Common sense is the first casualty of 'gun control' debate

The current "gun control" debate is maddening for its logical fallacies, both circular and "Straw Man" in nature.

I fully understand the angst over the deaths of the innocents in the Sandyhook school shootings and others in the past years.

In all cases, though, these have been mentally ill perpetrators, and in almost all cases, they were using stolen firearms . . . that is, illegally obtained weapons.

Still, some folks are using the shootings as an excuse to "control" legal gun purchases. Some argue for repeal of the Second Amendment, claiming we no longer need it.

Pesky Constitution. Maybe the First Amendment (free speech and expression) should be the next to go? Speak out for the Second, it seems, and you certainly will be slandered and shouted down.

Some insist that "assault weapons" should be banned, when what they really mean is anything that looks scary -- i.e. "military" -- should be banned. The whole term "assault weapons," which applied to civilian models of firearms like AR-15s and AK-47s, etc., is misleading, even dishonest.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle (one trigger pull, one shot). An M-16, which it resembles, is capable of three-shot burst and fully automatic firing, i.e. a "machine gun." The former is legal, the latter is not for civilian but military use.

I own a .22-cal rifle that holds 20-some shots in a tube inside the stock, a very common weapon for the past 50 years. It is semi-automatic, like most rifles -- except "bolt action" models -- are these days.

Why would that .22 not be an "assault rifle?" Because it doesn't look scary, i.e. it does not have a pistol grip.

So, much of that argument is specious, and simply semantics. Take a pistol grip off the AR-15 and, I guess, it's not an assault rifle any more? Well, it never was.

Then there's the capacity of rifle clips. Some want to limit it to 10 rounds instead of 20 or 30, etc. Really? In Vietnam, my generation's soldiers simply taped one clip to the other, upside down, and it took about a second to flip, lock and load.

Again, a capacity based solution is really an ignorant solution.

But the biggest point the gun control crowd seems to miss is that you can restrict, control, ban, etc. firearms -- but criminals will still have them. That's what a criminal does, after all, break the law. Regardless how many restrictions are passed, all they would do, ultimately, is leave the law-abiding less able to defend themselves.

That is Insane.

But what is also insane is not enforcing background checks for those seeking to buy firearms. Felons, minors, the mentally ill, those with violent records should not be buying firearms. Period.

How anyone could argue with that, I don't know.

Are you listening to that, NRA?

Of church music and the Walking Dead

Had a guest worship band visit today at church. From Athens, GA., Julian Drive is the name.

Nice, hard-driving Southern Rock style. Soulful lyrics, great drummer, lead guitarist, lead singer has good range. . . but he also is a dead ringer for Sheriff Rick in "Walking Dead." 

Slap khaki pants, a badge and slouch hat on him, add couple more days of beard and strap a .44 on his hip and they could be twin brothers. 

An odd image to have in one's head, zombies drifting down the sanctuary aisles amid "Holy, Holy, Holy." It was only a brief mental detour, though. The music was that good. :)

The singer's name is SHANE. Sheriff Rick (actor Andrew Lincoln) has a deputy and best friend named Shane, who unfortunately goes zombie and has to be put down.

Yeah, I have a weird mind. It tends to take little diversions, and at the most inappropriate times.

What can I say? I'm a work in progress.

So, to wrap this up in something of a sane, faith-promoting manner . . . consider that without Christ in our lives, we are all the walking dead. Life and love are in Him.

Maybe the best 'revenge' really is forgiving?

