Another “Donation” to the NRA

As many of you know, I occasionally come across articles, comments, news items, etc. in my daily readings that prompt me to write a post. The following Letter to the Editor was published in our local newspaper and most definitely fits the parameters. It’s in response to the most recent school shooting in Texas.

Do you think the parents of the dead Santa Fe children are proud to have donated their kid’s lives for the good of the NRA? Will they get a medal or a plaque to commemorate their child’s service? Will they stand proud with their hands over their hearts knowing that their child died so that Dana Loesch [spokesperson for the National Rifle Association] can go pump bullets through an AR-15 any darn time she feels like it?

If all congress members and Donald were required to walk through schools where mass shootings have just taken place, to see first hand the carnage and bullet riddled bodies, would they say that this was an acceptable amount of human sacrifice on the shrine of NRA privilege?

Too bad Donald didn’t “do everything in (his) power” before they got dead. Too bad his speech is all just words and he still won’t do a single thing in his power, even as he steps over their blood-spattered bodies on the way to his next campaign rally.



14 thoughts on “Another “Donation” to the NRA

  1. If it isn’t obvious by now it should be: All American’s lives, every single one of you including myself, have a specific (fluid) monetary value attached to their head/heart by our government and our social, financial, and military institutions. Period.

    Hopefully family members, spouses, etc, do not do that to each other, but then… what is the reality? In one way or another, directly, indirectly, secretly, deceivingly, whatever… in a hyper-driven economy like Capitalism-Consumerism and fame/greed, EVERYONE has a dollar value attached. The only time it is not that way is when YOU or your spouse or your immediate or extended family are the victims, the murdered, the slaughtered, the casualities of monetary wars (oil? land? sheer political dominance?)… THEN is when no dollar amount is worth the useless killing of your loved ones or self.

    Seriously, does tRump or certain members of Congress really, really empathetically care about victims? What has our American history shown the last 150 years, but particularly since the formation of the NRA?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. If you make a list of the things people want to do with guns. there are safe ways to provide those experiences. Like automatic weapons fire, there is a range in Nevada that provides that experience through rentals and purchased ammunition. Want to hunt? How many days a year do you hunt with a gun? Otherwise you need to keep them locked up in a gun safe. Want a gun for self protection? Sam Harris has a gun for self-protection and takes an annual refresher course on using it. A special license and an annual continuing ed course would make this a far safer situation. Gun owners should be responsible for their guns, in perpetuity, until they legally change hands. If you loan it or give it to someone else, or leave it out to be stolen, you are responsible for whatever happens because of it. This is only sensible. It already applies to automobiles, why not guns.

    If you like to shoot guns in competition, the rules that these competitions enforce results in almost no accidents. Safely traveling to and from competitions needs to be regulated because some people are responsible and others not.

    None of these things are impossible or even horribly restrictive … except in the minds of people deluded about the nature of their guns. Most of the people who think they need guns to resist government tyranny would crap their pans the moment they got under fire, especially the kind of firepower that would be employed against insurrectionists.

    Liked by 4 people

    • people should be taught that a child who knows how to shoot a weapon is NOT a safer individual, just a better armed one. Shooting a gun should be a rite of passage, but not a right to shoot anything that moves. Or annoys you.

      When I was a kid one of my prized possessions was a DaleEvans cap gun. kerchew. My girl friends had capguns too, and we used to spend hours annoying the neighbors with the racket. But. My dad had one rule: never point a gun, even a pretend gun, AT anyone. Ever.

      When I got older he showed me how to use a 22 rifle, but only to scare the starlings away from the crops. It didn’t do much good, but I got to learn how to handle a gun and it wasn’t a big deal in my life. It just was.

      But–and this is the important part–it was never suggested at any time that we ‘needed’ that gun for protection. Ever. Or to settle an argument, even jokingly. OR to suggest that it was our “right’ to own that gun, by jesum.

