Oh, well...move along, NOTHING to see here.

MSNBC takes a dive!

That's what you get when you become willfully stupid bottom-feeders, seeking the lowest common denominator.  That's what you get when you say stupid shit over and over, calling everyone else stupid in the process.

When all you can do is make excuses for what has become a lawless administration that deserves no better coverage than the Bush administration received, when all you can do is become the bizarro version of conservative "news" television, spouting the same kind of trash, the same vilification, just from the opposite end of the spectrum, then smart viewers give up on it.  It's not a totally liberal world after all!  I was once a regular viewer but you chased me away.  I watched Fox a few times and realized why - you sounded just like them - different content, same message.

Frankly, when all you can do it tell me how gays, African Americans, undocumented immigrants, and welfare recipients are the real Americans while law-abiding gun owners exercising their constitutional rights are terrorists, then you have lost all credibility with a large swath of the nation - and me.

Either we all have a place and all have our rights or we don't.

You have become the bigots you so love to hate.

Welcome to the bottom; how is it to be under Piers Morgan, Rachel?

BTW, from downstairs Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow sound exactly the same.  What's up with that?

Gun murders in Chicago

 

Truly tragic - a shame that Chicagoans can not or will not take responsibility for their own safety.

It must have been quite a sight, all those guns running around Chicago by themselves, shooting up the neighborhoods!  How did they get there - aren't they illegal in Chicago?

And it happens again!  I cannot imagine anyone being willing to live in certain part of Chicago -  I suppose those that are at street level and do not have a security force provided - without a gun.

If only for a moment...but, no.

Well for a moment I thought perhaps the Pope had been watching me as an adolescent arguing with my "Sunday School" teachers (well, we were apparently Methodists so he would not watch us).  I remember it well - parents forcing me to go to Sunday School while they stayed home or played golf, me sitting there with hair down to my shoulders and a beard at 17, trying hard to understand why it was not living a "Christian" life that was important, but saying the magic words about "Accepting Christ as my Lord and Savior" that was paramount.  In essence, be an asshole, but espouse belief.

Me: So you mean that if I live a life consistent with Christina values but do not accept Christ as my savior that I will go to hell?
Them:  Yes!
Me:  But how about all the thieving, whoring, evil people who live a life of greed, deception, and infidelity - and then make a death bed confession and ask for His forgiveness - they go to Heaven?
Them:  Yes
Me:  Well, shit...that makes no sense.  You are saying your God cares nothing for how we live, only that we are sycophants.  Fuck over your fellow humans, but say the magic words.  I quit.

Then along came the new Pope (I confess I do not follow Popes), telling me that it is not just belief and faith that are important, but a life of good works and that "We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist.’ But do good: We will meet one another there.”  I thought - literally - Holy Shit - I think that's what I was saying 40 years ago.

Alas, not so fast - such an approach apparently would kill the business model!  The Church (you know, the one the Pope leads) has clarified the "policy" - if you ain't with us, then no Heaven for you!

Sad.  I still say that no God who demands worship of us, who demands fealty, but really requires nothing else of us, does not require that we treat each other fairly and with dignity, is worth his weight in - well, whatever Gods are made of.  Certainly not worthy of worship.

I think he knows better - this is a human invention!

Review of Mike Adams "Letters to a Young Progressive"

Thought I would take a look at this book though I am neither young nor a progressive.  As someone who finds himself on different ends of the spectrum on different issues and most often sits between two unfathomable extremes, I often seek some cogent expression of conservative principles, absent the proselytizing.  I suppose I hoped that there would be some coherent and logical presentation of "conservative" values here given this person purports to be an academician (which need not be synonymous with liberal).  Sadly for me that was not the case.  In essence this is just as disheartening as reading a tirade from Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, or Melissa Harris-Perry, except the names and terms are changed around.

Quick summary of Adams' book:  Dear young student:  You're an idiot and this is what you should believe because I do.

Indoctrination just form a different angle.

