Wednesday, February 20, 2013

GUNZ R U.S.


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

From the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

What part of "well regulated" do these assholes not understand? 

I have never in my life wished for another human being to be murdered - and I'm not going to start wishing such a horrible thing at this time. But in the next hour or so, some innocent person somewhere is going to be shot and permanently paralyzed by a stray bullet. Please, fate, why can't that person be Wayne LaPierre instead? Talk about your poetic justice. 

Sure enough, and as predictably as the sun setting in the western sky this evening, it is quite clear that nothing is going to change. Nothing. Two months and six days ago twenty human beings - just barely out of infancy - were slaughtered like cattle by some goddamned lunatic bearing a tiny arsenal of rapid-fire weapons. In spite of national shock and outrage and the demand that these guns be eliminated from the public marketplace, most of our representatives are going to see to it that things remain just as they are.

Hell, even uber-dingbat Ronald Reagan came out against assault weapons! Of course he took this stand nearly a decade after his final campaign, but "better late than never" as they say. 

And the problem doesn't lie (as most problems lie these days) wholly with the Republicans. There are a shitload of Blue Dog Democrats out there who need to be put to sleep - Harry Reid in particular. Reid's state of Nevada is cowboy country apparently. A vote to ban assault weapons would hurt him with the NRA types. The murder of innocent children means a lot less to him than his cushy job in the senate. And the sad fact is that to do the right thing does not necessarily mean the end of his political career. But why take chances? Let the children bleed.

If I were a politician I wouldn't lose a blink of sleep knowing that I would be remembered throughout history as someone who sacrificed his career on the alter of righteousness And anyway, our senators and congressmen have a pretty sweet retirement package.

When the next massacre of innocents happens (and it's gonna happen more-than-once before this year is over) don't count on the Blue Dogs - and every Republican in the House and Senate - to stand up for the victims. This is the way it's going to be from now on. But that's okay. I plan on making oodles of pitchers of juicy lemonade from these nasty-tasting lemons. Carnage produces many things; writer's block is not one of them. I'll be fine 'n' dandy thank you very much. 

There are also a few economic advantages that come with mass murder. I imagine that there will be a few funeral homes and crematoriums that will do quite nicely. If your profession involves the sale of cemetery plots there are a few extra bucks in it for you as well. And the gun industry? Forget about it! As the mass paranoia multiplies, more-and-more people will be purchasing guns out of sheer terror. Expect the rate of deaths by firearms to skyrocket in the next decade. The gun industry will be making a killing - pun intended indeed.

Yeah, it will happen again - very soon - and nothing will change. This is primarily a "man problem". Women, for the most part, are a bit more sensible. What is it about the male of the species? Is it merely an unavoidable reality that violence is part of our natural makeup? I refuse to accept that sort of logic. Norwegian males seem to have their act together, as do most European guys. Could it be an "American man problem"? Is it the stupid cowboy culture that we grow up in? Remember that this is a society that made a secular icon out of John Gotti. People used to ask the hideous little thug for his autograph. Could it be the values instilled in us from birth that render us so violent and dysfunctional? That could be the key. Maybe we ought not to concentrate too much on John Wayne. What we guys could use is a mega-dose of Alan Alda. 

And then there is the indifference. A lot of us just don't think too much about gun violence because it has no direct bearing on our lives. Take my word for it, people: as guns become more readily available in the next few years, as the body count goes into the stratosphere, that mass-indifference will vanish like an ice cube in a furnace. You've never had a loved one killed by a gun? Brace yourselves. I've had two cousins killed by gunfire (both of them women, murdered by guys who were stalking them). I've also had more acquaintances than I can count who ended their lives because there was a gun close by. Less than a week ago, a guy I grew up across the street from shot himself to death. Maybe these are the reasons I am so vocal on this topic. 

Don't you dare be lured by the complacency of your little world and tell yourselves, "It can't happen here". It can. It will. Before your life is over someone you love will be murdered by someone pointing a firearm at them. It might even be you. It might even be me. If things remain as they are, the death rate will only go up. It can't possibly go down. Count on it.

The biggest laugh I get is the argument that only stricter penalties will stem the tide. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977, the murder rate has risen dramatically. Stricter penalties? You can only execute someone once. The electric chair will not make a person "deader" than a lethal injection. There is not a single punishment on the books that would have stopped Adam Lanza from killing twenty little children and seven women (and himself) on December 14, 2012. Let's put that moronic notion out to pasture here and now, okay? 

The only advice I can offer you is to do what I have done. I long ago adjusted to living in a nation in ruins. I strongly suggest that you do the same. It makes the coping a helluva lot easier. Now if y'all will excuse me, I'm goin' out shoppin' fer an AK 47. Mah trigger finger's gettin' mighty itchy, baby!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net 

SUGGESTED READING:

Things I Overheard While Talking to Myself
by Alan Alda

Alda's observations on life are a good read. A very funny and insightful memoir.

58 Comments:

At 2:34 PM, Blogger Grung_e_Gene said...

There's $$$ involved Tom. Dead kids don't mean nothing when compared to the green!

 
At 5:25 PM, Blogger The New York Crank said...

The time has come for those of us who have audiences to refer to the Senators and Congressmen who do nothing about guns to get tagged, and re-tagged, and re-re-tagged with the label they deserve: Murderer.

So it's Murderer Harry Reid. As well as Murderer (Insert name of Congressman or Senator here.).

Use it. Use it often. Use it unfailingly. Call them what they are and maybe - just maybe - the gun murders will stop.

Very crankily yours,
The New York Crank

 
At 9:20 PM, Anonymous Jay said...

Tom,

We should be rejoicing somewhat. Finally, the NRA has risen from near political obscurity to a perverted relevance.

Despite what the pro-gun group says, this isn't about the Constitution, "freedom," or even criminals. It's about pure selfishness. Nothing else.

This is about gun-owners who want to buy whatever gun they want, when they want, regardless of what's going on around them.

Anything else is just flag-draped fear mongering.

It's really about guys who want to go out and shoot the biggest, baddest, loudest gun for fun and hang out with their buddies and forget about the barely tolerable lives. ...and that's not a bad thing!

The problem is, in many of these high profile and mass shootings, these "responsible" gun-owners aren't securing their weapons and the family's nut job kid, cousin, or nephew is getting a hold of these weapons, wiping out the family, and then stalking off to the mall, Wal-Mart, or a school.

Sorry boys, but when I didn't pick up my toys, my mother took them away also.

Politically this is a deliciously scandalous topic. Since the Gifford's shooting the NRA has been trying to conjure the specter of some sort of "gun-grab." Didn't happen then. Didn't happen after Aurora, Michigan, the Seattle Coffee Shop, etc, etc, etc,. It just wasn't happening.

It took 20 grade school children to be massacred before we even considered the idea. You are correct; few paused to consider the events.

For the NRA this is a step towards legitimacy and LaPierre can now justify his $840,000+ annual salary. For Republicans it plucks them from diminishing influence back into the spotlight. For anarchists it's another reason why our government is so bad.

I've written a lot about this debate in my own blog: http://loraxlog.blogspot.com. (For the "Rant" readers out there, it's like Tom's Blog--just not as articulate and historically minded. Props to Tom!)

The only plus to this debate is that the lunatic fringe of this country are out in force and exposing themselves for who they are.

 
At 11:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure was a lot of outrage over the murder of 20 children and 8 adults.
I wonder why there has been no outrage over the more than 10,000 people a year killed by gunshot?
As long as Harry (and those like him) think losing his job is more important than over 10,000 people a year being murdered, there will be no change in the gun laws.
Also interesting that many think an assault weapons ban would endanger freedom in America, especially since we had that ban for 10 years and no freedoms were lost.
No surprise Congress puts their lives before their fellow Americans lives; they have been doing that for over 200 years.

 
At 1:56 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

I find this position of yours to be so hypocritical it is beyond belief.

55 Million humans have been killed in the past forty years under the guise of choice. That's 55,000,000 that are not alive today because of abortion rights which liberals so strongly support. Governor Como, that's your governor Tom, is purposing a bill that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions when their health is in danger.
Now if late term abortions for ANY reason are ok, could it be said that aborting a human child up to the age of 18 is no different? How is it different Tom, how is it different? In both examples the human is just as dead, the choice was made by someone else, the murdered human just as innocent. Why is the life of one more valuable than the other? Age discrimination?

How evil have we become to create laws that has made the most dangerous place for a human is while still in their mother womb! How can you focus on the tragic deaths of 20 children by a deranged gunman, and look the other way at the millions of just as innocent humans that are just as dead by the hands of a Doctor? How can you do allow that to happen and have no shame, no guilt, no nightmare?

Read what your posters are saying and change the word guns to abortion instruments. Which kills more in a day? Which tool's use is pay for with tax dollars?

Tom, to say that an end to abortion would limit the rights of the woman, while at the same time demanding more controls of over guns to stop them as a tool of murder, is the most amazing act of perverted logic ever created by liberalism.

The liberal excuse for abortion due to rape is now without merit. Bob Beckel(not a conservative!)said that co-eds on university's and colleges do not need to carry guns for protection because "When was the last time you heard about a rape on campus?” If that is the truth, then why is abortion allowed in the case of rape? Which one is it liberals, are guns not needed due to no rapes, or is abortion needed because of rapes and no guns?

The liberal tactic now is to claim either all they want to do is increase gun control laws or claim the 2nd amendment is not valid in today's world. How do you feel about Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein (D) wanting to limit anonymous postings on the internet? Does that offend your right of free unfettered speech? It's just a small part of your freedom of speech, after all the writers of the 1st Amendment could have never dreamed of the internet or any of or current methods of using this freedom. If that can be said about the 2nd, why nit the first?

Liberals have limited the size of a soft drink we can purchase, the amount of salt that can be used by a restaurant in cooking, in order to extend our life. While at the same time demanding that abortion be keep legal, and if the woman does not have the money to pay for it, that tax dollars are used.
"Despite what the pro-gun group says, this isn't about the Constitution, "freedom," or even criminals. It's about pure selfishness. Nothing else." And liberalism is about freedom?




 
At 2:39 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I remember Charles Moore. He's a real person, driven away from commenting here.

There's no such person as "Chuck More". He's just the same old cowardly, hate-spewing, ignorant, anonymous troll. But we all know that.

Right, "Tyrone Witherspoon"?

 
At 3:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Proof that once again Dave Duyba is a spineless liar and who as you could guess, does not have the back bone to enter into a fair and open discussion. It is a lot simpler to attack the messenger instead of dealing intellectually with their statements. Plus Dave is not used to people pushing back or his not getting his way. That must come from his years of bullying the female inmates he guards in a MI prison.

facebook.com/public/Chuck-Morre

names.whitepages.com/Tyrone/Witherspoon

 
At 3:35 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

So why is anonymous responding instead of "Chuck" or "Tyrone"?

LOL!!

 
At 4:04 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

And let’s thank our troll for a lesson on not attacking the messenger with “spineless liar” and “years of bullying”.

As I said:

That's our boy. He can't help who he is.

We are of different tribes, different beliefs. And different brains. He gives us a peek into the mind of those with the more pronounced amygdala, or primitive fear center of the brain.

That fear leads to aggression and hate, as evidenced by calling people a “spineless liar” and spewing false accusations like “years of bullying”.

We really are physiologically different.

Two new further studies support the theory that our political decision making could have a neurological basis.

This goes far in explaining the "conservative" authoritarian personality.

And remember, these are the paranoid gun nuts who hold to the Tim McVeigh interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Look out for that black president's black helicopter coming for our guns!


 
At 4:43 PM, Anonymous James said...

If Conservatives or Christians do not like the number of abortions performed they should stop trying to ban or limit contraceptives. They should stop trying to eliminate sexual education for young people in this country. They should stop trying to reduce benefits and programs to help Women,Infants and Children.

They should push for six months of paid maternity leave, like in Norway. They should push for universal child health care to reassure young women their baby will not be uncared for. They should push for equal pay for women so they can take care of their babies by themselves. 85 percent of abortions happen to single women.