      What is in the constitution is the “right to bear arms” and it was written at a time when we were at war with Britain. I have always interpreted that to mean that in wartime it was our right as citizens to defend ourselves against an invading army. It did not suggest a gun rack over the mantlepiece…

      Liked by 2 people

    • Of course there are legitimate and recreational uses for guns! I would never dispute that. However, it has become all too apparent that many gun-owners do not take the necessary precautions when it comes to gun ownership.

      IMO, every gun not being used should either be in a locked gun safe or it should be unloaded with the ammo under lock and key in a separate location. ESPECIALLY when there are children or young adults in the household.

      I have previously been a strong advocate of better mental health checks and/or the removal of AR-15s. While I still support both of these propositions, I don’t think we’ll ever see action of either one. However, if a law were in effect — and enforced — related to the conditions I suggested above, maybe, just maybe, we would see some changes.

      BTW, this does not mean law enforcement would go door-to-door. But if, as in the recent shooting, the guns belonged to a “legitimate” owner and such a law were enforced, perhaps others would think twice about where they keep their guns when not in use.

      Either that or the NRA people and those who support the “Second Amendment” should be required to do as the letter writer suggested.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Agreed, there needs to be a firearms code that stipulates the ownership, storage, carriage and use of such weapons. The only people who should carry any firearm concealed or otherwise are the police and licenced trained security guards in civilian services.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Licenced trained security guards in civilian services are restricted in the same way as any other citizen when it comes to the carrying and use of firearms. They cannot bear arms. Even the police aren’t routinely armed, so they’re not in a position to “shoot first” if they feel they might be in danger.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes Barry, I understand the firearms restrictions in NZ, I owned a quite a few weapons there before I came to OZ about 11 years ago. I had my rifles stored in a military armoury where I worked at the time, however if I had kept them at home I would have had to buy a very expensive safe and have it installed to strict specifications and it would have had to have been inspected by the police.

        I was a big collector of military ordnance at one time, however I sold everything I had as the red tape and cost for transporting it into Australia was too restrictive.


          • I do not own a firearm, however it appears guns must be registered, and you need a weapons licence that covers guns to certain types of knife. Gun owners must have a valid reason for owning a weapon including farming or hunting, do a safety training course and secure storage for your guns and be a fit and proper person as in NZ. I think also that the different states have implemented some of their own regulations to run parallel with the federal regulations.

            Categories of weapons.
            Depending on your licence type and your need for a weapon, your licence may be endorsed with categories that are appropriate for that licence and your need.
            These categories are:
            (A) Rimfire rifles, single or double barrel shotguns, paintball guns, air rifles and powerheads (a specialised weapon for use underwater).
            (B) Centre-fire rifles (other than semi-automatic); shotgun/rifle combinations.
            (C) Semi-automatic or pump action shotguns (capable of holding 5 rounds or less); and semi-automatic rimfire rifles (capable of holding less than 10 rounds).
            (D) Semi-automatic centre-fire rifles; semi-automatic shotguns (capable of holding more than 5 rounds); and semi-automatic rimfire rifles (capable of holding more than 10 rounds).
            (E) Bullet-proof vests.
            (H) Handguns.
            (M) Crossbows, certain knives and other hand held weapons capable of causing bodily harm.
            (R) Machine guns, fully automatic large calibre military weapons.
            There is also a category of ‘restricted items’ which includes handcuffs, thumb cuffs or other similar restraints, martial arts weapons, studded gloves and some clubs and laser pointers.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Gun owners must have a valid reason for owning a weapon — This is where the U.S. is totally lax. They have absolutely no concern for why someone is purchasing or owns a gun.

              Liked by 1 person

            • I should imagine Nan, that they use the second Amendment to demand they own firearms. The reason would be to protect themselves from their neighbours who also have guns to protect themselves, until a dispute happens, and then they often become offensive weapons rather than defensive weapons.

              Liked by 1 person

      • That “shoot first” mentality is very prevalent in the U.S. — especially when it comes to black people. And pretty much 99.9% of the times, all that happens is the officer gets “suspended” with full salary until an investigation is concluded — and then gets nothing more than a reprimand. Sickening.

        It blows my mind that people (of any stripe) have so little concern for human life!


Take Some Time To Share Your Thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.