It really only took reading the fist paragraph of the first letter to realize this was a bad choice for an intelligent read, that looking for some kind of informed and intelligent presentation here was going to be met instead with a ideological tirade that relied on nothing but steadfast belief as supporting data.  It was in the first paragraph that Adams noted the cold temperatures in May in Colorado, from where we was supposedly writing, as evidence that the global warming advocates were fools.  Damn - doesn't he realize how that sounds?  Well, sure he does!  There is no reason for this position and the snark it communicates except ideology; there is no logic in dismissing climate change except that it is seen as a liberal cause celeb.  No need to point out that a cold day says nothing about climate change to any one with half a brain and that clinging to the notion that snow refutes global warming (instead of climate change) simply makes a person sound ignorant.  Why bother?  Adams evidences throughout the book that he believes what he believes and that is enough for him; but when someone starts a talk by saying that "The earth is flat" it makes it hard to take anything else they say seriously.  It seems clear that he rejects the idea because it is usually espoused by liberals - for no other reason - such a childish way to go about making decisions.

I can understand Adams concerns with the fact that academia is, in most cases, a bastion of liberal thought.  But not all of us - I see it all the time, since it is the world I, too, am in.  I can understand how one might bemoan the fact that students in such institutions are often taught what to think, not how to think.  But, sadly, in the guise of "liberating" his imaginary young progressive, Adams offers nothing but the other side of the same coin - not teaching him critical thinking skills, merely teaching him to criticize and then telling him what to think because Adams is right.  No logic, no data, no well thought-out presentation, no intelligent discourse on how a thinker might think about the problems of today's world - he simply offers a diatribe and faith. 

Adams' book reads like what it, in all likelihood, is; an invective by someone who is at war with academia in general and his own university in particular - given his court case - a malcontent proclaiming his indignation over how he has been treated, using his "book" more as a cudgel than to really inform that potential progressive reader.  This is his finger in the eye to those who would reject him.  If you choose to read this, do so with this in mind, with your eyes open (but watch out for that finger) with regard to what his motivations are in writing this book.  In the guise of informing or enlightening, he is actually chastising and exacting his revenge.  He has no intention to inform, only inflame.  Were I a liberal I would be insulted, just as he would want me to be.  Instead, as a thinking somewhat conservative who does not see that as synonymous with belief in God, I am simply disappointed that he did not offer me more than this. 

If you want a peak into the mind of the conservative counterpart to the radical left liberal we often hear from - the ones who need no facts, just emotion - then this is an informative, if demoralizing, read.  It gives one little hope for the future because it is another voice shouting "I'm right" as loudly as possible, a tantrum with much kicking and screaming.  Adams and anyone who shares his opinion need not expect that reading this will sway any reader, any young progressive - indeed there is no true evidence that was his intention.  This is witnessing and his approach is to merely call them stupid and then assert, based on faith, that he is right.  It is brow-beating and is clearly aimed at those who already agree with him.  In this, he is the academic equivalent of Ann Coulter - seeking to do no more than shock and berate - insult and no more.

If you, as I, were looking for some cogent presentation of conservative thinking - a logical way to think abut conservative causes that might serve to refute the liberal ideas you are surrounded with, you will not find it here.  These are the rantings of someone who is pissed off, and engaging in self-pleasuring.  It will make those who already agree with Adams smile, laugh, and have a knee-slapping good time - "You tell 'em, Buddy!" - that's why he was on the NRA Cam and Company (which I listen to) and had made me hope his presentation would be worthwhile.  If you already agree with him, then this book will be good "Hell, yeah!" reading for you.  It will do little for those he pretends to want to educate or persuade because it takes joy and experiences great pleasure in insulting them.  It will do little for those, like me, hoping to read something useful.

Most of us have enough trouble trying to educate those around us who hold strong beliefs - liberal or conservative - to the point of intolerance for anyone else.  We have enough issues with those who consider faith some kind of badge of honor, strength of faith as some proof of rectitude.  Perhaps Adams, with his obsession with the fallen nature of man (one assumes including himself) should consider that his perception of God's essence might not be accurate.  Adam's work does nothing to make that position of faith as barometer of truth more understandable.  It is proof that neither side of the current insanity has a monopoly on acting like an asshole.  Sadly, those thoughtful who are stuck between the crazy at both ends, as so often happens, get left to ponder what happened to sanity in the world.

Yep - how's that gun-free country working out for you?

