In order to find the motivation to lose weight, some find it necessary to strip naked, stand before the mirror and reveal the ugly.
Until you do, it’s pretty easy to wear baggier clothes, avoid being photographed and continue to eat cheeseburgers and fries for lunch.
Many of us do that day in and day out, week after week and year after year.
Oh, we know what the problem is, of course, but the solution seems so terribly daunting, painful even, and absolutely no fun at all.
Most of us have some form of ugliness in our lives.
As a country we have bunches of it — poverty, out-of-control drug abuse, greed — the list is long. And we, as a country are absolutely masterful at ignoring it.
So our latest ugliness came in the form of 20 brutally slain little children and six of their caretakers at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
Reporters and pundits and politicians and regular folk from coast to coast say that finally this — this bloodbath of babies, and really that’s what they were — in picturesque Connecticut, by a man carrying two handguns, several hundred rounds of ammunition and a .223-caliber Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, is enough.
It’s enough of the violence, enough of the mind-numbing bickering, enough of the absolute arrogance of the National Rifle Association and its power over our politicians, enough of the politicians scurrying cowardly away from the fight, and enough of ourselves being too busy and uninterested to hold them accountable.
I’m wondering, though, is it really?
Because it wasn’t enough when 12 students and a teacher were gunned down at Columbine High School in 1999. It wasn’t enough when 32 students and teachers were gunned down at Virginia Polytechnic in 2007. It wasn’t enough when six people were killed and 13 wounded during an event with U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011, and it wasn’t enough when 12 people were gunned down inside a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., last July.
All those incidents did was rally the NRA and its members.
“From my cold dead hands,” proclaimed Charlton Heston, former president of the NRA, while thrusting a rifle to the sky to thunderous applause. “From my cold dead hands.”
When our politicians are too afraid of an organization to even hold the most limited discussions about how to reduce the number of guns being trafficked on the streets of our cities, or how to effectively but fairly limit the availability of guns to those with severe mental illness or criminal records, then truly we should be ashamed.
Indulge me for a moment while I revisit a small example of how the NRA will impose its influence on even the most benign legislation if the word “gun” appears in a bill.
In 2006, LD 1938 was on its way to easy passage in the State House. It had bipartisan committee support and had received accolades from the Maine commissioner of public safety, the Maine Chiefs of Police Association and the Maine attorney general.
There was no cost to the taxpayer.
It was a domestic violence bill and its only purpose was to better protect victims of domestic violence. Federal law prohibits a person subject to a protection from abuse order from possessing or purchasing firearms. If that person attempts to buy a gun and is denied through a background check, the information is forwarded to the FBI and then to the Department of Public Safety.
There the information sits.
LD 1938 proposed a system whereby police, upon receiving the information of denial, would do their best to notify the victim that the abuser had attempted to purchase a firearm. That was it.
Rep. Josh Tardy of Newport, upon urging by the NRA, tacked on amendments that would require police officers to receive special training on how to handle and store firearms turned over to them by those subject to a protection order and that police departments be held financially liable should a gun be damaged while in police custody.
Neither amendment was germane to the bill. The bill had nothing to do with police confiscating or storing guns, but the attachment of those NRA-written amendments squashed it.
When asked later why he attached the amendments, Tardy had no clear answer.
Tardy’s a smart guy, a successful attorney and was an effective legislator. He should have known that LD 1938 would have saved lives without any infringement on anyone’s rights.
But even then, he did not say no to the NRA.
As long as the NRA continues to wield its power and influence over our politicians and convince its members that laws making it harder for criminals and the severely mentally ill to purchase and possess firearms will surely lead to the confiscation of all guns everywhere, then no, I don’t believe that what happened in Newtown, Conn., will be enough.
The sight of the cold dead hands of those children and the adults who tried to protect them will always be secondary to the NRA’s mission of silencing any discussion of sensible gun control.
And that’s the ugly reflected in our mirror.
Well said.
Excellent column!
piece of garbage! rumor has it the BDN is losing money big time. no surprise seeing how they give free reign to Erin Rhoda and Renee Ordway
This and countless other articles similar have had a profound effect on my decision to join the NRA. No gun has ever pulled the trigger itself. Our rights as US citizens are fleeing as quick as the countries debt rises. This tragedy is horrible, however decisions on “how to fix” must be well thought out. I was broken into over the summer by thugs who stole my guns from a bank safe, very secure. People with the desire will get the guns they want, I just would like to be able to protect my family and property if necessary.
And who decides who is okay to own a weapon and who is not? how far do we go with gun laws? I’m not saying that there isn’t a problem, because there is. But, in a country were personal rights are paramount, how far do we let the government go in dictating to us about what we can own and what we can’t? That is a step down the socialist path. do I think that normal citizens “need” an AR-15? No. But, simply banning these weapons is not going to stop their existance, and everbody knows it.
It is not enough to wring our hands and do nothing. Mental health services, violent video games, tighter gun control (background checks at gun shows,etc.) are things to be looked at and thoughtfully considered. The status quo is not good enough anymore.
Have you ever been to a gun show that DIDN’T do background check? I haven’t and I’ve been to shows all over Maine for 25 years!
Don’t swallow all the crap the Left feeds you!
We also need one more law that relates to guns. If you are convicted of a crime in which you used or possessed a gun then the punishment for that crime is life in prison.
Agreed.
Oh, I think it’s enough: Americans are finally going to look at the fact that Auroras and Newtowns don’t happen in countries with common-sense media controls.
Media controls? Like the Soviet Union? You and those who agree with you get more and more outrageous.
Gotcha!
Actually in China (a country known to control media) nut-jobs like Lanza are going into schools and stabbing children. so far (over two years) there have been six confirmed attacks, As I said the Chinese media is attempting to hush this up, but some gets out anyway. So far there are 17 confirmed dead children, and over 100 wounded children and teachers.
Unless you control the nuts, you can’t control the carnage. The tools that the nuts use are secondary.
Don’t take my comments too seriously, I’m basically just yanking the chain of gun control-loving Progressives. But the arguments for gun control and media control are logically congruent and if one is good, so is the other.
Personal rights only matter if they are Liberal’s personal rights! Conservative personal right must be abolished!
I’ll tell you what Renee, I was so sickened by the instantaneous response by all the Democrats, gleeful of the carnage so they could advance their political agenda, that I went out today and bought something I never needed or wanted – an ‘assault’ rifle!
Yes, the Democrat’s over-reaction motivated me to action! While I was in the store, maybe 40 minutes, 5 others also bought the same kind of rifle!
