Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Thoughts on Guns and the American Argument

As readers here know, I don't like deception, and don't mind uncovering it whenever, and wherever it may show up, via the tool of Statement Analysis.  The accuracy is incredible and readership appears to enjoy good arguments, where logic is used, rather than emotionalism, which can, at times, come dangerously close to deception.

The current national debate on guns is one such topic where sober minded thought is in short order on the political stage.

Let's reason together, about guns and personal responsibility.

I don't own a gun.

I am not a hunter.

I wear leather shoes and I love Prime Ribs of Beef on Christmas.

I love my children.

Readership is well aware of the many articles I have written on cases involving missing children, abused children, and murdered children.

I am a father and am soon to be a grandfather.

I have a vested interest in child safety in our country.

Let's take a blunt look at the arguments today, and, perhaps, not draw a conclusion.  It is uncomfortable to walk away from an issue without a conclusion, but it may be wise.  Let's just think things through for awhile.

Assault weapons aren't for hunters.

I owned a .22 caliber rifle, years ago, when my oldest children were young.  I left it on a table and instructed my young sons to not touch it.  I said this in a firm voice, buttressed by politeness and closeness to them.  They were curious about it, but after several weeks, they still had not touched it, and I allowed them to learn target shooting and attend a hunter safety class.  They did not develop interest in guns or hunting and eventually I gave it away.  They fell in love with hockey, instead.

The 2nd Amendment was not for hunters.  It was a reaction to the suffering that Americans underwent through the oppressive government that they had resisted, via armed resistance.

The early Americans believed that it was their duty to provide for their families and when England's Parliament issued tax after tax, it reached a point where it infringed upon their ability to provide for their family.  They appealed to the king, of whom they had covenanted together, as loyal subjects.  British Parliament did not represent the colonies and had no right to tax them.

But tax them, they did, and enforce the tax was something they did at the end of a gun.

The king, they said, had abdicated his right to rule over them because he did not protect them.  The armed resistance movement began, and the signer of the Declaration of Independence had their necks on the line, literally, if the armed resistance of the government failed.

They would have been hung by the neck until dead, and the history books would have read differently. George Washington would have been a name of disgrace to school children, rather than a general who was able to wiggle away from the Brits long enough to put up a good fight.

But there was something that convinced the last of the hold outs in the colonies to fight, even when they felt that they should have continued diplomatic attempts at reconciliation with the mother country:  this was the Quartering Act.

The Quartering Act was hated and it is not difficult to understand why.

Let us say that you, reader, have a husband and children, and live in the era where that brought about this dreadful law.

You worked from sun up to sun down, 6 days a week, and had to force yourself to not work on the seventh day, even though you had daily anxiety over the amount of food your family had for the week. Your husband worked 6 days, and your children worked hard, too, tending to the farm animals, while you worked to make clothing for the coming winter.  Week by week, you had just enough, and on the seventh day, your body, weary with work, rested and gave thanks.

When night came, darkness was amazingly dark, and the stars were amazingly bright.  There were no street lamps, and you and your husband kept a loaded musket against any possible intruders.

There was no 911 to call.

There were no cell phones to pick up.  Your family's defense came down to your husband's strength, and his strength often fell upon you, his wife, who sometimes had just a bit less chicken because you wanted to make sure your husband had enough protein to keep him strong.

Things were that tight.

As you struggled, you sold dozens of eggs (never carrying them all in one basket, as your own mother taught you), and found that if you were to sell 4 dozen per week, you could not only have enough money to buy sugar and wheat, but a little left over to buy more garment to knit gloves for your children.  The gloves from last winter were worn right out and your concern about shoes for this winter has turned to anxiety.

You've just been told that of the 48 eggs you sell, 4 will now have to be given to the British, as a tax.  It is the exact number of the extras you had in hopes of a tiny profit, and even, or so you dreamed, of a Christmas present for your children.

You swallowed this in bitterness, as your due service,  but your loyalty to the king has been tested yet again.  You don't like the talk of the other women who complain bitterly and are even urging their own husbands on to armed resistance.  You've always believed that hard work would be rewarded, but the more you and your family makes, the more is taken from you.  Talk is beginning to spread out there, and even in church, men are talking about armed resistance of the British imposition of taxes.

War talk scares you like nothing else.  You've read some unpleasant stories about it.

One day, a knock came on the door and a British soldier, with his fancy and expensive wool clothing, stood at your door with a piece of paper; a notice that said, "Attention!  Quartering Act Regulations!  By order of British Parliament..."

You knew that British Parliament had no jurisdiction over you any more than Scottish Parliament had jurisdiction over the Brits, yet, here is a soldier with a very large gun standing at your door.

You are told that he is to be given "quarter" in your home.

You have to put him up.

You have to feed him.

You do not like the way he is eyeing your pretty young daughter.

Your husband is going to explode when he gets in and finds this young trouble maker, with more weapons than your husband, in his home, drinking his milk, eating his food, and smirking at his daughter.

The Quartering Act was the most blistering of the regulations that the Brits put upon the struggling colonies and it was the scariest of all.

Never again would the new "Americans" allow a government to take away their arms.

This is why Americans had the right to bear arms; not for hunting, but for protection specifically against a government.

I understand this well.

It is not about hunting.

Yet, the government dynamics have dramatically changed since the 2nd amendment.

The government has weapons that are incredibly more powerful than any assault weapon, including the Atomic bomb, and the drone.  Night vision, high powered military rifles are going to mean that anything a citizen has will be rendered useless.

This leads me to wonder...

Does the 2nd Amendment, in spirit, still apply today?

I don't know.

In Europe, there are some countries where you can only give your child government approved names.  The Europeans are proud of this, as they say they do not want weirdo parents giving their children weirdo names to be ridiculed in school their entire lives.

The problem that they do not see is that although most agree with this law, eventually, as governments become more and more powerful, they will find laws they do not agree with, and the government can impose its will upon them...

by force.

Just like the Quartering Act.

Young America severely limited government for the reason that they understood that freedom was vital for life, and that eventually, everyone comes to the point where their government will betray them, so better to limit their power from the beginning.

Joseph Stalin literally starved to death millions of citizens in "the name of the people" in the 1930's and the policy of expendable life continued, through the 40's and 50's, with the young leaders, learning from the elders.

Who do you think JFK stood down in the Cuban Missile Crisis?  Kruschev was known to help kill millions, via starvation, just as he was known to put a bullet in the head of his own rival's wife, when called upon.

The Soviets were willing to have millions die and the Cuban Missile Crisis was real.  It was strength by the previously perceived weak President, that backed them down, just as it was the strength of Ronald Reagan that brought the Cold War to an end.

So the original intent was to make sure that government could not impose its will, unjustly, upon the population.

Is this still applicable?

