Gum Control

Do you have any idea how many fillings and bridges end up lost in a sticky lump of chewing gum and are spit onto sidewalks and the lawns of anonymous neighbors?

I know I don't.

But that's not going to stop me from expressing my total outrage at what has become yet another example of crony capitalism in America.

There's not a single national law on the books for gum control.

There is no discussion in the press for the need for gum control.

Our allegedly concerned leadership __ and I include here President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and David Letterman __ have been completely mute about gum control.

The white wash and black out has created a grey zone of silence.

What can we conclude?

Only one thing.

The Bilderberg Group again has asserted its absolute control over our economy and the so-called representatives in our so-called institutions of representative democracy are in the pockets of the dental care industry.

Have you ever seen Grover Norquist chewing gum?

There's your answer!


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Dead kids sure are a bummer but….

 

I know the title is rude. It appears to be insensitive. Maybe even shocking.

But I honestly don't think I'm the one being insensitive and shocking here.

I've been sitting here in Japan since the Sandy Hook tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th, trying to imagine how a typical gun owner would complete that sentence.

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but you know what's a real bummer? Not being able to go to a gun show and buy anything I want by slapping some cash on the counter."

 

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but I'd really be bummed out if I couldn't own 57 handguns, shotguns, assault weapons and use hollow-point bullets."

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but can you imagine what a bummer it would be to have to put a new magazine in my AR-15 after getting off only 20 rounds?"

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but there's no way I'm going to take classes in gun safety or have some punk bureaucrat come around every year to check up on me."

What is a typical gun owner willing to give up so that any one of the the victims of the Newtown massacre whose photos appear in this article would be alive? And what is so important to a gun owner that the lives of these people, and the other thousands who are killed by gunfire every year, can be so easily dismissed?

 

Truth is, I have no idea why I'm even writing about this. Because trying to get significant changes in our attitudes about guns really isn't about laws and regulations. It's about becoming sane again. And I don't see that happening.

Here's how the gun-loving members of the American public responded to Sandy Hook: "Shock figures show buyers are racing for firearms in Sandy Hook school massacre state" and "Gun enthusiasts pack shows to buy assault weapons".

I love this:  "Gun backers want to arm schoolteachers"

My wife came up with this one:  BulletBlocker, 'Bullet Resistant Products'

Bulletproof backpacks for children?  Is it just me or does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

 

I understand the powerful appeal of guns. Maybe not as intensely as the gun nuts out there but I do understand. I even understand the need for the latest and greatest of everything. We've been conditioned to want to own the biggest, the baddest, the best. We just can't fall behind, you know.  

"Damn! My next door neighbor just got an AR-59 MICW. What if we get into an argument over how high to trim the hedge? I'll be outgunned!"

Okay. I know I'm rambling. I'm not being coherent or rational.

 

But the truth is, none of the discussions about guns and gun control are remotely coherent or rational. 

We can nitpick over the details of gun regulation but frankly the whole discussion is so far out off the edge, it's like a conversation in an insane asylum between Napoleon and Jesus about what they should do with Elvis over there in the corner to keep him from singing "All Shook Up" during arts and crafts.

Yes, it's that bad.

It's pure insanity.

It's pure insanity because when people flock to gun shows to buy more guns after a tragedy like this, it's akin to a lung cancer patient spending his life savings on cigarettes and giving them to all his friends and relatives.

 

It's pure insanity because not even the simplest, most sensible, least intrusive limitations can get through Congress.

It's pure insanity that we can't even ban weapons which have no other purpose than killing and killing fast, ones like the semi-automatic rifles used in so many recent gun massacres.

I got a Tweet from Yoko Ono a few days ago. It said ... "Over 1,057,000 people have been killed by guns in the USA since John Lennon was shot and killed on 8 Dec 1980."

Which brings me to the way I would complete the sentence.

"Dead kids sure are a bummer but we've gone completely insane, so even if we shed a few tears, we really don't care deep down inside where it counts." 

[ Insert prayers here for the America which is being lost, for the children who are being abandoned, for the death of the American Dream. ]
  
[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

 

If Jesus Had Been Packing

 

If Jesus had had a gun, they never would have been able to nail Him to the cross.

Then again . . . would He have refused to use it to defend Himself?

This is a gray area and things get a little confusing. Let's face it, He became a real rock star as a result of the "turn the other cheek" sound bite. On the other hand, Jesus threw quite a temper tantrum and tossed the moneylenders out of the Temple __ physically tossed them out, from what I gather. It was His Steven Seagal moment.

Certainly we can conclude from this, the Guy was no wuss. At the same time, we have no record of Him punching anyone in the face or dropping kicking anyone's family jewels, much less offing them by whatever instruments of slaughter were available at the time.

Yet seeing some big hairy brutes coming at you with massive hammers and nails the size  of a jack handle is definitely going to push some buttons. If He had anything resembling a fight-or-flight reflex, it's not unreasonable to assume that had a handgun been available, He would have emptied a few rounds into his beefy assailants and made for the hills.

What kind of weapons would Our Savior have been packing, assuming all options were    on the table? Hard to say with any certainty. But He wasn't much for mincing words. So it seems reasonable to assume He would not have made some lame choice when it came to arming Himself. I'm no expert so I'm just guessing here. But I surmise He would have had the nice and punchy Sig Sauer P228 within easy reach __ strapped to His thigh under His robes __ and had a kick-ass semi-automatic assault weapon slung over His shoulder. This would've given Him both the solace of being able to mount a quick response and the necessary firepower in case He needed to spray some serious lead around.

