"There is no scenario where allowing concealed weapons on college campuses will do anything other than create a more dangerous environment for students, faculty, staff and visitors."
-Oklahoma Chancellor of Higher Education Glen Johnson , January 2011
I don't know when...or if...I'll ever be able to call Texas "home." I see constant reminders, either on TV or online, of just how backwards this state is regarding their gun laws. The "guns in school" law is pushing forward again, and this time it seems likely to pass. You know, I'm not a total crazy liberal who wants to abolish all guns, but I think a line should be drawn somewhere. Keep your guns at home, to protect your home and family, or stop the British from their bloodthirsty desire for world domination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We took the kids to see "Gnomeo and Juliet" this past weekend. I slept through parts of it, but I think the kids liked it. I told my wife I don't want to see any more kids animated movies until the summertime, when the Pixar stuff comes out. It's just too torturous to sit through these things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you who comment on my blog every now and then, you may have noticed that I put the security "word verification" back on. I had to because I kept getting Japanese sex spam every single day. It was out of control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans seem to be praising the legacy of Ronald Reagan lately. Although personally I think a lot of the problems today began from his administration, this guy would probably be considered a liberal in the eyes of today's Republican party. He was for amnesty for illegal aliens, he opposed torture, he wanted to ban assault rifles, he appointed judges that upheld Roe v. Wade, he wanted to eliminate all nuclear weapons, etc. Sounds a bit like a wacky leftist, doesn't it?
-Oklahoma Chancellor of Higher Education Glen Johnson , January 2011
I don't know when...or if...I'll ever be able to call Texas "home." I see constant reminders, either on TV or online, of just how backwards this state is regarding their gun laws. The "guns in school" law is pushing forward again, and this time it seems likely to pass. You know, I'm not a total crazy liberal who wants to abolish all guns, but I think a line should be drawn somewhere. Keep your guns at home, to protect your home and family, or stop the British from their bloodthirsty desire for world domination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We took the kids to see "Gnomeo and Juliet" this past weekend. I slept through parts of it, but I think the kids liked it. I told my wife I don't want to see any more kids animated movies until the summertime, when the Pixar stuff comes out. It's just too torturous to sit through these things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you who comment on my blog every now and then, you may have noticed that I put the security "word verification" back on. I had to because I kept getting Japanese sex spam every single day. It was out of control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans seem to be praising the legacy of Ronald Reagan lately. Although personally I think a lot of the problems today began from his administration, this guy would probably be considered a liberal in the eyes of today's Republican party. He was for amnesty for illegal aliens, he opposed torture, he wanted to ban assault rifles, he appointed judges that upheld Roe v. Wade, he wanted to eliminate all nuclear weapons, etc. Sounds a bit like a wacky leftist, doesn't it?
(Picture: "Yee-haw!" Texas Governor Rick Perry, known for shooting coyotes while jogging, shows off his love for guns.)
I can see highly trained security guards on a campus that has become dangerous. But not armed teachers or armed students.
ReplyDeleteUpholding Roe V Wade would be a conservative thing. The rest sounds liberal. But he also closed mental hospitals which put a lot of homeless, mentally ill people out onto the streets. That wasn't liberal either.
And wasn't Bush Jr. for amnesty for illegals?
Reagan was a supporter of prayer in U.S. schools.
Reagan did not support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. His opposition was based on his view that certain provisions of both Acts violated the US Constitution and in the case of the 1964 Act, intruded upon the civil rights of business and property owners, (Wikipedia)
There's more, but I'm very tired tonight, very.
I hope all is well. I think of you often.
Janet
Janet,
ReplyDeleteI know Reagan was no liberal, and I'm certainly not trying to defend him, but it seems like now the Republican party has gotten so far right that someone like Reagan would likely be considered a RINO (Republican in Name Only) now. I always thought the conservatives wanted to abolish Roe V. Wade, not uphold it. In Texas, they are trying to pass a law that will require all women who want to have an abortion get a sonogram first. They will be forced to listen to the heartbeat of the baby before they go through with the abortion.
