Jan's Stinkin Blog

Saturday, January 19, 2013

GUN DEBATE: Background checks?

GUN CONTROL DEBATE: What can we agree on?

BACKGROUND CHECKS: I would think we can all agree on having a database that gun dealers need to access before selling a gun to an individual but a data base is only as good as the info put into that database.

First, a background check must be mandated on all gun sales and that includes sales made at “gun shows” which in the past did not require background checks. Yes, if you are a licensed gun dealer, you must do a background check but many “sellers” at gun shows are not “licensed” and therefore are not obligated to perform background checks.

The FBI provides the data used in background checks which consists of available criminal records of individuals that are recorded as having committed a criminal act.

BUT now, since we know that many mass murders have been committed by mentally impaired individuals, we now are looking to include mental health data on individuals that mental health professionals have deemed potentially dangerous?

Well this could be a “slippery slope” and a huge invasion of privacy issue if not managed properly. The movie theater shooter in Aurora, Colorado pleaded with his psychiatrist for help and the psychiatrist knew he was a danger to others as he told her he wanted to kill a lot of people; she contacted the police with her concerns but did not authorize the police to detain and hold him for observation, which she had the power to do.

Background checks would not have worked in the Newtown massacre since the mother of the idiot that did the killing bought him guns and urged him to learn how to use them knowing full well that he had a screw loose; she paid the ultimate price for her motherly stupidity as did many innocent children.

Background checks will not solve our problems but they may help in preventing some of them especially when we expand the database to include individuals with severe mental problems.

GUN CONTROL DEBATE: Can we have one?

The GUN CONTROL DEBATE has begun and I cannot believe the downright stupid-ass positions people are taking on both sides of the debate; it is as if common sense has no place in the discussion. This is bad for the discussion because people are so set in their opinions that they will not even listen to proposals being made…so no discussion?

I have already stated that the 2^nd Amendment to our Constitution does not make gun ownership a Constitutional right but that does not mean that law-abiding citizens should not have a right to defend their homes and loved ones.

On the one extreme, banning ALL weapons has been proven not to work because the only people that would end up with weapons are the cops and the bad guys; the normal citizen would be defenseless and the crooks would know that so crime would increase as case studies have shown.

On the other extreme (NRA) to do absolutely nothing would be stupid on our part. The NRA has crossed the line into absurdity and the TV ads they are placing are not only insulting, they are moronic.

In my local paper (Canton Observer), a group calling itself HURON VALLEY GUNS (a store?) placed a FULL PAGE ad (not cheap) with a drawing of our FOUNDING FATHERS holding our Constitution with the headline: THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAVE AWAKENED which is such an ignorant statement as the Founding Fathers had no intention of letting every jack-ass to have as gun and use it indiscriminately; their intention was for members of a “well-regulated militia” now our National Guard, to be armed.

The ad calls for a “Gun Appreciation Day” to be held today (19^th of January) in Milford, MI where I presume the gun store is located.

The ad is addressed to GUN OWNERS and TEA PARTY ACTIVISTS (interesting combination) and urges them to demonstrate their passions “CHICK-FIL-A style” which to me means there is a “religious” message here, as well as an “anti-gay” message since the Chick-fil-A issue was about the owner of the restaurant chain being very outspoken about gays and what the Bible says about gays.

I would be interested to see who shows up for this first, national GUN APPRECIATION DAY but from what the ad says, I can be pretty sure it would be the ultra-conservative fringe of our population that I sometimes refer to as the NEANDERTHALS with an apology to the Neanderthals who probably do not deserve the implication their name evokes.

My only hope is that sensible people on both side of the debate can meet in the middle and do what is in the best interest of all Americans and not just the few who make the most noise.

Discussion to follow…

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

2ND AMENDMENT: What does it really say...

We are about to start discussing a lot about “GUN CONTROL” regulations that may be imposed by Congress and/or by presidential fiat.

BUT before the wrangling starts I just want to make perfectly clear that the 2^ND AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MAKE GUN OWNERSHIP A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

I realize that many, many people including Supreme Court judges think that the 2^nd Amendment DOES protect gun ownership in the United States, but I am afraid they either are blind to the reality of the Amendment because they so want it to say what they want it to say or they feel they have to interpret the Amendment erroneously so as to keep gun ownership protected by our Constitution…so they just lie?

I am a little surprised by the conservatives on the Supreme Court who call themselves “strict constructionists” when it comes to our Constitution meaning that they interpret our Constitution AS WRITTEN THEN with the BILL OF RIGHTS finally ratified in 1791.

As we all know, the BILL OF RIGHTS amendments were added to the Constitution based on the experiences Americans had under the despotic rule of an English monarch; they wanted to make sure Americans would never suffer the same injustices as they did under the rule of England.

