Alex Bainter's Wishy-Washy Gun Control

Good Grief Charlie Brown, why are you always so wishy-washy, particularly on Gun Control? Because everyone else is too. There is a fine line that legislators are still trying to dance around trying to figure out the balance between total liberty and keeping the public safe. With true freedom, there are huge risks involved. With total safety where guns just suddenly don't exist anymore, then people loose their second amendment (which means change, so it can be changed again if people really get paranoid too much).

Yes, we have the right to bear arms, but I would like to point out a few things to Alex that would have helped the argument get a little stronger when stating the attempts to help balance safety and freedom. First off, our guns are already limited. Like you can't have more than three shells in your shotgun when hunting for dove, and there was a ban on assault rifles from 1994-2004. Second, you have to register your guns, and there are attempts to run background checks when you purchase them.

But, the closest thing to a suggestion of action is more gun education similar to CHL classes. Instead, there is a lot more focus and detail in the Connecticut shooter's mental state is far greater than anything else in the post and then just ends the post abruptly. Yes, crazy people do crazy things, and that point in the blog is where the argument SHOULD have sprung from. There is wishy-washy. What could have been argued is that President Obama himself has said that this whole campaign for restricting large magazines, assault rifles and creating background checks is due to that shooting, and either "yay or neigh" on that.

It seems Alex decided to dance around the subject just as much as the politicians do when discussing this topic.

Get Rid of "Marriage"

Dear Friends, we are gathered here today

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act 1996) defines marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman, therefore meaning that homosexual couples cannot gain marital licenses that come with many tax breaks, unquestioned insurance benefits, and many other legal bonuses. This legislation is now being questioned before the Supreme Court, and now the Justices are looking to define marriage so that they can rule if DOMA is even constitutional.

But I find this trivial. Marriage happens in a church of any religion and is defined by that church. Catholics marry Catholics, Muslims marry Muslims ect. And if you don't like any particular church's definition of marriage, you can still get all the magical perks of being married by getting a "secular and legal" marriage license from the a civil court. At least, for heterosexual couples.

This is just my two cents. If a judge can join two heterosexual people, without involving a church then why on earth can't two homosexual people do the same? DOMA's opposition need to scream that same sex couples cannot get "married" because religions invented the terms of marriage being between a man and woman. If a religion invented the terms, then why on earth should our government that "keeps church and state separate" use the terms invented by religions in the first place?!  The government needs to nix the term "marriage" and just coin some other term like "life union" that allows both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples to be legally bound to each other.  "Life unions" would have all the magical perks of the current definition of marriage, and then everybody can have the "happily ever afters" they want with the significant other in their lives.

Thoughts on Sunshine and Rainbows, Commentary 1

Dear Friends, we are gathered here today...

Reading DontKnowJack's post Sunshine and Rainbows was quite an interesting adventure. His ability to "call it like it is" was quite refreshing to read.

To be honest, I agree with his thinking that they are still putting feelers out as to what the majority are thinking for two reasons:
1) to cover their own butts
2) to keep the mobs of opposing sides from killing each other

 The author did a very good job of calling them out of the pure stupidity of that. Demanding that the Justices actually rule on something? The nerve...

     Actually, I do agree with his statement that "we all know it'll get there in the next 20 years". His ability to step back and look at the grander scheme of things allowed him to come to the conclusion that eventually, the opinion that religious definitions of marriage will quit being the determining factor of whether or not homosexual couples will get equal treatment in their unions and have the same magical benefits of tax breaks and insurance plans.

National Parks Need a Boost

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed a bill that created a National Park Service that is by law supposed to "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." The National Park Service maintains 59 different National Parks, and several hundred Memorial sites. But these parks were not created just for the simple entertainment value of watching boiling hot water spew out of Old Faithful systematically. The protection of these lands was granted in the time period when Americans were starting to truly adopt the Teddy Roosevelt ideal of carrying a bigger stick, when Americans began to buy into the ritualistic ideas that America really was awesomer than everyone else. "Look, America is so much prettier than everywhere else, we should protect the beauty of God's blessed lands from sea to shining sea." Families all pack into the wagon and go look at the massive Grand Canyon, or the impressive Redwoods that tower hundreds of feet tall, all while listening to a dedicated Park Ranger who knows that park inside and out, and can tell you three times the information you really want to hear. Ah, those were the days, when Americans used to think they were the best country ever.