I could only laugh, with not a little bitterness -- tempered by the survivalist humor I've learned to cultivate as an observer of human nature -- when I read of a columnist in my home state of Washington citing commentary on his writings as part of the reason he's hanging it up.
More to the point, Steve Kelley of the Seattle Times referred to the tendency of commenters, protected by anonymity, to slither into the depths of human meanness, cyber-stalking and character assassination. This has become predominant in many of the so-called "public forums" newspapers provide online for their articles.
Most papers have moderators assigned to identify and delete the most egregious comments, and some commenters even get the boot for repeated personal attacks, profanity, racism or bigotry. But it is an easy thing for them to recreate themselves with new "handles" and resume their diatribes.
Such is the case with a former boss of mine. Almost 15 years after I tendered by resignation and left him in his black cloud of impotent rage, the man periodically shows up under various identities. At one point, a moderator at our paper found he had created no less than six identities to comment negatively on every story I wrote.
Each account was terminated and yet he would return. Eventually, his IP addresses were identified and blocked. But it is no difficult thing to change IP addresses, and he has. His most recent identity was that of a faux female, but as always, his bipolar (diagnosed) arrogance was his undoing. Too many little hints dropped in comments here and there.
This time, though, I have asked his account not be deleted. Part of the reason is realization that doing that only feeds his anger and desire for retribution for imagined wrongs. But the larger reason is pity.
His unrelenting hatred, expressed in the comments, gives me regular practice at forgiving. And in a world where so many people act on perceived slights to the harm of themselves and others, at least this is a real, repeated offense.
Life gives us malevolent mysteries, does it not? Instances where we endure the ill-will of someone and never quite figure out, Why?
Sometimes, there is no answer. There is no logic to mental illness, no reasoning with psychosis. So, what else is there to do but forgive?
Maybe Kelley has his own cyber-stalkers and has just decided enough is enough.
As he puts it: “The level of discourse has become so inane and nasty. And it’s not just at the Times, it’s ESPN, everywhere – people, anonymous people, take shots at the story, writers, each other. Whatever you’ve achieved in that story gets drowned out by this chorus of idiots.”
I understand the sentiment. Still, I have to work for a living: Too many people depend on me to just give up.
And, it's just not my nature.
What goes around, comes around. That will happen all by itself; I don't need to push it along.
So, I will continue to forgive. It's been well past Christ's "seventy times seven," in this case.
But the lesson was this: Strike back, hold hatred or offense, and you not only feel the pain of the blow, but you allow it to cripple you spiritually.
And the lesson is this, now: To one for whom much has been forgiven, much forgiveness is expected.
That's me.

Whew. Missed the fiscal cliff. Sorry about the "rich"

OK. No tax hikes for people making $400K individually, or $450K as a family. 

Whew. I was really sweating that. I came THIS close -- a mere 700 percent raise away! Thank goodness there have been no raises at work for several years. I applaud the fiscal insight corporately applied. I do. Honestly.

Well, fine. Not honestly. Sarcasm, dripping and rolling down the chin sarcasm there.

It is good to be employed at all. That is seriously true. I remind myself of that, because so many in my industry no longer have jobs.

They are struggling to survive, while I can whine about years of inflation, price hikes, etc., having shrunk the real dollar value of take home pay by 12 percent or more (not to mention gasoline prices nearly tripled in the past five years, and health insurance premiums more than doubled).

So, dead seriously, I can't feel too much angst for those folks who may have to hold off on that third or fourth car in the garage to pay what they paid when Clinton was president.

Not that taxing the rich does anything to alleviate the fiscal mess our nation has created with waste, fraud, bloated social welfare programs far extended in purpose beyond their original intent, and skyrocketing debt. 

We have to arrive at the point where we realize our government cannot be the nanny for everyone who fails, or in some cases don't even try. We have to allow some consequence for failure. The idea of those who refuse to work, if they are physically able, to avoid the results via the public dole has to be rethought. 

And if Americans are living longer, their work years extended along with their life spans, then does it make sense to have Social Security retirement kick in at an age (65) that was just a few years shy of life expectancy in the 1930s . . . but now is 15-30 years out?

Do we continue to bail out banks and investment firms that game the system, giving millions in bonuses to CEOs who FAIL? Do we continue to borrow to underwrite decades of warfare that extend far beyond their initial, specific goals?