I do not take the anti-abortion movement seriously as they do not walk the talk, especially the politicians.

 
At 4:47 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Bravo, James.

I don't know the figures, but I would bet you anything that the abortion rate in Norway is a molecule of what it is here in the United States.

 
At 6:21 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

James,

Whether or not anyone is trying ban or limit contraception, contraceptives are WIDELY and EASILY available and cheap - and likely always will be. How is that an issue? You wan't them available in free bins at the gas-station?

As for education, Christians do educate their kids. We teach that our God provided a framework for sexual intimacy - that it is both for procreation and for pleasure between husband and wife. We teach that, like all of His moral demands, He limits sex to marriage for our own good. It is without debate that we would be a far happier and more prosperous culture if we followed that. No, we don't "educate" kids on how to fornicate with contraception, and we don't sell them short as animals who cannot control themselves. When they follow our education, they don't get pregnant as teens, they don't contract HPV, AIDS, herpes, etc. (and never will) and they as a rule enjoy happier marriages. We would love to increase education - not the perpetuation of lies and ignorance of reality.

In my mind, the "sexual revolution" has been weighed in the balances and found to be a monumental social disaster.

Finally, even if your arguments were valid, they are completely beside the point and in no way justify killing innocent unborn babies. NOTHING can.

To the poster's point, the arbitrary value gap apparently placed between the victims of Newtown and the millions of victims of abortion boggles my mind.

Something else that's very curious. The argument I hear regularly on the issue is that, if we strengthen abortion laws and limit it, then illegal abortions will abound. Can the same argument be made with gun violence - is it equally as futile and therefore not necessary to strengthen laws - or does it receive a progressive pass from this logic?

 
At 6:33 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

Norway: currently abortion is provided on demand up to 12 weeks, by application up to 18 weeks and special circumstances thereafter. 98% of Norway's population is white.

In 2011 13.3 abortions 1000 women in the 15-49 age group, up from 12.7 per 1000 in 2005.

USA:8.5 abortions per white 1000 women for same group as reported for Norway.
26 abortions per 1000 black women(Sanger would be proud!)
19 abortions per 1000 Hispanic women (Sanger would be proud!)


Single payer universal health care nations which James says would prevent abortions.

Japan 19.1 abortions per 1000
Sweden 25.8 abortions per 1000
Finland 14.9 abortions per 1000
England 20.9 abortions per 1000
Scotland 18.0 abortions per 1000
China 27.4 abortions per 1000
Denmark 19.1 abortions per 1000
Israel 11.0 abortions per 1000

Show where birth control has been limited by law in the USA.
Show where sex education has been eliminated by law in the USA.
Show who has pushed for unequal pay for women in the USA.
Show where six months of paid maternity leave and universal child health care to reassure young women their baby will not be uncared for has reduced abortions.

Would you like to argue the rate of abortions based on income per capita by nation?

Remember James, trying to limit something is not the same as passing a law that actually limits something.

Tom,
You lost the bet.

Abortion murders more humans in a month that are murdered by guns in a year. If murder is really a problem, which form of murder should be stopped? If the murder of young humans is the issue, which form of murder should be stopped?




 
At 5:31 AM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

Tom’s rant was about deaths by assault weapons, not abortions. He was not hypoctitical.

Apparently the person posting at 1:56 PM as “Chuck Moore” believes that we should forget about the horrific murders such as Newtown (only the latest mass killing) and make all abortions illegal. Chuck argues that 55 million abortions in the past forty years justify that position.

How about wars? In less than SIX years more than 60 million people died during WW2. Well we tried to limit or eliminate wars by founding the United Nations in 1946. And how many wars have been fought and how many people have died in all the wars since 1946? I know, the NRA would likely argue there would be no wars if every person in the world had their own nuclear weapon that could wipe out an entire city.

I am old enough to remember the carnage from illegal abortions prior to 1973. That was OK, apparently, because that burden only fell on people too poor to travel to a country that allowed medically-safe abortions. Those back-alley abortions were a national tragedy but were ignored because they happened only one person at a time. The women who died from those back-alley abortions, however, were just as dead as those children who were murdered in Newtown and those who died in WW2.

Tom writes a great blog. In this instance he wrote about “apples.” Chuck Moore argues that Tom was hypocritical because he did not write about “oranges.” Sheesh!

 
At 5:50 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Thank you for that, Ron. As Jed Clampett would say, "I'm obliged to you!"

 
At 9:21 AM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

"I know, the NRA would likely argue there would be no wars if every person in the world had their own nuclear weapon that could wipe out an entire city." Ron Ballwin

Like to see some supporting evidence for that comment, Ron.

Ron, you're absolutely correct, in 11 years Hitler murdered 6 million Jewish humans for an average of 1.83 million a year. Abortion in America has murder 55 million in 40 years for an average of 1.375 million a year. Way behind! Proves without a doubt that Hitler/Nazism is much worse than abortion.

Now the tough part, Hitler is no longer killing 1.83 million humans a year. However, abortion is still taking its gruesome toll every year after year after year!

Apples and oranges? The title of post is "Gunz R US (name of new Rap group?) 2nd post of this thread, "refer to the Senators and Congressmen who do nothing about guns to get tagged, and re-tagged, and re-re-tagged with the label they deserve: Murderer:"
Subject of this post is murder.

Later a post that states "it took 20 grade school children to be massacred before we even considered the idea." Massacre of children is the subject of this post.

My post is also about murder and massacre of human children. If you are really as concerned about the murder and massacre of innocent human life and want to stop it from happening, then why wont you deal with the method that kills the largest number first?

"back-alley abortions were a national tragedy" But today the killing of 1.375 million human children a year by a legal method makes those murders any less of a national tragedy? Not as tragic as the 20 human children murdered by a crazy person who used guns to commit his crime?

That is hypocritical.

By the way, regarding your comment about the UN, are you a closet member of the John Birch Society?

 
At 11:15 AM, Anonymous James said...