Thanks to the knee-jerk reaction of the Left, Millions more of the very guns you claim to hate are now on the streets and in the gun safes of millions more Americans!
Well done! You boosted sales of some VERY expensive rifles that would have normally sat on shelves! Now, they are flying off those shelves as fast as buyers can get them!
Well Done! Was it enough? Obviously YOUR reaction was!
Just who were all of the gleeful Democrats you mentioned?
Just watch the news. They are standing in line to get in front of a camera. I kinda wish they had done this after “fast and furious” made the news. You know, where the ATF was letting illegally bought assault rifles be illegally shipped to Mexico where they have killed hundreds of people and even made their way back to the states to kill Agent Nicholas Ivie. Didn’t see a lot of Dems. expressing their outrage on this assault rifle issue.
Obama, to name one.
honestly, i think making this a republican or a democrat issue is going a bit far. While democrats may want to ban guns more so than republicans, it’s shifting, more so than it had before, because I as a democrat believe in owning guns, I have an assault rifle of my own in my home, yet it would not be used for criminal means, and I in no way believe that guns should be banned. I think banning guns would do nothing more than take guns away from the moral and honest people in the world and the criminals in this world would still find access to them, and find more people without protection out there.
“gleeful of the carnage so they could advance their political agenda…” I think you have lost a screw or something. To insinuate that there are those who are gleeful over these killings says more about you than anyone. And if you don’t think the NRA has a political/ideological agenda (and $$$) you are not very smart.
If the tragic deaths of these children is so shocking to liberals then how can they condone abortion?…..abortions kill thousands to innocent children each year.
26 people, human beings, of which 20 were little kids are dead and you use it as an opportunity to run your ignorant mouth to turn it into something political and brag about buying an assault rifle that you yourself claim you didn’t need. What in hell kind of a sick person takes advantage of the worst thing that could ever happen to a parent, a family or a community and tries to turn it into something political. This isn’t a Democratic thing, it isn’t a Republican thing it is an American tragedy. You take an event which has most decent people in America and around the world who have a heart and are sickened by it to spew your hatred of a political party. I hope you derive a lot of enjoyment out of playing with your assault rifle. I also hope that you and people who support your way of thinking rot in hell.
You put it well. It is sad, isn’t it, that one even has to put something like that into perspective…. and that there are those who make this a political thing (liberal , conservative). What minds…….something seems lacking.
Only with regard to your comments on Liberal vs. Conservative personal rights:
What I have observed is that liberal views tend to want to allow all people to do whatever they wish to do as long as others are not harmed. It is all about personal freedom for all regardless of how an individual liberal might feel about the issue personally. Again, as long as no one else is harmed.
Truly, I could not care less if you are a Zoroastrian or a Baptist. Do whatever you want to do with regard to your religion. Just don’t force your religious views into our secular laws that are designed to serve ALL of our citizens, not just those in your particular group, no matter what your obviously correct and absolute deity happens to tell you. As far as I am concerned, you can have all the guns you want. You can even build a shelter so you can prepare for the day when you believe the government is going to “take over,” whatever that might mean. All I ask is that someone certify that you are not a lunatic with the potential to take out families and their kids in public places, or anyplace for that matter. I don’t believe that is too much to ask. Find yourself a nice patch of woods, clear it, build a bunker, and have at it. I could not care less. It’s a free country.
The Conservative view, from what I have observed, especially on social issues, is to prevent other people from having the same personal rights and freedoms of others if those rights contradict the Conservatives’ religious, social, or moral views. It is far more of, “my way or the highway.” The list is endless. Abortion, contraception, inter-racial marriage, multilingualism, gay marriage, non-Christian religions, immigration, the Dream Act, minorities of any kind, unions, fair wages, health care – just to name a few. If it doesn’t agree with the Conservatives’ standards, it must be quashed and prevented.
Now, what I find so interesting about today’s Conservatives is that to a person they have no sense of history. If only they would go back and study (that means actually to read a book or two) the origins of the Conservative movement, they would find the Conservatives actually were fiscally conservative but socially liberal/neutral. Small government was the name of the game and what a person did in their personal life was not anyone else’s business or the business of the government. Sounds closer to a Libertarian, and it was, with the exception that the Libertarian movement tends to promote very small government which I find impractical in a global economy.
Unfortunately, the Conservative movement was taken over by the Christian Right in the early 1980’s and, lately, by the Tea Party Express (the Waffen-SS of the original TEA Party). It’s all religion, ultra-conservative Christianity, and denial of rights of others if those rights are against their religion – despite people not even being a member of their religion. They believe they know (because God told them) what is “right” for America. It seems a tad presumptuous to me.
Of course, I won’t win any points bringing this up. God is on their side, after all. What the minority Conservatives haven’t figured out yet is that we just just don’t care about them. It is so much noise off in the distance. As long as we preserve our laws to maintain the separation of church & state, freedoms for all will continue to exist and even expand. We will be sitting at a beach-side restaurant in Ogunquit, enjoying life, and the Conservatives will be exercising their right to hide in a bunker, armed to the teeth, awaiting the next Mayan “End Days” scenario. Hey, it’s a free country, despite what the Conservatives might think.
…and this has to do with Renee’s diatribe against guns how?
I notice that the 21% of the electorate calling themselves liberal do tend to be as restrictive as conservatives although in a different area. It was liberals who pushed the seat-belt legislation, liberals who made the land abutting my shore front property useless to me, and liberals who decided it was a good idea to give people who never worked a day in their lives some of the money from my paycheck earned over my 40 year working life and into retirement.
I would be happy to follow your advise (paraphrased as live and let live) but every time you good people need money for one of your pet projects you come back to tap me, and every time you get an idea that you can make the world a better place, you wind up restricting my behavior.
So spare me your homilies about conservatives pushing religion on you. You are pushing your religion of no guns, no peanut-butter sandwiches sent to school with little Johnny, and personal restriction (which you claim is for our own good) just as hard as the Baptists push their anti abortion measures. The only difference is that you folks are actually restricting folks where as the Baptists are just trying to restrict.
I see some of your points. However, I did specify the “no harm” point. Not taking peanut butter sandwiches to school when there are kids who are deathly allergic to peanut butter doesn’t seem like that much of a request. On the flip side, there is no harm in the Dream Act, allowing gays to marry, and the use of contraceptives (in fact, that saves money – those “welfare babies”), yet the battle against these “no harm” issue are pushed on all other citizens.
