So "adding more laws on top of other laws on top of other laws"- "it's not going to make a difference" is what the man from VCDL says. So then, why pass H.R. 822? What difference would that law make given the statement in the video by the pro gun guy? States already have their own laws about who can carry guns, requirements for permits and where they can carry them. Do we need another law on top of those? Hypocrisy in action.
Then another VCDL member says that the "government should not be the enemy of honest people and that's the situation we've got here." Really? Is that the situation? The fact that the Universities do not want loaded guns to be carried around on their campuses, as actually the majority of people agree about, does not make them the enemy of honest people. What the heck does that mean anyway? Can you just say stuff like that and get away with it? So anyone who wants to have reasonable gun laws is the enemy of honest people. How can you explain that with any facts behind the statement? Dishonesty in action.
So the man who talked about sexual assaults on college campuses is right to bring up that problem. But what does it have to do with the gun debate? He didn't say. He must be implying that women should shoot their attackers dead. I'm not sure that's the way to solve that problem and campuses have other programs in place to deal with sexual assault even though this guy is claiming that campuses are sweeping the problem under the rug. What proof does he have of that? Hyperbole in action.
.."VCU and the people who support banning guns inside the buildings trust a criminal. Period. There is no other way to look at it." Really sir? I think there are many other ways to look at it. Because the University wants to keep guns off of its' campus, it trusts criminals? Can you back that up with any facts or is that an emotional statement? And then this man goes on to say, .."and stereotyping people who are gun owners, I think many people know what those stereotypes are.." "For one, I've never hunted a day in my life...." So was anyone saying that all gun owners are hunters? Rather this man was doing what he was railing against- stereotyping the people who don't want guns on campus as trusting criminals. Period. Hyperbole in action.
"You hear people say it's an emotional topic. It's not an emotional topic. It's a logical topic." And then, at 4:19 on the video, the man who made the previous statement said some curious things that I can't say I understand. I think he is implying that the people who don't want guns on campus are saying that he and others like him are considered to be violent criminals because they want to carry their guns on campus. It's the other way around. The people who think students should have guns on campus seem to be thinking there is a violent criminal lurking in every shadow necessitating their need for a gun wherever they go. But, oh well. This is not an emotional topic. It's logical, right? You can watch the rest of this video with the face to face "discussion" between the VCDL members and the students and others who don't want guns on campus. Exaggeration in action.
Here's another example of the gulf between the sides of the gun issue. Now that Newt Gingrich is soaring in the polls, many are critical of his views and his character. This one is coming from an unlikely source- the NRA- who makes claims about the Brady Law that are simply not true in order to criticize Gingrich.
Really? The Brady Law is a national gun registry? No it's not. And the Lautenberg amendment (keeping guns away from domestic abusers) means taking away gun rights for spanking your child? Not true. But that doesn't stop them from saying this stuff. Do they have any proof to offer for those "logical" statements? Lying in action.A Robo-call in Iowa Friday accuses presidential candidate Newt Gingrich of having “an anti-gun record.”It says it was paid for IowaGunOwners.org, a no-compromise gun rights group that Osceola County resident Aaron Dorr founded in 2009 to work to change state gun laws, and the National Association for Gun Rights.“Newt supported the anti-gun Brady bill that created a national gun registry,” a male voice says.*** “Newt also supported the Lautenberg law that takes away gun rights for crimes as simple as spanking your child.”
And we disagree about a lot of things but it sure is hard to disagree about the fact that when guns are available in times of stress, sometimes people shoot others they love and even themselves. This story should be bold printed in every newspaper in the country. How desperate do you have to be in times of economic stress to kill yourself and your children?
It's hard to imagine that level of desperation. We just got an appeal from our local food shelf and homeless shelter. Here is a quote: " According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, families with children are the fasted growing population among the homeless. Children now make up 40% of the homeless population". Don't even get me started about this national disgrace. Actually gun deaths pale in comparison to what is happening to the poor and middle classes in this country. Shame on all of us for letting people starve, go homeless, or become so desperate that they think of shooting their families and themselves to avoid the suffering.State officials say Grimmer applied for food stamps in July but was denied because she didn't turn in enough information.Authorities said Grimmer told negotiators about a litany of complaints against state and federal government agencies during the standoff at a Texas Department of Health and Human Services building.
It is possible to have honest discussions and honest disagreements based on facts. But when crudity and incivility get in the way of any honest discussion stops in its' tracks. It must be said that I rarely read anything said about me on the gun blogs because it is so hateful. But the pro gun folks have come unglued by my last post for some reason. It has caused them to post crude, rude, offensive, inflammatory, ugly, false and derogatory statements about me on one of their own blogs- pagunblog. And all over a purse. Whatever. I must be doing something right, though, when the undies of the gun guys are all in a bundle over the "ramblings" of a poor woman who is actually "insane". Other comments about me: " strident, nonsensical, and desperate", "delusional", "hysterical", "despotic"... oh yes, I live in a "bizarre personal world" and I'm in serious need of therapy. Whew!! That's a lot. Really all, you've described me to a tee. This is how all of the people with whom I associate view me for sure. This is why I have been members of many community, state and national boards and committees ( not just about the gun issue). This is why I was elected to public office in my city. This is why people listen to my views and respect them. It's how my family sees me and boy, do they have a time dealing with me. It's funny they haven't committed me yet to a mental facility. Perhaps those who write these things, thinking they are being so clever or for whatever reason people write these things, should look in the mirror.
Obviously our world views are quite different from each other. But attacking those with whom you disagree with insults, derision and hateful language is immature and small to put it mildly. I prefer my world where common sense and decency leads my thoughts and my actions. I prefer to hang out with people who don't call each other demeaning names and belittle others on blogs. I prefer to associate with people who have integrity, honor, are polite and tolerant and care about their fellow citizens enough to want them to be safe from being shot to death. Because I believe this is possible without carrying guns around on my person wherever I go or have an arsenal in case of a tyrannical government take-over, does not mean that I am desperate and despotic. Because I believe that common sense legislation can help prevent people from being shot does not mean I am delusional. What some of my readers have written says more about them than it does about me. One person wondered why there weren't as many comments on my blog lately. You can see why. I just don't publish this stuff for obvious reasons. I'm thinking some of my readers could benefit from the lesson of now dead Columbine student , Rachel Scott, whose message is still resonating. Check it out here.
And from the website that describes more of the legacy of Rachel Scott and the mission of the organization: " Create a safe learning environment for all students by re-establishing civility and delivering proactive antidotes to school violence and bullying." Good idea.After hearing Scott's story, Kecoughtan students were given five challenges: Look for the best in others, dream big, choose positive influences, speak with kindness, and "start your own chain reaction."The final challenge is based on Scott's theory that "if one person can go out of their way to show compassion, then it will start a chain reaction of the same."