used to be popularly known as the All North Carolina State Conference at its beginning -- now it is the All Carolina Conference. But that is just jealousy, too. Well, actually, my hatred runs deeper.
Sportsmanship, a sense of fair play -- players shake hands and compete on a level playing field. But Carolina has titled the playing field. The University has stepped in with their own institutionalized fraud -- bogus classes, bogus degrees, a scheme to pass athletes through the system while helping them remain academically eligible. This unfairly gave Carolina a significant competitive advantage over their fellow ACC and NCAA members which led to bragging rights and untold extra money in endorsements, booster donations and brand awareness. That is why I hate Carolina -- they don't play fair and refuse to even acknowledge their cheating ways.
Read the Martin report, a look at Carolina academics prepared by the former governor of North Carolina, Jim Martin. He found 670 instances of cheating -- 216 bogus classes which had little or no instructions and 454 unauthorized grade changes (for those keeping score at home, that is a little more than 44 instances of cheating per year) -- dating back to '97. He said this was isolated in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies and blamed one rogue professor (who, incredibly, would have had to taught a little more than 14 bogus classes per year) and one rogue administrator. Of course, Martin, a UNC grad, holds no one accountable -- not even the two rogues. [rolleyes]
When Chancellor Holden Thorp finally 'steps out the door.' (he is retiring, not because he instigated the scandal but because he oversaw the exposure) he ought to issue an apology -- expressing remorse and regret and an acknowledgement of what happened, how it happened and why it happened and a promise to fix things. "We're sorry. We cheated. We empowered Jock-Sniffing Professors to step in with their own institutionalized fraud -- bogus classes, bogus degrees, a scheme to pass athletes through the system while helping them remain academically eligible. This happened because of our mis-guided faith in The Carolina Way which enabled us to fail to properly oversee The Carolina Way to make sure that it was working as advertised. It wasn't. We did this to unfairly give ourselves a significant competitive advantage over our fellow ACC and NCAA members which led to bragging rights and untold extra money in endorsements, booster donations and brand awareness. We promise to never do this again and are taking steps to tighten our oversight. Again, we apologize." No names were besmirched, no reputations ruined. Is that too much to ask?
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Post #365 See Ya 'Round
My eye treatments did NOT work -- well, FULLY. The right eye is good; the left eye is bleeding again. The doc is trying to figure the next step. Um, well, if I have to get more treatments, I will get more treatments. I'd rather be shot than to get more treatments, but I'd also rather be shot than to go blind. But what can you do? So, I am going to take an indefinite leave of absence -- that sounds better than "quitting." ;O
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Post #364 Happiness Is A Warm Gun! Pt. II
Some of my best friends still own guns, and they haven't killed anyone lately! :p
Personally, I sleep with a loaded baseball bat under my bed. On a strict risk analysis, it makes no sense for me to own a gun. Gun violence around here is shown in suicides, hunting accidents, justifiable homicide -- that husband needed killing -- and, uh, breakdowns of family education -- lil' Johnnie found his father's gun and shot his brother.
Indeed, my own risk analysis tend to back up national studies which show that binging a gun into your home is more likely to harm you or a family member than any intruder. But, if you that paranoid, well, go ahead.
There has been only one case around here in the past 40 years of gun violence with a hoodlum intruding -- that hoodlum had the gun and shot BEFORE the victim could get his own gun. Yes, it was a targeted assassination, and I learned not to make enemies. :p
However, I support everybody having a gun for hunting or self-defense, if they so choose -- either by the law or a Constitutional amendment. Since the Constitution dos not mention hunting or self-defense -- only being in a well-equipped citizen army -- as a reason for owning a gun, I'd support a Constitutional amendment saying so.
The Founding Fathers were no dummies. There is probably a reason the right to own guns is a qualified right. There is also probably a reason the right to own guns is in the 2nd Amendment, not the 1st.
I am a BIG believer in our Constitution, exactly as written. Too bad that Wayne LaPierre and other Nuts cannot read. I even support the EXPANSION of rights through the amendment process, as outlined in the Constitution.
As a practical matter, banning guns does not work.
But a semi-automatic assault rifle with a magazine larger than six bullets, a machine gun or anything that sprays bullets is not really a weapon used in hunting or self-defense -- no one except law enforcement or the military has the need to possess such; thusly, I'd have no qualms with banning the sale and manufacture of such Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The Constitution has no qualms, either.
After all, guns do not kill people, bullets kill people. Limit magazines to, say, six bullets. If you can't stop an intruder with six shots, you probably deserve to be intruded upon! :p
No one want to prevent "good people" from owning guns or obtaining concealed weapons permits should they qualify or sleeping with the barrel of their gun in their mouth (like Gomer Pyle -- ;O) . Possessing an "arsenal" of weapons, ammunition or explosives is evidence of intent to kill or maim or do serious damage and worthy of serious jail time.
Same principal as with drugs. Get caught with one or two joints, slap on the wrist and a diversionary program leading to dismissal. Get caught with 50 lbs of marijuana, you'll spend quite a few years in prison because you're a dealer.
An armed society is a polite society, right? More guns!?! [rolleyes]
Let's try to limit the damage, shall we?
Personally, I sleep with a loaded baseball bat under my bed. On a strict risk analysis, it makes no sense for me to own a gun. Gun violence around here is shown in suicides, hunting accidents, justifiable homicide -- that husband needed killing -- and, uh, breakdowns of family education -- lil' Johnnie found his father's gun and shot his brother.
Indeed, my own risk analysis tend to back up national studies which show that binging a gun into your home is more likely to harm you or a family member than any intruder. But, if you that paranoid, well, go ahead.
There has been only one case around here in the past 40 years of gun violence with a hoodlum intruding -- that hoodlum had the gun and shot BEFORE the victim could get his own gun. Yes, it was a targeted assassination, and I learned not to make enemies. :p
However, I support everybody having a gun for hunting or self-defense, if they so choose -- either by the law or a Constitutional amendment. Since the Constitution dos not mention hunting or self-defense -- only being in a well-equipped citizen army -- as a reason for owning a gun, I'd support a Constitutional amendment saying so.
The Founding Fathers were no dummies. There is probably a reason the right to own guns is a qualified right. There is also probably a reason the right to own guns is in the 2nd Amendment, not the 1st.
I am a BIG believer in our Constitution, exactly as written. Too bad that Wayne LaPierre and other Nuts cannot read. I even support the EXPANSION of rights through the amendment process, as outlined in the Constitution.
As a practical matter, banning guns does not work.
But a semi-automatic assault rifle with a magazine larger than six bullets, a machine gun or anything that sprays bullets is not really a weapon used in hunting or self-defense -- no one except law enforcement or the military has the need to possess such; thusly, I'd have no qualms with banning the sale and manufacture of such Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The Constitution has no qualms, either.
After all, guns do not kill people, bullets kill people. Limit magazines to, say, six bullets. If you can't stop an intruder with six shots, you probably deserve to be intruded upon! :p
No one want to prevent "good people" from owning guns or obtaining concealed weapons permits should they qualify or sleeping with the barrel of their gun in their mouth (like Gomer Pyle -- ;O) . Possessing an "arsenal" of weapons, ammunition or explosives is evidence of intent to kill or maim or do serious damage and worthy of serious jail time.
Same principal as with drugs. Get caught with one or two joints, slap on the wrist and a diversionary program leading to dismissal. Get caught with 50 lbs of marijuana, you'll spend quite a few years in prison because you're a dealer.
An armed society is a polite society, right? More guns!?! [rolleyes]
Let's try to limit the damage, shall we?
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Post #363 "Merchants Of Death"
* Me and Stephens Stills
There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Dead children everywhere
I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
One side is right; the other side is wrong
Which side are you on?
Children singing songs over here
Merchants of Death over there
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
They open their bloody coats by the neck
Pull out their blood-stained wallets and cash their bloody checks
While singing "Hi Ho Hi Ho"
"It's off to work we go"
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
Blood is running in the street
The paranoia of the Merchants Of Death runs deep
They are always afraid
Step out of line, the Man comes and takes your gun away.
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Dead children everywhere
I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
One side is right; the other side is wrong
Which side are you on?
Children singing songs over here
Merchants of Death over there
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
They open their bloody coats by the neck
Pull out their blood-stained wallets and cash their bloody checks
While singing "Hi Ho Hi Ho"
"It's off to work we go"
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
Blood is running in the street
The paranoia of the Merchants Of Death runs deep
They are always afraid
Step out of line, the Man comes and takes your gun away.
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Post #362 Where Were The Good Guys With Guns?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/justice/illinois-teen-shot/index.html
How would more guns in society have saved her life?
How would more guns in society have saved her life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)