Abortion 

When you were pregnant, did you talk to your child before he or she was born?
Did you watch your nutrition?
Did you avoid things that would not be be healthy for your baby?
Did you get your rest?
Did you rub your belly and read to your baby?

 I bet you did.

As to the government concerned about the children, Planned Parenthood ends the lives of children, pre born, at a rate that no gun could ever:  every 90 seconds a pre born child's life comes to an end by Planned Parenthood; whether or not you support abortion.  Planned Parenthood, if it were to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange, would be an incredible growth stock story, rivaling Walmart, Apple, or anything else we've seen in our life time.  The wealth they have generated through ending life is stunning.  Whether you believe it is morally objectionable to end the life before birth or not, you have no choice but to pay for it.  If you withhold your tax dollars as a moral objection, you'll have a man come to the door, with a gun in his hand, and a piece of paper.

 Outlawing scalpels isn't an answer.

What must it be like to be wealthy as a doctor who performs abortions?  I don't know.  I imagine that in the first few months, you could tell yourself about rapes, or about mothers' health issues, or poverty, but what happens as months turn into years, and then, one day, you take a tally of how many lives you ended.

I think I'd walk around in a perpetual state of anxiety.

Arbitrary arguments.

The arbitrary date of when a person is a person was once based upon viability, but given the advances in medicine, this became earlier and earlier.  Timing is arbitrary.  If you kill a young child at a certain time, and have a license, it is legal, but if you go past an artificial deadline, or if you don't have a license, you're a murderer.

(The banning of certain guns by the number of bullets per minute they fire, is also arbitrary.)

Date setting aside, an abortion is not a private matter between doctor and patient:  Planned Parenthood's propaganda and choice of wording has made them rich.  

Freedom to choose would mean just that:  I won't force you to outlaw abortion but you don't force me to pay for it against my will.  Or, you don't allow abortion, and I won't force you to pay for mine.

                      Something like that might be a start for some to hold discussion.

But don't pretend that the government cares about children. Government kills more human beings, in every era or measurement of human history, than anyone in human history.  England ended slavery with killing no one.  Lincoln's war cost 600,000 lives in just 5 years.

Private protection. 

The wealthy among us, including Barak Obama, have their own children guarded with guns.

 Bringing children into the political argument was disgustingly reminiscent of Dr. Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany.

Who will save the children?

In America, a few people are paid to go to Washington and cry out loud, "Who will save our children?"  and "Why don't you care about children?"

So, the politicians quickly buckled and soon enough, children's bicycle helmet makers were making billions.

When anyone says, "Who will save the children?" I always know that someone is about to cash in.

Logic and Reference Point. 

Outlaw certain guns and you will have a school shooting that is accomplished with a gun that shoots X number of bullets per minute instead of Y.  Sadly, a suicide killer will find means.

Courts, Lawyers and Lawsuits

We've all heard the story of the man who breaks into another man's house, gets shot, and successfully sues the homeowner.  At the gun store, people are told, "if you shoot an intruder at your doorstep, drag the body inside so you won't get in trouble."

It has become that goofy for us.

Lawyers on both sides, the assailant who broke in, and the home owner, make money, and the one deciding how much money is a lawyer too.  As if we did not have enough laws, we keep electing lawyers to offices to give us more laws.

When the gay marriage debate raged, divorce lawyers were salivating, not caring about freedom nor anything else; just profit.

In the gun debate, listen carefully for deception.

Know that when your government imposes an opinion on everyone that you agree with, there may come a time when it imposes an opinion you don't agree with.  Then, you will long for freedom.  Thugs are still walking around NYC with illegal 40 ounce sodas.  They are there, but don't you dare profile them.

Don't talk about their protruding bellies, as if all of us, well, all of those with protruding bellies are illegal soda drinkers.

It isn't fair to link us, to link them all together.

So it is with the gun argument.  We need a national dialog about socialism versus freedom, and our children need to be both protected and educated.

I cannot imagine carrying a sign and walking in circles chanting, "Down with school shootings" as if there were others who would be protesting in favor of school shootings.

It was horrible and the damage is irreparable.  Would it had been any different had the crazy child killer gone to Home Depot and bought ammonia and made a home made bomb? Would the parents' hearts be any less broken?  What had he done it with knives or swords?

I wish someone there had a firearm and took out that animal early on, and saved lives.

Two itty-bitty countries on the other side of the world have a 1,000 year dispute about a piece of land and a government sent 25,000 of our sons to die.  Most of these did not go to Viet Nam on their own free will, but went because if they did not go, the government would have sent someone to the door, armed with a piece of paper and a gun, insisting that they go.

Roosevelt, now hailed as a hero, knew exactly what an oil embargo would do to Japanese thinking.  On the other side of things, WWII did bring us out of the great depression by getting manufacturing in high gear.  How many Americans died?

Given today's sophistication of military weapons, there is no way for an armed resistance, at a grass roots level, to take place.  There may be another argument brewing.

Texas is prospering.  They've got a state surplus and lots of Texans are walking tall and talking about succession from these united states.  It's fascinating to listen to.

                                  I wonder if they learned anything from history.

History teaches us that these United States is a club that you can join, voluntarily, but if you decide to end your membership, you'll soon find a gun pointed at you...and your family.

Where I live, drug abuse has meant an increase of crime, including bold home invasions in rural areas.

Is it okay for me to buy a handgun, should I choose to do so, strictly for the purpose of defending my family from an armed intruder?  The armed intruder will get his hands on a gun, laws be damned.  I wouldn't be buying it to hunt.  I do my hunting at the grocery store.  I would buy a gun to defend my family against someone who cares nothing for gun laws, gun registration, or gun safety.  He just wants money for drugs.

                          Is this part of the 2nd Amendment?  Is this the spirit of it?

We need a national discussion about this, but not in front of the children.  Barak Obama quoted scripture about putting away childish things, even as he brought in children.  I'd like to know who's idea that was and what books did the adviser read recently?

The 2nd Amendment should be discussed soberly, without the political drama and theater of propaganda.

 The writers could not have foreseen the advancements in military technology, and while some point to the Jews of Germany, what of the Jews of Poland?

When they finally were able to arm themselves, at least they were able to take a few Nazis (on the left) and Soviets (on the right) with them.  Better to have died fighting, than to die passively.  The lesson of "never again" rings in my ears often, as public sentiment turned against the Jews in Europe in the 1920's and 1930's but most British and American ears dismissed as propaganda the stories of the passages to the East where Jews went, but did not return.

The government should always be limited in power.

Always.

This is the teaching of history.  For people of religion, it is the teaching of Scripture.  Limit government.  Freedom is scary because it carries responsibilities.

Human history has shown that government is responsible for most killing of humans, by far, than any nut with a weapon.

History is consistent with the fact that governments kill, and those who win, write the history books and choose which names are heroes and which names are to be demonized.

                               Is it any wonder that kids today do not know history?





75 comments:

dadgum said...

email I received this evening from the WH..
Hello --

Today President Obama announced a plan to help protect our kids and communities from gun violence. You're going to hear a lot about it, but I wanted to make sure you got a chance to get the facts, straight from me.

After hearing from Americans from across the political spectrum, we decided to focus on some key priorities: closing background check loopholes, banning military-style assault weapons, making our schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services.

The ideas we sent to President Obama are straightforward. Each of them honors the rights of law-abiding, responsible Americans to bear arms. Some of them will require action from Congress; the President is acting on others immediately. But they're all commonsense and will help make us a little safer.

(Now is the time for all of us to act.

Read about the events that brought us to this point, learn about the plan we've proposed to help protect our kids, and then add your name in support to help build momentum for this plan.) in bold

Here's what we've put together:

We're calling for requiring background checks for all gun sales and closing the loopholes that allow dangerous individuals to make their purchase without going through one of these checks.

We're asking for a new, stronger ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that allow a shooter to fire dozens of bullets as quickly as he can pull a trigger. And we're asking Congress to help protect law enforcement by make it illegal for members of the public to possess armor-piercing bullets.

We're going to give law enforcement more tools and resources to prevent and prosecute gun crimes, and we're going to end the freeze on gun violence research that prevents the Center from Disease Control from looking at the causes of gun violence.

We're calling on Congress to help make schools safer by putting up to 1,000 school resource officers and mental health professionals in schools and ensuring they have comprehensive emergency management plans in place.

And we're going to increase coverage so that students and young adults can get access to the mental health treatment they may need.

We know that no policy we enact or law we enforce can prevent every senseless act of violence in our country. But if we can save the life of even one child, we have a deep responsibility to act.

(Now is the time to come together to protect our kids. Learn about the plan, then add your name alongside mine:)in bold

http://www.whitehouse.gov/now-is-the-time

Thanks,

Vice President Joe Biden






This email was sent to tbiadvocate@windstream.net.
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

Vita said...

The e-letter Dadgum received puts a cherry on Peter's words.

Dadgum, I did not have to scroll down, as I knew who sent the email you rec'd. I recognized the verbage, " You're going to here a lot about it"

We're calling for requiring background checks for all gun sales and closing the loopholes that allow dangerous individuals to make their purchase without going through one of these checks.

* Only dangerous individuals have rap sheets, criminal backgrounds? What makes one a dangerous individual? someone that has 10 yrs of unpaid parking tickets? this person is not responsible, they are dangerous? Facetious as it is written, it is a point taken, who ? If you're not a dangerous person with a rap sheet of criminal activity.. what is next? to be disclosed to put people into high risk pools? No gun ownership for you.

We're going to give law enforcement more tools and resources to prevent and prosecute gun crimes, and we're going to end the freeze on gun violence research that prevents the Center from Disease Control from looking at the causes of gun violence.

*Who's transparency to become fortified by all this security and measures of disclosure ?

And we're going to increase coverage so that students and young adults can get access to the mental health treatment they may need.

The Govt " CDC" will be able to breach private health records? dissolve HIPAA statutes? use your (records) past/present prescriptions against you?
You're considered unstable, that you have chosen to be non- medicated, yet diagnosed with? along the lines of..

Obamacare? the fine print, no one knows what is in it. No one knows what it is period, what it entangles. Coming soon.

They request you digitally sign it as a petition, and or to gain your IP address, returned in agreement. For their records. SMH * 1984 *

dadgum said...

This really perked up my ears..the adjectives ]dangerous individuals', use of 'kids' repeatedly and in bold script, inflaming 'dozens of bullets'..

No one can tell you what the new healthcare programs will do, or change, or cost. I have attended many symposiums, and asked a lot of questions, only to hear 'we don't know' in response.

There are things attached that we have not yet begun to hear discussed.

Thank you for a great post Peter. "History is more than the past..it is our future"..as my Mom used to say.

Trigger said...

Good post, Peter.

Adolf Hitler had to remove all the guns from the German citizens before he could declare himself dictator and take over Germany.

This proved be fatal for millions of people in Germany who were opposed to Hilter's governmental programs.

charlie013 said...

Interesting read! However, I dd find one error! The total number of American casualties during the Vietnam war was 58,193.

http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/statistics.html

Mainah said...

Thank you, Peter! It's a lot to consider, I haven't finished reading everything yet. Not sure if I'll get back to it tonight or tomorrow.

I've been thinking about how mental health can't be improved by gun laws, and shell games, and ObamaCare. I've thought about children and soldiers and Europe and Germans and their skools, about the 1930's, and our public schools experiment, and the Renaissance period, and Epistemology, aesthetics and existentialism and pondered momentarily the pure evil man has done and does to man, if only by bearing false witness and to the extreme of taking another persons life, when it's no threat to their own (self-defense). This is a qualified place to start a discussion, IMO.

I'm a bit scared to try to go back and read this. I'm afraid I'll have nightmares about moonbats, but I will go back and finish it.

Thank you again, Peter. I appreciate your work and insights.

Oh and Heather too! Thank you, Heather! I'm usually not sure who authored the articles. They are all interesting.

dadgum said...

I think it odd that, as people compare Obama's use of children to aid an agenda, Biden quotes Rabbi Hillel (without attribution) "...if not now..when?"

dadgum said...

Apologies..that was the email title..really original..

Sus said...

It's really too bad that you commenters can't see that the Newtown murders were the catalyst for action against gun violence. Whether it's the 26 killed in a few minutes at Newtown or the 900 across the U.S. the month since, as Gabby Gifford said, "Enough."

Sadly, the hundreds of pre-schoolers killed in gun accidents each year has not brought action. Nor has the thousands of teen suicides by guns, and those numbers are proven to decrease simply with a day wait in purchase time. Teens are fighting over piddly stuff and pulling guns on each other...hasn't spurred politicians to action.

These are CHILDREN being killed by guns. They are dying now, in the present, every day by guns made by companies the NRA receive an enormous amount of money from. The NRA and gun manufacturers have an invested interest in making you all think you need more guns. It's working well...at the expense of our CHILDREN.


Anonymous said...

It is a longheld theological principle that an abuse should not take away a use. Otherwise none of us would be able to use our bodies, none of us would be able to take prescription drugs for illness, none of us would be able to eat, none of us would be able to have a dog, none of us would be able to styart a fire in our fireplace. Gun control is continually politicized by the left to punish responsible gun owners.

If the left really cared about children they would fight harder against drugs, which kill children and teens every day.And they wouldn't legalize marijuana.

If they really cared about children there would be harsher punsihment for pedophiles.

If the left really cared about children they would not support abortion on demand and as birth control.

