The NRA - This Gun Organization For Hire.

Many years ago, there were a series of novels written about a private detective named Mike Hammer. One of the more famous of these novels was entitled. "This Gun For Hire." Now we have "This Gun Organization For Hire", as the NRA has, and is, selling out to the highest bidder, that being the gun manufacturers. They perpetrate this chicanery on the American public, by spreading rumors that the government wants to take your guns away, thereby working the gun nuts into a frothy frenzy. Of course this is nonsense, but as we learned from Hitler, The "Big Lie" as a propaganda tool can be quite effective.

The NRA tells the gun nuts that, "We have your back." Not so, as the NRA owes only one allegiance. They are in the hip pockets of gun manufacturers and both these manufacturers and the NRA have but one goal. Sell, guns, guns, and more guns. Of course if you're one who wants to buy guns, guns and more guns, then the NRA is your cup of tea.

School children and theater goers alike are slaughtered in huge numbers by crazed gunman with weapons that fire a number of bullets in just a few seconds. The NRA's response to this is to put even more guns in schools wielded by armed guards, which is tantamount to trying to fight a fire by pouring gasoline on it. Then they duck behind the dubiously worded Second Amendment by saying law abiding citizens have a right to buy and keep all types of guns. Here is a recent quote by the NRA.

"Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation," the NRA said in a statement. "Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."

This is one of the stupidest statements I have ever heard and is consistent with another big lie the NRA delights in spreading. It goes something like this. According to the NRA, there are crooks and bad people, and there are good people. The crooks and bad people shouldn't have guns, but many do, and the good people should have guns to protect us from the bad people with guns. Black and white, with no gray, and everyone placed into a neat little box of good or bad. That is pure folly, as over 60 percent of gun violence in this nation is perpetrated by people with no prior criminal record. In other words they are US!

On the opposite side of the coin, here is what Henry Blodget from the Daily Ticker had to say.

"The Second Amendment was written 220 years ago when 3.9 million people lived in America and the most powerful guns available were single-shot flint-lock muskets. Even if you ignore the "well-regulated state militia" clause in the Amendment language, it is reasonable to wonder whether the "Framers" had today's commonly available modern assault weaponry in mind. (Also, the Constitution is occasionally modified when it becomes outdated and/or inappropriate. Slaves were legal in those days, too.)"

Of course, criminals are guilty of much of the gun violence, but the shooter in the theater in Aurora, Colorado had no prior criminal record. The shooter in the Sandy Hook school killings had no prior criminal record. Over 60 percent of the people who injure or kill someone with a gun have no prior criminal record. All of these people are part of the "law abiding citizens" the NRA says would suffer by new and stricter gun laws.

The NRA says we need to put more emphasis on mental health. Obviously we do, but not at the expense of having the gun nuts and their lobby run roughshod over the interests of the American people.

To drive my cars, I need to be licensed, and so do the cars. Yes, people with cars kill and injure people, but not with nearly the same intent of deadly mayhem as do people with guns. Is it too much to ask that we control, and license guns and the people who own them, as we do cars and the people who drive them?

Yes, people in this country have a right to own guns. I may not entirely agree with all of that right (there is the "well regulated militia" aspect), but it is the law and I respect the law. But with rights comes responsibility, and that responsibility needs to be spelled out in an ironclad way by new and tougher gun laws and (the only area in which I have ever agreed with the NRA) more vigorous enforcement of the current gun laws. It is a felony to lie on a background check, but few are prosecuted. That should stop.

We are a nation of laws. We are a nation of rights. We are a nation of responsibility. It will take a strong dose of all three to even begin to reduce the gun violence in our country.

Is it time? No, unfortunately, it's way past time!

Ready, Aim, Fire!

The recent incident in Florida in which an innocent teenager was gunned down by a man with a Neanderthal mentality is terribly tragic, but not unique. The fact that it is not unique constitutes another terrible tragedy.

Florida has a law known as "stand your ground" which means a private citizen may use firearms against any person they deem is an immanent danger. They are allowed to do this at home, on the street, in a restaurant, in a park, and anywhere else. It seems, by the lack of an arrest of the Florida shooter, that this laws protect those who actually were in immanent danger, as well as those who were not. All they must do to comply with the law is to state, after the fact, they thought they were in danger.

The "stand your ground" law is a dangerous law, as the Florida killing illustrates.  What makes it even more dangerous than one might suppose is that it is not just a Florida law, but laws like it have been passed in twenty one states in our nation.

What would possess state governments to pass such off the wall legislation? As Mr. Rogers might ask, "Can you say NRA?"  The NRA is driven by some $200 million dollars a year, mostly from gun manufacturers and gun sellers to use their influence to see that America becomes an armed camp.

They are now urging bills that would allow concealed weapons in day-care centers and school buses. The more places that allow gun (concealed guns in most cases), the more guns that can be sold and the more profit the gun sellers and manufacturers will make.

Getting back to Florida, Brian Malte, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said, "Florida is the NRA Utopia. They make it as easy as possible to carry a loaded gun in public, virtually anywhere. And then instill the mentality that you can shoot first, ask questions later."

