No right is limitless…including gun rights

Source: neorepublic.com

Whenever I upload a blog post with some sort of reference to gun control, even the tiniest bit, I catch some less than gentile digital flak. Today has been no exception following my post last night about assault rifles and body armor.  In the post, I questioned the need for any individual to own an assault rifle or body armor other than for less-than-wholesome purposes. Even though I posted it under liberal on reddit, and included a clearly stated allowance for legally owned hunting rifles, gun collections, and handguns for personal protection, I still received several biting rebukes.

What is the gun lobby so damn scared of? The assault weapons ban of the 1990s certainly didn’t leave out nation defenseless and overrun by the rampant armies of Satan. Sadly, I am beginning to believe that nothing short of the total gutting all gun laws will be enough for the most ardent of the gun lobby. Despite what’s depicted in Westerns, our nation was not founded on the quickest draw or largest arsenal, but on a set of laws and guiding principles. The second amendment clearly says, “a well-regulated militia,” not a “lawless militia” or “an anarchial militia.”

One respondent said something to the effect of gun ownership is a right, not a need. Based on the second amendment, that is essentially true, except when gun ownership starts infringing on my rights as a citizen to free speech, as well as enjoying my life and liberties without having to worry about who may or may not be packing. I think we have reached the stage where gun owners have taken away the rights of other citizens because they have become too powerful, too radical, and much too visible.

In a debate between those packing and those not, don’t tell me those guns are not intimidating. That fact in itself has eroded the rights of non-gun owners who are afraid to speak up.  What gun advocates seem to forget is that every right has its limits. Once you exceed those reasonable limits, as I believe the gun lobby has, you start trampling on the rights of others.

Read Full Post »

An assault on our intelligence

Other than to kill, injure, and/or maim other living creatures, what could possibly be the purpose of owning an assault rifle?

• To join the French Foreign Legion?
• Start an army?
• Run an illegal cartel?
• Perform in the circus?
• Make Swiss cheese in a weird new way?

Given the unlikelihood of those thoughts listed above, then why sell assault rifles to anyone when there is a better than even chance the weapon will be used to do evil and harm?

Source: information2share.wordpress.com

-

Before I go any further, let me make this perfectly clear – I have no problem with someone legally owning a rifle for legitimate hunting purposes, someone who legally collects handguns or hunting rifles as a hobby, or someone who legally owns a handgun for personal safety and who has taken the proper safety and instructional courses. What I do have a problem with are individuals owning what are essentially “military” guns and large arsenals of guns and related gear that have no credible purpose other than to do harm.

-

Even more asinine is the idea of selling full body armor. Is that something that is necessary to defend oneself from a counter attack by deer, elk, or bear? Is it because they are planning to ride over Niagara Falls in a barrel? C’mon folks, let’s get realistic.

The only plausible reasons that someone would need full body armor are all bad and the merchants of death (gun lobby) know that – just like they know that the principal purpose of assault rifles is not for hunting.  The least they could do is to be honest about it.

-

It is awful enough to know there are people running about this nation with arsenals larger than some small nations, but please do not assault our intelligence on top of that by saying there are genuine reasons for selling assault rifles and full body armor. It is not only disgusting and degrading, but unethical and immoral.

Finally, I would sure like to know how sellers of assault rifles and body armor (most recently those in Colorado) can possibly live with themselves and sleep at night?

Read Full Post »

Not your tele-version of “21 Jump Street”

I saw the movie 21 Jump Street this past Saturday night. While there were a number of very funny scenes and a believable plot, to this viewer the foul language was unnecessarily overdone and in some ways even detracted from the quality of the film.

According to one of my sons, he had read that the “f” word was used more than 120 times in the film. After seeing the movie, I would say that is a gross underestimate. Frankly, the word was used nearly as often as “the.”

I did like the lead characters and enjoyed their banter. And, I have got to admit that the chase scene in the movie provides some laugh-out-loud visual and slapstick comedy, a la The Naked Gun.

Probably, the most surprising thing to me was the theater was complete full even though the film was released several weeks ago. I walked in thinking we were going to be the only five people in the room - boy was I surprised. I also enjoyed the appearances by many of the original television series cast, including a current male movie superstar who will remain nameless, but everyone will immediately recognize.