The BILL OF RIGHTS reflected the people’s experiences and related views that were held in the late 1700s and applied specifically to their welfare at that time.

The fear of a foreign invasion was still on people’s minds. The new country did not have a standing army that could protect individual states in case, say the Canadians/British attacked or even some pissed off tribe of Indians; the states needed to protect themselves and their residents.

In colonial times, all able-bodied men were part of a state “militia” and when “mustered” must come armed and ready to fight “by law”.

The word and concept of a “militia” is critical to this 2^nd Amendment argument in that all males (16-40) were automatically enrolled in an “organized and regulated” militia or civilian military force that could be “called-up” for duty in emergencies.

For this reason, the 2^nd Amendment starts with the words “A well-regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free state” and continues “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In essence, this amendment is saying that since “well regulated” militias are an absolute necessity in guaranteeing the security of a free state, no laws shall be enacted that interfere with the members of that militia, from having and using arms/guns/rifles…

As time went on, citizen militias evolved into state national guards (1903) and now each state has a national guard that can be called up by the governor of that state for emergency duty or can be “federalized” by the federal government for national duty.

Since the “well-regulated militia” is now a “well-regulated state national guard” where does it leave the individual civilian that is not part of the militia or National Guard? Well, the 2^nd Amendment no longer applies to the average Joe Blow but only to the people that are part of the National Guard…comprende?

There is no way that the 2^nd Amendment can be interpreted today as applying to someone NOT IN THE NATIONAL GUARD.

Some people that believe movies like RED DAWN, etc. are for real and that we as a nation could be attacked and our armed forces defeated and then individual citizens would have to rise up against the invaders and save the country and therefore have to be armed at all times…well really?

If you want the right to bear arms to be a federal law then pass a law stating just that but don’t try to hide behind the 2^nd Amendment; it does not give you the right to bear arms…period.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

INAUGURATION BENEDICTION: Not by anti-gay minister...

Rev. Louie Giglio, founder of the Passion Conferences of Atlanta, was invited to deliver the benediction at President Obama’s inauguration but due to an “anti-gay” sermon he gave 15-20 years ago, he withdrew his acceptance so as not to cause a stir and detract from the inauguration ceremony.

In his sermon in the mid-1990s, Giglio did call homosexuality a sin and said that the healing power of Jesus was the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League quickly jumped on the issue and said Obama should swear on a copy of Marx’s Das Kapital book instead of the Christian Bible since the Bible calls homosexuality a sin and Marx was an avowed atheist and the father of Communism…

The debate quickly heated up and was covered on all the major news networks.

It appears Obama had nothing to do with the controversy and actually asked the Inauguration Committee to reconsider but the damage was already done.

There are a number of sides to this issue and a big one is that Giglio’s sermon was from such a long time ago and no one asked Giglio if he still held those views about homosexuality; an important question since many people have come to accept the fact that people are born homosexual and do not choose to become homosexual since choosing a homosexual lifestyle is a very absurd premise.

Many Christian denominations now believe that the Bible (Old Testament) does not specifically call homosexuality a sin (or abomination) and we all know how anybody and everybody can always interpret the Bible to suite their own viewpoint.

I guess the big question is should an anti-gay Christian minister give the benediction at the inauguration of a Christian president who is not anti-gay…I think not and so Giglio was right to decline the invitation.

As to Donohue (who is such an ass), he exemplifies the bad and stupid side of American Catholicism, the side that blindly follows Vatican pronouncements, no matter how absurd they are and thinks their Christianity is the only “true” and “correct” Christianity…and you wonder why so many Catholics are abandoning their faith?

Monday, January 07, 2013

CHUCK HAGEL: Great nominee for Defense...

President Obama has nominated former Republican Senator from Nebraska CHUCK HAGEL for Secretary of Defense and boy what an uproar the nomination has caused on BOTH sides of the isle.

Chuck Hagel is a Republican that I admire and would have voted for him as president in 2008 but “good” Republicans like Hagel and Jon Huntsman are never nominated because they are moderate in their views and not religious Neanderthals.

I like Hagel because he is my age, a Vietnam veteran with two (2) Purple Hearts who finished college on the GI Bill and made millions as a businessman.

He also is Polish on his mother’s side which cannot hurt.

Why are people on both sides of the political spectrum up in arms over his nomination; because he does not always follow the party line but actually has a brain of his own; he tends Libertarian.

He opposed Bush’s Iraq War. He said that the Jewish lobby in the U.S. is too strong. He challenged our military budget and he challenged many political ideas that did not make any sense to him regardless of which party they came from.

I guess he is a maverick and boy do we need people like that in Washington, DC.

His nomination hearings should be a great show to watch as all the political blowhards try to knock him off his perch but I feel Obama made a great choice for Secretary of Defense and his nomination should stand in the end.