I want you to know, that I too have played the snarkastic and ptihy, the smackdown and the malicious jibe games. But generally when I do make such remarks, it is either among those whom I call friends, and understand that I really am not trying to belittle them, even if I am having a tad bit of fun at their expense, or that I have run out of a legitimate argument and have made the futile attempt at attacking character, until I have regained my composure and rallied my facts, thoughts and opinions to continue debate.
SO, why am I whining, you ask. Good question. Well, it started with the Sprint commercials. The neighbor who disses his neighbor while talking about all of his Sprint features for $69.99. And the couple at lunch when she dumps him with all of the features she has, because, don't worry it only costs me $69.99 a month for all of them. But what finally got me was that curly headed blond in the Toyota commercials. I don't condone any sort of violence against children, but I so want to put a boot in this kids ass. No, I take that back. It's not really the kid or the other actors/actresses that I dislike, it is the writers of this SHIT that I really want to knock into next week. Them and all of the other folks who have "popularized" making being sarcastic, acerbic, caustic, snarky, ill-mannered and just plain incivility acceptable. When did being rude become acceptable? When did talking down to EVERYONE who isn't within your little circle become OK? People give lip to their elders, the "authoritites", their parents, their peers, their subordinates, hell even their superiors and then have the gall to blame them when they have this WTF? look on their face.
Can we please bring back civil? Whatever humor there might have been in acting like this, has as far as I am concerned played itself out. Please, Thank You, Excuse Me, and You're Welcome are more than just phrases we teach our children, while we forget to use them ourselves.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. Hope the commentary is at least semi-civil. LMAO.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Sex and the Involuntary Celibate
Well, with a little luck I will have gotten somebody's attention and get them to read this. LOL
The topic o' discussion is indeed more about sex, and less about involutary celibacy...doubt anyone wishes to hear my woes in that regard. Hopefully I shan't wander and ramble too much, but I will warn you that the trip may be circuitous.
The reason that this topic has arisen is that a couple few conversations in the last few days have come up and it brought up some thoughts, and those then rattled around in my head until I decided to sit down here.
First topic of discussion, is that SEX IS NOT BAD, IT IS NOT DIRTY, IT IS NOT SINFUL. That being said, I will grant that it can be used to cause harm. Sexual interactions where all involved are not willing, consenting participants is wrong - legally, morally, ethically, emotionally, mentally.
But when those who have the capacity to make decisions and consent to participate in sexual intercourse with others does not in and of itself make any of the peole involved bad. In the particular discussion, the person speaking to me stated at differnt times that she was a "good" girl up until a particular age, and that her child was still "good" as far as she knew. I won't attempt to convince her that she or the child are not "good" or "bad" because they have had sex, but seriously what are we teaching ourselves and our progeny when we look at whther a person is considered good, or worthy, or the like depending upon whether they have had sex (in or out of marriage - but that's for further down in the discussion, so for the moment...).
There is nothing wrong with people wanting to have sex. It is a basic drive of our species...to propogate. Obviously, we want those who are mature enough to handle the risks and consequences of sexual interaction to be the one's who participate in the act, expecially when they are the most ill-prepared for the raising of children (IOW children shouldn't be raising children of their own). But if it we're based upon mental age versus chronological age, there would be a lot of people who may be over 18 years of age who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.
But alas, humans don't only have sexual congress just for the sole purpose of having little ones to carry on our lineage. No we have been blessed (I'm sure some would say cursed, but I believe these same would consider sesx to be a dirty little thing that is done only out of the necessity) to be able to see that sexual unions have more to them than just the possibility of reproduction. We also have sex for pleasure. We have sex for the intimacy it brings to a relationship. We have sex for the spiritual awakenings that it can engender. For the emotional connections that it can bring.
I classify sex into two categories, recreational and intimate. I am not against recreational sex, so long as both individuals going into it, understand that there is no emotional attachment, no intimacy involved beyond the baring of one's body to another, and that ALL precautions are taken to prevent a preganancy (due to the fact that there is no bond between the individuals and thus the likelihood that one of the parents; possibly both; will not want the child). Sadly, the case where BOTH parties are of this understanding is rare. WHile there is consent on both parties part, one tends to lead the other into believing that they are as invested into a long-term relationship that they really are so that they can have sex, but once they have achieved that goal, they move on to their next "victim". This is a tragedy and a travesty. Instead of making sex fun, and instead of making people who are wanting and willing to seek long term relations, they instead become fearful of being used, and reluctant to invest themselves physically, mentally, emotionally into another relationship. It makes them mistrustful and disenchanted about those who could actually be potential good fits.