Seat belts? I would think you Conservatives who yammer on endlessly about government spending would appreciate the fact that we have far fewer maimed people living on government assistance because of seat belts. You forgot about the EPA and clean water. When I was a kid in Maine in the 1970’s the rivers were running cesspools. Now, you can actually eat fish caught in a river. And, ta-dah, tourism has increased now that we are no longer polluting our rivers. (More money for everyone.)
As far as the land abutting issue? I don’t know the specifics and the reason why – you didn’t state why.
Welfare and unemployment? Perhaps, you have never been unemployed, hungry, or trying to feed a child. But, don’t condemn all the people who need help for the few who take advantage of the system. How we treat our weakest in society says a great deal about the rest of us. I have no intention of going down in history as a self-centered Scrooge who allowed a child to starve because I could not toss a few pennies into the till.
That is another trait of many of the Neo-Conservatives – a complete lack of empathy on one hand while clutching a bible in the other. I often wonder how they became angry, cold, embittered people with no compassion toward their fellow man. Fortunately, they are in the minority.
Yes, I suppose we do restrict your behavior. We make you wear a seatbelt, force you to don a helmet when riding a motorcycle, prevent you from dumping crankcase oil in the river, restrict you from carrying weapons in schools, force you to keep your car in repair while driving on public roads, and a myriad of other restrictions. You are correct, I’m just a hypocrite.
You say: “Seat belts? I would think you Conservatives who yammer on endlessly about government spending would appreciate the fact that we have far fewer maimed people living on government assistance because of seat belts”
Educate yourself. New Hampshire the only State without an adult seat belt law also manages to kill fewer people per mile of highway driving than all but one other State. Maine (with a tough seatbelt law) is number 36. .
I also don’t know who you are talking to (you replied to me) when you say:
“That is another trait of many of the Neo-Conservatives – a complete lack of empathy on one hand while clutching a bible in the other. I often wonder how they became angry, cold, embittered people with no compassion toward their fellow man. Fortunately, they are in the minority.”
First of all I’m NOT a neo anything. I’ve always been a conservative of the Everett Dirksen school. I am an atheist like my father before me, and back 11 generations. I have raised over 100 foster children and adopted six teenagers.
I have nothing against my fellow man EXCEPT when he sticks his hand in my pocket and tells me he knows better than I how I should spend my money.
“I have nothing against my fellow man EXCEPT when he sticks his hand in my pocket and tells me he knows better than I how I should spend my money.”
…then I gather you are not one of the bible-thumping Neo-Cons that have infected the GOP? Good for you. Unfortunately, all we have to do is look at the GOP Platform items and it is quite clear that you and I are in the minority. What would Dirksen say about the GOP today? Here is what Barry Goldwater predicted and he was spot on:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/13/barry-goldwaters-war-against-the-religious-right/
There is a difference between the Conservatives (traditional) and the Neo, or “new” Conservatives. I believe I have made my remarks quite clear in showing that distinction. I used to be a Republican until the religious neo-cons took over the GOP. With that event, I bailed.
As far as seat belts in NH goes? Deaths are on the rise. Check this site: http://www.nhdtz.com/drive-smart/seatbelts-and-helmets
And, apparently the reason the overall death rate is lower than others is because NH people are buckling up and wearing helmets, voluntarily. Apparently, with more compliance than some states where the laws have mandatory seat belt usage.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2012/01/19/who-taught-you-drive-breaking-few-new-hampshire-rules/PE7arhj1CnNSYSMaH6l0WP/story.html
So, now that I have educated myself, you should give it a try.
“NH people are buckling up and wearing helmets, voluntarily.
Apparently, with more compliance than some states where the laws have
mandatory seat belt usage.”
Do you read what you post? or do you just cut and paste?
What you wrote above is my point EXACTLY! Leave people alone, and guess what they do a pretty good job of taking care of themselves!
I believe if you read the article more closely, you will see that despite the NH record being good, there has been an increase in highway deaths. There is a push to make the seat belt law mandatory in an attempt to stave off this increase. Younger generations who did not grow up with the highway carnage you and I observed, may be unaware of the importance of seat belt use.
When I was a kid, highway deaths were around 55,000 annually when there was less than 200M population. Today, with 310M, we have around 35,000 deaths. Much of this has to do with seat belts but also credit must be given to vastly improved car design and construction, the use of air bags, crumple zones, and frequent testing. And, stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws.
If having a law that will force a teen male wear a seat belt instead of succumbing to peer pressure that only sissies wear seat belts, then I am all for it. This whole malarkey about “live free or die” seems to be wasted on such an issue. Of all the idiotic things to rail against as to “intrusive government,” this has to take the cake.
What next? A complaint about not being allowed to drive 65 mph in a school zone? Be serious. There are bigger fish to fry than this.
Just buckle up and shut up, and survive.
Well maybe you should go back and read one of those history books, you know the part where republicans freed the slaves, where democrats in congress tried to kill civil rights laws, and were the founders of the KKK. You cannot pick and choose what history you want to remember, when it suites your current agenda. Democrat party has been hijacked by liberal socialist in the past 30 or so years(hippie generation), and are all for huge government that should control our lives, the redistribution of wealth, and the failed idea that the majority should rule. to the contrary republicans believe in the foundation of our constitution which is liberty and individual rights and freedoms for all citizens.
You are partly correct. While you call the Democrats hijacked by the hippies, I call the Republican party hijacked by the Dixie Democrats back under Carter/Reagan. Both parties have changed constituencies. When Carter did not turn out to be the bible-thumping Dixie Democrat from the South that his followers hoped, they fled en masse to the the Republican party under Reagan who welcomed the votes with open arms. This is when Jerry Falwell waddled onto the scene and converted the GOP from the fiscal conservative/social liberal/neutral party to the bible-thumping, radical-right social-issue party it is today. If we looked at Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford (and Bush-41) and their social policies, they’d be considered downright liberal compared to the crowd now ruling the GOP.
And, I might point out, we were not talking about political parties but instead about Conservative vs. Liberal views. You are the one who brought in the political party issue and made the assumption the DNC is Liberal when it was not always and the GOP which was socially conservative when it was not always.
In my opinion, neither the DNC or the RNC approaches any sort of real Liberal policy. The current Democratic Party is mostly moderate (comparatively in history) and the Republicans have jumped the rails and careened off the cliff to the ultra-right Conservative social-issue side.
The makeup of these two parties have changed over the years. The real issue, parties aside, is whether the person is conservative or liberal. That was the subject we were discussing.