What kind of assault weapon would have been the Savior of Mankind's first choice. The popularity of the Bushmaster AR-15 certainly makes it the obvious frontrunner. But I personally think he would have gone with the Israeli IMI Tavor TAR-21. After all, Jesus was a Jew and there's got to be some basic loyalty at work. But practically speaking, the IMI Tavor TAR-21 is one sweet killing machine. It's compact, relatively light and great at close and medium range. Those Romans getting ready to nail the Big Guy to the cross wouldn't have stood a chance. Blam! Blam! Blam! Bye-bye, motherfuckers!

How about munitions?

Being generally disposed in His preaching to encourage His devoted flock to always show compassion, I think He would have chosen standard issue bullets and only considered using hollow-points as a last resort.

The most important thing to appreciate when thinking about Jesus Christ packing any kind of weaponry is the powerful message it sends. After all, who could possibly take seriously the word of a man who isn't willing to stand up for what he believes in? Who won't stand strong in the face of opposition. Who lets himself be bullied and threatened. Who isn't man enough to look some smart aleck punk Roman soldier in the eye and say, "Make my day!"

I'm certainly not saying Jesus would have gone around and indiscriminately brandished His weapons of choice every time He got in a fix. Being the Prince of Peace, He would have been the last to lock and load. But that's the beauty of guns. You don't have to use them to make your point or at least to let others know you're not going down without a fight.

All I'm saying is that if Jesus had been packing that day they crucified Him, those Roman thugs would have had second thoughts about nailing Him up like a raggedy ann door prize at the county fair. He wouldn't have died for our sins and . . .

Uh-oh.

We'd all go to Hell.

Hmm . . .

That would be bad.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Aw shucks, Jethro . . . it’s just a damn gun!

 

As you know, I live in Japan. Here's something to think about.

INTENTIONAL HOMICIDES LAST YEAR:

USA . . . 12,996

Japan . . . 506

Gun ownership is strictly regulated in here.

It takes several years even to obtain a hunting license. Meeting someone with any type of gun, even a hunting rifle, is an extreme rarity in Japan.

Do you think the statistics are just a coincidence?


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

The Right To Bear Nuclear Arms

My lovely Japanese wife frequently asks me about gun ownership in America. In Japan, it's difficult, if not impossible, to buy a gun. So when there are incidents of gun violence in America __ and there have been many recently __ she understandably questions the prudence of having so many guns around.

I explain that written in the U.S. Constitution __ specifically the Second Amendment __ is a clause which protects the right of U.S. citizens to possess and use all sorts of guns for a variety of commonly accepted purposes, hunting and self-defense chief among them.

She has several times asked me, "Is it really that easy to buy a gun there?"

I came across this article:  "Amazon ships assault rifle instead of television".

Apparently it's not only easy, it's actually difficult to not buy a gun. This guy just wanted a nicer screen to watch TV and movies and ended up with a full-blown assault weapon.

I got to thinking about the whole thing and came to a surprising conclusion. The rationale for having so many weapons at our itchy fingertips springs from the powerhouse argument contained in this pithy gem of philosophical analysis . . .

Guns don't kill people. People kill people!

Since this is irrefutable logic, I began to wonder why it has been applied so narrowly. The truth is, guns are just one form of lethal entertainment. Thanks to the amazing advances in science and technology, there is a cornucopia of devices which fit the legal definition of "arms" as referred to in our Constitution. It seems to me, the legal framework and the rationale would apply equally to nuclear weapons.

Now, narrow interpreters of the Bill of Rights might say:  "There's nothing in there about the right to bear nuclear arms."

I say:  "So what? There's nothing in there excluding them!"
Conservatives argue that government should be about increasing the options of its citizenry, or at least staying out of the way so that all of the options are on the table. Normally, I'm not one to agree with people on the right end of the political spectrum. Grudgingly I admit the wisdom of their arguments here is just too overwhelming.

So let's go for it! After all . . .

Hand grenades don't kill people. People kill people!

Stinger missiles don't kill people.  People kill people!

Cluster bombs don't kill people. People kill people!

Predator drones don't kill people. People kill people!

Nerve gas doesn't kill people. People kill people!

Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people!

Just think about how much fun we can have if we're not restricted to only using sawed-off shotguns and assault weapons! It'll be awesome! And finally, hunters will regain the upper hand from those pesky critters out there who have been outwitting them and managed to keep from being slaughtered into extinction. We'll show 'em who's boss around here!

Understandably there have to be a few controls in place. You can't just have anybody and everybody driving around with WMDs in the trunk of their SUV or family station wagon. But with some reasonable waiting period and background check, I don't see why this couldn't work. Permits could be issued as they now are with handguns . . .

The bearer of this permit, offering appropriate corroborative identification, is entitled to possess and use within applicable limits and restrictions, explosive nuclear devices up to 50 kiloton explosive equivalency, as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

It's time to claim our rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and realize the profound wisdom of the founding fathers.

It's time that we be able to put in that munitions cache which has become the hallmark of a safe and happy American home, all of weaponry available today, including nuclear bombs.

It's time to assert our constitutionally protected right!

The right to bear nuclear arms.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]