Now, this is not to say that those who aren't intimately involved with each other can't have recreational sex (the quickie or the weekend marathon or what have you). But when we talk of intimate sex, and being intimate, sex is not also just for purely pleasurable purposes, but is also engaged in so that the partners express their love, their vulnerability and acceptance that the other will not take advantage of or misuse that vulnerability, to deepen the connections between them. To bind them together in a the most phsycially, emotionally, spiritually charged act to strengthen that bond that ties them together.
It is this second type of sexual unioin that is the one that should bring about children. This is the type of union that most desire when they have sex with someone, and while it may not be illegal, I believe it is immoral to lead another to believe that this is what you are seeking when in reality it is a casual, recreational union that you are really after.
For those of us who believe that there is a God, and for those who believe that that Creator had a hand in the creation of Mankind, I believe that like free-will, and the inquisitive rational mind that was bestowed upon us, sex was also one of the individual gifts (unlike the communal gifts like this planet and the natural wonders about us) that we have been given. Therefore, sex is not sinful in and of itself. It is not something one should be ashamed of. It is not dirty. It should not be viewed as a chore or only for JUST the creation of more children. Thoughts like that pervert this gift, and the spiritual connection that it brings not only to our partner, but to that creator when we fully allow ourselves to be consumed by the act of giving and receiving of oneself to another.
So...who has what to say on this subject. THoughts, opinions, damnations? Anyone?
The topic o' discussion is indeed more about sex, and less about involutary celibacy...doubt anyone wishes to hear my woes in that regard. Hopefully I shan't wander and ramble too much, but I will warn you that the trip may be circuitous.
The reason that this topic has arisen is that a couple few conversations in the last few days have come up and it brought up some thoughts, and those then rattled around in my head until I decided to sit down here.
First topic of discussion, is that SEX IS NOT BAD, IT IS NOT DIRTY, IT IS NOT SINFUL. That being said, I will grant that it can be used to cause harm. Sexual interactions where all involved are not willing, consenting participants is wrong - legally, morally, ethically, emotionally, mentally.
But when those who have the capacity to make decisions and consent to participate in sexual intercourse with others does not in and of itself make any of the peole involved bad. In the particular discussion, the person speaking to me stated at differnt times that she was a "good" girl up until a particular age, and that her child was still "good" as far as she knew. I won't attempt to convince her that she or the child are not "good" or "bad" because they have had sex, but seriously what are we teaching ourselves and our progeny when we look at whther a person is considered good, or worthy, or the like depending upon whether they have had sex (in or out of marriage - but that's for further down in the discussion, so for the moment...).
There is nothing wrong with people wanting to have sex. It is a basic drive of our species...to propogate. Obviously, we want those who are mature enough to handle the risks and consequences of sexual interaction to be the one's who participate in the act, expecially when they are the most ill-prepared for the raising of children (IOW children shouldn't be raising children of their own). But if it we're based upon mental age versus chronological age, there would be a lot of people who may be over 18 years of age who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.
But alas, humans don't only have sexual congress just for the sole purpose of having little ones to carry on our lineage. No we have been blessed (I'm sure some would say cursed, but I believe these same would consider sesx to be a dirty little thing that is done only out of the necessity) to be able to see that sexual unions have more to them than just the possibility of reproduction. We also have sex for pleasure. We have sex for the intimacy it brings to a relationship. We have sex for the spiritual awakenings that it can engender. For the emotional connections that it can bring.
I classify sex into two categories, recreational and intimate. I am not against recreational sex, so long as both individuals going into it, understand that there is no emotional attachment, no intimacy involved beyond the baring of one's body to another, and that ALL precautions are taken to prevent a preganancy (due to the fact that there is no bond between the individuals and thus the likelihood that one of the parents; possibly both; will not want the child). Sadly, the case where BOTH parties are of this understanding is rare. WHile there is consent on both parties part, one tends to lead the other into believing that they are as invested into a long-term relationship that they really are so that they can have sex, but once they have achieved that goal, they move on to their next "victim". This is a tragedy and a travesty. Instead of making sex fun, and instead of making people who are wanting and willing to seek long term relations, they instead become fearful of being used, and reluctant to invest themselves physically, mentally, emotionally into another relationship. It makes them mistrustful and disenchanted about those who could actually be potential good fits.