As a follow-up, my cousin just sent this synopsis of what happened to the GOP and how it might have a chance to survive:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/how-to-help-the-gop-survi_b_2342600.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
It is more than a little presumptuous of you to ascribe what members of the Tea Party believe. Its members include Republicans and Democrats, Christians and Atheists, blacks and whites, gun owners and non-gun owners. As for reading and history, I suggest you read The Five Thousand Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, who has a far better understanding of the history of conservatism than you. You are certainly free to sit in your beach-side restaurant in Ogunquit and enjoy life. I will continue to enjoy mine, whether in Ogunquit or Millinocket, because I don’t see the world through your cynical glasses.
I would say, “baloney.” The Tea Party may have started off as a group only concerned about taxes and ever-expanding government. However, it quickly morphed into the Tea Party Express crowd which pays lip service to the fiscal issues and is almost entirely focused on conservative, religious, social issues. We saw this time and again in the most recent national election. Short of Romney, Houseman, and maybe Cain, and certainly Gingrich who only goes the way the wind blows, the rest of the dozen or so wannabees were ultra-religious social conservatives.
And, the GOP paid the price at the ballot box.
If the GOP has any chance of survival, it needs to show the Tea Party Express the door. Tell them to create their own political party and allow the true conservatives (George Will, William F. Buckley, William Safire types) to reclaim the party. That was the Republican party to which I belonged before they abandoned me and I became in Independent.
I have not read Skousen but the name rang a bell. I did a quick lookup and while I don’t normally quote Wikipedia, this was a reasonable opening paragraph for Skousen:
“Willard Cleon Skousen (January 20, 1913 – January 9, 2006) was an American author, conservative American constitutionalist and faith-based political theorist.[2] He was also a prolific popularizer among Latter-day Saints (Mormons) (LDS) of their theology. A notable anti-communist and supporter of the John Birch Society,[3] Skousen’s works involved a wide range of subjects including the Six-Day War, Mormon eschatology, New World Order conspiracies, and parenting.[4] His most popular works are The 5,000 Year Leap and The Naked Communist. A book by Skousen on end times prophecy, The Cleansing of America, was published by Valor Publishing Group in 2010, four years after his death.”
Just from this I can tell this is not the conservative movement of William F. Buckley, William Safire, and George Will. That is the real conservative movement in the USA.
Perhaps, you should read some of their works.
Coincidentally, a cousin just sent me this view which pretty much describes how I recall the history of the GOP that I once knew and belonged to.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/how-to-help-the-gop-survi_b_2342600.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
That is a gross misrepresentation of conservative philosophy. Show me one single shred of evidence to support your contention that what a person did in their personal life was not anyone else’s business. That runs against established conservative principles of small government, personal liberty, and freedom of association.
The “freedoms for all’ that you’re celebrating are not freedoms for all, they’re freedoms for protected classes that come at the expense of others, in the form of civil rights legislation, redistribution of wealth, and government expansion deeper and deeper into the personal lives of citizens, to the point that it threatens deeply held beliefs.
“That is a gross misrepresentation of conservative philosophy. Show me
one single shred of evidence to support your contention that what a
person did in their personal life was not anyone else’s business.”
I’ve read you posting a number of times – I don’t get it. What someone does in their personal life, in fact, is not someone else’s business. That is an original Conservative value. However, today’s neo-cons are interested in what goes on in everyone else’s bedroom. That’s because they believe they have god on their side.
How, exactly, do “freedoms for all” with regard to civil rights impact anyone else? How does inter-racial marriage, gay marriage, and access to contraceptives, have any effect on you? Do you have anything specific? If it is an offense to your religion, well, too bad. This country has freedom of religion and that freedom does not give your religion the right to trample the religion of others.
If you want the real Conservative movement, read something from William Safire, William F. Buckley, Jr., and George Will. These are the intellectual Conservatives from the Conservative movement in the USA. The neo-cons are little more than the Religious Right in a new wrapper, trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. That is the antithesis of the Conservative movement.
You went out of your way to make the point that what somebody does in their personal life is not anybody else’s business, or the business of the government. I’m not arguing the point about the government, but your trying to make conservatism into an argument for a social free for all, where people can do whatever they want and everybody else has an obligation to keep their head down and say nothing. That isn’t conservatism. If you work for me or if you live off me, then it’s my rules. That is conservative.
Access to contraceptives aren’t being seriously challenged. What conservatives are challenging is government requirements to pay for them through insurance policies and the welfare programs that we’re all sick of. Marriage, to the extent that it confers special rights, is not a legitimate interest of the government.
As for the neo-cons, are you really trying to tell me that the Jews are the new Religious Right? I will however agree that they are the antithesis of the conservative movement, and I’d even violate my own conservative principles to arrange government funding for an exodus to Israel if it were within my power.
Perhaps, you should read some of the writings of the people I mentioned. Then, you would might understand.
No one is talking about a “social free for all.” There are no special rights granted for inter-racial and same-sex marriage. These are exactly the same civil rights any other couple gets.
The push-back on contraceptives is based upon religious views and not on any economic issue. The new ACA (Obamacare) compels insurance companies to offer contraceptives free of charge. Yet, despite this, the push-back remains. Religious views frequently are brought into this argument. Hardly Conservatism which maintains a neutrality on embracing specific religious views.
Why do you not lookup the definition of neocon? It has nothing to do with being Jewish. A Neo-Con is a “New Conservative.” This is in contrast to the people I mentioned and in contrast to the policies of Presidents such as Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Bush-41. Under their administrations, the focus was on conservative fiscal issues, limited government, and social equality of all – primarily blacks in all the administrations but also for women and gays in the latter presidencies.
Today’s GOP has been taken over by the Tea Party Express (TPE) whose focus claims to be on fiscal issues but not realistically. Their real focus is on social issues and bringing Jesus into government. These are the Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, etc., types. Under the Republican Presidencies I mentioned, no one even knew the religion of those Presidents. It was not discussed, nor should it be. That is the definition of Conservatism. Perhaps, “restraint” is a good synonym for Conservatism. Nixon happened to be a Quaker and the only reason I know that is because it is a bit uncommon.
The TPE destroyed the GOP in which I was once a member, and that is evidenced by the most recent election and not just the Presidential election. Maine’s House & Senate both returned to Democratic control, for example. Even the moderate Republican Senator Brown in MA lost his seat to Elizabeth Warren. Similar events happened across the country.
