Chris Herrington, Contributing Writer
If there were no guns on the planet, if the Chinese had never invented gun powder, if a million things, this would not be an issue, right?
People on the left, who allow abortion but abhor execution, want guns limited or even abolished. People on the right say that people are to blame and we need to keep the mentally challenged from getting them, but if we all carry guns, we can eliminate those who might attempt attacks. Those on the right abhor abortion, but they allow and support execution and assassination. If you make it to birth, the left says, you deserve every opportunity and concession. Once you are born, the right says, you are on your own and should not think for a minute that there will be any help coming from society at large. This same kind of thinking extended out can be quite odd. You may be born, and then welcomed if you make it. You will be born, but then it will be a battle to stay alive. We may get you before you’re born, but we will go after you after you’re born. Friendly world, right?
This is not unlike the gun control landscape. On the left, if we just take away the guns or limit access or limit certain guns, we will all be safer. We have more guns than people in Texas. That boat has sailed. On the right, all we need to do is mentally test everyone and find out if they should be allowed guns. In one minister’s mind the answer is that we have a sin problem. Well, that would be easily resolved; everyone who sins must turn in his or her weapons. That would be all guns, right? Or maybe we need to control all weapons, including hammers. Or the trouble is that weapons are stolen and then used to commit crimes. It seems to me that if we can’t stop others from stealing guns so that no regulations we have on their books will work, then we need to start with control over your own weapons. If gun owners cannot or will not control their own weapons, they should lose them. If your gun is stolen and used in a crime, you should share in the punishment if you have not reported the weapon stolen. And we should definitely test everyone in America for mental illness. I want to see those guidelines, especially for the paranoids and psychopaths.
While we are there, we can genetically test them to see if they are male or female, so that they can legally marry, since only those who are 100% male or 100% female need to be allowed to marry each other. Again, I want to see the test. Sometimes it seems to me that we open up cans of worms that don’t make for good fishing. We waste so much energy on fighting each other; it’s ridiculous. The reality is that everyone who stands to gain financially from these arguments should recuse him or herself. It seems a conflict of interest for gun sellers to argue for no gun control. Politicians get kickbacks, and so they are working with conflicts of interest. The oil industry is working to lower costs of course so they want to diminish regulations, even if it does put the entire oceanic eco-system at risk. The timber system seems to want to cover the planet in slash pine. Everyone is lobbying to put themselves into better economic positioning. The thought is that all the other corporations and entities will cut out a section of their own holdings for wildlife, habitat, national parks and clean water. No one wants to be the one who takes on that loss or makes that concession. And if people here in America complain about that, maybe we can hoodwink other countries into allowing us to crush their untapped resources. It’s just business.
Like gun sales. What we need is a planet of terrified people who need the latest arms so that everyone is paranoid and needs to rush out and spend all their money on guns. Well, that is Nirvana if you sell guns. No one would dispute that that tactic is working like a charm. With everyone terrified, and terrified they are going to lose access, and that they are going to lose their guns, it is no wonder that gun sales are being sold out in this perfect storm. And the sales machine is all up and ready.
Global warming is a question of pollution, but what is argued is proof of consequence. Really, the question is whether we should pollute at all. I think that ultimately it is not a case of “global warming” but rather death by cancer. If the law stated that all the executive had to live within ten miles of the industries they served, the rate of pollution would go way down. People are too far away from the consequences of their businesses. If gun producers and sellers had to meet with the victims of their trade, the families left by the abuse of these firearms, they might have a better sense of what they need to do to produce safer use.
So, we have a sin problem. Thoughtless distribution, unregulated access, sales and supply to a world that is not using these weapons as intended? What is the intent of having a military grade assault weapon at home? To protect your family against the military. I’m sure that Ruby Ridge and Waco create scenes of the need to protect. As well as that worked out. How many times have home owners successfully used assault weapons to deter burglars? Or didn’t their shot guns and hand guns work? What is conjured up is gun turrets in neighborhoods. With 50 cals lining the streets. Will this make us safer? Concrete planet, dead oceans, monocultured forests by Monsanto, and whole sub-divisions of paramilitary families living in compounds supported by Smith and Wesson. Hmmmmmm. Isn’t that called a death star?
runningturtle87
