shouldn’t you at least disclose your famouass post recommending that children should be armed to defend the freehold, giving props to little Scooter for shooting an intruder, and applauding his parents –who left him at home with access to the family AK -47 - as exemplars of “good parenting?
Just a thought.
Having said that, I must confess with great personal distress that for once you are right on the mark in taking Mr. Obama to task for lamenting Sandy Hook while having expanded the CIA drone program with rules of engagement which (we think- of course, they have not been disclosed) authorizes the vaporization of suspected bad guys when children are, or may be, in the drop zone. The Presidential remedy for this when it happens -”we’re really sorry the target the target turned out to actually be a school house instead of an Al Qaeda training center “ has always seemed to me inadequate.
But there is good hypocrisy as well as bad hypocrisy. Last night I dined at the Outback, wolfing down the blue cheese encrusted filet, nearly half a blooming onion, and a piece of key lime pie. Probably raised my cholesterol 80 points in one night. I’m here today to tell you that such dining is bad for you and to recommend prune juice and the vegetarian platter for you tonight.
Am I hypocrite? Well, I think we know the answer. But am I right? We know that one too. So be not so quick to cast stones at the hypocrite. The first question is always –is he right? Somehow you forgot to address that one.
as much as I don't like it but "unalienable?" Last time I looked, "thou shall not restrict the ownership of machine guns" was not one of the Ten Commandments.
And just to make sure I checked with God who told me "No, I didn't endow mankind with the right to carry assault rifles." So the beliefs of Neal Knox, and NRA vice president I.M. Fulschit notwithstanding, let's stick to "inalienable" when we discuss this topic.
"unalienable rights" as we all understand, but it is doesn't say the "pursuit of bad guys with Ak-47s," does it?
To the extent that the Second Amendment protects gun rights from restrictive government legislation, the rights preserved by the Second Amendment are "inalienable rights," not "unalienable rights." You got it right in your first post but have since offended word mavens Strunk and White so badly that the late Priapus may come back from the grave - or is it the buffet - to chastise you.
Mari, only half the blooming onion. Hell, I eat the whole thing, lol, and key lime pie is my absolute favorite. Damn, now you've made me hungry again. Oh yeah, cholesterol is 175, and holding steady. Now we return you to the original subject.
'Pursuit' is the key word in that phrase. That doesn't mean the government, via the taxpayers' dollar, is supposed to 'give' people what they need for happiness. The government, (federal, state, local), should provide the education, and opportunity to pursue happiness. If they don't pursue, for whatever reason....their problem, not ours.
Does that include the majority of NRA members who want better gun ownership accounting through better, and universal gun registration, with better database access to all levels of law enforcement? Does that include those who want to limit who owns assault rifles? Does that include those who want limits on gun magazine capacities?
I must confess with great personal distress that for once you are right on the mark in taking Mr. Obama to task for lamenting Sandy Hook while having expanded the CIA drone program with rules of engagement which (we think- of course, they have not been disclosed) authorizes the vaporization of suspected bad guys when children are, or may be, in the drop zone. The Presidential remedy for this when it happens -”we’re really sorry the target the target turned out to actually be a school house instead of an Al Qaeda training center “ has always seemed to me inadequate.
I have the most radical position of anyone on the Board- repeal the Second Amendment, ban all gun ownership, and hold gun manufacturers strictly liable for deaths caused by their guns.
What really freaks me out is the ads for the gun shows down in Texas- they have some little six year old kid as the spokesperson for the Dallas/Austin gun shows. Just sickening. You'd think that would be against the law.
arguments for gun ownership/use in the home, although as we have discussed many times I believe that the number of times a gun is successfully used to defend the home is greatly outweighed by the number of accidental shootings or suicide in the home arising from the gun's presence.
What I found sickening was the use of the little kid ad the "cover model," as you put it, for the Austin/Dallas gun shows. He has one line - "Come to the gun show" - but the image conveyed is that gun use is a family tradition when the kid is not old enough to make his own decision on gun use. . Sort of like having your kid open KKK ads in the sixties.
And, sorry, no the stats do not show that "legal concealed handgun carry has reduced violent crime 49%." We have been over this before- you cannot prove a cause of effect between the two. You can just as validly say that violent crime has been reduced as a result of my 25 years of dining at the Outback.
Another piece of the puzzle is in place. Damn, I thought my play was bad. But I did like the drive to Atlantic City vignette which really was right out of Kerouac.
We need to have a gentleman's agreement to stop using gun statistics in these posts. And the reason is there are no hard peer reviewed numbers. You can go to gun control websites and get numbers just as outrageous as the ones you proffer. The problem in part is one of causation - you cannot attribute rising r decreasing violence to gun rights of gun control. Besides, when you talk about concealed carry discouraging violent crime you run into the death penalty statistic - if the death penalty does not deter murder, why in the world would a gun in the hand of an untrained citizen caused the bad guy to think twice.
As an aside, I will tell you that Walden II was one of my favorite books in college days. A lot of what Mr. Skinner wrote makes good sense, including the putative title, which is the last line of Walden.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