If the GOP has any chance of survival it needs to kick the TPE to the street and return to the days where the hillbillies are gone and the intellectual East Coast Republicans return. The party has gone from class to crass, from NPR to PBR, from inclusion for all to include only born-again Christians. In this last election, the GOP alienated about every group in the country except angry old white men. And, despite this, the GOP leadership believes that the only problem was that “Romney wasn’t conservative enough.” It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
Even Newt Gingrich, who changes with the wind, came out this week and said the GOP should endorse same-sex marriage and adapt to the new reality of the USA, or it will cease to exist. And, I will give Newt his due – he’s no idiot. He is about as pragmatic as anyone I’ve ever seen in politics.
Unless the GOP returns to the real Conservatism (fiscal conservatism, and social justice and inclusion for all – the big tent theory espoused by most previous Republican Presidents), and drops this 90% socially conservative agenda of anti-everything, they will disappear from the radar. Their current policies are not appealing to the current American public and certainly not to the future demographics of the USA. Now, you can wring your hands, jump up and down, and lament all you wish, but America is changing. It is no longer under the sole governance of angry old white men. So, to paraphrase Darwin – “adapt or perish.”
After 30+ years as a Republican, I changed to Independent this year just because the GOP had jumped the rails on social issues. Clearly, the Religious Right was pulling all the strings – they are a huge voting block. Not only was this not my father’s GOP, it wasn’t even mine any longer.
Democrats would NEVER regulate the mentally ill, it would destroy their voter base!
I am a proud NRA member, a certified NRA Safety Instructor for handguns, rifles, shotguns, and home safety and an advocate for firearm ownership in the highest order. To believe that any type of ban will preclude a crazed individual from wrecking carnage and death while selecting targets that proudly proclaim themselves to be free of any counter constraints is foolish at best. I have previously published in this newspaper my support for having one or two teachers in every school become certified Reserve Police Officers, carry concealed weapons in their schools on a daily basis, and become the first line of defense, capable of actually terminating an attack in the gravest extreme. Before once again being subjected to responders screaming about “teachers with guns” understand that these teachers would be certified police officers as well as educators. If you believe that bans, restsrictions, and limitations will prevent future attacks upon our innocents by crazed assassins, rest assured that you will sadly be proven wrong. To prevent an extended attack is to terminate that attack in the most timely and permamant manner. Ken Fogelman
Thank you for the wonderful post. Many people do not realize the NRA sponsors many fine training programs.
Thanks for your kind words. Ken
My daughters school already has a full time well armed officer and has for a few years.
I’m glad that your daughters are being afforded the protection that they deserve. I wish all others were so fortunate. Ken
I grew up in Chicago and there was an armed full-time police officer in my high school because we had riots.
I am glad this affords you the illusion of safety. I suppose we all need our illusions to live.
Oh, BTW cops occasionally go crazy, as they are human also.
I think you are right on that particular point.
You must lead a very dismal life being so paranoid.
…actually not paranoid at all, and as for my life it has been more than fantastic. I am sorry that the world I’m passing on to today’s children is dimmer, more restrictive, and far less fun, then the one my parents and their generation passed to us.
You are a strange person.
“Strange?” as in “odd?” “different?” or not conforming to some idea of what I should be?
If so, thank you… I sure never expected a compliment from you.
There was an armed cop at Columbine during the killings. He didn’t manage to save anybody. And no, I’m not screaming. I just think you’re being ridiculous.
Ridiculous is pursuing Gun restrictions when it is known that said restrictions would not have made a difference(by every reasonable look at past and proposed “bans”)in the case you are exploiting.Ridiculous is going forward with this agenda knowing that there will be no fewer of these types of weapons on the streets once this exercise is completed, In fact, the mind numbing rhetoric from the left has caused sales to skyrocket on items likely to be targeted by a “ban”. It looks like you folks have already managed to dramatically increase the ownership of these scarey looking weapons,judged by the sales numbers from this past week. . Unless you think you folks can force through a law in which the Government will go seize legally (currently)owned weapons and accessories than this is just a feel good exercise. A effort driven by emotion ,void of thought and reason.
I suggest that any who want to force a ban on these type weapons be required to personally attempt confiscation of these weapons. Go tell your neighbors what you are there to do. Make your case in person,have the discussions. Let the chips fall where they may.
Great post Ken, I think you may be on to something here. Unfortunately anti gun folks are very blind to any other solution than an all out ban.
If the state would give added salary or bonus for this qualification I’m sure many would volunteer.
I understand what you are saying and glad that you clarified the qualifications. There is a huge difference between shooting at a paper target at a range and aiming a weapon at another human, probably clad in body armor. Just being a teacher who has taken a safety course in gun handling, in my opinion, would be be insufficient.
These teachers, if it is decided to go this route, should undertake the training necessary to psychologically handle shooting another human being without much hesitation. I doubt the average cop on the beat really gets that much training in that area. Their day-to-day focus is enforcing laws and keeping the peace. Some officers will never need to fire their weapon during their entire careers.
The teacher in school with a gun, if ever called upon to don their policeman hat, no doubt will do so for the sole purpose of taking out an aggressive individual. We need to ensure the teachers with the guns are going to be able to fulfill that role if and when called upon. Without the proper and advanced training, I really doubt they would do much other than get themselves and others killed as they antagonize the shooter.
Whatever is decided to do, it should be effective. Of course, addressing the mental health issues up front will go a long way to reducing the problem. In the case of the VA Tech shooter, there were mental health warning signs all over the place yet the man was able to acquire weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo with no problem. Why?
Tightening up the background checks and including a check to see if ANY mental health record exists should stop the automatic process and now involve human beings to review the purchase. As a gun owner of several handguns, I have no problem waiting a week or two to actually pick up my purchase. Two-weeks of delay in my life if it might save the lives of others is not even worth mentioning. I will have all of the rest of my life to play with my new toy at the range. Those 20 kids and 6 adults have lost any chance for their lives.
In my line of business we solve problems up front. It is much easier than trying to resolve it further down the line. In this case, and all of the others, the problem clearly is people who are mentally disturbed. Tackle that problem and the problem of keeping them away from firearms and ammo and I suspect you will greatly reduce the number of these tragedies.
Chuck,
Thanks for your response. You are certainly correct about the person/paper differential when engaging a trigger. Any candidate being considered would require the psychological and emotional evaluation required in that position, requisites already in place when engaged in the police training to which I alluded. It’s not a simple equation, but leaving those in school buildings completely defenseless is in my opinion the absolute worst scenario to pursue. Thanks again, Ken
Thanks, Ken. I won’t pretend I know the answer. I wonder, though, generally speaking, are those people who are predisposed to be teachers (and the kind of personality that takes) also the type to be able to be a police officer (or a combat soldier, for example)? Are we trying to turn a librarian into Rambo? Would it work? What happens if the shooter is a current/former student and the teacher happens to know that student well? Could he pull the trigger?
