June 28, 2015

I was truely amazed...

... after I published my post, "My Case Against Assault Weapons" there were suddenly a large number of pro gun posters who appeared like magic on this site to contest my views. Does Wayne LaPierre have watchdogs on forums like this one to detect posts by people who favor government regulation of firearms? Does he send out emails immediately to his gun toting followers with orders to attack those posts and/or or their posters?

I was also disappointed by the lack of verbal support by those who I know agree with me. Sure the post drew a number of recommendations, but there was little verbal input. We can't win the debate if we don't join it. We are letting these people seize the moral high ground, which they have not right to possess, because we cannot argue with them technically. Well it's time we learned. We cannot expect to win the issue when we don't know enough about it to join and win the national debate.

June 28, 2015

Remembering the Confederacy Too Fondly

With all of the recent discussion about the confederate flag and the arguments used by some flag supporters, recalled a post that I made in March a local sports site. After someone veered off topic during a sports discussion to complain about attacks on on his "Southern heritage", complaining how the South was mistreated after the Civil War, and comparing the leaders of the Confederacy to the patriots who founded our great country. (Yep, people with those views still exist.) I normally would have posted something like "Let's stay on topic, but he stuck a nerve. This was my reply which I also posted on my blog.

Lincoln's plans to rehabilitate the South were far gentler and kinder than "Radical Republicans" who took over the party after Lincoln's death. Most historians believe that if Lincoln had lived he would have had political power the keep the Radical Republicans at bay, but his predecessor Andrew Johnson obviously did not. Johnson did his best to fight them off in Congress, but he was politically weak. Eventually the radicals impeached him in the House of Representatives and he was nearly convicted by the Senate. There is no way that would have happened to Lincoln.

With a weak President Johnson in the White House and later with their own man, Ulysses S. Grant, in the Oval Office, the Radical Republicans ran roughshod over the South for several years. They also ensured that the Democratic Party would ruled in the South for many decades to come.

On another issue, I have always had a problem with Southerns who equate the Civil War with the American Revolution. Unlike the colonists who had no representation in the British Royal Court or the English Parliament which imposed on them unpopular and unjust taxes and laws, the Southern states were properly represented in a functioning democracy.

Had they been able to continue to have their way through the elective and legislative process, as they did for a long time, the Southern states would have never considered succeeding from the Union. It was only when they realized that the popular vote was going against them, especially with the election of Lincoln, did they decide to go their own way.

How long would any democratic country survive if anytime a portion of the population doesn't like how the rest of the country is voting they decide to break away and form their own county? If that were allowed, democracies would be the most unstable government systems known to man.

Had the Confederacy had been successful in breaking away, instead of one great nation we would have had two lesser countries with, at least for many years, diametrically opposed political philosophies.

More at: http://www.cajunscomments.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=574&action=edit

June 28, 2015

My Case Against Assault Weapons

(My original post of this thread was on the DU General Discussion and I was surprised by the venomous reaction of pro gun enthusiasts on what is supposed to be a Democratic site. I felt like I was fighting 20 to 1 odds, but I did my best. Well guess they let anyone post there. I have made some minor updates based on the "feedback" I received there. For one thing the weapon I described was probably an M-16 with a AR-15 stamp on it. That is the military version of the AR-15 which has automatic capabilities. I will put the changes in parenthesis.)

One of my responsibilities when I was Air Force Aircraft Maintenance Officer in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was be ready to deploy to a forward operating base in the event of a nuclear war to turn around B-52 bombers when they returned from their bombing missions over the USSR. To be ready to perform that duty, my men and I had to stay proficient on our personal weapons. Officers were assigned a 0.38 caliper pistol called the Colt Combat Masterpiece, but I manage to also get certified on the AR-15 (the semiautomatic version of the M16 assault rifle).

I originally thought that an AR-15 would make a good deer rifle, it is short, light and relative accurate over long distances. I changed my mind when I saw a demonstration of the weapon's firepower one day. The target on this occasion was a 55 gallon steel drum filled with water which was use to demonstrate the stopping power the AR-15. When the drum was hit from fifty yards, the bullet made a small hole at the entry point, but on exit it made a hole in the back of the steel drum much bigger than the size of my fist. The original ammunition of the AR-15 had a 5.56mm (0.223 caliber -slightly larger than a 22) bullet propelled by a massive amount of gun powder. It makes a small hole on entry, but the projectile is unstable so it tumbles when it enters flesh and is designed to make a massive exit wound.

Thus I determined that the AR-15 was totally useless as a hunting rifle because it would destroy much of the meat of a targeted animal. It was designed for one thing, killing people. With magazines capable of storing 60 and even 100 rounds, the AR-15 is capable of killing people as quickly the shooter can pull the trigger and making sure when a person is hit just about anywhere on his body, he will go down and he will not get back up. Can you imagine the damage this weapon did to the little children killed in the Sandy Hook massacre?

