This is the picture I like to post on Easter. I am not religious, but my cousin Carol took this in her house, and I really like it.
Got to the gym twice last week, and then the bottom fell out. We had yet ANOTHER storm, and my husband got sick with the same thing that landed him in the hospital for 2 weeks in January. My husband’s birthday was Friday and we spent it in a clinic and the hospital ER. At least he wasn’t admitted. Easter at home.
It has been the kind of week one must slog through. Lots of follow-up about a shooting by the Sacramento Police of a “young unarmed black man” and the protests that precipitated. It was predictable. All that was reported at first was that police killed a young black man standing in his grandparents’ back yard, and what the police thought was a gun turned out to be a cell phone. As you might imagine, it was screaming headlines all over the place.
It wasn’t until later that other things started to come out. The man, last name Clark, was running from the cops, being followed by a police helicopter, and ran into his grandparents’ yard. He was suspected of ripping off neighbors, and maybe breaking into their cars. He did not follow instructions. Of course, to this day it is almost impossible to find any news source reporting these other facts. They would rather show Al Sharpton and his rabble rousing. They would rather show marches in the streets and offer excuses for the destruction and violence that the protesters seem to feel is justified.
Don’t misunderstand; I am not normally a basher of news sources. This is a very specific case where I noticed this specific imbalance. It could be that they reported what they had and maybe some of the other information was not released. Unfortunately, what came out was a very one-sided story. The papers and the TV news channels will report what they have, regardless.
Also lots of follow-up regarding survivors of the school shooting in Parkland, FL. Various celebrities for some reason feel the need to insult the anti-gun student activists, and call them names. “Coward”, “soulless”, “manipulative”, “bitch”, “punk”, etc. Two things the 2nd amendment crowd has demonstrated with this language: one, that they are bullies, and two, they feel threatened by the movement started by these students. They should.
I mentioned in my last post that I do not think the second amendment should remain in the Constitution in its present form. I do not think it should be completely removed – it needs tweaking. I feel there are two main things wrong with the current amendment. One is in its wording. The other has to do with its history, or more accurately, the time it was written versus our current times.
The second amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I often ask “How does the Constitution define arms?” Almost always I hear “guns” as the response. Really? Where is that? It isn’t. The Constitution does not say “guns” nor does it say “firearms”. It says “arms”. Ok, so does that mean nuclear arms are included? Am I allowed to build an atomic bomb in my garage? If not, does that infringe upon my second amendment rights? The point is, the second amendment needs some specificity due to how times have changed since it was written. The “founding fathers” had no way to know what horrific weapons would be invented by future generations. And they are all known as “arms.”
Historically, I realize that the second amendment was written in a time when the colonies relied on regular citizens to answer the “call to arms” that won independence. A lot of them probably had to provide their own weapons if they had them. If we were in a situation today where the military – a HUGE organization – could not respond to a domestic threat; I have a feeling we’d have bigger problems than could be addressed with our handguns, standard rifles, and AR15s. The “founding fathers” listed the need for a militia because that is how they built their army. That is not the case today. The amendment needs to be changed.
Civilians do not need to be able to purchase assault rifles. Not even for hunting. I like the quote I saw on-line (not sure who said it, but it does not originate with me). “A man who thinks he needs an assault rifle to be a hunter is neither a hunter nor a man.”
Until next week…