“Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system.” - Sen. Charles Grassley, Rep. IA, quoted in "Senator Says Boston Attack Should Factor in Immigration Debate", Ashley Parker and Michael D. Shear, New York Times, 2013-04-19
Let's see, it is a loophole to let teenagers into the U. S. if they are Muslim, if they come from a country with ethnic violence, or…
One brother came at the age of 15. He was probably somewhat unhappy to be taken away from his friends and never really got over it. And how many immigrants from wherever come at that age and somehow manage to fit in and have socially satisfying lives? The other brother came at the age of 8 and seemingly adapted quite well and was popular. But because he adored his older brother, he probably picked his brother's dissatisfaction and anger.
If we are to close the "gaps and loopholes" on a couple of loopy brothers, maybe we should have never let Italians into the U. S. Isn't Lanza, the last name of the Newtown terrorist, an Italian name? And the Mafia is Italian based. Ah, yes, we should suspect every Italian of being a Mafia member. But then we wouldn't have had "Woody Woodpecker" to chuckle over, created by Walter Lantz. Immigration changed his father's name from Francesco Paolo Lanza. We wouldn't have Ghirardelli chocolates and Jacuzzis and Zambonis. For hundreds more famous Italian-Americans who enriched our country, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_Americans.
If we are to close the "gaps and loopholes" maybe we should never have let Germans into the U. S. After all, many German-Americans became spies or apologists for Hitler. Remember the informant in "Stalag 17". Unfortunately, if German immigrants had been kept out, I wouldn't be here. Some readers think this might be a good thing. Four of my great-grandparents were born in Germany.
Maybe the original inhabitants of this continent should have closed the "gaps and loopholes" that let thousands of English and others in. The English and others unleashed a reign of terror on the original inhabitants for over three centuries that led to the massacre at Wounded Knee.
As Pete Seeger told it, two Indians watched a ship launch a small boat. When the boat landed, Columbus stepped out and said, "Buenos días, señores!" One Indian turned to the other and said, "There goes the neighborhood."
Showing posts with label massacre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label massacre. Show all posts
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Pistol-packing principals?
"Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, was the sole representative of gun rights' activists on the various Sunday talk shows. In an interview on 'Fox News Sunday,' Gohmert defended the sale of assault weapons and said that the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who authorities say died trying to overtake the shooter, should herself have been armed.
"'I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids, Gohmert said.'"
- "Senators call for ban on assault weapons, want commission to examine gun laws, mental health", Anne Flaherty , Associated Press Updated: December 16, 2012 - 2:52 PM
Do we really want to live in a country where every citizen is armed? Do we have to add weapons training to the curricula of our schools of education? When I went to high school in the 1950s, we didn't even have cops in the schools. What has changed in our country? Maybe it was too many westerns in which the hero was always the fastest draw and the most accurate shot. For a couple of more realistic views, see "Myth of the Hero Gunslinger" and "How the Gunfighter Killed Bourgeois America".
As for the proposed year-and-a-half waiting period "to discuss this volatile matter" the U.S. has been averaging two mass murders per year for the last thirty years. "And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally."
- "11 facts about U.S. gun massacres", Ezra Klein, Washington Post Updated: December 15, 2012 - 7:10 PM, retrieved from Star Tribune
"'I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids, Gohmert said.'"
- "Senators call for ban on assault weapons, want commission to examine gun laws, mental health", Anne Flaherty , Associated Press Updated: December 16, 2012 - 2:52 PM
Do we really want to live in a country where every citizen is armed? Do we have to add weapons training to the curricula of our schools of education? When I went to high school in the 1950s, we didn't even have cops in the schools. What has changed in our country? Maybe it was too many westerns in which the hero was always the fastest draw and the most accurate shot. For a couple of more realistic views, see "Myth of the Hero Gunslinger" and "How the Gunfighter Killed Bourgeois America".
As for the proposed year-and-a-half waiting period "to discuss this volatile matter" the U.S. has been averaging two mass murders per year for the last thirty years. "And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally."
- "11 facts about U.S. gun massacres", Ezra Klein, Washington Post Updated: December 15, 2012 - 7:10 PM, retrieved from Star Tribune
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Strange remarks on gun control
On the Connecticut shooting, a letter to the Star Tribune included:
"To discuss this very volatile matter, we need to wait until we have a period of, say, a year and a half with no mass killings that come about as a result of gun sales and ownership."
- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183584251.html
I wonder if the writer considered that "a year and a half with no mass killings" is about the same as never. First, unfortunately there will be some copycat killings. Second, what does he define as "mass killings", more than two dozen victims, more than a dozen, more than six? This writer also thought that the killer could have killed as many with a club and feet!
We really should have been having intelligent conversations how to reduce the number of killings, no matter how many are killed by no matter how many. But, no, we have the National Rifle Association (NRA) raising political hell on any restrictions of unlimited availability of guns and a few less politically powerful calling for complete restrictions.
I wish some Constitutional scholars would really take on the meaning of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Many argue that the single-shot "Arms" of the time were nowhere near as lethal as the large-magazine automatic pistols of today. Unfortunately, few argue about the choice of words for who has the right to bear arms or for what purpose.
First, the purpose in the Second Amendment is "the security of a free State", not the "defense of home or self". Many claim that the Constitution gives them the right to have arms to defend their home. That is common law, the so-called "castle doctrine", not constitutional law. Given the times, I venture that this was meant for communities on the frontier to defend themselves against Indian attack or foreign invasions.
Second, please note the choice of words to describe who has the "right to bear arms" - "the people", not persons or citizens. The writers used "the people" only twice in the original Constitution: "We, the People" in the preamble and "The House of Representative shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People..." in Article I, Section 2. That is, "people" is a collective noun. Otherwise, when writing about individuals, the writers used "person" or "citizen" in the singular or plural form as appropriate.
I do find it ironic that the party that wants a strict interpretation of the Constitution gives such a loose interpretation to the Second Amendment. This same party completely ignores the parts of the Constitution that state office holders need only give an oath (or affirmation) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Article II, Section 1, and Article VI. Article VI also includes "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It would seem the political pressure to attend prayer breakfasts or to end speeches with "God Bless America" are certainly violations of the Constitution.
"To discuss this very volatile matter, we need to wait until we have a period of, say, a year and a half with no mass killings that come about as a result of gun sales and ownership."
- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183584251.html
I wonder if the writer considered that "a year and a half with no mass killings" is about the same as never. First, unfortunately there will be some copycat killings. Second, what does he define as "mass killings", more than two dozen victims, more than a dozen, more than six? This writer also thought that the killer could have killed as many with a club and feet!
We really should have been having intelligent conversations how to reduce the number of killings, no matter how many are killed by no matter how many. But, no, we have the National Rifle Association (NRA) raising political hell on any restrictions of unlimited availability of guns and a few less politically powerful calling for complete restrictions.
I wish some Constitutional scholars would really take on the meaning of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Many argue that the single-shot "Arms" of the time were nowhere near as lethal as the large-magazine automatic pistols of today. Unfortunately, few argue about the choice of words for who has the right to bear arms or for what purpose.
First, the purpose in the Second Amendment is "the security of a free State", not the "defense of home or self". Many claim that the Constitution gives them the right to have arms to defend their home. That is common law, the so-called "castle doctrine", not constitutional law. Given the times, I venture that this was meant for communities on the frontier to defend themselves against Indian attack or foreign invasions.
Second, please note the choice of words to describe who has the "right to bear arms" - "the people", not persons or citizens. The writers used "the people" only twice in the original Constitution: "We, the People" in the preamble and "The House of Representative shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People..." in Article I, Section 2. That is, "people" is a collective noun. Otherwise, when writing about individuals, the writers used "person" or "citizen" in the singular or plural form as appropriate.
I do find it ironic that the party that wants a strict interpretation of the Constitution gives such a loose interpretation to the Second Amendment. This same party completely ignores the parts of the Constitution that state office holders need only give an oath (or affirmation) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Article II, Section 1, and Article VI. Article VI also includes "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It would seem the political pressure to attend prayer breakfasts or to end speeches with "God Bless America" are certainly violations of the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)