I shudder every time I am reminded that military assault weapons such as the AR-15 can be bought by just about anyone in our country and can thus easily fall in the hands of a homicidal maniacs or home grown terrorists whose objectives are to kill the maximum number of people before they are themselves shot.

Whenever there efforts to ban assault weapons, there is always talk about 2nd Amendments rights. However, there are few defenders of the 2nd Amendment who would defend the right of ordinary Americans to own fully functional M1A tanks, or bazookas, or anti-aircraft rockets. And no sane person would defend the right a civilian to possess a tactical nuclear weapon.

So nearly everyone concedes that even 2nd Amendments rights have their limits. The only thing that is at issue here is where do you draw the line between which weapons are allowed and which not allowed.

In my humble opinion that line should be drawn to ban assault weapons from our streets. They are not practical for hunting and offer no more protection than a standard hand gun, rifle or shotgun. Some would argue that assault weapons allow relatively unskilled shooters to defend their homes and/or lives more effectively because of their multiple shot capability. Well, first of all I don't want unskilled people handling any kind of firearms and if someone wants a ideal defensive weapon they need to buy a shotgun. It is difficult to miss with shotgun at relatively close range.

(Now some owners of assault weapons say they can and are used for hunting, and based on their descriptions of their activities I don't doubt that this is true. Apparently modifications to modern AR-15 do allow for this capability. However, what they won't mention is that there are many other rifles which are manufactured for specifically for hunting which are as good as or usually better than the assault weapons they are using. In addition, most of these rifles are equipped only with five round clips (larger clips are illegal for hunting in many states). Assault rifles which an be use with readily available magazines which hold as many as 100 rounds) could be banned without affecting the ability to hunt.)

(In addition, if it proves politically impossible to band assault weapons, we should at least ban high capacity magazine with magazines and clips limited to only 10 or 11 rounds - the number of rounds carried by many handguns. Proposed laws call for a period or maybe 6 months where the government would buy back all high capacity magazines from gun owners. After that period of time it would be a crime punishable by several years in jail to possess such magazines.)

So assault weapons with high capacity magazines have only one practical purpose, killing multiple people in a very short period of time. Why in the world would we want just about anyone in the general public to have access to such powerful weapons. If you want to discuss your 2nd Amendment rights, we can also make that discussion about your right own an 68 ton M1A tank equipped a 120mm tank gun, a 50 caliber machine gun and two and second 7.62 mm machine guns. You see the 2nd Amendment isn't about providing access to any and all weapons, it's about where we draw the line.

If you find the time, please check out my blog.

June 28, 2015

My Case Against Assault Weapons

One of my responsibilities when I was Air Force Aircraft Maintenance Officer in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was be ready to deploy to a forward operating base in the event of a nuclear war to turn around B-52 bombers when they returned from their bombing missions over the USSR. To be ready to perform that duty, my men and I had to stay proficient on our personal weapons. Officers were assigned a 0.38 caliper pistol called the Colt Combat Masterpiece, but I manage to also get certified on the AR-15 (the semiautomatic version of the M16 assault rifle).

I originally thought that an AR-15 would make a good deer rifle, it is short, light and relative accurate over long distances. I changed my mind when I saw a demonstration of the weapon's firepower one day. The target on this occasion was a 55 gallon steel drum filled with water which was use to demonstrate the stopping power the AR-15. When the drum was hit from fifty yards, the bullet made a small hole at the entry point, but on exit it made a hole in the back of the steel drum much bigger than the size of my fist. The original ammunition of the AR-15 had a 5.56mm (0.223 caliber -slightly larger than a 22) bullet propelled by a massive amount of gun powder. It makes a small hole on entry, but the projectile is unstable so it tumbles when it enters flesh and is designed to make a massive exit wound.

Thus I determined that the AR-15 was totally useless as a hunting rifle because it would destroy much of the meat of a targeted animal. It was designed for one thing, killing people. With magazines capable of storing 60 and even 100 rounds, the AR-15 is capable of killing people as quickly the shooter can pull the trigger and making sure when a person is hit just about anywhere on his body, he will go down and he will not get back up. Can you imagine the damage this weapon did to the little children killed in the Sandy Hook massacre?

I shudder every time I am reminded that military assault weapons such as the AR-15 can be bought by just about anyone in our country and can thus easily fall in the hands of a homicidal maniacs or home grown terrorists whose objectives are to kill the maximum number of people before they are themselves shot.

Whenever there efforts to ban assault weapons, there is always talk about 2nd Amendments rights. However, there are few defenders of the 2nd Amendment who would defend the right of ordinary Americans to own fully functional M1A tanks, or bazookas, or anti-aircraft rockets. And no sane person would defend the right a civilian to possess a tactical nuclear weapon.

So nearly everyone concedes that even 2nd Amendments rights have their limits. The only thing that is at issue here is where do you draw the line between which weapons are allowed and which not allowed.

In my humble opinion that line should be drawn to ban assault weapons from our streets. They are not practical for hunting and offer no more protection than a standard hand gun, rifle or shotgun. Some would argue that assault weapons allow relatively unskilled shooters to defend their homes and/or lives more effectively because of their multiple shot capability. Well, first of all I don't want unskilled people handling any kind of firearms and if someone wants a ideal defensive weapon they need to buy a shotgun. It is difficult to miss with shotgun at relatively close range.

So assault weapons have only one practical purpose, killing multiple people in a very short period of time. Why in the world would we want just about anyone in the general public to have access to such powerful weapons. If you want to discuss your 2nd Amendment rights, we can also make that discussion about your right own an 68 ton M1A tank equipped a 120mm tank gun, a 50 caliber machine gun and two and second 7.62 mm machine guns. You see the 2nd Amendment isn't about providing access to any and all weapons, it's about where we draw the line.

June 26, 2015

Can Conservatives Survive Two Major Defeats In One Week

First the Supreme Court refuses to gut Obamacare and then makes same sex marriage the law of the land. In both cases the swing votes were provided by Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. Conservatives must feel that the apocalypse is near.

June 20, 2015

Why Is It When White Men Kill They Are Called “Deranged”

I was watching CNN’s coverage of the Charleston, NC shootings when one of the CNN anchors passed on a tweet which she had received: “When black men kill they are called thugs. When Muslims kill they are called terrorists. Why is it that when white men kill they are said to deranged?” Wow! Sometimes something just grabs my full attention because it is so true. That tweet was one of those things.

I think that the reason this made a big impression me is because I had heard several Republican politicians use the term “deranged” or “mentally ill” when describing the shooter who killed nine people in a house of worship in Charleston. In fact right before the CNN anchor mentioned that tweet she had been interviewing Lindsey Graham and had asked him if gun laws should be strengthened to prevent another tragedy like this one. He replied, “No law is going to prevent a deranged person like this guy from getting his hands on a gun.”

Why is it that when black men and Muslims kill people they are called “thugs” and “terrorists’ – which implies that killing is a normal part of their nature – and when white men kill the assumption is that they must be “deranged”. That implies that sane white men would never do such a thing, that it is not part of their nature. If this is not a case of implied racism, I don’t know what is.

Now perhaps those Republican politicians were using such wording because they were catering to the sensibilities of their conservative constituents; after all Lindsey Graham is a Senator from South Carolina. However, I think that this is giving them too much credit. The simpler and probably more accurate explanation is that this is how many conservative politicians see the world.

To read more: http://www.cajunscomments.com/why-is-it-when-white-men-kill-they-are-called-deranged/

June 16, 2015

Will "real" liberals sit on their hands if Hillary wins the nomination?

I get the impression that some on this board don't regard Hillary Clinton to be liberal enough. I also see a a good deal of popular support for Bernie Sanders in recent posts, but most realistic observers don't give him much of a chance. Yes, I have seen the polls were he is "surging" in New Hampshire, but even there he is still 10 to 11 percentage points behind. I seen no other state where he has substantial support. RealClearPolitics.com, which averages recent national polls, shows Hillary with 58.6% of Democratic vote, 47.0% ahead of Sanders who is at 11.6%. I have seen comparisons to the Clinton/Obama race, but I really don't think that we have the same type of situation this time around.

Yes, I know that stranger things have happened and Bernie or some other "true liberal" could come from way behind and ultimately overtake Hillary, but let's assume for purposes of this discussion that this unlikely situation will not happen.

If Hillary is the Democratic Party's nominee, how will "real" liberals react during the general election. Will they hold their noses and vote for Hillary or sit on their hands? Will they enthusiastically vote for her? Will they contribute to her campaign? Will they work for her campaign? In short, how enthusiastic will they be about Hillary's candidacy?

June 15, 2015

And they Call Themselves Christians

In this blog entry (http://www.cajunscomments.com/and-they-call-themselves-christians/) I discussed the decidedly unchristian ways of some Christians.

June 15, 2015

And They Call Themselves Christians

In this blog entry (http://www.cajunscomments.com/and-they-call-themselves-christians/) I discussed the decidedly unchristian ways of some Christians.

June 15, 2015

Conservatives Around the World Have Much in Common

What do devote Muslims and fundamentalist Christians have in common? At first glance, nothing, but beneath the surface, they have much more in common than you would expect. Both groups are both likely to be very conservative in their own ways and the point I am attempting to make in the following blog post (http://www.cajunscomments.com/conservatives-around-the-world-have-much-in-common/) is that conservatives around the world and down through history have more in common than they would every like to admit.