Guns Are Only Dangerous If You Use Them

With all the talk going on about gun rights since the Tucson shootings, I was surprised to see a headline about Wisconsin's plans to expand gun owner's rights. It seems with the change of parties in charge, Republicans now, the legislature will finally win out over the former governor's veto.

Did you know, too, that Illinois is the only other state that forbids carrying a concealed weapon? Apologies to Tom Brokaw who said he'd feel uncomfortable in an Arizona bar because of their wide open rules, it seems he shouldn't have singled them out. Granted Arizona and Vermont have less stringent requirements than other states but a concealed weapon is just that and no one has to tell you whether or not one is being carried.  Of course that's what concealed is all about.  Secrecy.

I often wonder why we Americans are so fascinated with guns. I can understand hunters, but for ordinary citizen like myself, I don't get it. That being said, I'm considering taking the course mainly to get a feel for what it's all about.

I remember having a security system rep brag about the fact he wears his weapon even when he goes to church. I had a hair dresser, a woman, who bragged about "carrying". When we had a couple of teenage boys walking around town carrying guns, because they were allowed, I wondered about their parenting. When I commented to a gun store owner I was uneasy knowing how many people carry guns, he asked me why. I had no good answer other than a why not back at him. It was lame.

His view is they most are perfectly honest, sane citizens who are exercising a right. Still, why?

I guess being able to doesn't mean you have to. Yet considering the mind set in today's America, many feel safer doing so than not. I think there is an underlying thread here of which I can't quite get a grasp.

The why. But the laws are what they are. I just hope the requirements for getting those permits include proof of instruction on how to use a weapon properly. And hope for the best.

Rewarding Bad Behavior

Did you know CBS is concerned about Charlie Sheen, star of the hit Two and a Half Men? It's his behavior of course. Assaulting his own his wife, trashing a New York hotel room, downing straight shots of vodka while entertaining porn queens in Vegas for a convention. That probably should have stayed in Vegas. But it didn't. It made the papers.

I expect one day to read where Charlie is found dead from an overdose of excess. Especially since he's 45 and shows no sign of slowing down.

I would guess CBS would be concerned by their bad boy's behavior. After all, he has children. A family. Sort of.

In my world such behavior would have gotten most people a substantial stay behind bars or in rehab. Real rehab, not Hollywood style. But his world is different than mine.

CBS and his producer, Warner Brothers Television, tell us the situation is complicated for Charlie. He goes to work and does his his job extremely well. Of course there are no plans to cancel the program.

I wonder. I don't watch the show because I don't care for Charlie Sheen. Is it just a one man show? It seems to me there must be another man and a half at the very least. Actors are replaced in hit series all the time.

Whoops! I just hit on it. It's a hit! It even increased it's audience by 2% last year! M-o-n-e-y! Why didn't I think of that right off the bat!

Could the reason CBS and Warner Brothers are "concerned" about Charlie is because they're afraid they might lose their star? My guess that outweighs their concern for his well being.

With concern like that, who needs it. Charlie certainly doesn't. But at 45 it's unlikely he'll change. It's a shame. One more life wasted so that others may profit.

I'll stick with my world, thanks.

To the CDA City Council: It's The Attitude

I wonder if the Coeur d'Alene City Council realizes a lot of their problems are brought on by themselves. 


There's a certain air of arrogance surrounding much of what they do. At least that is the perception I get from reading the paper.


A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post about the possibility of a long departed carousel making a return to its home town. I'm happy to report a very generous couple has purchased it from the current owners and are already packing it for the trip. The question is where should it go.


Many have suggested it be incorporated into the plans for the revitalization of McEuen Park.  When suggested the Mayor commented,  "We're not looking at buildings, per se, so I don't know if it could fit."  My question is if the plan they were unveiling was merely a concept, why not? Her statement, knowing the council's history, suggests an already done deal.  Nothing more to be done than go through those pesky motions. 


Since that time there has been much debate as to whether or not the suggested changes should be put to a public vote.  Today's headline in the Coeur d'Alene Press screamed, McEuen: Public Won't Vote.  The vote will be up to the Council.  The controversy comes from the Council's proclivity to push through controversial issues without necessarily playing by the rules.  So some say.  They say it often enough that it's beginning to resonate.


Such is the case here.  Though the article went to great lengths to explain various procedural aspects, the statement that stood out, again from the Mayor, is "Everything has been voted on by the public because they voted for the elected officials."  This comes across to me as rather elitist.


When the Council was elected there was no conceptual plan so the statement is self-serving in suggesting that the Council is all knowing.  The public had no idea what the plan might or might not entail and the Council certainly had no idea how the public would react. The question is do they care.