If you decide to go see 21 Jump Street, do not take any children under the age of 16, because the language is raw, the topics are raw, and some of the imagery is quite violent. Otherwise, you will laugh, but I think it could have been even funnier by using less raw language and being more clever with the dialogue.

Read Full Post »

If the three windbags (Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck) ruled the earth

• I and whole lot of other people would move to another planet immediately.
• Cape Girardeau, Missouri would be named world capital.
• Women would be instantly second class citizens.
• Egotistical would be mandated as a positive trait.
• Facts and the truth would be more distorted than they already are by Fox Spews.
• Prescriptions would be no longer required.
• Phony acts and displays of patriotism would be required to prove you are a real ditto head.
• Conspiracy theories would be allowed as evidence in the courtroom.
• Guns would be issued with birth certificates to newborns.
• Taxes would be eliminated, but adoration fees will be imposed to fund their ever-expanding egos.
• The earth (and time) will start spinning in reverse.
• Oil would become the worldwide currency.
• There would be no such thing as moderate, left, liberal, progressive, or the like as they would be outlawed.
• Moron meters would become unnecessary since everything would be stupid.
• CBS would be renamed the Conservative Broadcast System; ABC the All Right Broadcasting Company; NBC the Neo-Nazi Broadcast Company; and PBS the Puritanical Broadcast Service.
• Human rights would only apply to those on the right.
• “Fend for yourself” would become the worldwide motto.
• Selfish would completely replace selfless.
• The planet would overheat within a month from all the hot air being spewed.

Read Full Post »

Write in “none of the above” in the GOP primary

Tomorrow is primary day in Michigan. To this progressive, all of the GOP candidates are a very sorry lot. Mitt turned his back on his home state two years ago and needs to be resoundingly reminded of that fact. Santorum is just plain scary. If I were a woman, I would emigrate to Canada and fast, if he is elected. Newt is….well, Newt. He is way too full of himself and his smile always reminds me of the sneaky and snotty Cheshire cat from “Alice in Wonderland.” Lastly, Ron Paul. I simply cannot agree with (or comprehend) his ultra-libertarianism.

So, my biased suggestion would be to skip the primary altogether or write-in “none of the above.” Perhaps, if enough people do that, the GOP might wake up from its 19th century delusion. Yes, I know that is wishful thinking, but someone’s got to do it.

Q: How many GOP candidates does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: None, for they are still stuck in the Dark Ages.

Read Full Post »

Should Gabrielle Giffords resign?

Yes, according to an opinion piece by Paul Sracic. He says her district of 650,000 Arizonans has gone long enough without representation, and she should step down so Gov. Jan Brewer can call a special election.

He is right that we tend to see resignations as punishment for bad behavior (e.g. Anthony Weiner). In Giffords’ case, she was incapacitated while doing her job: listening to her constituents’ concerns. And although she is reportedly recuperating amazingly well, she will never be able to return to the way she was before the shooting in January. No one can say with certainty how much of her life she will regain and how long it will take to reach that point. It could be months or years.

It pains me to admit it, because Giffords seemed to be a strong progressive voice in the House, but I think Sracic is right that she should resign. Not necessarily immediately, but hopefully soon enough to get a replacement who has the best interest of her constituents at heart. I would love for Giffords to be able to resume her duties, but that doesn’t look to happen anytime soon, and her district shouldn’t go without representation indefinitely.

Read Full Post »

Logic should not break your heart

The title of this post comes from the title of one of my all-time favorite albums, Logic Will Break Your Heart, which was released in 2003 by the Montreal-based alternative band, The Stills. While the primary topic of the album is love, the title easily translates to political ideas too. Numerous social and economic issues whose solution seems logically simple on the surface  tend to get contorted and twisted askew in the wacky world of partisan politics. Here are just a few examples of logical, reasonable, and rational progressive political ideals that get routinely attacked by the radical right and its operatives:

• Women should be earning equal pay for equal work.
• A woman should have the right to make decisions regarding her body without intrusion from the government.
• Same-sex couples can fall in love just as easily as opposite sex couples and should be able to get married.
• Strengthening public education at all levels will pay healthy dividends in the future.
• Fighting wars in far-off foreign lands has become an untenable and unwinnable scenario when going it alone.
• Trickle-down economics is a sham perpetrated by the mouthpieces and stooges of the plutocracy.
• Denying due process to some weakens the Bill of Rights for all.
• Public service is an honorable profession, no matter whether you are a police officer, firefighter, clerk, teacher, nurse, inspector, maintenance worker, mayor, or any other public employee.
• Privatization is not the solution to all problems; in fact it often is the problem.
• Allowing guns to be carried in virtually any location is a guaranteed recipe for disaster.
• Health is a basic right that falls under the right to life, not a privilege for only those who can afford it.
• The rich and major corporations do not pay their fair share in taxes and now wield far too much power as our nation has co-opted from a democracy to a plutocracy over the past three decades.

Many more logical statements could be added to this list, but you can get the picture from these twelve. Far too often emotion, irrational fears, illogical arguments, and unreasonable conditions stand in the way of real progress,  These perpetual roadblocks prolong suffering, delay solutions, and increase the overall costs. Nobody is discounting the need for healthy debate. But, there is a certain point where continuous debate transforms into purposeful delay, which transforms into stalling, which, if undeterred causes our nation to begin regressing instead of progressing.

I guess, when it comes down to it, the question is: Do you want to our nation to progress or regress? To me, regressing is an acceptance of defeat and quitting. Meanwhile, progressing is finding solutions and advancing forward.  Based on those two choices, the answer is simple, rational, reasonable, and logical. Hopefully, it will be so to everyone. Too many hearts have already  been broken by past and present political shenanigans

Read Full Post »

Front line phooey

I saw a bumper sticker while driving on I-69 yesterday that said, “NRA, Freedom’s Front Line.” Oh, really now. I would have thought the Constitution or the Bill of Rights were our nation’s front line of freedom. They must have been around bullets too long and got lead poisoning.

What is it about the gun lobby that makes them think they are so important? All I see is a bunch of people who get their shorts in a knot every time someone proposes reasonable gun legislation. They oppose limitations on the size of ammunition magazines. They oppose a waiting period and background checks. They oppose limitations on assault weapons, and on and on and on.

The attitude reflected by this bumper sticker is not one that abides by the rule of law, but instead one that uses intimidation or the threat of force to achieve its political aims. Gosh, where have I heard that one before.  Sounds right out of the Bush/Cheney doctrine.

You cannot have freedom and a free society without the rule of law. That includes reasonable and enforceable gun laws. Without the rule of law, society will degrade into anarchy. I doubt that is what the gun lobby wants, but who knows? Their rhetoric is so one-sided and unreasonable anymore that they might actually set into motion the events they so desperately fear.

The gun lobby likes to say that guns do not kill people, people kill people. Well, guess what? Guns do not enforce laws either, people do; brave public servants like police officers, federal agents, judges, district attorneys, etc. The gun lobby  cannot use both sides of the argument to make its case, because all that does is make it irrational.

Read Full Post »

Greedy gun merchants

Kudos to New York City Mayor Bloomberg for having city investigators go undercover to expose the rampant federal gun law violations taking at an Arizona gun show. Follow this weblink to the story on The Huffington Post. Why does this not surprise me? Given the choice between public safety and profits, greed will nearly always win. Sad, sad, sad and shameful.

Read Full Post »

The state of MichiGun?

Here is a weblink to a fascinating, yet very discomforting story about gun laws and gun ownership in Michigan from this week’s City Pulse. Below is a quote from the article that includes an instance in Lansing that sends shivers down my spine.

“In Michigan, a favorable state for gun owners, there is legislation afoot (crafted by a Democrat) that would eliminate the state’s gun-free zones. In Lansing, two people recently walked through the downtown Capital Area District Library openly carrying guns. One had a shotgun over his shoulder.

But not everyone has warmed to the idea of being around well-engineered hunks of steel capable of ending a human in seconds. And yet, the gun rights folks are having it their way thanks to a powerful political lobby, ambiguous gun control demands and the belief that, well, guns are America.”

Congratulations to City Pulse for a terrific story and such an in depth analysis. Sadly, it seems the NRA, the gun advocates, and the gun idolizers hold the “upper hand” in MichiGun at the moment.

Read Full Post »