Damn shame that, in England, only the police could have shot these POSs and an unarmed soldier on the street pays the consequences.  No, its not the whole story and evil is evil, but...

Works out so well when you disarm the public - for those who would do them harm.

Bill Maher, Round 2!

An update to last week's post on Bill Maher!

This week on Real Time the discussion once more turned to firearms and the right to keep and bear arms.  How could it not?  All of a sudden, it was as if Bill had read my previous post - we knew Bill was a self-professed gun owner and he once again acknowledged this, noting that he had two guns - one upstairs and one down and practiced twice per year - and was not going to be giving them up since there had been numerous home invasions in his neighborhood.

When Michael Moore (anti-gun, big surprise - I am sure when he moves, or lumbers, around Flint he has armed personal security) told Bill that he was not likely to be able to defend himself adequately because he did not practice enough and would be startled awake and unprepared, Bill noted that the alternative, getting "mowed down", was not an option. [BTW, twice a year at the range is probably not unheard of among law enforcement officers.]

So Bill - if the government, any government, tells you to turn those guns in, will you?  It matters not whether you are keeping and bearing arms to protect against real or imagined tyranny or, like most of us, to protect yourself from home invasion and other crime.  It matters only that it provides you an effective and constitutionally-guaranteed means to defend yourself.

BTW - I have always cringed at S.E. Cupp, but she deserves props for her defense of the 2A.

Newsflash: Shit rolls downhill!

Sure sucks to be a mid-level manager in the federal bureaucracy.  Sure seems to me that if the head of an organization that size is to be held responsible for its transgressions, then perhaps the man at the top needs to acknowledge his failures, too.  Why should the little guy fall on his sword to protect the top?

Lots of "I never heard about it, I didn't know" explanations coming from the top of the hierarchy these days.  That didn't fly under the previous administration and should not fly here.  At the very least, it suggests that a certain culture has been established - and culture that is not a good one.

You really have to decide - is it ignorance, incompetence or malevolence?  None of them is good.  Is somebody too busy campaigning for hot agenda items like gun control to keep an eye on his own back yard and those working in it?

Just wondering...

I remember, must be 8 years ago now, telling a conservative republican friend of mine that I truly believed that dead bodies could be found strewn about the White House lawn and George W. Bush could be standing between them with the bloody knife in one hand and a severed head in the other, and republicans would still support him and call anyone who criticized him a traitor.  The Patriot act, unnecessary wars, torture, lies, graft, so on - just peachy.

Funny how now, 8 years later, it feels the same way with liberal democrats.  Drone strikes, water-boarding, a lack of clear truth about Benghazi, seeming politically motivated surveillance by the IRS on "patriot" groups and the DOJ on AP reporters and zero transparency and if anyone speaks a word of question about Obama, they are right-wing conspiracy nuts.

Weird to me - because I have been on both sides of this.  When I criticized W for becoming dictatorial, somehow every conservative around me thought I was a liberal.  Now I criticize Obama just as vehemently and every liberal round me thinks I have turned into a right-wing extremist.

No, damn it - put your head out for a moment and look around - none of this is about me or my political persuasions - it is all about government over-reach and how it is inappropriate no matter who is doing it.  Republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, libertarian, Tea Party, whatever you want to call yourself - you deserve no pass for your actions to strip the people of their rights.

So...let's just give up?

I usually enjoy Bill Maher, if only for the fact that I share his views on religion and am more than a bit irreverent myself.  Have seen him live and really enjoyed it.  But then it saddens me that much more when such a realist, such a rebel, loses sight of some things, such as the value of freedom even when it is hopeless.

In discussing the Second Amendment recently, Maher noted that:

"Can we get to, first of all, how ridiculous it is for people to think that the Second Amendment protects them from tyranny. Didn't Waco solve that? We just had the anniversary a couple of weeks ago. Remember Waco? You know what they had in Waco? They had like 1.9 million rounds of ammunition; they had .50 caliber machine guns; they had grenades...What did the government have? Everything else. The winner and still champion - the United States government. Thinking the Second Amendment protects you from tyranny is like thinking the First Amendment protects you from Thor. It's quaint. It's ridiculous. It's nonsensical. And they never get called [on] it!"