The left loves to punish the righteous, but they cannot bring themselves to punish criminals. Where is the punishment for the murderers who killed 4 brave Americans in Benghazi?

A nanny in NYC murdered two children in her care with a kitchen knife. You will never stop crazy people from killing by taking guns away from responsible and law abiding citizens.

You cannot annihilate evil by punishing those who follow the law.

The left is naive to think there will never be evil in this world. As long as there is good, there will be people who choose evil.

Mainah said...


"Is it any wonder that kids today do not know history?"

Little wonder. Little doubt. Mainly thinking it's because it's not perceived advantageous to the agenda of their adults (groomers)who want to relive the pageants of their youth(?) or "fix" something perceived wrong with themselves. Kids are our second chance at pure perfect of ourselves(?) Adults not busy sustaining their needs, busy themselves with wants, and get the two confused(?).

I want wisdom and truth until it because painful, then I want satire or science in nature. lol. I feel like walking into a shrinks office right now and asking, "how the !@@## did I make to 48 this unscathed? The odds seem low."

~in peace y'll

dadgum said...

Table 1. The five leading causes and number of unintentional injury deaths among children, by age group, United States, 2009
Rank* Age <1 Ages 1–4 Ages 5–9 Ages 10–14 Ages 15–19
1 Suffocation
907 (77%) Drowning
450 (31%) Motor Vehicle (MV) Traffic
378 (49%) MV Traffic
491 (68%) MV Traffic
3,242 (67%)
2 MV Traffic
91 (8%) MV Traffic
363 (25%) Drowning
119 (15%) Transportation – Other
117 (15%) Poisoning
715 (15%)
3 Drowning
45 (4%) Fire/Burns
169 (12%) Fire/Burns
88 (11%) Drowning
90 (10%) Drowning
279 (6%)
4 Fire/Burns
25 (2%) Transportation – Other
147 (10%) Transportation – Other
68 (9%) Fire/Burns
53 (6%) Transportation – Other
203 (4%)
5 Poisoning
22 (2%) Suffocation
125 (9%) Suffocation
26 (3%) Suffocation
41 (5%) Fall
58 (1%)

Source: National Vital Statistics System from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; accessed through WISQARS.4 *Percent of all age-specific deaths in parentheses

http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/NAP/background.html

Firearms don't even make the list. Motor vehicle is number 1, drowning is second. No one needs a pool. No one has a 'right' to swim at their leisure on their own property. Drowning deaths would be nearly eliminated if kids all swim at government owned pools with proper staffing. Parents are not trained lifeguards. Outlaw swimming pools now!

Have you ever seen a child die from drowning? Watched a mother cradle her brain dead 2 year old as she passed away? It is heartbreaking, and totally preventable. The federal government must compel all home pool owners to backfill them, and ban new swimming pools.

A teenager died yesterday, suffocated under a pile of wrestling mats. A horrific death, and horrible for all the kids at his school to witness. Ban wrestling mats, and license their users. Register the owners, so we know who might own one of these dangerous devices.

We don't even provide seat belts on our school buses..

The point is not child safety, or children's lives. It is a reason to ban weapons. As Rahm Emannuel told Obama, 'never let a tragedy go to waste'. He didn't. Were the kids killed with assault weapons? What is military 'style'. Do you know it can amount to a cosmetic grip, the weapon remains the same? They may as well have said 'scary looking weapons'.

Anonymous said...

“While the rate of child gun homicide in the U.S. is much higher than
elsewhere — as everyone acknowledges — so is the rate of non-gun
murder,” he said. “Even if all the gun homicides were taken out of the
equation, America would still have an infant-homicide rate more than 3.5
times as high as the other Western countries,” a phenomenon he called
“staggering.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2000/03/1958/#6dWCShts76BukLDy.99

Mainah said...

I grieve the loss and pray in silence. I meditate on "if only(s)...." and follow to the roots (truth). I'm rarely dissuaded or compelled by my survivors guilt or what a liar in a suit has to say about it. Mental Health must be a primary part of the discussion, if we really love the children.

Mainah said...

"(...)We're going to give law enforcement more tools and resources to prevent and prosecute gun crimes, and we're going to end the freeze on gun violence research that prevents the Center from Disease Control from looking at the causes of gun violence. (...)"

or,

We're getting OUR cronies more money and better protection. We don't give a @#$ about you and your families becoming victims of people with mental illness; there are too damn many of you anyway. We are protected.

Sincerely, you're own your own, good night, sleep well, I know I will.

~ (not you regular, everyday ) Joe

Trigger said...

Governments cause more injuries, deaths, and misery to children and adults than any other agency.

Government power should be limited.

Anonymous said...

Just one comment - I find your comparison between scalpels and assault weapons confusing. Scalpels might be used in abortions (maybe? I don't know.) but they are also used in operations to heal people, remove cancer, perform heart surgery, etc. I don't think there's a solid correlation between scalpels and assault weapons. Those types of weapons are really not used (to my knowledge) for anything but killing people, and are certainly not used for healing, as scalpels are. I can't imagine someone needing an assault weapon to defend themselves in their own homes. Just my two cents. I enjoyed your article.

Anonymous said...

The fact that Peter continues to imply that Obama should be compared to Hitler is irresponsible and illogical and actually quite horrendous and disgusting. (Not to mention as a non-Aryan Obama would have been a target for extermination during that time.)
A supposed man of God to treat someone in that manner is quite frankly ungodly and hypocritical.

Do you hate Obama that much???

I love how Peter states he calls out deception where he sees it and protrays himself as unbiased. But he is most certainly not. How many articles have written, Peter, on Mitt Romney's deception? How many on Paul Ryan's deception? There have plenty of statements from them you could have analyzed. But you chose not to. Why?

How about statements from LaPierre? Rubio? Boehner? Allen West? Hannity? McConnell?

Your bigotry and hatred is exposed. Your credibility for being objective is no longer.

Sus keep up the good work calling these lunatics that post here out!

Anonymous said...

Obama wants to limit your guns, but it's OK for him to sell automatic assault weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartels, who use them to kill children. He is a hypocrite. Try and make sense out of that!

Anonymous said...

There's always talk of some state succeeding from the Union at some point or the other. Doubtful Texas will, though. Perhaps it is propaganda intended to demonstate that other states must follow their example.

They are rich in animal, vegetable, and mineral. Lots of bovine, grain, and oil. Not all areas have those resources.


Their resources could be lost to the drug cartels since politicians insist on being Brits instead of Americans. It is understood that the government only provides for their own and expects everyone else to protect them.

Waco is an example of German styled propaganda. In order to invade the Davidians, the feds claimed children were at risk. Their solution:burn them alive.

However, shaping of the America landscape occurred some time thereafter when a New Yorker bombed the Murrah Building. Once again, they were asleep.

The skyline of New York has been forever reshaped as a direct result.

