Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Stop 'Gunning' For Political Advantage

From 'cops and robbers' to 'cowboys and Indians' to paintball games, guns have been a part of kid culture for what seems forever.  At least for as long as I've been around which seems like the same.  I wasn't allowed to have a toy gun when I was a kid but not because of what it represented.  My Mother was always trying to make a lady out of me and guns didn't fit into her scheme.  Dad really didn't care.  I guess he knew a tomboy when he saw one.

Times have changed. Since the Virgina Tech shootings it seems there have been an inordinate number of gun incidences or maybe they're just getting more press.  However, when two kids get suspended from school for playing cops and robbers and pointing their fingers as guns, we've really gone over the top. After all, they see it all the time on their televisions and computers and game gadgets so they aren't going to understand what the fuss is all about any more than those who stood on the stage with the President today. Unless they were well rehearsed by their teachers and/or parents.

You talk about polarizing issues!  If I weren't talking about politicians I'd suggest it's time to slow down and get our heads on straight.  This is going to make the spending debate look like child's play.  Both gun advocates and opponents have some good points. We don't need military style assault rifles to shoot Bambi or Thumper.  Limiting the magazine size won't do the job either. Those so determined will just get more small ones. Not to mention loading their own. Also, there are already many laws on the books which aren't being enforced and adding another bureaucracy in the neighborhood of $500 million, which we can't afford, won't solve the problem either because we're not addressing it as a whole.

What I fear is happening is the administration is using a tragedy to chip away at more of our rights and not just the second amendment.  Take the idea that would have doctors talk to their patients about guns.  I doubt mine would bring it up, but I'd tell him it's really none of his business whether or not I own guns.

Having the justice department determine who should and who should not own them is another assault on privacy.  While HIPPA goes a bit far in some instances, it would be undone here if the criteria was to be determined by the medications you take.  Anxiety?  Depression?  High Blood Pressure?  OMG you're a walking time bomb!

I predict a battle royal over this and doubt a lot will change.  They had their chance when the assault weapon ban expired but as usual they did nothing.

Meanwhile the government has a new facade to hide behind while the debt crisis builds behind the scenes.  Like the Democrats introducing a bill to repeal the debt ceiling altogether. Reminds me of a certain You Tube video and a terrorist attack in Benghazi.

If ever our government did it's business in a timely and well thought out manner I think I'd faint.  Not much would be made of it I don't suppose because I'm not Hillary. But if I hit my head and developed a clot I might too develop fuzzy logic that could lead to a plot!

Next thing you know there will be drones in the sky keeping an eye on me, my Facebook page will be watched as will this blog, my phones will be tapped and my flying days will truly be over.

Mr. Obama has claimed, showing his diplomatic finesse once again, that Netanyahu doesn't know what's in Israel's best interest.  Maybe he should pay more attention to what's in ours.  Over reaching one more time isn't it.


Word Tosser said...

couldn't agree with you more... can we limit excutive orders.. maybe 3 a term.. if not get rid of it all together... I know.. I know.. I am dreaming..

Margie's Musings said...

If you read the second amendment, you find it is talking about a militia. In that day, before an army or a police force, a militia was needed. Today, we have both and there is no need for a militia.

It is good to put all these early American amendments in context of the times.

No one, and I mean no one, needs an assault weapon. No one is trying to take a revolver for protection away from the public or rifles and shotguns away from hunters. But there absolutely no need for anyone to have an assault weapon with 120 bullets in the clip.

Let's be reasonable. That's all Obama is trying to do. Is it more important to protect school children or to own an assault weapon?

There is no way to know what a mental case may do. Sometimes it's not even apparent that they are a mental case until something sets them off.

We can, at the very least, use common sense in legislation and remove the availability for them to get assault weapons and clips with multiple bullets.

Rich said...

Most of what he's doing is perfectly reasonable in my mind (improving background checks, closing registration loopholes etc) - although most certainly not as effective as folks promoting them would like to believe.

What isn't unreasonable is just demonstrably ineffective (i.e. the assault weapons ban). The simple fact is that less than 4% of gun crimes are committed with rifles or shotguns, and an even smaller percentage would fall into the "assault weapon" category.

The AW ban is more about scoring political points with a base than it is about doing something to effectively prevent such tragedies in the future.

RE: the Militia comment - The Supreme Court decided on a very different interpretation.

The historic point of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the citizenry would have the means to subdue government tyranny if it ever became necessary having failed other means. That point is as valid today as it was back then.

There is much contention on that issue, however the Supreme Court has already essentially decided the matter.

Rich said...

PS: Came here via your link on

Rich said...

For the record: I do not own any firearms nor am I in any way associated with the NRA or any other gun owners association or club.