Well Bill - If the government is willing to bring in drones, tanks, and, who knows, tactical nukes and "everything else" then, indeed, the civilian possession of firearms may seem a futile attempt to ward off tyranny.  Indeed, if the large bulk of the American people can be made to see such rebellion as evil and thus would be willing to stand mutely and impotently by as their government assaulted it's own citizenry (as in Waco) then the ability of any freedom to withstand tyranny is non-existent.  I assume then that you think that Koresh and followers should simply have let themselves be subjugated in the face of superior firepower?  Helluva a way to live (and die)!  Give in or die!

So, is that it, Bill?  Do we simply give up then?  Do we accept that tyranny is irresistible and live a cowed existence?  Suppose the "Christian Brotherhood" comes to power (more than it already is) and decides that we must all attend services each Sunday, recite the magic words, and put our trust in the Lord?  That to speak otherwise is blasphemy and means imprisonment or worse?  You good with that?  Hell, you can't effectively resist it - you are one, they are many, they have all the cool weapons - so either STFU or enjoy your water-boarding and indoctrination.  Nothing worth standing up for?

I think we both appreciate the First Amendment, yet should the government decide it is meaningless and begins to imprison or execute people like us for saying the "wrong things" (Why does that make me think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail), will we all just go along?  After all, you can't resist them - they have all the cards, all the "real" weapons!  If our civilian firearms will not do it, then certainly bare hands and foul language will not.  Somehow I would have doubted you would be so willing to STFU.  Perhaps I am wrong?

I know that, should even the local police decide to take my weapons, they have enough firepower to do so - that inequity is already built into the system - that should I resist them, I will lose.  But unlike you, I am not even willing to allow that inevitable defeat to mean I simply give up and give in.  Just like you (hopefully) will likely not shut the fuck up when told to do so, but will be dragged kicking, screaming and cursing into whatever hole they put the blasphemous, I will not relinquish my firearms.  I will lose, I may die or go to prison, but I think we all have a line we will not cross.

Your sentiment, along with know-it-all Lawrence O'Donnell, is simply one of capitulation, choosing subjugation over peril, of living on your knees because it will keep you alive.

Not an opinion I had ever suspected I would hear from you.

Really sad!

EEEEKKKK! Campus Carry!

   

The horror!  Any evidence at all - any data - that this is a problem, that this causes violence?  Oh, I know, some will bring up Virginia Tech and Seung-Hui_Cho.  Well, damn - he didn't need campus carry to be legal to do that and, if it had been, perhaps (better than even odds) someone might have been able to end it early.

Oh, sure - as one student who apparently lives in a fairy tale world noted; "It promotes violence. You have lethal weapons on campus in a place where we're supposed to get a higher education, not carry bullets and guns and be prepared to kill someone. It's bizarre to me," said James Alexander, 21, a political science major from Pottstown.  There is no way - NO WAY - a criminal (see previously mentioned shooter) would have them there to commit violence and murder if they were not permissible.  We all know that gun-free zones - like movie theaters and elementary schools and college campuses - never see violence.

Been there, done that.  Been on campus when the loud speakers go off and the campus goes into lock down.  Had students tell me they were not scared because I would protect them.  Had to ask myself how I was going to do that in a classroom of 200 students when someone with a firearm walked in and all I had was my briefcase.  I guess my job that day was to die in place as needed.

Sounds like Mr. Alexander's instructors need to focus him a bit more on critical thinking skills.

Ah...the crazy strikes again!

With a level of vehemence and vitriol that was once reserved for strip clubs (I'm in the strip club capital of the world), it seems the crazy has blown up around a new business in Twinsburg OH.

You can read the story at the link (or at numerous other places) so I will not reiterate the insanity therein.  But one special quote is of note; “This is a place where people drop off their kids to go to school. It’s a place where you can stop and get a hoagie for lunch. I just don’t think it’s appropriate there.”  So says the Mayor Katherine Procop.

