CLARIFICATION

Just so people understand, I am not advocating the disarming of the American people when I advocate sensible gun control legislation, including universal background checks and the abolishment of assault rifles and other strictly military firearms and their acoutrements, like multiple round clips, in the hands of ordinary citizens. I wouldn't be for that anymore than I'd be for limiting automobile possession to a select few people, but I have no problem with having to prove I know how to drive safely and am physically capable of doing so before I am issued a driver license. If I hadn't had that cataract removal operation, there is no way I should have been allowed on the road, both for my own safety and certainly the safety of the public.

Likewise, felony criminals, mentally deranged people, etc. shouldn't be accumulating or toting around firearms, and if we weren't so intent on letting the wealthy get away with financially raping the society, we could afford to give such needy people the kind of supervised care they so desperately need and keep them away from access to such instruments of mass destruction.

I've mentioned before that when we knew my native american stepson was being released from prison and would be living with us for awhile, I got rid of all our firearms that I never used and saw no reason to possess because we knew his weakness for alcohol could take over and he is totally insane when alcohol is in his system. I didn't even keep the air guns I had purchased to deal with "varmints."

Guns are tools with legitmate practical uses. Like all tools, they can be dangerous in inexperienced or careless hands. I've used a lot of tools, and so far, nothing of disastrous import has occurred, but I've come close. It only takes a moment of inattention or some unexpected slip for serious injuries, some life threatening, to occur.

I personally think that we, as a nation, would be far safer if we had universal military training and every citizen was a potential soldier, if needed. Everyone would be schooled in weaponry and mentally unqualified individuals could be much more easily identified. I also think it's reasonable to have to prove proficiency and mental stability before being allowed to own such a weapon.

Yes, there could be dangers. However, nations like Switzerland and Israel have been able to pull off such universal militarization successfully and remain free nations. I think we have the capacity to do so as well. The dangers of our present inept system are all too apparent -- and disastrous.

OUR CITIES ARE WAR ZONES

What a way to wake up!  The Huffington Post headline, "Mother Loses 4th Son to Gun Violence," will jar the brain of just about anyone with normal sensibilities.

"CHICAGO ... seven people were killed and six wounded in gun violence in one day.

Among those killed Saturday was a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings. Police say Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother's youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a car."

 

Read the full account here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/ronnie-chambers-death-chi_n_2562014.html.

 

The gangland bloodbaths of the 20s and 30s horrified the nation and led to the banning of machine guns as private firearms.  The NRA never uttered a peep about that common-sense limitation. 

 

Things have changed.  Now they insist that every citizen has a right to own and carry around assault weapons -- a junior grade, but much more handy and portable version of a machine gun.  Couple that with easily concealable semi-automatic pistols and a plethora of other relatively cheap firearms being carried by more and more macho and pisssed off citizens of unknowable mental states and you have a situation which would make a walk down 1880s Tombstone streets look like an afternoon stroll through Cottonwood's Riverfront Park by comparison.

 

I think we've become so accustomed to ordinary citizens having to dodge bullets sprayed by psychopaths who consider whipping out a gun and blasting away indiscriminately as normal "anger management" that we view it as normal.

 

So far, nobody has been shooting up Cottonwood, but I have a doctor's appointment at 10 am, so I have to drive downtown.  I hope I live to drive back.  I don't know where in Chicago Ronnie Chambers was going, but he didn't make it.

 

 

WORSE THAN THE WILD WEST

Most of us spent our youths fantasizing about the wild west which was a constant theme on the "silver screen," radio and early TV.  Much of it was overblown.  There was a subculture, especially after the Civil War, centered around crime and banditry and gunslinging, but it was always a minority in the population.  Women and children and the sanctity of the home were generally respected.  In fact, my grandparents who homesteaded in North Dakota shortly after the turn of the century never locked their doors, and neither did my parents until about the nineteen fifties or sixties.  Society was changing even then and not for the best.

Even the gunslingers who dueled with each other were generally a problem only in isolated areas like mining towns and Dodge City and they tended to wipe each other out and disappear as soon as the civilizing process through the introduction of women folk, education and churches began taking effect.  I'm pretty sure that most areas of Deadwood and Tombstone were a lot safer for the average child and adult than some areas of Chicago and new York are today, with so many irresponsible individuals owning or stealing guns and spraying bullets with abandon.

Our ancestors sought for the calming effects of civilization and consciously set out to find and apply them.  They wanted safe neighborhoods where wearing guns would become obsolete.  Tombstone even had a statute against citizens wearing guns in town, and enforcing that law against some lawless elements was one factor that led to the famous shootout at the O K Corral.  That "wild west" attitude is quite a contrast with the current attitude exhibited by Wayne LaPierre.

