The Coeur d’Alene Press published an apologia of sorts regarding school board member, Brent Regan. First touting his accomplishments and then going on to advice the readers, that even a brilliant man can say some pretty dumb things. To the extent that I can agree with the idea that intelligent people don’t always say and do the right thing, we are all guilty of this at some point. But Regan’s stupid remark went beyond merely repeating what his wife said that he thought was so funny. If you didn’t agree with what amounts to a racist remark, you’d have no cause to repeat it. So, televised in front of a lot of people, Regan said in gist: “You really can’t define what an assault rifle is. To a lot of people, it simply looks black and scary.” To which his wife replied, “Just like Obama.”
The Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations had already addressed the “Obama” remark. Any takers on how to define an assault weapon besides what I am posting to blog? For example, as a military veteran serving in combat, didn’t you only train with such a weapon, having semi-auto or even full-auto capabilities. And thus, having the capability of shooting multiples of targets in a theater of war. Usually, the enemy is also similarly equipped and firing back at you! Anyone who has ever been a member of the military service, knows exactly what an assault weapon is.
In the same 30 January 2013 edition, of the Coeur d’Alene Press, a letter by a Michael Delaney who makes a spurious quote attributed to Hitler to justify his modern interpretation of the second amendment. Even further, deems abortion as a far bigger threat to “children’s” lives that gun violence. In the wake of gun rights activists flocking to gun stores and buying assault rifles like there is no tomorrow, in direct correlation to the mass murder of school children at Sandy Hook Elementary School; I’d have to say that Mr. Delaney isn’t exactly in a good position to make that particular argument. People who act like they are more afraid of losing their toys instead of showing some consideration for the children who’s lives were lost in this merciless slaughter. People who employ this beside the point political opposition against Planned Parenthood. You really have to wonder why abortion is opposed. Is that so when more children are born then they represent more targets in a case of a mass shooting? Give me a break! For what ever reason women have abortions, medical to free will, this isn’t a question of “mass slaughter.” Individual women have abortions. Doctors perform individual procedures on individual women. Assault weapons such as the Bushmaster AR15 kill multiples of targets in a couple of minutes. That is mass killing. Where Delaney discussed “lives lost” to abortion, a million “children” killed by the procedure in over three years. Just how many people have died by gun violence in the same time period that possibly equaled or exceeded the death rate by abortion? Bet Delaney wouldn’t care to discuss something like that.
Believe it or not, freedom of speech does get regulated. So does freedom of the press. For anyone who does some historical research, Comstock, a highly “moral” fellow who decided he could regulate—through a series of legislation—what could be put into print that was sent through the mail; was more than happy to greatly restrict free speech or even freedom of the press. After all, the kiddies shouldn’t get exposed to something like this. Guns are more easily accessible. Remember the “wardrobe malfunction” of one of the Super Bowls aired by CBS back during the G.W. administration? CBS was heavily fined for that “wardrobe malfunction” repeatedly aired by more than one major network. And the NRA works over time to make current gun laws unenforceable. The head of the NRA then appears before the Senate to whine that we should simply enforce the laws now in existence, that his organization didn’t want enforced in the first place. If speech and the press have been successfully regulated on a great many occasions, then I am quite certain that the same thing can apply to weapons. If people have no intention of harming others where no legitimate threat exists, then they have a right to their weapons. If the primary reason for owning a weapon is for hunting game and sports, then there is no objection for people having such weapons in their possession. If there is a need for self defense, then absolutely a gun is necessary. However, when a gun rights activist engages in hyperbole about four or five heavily armed assailants invading some poor woman’s home and she needs the equivalent firepower to protect herself and her children… Got a question for that ignorant individual, wouldn’t that many heavily armed assailants prove to be more than a match against one woman with a Bushmaster AR15? This isn’t the movies, lady. Maybe it isn’t even the “gun culture” that we should be worried about. Maybe it is the fantasy culture that has taken over much of the politics of this nation.