There are a lot of questions. Again, what I want is whatever is effective and I believe it will need to be a combination of things. Mental health identification and treatment with non-existent access to weapons by those people, if at all possible, is a start. Cops in schools, teachers or regular cops seems very sad to me. Certainly, we see that in the inner cities, but for the vast majority of schools across the country these events never have occurred and never will. That breeds a sense of complacency. The shooter knows this and if the cops, teachers or otherwise, are known, then those people are the shooter’s first targets.
We are not going to be able to stop every instance of this. Right now, we are focusing on mentally deranged shooters, but what about acts of terrorism, crimes, kidnapping, political statements?
We also could turn the schools into fortresses with automatic lockdowns if a button is pressed. The whole situation is quite sad.
ChuckGG
You are certainly spot on about the situation being “quite sad”. I would encourage realization that your noble search for absolutes will never come to fruition but only assay those who seek practical solutions. We have to travel with ideas that we think will best serve the greatest cause of safety and make the adjustments and compromises that will allow them to exist. Ken
Ken, I’d like to know which militia you belong to.
Deep sneakers,
In answer to your question, I am a retired special education teacher of 40 years who has never belonged to, currently belongs to, or plans to ever belong to any militia group. Points of views are more accurately challenged or supported upon their deliniated components and informational summations, not hazy assumptions. Thanks for your question. Ken
OK. To stop drunk driving, that kills many, many more children then guns, do we outlaw alcohol or cars? This society has a major problem and it’s not just guns. We have always had guns. It has just been in the last thirty years or so that these massacres have been occurring. So what has changed? What has caused people to want to inflict as much hurt and pain as they can? And this is what this is all about, to hurt and shock the nation. What is making these monsters? It’s not the guns, it’s the tool they are using.
so very true. and we outlaw heroin, we outlaw cocaine, and the moral and honest people don’t use heroin or cocaine, its the criminals that will use it, and if we ban guns, the criminals will still get those guns, illegally, and they will still kill with them, and at that point, the good people will not have a means of protecting themselves against those that don’t care for laws.
Last 30 years? Try again. School shootings have taken place since the early 1900’s.
All to do with cowards and Madmen picking easy target, nothing to do with the tool they used.
There has been quite a bit of discussion on just this point. A couple of decades ago, it seems, there was a shift in treating people with mental issues. Mostly, it was gross cutbacks in the number of mental health “beds” in hospitals. There is little funding like there used to be. What treatment is available has a long waiting list. Moreover there has been an increase in patients’ rights and what actions they would have to take in order to be “involuntarily committed.” They have to be perceived as a threat to themselves or others (varies by state). Once institutionalized, they are monitored for 72 hours or so (varies by state) and if no violence is displayed they often are discharged to the street.
It seems that every case where these shootings have occurred, the aftermath includes a report of how the shooter sought but could not get adequate mental health treatment, or the case worker was overloaded, or whatever. The bottom line is the person who needed treatment failed to get it.
We certainly do not want to return to the “Bangor on the Hill” style places. (Apparently, this is where my mother said she would end up if I did not behave myself as a small child – sidebar.)
We really need to somehow find the funds for effectively treating mentally ill people because if we do not, we will only have more of what we have seen.
How about we examine the mental health care system in this country before we blame an inanimate object for a persons actions? Timothy McVeigh didn’t need a gun to kill people when he went off the deep end, and extremely tight gun control didn’t stop Mohammed Merah from going on a rampage in France. The Columbine massacre happened when the “assault weapon” ban was still in effect, and Cho killed 32 people with 2 handguns with 10 round (low capacity) magazines.
So, chase your tails if you want, but until we have a system that actually does something to identify and treat the mentally disturbed we’re going to continue to see these instances of horrible violence.
Giving up our constitutional rights will accomplish nothing other than to shift the balance of power even further from “we the people”.
To examine the mental health care system is hard. It would involve tough discussions about the balance of the rights of the individual and the safety of society as a whole. This might be the toughest discussion our Nation has faced in decades, but it will not happen. The fact that it would be so tough is why it will not happen, at least not in any meaningful way. Just take a quick look at the State run media sites, you will see stories setting the ground work for fighting against any such conversation on the balance between mental health patient rights and the safety and security of others.Like I said, tough conversations versus an easy target. You see which one they have chosen.
Sadly we always seem to go the easy route. I think it’s a natural byproduct of being in a perpetual election cycle. Confrontation gets more attention than contemplation.
You may be on to something. I just found that Obama’s Campaign team is till together and active,his official campaign is still taking in donations. That is not a good sign.
Romney’s site is still hawking coffee cups and campaign banners. Every election does this to help pay down the debt incurred for the election. If you are implying the Obama is planning to run for a 3rd term, you are mistaken.
Not implying anything. But I am saying that his campaign is loaded with cash still and one has to wonder is will benefit from all of these millions upon millions of extra cash. There is no debt to pay down, there is a ton cash on hand.
What will you overlook in our never ending, never questioning unbridled Love for Obama?Would you ever falter ,is there nothing that would have you question your Dear Leader?
Would you falter, is there nothing that would have you question your Dear Leader LePage?
I have often, and publicly. I wonder if you could say the same about your Chairman.
One of the problems I find of late is that so few people look at history. Every single campaign either is in debt or has funds left over. How they dispose of these funds is the question. Very often, if funds remain, these are used to pay down the debt of other like-minded campaigns such as those incurred by same-party candidates. The funds also may be donated to charity, but never for personal use. See this:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/leftover-campaign-funds/
There is nothing to “overlook.” Just get a grip. Obama won. Romney lost. There is nothing to “question,” as you put it. Show some sportsmanship, unlike Romney who blamed Obama for his loss. A sportsman and a gentleman would never blame the opposition for his own loss. Romney’s doing so only reinforced his elitist 47% statement. Hardly a “class act.”
So your explanation/ justification is that everyone does it , so it’s all right. No, this cash is used as payola and shenanigans,this will be a chapter in the history books about the most corrupt Administration our Country has seen.
Really, you might seek some professional counseling. I am sure this campaign will follow the campaign funding laws as I would expect other campaigns to follow. These are under the bright lights of public scrutiny and if there was something going on, your Fox News crew would be on it like white on rice. As we have heard nothing from the Tea Party News Network (Fox) on this topic, even they won’t make up some conspiracy theory.