Still, they keep doing the same thing.

No one will ever be able to permantely disarm the American people. America is a large open space in which many that fear the past have hidden weapons and ammunition. Way too many weapons even if they started today it would be decades before they'd even skim the surface.

I agree that an assualt rifle is aptly named. What else can be done with it? Can't be used for hunting unless a person intended to grind the meat with the hide on.

Too much threat assesment makes people crazy, hence the mental health centers.

Anonymous said...

When I first began following this blog, I did so because of my interest in Statement Analysis. Of all the things I have learned, the one that really sticks with me is the principle "if the subject cannot bring himself to say something, we are not permitted to say it for him".

Peter, I will not say for you what you do not or will not say. If you are against gun control, if you disagree with your president,etc, why do you not say so directly? Why do your postings about gun violence and the gun control debate taking place in the wake of Sandy Hook have an air of an agenda to them? What are you not saying? And more importantly, why are you not saying what you mean directly?

Are you attempting to influence your readers' opinions through vague references to history and photos of Hitler with children, instead of making an actual statement?

As a regular reader of your site, I have been waiting for you to post statements made by all those speaking on this topic so that we can read your analysis (not opinion) of their statements (not their beliefs).

Lisa L

Justme said...

To those who want background checks for all weapons, wouldn't that have to include checks on those we live with and associate with as they might have a mental illness and be able to lay hands on our weapons as Adam Lanza did?

I went back and couldn't find where Peter compared Obama to Hitler or even implied it. What I read was a strong belief that government powers need to be limited

This is Peter's blog site. It includes teaching SA but does that mean he isnt't allowed to express his beliefs and opinions too? The rest of us do. If we selected only teachers that agreed with our beliefs we might have to forgo a lot of subjects. If we aren't interested in Peter's beliefs it's easy enough to skip over those and focus on SA alone.

Justme said...

Anon @ 8:18am said:
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2000/03/1958/#6dWCShts76BukLDy.99

Very interesting. This raises the question, after we settle gun control, do we then begin government regulated birth control? Will we need a background check before becoming pregnant? There are too many sickos having kids then neglecting, damaging or killing them. Then once we get that passed we need to mandate healthy diets for pregnant women and breast feeding because it is healthier than formula. Where does it end?

Anonymous said...

Remember that doctor in CA that killed his family - didn't they think he used a scalpel?

Peter is an expert at what he does. If he sees deception somewhere I am inclined to give it consideration. I don't think he has an agenda except to expose the truth. And I think he wants us to learn to use these principles ourselves in everyday news stories. Obama, if he is deceptive, is a clear and present danger. There is not much danger Mitt Romney poses to us. He simply doesn't have the power. He's notour president. Neither is Rubio or Hannity or Boehner.

I think assault weapons might not be needed to defend ourselves from intruders, I don't know. But, I think to defend ourselves from a tyrannical gov't, assault weapons might come in handy. I don't have a gun, but my father did. He was a former policeman.

I remember it being in his drawer. I never touched it. I didn't even touch his old WWII bullets (he fought in the war).

My dad brought us up with sense.

Anonymous said...

@ Lisa L

Peter's statement isn't vague at all, it is loud and clear. You got it didn't you?

And why do you jump to the word hate so fast? I distrust a lot of people I don't hate. There is a whole spectrum between love and hate. Check it out some time.

Jesus didn't trust Judas, did he? Or perhaps he trusted him to be exactly what he was. But Jesus didn't hate him, I don't think God wants us to hate, but he doesn't want us to be blind either!

Sarah said...

Great post, Peter! I had the same thoughts swimming around in my head about the spirit of the 2nd amendment and how it applies today. I am not sure how many people want to actually approach it honestly and think about it, but this was very thought provoking and enjoy when you put things like this up because I believe you are wise and I like to take what you have to say into consideration.

I was very irritated seeing him on stage with the kids, being used like pawns...but then again that is what I expect to see. He doesn't care much for infants born alive after botched abortion attempts, or those viciously murdered in what should be the safest place of all--their mommy's bellies. But, when some kids come around and bolster his own agenda, he suddenly cares for them. I know as a father and a human being he likely has real compassion and empathy in there somewhere and I know he is heartbroken about Newton like everyone else...but the difference is his willingness to exploit it (which I am sure is happening on both sides).
All I know is that our freedoms are eroding and now that the govt has its hands on our healthcare, it will be that much worse. My husband said the other day that it is sad that you can't trust the people in govt with the authority we give them to run it. How true.

Justme said...

The post was titled, " Thoughts on Guns and the American Argument"

Peter said,

"Let's take a blunt look at the arguments today, and, perhaps, not draw a conclusion. It is uncomfortable to walk away from an issue without a conclusion, but it may be wise. Let's just think
things through for awhile."

It sounds to me like someone who wants to take an honest look at the
issue, not side-stepping it. Someone looking for truth and inviting us to do the same, not proclaiming to have all the answers.

If you want to use his thoughts to practice SA, we could try that I suppose. Not that I'm good at SA.

annie said...

We're doomed.

Hairdoo said...

I find it amazing that the 1.3 million babies that are killed by abortion each year aren't even factored into these numbers. Even more amazing is the fact that the same people who think taking away guns is the way to protect children, would never outlaw abortion the way they want to outlaw guns.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Justme said...
The post was titled, " Thoughts on Guns and the American Argument"

It validates the argument "Guns kill people". In Connecticut a mentally ill man had access to an assult rifle, the people in the community who knew him and his family KNEW which brother most likely was the killer, a horrific CRIME was commited by one sick individual.

We want to DO, to REACT, to this one crime involving the deaths of young children. I believe our country will not be invaded by foreign enemies because we're armed. The Constitution was well written by scholars that saw, experienced or were in the presence of those who actually took up arms in a war here on American soil, to create a counrty where we have freedom.


curious said...

"All I know is that our freedoms are eroding"

Sarah, I live in Europe. I lived in the Usa for a while too. I know and respect how important and sensitive this issue is over there. I don't fully understand the gun control issue and the anger it brings (Peter's article helped me to see sides I didn't before though) I just have a thought.

I read suggestions about increasing security in schools, to put more armed guards in schools instead of gun control, as a solution. That was my immediate thought as well, after hearing about the Newton tragedy. Now I remembered something that I forgot for so many years. Kids were going to school there with see through backpacks to be checked for guns for their own safety (and I remember seeing the No drug zone signs as well, made me think it must be much bigger problem than I initially thought)

Kids shouldn't have to be protected in schools by armed guards though, anywhere. If nothing is done, freedom can erode that way too. I think it is not only the issue of preventing more school kids becoming victims in schools, but also the issue of making sure kids can feel safe in a school enviroment without armed men in front of the windows protecting them. What to do? I don't know.

