I have to wonder what weapons of mass destruction you refer to. Guns are not a weapon of mass destruction. Otherwise, several people would be killed with one shot, but in most cases with these shootings, it doesn't even come close to one person being killed per shot.
As for the "cowardly politicians" protecting Second Amendment rights, no. It's the cowardly politicians who are trying to eliminate or severely restrict these rights. You see, the founders of this nation did not trust a government that would not trust its people. They wrote this Amendment with the assumption that the majority of people are good, not bad. If a few people in the crowd at one of these massacres had guns, what do you think would happen? The massacre would be very short lived. Why do you think there are no massacres at a shooting range?
As for motive, let's look at some recent news about the man who shot up a church and missionary training center. Family recently spoke of how he felt depressed and rejected... and they say that he gave no signs that he was so close to exploding. One has to wonder what kind of sign they were expecting. A big flashing neon sign that says "future killer," perhaps? I've yet to see any signs like that with anyone. Don't blame guns, video games, or entertainment. Blame the killer first... then you can blame people who don't look past their own noses to see when someone needs help and friendship.
Well, when something bad happens, people tend to put too much focus on "never again!" without thinking about some of the essential liberties to be sacrificed for something like that to happen "never again." This is what Bush has built his entire presidency on. He's been inept on pretty much everything else, but manages to look strong on defense by making funny noises while pointing at a place on a map to be bombed next.
With life, there are always risks. You risk your life driving your car to work or to the supermarket. You risk your life walking where someone may mug you. What kind of life would one have without some risks, though? Would you want to sit shivering in the corner of a sealed off bunker for fear that someone or something may find its way in to kill you? I certainly would hope not.
Certainly, we should not allow people to get away with attacking us... but I don't think we should blunder into a situation we know nothing of, nor should we change our entire lives to cater to the fear of terrorism. When we do that, they win.
Hmm... didn't even know he did a show. My main beef with him was his bashing of the soldiers, and his holier than thou attitude, saying he's basically the only true anti-war person.
Randall Sobien here, and this goes to all who think I'm some evil ditto-head capitalist fundamentalist pig for criticizing Don.
First of all, perhaps I was overly harsh in my choice of words. Am I apologizing? No. I stand by what I say. It does not impress me to hear or watch people bashing our soldiers as though they were sub-human "professional hired killers to murder or command with no conscience." There is a famous photo from the time of the Vietnam War. The photo is of some National Guard troops who were deployed to a peace protest. In front of these troops with their guns drawn was one peace protestor. She had a beautiful smile on her face, and was holding a flower out to the troops as a kind of peace offering. There has been a lot of speculation about what was actually happening in that picture, but in an interview, the girl said that when she got up close enough, she saw the same fear she felt on <i>their</i> faces. She realized at that point that they were not just murderers/baby killers... they were humans with fears and emotion, same as her. We are all human, no more, no less.
Should you choose to call me a supporter of war, then you are putting your blatant ignorance on display. I support protecting our freedoms, and I support giving an occasional helping hand when needed. I do not support this war in Iraq, and in fact openly push for the Bush Administration to be investigated and tried accordingly for Treason (read Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution for the legal definition) as well as War Crimes. Capitalist? Yes, I am. I am not rich... I am a phone operator, and a freelance graphic artist on the side. I work hard for what little money that I have. I wish I had more, but that'll have to wait until I can get a college degree. Am I greedy about it? No. I do what I can to help others, whether it be teaching something I'm knowledgeable about, or donating some money toward a cause. There's nothing wrong with Capitalism, as the other option would basically be Communism. Capitalism is about rewarding work. Communism is equal shares of everything to everyone. Sure, Capitalism has flaws, but no system is without flaws.
While I do sympathize with your sentiments, I think you may also need just a bit of a reality check.
Humans evolved to be omnivores... that is to say, we were intended to eat both plants and animals. While I\'m fairly certain nature didn\'t intend for us to populate as much as we have, nature has not seen fit to change the fact that we are omnivores.
