Anger

Charles Dickens had it right. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." I am angry and confused. Bewildered and pissed off. I am aggravated to the depths of my being. There are things in this world I do not understand.

The first thing is the bombing in Boston. What was the purpose? Was it meant to scare us? It didn't work and it will never work. I don't get up in the morning and wonder if some idiot (and they most certainly were that) is going to bomb something or shoot me or do some other thing to harm me or a group of people I am with. Maybe it was the 20 plus years working in a prison. You go in every day knowing that something could go horribly wrong. You could be in the wrong place, or say the wrong thing, or something completely out of your control could happen. I got asked a few times what I would want a guard to do if I was being attacked. Would I want them to shoot? My answer was always yes. They would say most of the shots were from a long distance and the guns got banged around so the shot wouldn't be accurate. I would tell them that was okay, at least they tried. Even if they shot me, they tried. I got threatened on a regular basis. When you are in a position of authority and you have a bad habit of speaking what you think, sometimes people get pissed off. I never got hurt and to the best of my knowledge my actions never got another staff member hurt. So, back to Boston. It seems to me that the folks in Boston have a healthy dose of "Fuck you, it that the best you got." So the idiots who did this managed to kill 3 people and ruin the lives of many more. In the process they strengthened our resolve. The resolve to live our lives regardless of their plans to disrupt.

I continue to be confused about gun control. What again is the issue with universal background checks? No one can explain to me in a way that makes any sense what is wrong with this. I am a law abiding citizen. I have, and it causes me no shame to admit it, sought the assistance of a mental health professional in the past. If receiving authorization to purchase a gun required the release of those records I have no problem with that. The law that was defeated yesterday did not require that. I am not impressed with the fact that surveys indicate 90% of the public want universal background checks. It has been my experience in the past that 100% of people want stupid things from time to time. I offer as proof pet rocks and troll dolls. Maybe the 10% are right this time. The problem is that the debate is filled with too much emotion and too many mistruths. One of the big mistruths was that the law required a national gun registry. It did not. The bill actually outlawed registry. There are those who continually maintain that they need their guns to protect themselves from a tyranical government. I find that argument amusing. Let's keep in mind that Red Dawn was a movie. Not real life folks. When the second ammendment was written the fire power on both sides was roughly equal. A bunch of back woodsmen with muskets fighting a bunch of troops with muskets. The fight today would be with a government armed with M1A1 tanks, apache helicopters, stealth bombers, drones, and hundreds of other things citizens will never be allowed to possess. So, go on and talk shit about how the government will take your gun from your cold dead hands because that is the only part of the debate you got right. If you think it will take long, you should go back and watch what happened to Iraq's army. I leave you with this thought on that subject. "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must gohand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson. Times change. Jefferson wrote all men are created equal, while he owned slaves and forbid women the right to vote. The second ammendment did not forsee the development of the machine gun. The right to keep and bear arms needs to be tempered by the reality of modern times. Debated and voted on with facts. Discussed by adults acting as adults. Compare Jefferson's comments to those of one of our current representatives. "In fact, I had this discussion with some wonderful, caring Democrats earlier this weeek on the issue of, well, they said "surely you could agree to limit the number of rounds in a magazine couldn't you? How would that be problematic?" And I pointed out, well, once you make it ten, then why draw the line at ten? What's wrong with nine? Or eleven? And the problem is once you draw that limit; it's kind of like marriage when you say it's not a man and a woman any more, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody who has a love for an animal? There is no clear place to draw the line once you eliminate the traditional marriage and it's the same once you start putting limits on what guns can be used, then it's just really easy to have laws that make them all illegal." Louis Gohmert, United States House of Representatives, Texas District One. If we follow Mr. Gohmert's logic, and I'm not sure I can, the only thing that keeps us from having sex with animals is the fact we can go hunting with any gun we want. I don't think I will go hunting with him.

Times change and we must find a way to adapt and change with them.