In Arizona they recently considered a law that would make it legal for anyone on the campus of public colleges and universities to carry a gun. I am not a big fan of the Arizona governor, but to her credit, when this law was actually passed in her state, she vetoed it. The NRA, no doubt, will surely try there, again.

The NRA and other pro gun organizations and individuals will tell you that armed citizens will counteract the guns in the hands of felons and other criminals. Well, that sounds pretty good until you are faced with one startling fact. Two thirds of the gun violence in this  country is committed by these same citizens, who prior to their act of violence, had no criminal record. To use that old phrase, "We have met the enemy, and it is us," seems quite appropriate here.

In a recent op-ed piece, Gail Collins of the New York Times said," I am thinking that the best solution for all concerned would be a strict national gun-control law that makes it very difficult to get a concealed weapons permit, permits gun dealers to sell only one handgun per individual per year, and makes it illegal for even permit holders to keep handguns anywhere but their home, store or car glove compartment unless they are employed in the security business." 

Of course what Collins is advocating in her op-ed piece is no more than common sense, and while the NRA may be flush with cash, they are significantly over-drawn on their common sense account.

So the gun carnage in our country continues, while the NRA is screaming, "MORE, MORE, MORE." They love to say that guns do not kill people, people kill people. That is both true and incomplete, as in fact, people with guns kill people, as the NRA makes doing so easier and easier.

I do think the NRA has missed one important area where guns should be legal, if not mandatory. That would be in the shower. Picture, if you will that while taking a shower you hear what you believe to be an intruder in your house, or worse yet in your bathroom. You grab your gun (a water proof one, of course), leap naked from the shower, assume a slight crouch, and while holding your gun with both hands, holler (in your best Clint Eastwood impersonation) "Freeze, punk." Then all you have to do is to wait until the intruder keels over, either from fear or laughter.

Hey, the NRA being what it is...it could happen!

Religion In Politics And God Help Us All

Religion.  If you asked ten different people to define religion, you might very well get ten different answers. "The eye of the beholder" is certainly in play when it comes to how people view religion. Religious faith is not bad or evil, and in fact is a guiding principal for many good and decent people who live their lives dedicated to fairness, honesty and helping others in need. I have no quarrel with people who are guided by religion to live their lives in that manner. I also have no quarrel with people who have no religious faith, but still live good, decent, and honest lives, as there are also many of those people in our country. Religious faith is not a prerequisite to being a good person, and never has been.

However, (you just knew there was a however coming, didn't you) religion in the United States has an ugly, dark and quite destructive side, which seems to be growing more dangerous each year. There is a segment of religion that seems not only to know how to live there lives, but are also convinced they know best how the rest of us should live our lives, as well.  Call them the religious right, the Tea Party, hard liners....whatever you like, the end result is the same.

The Republican party candidates for president are falling all over themselves to prove that each of them is a religious zealot more dedicated to moral(?) values than the next one. With a bible in one hand and a bolt of lightening given to them by god in the other, each of these people feels they must champion every religious dogma precept of how each citizen of our country should live.

These candidates, as an example, are quick to jump on the bandwagon that says marriage is only to be sanctioned between a man and a woman, and its main purpose is procreation. Really? Does this mean that a married couple that decides not to have children, has less of a marriage than those that do? They proclaim that gay marriage is a great threat to traditional marriage. Silly me, and here I thought divorce was the greatest threat to marriage, as fifty percent of all marriages end up that way. These doom's day marriage prophets also tell me that my marriage is somehow threatened if two men or two women get married. How this threatens my marriage, or anyone else's, is a total mystery to me. Am I to announce to my startled wife some day, "Honey, Bob and Ted, were just married and moved in down the block, so I'm afraid our marriage is over." What utter nonsense. If Bob and Ted love each other, they have as much right to get married as anyone else, and it is no one else's business if they do. Finally, these misguided candidates and their followers are hell bent on passing national laws that prohibit gay marriage. Fortunately, I live in Washington State, which this week became the seventh state to formally legalize gay marriage. Yes, our weather may get us wet enough to rust, but the thinking of the majority in this state is fair and just.

Birth control is another hot button for the religious right kooks who want to define our nation's direction. They don't want it and God forbid (no pun intended) that medical insurance pay for it, or that hospitals dispense it. One only need look at all the unloved and un-cared for children in our nation (and the world) to understand the real need for giving people the choice of birth control. In fact, a survey of Catholic women showed that the vast majority are in favor of birth control, and a majority of those in their child bearing years use some form of it. Sorry Vatican, but even your own people don't agree with you. Birth control should be a choice, without undue pressure (either way) from outside sources.

Abortion? Oh boy, the hard right religious folks go nuts over that one. Yes, without question, an abortion is a tough choice for any women. Should they or shouldn't they is not a question I can answer, nor is it a question the nay saying religious right people can answer. Only the woman can answer that question for herself after receiving all the information and counseling from the sources she chooses, and no advice or pressure from those sources she doesn't choose. It is her choice, her body, and non of our damned business. Pro-choice doesn't always mean abortion. It simply means what it says, with the key word being choice.