The only thing I am sure in is that values are important to teach to prevent violence. Not only to our kids, but to all the kids.
Teaching morals,empathy, sympathy and accepting each other. Not letting them bully, and isolate class mates, but teaching them how to help each other. Parents, grandparents, teachers and the media, including Tv shows being the easiest way to get to children. It is said cartoons and kid shows mirror society. Well they probably shouldn't. If more Andy Griffith kind of shows would be on Tv for example, violance would be much less in schools too. IMO.

Hobnob said...

If you take away one kind of weapon then criminals will find another one. In the UK we banned guns, now knife crime is soaring. We ban knives and thy will use broken bottles, rocks whatever to kill.

Sus said...

It depends on your point of reference as Peter points out. Peter, you and many commenters on this blog see the government as an entity you are not a part of...one which you must control. The Anti-Federalists of early America saw it the same way and insisted their rights be stated specifically in the Constitution.

Thus the Bill of Rights was added. It was a political move by James Madison to get "his Constitution " ratified. James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists saw a need for a strong central government. They felt the Constitution had enough checks and balances as it was written. The people would run the government.

The Constitution is designed to be flexible and change with the times. The government is made up of people who will decide these issues based upon what we the people want and what is best for us...by majority and Constitutional law.



Anonymous said...

Such hypocrisy...all of you were probably for the government having the right to go through your things at will and behind your back to supposedly safeguard against terrorism and all the invasions of the NSA. I guess thats ok, as long as you look Muslim? What are you afraid of now? This isn't a full briefing, it's an email.

Obama is not a dangerous, sociopathic genocidal warlord who plans on annihilating, through rape, torture, mutilation and horrific deaths an entire race of people. He is our president. This argument is a false analogy--obama v hitler. Don't you people get the irony? Peter just played you with his own propaganda! Idiots.

dadgum said...

Hobs..what is the term for attacking someone with a broken bottle? L heard it a while ago.

What weapons were used at Sandy Hook? Not what was in the car, or what the mom owned..what was actually used?.

The AR15 is the civilian, non-automatic (it loads as it is fired..it does not fire bursts). It has been sold here since 1963. they have been around for 50 years. From the sound of things, one would think these weapons are something new. They are, by the way, used for hinting, like any rifle. Though the second amendment is not about hunting, but personal, family, and national protection.

Justme said...

There is a difference, or should be, between a strong central government and a huge one. Our central government keeps growing and everything from schools to highways to health care and welfare is being centralized which removes that power from our hands and puts it in the hands of the few. I can't imagine that you think that is what any of them hand in mind?
And our laws are based on interpretation of the Constitution. That is where we run into problems. If you have activist judges on either side it is no longer government by the people. The division of the branches of the government have been blurred and I'm not sure there is any going back.

Justme said...

Hairdoo, I couldn't agree more but that subject is taboo as it has been for 30 years. I almost typed it myself but know it falls in deaf ears.

Justme said...

falls

Justme said...

"Did you people who are pro-gun advocates ever think about how the rest of the civilized world cohabitate in peace without all these deadly weapons at every turn?"? I guess the key word is civilized? Which countries are those? You might want to take a look at this site.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/alerts/countriesatrisk2012.html

And you have the collapsing economy of the "civilized", socialized countries. It does not make me want to follow their example.

Mainah said...

Anon: We follow logic here sometimes.

Do you enjoy work or study in the area of science(s) and mathematics(s)? How about History? Statistics? If none of it interests you, I can see why you're not open to thinking challenging your beliefs to see if the stand up to science, facts.

But! That's not all, today, I also understand completely, because she IS soooo adorable, that many people prefer the theology, wit, and wisdom of the Honey Boo Boo Child Clan, over boring old books and science articles. I really do RedNeck Reck-o-nize, in my own little way.

Mainah said...

Peter, I see nothin' passive-aggressive about your pointing out the KNOWN correlations and similarities between Hitler and Obama, and probably each US President between the two dictators times in office.

Peter Hyatt said...

I don't know where I stand on the issue and have a lot of questions. I posted an article just to get people to think and discuss, and see the deception that comes out. I read others' opinions and keep an open mind.

If you have any statements from NRA reps that you believe contain deception, post for analysis. I, and many others, will analyze for you.

but to criticize based on what is not posted is not sensible.

It is difficult for me to think that anyone, pro or con on the issue, felt it appropriate to use children as political theater.

Peter

Trigger said...

President Obama has weapons of mass destruction at his finger tips and is selling weapons of war to other countries.

Weapons dealers are the richest people in the world.

I'm supposed to believe that wars and killing are not a reality?

I'm supposed to believe that the rest of the civilized world exists in peace without weapons? LOL

Trigger said...

"It is difficult for me to think that anyone, pro or con on the issue, felt it appropriate to use children as political theater."

I concur.

Mainah said...

Sus?,

These are CHILDREN being killed by PEOPLE who have mental illness!

Hell bent on distruction of human life, they will use a hammer, fist, chains, razors, automobiles, explosives, knives and forks, and after you ban all those things, they will use water, rope, socks, grocery bags, fishing line and toasters. After you ban those...I can only hope you'll not be too exhausted to talk about the truth about mentally ill persons and ways to effectively deliver treatment to them, for the children's sake. That would be cool, IMO. You don't hate children do you?

Justme said...

Let me tell about a couple of incidents that happened while my kids where in school. One daughter went to high school with a boy who got in a fender-bender on the way home. His friend stopped when he saw him at the side of the road. The first boy told his friend, I might as well kill myself because my parents are going to kill me when they find out. The friend, understandably thought it was just talk. He went home and killed himself, yes, with a gun.

Another daughter had a friend who got a letter from a girl whose older sister had recently killed herself over a breakup with a boyfriend. In this note the younger sister said she was going to kill herself. The friend told her mother who didn't want to risk upsetting the parents. My daughter told me and I called the police who checked on her. It turns out she had made similar threats and was admitted to the hospital within hours. The only thing the police were allowed to say was it was a good we took it seriously and she was where she needed to be.

I don't believe in either case it would have mattered one bit if they had a gun available or not. They would have hung themselves, overdosed, or found a way. The point is we all need to listen and take action, even if it means taking a risk of upsetting someone.

And one more. In another high school class there was a graduation party in the country outside the suburb we live in. Gang members crashed the party. They were having an initiation into the gang. The plan was the initiate to choose a girl and harass her and then shoot to kill, the first person to come to her defense. Does anyone believe that if there had been no gun this wouldn't have happened? I don't believe that. They chose a party where they expected that no one would be armed for self-defense in any form. And they were right. They did in fact shoot and kill a teenager on the night of her graduation in front of her family and friends. Just things in my own sheltered suburban life. I won't even mention the mental illness in people in my family and life. Guns aren't the problem. IMO

dadgum said...