LOL, What an idiot I can be. Of course I had it backwards. The conservatives DO want to get rid of Roe V Wade. Sorry. I knew that and posted that anyway. I'm constantly bugged on both sides of the aisle on that, because I see no reason to abolish Roe V Wade, yet, I think abortion is a horror of our lifetime. I just don't think that making restrictive laws is the way to rid the country of it. I think social programs and medical coverage are the way.
ReplyDeleteSorry Ken, my brain must have had some tired synapses or something when I wrote that.
I think the sonagram might be a good idea, along with the social programs and medical coverage. The republicans want to force women to behave one way, then throw them under the truck when they do. It is a no win situation for women.
The liberals are off base too, IMHO, because they are pushing harder FOR abortion than they are for social programs that would help prevent abortions in the first place.
Janet
http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/12/california-santa-claus-massacre-fire-10.html
ReplyDeleteIt would have taken another gun to stop this guy. And I'm not even gonna mention Virginia Tech. (Uh, oh! I just did.)
As for abortions, there is a reason for the wording: "(1) Life, (2) liberty, and (3)the pursuit of happiness."
The young couple may have had happiness and liberty when the child was conceived, but they have no right to take away the baby's LIFE. Life is #1 for a reason, Ken.
And just for clarification, it's not "the woman's body"...it is the body of an unborn child.
Funny how liberals think guns are so bad because people may be killed, but Abortions are just fine.
Abortion is an extremely personal issue. While it's difficult for me to support abortion after being present at the ultra-sound of my little grand-son and seeing his heart beat through his transparent, bean size body as an eight-week old embryo, it's more difficult for me to justify the tragic deaths and injury that occur when abortion is illegal and unsafe. Let's face it, making abortion illegal will not stop them. Wealthy individuals will travel to other countries for them. Poor individuals will either be harmed in the back alley and using unsafe methods or they will be forced to have unwanted children. The classic bumper sticker sums it up or me: "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"
ReplyDeleteI think there's a difference between a woman having a legal medical procedure and someone buying a gun that has the potential of killing many, many people. Have you ever read this headline: "Woman kills 33 feti at Virginia Tech?"
ReplyDeleteNo one doubts that abortion-on-demand is legal. The question is whether it is moral, and whether or not tax dollars should support it. (I would say "No" to both questions.)
ReplyDeleteThe only way a gun has the potential to "kill many, many people" is if those being fired upon are defenseless--just like a fetus.
In one year, 31,224 people die from gun violence in America. Less than 1% of all gun deaths involve self-defense. The rest are homicides, suicides, and accidents. Anyone with a logical brain can deduce that, yes, guns are bad.
ReplyDeleteReagan was conservative. He favored limited government and fuck-the-poor policies. Clinton was conservative. He favored reduced spending and balanced budgets, with a surplus no less. Bush Jr was a total flaming liberal. He spent money like there was no tomorrow and expanded the government.
ReplyDeleteReagan became president before the Christian lobby took over his party. He would have just as much trouble getting in today as he did in 1976. He could easily get the Libertarian nomination.
Today's Republican Party is more in tune with people like Michele Bachmann than Ronald Reagan. I think Reagan would have considered Bachmann batshit insane, as do most people who are not pushing an agenda.
Political parties change and evolve. Those that do not become Federalists. Today's Democratic Party is nothing like the pro-slavery, pro-South Democratic Party of 1860. Republicans in 1876 were mostly Yankees who wanted to repress the South. The dividing line in the 1900 election was gold versus silver. In 1800 it was England versus France.
Soon it will be just as awkward for Republicans to claim Reagan as it already is for them to claim Lincoln. Both were definitely Republicans in their time, but not Republicans of today.
Guns are one of the greatest inventions of man. Bleeding heart liberals will say that if there were no guns, no one would need a gun to stop the crazy people who have guns. They are missing the point. A gun serves no other purpose but to destroy. Jesus has hurricanes and earthquakes to thin the herd, guns are man's way of helping the process along.
ReplyDeleteThe ratio is 100:1
ReplyDelete1.2 million abortions every year in the US compared to 12,000 people killed in gun-related homicides annually.
Now really, which is the bigger tragedy?
Taylor,
ReplyDeleteI'm not really that far off from your line of thinking regarding abortion. Personally, I'm against it, and if it suddently became illegal, you wouldn't hear any outcry from me. Both Christy and I would never consider abortion, no matter what our situation might be.