He actually said, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

He went on to blame everything from video games and TV shows to a violent culture for the problems we face and called for armed guards in all schools.  He conveniently neglected to suggest ways to pay for such armed protection.  Even if such "protectors" were volunteers, the administration of such a program by school districts, local, state and national government would be astronomical.  I'm sure he doesn't want taxes increased on his corporation or his overpaid self to take care of it.  Probably, he would take the common GOP and tea party approach of cutting more desperately needed safety nets away from desperately needy citizens while he expected the resulting increase in desperation to lead to "law and order."

I don't blame him for not taking questions after such a display of stupidity and ignorance. 

It is impossible to have a civilized society under our present system of letting everyone, regardless of need or qualifications, to be armed to the teeth with military style weaponry and to walk around with impunity any place they choose to do so.  As I pointed out recently: http://theageofreason--21stcentury.blogspot.com/2012/12/sums-it-up-perfectly.html and:  http://theageofreason--21stcentury.blogspot.com/2012/12/time-to-wise-up_14.html, the idea of becoming the member of an etremist militia and "saving America" is pure nonsense and it is an attitude that gave us one civil war a century and a half ago.  Do we really want to precipitate another such paroxism of bloodletting?

As for me, I don't want to see schools transformed into a scene approximating a prison or concentration camp.  I don't want teachers having to strap on holsters filled with loaded guns every morning.  I don't want to walk down the streets of Cottonwood, or anywhere else, and wonder if some deranged individual is going to send either an aimed or ricochet bullet my way or the way of some unsuspecting child merrily skipping rope or tagging along on a shopping trip.

Please, let's see some sanity!

P.S:  P. Z. Meyers has a good statement about this nonsense as well:  http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/21/the-nra-has-spoken/

And, check out Lawrence O'Donnell:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/22/lawrence-odonnell-nra-lapierre_n_2349965.html

TIME TO WISE UP

What a horrible day!

I've spent much of the day glued to the television screen, apalled by the senseless slaughter of innocent children and adults in Newtown, Connecticut.  Gone are the days I remember from my own youth when children went off to school with no worry of some deranged person invading with guns and summarily executing them and their teachers.  Teachers could concentrate on the 3 R's, not on crisis training to deal with such madness.

My rural community was full of guns, mainly rifles and shotguns for the annual hunt and dealing with predatory "varmints."  Little, if any, thought was given to someone invading their homes and certainly not the local school with murder and mayhem on their mind.

I remember my dad handing me his old .22 rifle when I turned 14 and giving me stern instructions how to handle it.  He let me know that if I ever brought that rifle into the house with the clip in or the bolt closed, I wouldn't see it again for a long, long time.

We regarded guns as tools with a legitimate use, and certainly not for harming or even threatening another human being.  I'm sure there were mentally deficient and challenged people somewhere in our community, but for some reason, they never became the kind of community dangers they seem to be today.  I think they were usually consigned to asylums and homes where they could be properly cared for and monitored.  Today, we are too concerned about "entitlements," the possibility of unjust incarceration just to get rid of unwanted people, and especially the social expenses that might take a few dollars away from the bloated rich.  Thus, people who should be supervised and cared for by experts are left to prowl their communities and we have inevitable tragedies such as we witnessed today and in Tucson.

I'm not in favor of draconian gun control.  Our forefathers demanded the right to keep and bear arms for logical reasons, and it wasn't just to be able to hunt.  They also wanted to be able to protect themselves and had no inkling of the world we now live in where resisting the rise of tyranny with individual arsenals would be the height of folly.  You can't resist a military armed with jet aricraft, helicopters, guided missiles, etc. with household arsenals!  Not even with assault rifles and multiple round ammunition clips!

No one needs anything other than rifles, shotguns, and handguns for hunting or home protection, and having to meet common sense standards of mental and psychological fitness and adequate instruction before such ownership is allowed is simply good common sense.  The Swiss are armed to the teeth, but they also have universal military training and know what they are doing when they pick up a gun.

Rather than think we can "save democracy" by becoming wild-eyed militia fanatics, we had better concentrate on electing qualified people who love and support democracy to public office so they can rein in the military industial complex and keep it from taking over our republic.  If that takeover ever succeeds, any militias that might exist would soon be "toast."

Just a few days ago, my friend, Mark Manning, wrote a very inciteful article on this very subject.  Rather than try to say the same things all over, I urge you to read his blog article:  http://manningtheneutralzone.blogspot.com/2012/12/guns-kill-people.html

That's all, folks.