Guns stay, NRA go away!

I just finished reading the book "Glock" by Paul M. Barrett.  The book is fairly recent (2012), the controversy is not.  Wayyyyy back in the late 80s and early 90s, the very same brouhaha was going around about the new pistol, called the Glock, that everyone wanted banned for various reasons.  Just yesterday I saw one go through an estate auction, for about $600+ dollars (more on this later.)  There was also talk of limiting assault weapons, size of clips, background checks, etc, etc.  Who knew this would all be front page news 20 years later, with pretty much the same arguments?

And you know who's making out the best during all this...the gun manufacturers and dealers!  Back during the time period mentioned above, they couldn't make guns fast enough.  Think that's the case today?  According to a statement in the book, there's probably a gun in private hands for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.  I know there are plenty of people I would rather not see EVER own a gun.  And too many of those people now have conceal/carry permits too!  Doesn't that make you feel safe?

We do have guns in our house.  I'm not a righteous person saying that you shouldn't, or can't.  I'm just saying we need a few safeguards.  The biggest one, in my mind, is background checks.  If you're not a criminal, and have never been a criminal, then why should you worry?  Okay, if you were a criminal, but have proven to society that you're "rehabilitated" (and there are people out there who have done something wrong, but now are totally responsible, yet cannot own a gun) perhaps we can adjust this issue, reasonably.

Getting back to the auction mentioned above, I was talking to another auction goer, and made mention of all the guns available at auction these days, and that the prices tended to be more than retail many times.  He said that was because there are "No background checks!"   Could we have a big enough loophole in our system? 

In defense of background checks, rather recently, there was an incident where a man rammed his car into the wall of a pawn shop because they would not sell him a gun.  Reason being he didn't pass a background check.  Is that the type of person we want owning a gun?  Not me!!! 

Then we have the NRA who now want to arm school teachers?   As if teaching weren't stressful enough, you're gonna have some smart-aleck kid backtalk a teacher, and the teacher is going to crack and...   They'd probably talk about the mental health of the teacher, and how we should now arm the children! 

Why don't they put their millions towards talking about any mental health issues; poor parenting that allows kids to have access to guns; the lack of training with guns?  They used to be a pro-hunting organization, now they're more like a private militia organization.  Their messages don't come across as sympathetic, but more a form of bullying.  Essentially,  if you don't own a gun, you're a dope.

Just shooting my mouth off on Day 229!







 

Gay Marriage makes me laugh!

I stopped writing due to the elections because I was so fed up with politicians, etc, etc.  They're still making the news (those Republicans just can't seem to GET OVER IT!)  But now I have a new cause, so to speak..gay marriage! 

This past week, the supreme court justices are hearing arguments for and against gay marriage.  Since there was audio available, one of my more favored radio programs on NPR, was airing excerpts.   To hear the justices comment on the arguments made by the Anti-gay marriage attorneys was totally laughable.  Those attorneys were so tongue-tied when questioned, I wondered how they got hired in the first place!  I was driving down the road laughing out loud myself!

Then the following day I heard another correspondent talking about how even Justice Scolia was not his usual boisterous self, but more subdued.  It would seem he too was in awe of such ridiculous controversy over a case that probably shouldn't even be looked at by the court in the first place.

Let me say that I am FOR gay marriage.  I was for civil unions too, but if the "spouse" or "partner" or whomever you want to call the second person in a committed relationship cannot get benefits, that would normally be available to heterosexual couples, that's wrong, that's not equality. 

If you're not familiar with the constitution (and I admit, it's not an easy document to digest) Article IV, section 2 of the constitution says:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.  The first line of the Equal Rights Amendment says:  Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Do we need any more argument on Day 228?