The religious right wants desperately to run our lives. Hey, some moral values and a little guidance....what could be the harm in that? Plenty! For proof, take a look at those Middle Eastern countries where Islam runs the government. Religious police roam the streets so that a man and woman do not hold hands, kiss, or show any form of affection towards one another. TV content is tightly censored, Gays can be jailed or worse, women are not looked upon as the equal of a man, and Islamic courts and Islamic law take precedent over civil courts and civil law. No, we do not have those conditions in our country, but "give them an inch and they will take a mile" holds true here, and religious right oppression must be opposed at ever turn so that we never experience those conditions, or any that even come close.

The constitution gives us a guarantee of religious freedom. That means a person is free to follow any religion they wish in their personal lives, or no religion at all. It can be Christian, Muslim (without the draconian laws of some of the Middle Eastern countries), Buddhist, any other faith, or no faith at all. As long as we obey the laws of the land, religious faith, or lack of same, is (like abortion) our individual choice and not the business, or responsibility of anyone else.

It seems quite strange to me that the Tea Party is forever saying they want the government out of their lives. Yet, many of these same folk are only too quick to want the government to ban for all of us anything they deem is wrong. They also claim that each life, including the unborn, is precious, but seem to think that arming each citizen with enough fire power to kill dozens is OK. They are indeed speaking out of both sides of their mouth (although I suppose they speak more out of the right side than they do the left).

Please understand, I am not an anti-religious faith person by any stretch of the imagination.  My wife belongs to a Christian faith church, in which many of it's members have become friends of mine. The majority of the members of that church believe that religion should keep out of government and government should keep out of religion.  Amen to that, brother!

Guns, Hate Speech, and Those Poor Tea Party People On Social Security.

I had intended to write more frequent blog entries here, but my silence has been deliberate and self imposed.  After the attempt on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords life, the murder of six and the wounding of many in Tuscon on January 8th, everyone, left, right, or in the middle, who could uses a word processor, typewriter (any of those still around?), or a quill dipped in ink had something to write about those events.   I choose to let the dust settle before commenting.  I did so, as I wanted to think about and weigh all the events which had transpired, as well as what had been said in the wake of those events.

Almost immediately after the shootings, many on the left said the gunman was driven my harsh gun related rhetoric from the right.  The right countered by saying that they were only exercising their free speech rights and that nothing they said was ever a trigger for an individual's actions.  I thought about this a bit before realizing that both the left and right were wrong.

The gunman that caused all the carnage in Tucson, is a demented, nut case, who was driven by inner forces far worse than the words of the right.  He slipped through life without ever receiving the mental health treatment he needed, and  passed the background check required of all (OK, all except at gun shows) gun purchasers.  More than the words from the right, our mental health system, and the inadequate information in our firearms background check procedure are more to blame.

So, while the right may be off the hook for this one, that by no means is the end of the story.  Their public uttering of "reload", "in our cross hairs", "2nd amendment solutions" and other words of hate and thinly veiled calls for violence have been, and will no doubt will be in the future, just the catalyst to push some wild eyed, un-informed zealots over the edge to commit violent acts.  All the right's denials to the contrary, their repeated words of hate do have an effect on violent acts in our nation.

As do you all, I wish only the best for congresswoman Giffords in her fight to recover.

Speaking of congress, the house is now controlled by the Republicans, but I'm guessing you already knew that.  I have already discussed with you their plan to undo the advantages of the new health care laws.  Now, they have set their sights on Social Security.  Their main tactic is telling us that Social Security is broke, when in fact, it is not.  Social security has enough funds and resources to pay out every dollar that will be owed for the next twenty eight years.  It is far from broke.  Sometime in that twenty eight year period, changes will have to be made so that Social Security may continue long into this decade..  An obvious fix is to raise the ceiling on the amount of a person's income on which social security tax can be collected, but I will leave that to the Democrats and Republican's to duke it out over.

The Republicans hate the Social Security system, and would like to phase it out entirely.  They don't like the government giving seniors a helping hand, a helping hand I might point out, which these same seniors have been paying into all of their working life.  Instead of Social Security, they want people to invest in the stock market for their retirement.  This logic is great for wall street, but turns into silly putty when you consider that (1) many people would not do so, and (2) the market is subject to many external forces, which means it has great highs and lows, which means if you happen to retire at the wrong time, too bad for you.

Consider this.  Social Security has worked, as planned, for seventy five years.  Before Social Security, five out of ten seniors lived at or below the poverty level.  Since Social Security, that number is one in ten.  Those are simple figures to understand.  If you are a senior, the Republicans want to phase out your social security, if you are not a senior, they want to phase it out before you get to retirement age.  I wonder how some older Tea Party members will feel when they realize the very political party they helped put in control of the house of representatives wants to weaken or destroy a major source of income they will enjoy in their older years.  Maybe they should have paid more attention the first time around, but then the Tea Party was never big on listening to the facts.

More later..............