Tuesday May 3, 2016
Jump to content
Well, the man with the silver tongue has used it again. Wonderful speech that was very persuasive and emotional. My heart is sad. Fortunately, my brain is still alive. He presented a number of proposals and signed some executive actions that, basically, are in line with what most predictions have been: background checks, limited capacity ammo clips, more governmental organizations to "study" the problem. Until more information comes we will have to wait to hear what he did or suggested about military-style assault weapons but it sound like he will hop aboard the Dianne Feinstein proposals to some degree. He pleaded for the support of the American public. In total, it seems to me that most of what he said is political and emotionally based. It follows the usual Democratic path: big government will help you. The underlying causes of violence in our sociey took a back seat or no seat at all.
That's the way it has been for a long time. I'm reading a book (a phrase that's becoming one I use too much, I think) on the subject of gun control. A good one, one that is far more even-handed than I thought I would ever see. It genuinely presents both sides of the issue, and looks at them from a disapassionate, logical, viewpoint.
What I see so far is that "facts" are often presented by the anti-gun lobby without any logical scientiic conclusions being drawn from them. They cite numbers and leave the conclusions to the reader. But when those facts are followed by a study to see what they mean, they do not mean what the anti-gun people would like us to assume.
An example is the "fact" that Japan is a nation with an extremely violent history, somewhat similar to our frontier history, where factions whacked each other with no remorse, BUT Japan has gun laws which decry the concept that a frontier mentality like the one we are supposed to have did not create a gun culture there. The same argument is advanced for Canada and Australia, and I'm sure you've all seen them.
But when the "violent mentality" in Japan is looked at it turns out that guns were no part of it, and so there is no comparison with the United States. In fact, when Commodore Perry salied into Tokyo Bay in 1852 the gun was looked upon in Japan as a novelty. They were still using the same matchlocks the Portugese had brought with them three hundred years earlier. They hadn't even graduated to the clumsy, awkward flintlock. They whacked each other with swords.
So there never was a gun culture of any kind in Japan, and the suggestion that there should have been because there was a culture of violence is nonsense. But the anti-gun people never go beyond the point of stating the fact that Japan had a violent culture and letting it see that it should follow that they would have a gun culture. They do no studies tom prove it.They just state the "fact" and let gullible people draw their own incorrect conclusions.
They do the same thing with Canada and Australia, neither of which ever had the history we had. And they do the same thing with all kinds of other facts. They present the facts and pretend they prove anything, which they do not. Until we get beyond that kind of reasoning--which is really non-reasoning--we will never get anything done.
When will we ever have a factual and honest debate about the causes behind such tragic events as Newtown, Aurora, etc? Our elected representatives are still playing politics with these tragedies. One could almost think they actually look forward to such things happening so they can have an issue to pontificate about for a few weeks , then on to the next "pressing" issue. It's all really getting very old and stale. Little wonder that they're viewed right up their in popularity with root canals and STD's.
I actually applaud the POTUS for some of the things he has put in place through "executive fiat", but at the same time feel these approaches are too long in coming and could have been done years ago through our elected representatives utilizing the Constitutional authority given to each branch of Congress. For the POTUS to go this route simply reinforces the accusations of his' being an "Imperial Presidency". Does the concept of "Representative Government" ring a bell?
Once you have the time to digest the 23 Imperial Edicts, read very carefully how he has crafted a portion of his Obama Care plan to coincide with his gun control agenda. ALL primary health care medical doctors and many others (not just mental physicians) are authorized to REPORT to the Govt. your name and medical information if they believe you have the "potential" to become a violent individual or self injurious They are also authorized to discuss with you questions about your "ownership and use of any firearms". They are relieved of the health privacy laws. That initiates a notice to local law enforcement to come and knock on your door, confiscate any firearms and keep them until such time you are cleared buy ???? as not being a mental threat. And, you may not receive your firearms back. This is scary big brother crap. So, Tom and John, as a concerned citizen of the community, I have read some of your bizarre writings, and I think it's in your best interest and the community that at least temporarily you be removed to a facility and examined by a certified Govt. Mental Evaluation Doctor. I must report you asap. And, the local police will search and hold onto your firearms for safe keeping and the safety of the community. Of course, you will never get them back after the year long waiting period as you are now in the Govt. data base as having been suspect of a potential violent nature and a potential future liability, even if you are cleared. Pretty slick, huh.
(Which is doubtful! LOL....)
As with ObamaCare, the Federal government has absolutely no business what so ever involving itself in any healthcare , being it mental or otherwise. It is almost terrifying to think that a government that has shown itself to be not only incompetent in most ventures, but also more expensive than the private sector, is now being allowed to involve themselves in health care. Their mere presence in the Healthcare field is what has brought us to this crises in the first place. Those who find no problem with such a situation will most likely be the first candidates for a "mental wellness evaluation" and in their case it would be justified.
If you are Bi-Polar or an ADD individual, will you be required to be identified? Do you take a prescribed medication such as prozac or zoloft? Throw that hat into the mix. And, what Medical Doctor or primary Care Physician will want the run the risk or NOT reporting to the Govt. "Liability"
I was struck by the hypocracy of the "event" the POTUS held to provide us with his emotional take on our collective responsibility for care and safety of this nation's children. He even had a few kids on stage for window dressing. What kind of reaction does one suppose a pro-life politician would elicit were he /she to do the same thing as regards the plague of abortion on demand? The sheer hypocracy of progressive/socialists is truly mind boggling.
I would make one offer, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, to these folks. Since they defend abortion on demand because it is "legal", and I defend my right to keep and bear arms because it is "legal", let's make a deal about altering the "legality" of both those freedoms that are contributing to the death of children. Planned parenthood murdered 300,000+ children last year alone because it was "legal". The deaths and injuries of children by firearms of all types were far,far less than that ,yet even those deaths are attributed to the circumstance that it is "legal" firearms in our society that are responsible. The first progressive/socialist politician I hear that will openly support the abolishment of abortion on demand will then give me the rightful cause to consider some encroachment into my right to possess whatever or how many, firearms I choose to own. Sound like a deal? Didn't think so.
What you both say is true--and scary. There are a lot of ways that law enforcement agencies can use information is way it should not be used. I've read of specific agencies that do not approve a weapons permit in the simples way possible. This is a verifiable fact, and I can give you a reference if you like. You walk in and ask for the forms to fill out.
The answer? "Sorry, out of them at the moment. "
"When will they be in?"
"Sorry, Ralph handles that and he's not here today."
Another day, same answer.
And a law which appears to be intended to prevent the "wrong" people from having weapons can be abused--as is the Sullivan Law in New York. When I lived there it was THE most universally hated law on the books. All it say, really, is that a person who wants a handgun can have one, but he or she needs a legitimate reasons for it. Even something like liking to go target shooting is supposed to be enough, But in actual practice it does not work that way. Try getting a permit. Not a chance. I know of a case where a local politician who had been threatened had a terrible time getting a gun authorizd for his bodyguard.
The worrisome part about the nuts-on-the-street problem is this: A program that addresses that problem could easily be used for some other agenda, and no doubt wouls be usde that way by some people. It all comes down to doing things as it was intended they be done. As long as we have venial people rnning the show we'll never get things straightened out.
As to statistics. The anti-gun people only quote them; they don't explain them.
And the national media?
Go read the string I put up on the Georgia "ban" on carrying a gun in a place of worship. I was puzzled by that, so I put it up, with every intention of doing some intensive research. Go read and say what you think of it. I'll come back on late today some time and tell you what I finally unearthed about it. It wasn't easy!
Posting comments requires a free account