On my last nerve (and it’s still only the 3rd)

Weshallovergun

I felt compelled to go dig this up after reading today’s article on CNN, “Enough with Celebratory Gunfire.” After all, guns … or the bullets fired from them … kill a lot more people than the illegal fireworks I usually rant about this time of year, although that may still come … I’ve very few nerves left to accommodate the simulation of WWII that usually envelopes my neighborhood on the Fourth, although every single sszt and pop is illegal, not to mention the new booms that have already hit my house several times with a concussion similar to something dropped from a B-17. Is this some new kind of firework this year? Or, this being Colorado, maybe it’s just more hash oil explosions …



Categories: drinking, guns, holidays, Law, Society

24 replies

  1. . . . hoping for a rainy weekend . . . I know it sounds scrooge-ish, but I hate people not obeying rules or even laws.

    • Oh I’d love that. Thunderstorms all weekend (trouble is, my dog would be just as terrified). And It would wreck my kids’ plans for a Rapids game and fireworks show after. But otherwise, yeah, I like the way you think.

  2. We always pray for rain, too – where is it when you need it? Early evening would be perfect. No chance today. Where we used to live, the people on the street behind us would get all boozed up and then go buy a ton of fireworks that shoot in the air…onto everyone’s roofs….drove us nuts

  3. When the second Amendment was enacted, the only sidearms were single-shot muskets and militias were the order of the day so that a standing army wouldn’t be needed. The founders would be appalled at what it has become, including John Adams who encouraged the fireworks. I fear the celebration now may be the tail wagging the dog. (Our little dog, Winston, is tranquilized to the gills now.) I read the other day that only a tiny fraction of the people can name the freedoms embedded in the First Amendment.

    • . . . any of the Amendments . . .

      • You can be sure they all know “The right to bear arms!” (After all, it’s the only one that really counts, right?)

      • You know my feelings on it, so won’t repeat them, especially not here.

        . . . except that if people could pick and choose which rights others should have, then they would no longer be rights, would they?

        • … but somebody had to decide in the first place what those rights would be …

          hmm, not sure where I was going with that …

        • I hope this is not to late. “…except if people could pick and choose which rights others should have…”Our United States Constitution does in fact provide for A Bill Of Rights. Are these really a bill of rights or merely a suggestion of those rights?

          • John — “Our United States Constitution does in fact provide for A Bill Of Rights. Are these really a bill of rights or merely a suggestion of those rights?”

            Nit picking, I know, but actually the “Bill Of Rights” describes things that governments of all jurisdictions are prohibited from doing, or conversely required to do.

            The 9th and 10th amendments explain that if a prohibition against interfering with a right isn’t included then only the federal government is prohibited from interfering with it and that either the individual states, or the citizens themselves retain that right.

            As far as I can tell, none of the ten are merely “suggestions.”

    • Dang, every year I intend to ask about doggie downers for my poor Annie. But I’ve been too preoccupied lately. And she’s upset enough by my radical, unpredictable changes in daily routine.

    • By the same token: When the second amendment was enacted, the founders realized that freedom would depend on able bodied adults (who comprised the militia) having the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government using arms equivalent to whatever that tyrannical government could bring to bear.

      • @ ImA,

        I submit that the greatest threat to American freedoms is not a “tyrannical government,” but rather single-issue politics that inhibit any kind of rational discussion and compromise for the good of the country. If it comes down to shooting, the country is already lost.

        • You may be right but that doesn’t alter the fact that I mentioned.

          • You may be right but that doesn’t alter the fact that I mentioned.

            No it doesn’t, and in the context of the 18th century it was right-on. But as PT mentioned, somewhere, times have changed. In the Founders’ time, there weren’t automatic weapons or armored personnel carriers, etc.

            I hope you would agree that there are some arms that ought to be denied the average citizen: shoulder-launched missiles, land mines, artillery, mortars. Nuclear warheads? If that’s so, then doesn’t the argument comes down to where a rational society ought to draw the line?

            For a couple of decades I was on a libertarian bent too, so I think I understand where you’re coming from. At any moment, the only thing between me and a home invasion is my .410 shotgun in the closet, I forget which one.

            But, I think I have evolved past that. Unlike the agrarian society in 1787, society today is interdependent as never before, and not just nationally but globally. More than half of our stuff comes from overseas and our financial system is tied to all the others. Everything is specialized. Unless you are ready to start weaving your own cloth, raising your own food and manufacturing your own medicine, the rational thing to do, I submit, is to work within the system to make it better. Especially if you’re old, like I am. Statistics prove that reasonable gun laws and background checks would save thousands of lives. Isn’t that worth talking about?

      • Well if the citizenry is supposed to be able to match to government’s military might — that battle was lost long ago. And more small arms in the hands of civilians isn’t going to do a thing to change it.

        As for the political front, I very much fear that’s already been lost to the 1%.

        • Do you have any idea how that battle was lost? The details are listed in John Ross’ book “Unintended Consequences.” You may not be interested in those details, but maybe others are. Not far from tyrannical government, the Treasury Department won on appeal two years after having lost their case against two accused and suspected moonshiners for having an “illegal” weapon.

          • Not familiar with the case or the book. I just know it’s absurd to think citizens can win a shooting war against the US government (or to use that as a rationale for owning more and more guns).

  4. IF…our government could ban private gun ownership how many criminals will turn in THEIR guns? My answer is not one! We can’t even get the alcohol thing right or the illicit drug problem right,and remember those two substances have tight government control on them…and the humanists say things are getting better! NOT!!!

"Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance." ~ Plato

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: