It's The NRA's Fault!

Girl Killed in Kentucky Mass Shooting Handed to NRA as a Sacrifice by Aunt - Slog - The Stranger: The AP reports that Bailey Nicole Holt, a teen shot last week at a high school in a rural Kentucky community, was "the salt of the Earth." Of course, this is total bullshit.

[emphasis added]

And of course, that's a fair description of this .... editorial?   Opinion Piece?

This may be the most incoherent article by a (supposedly) professional journalist I've ever read.

It's rambling, poorly composed, and follows none of the rules for essay writing as defined in Strunk and White "elements of essay"; point/counterpoint; thesis/antithesis; etc.   (I hear that Strunk and White are dead; now I believe it!)

It's not that I necessarily disagree with the author's point; it's just that I'm not quite sure I know what the author was trying to say. 

Well ... he thinks "guns are bad"; that much is clear.   But it all seems to be an emotionally charged rambling hog-swill of rhetoric.    Did I mention "chaotic"?

I appreciate anti-gun essays which make me think; I don't agree with them, but I do grade them.

(Think of the old joke about the woman who said of lecherous advances: "I will not respond to them, but I will grade them!")

This one rates an "F" grade, but only because no lower ranking is available.

Yeah ... right!: (Virginia Guns Rules)

One gun a month, three guns a month , 20 guns a month ... who are they to determine what is the "correct number"  of guns should be appropriate for someone to exercise their Second Amendment Rights?

Assembly 2018: One-Gun-a-Month Bill Dies in Senate Courts | Community Idea Stations:

“When people roll up to New York and they laughing at how many guns they were able to collect in Richmond, that should be a problem for everyone. And to think those guns are all going in the hands of legal, law-abiding citizens, that's laughable, because you know it's not," he said. "We need the General Assembly to step up."

"Legal, law-abiding citizens?  What's the problem here?  Is it in your stars, or in your selves?

What?  Are they embarrassed because someone is "laughing about how many guns they were able to collect"?  How DARE they (Virginia Legislature) assume that the number of guns a month purchased should be considered an indicator of probity?

I never knew a politician who was so embarrassed by his constituents laughing at him that he took "stern measures";

The measure is one that both former Governor Doug Wilder and Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney have called for reinstating.
“There’s no reason that a person needs to have more than 12 guns in a year to go purchase. I think that’s just something that's common sense that needs to be brought back, it’s practical,” said Mayor Stoney.

If it were the First Amendment issue, they are liable to being  stoned by their constituents for their obvious willingness to restrict their constitutional right;  everybody like to shoot their mouth off,.

But a "Second Amendment issue" is different; not "everybody" likes to own guns, so it's an easy target.  (forgive the pun)  Not everybody is eager to shoot their guns off.

In contrast; how many statements in opposition to their opinions are to be legally allowable, and who may chose which statements (guns?) are permissible?

Who are they to decree what is the "Practical" number of guns a law-abiding citizen should purchase?

Are they merely embarrassed by "people who roll up to New York" and "laughing at how many guns the were able to collect in Richmond"?

Are Virginia legislators more concerned about their "image" than their service to their constituents?

Or is this something more personal? 
Is Virginia all that eager to obviate the Second Amendment Rights of its' citizens?

(Hard to believer, from one of the original 13 colonies!"

"the fault, dear brutus is not in our stars, but in our selves that we are underlinings"

"Trust, Yet Verify" ???

FBI director on privacy, electronic surveillance - CBS News: FBI Director James Comey speaks with Scott Pelley about our lives online and the need for government electronic surveillance, but only with a court order

(October 12, 2015)

"Smiling People Tell Lies"* ... but I'm inclined to pay attention to this interview.

At least he seems sincere.  Time will tell, and I'm always too contrary to accept what's said just because it's what I want to hear.

For now, we'll give him a "bye" and hope that he really is more open than J. Edgar was.



*yes, I know it's not the Temptations version, but that's 12+ minutes long.  You can go here to see it.

What part of "Free Speech" do you not understand?

The entire concept of "Free Speech Zones" on College campuses is Anathema.

The First Amendment was established to recognize the right of Americans to 'indulge' in 'unpopular speech'.   Anywhere.  Any time.   But Higher Education Institutions across America don't recognize this.

California college settles First Amendment suit with student | Fox News:

"Freedom of expression is crucial in the higher education community, and the District and its Board of Trustees have done much to protect and advance this cherished right," the statement read. "As part of the settlement, the District will be implementing new procedures that will expand its current free speech area to include most open spaces on campus ....... "

[emphasis added]

A student on a California campus spoke in a "free speech zone", and was not the subject of harassment by college administers.  But when he (literally) stepped over 'the line' to discuss the fine points of his opinion with another student, a college administrator threatened him.

 Claiming that a political discussion could not take place outside of the free speech zone, the unidentified school employee threatened to eject Sinapi-Riddle from campus for violating the policy.

Since when is "policy" more important that the Constitution?

What are we teaching our children?