My son's HS (parochial) had a girl hang herself from a balcony. Later another girl did the same. Maybe outlawing rope and balconies would help save a life. The next one took pills that weren't hers..against the law..so perhaps banning medication is the answer.

Or perhaps we should look at the root, and at helping people with depression and other mental health issues. That system of care is broken, especially for teens.

It used to be you were taught your value as you were a child of God. Loved, valued..He died for you after all. Now you have value as compared to others. Or because everyone is a winner. Kids need a foundation to anchor them through adolescence. And to know they are valued by something, someone bigger than themselves.

Justme said...

Correction.. on the night of his graduation.

Justme said...

I couldn't agree more dadgum. Kids learn they only have value if they perform. Most want fame and to be on stage or on a playing field but whether it's that or academic success, it's all based on performance, not their inherent worth as a child of God. Kids recognize the counterfeit self-esteem taught today but know how to find the real thing.

Justme said...

ugh the typos. 'but don't know how to find it'

Lemon said...

Guns don't kill people. It's actually the bullets.

Anonymous said...

anon at 10:37 There you go again. That is an example of a sweeping statement of the kind the left has become infamous for. You must measure intent when you discriminate between one person's action and another's. Otherwise you are just a ball of raging legalism, the likes of which benefits no democratic system. One political leader may surround him or herself with children in good intent, and one may do it to propagandize. To not use discernment to try to discrminate between the two is to fail to think. It's easier not to think, for sure. But this is the one constant I see on the left and this is where they lose me. All black people are good because they are black, unless tyhey are conservatives and then they are demons. All white people are bad, especially if they are men, unless they support leftist policies. All criminals are just folks who couldn't do any better, and need our understanding, on and and on with the sweeping generalizations and labels for people. Some criminals do need our understanding, and some don't, and it is something you will have to use your brain and cultivate discernment over to figure out. That is why freedom loving people celebrate the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. because the spirit of the law allows for thought and the weighing up of intent. The letter of the law is for the mentally immature. So are sweeping statements. Look at a person, listen to their words, weigh up their actions, look at a cluster of behaviors.

dadgum said...

ahem..
someone up post a ways mentioned accidental shootings as a large share of deaths among children. (these are terrible tragedies as are drownings, lawnmower deaths, and trampoline accidents resulting in death or coma) I believe it is that to which the reference is made (CDC listings of unintentional deaths). Guns are not among the chief causes.

Guns are listed in the causes of intentional deaths of children. Handguns. Though if these numbers are removed, the number of INtentional child deaths (suffocation, knives, use of hands or feet to strike or kick, poison, drowning, etc) is still several times higher in the US than other countries. The statistics regarding where these deaths occur is interesting.

If one were to add abortion (certainly both a death and intentional)to those numbers, it would become astronomically high.

People who kill children, parent or not, whatever the means..are either sick, evil, or some combination of both. It has been said that they will use whatever means available to carry out their deeds. Included is abortion, where the threat from Planned Parenthood is that without their services, women would be forced into back alleys, unlicensed, filthy situations, and self mutilation, in order to kill the child within.

No one is angry, or swearing, or name calling. Calm down before someone reports you to the Obamacare Mental Health Dangerous Persons Unit.

Lemon said...

Also known as the OMHDPU©.

dadgum said...

lol
We are in bed laughing at the string of name calling ..

Never been called most of that before. Mostly they just call me Mom, or Nana..Honey, or what's for dinner?!

Anonymous said...

@dadgum

True, and some of those "accidental" deaths can be attributed to neglect of the parents, which is a travesty.They are also punishable by law, though not as harshly as murder.

Sus said...

Justme said "Laws are based on the interpretation of the Constitution." THAT'S THE POINT! That is what keeps our government in the people's hands.

Who is to decide if a judge is an "activist"? You? No. The courts above him/her.

The Constitution has checks and balances. It is beautiful in its design and the way it is made to change only with the people's desire.

Sus said...

Anon 9:52, You called it. The President Obama haters will resort to anything to block his initiatives.

Spurred on by disgruntled right-wing nutters, President Obama and his family have been compared to every despot in history, blamed for the ills of the world, and every thing that happens is blown out of proportion.

I am tired of hearing about the "scandals" which are made up. You people need to look up the facts, read about things, instead of just drinking the fox "news" kool aid.

You are being led like sheep by the right simply because they are sore losers. They don't want President Obama to accomplish anything in his terms of office. He seems to be doing quite well despite the efforts to stop him. It might be because the majority of Americans agree with him!

rob said...

Dadgum, If they get turned in, then they won't be able to buy a gun!

For starters anyway, who knows what is next.
You know you are not entitled to an opinion. Smile.

rob said...

I will say, Obama has put more guns in the American citizens hands than any president in my lifetime. We went into Academy Sports to buy some ammo for our AR15, that we have owned for years, and the ammo shelf, all 24 feet, 6 shelves high was empty. The gun sales counter was lined with people, more customer service folks were behind that counter than the 10 checkouts at the front of the store. People who didn't know for sure before if they wanted a gun, know now if they may ever want it, they better buy it now. I hope all this ammo and guns are made in America, as we sure need the jobs, but nobody in Washington seems to worry about that.

Mainah said...

anon said: Obama is not a dangerous, sociopathic genocidal warlord who plans on annihilating, through rape, torture, mutilation and horrific deaths an entire race of people.

Anon, How do you know this well enough to state it as a fact?

Are you his close loyal aid? Michelle, his wife? Who are you? I secret spy?

Mainah said...


Anon January 17, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Thank you for that post ^ I liked it.

And Dadgum, Lemon, Peter, Vita, trigger, annie, hairdo, hobnob, some anons. THANK YOU! For the perfect balance truth and satire, wit and wisdom. As I continue to learn, you guys always keep me well entertained, as well as informed. Thanks again.

Mainah said...

Oh $hit, Freud, back off little buddy, lol.

I mean "a secret spy" not "I secret spy"


Sus said...

I see that anon 9:52 was deleted which can only mean you don't want to be called on what you are doing.

I am disappointed in your choice, but I see it is your choice. If you are relating it to executive decisions...darn right! Some go through Congress and some are by Executive privilege. President Obama made the distinction.

Anonymous said...

It is an incredibly complex issue, with no easy answer. It cannot simply be about gun control, but instead needs to rely on a myriad of issues, including mental health. Although gun control can't solve the problem by itself, I believe it's where we have to start.

It is important, first, to realize that all rights have reasonable limits; freedom of speech does not allow you to slander or threaten; freedom of religion does not mean you can harm others in your practice of it, and so on. So why can't there be reasonable limits on guns?

I agree that there will always be evil, but guns, especially guns that are so quick and incredibly destructive, make it worse. On the same day that the Sandy Hook massacare occured, a man in China attacked 30 schoolchildren with a knife. Not one died. By making it harder to get guns, or at least certain types of guns, we will not stop these deaths, but we will lessen them. That's not good enough, but it's a start.