But that's also when the national government was scrambling to create economic boosts. Lets build roads that we can use so the huge amounts of poor people have a way to put a little bit of food on their family tables. Lets make National Parks so that there are jobs for scientists who went to college can study plants and have educational tour guides so that little Timmy can explore the world of science. Instead, we have a government that is more concerned with cutting the national budget down $85 billion so that they can continue to hand out money to unemployed rather than coming up with new jobs. The cuts in the budget are simply eliminating thousands of American jobs. Now little Timmy has to hike (unguided by a Park Ranger) another mile farther to an unlocked bathroom with a line, and all he can remember several years later was that was the family vacation when he really had to pee instead of the possibility of piquing an interest in science because the cool Ranger taught him about rocks when his school teacher knows only the two paragraphs in their textbook.

Sure, the $85 billion cuts may make a dent about the size of pea sized hail,  but is it necessary when your eliminating thousands of American jobs? How can the American people have more money to spend and  boost the economy when there just aren't any jobs for them to have? We are coming up on the 100th anniversary of what we know as the National Park System, and you can't even get a hiking permit in the Grand Canyon let alone a cabin in Yellowstone. Maybe I'm the only one that misses that old school wonder that a National Park brings. Maybe I'm the only one that seems to get that jobs state side are a lot more helpful that jobs over seas. Maybe Froggy and I will go visit that last Park Ranger up in Estes Park on an oxygen tank before he looses his job, that guy knew more about that area than anyone I'd ever met.

National Park Budget Cuts?

CNN reporter Jennifer Liberto claims in her article that with National Park Budget Cuts, that tourists will not have the same glorious trips to parks nationwide this summer. She paints a somewhat convincing doom and gloom picture of trash cans over flowing, bathrooms not functioning, and camp sites rendered unavailable because of lack of funding. No more magic filled adventures with a knowledgeable tour guide that has dedicated their lives to the natural beauty of our nation. Lots longer lines at the bathrooms.

The author then informs her audience of those who grew up loving those parks in their glory days, that the parks face huge financial issues. The President has chosen for 2013 to shaved off "$85 billion from the federal budget. It includes $183 million from the National Parks Service, which runs 401 national parks, memorials, lakeshores, parkways and historic sites." This budget cut destroys thousands of jobs by either furloughing them or simply eliminating them, and the author points out that even in some of the most popular parks like Yellowstone can't even afford to plow the snow off of their roads so that visitors can enter the park.

The author is sure to end by including a comment from retired park service superintendent Joan Anzelmo, saying that it was generous that private parties made donations to make it possible for the roads to be plowed, "it's not sustainable... What's going to happen next year? If these cuts continue over the long term, we're in real trouble."

Now, personally, I think that the basic framework of this article had the potential of really packing a punch that the author didn't really utilize. When spouting out the facts of just how many jobs were cut where, real numbers would have been more impactful than rounded out numbers. Rather than saying visitors have to wait longer for bathroom use, she could have come up with a more personable story like "No more taking a pit stop every time little Timmy needs to use the potty, he's gotta hike another mile to find one with a bathroom with a line." Just something in this article needs to have a little more umph in my opinion rather than the vague generalizations she used.

Mark Kelly's Talks Gun Control

Mark Kelly has recently become a pretty loud voice in the latest popular push for tighter gun control. Mark told CNN that the current gun show loophole Makes No Sense, and that he believes that the government should instate a universal background check that all potential gun buyers should have to pass. According to him, that's the first step towards a tighter gun control.

Now, overall, Mark Kelly is a pretty interesting guy, he looks like Phil Collins and between NASA and 25 years in the US Navy, he racked up "375 aircraft carrier landings, 39 combat missions and more than 50 days in space." The space part is super cool. He never has really lived a civilian lifestyle other than the fact while being a gun owner, he "didn't think about guns or gun violence that much. [He] had other things to think about," and seemed to follow the typical American view of 'outta sight, outta mind'. Until his wife and six of her constituents became victims of gun violence in 2011.Now while his wife recovers from what should have been a fatal injury, he has become a very vocal advocate for gun control. He often sympathizes with other victims of gun violence, and tends to point out the last five or so reported gun related crimes to hit the news along with the most recent school shooting in New England. So I guess while he was floating in space he had a lot of time to think on guns, and apparently found some interesting math.