It may surprise the Mayor, who appears incredibly ignorant, to know that Ohio is  a "shall issue" concealed carry state.  That means that a law-abiding citizen with a clean history shall be issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon. She may also be surprised to know that about a third of Ohio residents own firearms.  Granted, not all of them will be carrying concealed, but it might just shock her to know how many of those dropping off children or picking up hoagies are carrying firearms.  She may not realize what capitalism and free enterprise are all about and how, given supply and demand, if there is no market for such a store in her little slice of heaven, then it will likely be out of business before long.  It might also be nice if these "media" outlets talked to someone who might enjoy shopping there.  Somehow I doubt these entrepreneurs went to the trouble of getting ready to open this business without at least some evaluation of the market.

Let's be honest - even though it will not help!  Gun shops are not like tittie bars, they do not draw a motley crowd of intoxicated patrons hoping to get blow jobs from scraggly dancers in the front seat of their pick-up truck (well, at least not in front of the gun shop) - they are not dens of inequity.  BTW, does any one have any data on how prevalent gun crime (or any crime) is at gun stores?  Think any one is rushing into a gun shop to commit armed robbery?  Does she think folks bring the guns out into the parking lot to try them out, you know, cavort in the streets, popping off a rounds in the air like Egyptians celebrating Mubarek's death (BTW, I know he's not dead yet - but watch what happens when he dies)?

Has this person ever been near a gun shop or held a firearm? Likely not, but I am sure she wonders what that has to do with it.

You know - we try - no, I try - not to become an asshole over things like this, over incredibly stupid people who can't find their ass with both hands but think they know it all.  People who get their Depends undergarments all in a wad over foolishness.  I would prefer to have logical, data-driven conversation.  This blog, hopefully, shows that I am an eclectic thinker, not tied to any one-size-fits-all ideology.  It really comes down to rights.

But people like this make it so damned hard, make it impossible.  Since when did those who exercise a God-given and constitutionally-protected right become second-class citizens, become evil?  And don't take the following picture wrong - I have nothing against Muslims - I have something against terrorists.  I have nothing against gun owners, I have something against criminals.  But there does seem to be some grand stupidity and inequity in the system, does there not?

Ignorance IS bliss, so don't confuse them with facts

This should be good news, right?



But it just goes to show that one should never let a good tragedy go to waste!

In another stellar example of how emotion distorts cognition and trumps logic and reason, the data are now in; gun crime - from homicide to non-fatal gun crime - has dropped almost 50% in the last 20 years (note that is across periods with and without "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazine bans).  Despite these facts, 56% of Americans think the prevalence is higher than it was 20 years ago.  Imagine this - it is 50% lower yet a majority think it is higher.  Sadly, it is certain that those who "believe" it is so despite the evidence will be looking for any way they can to discredit these data.  They will be aided by those whose agenda is ill-served by these data.  Get ready for a lot of "Yes, but..." hand-wringing.

This also lends very little credence to any polling on this issue, no matter who tries to use it to their advantage.  All the polling can tell us, in light of this report, is that we have a badly uninformed citizenry.  But why are so many Americans so clueless, so certain in their ignorance?  While one possibility is that we have become an immature society of children, it is also likely that we need look no further than the availability heuristic for another reason this might be so.

Tversky and Kahneman (1972) suggest that estimates of the "...likelihood of an event..." are often made "...by assessing the relative ease with which the mental operation of retrieval, construction or association can be carried out".  In other words, how "available" the information is, how easily it comes to mind; such availability is to a large extent a function of repetition, of frequency of exposure.  And exposure in today's world is hardly an accurate measure of prevalence.  Indeed, given the current deluge of (mis)information indicting guns and gun ownership, associating all gun ownership with evil, and the headlining and highlighting of any and all associated events, it is no surprise that the American public is likely to over-estimate the prevalence of gun violence.  While the prevalence has gone down, the coverage has gone up, so the concept is more available.  By virtue of the sheer amount of exposure, it is judged to be more prevalent than it is.

One of the reasons I turned to writing this blog more frequently was because the local paper (the St. Petersburg - now Tampa - Times) editorial board, who loved my letters on Mitt Romney, taxes and voting rights and such when they agreed with them, declined to print any letters I wrote to provide data and logic to refute their biased presentations on firearms.  Liberal causes, hell yeah!  Open discussion, not so much.  Just like the LGBT, women's rights and other self-interest groups who support only the rights they want, but not rights in general, so it goes with the media; they give voice only to those viewpoints they agree with; "We decide, then report!".