Anonymous said...

A nanny in New York City murdered two children in her care with a kitchen knife.

There are already the type of limits on guns to which you refer. Murder with a gun is illegal.The right to bear arms does not include the right to murder.

Jazzie said...

I hesitated to post because of Newtown. I live in CT. It is difficult for me to extricate myself from my emotions, but I was taught to question. I was taught to revisit what I might think as distasteful, opposite, and difficult... to always question.

In response to Peter Hyatt:

The NRA also used "children as politic theater":
http://www.nrastandandfight.com/america-agrees.html
("Yet when it comes to our most beloved and vulnerable members of the American family, our children, we as a society leave them utterly defenseless." - video shot of children running up stairs to school)

Fortune magazine: "WASHINGTON'S POWER 25 WHICH PRESSURE GROUPS ARE BEST AT MANIPULATING THE LAWS":
"the National Rifle Association (No. 6)"

I strongly believe in and exercise the democratic right to vote. I feel strongly that lobbyists steal my vote and my voice.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/12/08/234927/index.htm

Another interesting link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/11-facts-about-the-nra/2012/07/24/gJQANYcM7W_gallery.html#photo=1

and last but not least...
Anthony Scalia, conservative Supreme Court Justice ruled that:
3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/50849/district-columbia-v-heller-scalias-majority-opinion/ed-whelan#

Jazzie said...

Peter Hyatt:

When you post a title:
"Thoughts on Guns and the American Argument" with a picture of Hitler hugging a child
I have to ask: Why?

For me, it is reminiscent Cold War Propaganda.

propaganda, n.
3. ideas, doctrines, or allegations so spread: now often used disparagingly to connote deception or distortion

Why did you choose this particular photo of Hitler in relation to the title?
I ask because I want to understand your intent.

I have studied WW2 history and studied art in Poland while under Communist rule. I am a designer who has worked with marketing professionals. I am well aware of the manipulation that goes hand in hand with selling "a message", aka "product". Words married with images are not lost on me.

The recent marketing of fear is just the tip of the iceberg. What is the leviathan that lies beneath?

I keep asking:
"What are you all really afraid of?"

And how is this fear juxtaposed to reality?

Anonymous said...

Jazzie, What are you afraid of?

Are you afraid of law abiding citizens with guns?

If so, why?

I am afraid of criminals with guns or knives or gasoline and matches or cyanide or acid or fertilizer...but I am not afraid of upright people with these things.

I would be afraid to be without a gun around a criminal.

I am an artist, too, a fine artist, and imagery can be used or abused. Peter made a valid analogy with his chosen imagery, and the NRA did, too. I don't believe what Obama did was anything but theatrics.

There is a a difference with thoughtful analogy and propaganda and character assasination, which Obama is an expert at.Please research how he has consistantly destroyed his opponents.

Anonymous said...

It's more than that. The children were brought into the debate on gun control. Are they brought into the debate on abortion? Why not? If abortion is so innocuous, why isn't it taught in school along with the so called viability of homosexual parenting?

While children understand the horror of a mass shooting, what do they understand about the need to defend the home or to defend against tyranny?

If children wrote hundreds of letters to the president about the horror of abortion, would he stage the same show? Doubtful. How do we know such letters haven't been written?

Jazzie said...

ANON @ 8:45

No one answered my question: "What are you all really afraid of?"
But you asked me: "Jazzie, What are you afraid of?"

On a primary level, I am still afraid of the dark. I am also afraid of the wind and the fog at night.
On a political level, I am afraid of powerful lobbyists stealing my vote and ultimately my voice - in essence the dismantling of our vital democracy.
On a spiritual level, I am afraid of the axis our whole world is spinning off from and where the trajectory lies.

I am not afraid to question my beliefs, my faith, my life, my choices.

I wish more people would question and seek truth.

Regarding your statement: "There is a a difference with thoughtful analogy and propaganda."

The NRA did not employ children as "thoughtful analogy" in their "Stand and Fight" ad. It was with purpose and malice. It reminds me of Leni Riefenstahl's work.

Anonymous said...

I am afraid of being defenseless in the face of criminals. I fear the government having too much power and becoming a religion and opiate for the massess.

We all know from history that people murder in the name of religion. If government becomes their religion, people will murder in the name of government.

I am afraid of people who ignore, forget, and rewrite history.

I am afraid of people who confuse sentiment with love because sentiment turns to hate on a dime.

I fear cultists which is what Obama's followers are.

Jazzie said...

ANON @ 6:15

I appreciate and respect dialogue.

"I am afraid of being defenseless in the face of criminals."
I have been brought up in a home where there were no guns. I choose to live my life without guns. Supreme Court Justice Scalia has reassured U.S. citizens that the 2nd Amendment is intact and that the government can't take that right away. (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/50849/district-columbia-v-heller-scalias-majority-opinion/ed-whelan#)
But he stated that guns can be regulated and some can be banned. Rest assured that the 2nd Amendment is secure. Scalia was appointed by President Reagan.

You say "I fear the government having too much power"
The Constitution states: "We the people". Are we not the government? Do our votes not count? These questions I ask myself. Who has the power to govern? Is it us or whoever has more money to buy influence?

"We all know from history that people murder in the name of religion"
Yes, killing has happened for centuries in the name of religion. Killing in the name of religion/God is an absolute antithetical mockery of religion/God - religion at its core being the search for truth, the wonderment of the human soul and our divine place in the universe.

"If government becomes their religion, people will murder in the name of government. "
There are checks and balances guaranteed by our Constitution. There is separation of Church and State. Who are you afraid of will "murder in the name of government"? The National Guard? Our U.S. Service men and women in the military? Who? Those without guns? Those with guns?

"I am afraid of people who ignore, forget, and rewrite history."
Me too.

"I am afraid of people who confuse sentiment with love because sentiment turns to hate on a dime."
I do not understand this statement. Please explain.

"I fear cultists which is what Obama's followers are."
If you vote for a candidate for President are you then by default a cult member? Please explain.

rob said...

I fear the loss of my freedoms. I fear the loss of the ability to decide what size soda I will purchase. I don't really fear our law enforcement or even our military coming into my home to remove my weapons, but I do fear United Nations troups, coming in, doing it.
As for new gun control laws, put it on the ballot, and if the majority votes for it, I will accept it. Same with Gay marriage, abortion, debt ceiling, national debt and every other national issue that is forced down my throat, by politicians, not by our peers.
Obama is not king. Last I checked, this was a democracy.

Anonymous said...

Hi there, I wіsh foг to ѕubscribe foг thіs blog to take most up-to-ԁate upԁates, therefore where cаn i do it plеasе helр.


My ѕіte: Awesome toys