He claims research has found that:
40% of gun transfers went without background checks
80% of inmates who used guns got them without background checks
82% of gun owners like the idea of background checks
92% of all households like the idea of background checks
2 million people have failed background checks since 1994
100 die a day from guns, 33 of them murder
The US has 20x's the murder rate of other countries

First off, I just wanna know where he gets all these stats because I don't remember being asked as a household or gun owner if I like the idea of background checks. Because I do, but his logic is strange and unquoted from any source.

Second, I want to know which countries he is referring to when he compares the US, and also if he ACTUALLY compared policies, form of government, economy ect. to see if there was a difference. But lets go in and actually check his math. With his claim that 33 murders a day involve guns, meaning that there are 12,045 murders per year, which means that the unnamed 'other countries' only have a mere 602.25 murders by guns per year. Somehow I don't buy that stat, no matter what country...

Third, if 80% of the inmates involved with gun violence didn't get background checks when purchasing a gun, than that means only 32% of gun transfers happened without background checks to criminals. So, only 8% of that 40% of those with out the background happened to law abiding citizens.

 If you lie on that background check, you not only fail but you also become a felon, even though the BATF get a small number actually in custody. That kinda shows that criminals are gonna get guns, no matter what laws are in place. If there are checks now that aren't enforced well, the ones that Mark keeps pushing for better have some umph behind them to actually make a difference.

I will agree that in theory, a universal background check would help some. But who would bite the cost? The government? The company? The customer? I would guess the latter.

You Can Have My Guns When I Run Outta Bullets

Let's think of the most stereotypical image of a true Texan: big ol' hat, sweat stained shirt, shiny belt buckle that keeps a well worn in pair of Wranglers up, a dusty pair of snake skin boots, and a dark leather holster that carries his gun. C'mon, you ever see a John Wayne movie in Texas where he didn't look like that? If you stop at any gas station in this state, there is some shelf crammed full of little nick knacks with that man and little signs saying "You can have my guns when I run outta bullets". Texans are obsessed with guns, and anyone who says anything about it being a little much is just a wimpy yank.

So why on earth anyone is shocked about how violently Texans react to the possibility of a tighter gun control? The Associated Press's Will Weissert reports with The Austin American Statesman that Texas leaders take aim by creating a new bill that blocks any move by the Federal Government to tighten gun control.

   "All federal acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, and rules or regulations of all kinds with the purpose, intent, or effect of confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore, infringes upon Texan’s right to bear arms in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, any such law is not made in pursuance of the Constitution, is not authorized by the Constitution, and thus, is not the supreme law of the land, and consequently, is invalid in this State and shall be further considered null and void and of no effect in this State."

I'm going to just point out a few things. First off, our guns are already limited. You can't have more than three shells in your shotgun when hunting for dove (where you would load those shells is where Froggy was jammed in). Second, don't we already have to register our guns? Third, according to Mr.Webster, amendment means a change designed to correct or improve a written work. Meaning it can be changed again, if done properly. Just sayin. Fourth, didn't there used to be a ban on assault rifles from 1994-2004 anyways? Fifth, am I the only one that seems to remember that Federal Laws trump State Laws? Texans are pretty attached to their guns if they are ignorant enough to think this will work.

Now, President Obama himself has said that this whole campaign for restricting large magazines, assault rifles and creating background checks is due to the mass shooting recently in Connecticut. But I would have to agree with Governor Perry in that "no gun law could have saved those children". Criminals are criminals, if they want to go crazy and kill a bunch of people, they are going to do so, gun ban or not, with any weapon of their choosing because it isn't that hard to gain possession of contraband items. 

Besides, it is of my opinion that this country cannot effectively control guns. The truest gun control is to outlaw them completely, make a statement that all guns and ammo must be turned in. Therefore, anyone who has a gun is a criminal. Which, if you think about it isn't much different than today, the gun owners you're scared of are the ones pointing it at you during a robbery. But why would law abiding citizens who wish to protect themselves against the criminals want to turn in their guns? Police would still have to be armed in order to combat those criminals with guns, and there would be a death penalty for anyone in possession of a gun. None of this waiting on death row for thirty years, it would be straight up Judge Dredd style. If you have a gun, *bang*. End of story. Ok, maybe that's just a little crazy right? There is no way that this country would do that, nor would I necessarily agree with it anyways. Frankly, I live in the getto and would probably still keep my little pistol for defensive purposes. But something drastic is what it would take to create a tight enough reign in order to truly keep everyone 100% safe from gun violence.