And, no, we have had far more corrupt administrations in our history. The Teapot Dome scandal in 1922 comes to mind. Nixon and Watergate was right up there. You are grabbing at straws if you think this Administration is “the most corrupt Administration our Country has seen.”
Face it. Romney lost. Let’s move on. Accept the fact you have a non-white male in the highest office of the land. I will keep an eye open for all this “corruption” of which you speak. I have not seen any yet, but I will be certain to do my due diligence.
Cult of personality.
Psychiatrists have claimed (since the 1970’s) that they can predict accurately who will be a violent adult criminal, and who will not. Furthermore they can make this prediction when the subject is as young as five years old, and before the subject has committed a single crime.
I have no doubt that these “doctors” can do this, the only question is what do we, as a society, do with this information?
Let us not ignore the psychiatric drugz (anti-depressant, anti-psychotic, anti-convulsant, etc.) which useage BY the shooters – NEARLY ALWAYS – precludes these mass shootings. (Read the book: “Overdosed America” … and see the video: “Generation RX”).
When society is sick, just give it another pill – that will just “CURE” everything (don’t, lord forbid, address the CAUSE of the problems – just flood the -symptoms- with pharmaceutical -$$$- chemicals).
Best Wishes (and please don’t ask WHY I moved away to the woods, several decades ago – it surely isn’t because of any LOVE for modern -so called- “society”).
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”
~ J. Krishnamurti
Merry Christmas
Happy New Year
A lot of violence (domestic and otherwise) has happened in wooded, rural areas! (including in Maine!)
But yes….throwing/prescribing meds so readily (including powerful pyschoactive medications) before trying counseling and other options is part of the problem in this country .
The domestic violence “in the woods” is invited there by other woods dwellers. If you live there alone, you are very safe.
Not true at all. There have been countless break-ins, rapes, even murders where the criminal targets some vulnerable older person,etc. , with no neighbors out in some rural area. Many times.
These comments here are why nothing ever gets done ever. Right yelling at the left left yelling at the right. Nothing getting done. We as a nation are in a constant election cycle. It is sad what this once great nation has become.
What we have become? The founding fathers fought in almost the same fashion about slavery. John Adams hated it, and John Rutledge was unwilling to compromise at all. Adams compromised giving the Nation 88 years of slavery, under a constitution which claimed all men to be equal. A constant fight every time a State was admitted to the Union, murders, lynchings, and finally open war between the States.north & south. After the war depression, segregation, and dehumanization of a whole race of people.
When “compromise” simply means giving up on your principles, thanks, I’ll pass.
The NRA is 4 million members. It is a group of individuals that know that giving in on one thing is just the first step in giving in on another and then another. Ordway supported a man that preyed on children (Carlson). She believed him and wrote columns supporting him, because she believed him. She was wrong then and she is wrong now.
Deflection. She saw the error of her ways (she had plenty of company) and admitted it publically. The NRA does ghave a significant number of reponsible members. Some of them even come out publicly about their disgreements with the NRA, but they are outshouted by the reactionary extremists.
statistically, all guns in the US are ni the hands of law abiding citizens. Also, violent crime in America has been in freefall since 1991..anyone who is talking gun conrol does so before the victims are buried..that is dispicable…and they know that gun control trumps all else…
The NRA is the largest gun safety organization in the world. It’s what they do. They don’t protect murderers. There job is teaching gun safety..stopping murderers is someone else’s job.They don’t build them and it’s not their job to monitor them. And yes they protect the 2nd amendment.
Since the Brady bill 1994 until 2009 there were almost 100 million gun checks (either buying a gun or a gun transfer)through ncsi…..guess how many we’re denied ….700’000….yes less than one percent….statistically all guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens….the way it should be…..now, if you say we should prosecute those who violate our gun purchase law, amen sister, I would be right….um…just a second…this president prosecutes 50% less than the last president….I guess there is plenty of room to enforce current law
Too many outrageous rants by the extremist gun rights crowd to respond to individually, those who still think they can shout down any opposition to their stance. Continual deflection, poor analogies, knee-jerk politicization, and other extremist propaganda from the reactionary wing of the NRA’s script, just don’t cut it.
Are you really looking for more government control, contrary to your otherwise libertarian opinions?
Great column, Renee. Keep up the good work in spite of the rabble rousers.
So Renee where were you on banning Ryder trucks, and methane fertilizer made from cow poop and easily acquired chemicals) when 19 brutally slain little children and 6 of their caretakers plus 143 other people died in Oklahoma City?
I don’t take responsibility for Timmy McVeigh’s act, do you? I also do not take responsibility for the nut-cases who drove planes into two New York office buildings, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania killing more US citizens in 2
hours than were killed by guns that year.
You and the liberal faction (and I use the word “liberal” loosely because a true liberal would be in favor of a liberal gun policy) seem to think that those of
us who happen to own guns should be responsible and guilty over those
who misuse them. I say if that is the case, then you (and I) were responsible and guilty for all the drunk driving deaths in this nation last year, as we own cars and are unwilling to give them up.
I have owned at least one gun since my tenth birthday. I have never aimed
it at another human, and I sure do not entertain the idea of hurting anyone. My guns are secured when not in use,
I can not be held responsible for this State’s policy regarding crazy people. If I was making the rules, violent people would be left on some island far off the coast to live out their lives. I don’t make the rules. I do follow them
It is easy to advocate the removal of rights when those rights are not important to you. The fact that those rights are important to others should be a concern to all US citizens. Too often this is not the case.
Here’s the deal; I promise to stand up to actually fight and possibly die, for your first amendment rights if you stand up for the ones afforded me by the second amendment. What about it?
Nancy Lanza is in total agreement with you.
Nancy Lanza is in total agreement with no one. She’s dead.
The ideas advanced by some of these gun lovers makes us wonder whether they shoud be allowed to have guns, or even sharp instruments.
Ahhh…..you see that too!!
If there are 430,000 schools in which 860,000 qualified vetted teachers are carrying guns, what percentage of 860,000 qualified vetted teachers are likely to have a bad day? Or even be struck from behind and disarmed by a six- foot-four mentally disturbed student? Is it expecting too much to ask each teacher to complete a year of commando training?
Tell us that in some countries more guns make the country safer. Don’t these countries have much more stringent control over those weapons than the U. S. and don’t they also allot more resources to the management and care of the mentally ill?
Would you want any of your young friends attending classes in an armed camp?
The humble Farmer
To your last sentence: No, I would not!
