Guns, Background Checks And Faith In Your Government

As the debate over gun control continues it seems the parameters are shrinking.  It would appear there will be no restrictions as to the type of gun one can own, limiting the size of clips is iffy; the only thing that has any chance are more in depth background checks.

Who should, and who should not be allowed to purchase a gun?  The usual suspects are there.  Felons.  The dishonorably discharged from the military.  Guilty of drug abuse.  Guilty of spousal abuse.  The mentally infirm.

In that short list you can see the criteria is not equal.  More definition is needed. Mental issues are the most prominent and the most difficult with which to deal.  Take a good look at Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza, Aurora shooter James Holmes and Gabby Giffords shooter Jared Loughner and it's obvious there is a vast void between sanity and the lack thereof.

They all had legally obtained weapons because they did not appear in any data base even though those who knew them well, including those who could have forewarned authorities, knew they all had problems. But on what basis could authorities been informed since none had committed a crime? There is a problematic area unto itself.

I don't blame the data bases nor those who maintain them.  We have laws that disallow mental shortcomings from becoming public record.  It has it's pitfalls to be sure.  The records of these young men all speak for themselves.  But again, no harm no foul.  Do I see the beginnings of a pattern?

Who should decide who should be in those data bases?  The idea of them makes me nervous because of the potential of purposeful misuse.  This is where trust in your government comes in.  I don't have enough to have faith in either their judgement nor of anyone they might appoint because everything is tied to personal gain.  It's a caustic view but those officials have no one but themselves to blame for the fact I have no faith in them.

Just as it its anticipated we will have "death panels" determining health care options especially for seniors, who will these people be and how would they deal with the one size fits all tendency we've seen so far?  The same idea applies to those who will determine a definition for mental stability.  Who will they be and what will the criteria be?  How will privacy issues be handled?

Instead of tackling this issue, Connecticut, Colorado, New York and others pending are passing the easiest legislation and creating a Constitutional mess while they're at it.  I have to agree with the critics who say it won't solve the problem.  It probably won't even slow it down.

I read on a daily basis about shootings in neighboring Spokane.  Not all the shooters would fit the mental instability definition under any circumstance.  What they do have in common are guns and the willingness to use them, bad judgement and probably tempers. How do your break all that down?

Our President loves to create commissions.  Usually as a way to delay having to make a hard decision.  He could, however, create one for the gun problem, staff it with experts from the fields of mental health and criminal behavior other than his cronies and give them the time and freedom to do a decent study.

Then, if it makes sense, implement it. Creating outlandish legislation for the sake of creating legislation doesn't solve anything except to increase, rather than decrease gun sales.  Having Homeland Security buy up all the available ammunition won't do it either. One can always buy the equipment at the local sporting goods store and load their own.

It reminds me a circular firing squad.  Everything gets hit except the cause of the problem.

Zero Tolerance For Old Age

Zero tolerance seems to be a hot talking point these days.  Zero tolerance for guns where we have kids playing with jelly donuts getting suspended, the government working toward zero tolerance for guns for all of us, zero tolerance for drunk driving. Zero tolerance for any one do dare think they aren't a terror suspect in airports.

There of course is merit in some of this, but too often we go way too far.  In today's Wall Street Journal  there is a story about the creeping trend zero tolerance for underage consumption of alcohol which includes carding everyone no matter their age.

Forget the fact that one establishment manager feels to do anything else would be profiling and we all know we can have none of that.

When all is said and done, however, the idea is one that may have some merit.  When I get up with my back already aching down to my knees and those knees not wanting to work I get the idea I may not have a great day ahead of me.  And yes, there are silver hairs among what once had been gold.  Now I know what to do for an instant boost.  Go to a ball game at Yankee Stadium, one of the places that now card everyone.  What an ego booster!  Never mind I live no where near, but even the thought...

It is as ridiculous as airport screening where no one is made to feel special.  I can't help but question the logic of it all.  No one will ever expect me to be anything other than what I am.  Of the age...

I wonder how far they might take it though.  When they want to start rationing our meds and our access to care, might they start carding us to make sure we aren't too old? Who, me over 55?  You can't be serious.  Lady, you're driver's license says you're over seventy!  And you look like you're 80 if your a day! Say, should you even be driving at your age?  Should you be allowed to drink?

This gives a whole new meaning to reverse discrimination.  If I scrunch up a jelly donut to look like a gun they'll think I'm mentally unstable, deprive me of my sugar fix and lock me away from any vice of which I'm still able to partake - few as they may be.

You know why they're doing it don't you?  They don't want to have to pay for it.  They tell us our social security and medicare are too rich and the government can no longer afford it.  They'd rather pour that money into electric cars that no one wants.

Well now, there's another idea that could have some merit.  I understand those little scooters they advertise on TV are pretty neat.  Certainly I could still drive one of them.  And they are electric aren't they?  So I'd be green.

I don't need any of it to be green though.  I get green, as in nauseous, just thinking about all of it.  It's certainly not envy.

Once A Tin Ear Always A Tin Ear

Imagine yourself a student on spring break in Washington D.C. having worked hard for the money to make the trip to see how our government works only to find you couldn't visit the peoples' house, the White House.

Imagine yourself a fly on the wall hearing the first lady say, "I want to make sure you all know how welcome you are here in this house, because the truth is we do these things - we make sure that we do these workshops so that you all know that this is your house too."

Who were these words directed to?  A workshop for the film "42", the story of baseball great Jackie Robinson. The guest list?  The stars of the movie including Harrison Ford and Robinson's widow.  Plus a select few students from a few schools including one named for Robinson in L.A.

The 'workshop' was apparently a lesson in overcoming racial prejudice in baseball.  Not that there isn't a place for this type of program even if only to promote the film,  but it leaves me with a sour taste knowing hundreds of kids were deprived from even getting inside the gates.

And excuse me Mrs. Obama.  "...this is your house too"?   Well, it's not yours at all!  It belongs to all of us and you and your family enjoy the high life you live within courtesy of our tax dollars!

I don't understand the mind set of those who politicize everything.  The film community does it as much as the politicians.  I'd think they'd be embarrassed to participate knowing those other youngsters weren't so privileged.

I wonder how much this little soiree cost?  How many extra secret service agents?  How much for entertaining and feeding the Hollywood guests which I'm sure was a part of the 'workshop'.  I don't know.  Would a conservative guess be about $75,000 when all is said and done?  Okay, maybe that's too high, but trust me, it cost.

Quite frankly, not to take away from the Robinson legend, I would guess most of the kids that wanted to tour wanted to learn about and see the White House, not Rachel Robinson nor Harrison Ford. You really have to be of another generation or a die hard baseball fan to even recognize the names.

As far as sensitivity to the sequester, that's right up there with Joe Biden's travel expenses.  The President wants it to hurt.  Okay.  It does.  A slap in the face always hurts and this is just one more.

A Military And A Government In Search Of A Spine

Remember the recent flap about creating a medal for drone warfare?  Panetta said yes, Hagel, to his credit, had put it on hold.  It would have outranked the medals given for battlefield valor.  There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

It gets worse.  Remember Nidal Hasan?  The Army psychiatrist who mowed down 45 soldiers at Fort Hood, killing 13 and wounding the others.

It's bad enough, now that he's being held for trial, that he's been allowed to grow the beard he was happy enough to shave while in the Army and not under arrest.  This guy has been pampered beyond belief.

Consider, he dressed in traditional Muslim dress on the Army base where he served, armed himself and shouting Allahu Akbar, attacked the unsuspecting soldiers.

Would you consider him a one man terror cell bent on destruction of members of our military?  I would.  I guess it's a good thing I don't have any input with the decision makers.  In their infinite wisdom, his crime is not being considered terrorism but rather work place violence.  Equate it with going postal. Confusion reigns.  Work place violence would be tried in a civilian court yet Hasan is being tried in a military court. Talk about blurring the edges.

Now,  to add insult to injury,  the Army is denying Purple Hearts to those stricken.  Their reason is that our military personnel are "organized, trained and equipped to combat foreign, not domestic, forces or threats.  To expand the Purple Heart award criteria to include domestic criminal attacks or domestic terror attacks would be a dramatic departure from the traditional Purple Heart award criteria."

So getting wounded or killed by a terrorist on American soil, an Army base no less, doesn't meet the criteria for a Purple Heart.  Yet they wanted to give a significant medal to drone pilots who sit safe and secure at a base thousands of miles from the action?  I can do no more than shake my head and wonder what they're doing with theirs.

The Army's reasoning went on to say that by awarding the Purple Heart to those he killed and injured would damage Hasan's ability to receive a fair trial.  Why? He killed thirteen and wounded 32 people!  The Army thinks that awarding those medals would "set the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist because the medals are awarded to those wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States. Any action.  Where does it say U.S. soil is exempted?

If this man isn't an enemy of the United States, who is?  It is disgusting to watch this pussy footing around, denying due recognition to the men and women who were patriotically readying themselves to fight the likes of Major Hasan on his home turf to keep more of them from coming here.

When will we regain some back bone and stop coddling our enemies?  They aren't going to like us any better anyway!

Ben Carson - Some Thoughts

It would seem the medical students at Johns Hopkins, where Dr. Carson is a professor of neurosurgery among other subjects, no longer want him to be their commencement speaker.

He is being accused of tying the LGBT community to the likes of those who believe in bestiality and  NAMBLA.  What the heck is NAMBLA?  North American Man/Boy Love Association. I didn't even know there was such a thing but it certainly goes to show that deviations from the 'norm' cover a lot of variables!

I've been watching just about every show I can where he is a guest in an attempt to find out just who he is and what he represents and I watched him on Hannity when he made the offending comment:

My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition.

The point he was making is he doesn't believe anyone has the right change what has long been considered one of the fundamentals of our society no matter who they are.  His choice of examples can be criticized but what would you use as a substitute?  I must admit, however, that I've not heard of people demanding marriage rights between men and boys or people and animals.  But then, in my naivety, I hadn't heard of NAMBLA either.

From reading his most recent book, America the Beautiful, I find that Dr. Carson is a man steeped in his religion.  It resonated when he said, "God doesn't change, man changes." It's rather like Catholics wanting priests to marry, women to become priests, and birth control blessed.  Those people while clinging to Catholicism, have change; the church as protector of God's teachings, has not.  Nor do I expect that it will.

Because of religious beliefs there will always be a divide.  There are those who devoutly follow those teachings and those who have strayed from them to varying degrees for a variety of reasons.  I do not condemn either.

I admire Dr. Carson.  Much of what he has to say is truth to common sense.  I do not, however, have to agree with everything and I don't.  He is a good man with an incredible story.  You can read what you want into his words but remember there are those who will find no fault with the other outliers he mentioned.

I look at it as he meant it.  Does any one group have the right to demand change of our most basic principles and values?  If you look at our government today you know that there are many who think they do.