But that is today's media - regardless of the side of any debate one is on.  It all begins with an agenda - it is not news, it is not data, it is not information, it is propaganda with a mission.  It is all about manipulating opinion.  One need not be a rocket scientist to realize that any story can be told from any angle to make it fit the agenda.  For instance, in reporting on this survey, the Tampa Times begrudgingly noted the drop in gun crimes, but made sure to note that 70% of violent crime involves firearms.  Never allow good news one disagrees with to go to waste - always look for the shitty lining to rile the base and keep the hysteria rolling.  Another example:  Firearms accidents involving children are receiving increased attention in the media - for obvious reasons - although the rates are lower now than they have ever been ("Among children, such deaths have decreased 90 percent since 1975").  Any death of a child is tragic, no matter the cause, but the choice to highlight those that support some agenda is manipulative and unconscionable.

Most people do not want data anyway, they want to hear what they already believe, they want the sob story, the emotion, they want me to live by their whim.  Americans are a decidedly unscientific bunch; "We don;t need no stinkin' facts!".  They prefer magic words, like "I believe!" to inconvenient data.  Sadly then, it is likely that data will make no difference.  Studies have consistently shown that even in the face of accurate data, such shortcuts that lead to erroneous conclusions dominate more rational, data-driven processes.

We had all thought we would be such a rational society.

Perhaps...

If Senator Joe Manchin would make a public statement denouncing the ban of any kind of weapons, asserting that his expansion of background checks would be the only such firearm restriction measure that he would ever support, then people might at least be a little less likely to suggest that his plan was only step one in boiling the frog that is the second amendment.  Whining about it will not help.

However, he needs to understand that he is seen as standing shoulder to shoulder in this effort with people who are committed to banning certain kinds of firearms and to potentially banning all private gun ownership.  Joe - it is guilt by association - lying with dogs gives you fleas.  this is, after all, the same tactic being used by the anti-gun crowd when they conflate law-abiding gun owners with the the likes of Adam Lanza and James Holmes.

Hoe:  If you don't like being cast in with the Schumers and Feinsteins of the world, then stand up and say you abhor their ideas, show that you intend to protect the rights they intend to assault.  Until then, you look more like a puppet than anything, giving them the first bite of the apple.

Why do stories like this get such banner headlines, when stories like this do not?

Story 1 is a clear tale of negligent parenting.  The weapon did not jump up and jump into the child's arms.  The weapon could have been a butcher knife or a lawn dart.  Still, any "responsible" firearms owner knows that your weapon should only be in one of three places; on your person, in your hand, or in the safe.  All mean under your control.  And if it is the child's weapon, then the parent needs to be in control of it, just as they are with other potentially harmful items in the child's environment (again, is Johnny playing with the steak knives?).  BTW, a father recently backed over his daughter with a lawn mower and cut off her feet - no charges yet and no plan to outlaw lawn mowers that I have seen.  How do we define negligence anyway?  Well, surprise world - terrible things happen when one makes terrible mistakes and acts negligently in some way.  Often those things happen to children when parents are inattentive.  This is not meant to belittle such tragedies; it is meant to place them into proper context.

Story 2 is a clear tale of responsible gun ownership and highlights the fact that not all gun ownership is evil.  Consider what would have happened if this armed citizen had not been in that area, leaving a knife-wielding assailant to hack away at unprepared and apparently unarmed and unprotected victims.  Also note, as is often said (at least in some circles); "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."  How much more damage could have been done here in a couple more minutes [BTW, we're waiting again for the call to do background checks for knife purchases - if the store had done this, think of the trauma that could have been avoided].  This is not meant to diminish or denigrate the role of the police - it is clear that their job is not to prevent crime and the notion of to serve and "protect" is misguided.  They cannot be in all places at all times.  Hence, the need to guard the right to self-defense (self-protection).

Yes, my question above was obviously rhetorical; we know full well why one gets the coverage and the other does not.  Because news is not really news, news is agenda driven.  Top billing goes to the cause the news outlet supports.