Harley, The point of my post is Republican politicians are such blatant con men and I do not know why Christians unwaveringly support them. I know my three Born Again sisters are "captured" by the Republicans only because of the abortion issue.

I have been reading for more than a decade how the Right has been cutting or trying to cut about 25 programs associated with WIC. And any other policy not connected to aid the wealthy or the military,in fact they cut, in 2004 I believe, a 180 million dollar federal program called Food for the Elderly Poor after giving 2.4 trillion the the rich. That program was reinstated by the Democrats as an earmark in the Obama stimulus.

Defending abortion to A christian is impossible because they believe a soul is created at conception. As for me, I just do not know if that is certain. Even though I feel it should be legal, the less of it the better.

There always be a demand for abortions and guns in the US. Laws can reduce both but never eliminate either of them. The problems for Christians is that a majority in this country do not have your beliefs and do not feel an embryo or fetus is a sentient being with a soul and all the rights of such.

I would accept an iron clad end to all abortions if Christians would put the same fervor into protecting our environment, our food supple, Monsanto is going to kill us. To reduce our monstrous military by 75 percent and to push back against the police state we are becoming.

 
At 2:19 PM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...


I have to hand it to “Chuck” Moore when he asked me if I am a closet member of the John Birch Society. Now that is truly funny. Humans are very complicated and a concise description of anyone hardly suffices to describe a person fully. The best I can say, concisely, who I am politically would be to say I am a combination of a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. There are many things we could and should do in this country to help all people live a decent life. The fiscal conservative part is that I believe we should pay for it now instead of passing on the cost to our grandchildren.

We waged a very expensive war in Iraq chasing imaginary weapons of mass destruction, and at the same time changed the tax laws so much that Warren Buffet complained that his secretary pays a higher rate of income taxes than he does. Mr. Buffet could say the same about a person earning the minimum person for sweeping floors if he considered the 15.3 % of every dollar earned by that person that goes to the Federal government for Social Security and Medicare, never mind income taxes.

As to the Mr. Moore’s complaint about apples and oranges, Tom said “ban assault weapons” (apples). Mr. Moore replied. “stop abortion” (oranges). Q.E.D.

I mentioned that 60 million people died as a result of WW2 (started September 1939 and ended August 1945). I believe that 60 million count is widely accepted. Mr. Moore focused only on the 6 million Jewish people killed by Nazi Germany. Actually the mass murder of the Jewish people didn’t start in earnest until late 1942. Also, Mr. Moore should check his math. Eleven years at an average of 1.83 million per year comes to more than 20 million. But who’s counting.

 
At 2:23 PM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...


Oops, second paragraph of my 2:19 PM comment, "minimum person" should be "minimum wage."

 
At 3:22 PM, Blogger Oblio said...

Well said, Tom... I just wrote an essay wherein I submit the proposition that the reason the gun fondlers are gun fondlers to the max is: RELIGION. Gun love is like a fundamentalist religious zealot and his deity. Same thing, no diff. Would love to know what you think: http://gortnation.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-church-of-blessed-bullet.html

 
At 4:18 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

Well Ron and James,(if those are your real names) you sure have put me in my place.

I am now against the 2nd amendment and for abortions on demand, any time during the pregnancy,paid for by the govt, for any reason.

It's more important to me to be a part of the majority, instead of being right.

Please like me on facebook, I so need your approval.

facebook.com/public/Chuck-Morre

 
At 5:02 PM, Anonymous Beatrix Davis said...

@ Chuck: I see, we only want government to regulate a woman's ability to make her own choices about her body, but not to regulate who can get a weapon of mass destruction.

People are sick of the carnage, my friend. Governor Cuomo gets it. He has made NYS a leader in this nation on gun control. It's gonna happen, and it can't be soon enough for me.

I am so sick of the 2nd amendment wingnuts I could vomit.

 
At 6:13 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"I see, we only want government to regulate a woman's ability to make her own choices about her body, but not to regulate who can get a weapon of mass destruction."

It floors me that this incoherent argument gets past someone's lips. You don't care what I do with my body - until I use it to pick up a gun and shoot you. I don't care what a woman does with her body. It's the baby inside her that we dismember and throw away that concerns me. In this case, the abortionist's instruments are "weapons of mass destruction". Multiply by a million a year - pretty damn destructive if you ask me. And, yes, we ARE sick of the carnage. And, yes, it does make me want to vomit.

James, to your thoughtful and coherent argument...

While there may indeed be social concerns that would increase if abortions were limited to the small % of necessary cases, why is that? It is because our post sexual revolution behavior promotes social decay. Is it fair to criticize Christians for not doing a better job with solving the post-facto ills of sexual immorality when our culture dismisses our preventative "solution" to these social ills. I think you'd have to admit, if our society followed biblical standards of sexual intimacy (i.e. within marriage), the demand for abortions would drop by 90+%.

I've heard the argument related to death row inmates that says the burden of proof-of-guilt is so high as to make the death penalty too morally hazardous to employ. Well, okay, employ that same logic to your question as to the humanity of the unborn baby in the mother's womb. What does that moral hazard equation look like - especially when holding up a hardened criminal up against an innocent baby?

I understand your heart in the matter and am not taking aim at you, just discussing...

 
At 7:40 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

What is a person? Some would tell us a corporation is a person. Is it murder to dismantle a corporation? Go figure. The diverse answers to that question are what separate the stances on abortion. This is the root of the disagreement. Nobody wants to kill babies.

There’s religious conviction that a soul is in a zygote or embryo, and that it is a person. The other view says a zygote or embryo is not yet a person. The fact pro-life people refer to a zygote and embryo as a “baby” indicates their belief that a person is formed at that stage. Pro-choice people generally believe that zygote and embryo is a potential person, and a person must be a sentient being, living and breathing in the world, or at least have some neurological development or heartbeat in the womb.

The difference is whose choice it should be. One side says the government should enforce their religious or philosophical belief on others. The other wants to make the decision within the confines of current law. Both are reasonable from each perspective on personhood. It is impossible to reconcile the abortion issue between those beliefs.

Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey attempted to define a state's right on when to override the woman's autonomy. Viability replaced the trimester as a standard and compromise. However, one side cannot compromise due to their beliefs. I understand this. It is noble and of the best intentions. The other side would say an acorn is not an oak tree and a zygote in not a person. It is unreasonable for a zygote’s rights to supersede the mother’s. This is something that is completely reasonable to the opinion holder.

So we have now a legal framework of compromise.

But while compromise can be legislated, reconciliation cannot be.

In contrast this should make understanding the Second Amendment a lot easier. But beliefs on each side are as polarized and irreconcilable as religion and secular based morality.

Personally I’d like to see real discussion on how to implement a course of action that would reduce abortions while respecting the rights of the woman. I think this is what James was looking for originally. I happen to think better access to contraception, sex education and religious instruction would all help. We should not discount any of them.

Again the difficulty arises when one side cannot accept compromise and seeks to impose its religious view on the majority. It may be moral in some eyes, but it’s not American. Until God steps down for all to see and hear, and tells us what is what, it is all about beliefs, and up to the individual’s conscience.

It has been decided by the Supreme Court that we can have firearms for self-defense. Anti-gun people don’t approve but need to accept that. The Supreme Court has made abortion a right for women. The anti-choice people don’t approve, but need to accept that. Sometimes judgment is for God alone to pronounce. Everyone may not approve, but we need to accept that.

 
At 8:05 PM, Anonymous James said...

I have read from many sources over the years that the Republican leadership will never make abortion illegal. Because then they would start being judged for what they actually do with out the abortion issue to hide behind.

Chuck, I am surprised and also disappointed at the statistics for Norway. I also reached my limit with this subject.

Chuck, why don't you do me a favor and change your handle?

 
At 9:53 PM, Anonymous John said...

...if our society followed biblical standards of sexual intimacy?

How many stonings are you talking about Harley? Although I suppose you are correct in that this would result in less abortions. Maybe not, it becomes a matter of semantics.

 
At 12:22 AM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

James,

"Chuck, why don't you do me a favor and change your handle?"

Why? Its my name, what would your rather I call my self? If it isn't too offensive to me, I'll use it.

I know this is not sinking in or getting through to most of the readers of my posts. But when pro abortion rights people demand an end to the killings of humans by guns, I can not help but to ask them where is their same passion about the death of 55 million humans while still in the womb? Are they just as dead as those murdered by guns? How many of the concerns of our future that you James, have brought up, have had their solutions delayed or never to be found in that 55 million toll? It is the murder of your future that is being supported, argued for and made legal.

This refusal to address this inconstancy is what I want them to address. I would gladly, and I mean gladly, do away with the death penalty, and with the removal of the 2nd from the Constitutions in exchange for an iron clad, no exceptions law to abortions being illegal.

Beatrix Davis's post is an excellent example of the point I'm making. What instrument of mass destruction has killed more American humans in the last 40 years, guns or the tools used by the abortionist? Which one is she most concerned about keeping legal? Speaks volumes of where our national morality has gone. It's all about me. And you really don't want to go down the your morals may not be the same as my morals road. We both already agree that killing of humans is bad, so what is left to argue over? The difference is in the numbers of humans being killed. I'm more liberal in my morals when I want millions of murders a year to be stopped, you are more conservative when you argue for an end to 100s of murders a year.

Dave asks "What is a person?" And then attempts to tie in the Supreme Court decision about corporations. The same court that gave us Roe V Wade, (you know the story about the women in this case after the court decision? Google if you don't, it is very interesting). I am 100% sure if a human is not aborted, they may sometime in their life, choose to become a corporation, join a corporation, run a corporation, work for a corporation, not work for a corporation or close a corporation. I know by that same 100% that if murdered while still it it's mom's womb, they will not be able to make any of those choices. Their choice was made by their mother for them.

If not destroyed in it's mothers womb, what will a zygote become? If a acorn is planted in the earth and watered and not destroyed by an animal, what will it become?
A clump of grass?

"God steps down for all to see and hear, and tells us what is what, it is all about beliefs, and up to the individual’s conscience." I agree, it's up to your conscience, and my question therefore is still, why is the human life in the womb worth less to you that the one outside the womb?

This is from Britannica Online:
"zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.

The zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism."

RE-READ THE LAST SENTENCE. Unique, what a wonderful concept. Each of us is unique! Doesn't that concept make your mind swim to think that 55 million unique unlike any other humans have had their lives ended? It does mine.

 
At 12:27 AM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

I miss quoted Dave in my last post.
It should read:

"Until God steps down for all to see and hear, and tells us what is what, it is all about beliefs, and up to the individual’s conscience." I agree, it's up to your conscience, and my question therefore is still, why is the human life in the womb worth less to you that the one outside the womb?

Sorry Dave for my error.

 
At 6:47 AM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

Chuck,

How did you know that Ron Baldwin is not my legal name? Actually my legal name is Ronald C. Baldwin (grin). And I really am a CPA (first licensed in February 1961), which is why I often comment on tax matters. And yes, that does make me an old geezer.

It may surprise you that I would like to see all fetuses carried to term. My wife and I did that five times and initially planned to have ten or twelve children until a genetic medical problem got in the way.

There is no question that you sincerely believe that abortions could be stopped. Unfortunately that isn’t going to happen. I suggest that you read the Roe v Wade decision, which contains an extensive history on abortion. Did you know that until the 1850’s that there were no laws in this country limiting abortion? Then the first laws concerning abortion considered that a first trimester abortion was at worst a misdemeanor.

Over the years more restrictions on abortions were put in place, leading to the back alley abortions that were quite common in 1973. Sort of like the ineffectual laws prohibiting smoking pot (which I have never done).

It surprises many people that the Roe v Wade decision (a unanimous decision I might add) carefully balances the rights of the woman to have an abortion and the rights of the fetus (or unborn child, if you prefer) to be born. That decision was based on viability. In the first trimester the fetus is not viable and the rights of the woman to terminate the pregnancy predominate. In the last trimester the fetus is viable and the rights of the fetus to be born predominate absent a serious medical problem. In the middle trimester any decision to have an abortion is a medical decision. Clearly you do not agree with that decision but I believe it is a decision that recognizes and balances the conflicting rights of all involved.

I also recognize that the Roe v Wade decision may not be followed exactly in all cases, but we also see people exceed a lawfully-posted speed limit.

Now we come back to the subject of Tom’s rant (guns).

The beauty of our form of government is that generally we respect the rights of others with whom we might not agree, just as we do on the Second Amendment.

Most everyone agrees that our Constitution is not absolute in all respect, and that is why we have a Supreme Court. Freedom of speech does not allow someone to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Likewise with the Second Amendment there must be some limitations on the type of weapons allowed to all under that Amendment. That is why I used nuclear weapons as an exaggerated example in my first comment on this rant.

Can you imagine a hunter using a fully-automatic AK-47 with a 100 round magazine going after Bambi’s mother? We all recognize that mandatory background checks, better mental health coordination, and the like, will not eliminate all massacres. But it has to start somewhere.

 
At 12:38 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

RON,

Thank you for your kind, thoughtful reply.

I would only ask you to address these items in my reply, which centers around your last paragraph.

Can you imagine a hunter (abortionist) using a fully-automatic AK-47 (stainless steel knives) with a 100 round magazine (suction machine) going after Bambi’s mother ('s baby in her womb)? We all recognize that mandatory background checks, to prevent better mental health coordination, and the like (pro- abortion on demand rights people fight to prevent this from becoming law), will not eliminate all massacres (abortions). But it has to start somewhere.

1. To own a fully automatic anything, one must pass all the controls laws you site as being needed. Plus pay a large sum of cash for the license and by owning the fully automatic gun, agree to not having their 4th amendment rights while owning the gun.

2. When was the last time a fully automatic weapon was used in a massacre in the USA?

3. Ownership of a 100 round magazine, it is more deadly that the abortionist tools of their trade?

4."that until the 1850’s that there were no laws in this country limiting abortion." And slavery was legal until 1864 in this country. And your point is?

5. Ron, you said that "I believe it is a decision (Roe v Wade) that recognizes and balances the conflicting rights of all involved." Except for the human inside the mothers womb.

The point that abortions will happen no matter what the law says is just applicable to the removal of the 2nd amendment. You and I both know that. Which brings us back to the central point of my position. Why the focus on the lesser of the two providers of massacres (anything other than shotguns according to V.P. Biden, sorry had to get that in.)?

I haven't looked this up and maybe you would like to, but are their any reports showing the number or abortions performed in the USA before Roe v Wade? My gut tells me those reports would be hard to confirm as accurate, but my point is, would those reports show that 1,385,000 illegal abortions were being performed a year before Roe v Wade?

The National Firearms Act was imposed in 1934; it required a $200 tax (now $600) on each FULLY AUTOMATIC firearm. Since it's enactment, how many people have been murdered by the weapons it controlled?

Since the legalization of the murder of humans in their mothers womb, how many humans have been "terminated"? 55,000,000 that's how many. I hope you see my point in this.

Dave D said "one side cannot compromise due to their beliefs" in his most recent post.(Honestly, a well thought out as civilized post as there can be considering the subject).
I have offered a compromise, one close to what James asked for. IE: end to legalized abortions in exchange for no death penalty and removal of the 2nd amendment. Sounds like a deal that Tom would jump for, that Dave and James would see as dealing with three out of four (1st being increase taxes on the rich) concerns of progressives. But no response to that offer, no agreement that it would reduce the deaths of innocent life. Nothing. This is really "one side cannot compromise due to their beliefs".










 
At 1:11 PM, Blogger charles moore said...

Note to all: Please be aware that there is absolutely no connection between myself and Chuck Morre. He has and is entitled to his opinions, but please do not confuse him with me.

 
At 1:55 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

John,

That issue (stoning) is often brought out. And, on the surface, a fair point/objection. This forum would not allow room (without being obnoxious) for me to explain to you exhaustively. Suffice it to say that there are differences between God's moral law and the Mosaic ceremonial and civil laws as laid out to the Israelites. The former sets down imutable moral laws - the latter a civil/ceremonial framework for the Jewish theocracy. Note, Jesus' affirmation of the former (of which He said 'not one jot nor tittle would pass away') and apparent setting aside of the latter in the example of the 'woman caught in adultery'. There is much more to explain in the matter - again, not room.

Anyway, my point obviously was for us as individuals to follow the moral standard - not that our government should follow Mosaic civil law. If we did, based on Jesus' explanation of what adultery is, I'd need to be stoned myself, though I've not physically commited adultery...

 
At 10:12 PM, Anonymous James said...

Will the real Charles Moore please stand up!

 
At 12:08 AM, Blogger JOYCE CLEMONS said...

"Tom Degan is the biggest jackass on the planet earth" but he's somehow manages to be...lovable.

 
At 12:10 AM, Blogger JOYCE CLEMONS said...

"Tom Degan is the biggest jackass on the planet earth". But he is forgiven. He's "lovable".
"It is Not the Critic who Counts:
Not the man who Points out how the Strong Man Stumbles or where the Doer of Deeds could have done Better.
The Credit belongs to the man who is actually in the Arena,
Whose Face is Marred by Dust and Sweat and Blood, Who Strives Valiantly,
Who Errs and comes up Short Again and Again, because there is No Effort without Error or Shortcoming,
but Who knows the Great Enthusiasms,
the Great Devotions,
Who spends himself for a Worthy Cause;
Who, at the Best, knows, in the End, the Triumph of High Achievement,
and Who, at the Worst, if he Fails,
at least he Fails while Daring Greatly,
so that his place shall Never be with those Cold and Timid Souls who knew neither Victory nor Defeat."

~Theodore Roosevelt

 
At 12:20 AM, Blogger JOYCE CLEMONS said...

Oh...Dave Dubya...."What is a person? Some would tell us a corporation is a person. Is it murder to dismantle a corporation? Go figure. The diverse answers to that question are what separate the stances on abortion. This is the root of the disagreement. Nobody wants to kill babies"

What species are you? "Nobody wants to kill babies." What is that, a lullaby to soothe the masses? Your comparing corporations to tubs full of bloody heads, arms and legs is distasteful. YOU go figure. I will go cry.