I’ll grant the NRA that it’s people who kill, not guns, but that doesn’t alter the fact that guns are far too easy to come by and that access must be far more restricted. We restrict the availability of drugs because they result in human misery, we limit road speeds because not doing so causes deaths and injury. Not restricting guns can only result in more killings. Our lenient gun laws and high rates of gun ownership can be directly tied to our high rates of firearm related deaths, the highest of any industrialized nation. The logic is inescapable and arguments to the contrary are primarily based on an ideology that values personal rights more than a common right to a peaceful society, including peaceful schools, churches, shopping malls, restaurants and other places where people gather. The NRA stands for selfishness, not public safety.
As a life long gun owner for sporting purposes as well as personal protection, it pains me to have to agree with people that want to restrict the types of guns that are available to the general public. It says that I’m not capable of not putting 5 year olds at risk. But I need to get over that for the greater good. And those that think having large capacity assault weapons protects them from the tyranny of a government gone amok, get real. We lost that arguement in the 1930’s when we were denied the right to own machine guns and bazookas. Semi automatric assault rifles are no match for what is available to police and the military. And besides, I think our experiment here has proven itself pretty well- the founders put in place the right to bear arms, and 250 years later we have not experienced a police state. Let’s call it a success and move on.
Amen…..best post on this.
Okay, ban assault weapons. Then what will be next when that doesn’t have the desired result? Ban all guns? Okay, so say that takes place. Are you going to ban cars because drivers kill while drunk or texting? What about knives? They can be a pretty serious weapon. How about bomb making materials and rat poison? The answer is not in banning anything. We as a country should be making sure that anyone who needs mental health care has it available to them. No one who commits a crime like these recent shootings is mentally “all there.”
Will there ever be a time when black people in America to stop calling themselves African Americans and just be Americans? After all most have never been to Africa, nor can speak the language, and most would not even know what part of Africa they come from?
But as for the article? There will be evil in this world as long as humans roam the planet, to think that banning a gun will some how remove evil for the human psyche is a very nieve.
Enough of moon bat liberals who castigate the NRA every time there is a shooting, despite the fact that the last ban on assault weapons DID NOTHING to curb gun violence. Many of the same people who scream about gun control are gun carriers themselves- hollywood types and sports figures come immediately to mind. I thought Wayne LaPierre’s satement (about putting armed police officers in every school) was ridiculous but he was spot on in calling for a serious examination of how violence is portrayed in movies (by some of the aforementioned gun control advocates) and video games. Furthermore, our mental health system is seriously flawed in that it fails to not just identify those with serious mental illnes, but with the tools available by families, physcians, counselors and others to get these individuals off the streets and out of the schools BEFORE they become the next Adam Stanza or Jerrod Laughner. As it stands right now it is almost impossible to get anyone blue-papered.
Alcohol was banned under prohibition…..didn’t work.
Drugs are banned under numerous laws….didn’t work.
Now you want to ban guns or parts thereof……..Not going to work.
Look, the problem isn’t guns. Or any part of the guns. It’s the people that are using them to commit these terrible acts of violence. It’s simple. If we as a nation ban guns, assault rifles, or any part or accessory of the guns then the people that want to commit these acts will only find it harder to get them, not impossible. THE WILL STILL COMMIT THE CRIMES. Only thing is there will be no chance that someone will be able to stop them. Period. End of debate. Facts are facts and no matter how you spin it the fact will always stay the same. Unless we become a police state like the old Soviet Union, we will always have access to guns. Do any of you liberal gun hating activist believe for even one minute that banning guns will make the criminal population run to the police station to turn in their guns? Are you going to go door to door searching for guns and confiscate them? How many guns do you think are out there in homes and cars right now? 1 million? 2 million? Good luck with that. I think you are delusional if you think a gun ban would do anything except make them more expensive and a little harder to get.
I cannot speak for every law abiding gun owner, but I can speak for myself and I can tell you, that I, as a law abiding citizen, will not run to a police station to turn in firearms I currently lawfully possess either. No legislation will remove my firearms from my possession while I still live. Said legislation may provoke my early dirt nap, but I will go happily, fighting for our rights.
I have a soon to be 6 year that attends school every weekday. I Love her with all my heart, as I’m sure anyone else loves and cherishes their child, including the parents at Sandy Hook whose children were horrifyingly and mindlessly taken from them. I cannot imagine their pain. But I am also a gun owner. My family has had guns my entire life, back for generations. We were raised with values and morals instilled in us, and I can guarantee I will not be committing any crime with my guns. That being said, a fair amount of guns used in these horrible acts aren’t lawfully purchased by the shooter, they are many times stolen from someone else. Therefore, enacting a ban will do no good in helping our issue at hand. The guns are out there, the only way to not have them out there is to somehow dis-invent guns for the entire world (I’m sure you would agree that would be impossible to do). Also, I believe the push for these “assault weapons” bans comes from people who do not own, and haven’t ever been taught about guns, through perhaps no fault of their own are ignorant on the subject. An “assault” rifle doesn’t shoot at any higher of a rate than any other semi-auto weapon. Limiting magazine capacity really does no good either, with any practice, the reload time to fire 30 rounds of ammunition from 3 ten round magazines versus 1 thirty round magazine is barely noticeable, especially when it takes a fraction of a second between rounds to acquire the next target anyway. The reality of it is, if you want to blame the type of guns, you’d have to ensure there were no guns left to be used, even after an extensive country-wide confiscation of all guns. All we have to do is look to the other countries that have done this to see that doesn’t at all work. It’s a proven statistic that where there are more lawful gun owners, there is less crime, like it or not. I feel that for the safety of my daughter, an armed, trained individual at her school would be the only effective way of helping to keep her safe. What’s better, a 911 call that brings armed, trained personnel in a few minutes, or a commotion that brings armed, trained personnel in a mere matter of seconds? You can’t ride a plane without clearing security and many times being seated near (whether you know it or not) an armed air marshal. Why should the safety of the people on board be more important than my daughter? Than your kids? They will learn that police officers and other security are not to be feared, they are to be embraced and trusted. They would learn that a gun on the hip of trained professional is no threat to anyone not breaking the law. I do agree with the NRA on this one. I don’t just think, I KNOW that any gun restriction or law we could pass will not keep anyone in my family safe. I for one would be more than happy to see armed professionals at schools, and I will continue to love and cherish my little girls.
Please Renee, stop writing and we’ll forget that you know little or nothing about anything. Why they employ someone to author so many articles where they demonstrate complete ignorance about the topic, I will never understand. Responding to the complete nonsense you write (or regurgitate from leftist websites) is a wasted effort.
If certain guns were to be banned the bad guys would still get them drugs are illegal and the druggies still get them.