Now, this is not to say that those who aren't intimately involved with each other can't have recreational sex (the quickie or the weekend marathon or what have you). But when we talk of intimate sex, and being intimate, sex is not also just for purely pleasurable purposes, but is also engaged in so that the partners express their love, their vulnerability and acceptance that the other will not take advantage of or misuse that vulnerability, to deepen the connections between them. To bind them together in a the most phsycially, emotionally, spiritually charged act to strengthen that bond that ties them together.
It is this second type of sexual unioin that is the one that should bring about children. This is the type of union that most desire when they have sex with someone, and while it may not be illegal, I believe it is immoral to lead another to believe that this is what you are seeking when in reality it is a casual, recreational union that you are really after.
For those of us who believe that there is a God, and for those who believe that that Creator had a hand in the creation of Mankind, I believe that like free-will, and the inquisitive rational mind that was bestowed upon us, sex was also one of the individual gifts (unlike the communal gifts like this planet and the natural wonders about us) that we have been given. Therefore, sex is not sinful in and of itself. It is not something one should be ashamed of. It is not dirty. It should not be viewed as a chore or only for JUST the creation of more children. Thoughts like that pervert this gift, and the spiritual connection that it brings not only to our partner, but to that creator when we fully allow ourselves to be consumed by the act of giving and receiving of oneself to another.
So...who has what to say on this subject. THoughts, opinions, damnations? Anyone?
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Revisionist History
I have just completed reading a book that dealt with Eugenics in America. The creation of a Master Race and a war against the weak was not something that Adolf Hitler dreamed up all on his own. No, he got the idea from the United States of America, and was even lauded by these American "scientists" for his work in the realm of bettering humanity.
Wow! I was flabbergasted. I was stunned. I was appalled. I was enlightened. I was upset that in all of the years that I took history in school, in college, I never once heard of this. I had heard mention of it a few years back and did a little web searching, but even most of those glossed over this.
So I got to thinking (yes, as always it hurt, but it generally is worth the pain), how much of our history has been glossed over? How much has been given a veneer? How much has been extracted, twisted or bent?
I will grant that a concise history would be the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and be of no use in a classroom, but still...if learning from hitory is supposed to prevnet us from making the mistakes of the past, how can we learn of those mistakes if they are kept hidden or minimized to such an extent that they don't even appear to be mistakes at all, but some minor glitch in the fabric of the tapestry of history.
I currently work in a school for children with special needs, and I also have a brother who is severly handicapped by cerebral palsey. Eugenics had it been implemented to its fullest extent would have most likely eliminated these children, one of my own blood, for being born as defective. The few that might have been allowed to survive, would have been sterilized without anyone's consent to prevent the possibility of their contaminating the gene pool. When I attempted to discuss these possibilities with a couple of my colleagues, they to a one asked, "What is eugenics?" While I don't expect everyone to recall history, especially a horrible period of it such as WWII, nor a "science" that lived much longer than it ought to have, but I would think that it would be beneficial to those who educate and care for our disabled would at least be aware of certain ugly parts of our past that dealt with the population of which they now serve.
Regardless of how it may tarnish some of our hero's repuations, or possibly even show the possibility that the villians in our history had good sides, no matter the feelings that it may engender, I believe that we need a true and unbiased work of our history. I know that there are things that I am disappointed that our country has been involved in. That there have been times when our nation, the bright shining beacon of republican democracy that it is, has not always lived up to the standards and ideals of what she represents. Not because of her own failings, but because those in power at this or that point in our story have taken upon themselves to do things which they believed to be in our interests even if it was later deemed to be detrimental to it instead. I want to know, you should want to know. It may not always be pretty, but I know for me, it will give me an even greater voice in making sure that those in government do NOT repeat the mistakes of our past, because at least some of us have learned and do not want to see those mistakes made again.
Thanks again for your time and look forward to discussion.
Wow! I was flabbergasted. I was stunned. I was appalled. I was enlightened. I was upset that in all of the years that I took history in school, in college, I never once heard of this. I had heard mention of it a few years back and did a little web searching, but even most of those glossed over this.
So I got to thinking (yes, as always it hurt, but it generally is worth the pain), how much of our history has been glossed over? How much has been given a veneer? How much has been extracted, twisted or bent?
I will grant that a concise history would be the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and be of no use in a classroom, but still...if learning from hitory is supposed to prevnet us from making the mistakes of the past, how can we learn of those mistakes if they are kept hidden or minimized to such an extent that they don't even appear to be mistakes at all, but some minor glitch in the fabric of the tapestry of history.
I currently work in a school for children with special needs, and I also have a brother who is severly handicapped by cerebral palsey. Eugenics had it been implemented to its fullest extent would have most likely eliminated these children, one of my own blood, for being born as defective. The few that might have been allowed to survive, would have been sterilized without anyone's consent to prevent the possibility of their contaminating the gene pool. When I attempted to discuss these possibilities with a couple of my colleagues, they to a one asked, "What is eugenics?" While I don't expect everyone to recall history, especially a horrible period of it such as WWII, nor a "science" that lived much longer than it ought to have, but I would think that it would be beneficial to those who educate and care for our disabled would at least be aware of certain ugly parts of our past that dealt with the population of which they now serve.
Regardless of how it may tarnish some of our hero's repuations, or possibly even show the possibility that the villians in our history had good sides, no matter the feelings that it may engender, I believe that we need a true and unbiased work of our history. I know that there are things that I am disappointed that our country has been involved in. That there have been times when our nation, the bright shining beacon of republican democracy that it is, has not always lived up to the standards and ideals of what she represents. Not because of her own failings, but because those in power at this or that point in our story have taken upon themselves to do things which they believed to be in our interests even if it was later deemed to be detrimental to it instead. I want to know, you should want to know. It may not always be pretty, but I know for me, it will give me an even greater voice in making sure that those in government do NOT repeat the mistakes of our past, because at least some of us have learned and do not want to see those mistakes made again.
Thanks again for your time and look forward to discussion.
In the Beginning, Pt II
***As you may notice, much of this entry is also posted as additional content on my very first entry. I was/am doing some "house cleaning" and cut & pasted that in before realizing I had made this post. ***
Some of you may have seen this, as it was originally published under a different blogspot that I accidentally created on 12/20/10. Sadly, my tech savvy was incompatible with naming a blog and naming a particular entry. So here goes...
I wasn't planning on running two blogs at once, but I'm an idiot sometimes. Combine that with fat fingering the keyboard, and you have the perfect storm of confusion.
In this particular blog I am going to be more personal, and hope that folks will take that to heart when they attempt to rip me a new one. I still expect civility in the commentary. SO, here goes.
I was raised in what is best described as a Christian home. My mother was church-going and my father became agnostic after my older brother was diagnosed with cerebral palsey. The particul denomination shall remain nameless, because there are still far toomany who don't deem it to be a Christian church at all, but a cult. Sigh.
Anyhow, as I begin my fifth decade of life on this planet, I have become disillusioned with organized religion. I typify myself as areligious. I still very much believe in God; I am a deist. I also lean to pan-theism - the idea that all religions (at there core) are striving to return their followers to some sort of union or communion with God (or a higher power, a higher level of being from this mortal realm).
Yes, yes, I know there is currently a book out about how God is NOT one. And in some respects I do agree with the author. We cannot unite people of varying religious beliefs by claiming that this version of God and that version of God are compatible, and tha "our" religions are thus compatible. That is not true. They can't be, they aren't or the religions would have found commonality long before now. God is God, but how different cultures, and how even people who have culture in common, but believe in and conceive of God differently means that how God is thought of is different.
I also still believe in a figure called Jesus Christ. Even with all of my questions and doubts about the life this person led during what is NOT reported in the Bible, I think that he taught a very compelling way to live. And I attempt to live up to it, though being an imperfect man, I fail as often as I accomplish this goal.
Questions about Christ you say. How can anyone have questions. All that needs to be known is in the Bible, right. I say no. What was his life like from about age 12 to age 30. Where did he go, Did he not teach and preach and learn and grow during this time? If he is the savior of mankind, why did he limit himself to an out of the way spot in what is now known as the Middle East. Why wouldn't he get married? If he didn't get married isn't that odd? He should have been a husband and father by this time in his life. It would have been out of place and made him less likely to be taken seriously were he not, wouldn't it? Where does what Saul/Paul say that Christ taught find it's basis in one of the Gospels?
Along with my other "ist's" I am also a peaceist. A peaceist is differnt than a pacifist, in that turning the other cheek does not mean that evil is not fought against. That righteous anger has a place, and that defense of self and others is a good and right act. If we are made in the image of God, then allowing ourselves to NOT protect that image is not showing love to God. Not protecting other human beings from evil is not showing love to God nor to our fellow man; thus violating both the first and second greatest commandments. One does not preemptively strike, as a peacist. One does not seek to have a physical confrontation, but should evil arise, and it becomes necessary to protect the life of yourself or of those you love, know or even of a stranger threatened by evil, one will act.
So, I have opened myself up to you. I have made myself vulnerable to your thoughts, your words, your. I hope a healthy discussion ensues.
Some of you may have seen this, as it was originally published under a different blogspot that I accidentally created on 12/20/10. Sadly, my tech savvy was incompatible with naming a blog and naming a particular entry. So here goes...
I wasn't planning on running two blogs at once, but I'm an idiot sometimes. Combine that with fat fingering the keyboard, and you have the perfect storm of confusion.
In this particular blog I am going to be more personal, and hope that folks will take that to heart when they attempt to rip me a new one. I still expect civility in the commentary. SO, here goes.
I was raised in what is best described as a Christian home. My mother was church-going and my father became agnostic after my older brother was diagnosed with cerebral palsey. The particul denomination shall remain nameless, because there are still far toomany who don't deem it to be a Christian church at all, but a cult. Sigh.
Anyhow, as I begin my fifth decade of life on this planet, I have become disillusioned with organized religion. I typify myself as areligious. I still very much believe in God; I am a deist. I also lean to pan-theism - the idea that all religions (at there core) are striving to return their followers to some sort of union or communion with God (or a higher power, a higher level of being from this mortal realm).
Yes, yes, I know there is currently a book out about how God is NOT one. And in some respects I do agree with the author. We cannot unite people of varying religious beliefs by claiming that this version of God and that version of God are compatible, and tha "our" religions are thus compatible. That is not true. They can't be, they aren't or the religions would have found commonality long before now. God is God, but how different cultures, and how even people who have culture in common, but believe in and conceive of God differently means that how God is thought of is different.
I also still believe in a figure called Jesus Christ. Even with all of my questions and doubts about the life this person led during what is NOT reported in the Bible, I think that he taught a very compelling way to live. And I attempt to live up to it, though being an imperfect man, I fail as often as I accomplish this goal.
Questions about Christ you say. How can anyone have questions. All that needs to be known is in the Bible, right. I say no. What was his life like from about age 12 to age 30. Where did he go, Did he not teach and preach and learn and grow during this time? If he is the savior of mankind, why did he limit himself to an out of the way spot in what is now known as the Middle East. Why wouldn't he get married? If he didn't get married isn't that odd? He should have been a husband and father by this time in his life. It would have been out of place and made him less likely to be taken seriously were he not, wouldn't it? Where does what Saul/Paul say that Christ taught find it's basis in one of the Gospels?
Along with my other "ist's" I am also a peaceist. A peaceist is differnt than a pacifist, in that turning the other cheek does not mean that evil is not fought against. That righteous anger has a place, and that defense of self and others is a good and right act. If we are made in the image of God, then allowing ourselves to NOT protect that image is not showing love to God. Not protecting other human beings from evil is not showing love to God nor to our fellow man; thus violating both the first and second greatest commandments. One does not preemptively strike, as a peacist. One does not seek to have a physical confrontation, but should evil arise, and it becomes necessary to protect the life of yourself or of those you love, know or even of a stranger threatened by evil, one will act.
So, I have opened myself up to you. I have made myself vulnerable to your thoughts, your words, your. I hope a healthy discussion ensues.
Idiots with Guns
For some this is going to just be the ravings of another one of those gun nuts. And since they immediately formed their opinion on who/what I am after reading that, they have completely and utterly ignored the entireity of the rest of this post, or if they are still slightly open-minded read it only picking out what confirms their bias against me. For them, I'm sorry that I find that hunk of steel, and wood/plastic to be as much a beautiful work of art, and an indespenible tool as much as anything else that it can be.
Let me begin with the most trite and cliche of sentiments...Guns don't kill people; People with guns kill people. But alas, even if we were to take away all of the guns in the world, then it would be the people with knives, with explosives, with baseball bats, and frying pans, and cars, and on and on ad nauseum. Granted, a gun is a tool designed to wound and to kill. I will not argue that. But the many millions of people who own them legitimately and have nothing but good within them, do not go out because they have a gun and randomly shoot people for no apparent good reason. They do not rob, or intimidate or kill indiscriminately. God forbid, that should they have to use a gun to shoot at another human being, they had to do so in defense of themselves or of their loved ones, or in those rare circumstances when it seems prudent their property (I only include property because it is legal in some jurisdictions and there are some items of property that it might be better that the person taking that is stopped, rather than allowing them to continue). The taking of another life or attempting to do so for the majority of people is repugnant, and even if justified, they will NOT be the same. They will be traumatized. They will question their own morality, their sanity, their very core values, and how they can reconcile themselves to what has happened. And that is if they were justified.
But alas, when a tragedy occurs where some person with evil intent in their heart uses a firearm, we hear more about the gun than we do about the why's of the individual who created the tragedy. The gun is considered to be the evil. Like it "spoke" to the person and made them do it. I won't try to say that this person wouldn't have done what they did if they hadn't been able to obtain a fire arm. I won't be that naive. What other objects could they have used when targeting the Congresswoman? A car driven into the crowd. A homemade bomb. A knife. Some of those objects could have been wielded just as easily and caused as much dmage or more, some less and maybe even no deaths.
If we are going to talk about guns, then let us talk about how to find ways to keep them out of the hands of criminals. How to teach people that they are NOT a means of settling petty disputes (let us talk about the various forms of media that seem to inculcate society with the idea that this is, while unacceptable, a viable, method of dealing with any problem). Let us NOT impose even more draconian laws upon the public. With approximately 42,000 laws in our nation (federal, state and local) that impose restrictions upon the ownership, storage, concealment, carrying, use, display and other various and sundry aspects of firearms, I think that we have enough "well-regulation" of the militia and it is time to focus on the real problem...those who would use any tool or device with evil intnt and malice to deny someone of their life, their liberty or of their property with out recompense, those who would terrorize and subjugate.
Let the discussion begin.
Let me begin with the most trite and cliche of sentiments...Guns don't kill people; People with guns kill people. But alas, even if we were to take away all of the guns in the world, then it would be the people with knives, with explosives, with baseball bats, and frying pans, and cars, and on and on ad nauseum. Granted, a gun is a tool designed to wound and to kill. I will not argue that. But the many millions of people who own them legitimately and have nothing but good within them, do not go out because they have a gun and randomly shoot people for no apparent good reason. They do not rob, or intimidate or kill indiscriminately. God forbid, that should they have to use a gun to shoot at another human being, they had to do so in defense of themselves or of their loved ones, or in those rare circumstances when it seems prudent their property (I only include property because it is legal in some jurisdictions and there are some items of property that it might be better that the person taking that is stopped, rather than allowing them to continue). The taking of another life or attempting to do so for the majority of people is repugnant, and even if justified, they will NOT be the same. They will be traumatized. They will question their own morality, their sanity, their very core values, and how they can reconcile themselves to what has happened. And that is if they were justified.
But alas, when a tragedy occurs where some person with evil intent in their heart uses a firearm, we hear more about the gun than we do about the why's of the individual who created the tragedy. The gun is considered to be the evil. Like it "spoke" to the person and made them do it. I won't try to say that this person wouldn't have done what they did if they hadn't been able to obtain a fire arm. I won't be that naive. What other objects could they have used when targeting the Congresswoman? A car driven into the crowd. A homemade bomb. A knife. Some of those objects could have been wielded just as easily and caused as much dmage or more, some less and maybe even no deaths.
If we are going to talk about guns, then let us talk about how to find ways to keep them out of the hands of criminals. How to teach people that they are NOT a means of settling petty disputes (let us talk about the various forms of media that seem to inculcate society with the idea that this is, while unacceptable, a viable, method of dealing with any problem). Let us NOT impose even more draconian laws upon the public. With approximately 42,000 laws in our nation (federal, state and local) that impose restrictions upon the ownership, storage, concealment, carrying, use, display and other various and sundry aspects of firearms, I think that we have enough "well-regulation" of the militia and it is time to focus on the real problem...those who would use any tool or device with evil intnt and malice to deny someone of their life, their liberty or of their property with out recompense, those who would terrorize and subjugate.
Let the discussion begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)