 
At 1:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why stop the killing if your can blame Republicans instead. Never let a crises go to waste.

President Barack Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1927, but in the eyes of CNN regular and Democratic strategist Robert Zimmerman, the rampant violence currently plaguing the city is the fault of the Republican Party.

On Friday’s broadcast of “CNN Newsroom,” Zimmerman, Politics 365 contributor Jason Johnson and CNN contributor Ana Navarro were discussing a joint effort by former NBA star Isiah Thomas and Democratic Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to curb the city’s gang violence, when Zimmerman shifted the focus to congressional Republicans.

“[L]et’s be very clear about what’s happening in Washington today, and why it’s undermining the city of Chicago — because there’s a mindset now in our government, in Washington, from the Republican members of Congress, that sequestration is an acceptable way of doing business, that we can in fact engage in these massive irresponsible cuts that no one thinks is a logical approach to budgeting,” Zimmerman said. “And that undermines law enforcement in our cities; it undermines so many education opportunities for our younger people and it does in fact create an impoverished class of our society that leads to abuse, leads to violence and leads to more Chicagos.”

 
At 9:37 AM, Anonymous John said...

Harley: Anyway, my point obviously was for us as individuals to follow the moral standard...

Yes, I saw that, and my point was that no human can achieve that. People are people and do what people do. Going back to human achievements, you might argue that Jesus did just that. I might counter that this serves as proof that Jesus was indeed not human. Either way, I will agree that he brought some refreshing and truly good changes into the theology. I prefer to think of Jesus as a real sinning human - if this were the case, it really makes his achievement special - as opposed to him being some other species.

What I most appreciate is Jesus' summary of the whole philosophy to a couple of sentences - which are still subject to semantics. For instance to me, god is something I (and I suspect anyone else) am inadequate to wrap my mind around other than to say it is the fabric that life is made from, but ultimately a mystery. So, in order to dispense with modern organized religions' connotations of god, the worthwhile message becomes:

Love life. Love each other.

That said, it can be a rough ride living on this globe. Violence, inequality, corruption, oppression, abortions, hunger... None of it shows signs of going away. You're lucky if you can live so your own behavior will not shame you. Attempting to impose values on these issues does not seem to work - particularly when the authority is the biggest purveyor of these ills. I think you would agree that history seems to support this. Roe vs. Wade is an acknowledgement of that tough reality. To compound the problem that issue is used as a wedge to divide society. In a similar way, the second amendment is also used as a divisive issue.

I believe we should all be fighting for everything in the constitution - particularly the bill of rights as that was added to gain our support. If it says right to bear arms, I say absolutely. If it says well regulated, then so be it. We should be united in preserving and maximizing all of these rights for each other - even if a particular aspect does not impact you. Unfortunately, the bedrock of our civil rights is eroding rapidly, as the current crop of conquerors, which appear to be the wealthy elite, are experts at promoting divisiveness (who does this remind you of).

Your solution of perfect moral conduct might work - but not on this planet. Despite all of this, it is a beautiful place.

 
At 10:42 AM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

John,

Do you believe in life after death?

 
At 11:16 AM, Anonymous John said...

Only now. Thank you for pointing that out, it is always a gift to be aware of this.

 
At 11:32 AM, Anonymous John said...

Chuck, a little addendum. In an earlier comment I was alluding to the the mysterious nature of the universe. Things may lie beyond the horizon that not only unknown - but even beyond knowing - or our capacity as humans to know. So while experience suggests something, I certainly would not rule out other possibilities. What goes hand in hand with this is even when I think I know, it would be a little presumptuous of me to say absolutely.

 
At 1:11 PM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

Ditto James, Ron, Dave D and Tom - 10,000 times. While I wouldn't want to wish the end times on any of you gun hugging freaks, I do hope that when your time comes, you burn baby burn. Please take your phallic symbols with you.

 
At 3:17 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

John,

Again, thank you for your honest answer. I agree, the universe is a most mysterious, wonderful place. Almost as mysterious as we humans ourselves. I marvel at all the things we have yet to understand about both. I am also grateful to be living in a time when we know as much about both as we do. It is my hope to see man explore Mars. Crazy I know, but I recall the effect the satellite on those alive when it first when into orbit. The effect was amazing, the future was know what Jules Verne had only dreamed it would be.

Yet at the same time great and tragic events took place, the murder of 2 of our national govt leaders and 1 moral leader. It was a time when Rev Jessie Jackson and the late Senator Ted Kennedy were both pro life, anti abortion rights spokespersons. It was the before the time when to be a serious contender for the Democrat Party's presidential nomination, you had to hold the most extreme pro choice position of anyone running. Interesting, by the time both Kennedy and Jackson ran for their party's nomination, they were no longer pro life. Congressman Gephardt, later Speaker of the House did the same thing when he ran for his party's nomination. Oh well, convection's for some are just what is necessary for the moment. The ends justify the means has never been better exampled.

If I may ask, how do you see life after death? Is it a life of consciousness(self awareness)with or without a body, endless or finite. Does the belief in an after life frighten you or give you comfort?
There is a real reason for my asking these questions, the answers give insight into what a person sees as right and wrong and their responsibility for both. If you feel uncomfortable in answering, I completely understand, for what its worth, you will still have my utmost respect.

 
At 6:17 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"Yes, I saw that, and my point was that no human can achieve that. People are people and do what people do."

John -

Sure they do and of course we as humans are imperfect beings - I'm glad to see that you understand that - you are thinking right. But, thing is, we don't enact laws quite that pragmatically. We enact laws based on fundamental moral standards (some will argue this isn't true, but it is - you logically cannot avoid this reality). A law is a de facto statement of a moral standard - whatever the basis of that standard might be. So, if you think about it, the logical extension (reductio ad absurdum) of your statement would be to do away with laws since we cannot follow them.

Believe me, the first person who brings even a modicum of a valid argument to the table, I'd be willing to listen. As it stands, I end up answering the same 3-4 very weak and illogical arguments - which shows me most do not critically think about it and accept it at face value. Easier and more comfortable that way.