As planned, this will be an enormous undertaking and the expenditure hefty. When it comes to  digging into the public's pocket they tend to want to have a say.  Not just hearings where the powers can pick and choose, but a say as in vote.


I doubt that will come to pass.  However, it might be easier going if the "we've got the power" attitude was tempered.

Let's Talk About Mental Illness!

I found it interesting, in listening to a psychiatrist for the criminally insane, to learn that Arizona has a law in which the state can be petitioned to order an exam for anyone who is deemed to be of questionable mental stability. It seems Virginia has a similar law. In neither the case of the Tucson shootings nor the Virginia Tech shootings, when people in authority knew of the questionable mental health of the shooters, no one took advantage of those laws.

 Every newspaper in the country should be examining their state laws and informing the public whether or not they too have them and if so how to go about it.

Mental illness is the issue and and it comes in all shapes and sizes. When does it become a danger to the public?

Take for instance our old acquaintances, the Westboro Baptist Church crowd. The ones who protest at military funerals. I might add they made their rounds locally not long ago over a play being preformed about Matthew Shepard, the student in Wyoming who was beaten to death allegedly because he was gay.

They just don't quit. They protested at Elizabeth Edwards funeral. Now, disappointed that Congresswoman Giffords has not succumbed to her wounds, they have decided to protest at the funerals of those who did including nine year old Christina Green. A press release from the group says she "was killed for your rebellion when God sent the shooter to deal with idolatrous America." A nine year old girl.

As for the Congresswoman, a spokeswoman described her as an "arrogant pinhead who surrounds herself with fags and baby killers."

She went on about the killer, "God sent the shooter - that guy's bat-shit crazy - but God sent him."

You cannot tell me this group has one sane member in it. Sane people neither behave nor believe this way. Yet what they do is protected as free speech.

Now let's look at real incitement to violence. Yes, there are groups that go where they go to blunt their effect. It happened here. Yet someday, somewhere, someone is going to be hurting so badly from his or her loss they're going to lose it and go after the protesters. Who then will be judged mentally unstable?

To me the political rhetoric that has become a flash point in this case pales by comparison.

The reason why the judge is dead is "He doesn't care about free speech." Not now he doesn't.

"Once the child enters hell, it's over for her."

It is over for the child. Hell, however, is reserved for the rest of us having to listen to this under the guise of free speech. Is that sick or what?

Are We, The People, Less Important?

Are the people who work in this building more important than the people who put them there?  Of course not, but in the aftermath of Congresswoman Giffords shooting, I'm beginning to think they think so.

I don't mean to diminish in any way the horrible act that took six lives.  The Congresswoman, at least up until now, was not one of them.

I'm having trouble with the closing down of business in the House for a week because of it.  No company I've ever worked for would have ceased doing it's business if it's CEO or another high level executive met with an untimely death.  They definitely would not have had it not resulted in death.

I understand the moment of silence and flags at half staff for the victims.  I agree with it.  I joined in.  Okay.  Now, let's get back to work on the people's business and let things in Arizona get sorted out.

 She is a Congresswoman, no more and no less.  Until this happened, unless you live in Arizona, you probably didn't even know of her.  Just as it is with the victims of countless other violent crimes that happened this weekend. Somewhere in all this it's getting lost that this is a nation of laws, not people.  From the President on down. Mrs. Giffords chose her career path freely, knowing the risks involved for any public figure.

Yet talk radio today is  exacerbating the blame game with a fury.  This is not Sarah Palin's fault. It is not your fault nor my fault. It was the fault of a deranged young man.

It has been an opportune time to point out the character assassination game that has been going on for years without a clue if the rhetoric had anything to do with it at all.  If it does, a whole lot of politicians had best be looking over their shoulders.  Is it guilt because they know they've been over the line of decency and maturity?

I'll give them their week to figure out among themselves their complictness in this.  The media should be doing the same but they are not.  It's time to let Mary Jo Buttafuoco go back to Las Vegas rather than discussing with Megan Kelly what it's like to get shot in the head.

It's time for Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh to get over their paranoia about the Left blaming the Right.

The crime, as before stated, was horrible but the shooter is in custody.  The Congresswoman is doing as well as can certainly be expected. It's time for the law to handle the shooter, the doctors to care for their patient and the families of the deceased victims to mourn.

It's time for Congress to get back to work.  It's time for the media to get back to work.  Did you listen to China's equivalent of our Secretary of Defense tell Mr. Gates China will not tolerate our supplying Taiwan with arms with Gates standing beside him?  This adds to the already palpable tension between our two countries. Is it being reported?

Knowing none of this is going to happen, I've one more suggestion.  Let's take a moment of silence for all the other innocents who met similar fates over the weekend.  They, in their individual ways, were important too.  And do not use this as an excuse to take away more of our rights in your usual over-reactive way.