However, if the government is going to impose its will on these young mothers, they should also be a bit more helpful in providing for these children. Why force these low income women to have babies and then cut funding to help feed them? You can obviously say that these women shouldn't be stupid enough to get themselves into this situation in the first place, but that's not realistic. Stupidity will never go away.
Gun violence is a tragedy in this country as well. If owning a gun ever became illegal (not likely), again, you'd hear no outcry from me either.
I'm probably one of the few people in Texas that doesn't own a gun. I'd be much to worried about it falling into the hands of Sara or Kyle. I realize I could keep it locked away in a box somewhere, but what good would that do me if someone was breaking in and I needed to use it right away? If I were single, maybe I'd own a gun, but with a family, it's just too risky.
Free thinking liberal, statistics are made to be tinkered with. Not to mention we DO have guns in this country, and when guns are banned it isn't the bad guys who either move out or turn in their guns. So, to try to get rid of guns is a losing battle, hands down.
ReplyDeleteI have two examples. Two old ladies I knew. One in the Phoenix area years ago. The other in Oregon.
The first had a little yarn shop attached to her house. One day a man came in, raped her and beat her to death. She didn't have a chance, not a single chance.
The second lived in Oregon. She woke up one night to the sound of someone in her house. She got up and took her handgun out of the drawer she kept it in, and stepped into her hallway and confronted an intruder.
All she did was stand there and point that gun at him. He ran, as did his buddy who was also in her house.
WHat if she had not had that gun? She was no match for two young men.
The point is, I could point out statistics that scare some people about the rate of hospital errors and the rate of infections caught in hospitals. We could find the stats on how many people are killed in driving accidents every year. Or how many of us have been affected by the poisons our crops are raised in.
Are you aware of how the meat on your plate gets there? I know very well how it gets there and I am nearly a vegetarian. Very rare that I eat meat, although once in a while I do.
There are SOOOO many ugly things in a society. But people who enjoy hunting, target shooting and a self defense weapon are going to argue with you about gun control.
People who love meat will argue with me about the wisdom of eating meat.
There are some bad doctors out there, even known to the medical community who are still practicing medicine. I know of one. IMO he shouldn't be working, but he is. And people will still trust him, because they haven't seen him in action making mistakes. I did, and so did a friend of mine. (He's an ER doctor.)
Anyway, the point is, stats are made to be tinkered with. To be understood properly they must be taken within the context of the study with which they were gathered, and you need to know who did the study.
Janet
I am in complete agreement with Taylor. Taking a life is taking a life. How it is done matters little. Despite the flawed arguments to the contrary, an abortion is a willful intention to deprive a human being of life. It is a moral outrage that a woman who murders her teenage children because they have mouthed off is tried for murder, yet someone who aborts their baby is construed as making a "personal choice" because it's "her body" and is considered perfectly innocent because it is the law of the land. I respect the law, but there is something terribly wrong with how it is applied. Only in cases of rape or where the baby is going to born with serious physical or mental birth defects should abortion be an option.
ReplyDeleteKen's suggestion that "stupidty" will never go away and that the government, i.e., the taxpayers, should be obligated to provide assistance for babies "forced" to be born should abortion ever be repealed is simply ludicrous. Being "stupid" is no excuse; it does not absolve any adult of responsibility for their actions. Since when does stupidity warrant provision at the expense of the taxpayers except in the case of incarceration and maintenance of convicts? This sort of thinking is what creates helplessness and indolence, not to mention deficits in budgets because "stupid" people eventually use it as a feeding trough that relieves them of taking full responsibility. This sort of thing grows and becomes more of a problem. We have all seen it.
Stupid people might be intellectually challenged, but all aren't so stupid as to not know what a condom is for. It's not realistic to expect people to act responsibly? Really? In what context but a "Bizarro World" would this apply to?
Those of you who think abortion is no big deal should arrange to watch one performed if you can. See how you feel about it after that.
Guns are not "bad" anymore than cars driven by drunk drivers are "bad" when they kill someone or when a terrorist uses one as a bomb.
JesuitMonkeyFan might say a lot of off-the-wall things, but he is spot on about the two parties; unlike FTL, he demonstrates a sample of what "free thinking" really is.