When...?

When will we realize that although relatives of victims deserve our sympathy and our support they do not cannot be permitted to set policy, to determine our rights?  Whether it is the parents of Trayvon Martin or the parents or children of Sandy Hook students and teachers, the depth of emotion one feels over their tragic losses is not a valid metric for the policy issues at hand.  The idea that the relatives of those tragic victims have now become a traveling side show, some variation on morbid celebrities who are followed around by cameras (get ready boys, she's about to ask her question), being treated as experts on an issue because it has so tragically touched them, is absurd.  The fact that they are being used as props by those with an agenda - those who admit that the changes they are seeking would not have changed the tragic events of that day - is even more alarming.

I'll hearken back to a previous post - when my wife asked me "What if it had been me that was shot?"  As I noted, I told her that would suck - I cannot imagine that feeling.  But I would also ask why she had not been armed.  Why had she not carried the weapon she owns and has a permit to carry?  Why had she chosen to go unarmed - or why was she forced to go unarmed so as to abide by the law?  Why had her personal choice to be armed been taken away (I am pro-choice after all)?

There is a finite set of critical elements that are necessary and sufficient for such heinous crimes to succeed in total:

1. a criminal, bad guy, evil-doer
2. a firearm (in the hands of number 1)
3. a gun-free zone (see number 2)

Hence, we have ample evidence that people who wish to kill will do so - the weapon is not the cause, the person is the cause.  Remember, it is "Mothers Against Drink Driving" not "Mothers Against Cars" or even "Mothers Against Alcohol". The problem is behavior.  We know this, in most cases, wherein we still sell fertilizer, kitchen knives, and automobiles.  In fact, most murders are not committed with handguns (we may think so, but that is really an effect of the availability heuristic - those are the cases that are most highlighted and thus most easily come to mind).  We have ample evidence that those who commit such mass murders seem inclined to choose places where the intended victims can be presumed to be defenseless.  Only one person is going to bring a gun where it is against the law - the person who intends to commit a crime with it.  And if they are willing to murder, then an unlawful possession charge is not likely to deter them.  I have no doubt that an armed civilian could have stopped James Holmes or Adam Lanza (either physically or psychologically) prior to them racking up the body counts they did - if one had been present.

Let's see how many armed robberies are committed at the NRA convention this weekend - how the crime rate in the area is affected.

It's not that they don't like him...it's that they don't trust him.

It's not that those who applaud defeat of Obama's gun restriction initiatives ("gun safety" is so Orwellian a misnomer that one might think the Democrats had hired Frank Luntz) were defeated hate him.  Yes many do, but many do not.  Fact is that they do not trust him on this issue because he has spoken out of both sides of his face on it.  Indeed, his shameless use of this tragedy has lead me to question my support of him - to see duplicity in many of his other projects.  I supported many of his policies and initiatives aimed at increasing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness through his first term.  But his manipulative use of the Sandy Hook tragedy has made clear a larger goal and, regardless of all protestations to the contrary, it is clear that Obama and others (Schumer, Feinstein, so on - not to mention Bloomberg) have a clear agenda of ultimately and effectively repealing the second amendment and prohibiting private firearms ownership.  They seek the Australian or English solution - which, of course, is no solution at all.  Universal (or expanded) background checks represent nothing more than a foot in the door leading to a laundry list of further restrictions that will ultimately lead to prohibition.  They have said as much; if they had not - if Feinsten had not lead with the idea of banning certain weapons - the perhaps the reaction would have been different.  But now the conclusion seems inescapable - he and his minions are simply trying to boil the frog by turning up the fire one degree at a time.  Get this now and when it has become the new "normal" move to the next level of restriction.  Best time to stop that is not to let them put you in the pot.

So, yes, there are those who hate him and there are those who distrust him on this issue.  I have hated some of the obstructionism of Republicans on previous issues - sometimes it seemed that they desired only his failure, were guided by no values.  They would even reject their own proposals. But when it comes to the protection of our basic rights, my right not to be disarmed because of the deed of evil people, I applaud them for taking any action necessary to keep Obama and the Democrats attempts in check.  Frankly, this many of us cannot abide.