You, on the other hand, seem to be really wrestling with it and thinking it through at least, which is encouraging. Also, I would encourage you that there are answers - don't give in to the epistemological wasteland of our culture...

 
At 1:00 PM, Anonymous John said...

Chuck,

Actually, I think being able to wrestle with the the great questions is one of the great gifts in being human. Perhaps failing to conclusively resolve these matters is another...

Obviously, the questions of existence spur endless debate. Using memory as a guide, what passes for consciousness didn't seem to be tethered very tightly to my body until I was a couple of years old. Likewise, the future is currently unknown. If you're are asking if I think there is a tortured retribution for not falling into line, I'll point out that this is something despots and governments do to intimidate and control - that in itself, to me, is almost conclusive proof that it would not be the way of a benevolent creator.

 
At 2:11 PM, Anonymous John said...

...don't give in to the epistemological wasteland of our culture...

Had to look that one up. I think it is good to learn. Your statement has significant meaning that is pulling me back to the original point of this thread. I think the most fundamental shift in the human environment is due to the loss of human to human contact. It is changing our (as a species) ability to learn, reason and even understand and navigate our own emotions. The strongest message that we get is to buy shit, next is that the bogey-man is going to get you (Osama, al-Qaeda, Soviets, Fiscal Cliffs, a gun toting kid...), and then is trust us we are the government we may not be able to protect you - but we're the best you got. Fact based education that promotes reasoning and understanding seems to be way down the list. Each technology that reduces human to human contact seems to push us further in that direction.

Statistically speaking, the school gun violence is a non-existent problem. Of coarse it is abhorrent - but the media has turned it into something it is not. In so doing, the media coverage is promoting these acts. But media's largest causative factor is due to it's displacement of human interaction.

As to your notion of the foundation of laws is concerned, ideally there is a 'do unto others' factor - and that is sometimes the case. However, as often as not, laws are constructed to promote and protect the accumulation of wealth. A perfect example of this is laws that promote fossil-fuel consumption - but limit or even eliminate corporate culpability for environmental and other consequences. I understand NAFTA and many other so called trade agreements are full of such things.

Most of the legislation these days appears to be of the second type but that should come as no surprise, poor people do not draft legislation. In a rare exhibit of government efficiency, the propaganda campaign and dilution in the quality of education has ensured that we are not qualified to call the shots let alone rally a defense against the attacks on our constitutional rights - and without these, what is the good in being an American.

 
At 2:17 PM, Anonymous John said...

It has been good discussion with you guys but my typing speed requires that I sign off this thread. It would be better over a pint.

Peace to you...

 
At 2:51 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

John, enjoy your perspectives. And, wholeheartedly agree on the pint!

 
At 6:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love this example of freedom under liberalism.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg doubled down on his citywide big-soda ban Monday by calling on the state to do the same.

The new law takes effect March 12 and affects all establishments regulated by the health department, but it will not affect venues overseen by the state agriculture department, such as supermarkets and grocery stores.
The rule would not only ban the selling of soda in containers larger than 16 ounces, but it would also cause pizza restaurants to nix selling 2-liters with deliveries.

At a press conference Monday, Mr. Bloomberg was asked why pizza shops shouldn’t be in the same category as supermarkets, where customers can buy as many 2-liter drinks as they want.

“You have exactly the right question, but you’re asking it the wrong way,” the mayor responded. “Keep in mind we’re trying to save the lives of these kids — particularly kids. … The state should do exactly the same thing in stores.”

 
At 2:30 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

I agree with Keith Olbermann...Bloomberg represents all that is wrong with Amerika wrapped up in one person. He is a pompous plutocrat asshole !!

 
At 5:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is too rich to let pass,

John Kerry says Americans 'have a right to be stupid'.

As proof that Kerry is correct, I would offer the 53% of Americans who voted for another four years of Obama as President.

 
At 6:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Progressives, Keeping it classy, again.

A pro-Democratic group has drawn sharp criticisms after it attacked Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) Asian wife, is former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. The super PAC Progress Kentucky has demonstrated in front of McConnell’s home and offices, but raised the most ire from critics after tweeting that Chao “has the ear of [Sen. McConnell]” which could “explain why your job moved to China!” -


It's only racism if conservatives say it.

 
At 11:18 PM, Anonymous James said...

Hey Anon, In your opinion, which group were dumber the 51% that vote for Bush or the 53% that voted for Obama?

 
At 11:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another example of the liberals war on women!

A pro-Democratic group has drawn sharp criticisms after it attacked Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) Asian wife, is former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. The super PAC Progress Kentucky has demonstrated in front of McConnell’s home and offices, but raised the most ire from critics after tweeting that Chao “has the ear of [Sen. McConnell]” which could “explain why your job moved to China!”

 
At 12:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, poor liberals, don't like to be confronted with the truth, do they!

During a House Financial Services Committee hearing Tuesday on the budget, two Democrats complained after House Financial Services Committee chairman Jeb Hensarling instructed that two monitors in the hearing room display a real-time running national debt clock.

California Rep. Maxine Waters and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison both issued complaints about the displays, according to video of the hearing.

“Clearly it is a political prop designed to message ideologically,” Ellison said.

WTF is "message ideologically"? Oh I forgot, this is from the same bunch who want to limit a women's method of self defense to their, govt. approved type of gun, tell the world that Americans have the right to be stupid, think 9-11 was an inside job, while telling us to get over the murder of 4 Americans in Libya. You know that group.

 
At 11:19 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Americans have the right to be stupid

How else can we explain nearly half of Republican voters thinking ACORN stole last year's election for the death panel building, gun confiscating, 'Muslim Marxist"?

 
At 9:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or 53% of Americans who voted for another four years of Obama failures?

 
At 10:18 AM, Blogger Ho Chi Garcia-Tergo said...

Republicans need to view Latino Gangs as Freedom Fighters as per Fatima and Medjugorje,providing private order against Obama's aborting gay teachers and red regulators who are mean to us.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home