It is often thought that being a vegetarian is the only humane way to eat, but how do we know that? We do not. It is only assumed to be the case because plants don\'t make cute faces at us like animals do. Many of us assume that plants are not self-aware and therefore do not feel pain, though there is certain evidence that they do.
Nature is a wonderful thing. Do not make the mistake, however, of believing that she (nature) is nothing but kindness and cute fluffy animals. That being said, I found it to be nice that they were choosing the one to kill, passing over a mother of a calf who was too young to be without her, and the fact that they actually eat the meat of the ones killed rather than just making trophies out of them.
There are certain groups that one can judge as a whole- the KKK, for example. As a pagan, when I hear the term "Christian fundamentalist," I think of people who go by the exact word of the Bible. It may sound good on the surface, but keep in mind that the Bible has pretty specific instructions on how to deal with non-Christians and a number of other groups, usually involving a sword, spear, or fire.
However, devout Christians are not the same as fundamentalist Christians. A devout Christian, while they may be uncomfortable around people with different, though harmless, values, they realize that the Bible was written by mere mortals and that such judgements are best left to God.
You also may want to keep the First Amendment in mind- Freedom of Speech applies to all people and views that don't advocate violence; not just the views you agree with.
Thank you for being among the first to point this out. I'm no Bush fan... hell, I want the guy brought up on charges of Treason. But, I can think of a lot bigger things to worry about than a cuss word or two... like oh, perhaps the fact that we may be seeing WW3 (read: "Dubya-Dubya III") in the near future. And I do agree that something has to be done about this "shit."
...And I know if ever I held a political office, the press would have a field day with me. I'm very blunt spoken when irritated, and don't see that much point in changing it. I think it would suggest a certain level of honesty and being straight-forward.
Dammit, if I get snagged by a lynch mob, I'm going to haunt your offices! Heheh... I'm not actually angry (a bit flattered, really), but it certainly did catch me off guard that you published this one, too. My previous letter, "Age of Aquarius?", and/or the other person's response to it... well, let's just say I think I got my fifteen minutes of fame. I typed my name into the Yahoo! search engine about a week ago, and was finding the letters linked on about two pages worth of web addresses, one of them I think even being in Spain.
Ah well... heheh. Should you ever decide you're up for hiring another writer, I'm certainly game.
Another good point. Thanks for mentioning it, Kate.
I am Randall Sobien, the same one that wrote the "Age of Aquarius" letter, and I figured I should clear up a couple things here.
First off, considering the time span between the pilgrims and the American Revolution, calling the pilgrims our "founding fathers" would be a bit of a stretch.
Next off, in most countries, America included, history taught in schools is going to be biased. Consider Vlad the Impaler (AKA "Dracula")... in his homeland, he is considered a national hero. The ugly truth about our pilgrims however is that they were radicals of the first order, not all that much different from the Muslim radicals we so fear today... and yes, among other things, they did force their women to wear veils. They were essentially being kicked from one end of Europe to the other until everyone got tired of them and sent them here.
One interesting quirk I've noticed is that ultra-conservative parents will typically raise liberal kids... so they had a few generations to let the fanaticism die down, along with continuing contact with England to help calm things down. By the time of the Revolution, people here, while they had their own beliefs, saw the benefits of having a secular government system as opposed to one that answers to the church. Benjamin Franklin, while having his own beliefs, was one of the people fighting to make sure that America's government was secular. I also notice that you chose not to address my quote from our Treaty with Tripoli. That was written 6 years after the first Amendment became part of the Constitution... 1797 to be exact. It is credited to John Adams.
You chose to comment on my level of education in American History. I strongly suggest you do some independent reading beyond what you learned in elementary school. You may start by doing an internet search on some quotes from the founding fathers on the subject of religion, and not just the ones on Christian web sites. I am not going to hold an extended flame war with you, but I have presented you with the facts. Whether you listen to them or hold your hands over your ears, going "I'm not listening! Lalalala!" is entirely up to you... but bear in mind that the difference between stupidity and ignorance lies in one's willingness to learn.