Are you sure you want to delete this post?
First, I appreciate all responses to what I've had to say in my posts. Somebody's out there!!
Regarding my 3/9/14 dissertation, it seems I've given a wrong impression, perhaps in part
due to the mode of my expression!! "Hyperbole" was a critique term used by a respondee to me.
"Terminological terpsichore" (word-dances) is where it's at. Including sometimes compulsive
alliteration, I enjoy playing with words. Sometimes "devil's advocate" exaggeration is involved.
Just one example, I phrased "lunatic gun lobby" -- which was an understandable misunderstanding
of my intention by a respondant. (But it should be self-evident that the "gun lobby" is not the
population of gun-owners!! -- so I was not dissing anyone personally.)
Regarding gun ownership and gun owners, heaven forbid the ignorance, let alone futility, of any
attempt to disarm the armed populace of this country. Aside from the Constitutional entitlement
and guarantee, basic brain behavior should reveal that in a world of weapons' threats (perhaps
so far just latent) abroad -- as well as sporadically domestic . . . . actually being without any
means of self-defense may represent group naivite', though maybe not quite stupidity.
Some time or other ago I posted a couple discourses shortly following the Connecticut school
shooting. I thought I comprehensively presented a rational analysis of gun issues, including my
conclusion that getting trying to get rid of guns would accomplish weapons-worsenings (a la
I'm all in favor of gun ownership. A gun in one's home could very well be equivalent to a "fire-power
extinguisher" (should there come an armed intruder . . . or eventually insurgent force) . . An actual fire
extinguisher to put out actual flames should also be part of one's protection (and I would think required,
if not by law, by insurance companies!!!!)
I feel that the gun lobby can be faulted for its abject resistance to registering gun owners, & to some
format of background check prior to passing the pistol or other over the counter. Think of the myriad
situations (driver's license, insurance, hospital volunteer positions . . . . ) that require background
screening of the applicant's suitability for whatever. The "Gun Lobby Ludicry" may be that , given its
unquestionable influence/clout, it doesn't "legitimize" (even "elevate") its demographic and legislative
stance by establishing its own criteria. Thus gun-owners would become an "echelon of the qualified!!!"
I've never owned a gun. But if I were appraised that within X period of time the opportunity for one
to purchase a weapon would end, but ownership would be "grandfathered", I'd hasten out to procure
That's as simply as I can state my position on ownership per se. For me 'twould be a pistol.
Regarding types of weapon . . . another of my issues taken issue with . . . I should think the gun lobby itself
would back bans on the ballastic baddies . . . military-style assault weapons -- unless, by specific
licensing, for specific "extreme-target" competitions (for example). What rationale, what justification
for legal 100-round/seconds (+/-) firepower of a rifle when there's no outcry of threatened autonomy
or 2nd Amend. "confiscation" threat concerning someone owning a bazooka or grenade?
As far as there being "bumps in the road" to impede what I've written previously, I thought I'd
leveled the length and breadth of the lanes we travel. Criminalizing whatever, adds criminality to such
other concerns (so often subjective) as ethics or morality, kind of synergizing "sin" -- and locking it up
in contexts and confines such that the penal system may be the worse crime committed!!
Heaven forbid Sharia -- or Puritan "purity" and punishments -- though such cruelty might equal control.
But some regulation, registration, seems necessary to assure the Constitutional right of the "pursuit
of self-preservation" of all Americans.
Or should we do away with all testing and licensing because that might lead to the government taking
away our motorcycles . . . . ?