Distraction by Insanity

Is it okay to sit around helplessly and pretend that we can't doing anything about assault weapons and rapid fire magazines?

Distraction by Insanity

Of six top factors contributing to gun violence in this country, FIVE of these factors are regarded by many politicians as demanding of expensive handouts, not worthy of serious investment or government consideration.







But the sixth has assumed enormous importance as a highly successful distraction.  It is more and more apparent that the issue of regulation of weapons of mass destruction will be yet another division in what amounts to the political abyss separating the rational from the political in America.

The culture of violence that is drowning us is exemplified by men in the congress who have refused more than once to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the huge increase in gun sales since the Sandy Hook massacre, the pathetic demand to arm teachers against interlopers, and serious men all over the country that are issuing fierce pronouncements about "any moves to take their constitutional right to self protection away".  Liberals (translation: President Obama) are scheming to remove from men that dark hard serious stiff thing that protrudes from the body and lets the whole world know that here is a REAL man.  You can construct your own translation of that last part.

Forget that serious and law-abiding sportsmen with gun and dog managed just fine when we did have a ban on assault weapons.  Forget the testimony from the wounded, from survivors and those that grieve. Forget the honest efforts by panels commissioned to include the NRA.  Forget the legalisms, and the false statistics about the uselessness of gun control: "Crime up.  Invasions up." (Somehow there's no mention that murder and suicide by gun IS dramatically lower in countries with fewer guns). “Enforce the law we already have".  "Control the assault weapons and soon the criminals will all have them and the honest householder will be helpless".  

Forget the tiny 6 year olds with their bodies blown to pieces by rapid fire.

We should remember instead all the sexy cowboys and monster-whacking games, the “patriotism” of the NRA, the muzzle-loader sentence in the Constitution and the culture that cannot seem to either negotiate or change for the better.  That's the final answer?   Are we all crazy?

Ann Melby Shenkle


This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Don Talenti January 16, 2013 at 02:15 AM
Mr. Lane, please do not put words in my mouth. I made reference only to what was directly stated. I would also point out, especially given your stated experience, that you apparently are unaware that semiautomatic weapons, no matter how scary looking all in black, are not military assault rifles. They do not have automatic fire, nor 3 round bursts. As for the fact that YOU don't see a need, why would you assume that to be a valid criterion to prevent others from owning them? And again, as I stated earlier, read the writings of those who drafted the Second Amendment. They are clear in that the right to arms was for the citizens, exactly so they could fight back against the government. It was not to ensconce that right in a government controlled standing army, such as a National Guard, but with the individual citizen. But the onus is not on me to defend my right. The onus is on you to state WHY you feel I should not have a semi-automatic. Based on fact, not an emotional "I don't think you need that" argument, which is infantile and ludicrous on the face of it. I don't care what YOU think I might "need". Who are you to judge that? Owning the firearm is not a crime, and my owning it impacts you not a whit. So long as I am not infringing on your rights with that firearm, it's none of your business. This idea that you punish the innocent because someone else committed a crime is insanity.
George January 16, 2013 at 02:23 AM
Mr. Lane, the Framers were not granting a Constitutional Right to the National Guard or any government controlled entity. George Mason, a co-author of the Second Amendment, stated: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." His statement leaves no doubt as to the original intent of the Framers. The Right belongs to the people and is secured by the Second Amendment.
Richard Lane January 16, 2013 at 03:36 AM
Well, enough. This is not about me or what I would like. Nor is it about what I think you might need or what you might like. Its about what the Second Amendment means, within the context of us citizens. There is the Second Amendment and why it was drafted, word for word in a concrete context. Nor can one amendment stand alone from the other nine ratified along with it in 1791. We all know about King George, quartering of foreign troops, etc, this historical context. Whiskey Rebellion, 1794, also in context. George Washington was obviously not against the right to bear arms. He called up the militia, not the national guard or the standing army (neither existed). 16,000 plus of everyday citizens took their muskets and marched to the west to put down the armed insurrection. They did, No contradiction with the Second Amendment. Call an assault capable weapon just another "arm" if you like. In one sense it is. But so is a hand held bazooka. Where in the world does the design capability fit the home? And there is that pesky clause, a well-regulated militia. You don't know what I own and I could care less what you own. Whether it is a cogent argument to go on though about the assumed 'right' of 300 million plus individual American citizens to own an assault capable weapon to oppose the government if they just wish, would be, as someone might say, "insanity". We all know where that ends. Period. I'll take whiskey.
Don Talenti January 16, 2013 at 03:48 AM
As I've said, look at what those who penned that Amendment said in their subsequent letters, articles, and treatises. I think, sir, the reason you don't hear a cogent argument, is because you are determined not to listen. Have your whiskey. I'll take liberty sober. :)
David Neamand January 21, 2013 at 04:40 PM
I read her blog and attached a post therein, her figures are incorrect


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »