Burch: "Enough"

Friday, January 18, 2013 at 2:00pm
By Michael R. Burch

Like the dinosaurs, ultra-conservative Republicans are inflexible, hidebound creatures who seem incapable of adapting to changing times. If anyone else demonstrates evolving intelligence, the cold-blooded raptors respond with breathtaking fury. So if, for example, a politician suggests that it’s time to consider banning military-style assault weapons, the NRA and its minions quickly lunge for his throat, like a scene from Jurassic Park.

Before President Obama even announced the things he intends to do to help protect schoolchildren from gun-related violence and deaths, the NRA released an online video in which he was labeled an “elitist hypocrite.” Why? Because Secret Service agents protect Obama’s daughters, but he doesn’t favor having armed guards in every American school. Those of us with warm-blooded hearts and functional brains can easily understand why Secret Service agents are needed to protect all American presidents and their families. But like many lower life forms, the NRA seems to just lash out mindlessly at anything slightly different that crosses its path.

And when it comes to reactionary gun-related madness, Tennessee seems to be leading the pack (if rushing headlong in the wrong direction while being followed by a pack of agitated lemmings can be called “leading”). If you think I’m exaggerating, just take the time to talk to the typical Tennessee gun nut. He/she will probably inform you, in between juicy spurts of Copenhagen, that the following things are undoubtedly true:

(1) The only thing standing between American liberty and totalitarian socialism/communism is the Second Amendment.

(2) The single greatest danger right-wing patriots face today is not being able to shoot government representatives on sight, when they come to rob them of their assault weapons and ammo (and perhaps their snuff and spittoons too). Why are the hicks so hysterical? Because they really believe there is a conspiracy by the federal government to strip Americans of their guns, in order to strip them of their other rights. Somehow Sasquatches and UFOs factor into the conspiracy, as do Islam, China, demonic principalities, the UN, the New World Order, the Masons, the Bilderbergs, the Illuminati, etc. But how there can be so many “all-powerful” entities and organizations, since if any of them were truly all-powerful all the others would be powerless?

(3) The hillbillies also insist, in between swigs of especially potent moonshine, that the NRA is not solely concerned about the profits and political influence of the weapons manufacturers and gun dealers it represents. They deny that the gun lobby is like the tobacco lobby, with its abhorrent willingness to let children start smoking and die, for the sake a few extra pennies on its multi-billion-dollar patrons’ bottom lines. Somehow the moonshine-swilling yokels know with great and profound certainty that the NRA is the valiant protector of the Second Amendment, and that its ideals are as pure as virgin snow. Schoolchildren who get shot by madmen wielding fearsome assault weapons are a small sacrifice to be paid for those American rights and freedoms so staunchly protected by the heroic NRA!

I could go on, but I think the picture I’ve painted is pretty clear. Dinosaurs had small brains and thus couldn’t adapt to their rapidly changing environment. When a giant asteroid appeared out of the blue and slammed into the earth, they were doomed. We human beings, thanks to our big brains and boundless ingenuity, are not completely incapable of saving our children and grandchildren from extinction. We should be able to read the handwriting on the wall and change our ways before it’s too late. Perhaps we still have time to figure out what to do about global warming and other long-term dangers. But what about the immediate danger to the lives of young schoolchildren, now that madmen have declared open season on them, and while the next serial killer probably lusts for an even higher body count in order to insure his immortality in some macabre Hall of Infamy?

Who can fathom the minds of men capable of such heinous crimes? Who can predict when and where they will strike? Because we can’t accurately predict their behavior, it actually makes perfect sense to prevent them from getting their hands on assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips. It also makes perfect sense to look at technologies that require legal gun owners to identify themselves before guns can be fired, perhaps via fingerprint or retina scans. What makes no sense whatsoever is to do nothing different or to flood schools with even more weapons, which is what the pea-brained dinosaurs of the NRA are now suggesting.

There was an armed deputy present on the school grounds the day of the Columbine massacre. He was outnumbered and outgunned, and couldn’t risk harming innocent children, so he was unable to prevent the killings.

And as Mark Kelly pointed out recently, the elite Navy Seals he knows say it’s “ridiculous” to put armed guards in schools. Kelly is an ex-combat pilot whose wife, Gabby Giffords, was shot and almost killed by yet another madman armed with a semiautomatic weapon and a high-capacity ammo clip. There was at least one armed person in the audience that day, Joseph Zamudio, but he was unable to prevent the shootings. Although he helped subdue the killer, he never had the chance to use his own weapon; the shooting stopped when the killer had to reload and he was tackled by some of his would-be victims. A smaller clip would have limited the carnage.

I agree with Gabby Giffords. When she was asked by Diane Sawyer what she thought about children being shot in schools, she said simply but emphatically, “Enough.”

Michael R. Burch is a Nashville-based editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry and other “things literary” at www.thehypertexts.com.

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Michael Burch

87 Comments on this post:

By: Captain Nemo on 1/18/13 at 1:14

If it weren’t fir my guns I would be nothing. There fir I am something.

Average Moron-

By: Captain Nemo on 1/18/13 at 1:22

By reducing the amount one gun clip could hold from 100 to 10 rounds, would reduce the amount one person could kill by a few persons, before reloading. This doesn’t sound like much, unless you are someone in between an empty clip and a loaded clip and escape. This would be a sensible solution, unless you are planning to take over the U.S. Government.

By: pswindle on 1/18/13 at 1:41

Thanks Mike, you hit it right on target.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 1:48

Bulls eye, so to say. ;)

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 1:49

Enough is enough. We need tough gun laws and they need to be strictly enforced.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 1:51

One of our idiot trolls insists that "such things happen." As if it's no big deal. It truly takes a special type of stupid reasoning to reach that point.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 2:22

I recently visited some Latin American countries that mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land, where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, A.T.M., restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.

Despite the ubiquitous presence of “good guys” with guns, countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world.

“A society that is relying on guys with guns to stop violence is a sign of a society where institutions have broken down,” said Rebecca Peters, former director of the International Action Network on Small Arms. “It’s shocking to hear anyone in the United States considering a solution that would make it seem more like Colombia.”


By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 2:23

Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. Before then, Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent, and there have been no mass killings, said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/18/13 at 2:26

I have had enough of this talk about taking my guns away from me and my 5 yr old son. It is my right to shoot anyone with as many bullets as I see fit. It is my right to buy as many guns as I see fit to shoot anyone messing with my property and if it means that my son Billy Bob can’t go to collage, he will at less be alive to hunt and shoot.

And if anybody tries to take my guns, I am going’s to kill them.

W. E. Cousins-

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 2:27

LOL, Nemo. That's about right.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 2:29

At a mean medical cost per injury of about $17,000, the 134,445 (95% confidence interval [CI], 109,465-159,425) gunshot injuries in the United States in 1994 produced $2.3 billion (95% CI, $2.1 billion–$2.5 billion) in lifetime medical costs (in 1994 dollars, using a 3% real discount rate), of which $1.1 billion (49%) was paid by US taxpayers. Gunshot injuries due to assaults accounted for 74% of total costs.

Conclusions Gunshot injury costs represent a substantial burden to the medical care system. Nearly half this cost is borne by US taxpayers.


You want to lower taxes? Here's one way.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/18/13 at 2:29

That is the main reason I won’t travel to any of the Latin Countries, Blanket.

The US is headed in that direction I am afraid.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 2:29

In 1997, gunshots caused 31,636 fatal injuries and approximately 100,000 nonfatal injuries in the United States.1- 2 In addition to the enormous human toll of gun violence, the cost of treating these injuries imposes a financial burden on society. While measuring medical costs is not as straightforward as counting the number of victims, valid cost estimates are important for at least 2 reasons. First, such estimates are relevant to evaluating gun violence–reduction programs. Second, reliable estimates for the financial burden that gun violence imposes on the medical care system may help guide reimbursement policies.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 2:31

The GOP would lead us into a world of no middle class and rampid gun violence. They want a banana republic.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 2:35

Of course we have people like Curry Todd here in Tn........

By: BenDover on 1/18/13 at 3:24

It's actually pretty nice that it's the gun issue that will finally open everyone's eyes to what a ruthless leftist ideologue this guy really is. Maybe threatening to take their guns will force a few of the rubes to finally wake up and say, "hey wait a minute". Too bad he was smart enough to wait for a tragedy to exploit after his re-election.

Before the election... with Giffords and Aurora it was like... "shhhh... not yet... "

Now some agencies are reporting that there wasn't an 'assault rifle' involved. Well that would just totally p*ss all over their Cornflakes wouldn't it. All those dead kids to get everyone upset over and no assault weapon to blame. Oh the horror!

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 3:26

Leftist ideologue? Seriously?

By: slacker on 1/18/13 at 3:36

I believe the Nashville Metro. Police Dept., has police officers assigned to several schools in Davidson county. Their assignment was originally initiated to protect the teachers from some of the students.
Although expensive, its seem to be working well. After the President gets these new gun laws passed, these officers can return to the streets.
More officers will be available to police the snuff-dipping hillbillies.. Burch looks down upon.
Mikey's new book: ''How to win friends and change minds, by calling people childish names.''

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 4:01

Ben, in 1934 the NRA supported making "gangster style" guns illegal for private gun ownership.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/18/13 at 4:07

I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. I have when I felt it was desirable to do so for my own protection. I know that applies in most of the instances where guns are used effectively in self-defense or in places of business and in the home. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.


By: Rasputin72 on 1/18/13 at 4:27

I am all for implementing the strongest gun laws the world has ever seen. On the other hand given a choice of riding this country of guns or the underclass element that has brought this country to its knees I certainly would opt for the riddance of the non-productive human bile that clogs our welfare roles and prisons without hesitation before any change in the gun laws.

By: yogiman on 1/18/13 at 4:51

But main point is, B2, you never know when you're going to need one. So why leave home without one... especially in today's situation?

By: yogiman on 1/18/13 at 4:54

Isn't it odd, BenDover, he's never given it any thought about his Muslim 'cousin' killing those soldiers on that army base.

How long ago was that? What has been done to date. Does he think people will forget it and he can pardon the guy during his next usurpation of office?

By: yogiman on 1/18/13 at 4:59


Are you sure you're in the right business? You write like a great comedian and you're a great joke writer. I laugh every time I read you "postings for the public" on this site.

If you have such fear of danger as you "say", why do you live here? If I had such fear I would sell my farm and get the heck out of this danger zone.

By: Ask01 on 1/18/13 at 5:52

An excellent post, Mike.

I believe you have arrived at the heart of the matter. Most gun owners I know support the idea of banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

Of course, these are college educated, level headed, stable people who realize the named items only have value if you intend to engage police or military forces. There seems a consensus in the most likely situations a gun owner might encounter, a pistol would be the most practical, as it is quicker and easier to employ in confined areas whereas a rifle would be cumbersome and slow. (Maybe that is why aircrew were issued .38s and later 9mms.)

Most of those going rabid at the mere mention of gun control, background checks, and mental health evaluations are, I believe, the most likely to not pass. Perhaps that explains the paranoia which overomes them. That may be a side effect of the NRA/Republican/Conservative/Tea Bagger kool ade they've been drinking with their moonshine. They may be evolutionary dead ends, but still present an annoyance for the rest of us until the reach extinction.

I do wish, Mike, Congress would grow some cajones and act in the best interest of the nation instead of one of the more dangerous fringe groups since the Klan. There would be some resistance, and some states, like Texas may have to be beaten into submission, but the availability of cheap government land after the riffraff is cleared out and their property confiscated would allow more loyal citizens to move there. If anyone could stand the place.

My one fear, Mike, is this will develop into a limited civil war. With so many law enforcement agencies around the country openly declaring their intent to defy the federal government and state level politicians tready dangerously close to committing treason and sedition, one has to wonder if they seriously feel they have a chance of bullying a weak willed congress into inaction.

Thanks again for an interesting article.

By: Just_Saying on 1/18/13 at 6:41

I love how all the intelligent, well educated liberals get on here and trash their opponents, not with facts and logic, but with insults and anecdotes.

Oh someone knows a ex-SEAL who has an opinion? Must be a fact. Found some correlation? Must be causation!!

One criminal wasn't able to reload quickly? None of them must be able to do so. One armed person failed to shoot the bad guy the second he pulled a weapon? Just proves no one ever could use a firearm to limit the damage.

Seriously, try listening to the reasonable people on the other side. What about the shooter at the theater in Texas recently that was stopped by an off-duty deputy? Or ever notice that there has never been a mass shooting (one exception in modern times) that wasn't a gun-free zone?

I don't chew (and never have) tobacco, my son is 8 and just got a BB gun(Red Ryder of course) which stays safely out of reach when he is not supervised, and I do own firearms. I am also a college graduate, and smart enough to not be either a Republican or a Democrat (Libertarian thank you very much).

Finally, stop acting like children if you want anyone other than other juvenile minded people to listen to you.

By: Just_Saying on 1/18/13 at 6:48


So you since you don't know any "college educated, level headed, stable people " who own guns and disagree with you, then anyone who does disagree with you must be ignorant and aggressive?

You said yourself, "most" of the time a pistol would be ideal. By definition that means sometimes one would need a rifle.

Police and military engagements huh? Hunting. Recreational and competition shooting comes to mind. Self defense against someone armed with a rifle while outdoors (some of us do own or have access to land large enough to shoot rifles on you know).

You whole atttitude reminds me of the reporter who couldn't believe Nixon won because everyone he knew voted for the other guy.

By: Ask01 on 1/18/13 at 7:15

Just_Saying, considering the frothing at the mouth mania which sweeps over the gun addicts I know when I mention the subject, yes, they are ignorant and aggressive. I drop the issue so as to not push them over the edge while they have the blood lust in their eyes.

A rifle for hunting? Sure, a 'rifle' is pefectly acceptable for hunting. Of course I consider a crossbow to be more of a challenge and test of skill. But do you really need an assault weapon for hunting? What are you hunting? Elephants, rhinos, water buffalo? Why do you need a high capacity magazine? Is your aim that poor you need the extra rounds, or perhaps just too lazy to continually change clips? Or perhaps you have other inclinations as mentioned above.

By: Ask01 on 1/18/13 at 7:30

Let me toss this out again.

I propose a compromise for the gun enthusiasts.

No new gun laws, but we will begin enforcing, to the maximum extent possible, existing laws. There are a few small concession, however, to put extra teeth into those laws.

Anytime an owner's weapon is stolen, or otherwise misused because of improper storage, the owner will be just as liable as the perpetrator for prosecution.

If the improper storage results in the death of a child playing with a loaded weapon, the charge shall be first degree murder.

Retailers must keep perfect records of all sales. Failure to do so, with the weapon used in the commission of a crime, will result in long jail sentences, very heavy fines, forfieture of retail assets and loss of license forever.

Even private individuals must keep immaculate records of sales to other private individuals, or face equally harsh sanctions.

The net result is no loss of firearms rights, but we will severely punish those who are not responsible gun owners or dealers.

That is what you have been whining for, isn't it?

I further propose mandatory psychological testing for prospective gun owners, paid for by them, of course. This should also include immediate family, since they could have easier access to the weapons than the crminal on the street, also paid for by the applicant.

This would address the mental health aspect whined about by the NRA and other suspect groups.

There you have a proposal which will address your two basic arguments against gun control. Dealing with and punishing irresponsible gun owners and maximizing efforts to evaluate mental health and keep guns out of the hands of the unstable who might use firearms to harm others.

There should be no complaints. (I won't listen to or acknowledge them anyway.)

By: yogiman on 1/18/13 at 9:50


It might be great to put the honest law abiding citizens under control of the 2nd amendment..., if hey could only put those damn criminals under control also.

But with the sensible knowledge they will fever be able to make law abiding citizens out of criminals, common sense should tell anyone to leave it alone..

If you are in favor of being put under control as a government's puppet, back 'um all the way to your trough.

By: yogiman on 1/18/13 at 10:05

And I've got some old man's advice for you, young man; if your man Barry could erase the 2nd amendment from the Constitution he wouldn't have any other trouble in taking the US under absolute dictator control. And that was his ambition when he usurped the office.

P.S. I'm still waiting for proof he's in that office legally, can you help me?

By: Mike Burch on 1/19/13 at 2:33


Thanks as always for your comments.

Using humor, irony and even exaggeration to make points is not forbidden in the art of writing. Obviously, I don't think every gun owner is a snuff-dipping, moonshine-swilling hillbilly who's convinced that the UN and liberal Democrats want to take away their guns in order to rob them of their rights. But there are enough people who at least partially fit the mold to make my points valid.

My goal is to point out WHY we have such insane gun laws, and so much gun violence, in the United States, and especially in states like Tennessee where many people believe the Bible literally but don't believe in facts or science.

By: parnell3rd on 1/19/13 at 6:37

More Propaganda from Mike Burch.
If you hate America and Tennessee so much, why don't you move to one of those gun free countries?
How come in your last article you did not point out that Mexico has a complete gun ban. And 55,000 have been murdered by gun's in the past three years.
Because, your a liberal hypocrite.

By: yogiman on 1/19/13 at 6:38


I believe it would be safe to assume we have so many stupid laws on our books because we have so my stupid legislators in our legislatures that feel they have to pass a new law in every session. They don't feel they're "earning" their money by just sitting in session. They need a new law over the last law they passed.

And just think about it; if we had no criminals, we wouldn't need any laws, would we? We wouldn't even need a congress.

By: grid on 1/19/13 at 7:45

I understand the point Mr. Burch is trying to make, but I believe he could have made it without using such inflammatory language. This merely causes people to react, and not think.

As I've mentioned on this site before, I'm a proud gun owner & carry permit holder. I don't hunt, just target shoot. I appreciate hi-capacity clips because it's easier to maintain focus & improve aim if I don't have to reload as often.

I would urge our law-makers to fully enforce existing gun laws before creating new ones.

By: Loner on 1/19/13 at 8:04

Another fine missive from Mike Burch...one of the last remaining liberals in the Southern ecosystem....Southern liberals are truly an endangered species.

I propose that every gun owner and every gun purchaser sign a loyalty oath to the US Constitution, or forfeit their rights under the 2nd amendment. The secessionists, the conspiracy theorists, the birthers, the white supremacists, the tin-foil helmet wearers, the born-agains etc. would probably balk at this new and reasonable requirement for gun ownership in the USA. When they refuse to sign the papers, we confiscate their arsenals....to prevent domestic terrorism.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/19/13 at 8:05

By: Just_Saying on 1/18/13 at 6:41
I love how all the intelligent, well educated liberals get on here and trash their opponents, not with facts and logic, but with insults and anecdotes.

Seriously, try listening to the reasonable people on the other side. What about the shooter at the theater in Texas recently that was stopped by an off-duty deputy? Or ever notice that there has never been a mass shooting (one exception in modern times) that wasn't a gun-free zone?

If you are referring to yogi, Rasputin, budlight and parnell3 as being reasonable, then your post makes no sense at all. Just saying.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/19/13 at 8:13

The minor troll p3 insults us with its tired old, “If you hate America…”whine. It has nothing to offer put a bank full of 1950 cliché McCarthy rhetoric. It is the 21st century p3! Group up and catch up.

By: Ask01 on 1/19/13 at 8:28

Caricature is indeed a valid tool for writing as it is for crawings. As caricature in the graphic arts, exaggerates certain features, likewise written caricature does the same for perceptions of character, personality, and other less concrete factors.

Mike's article does point out the perception many have of, not gun owners in general, but those who howl like wounded banshees when any mention of controls on who owns firearms is mentioned.

The people who carry weapons in public to, as one man in Utah with an assault rifle claimed, 'to demonstrate weapons are not dangerous' has for many the opposite effect. That being to project the image of a sensationalist, publicity seeking, gun toting, Marshall Dillon wannabe.

Those who continue to cite, ad nauseum, the Second Amendment asif it were the inviolate Word of God project the image of inflexible zealots mired in the past. This becomes particularly true when other amendments have been diluted or more narrowly defined.

In particular, those who recite buzz phrases, such as "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead hand," "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," and any saying which invokes God and guns in the same breath, portray themselves and other like minded individuals as potential law breakers and perhaps even disloyal revolutionaries who might actually attempt to overthrow the goverment.

The image is not helped when one side keeps saying "assault weapons" and the oppostion continues to hear and say "all weapons." It is the same as those wanting action on illegal aliens being accused of being immigrant hating xenophobes. Both sides are speaking two different dialects.

The danger for the firearms enthusiasts, is middle of the road types, seeing the increasing rhetoric of the pro side, could be forced to side with the anti gun factions suspecting the advocates are out of control and dangerous.

So, there you have it. What I intend, and hope is received, as a non insulting, non hysteria laden, honest appraisal of the image perceived by the anti gun faction and even middle of the road people such as myself.

By: Ask01 on 1/19/13 at 8:43

Let me hurry to add, most, perhaps 99% of the instances cited where someone reacted to stop a crime, the responder has been an off duty law enforcement officer. So, we aren't talking about Joe Sixpack whipping out the 'shootin' iron' and saving the day. The deciding factor was a trained professional. Of course, we could also talk about the times those trained professionals have been outgunned and retrated, or out performed and killed.

I believe many who recite these instances envision themselves standing up in a crowded public place, amid a hail of bullets, calmly drawing their weapon, and 'pluggin' the varmint twixt the eyyeballs' Yosemite Sam style. Subsequently being showered with adulation and accolades, named a public hero, and ever exaulted.

I believe the delusion would be short lived, as would likely the soon to be late would be hero once the bullets started flying.

Gee, the reality is never as glamorous as the fantasy, is it?

By: slacker on 1/19/13 at 8:46

Brevity is also a valid tool, stating the obvious, not so much.

By: Ask01 on 1/19/13 at 8:47

Good morning Captain, and thank you for mentioning the tried and true rhetorical buzz phrase of "America, love it or leave it."

While I actually support the notion as regards my, and I believe your, concept of America, when tied inextricably to the concept of a gun in every pocket, the phrase becomes almost blasphemous.

By: Ask01 on 1/19/13 at 8:48

Brevity has never been my long suit, slacker.

Many teachers, professors and instructors have pointed this out to no avail.

By: yogiman on 1/19/13 at 8:53


If you would go back to school and concentrate on a study of why our founders put the 2nd amendment in our Constitution, you might understand why your man Barry want's it abolished.

The first step all dictators have made in the past has been gun control over the people. If you want Barry Soetoro as your dictator, just give him your gun and tell him; I'm your subject, Master, how shall I honor you?

You can't fight back if his team has guns but yours doesn't.

And as I've noted before, Barry is the least of our (we the people) concern. Our biggest concern is a congress that has sided with him without question.

Has the communist party now gained control over the US with this congress and Barack Obama? If not, they sure are close.

By: slacker on 1/19/13 at 9:01

Ask01. you're a good sport.. I look forward to reading your posts.

By: yogiman on 1/19/13 at 9:02

Barry isn't the first man in office make a move toward gun control to take over the nation, Ask01. But, credit where credit is due, he's made the most obviously flagrant moves to achieve his goal than the ones before him. And except for a couple of legislators, we have a congress that's been backing him all the way.

By: yogiman on 1/19/13 at 9:12


When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto? made the comment about it being a mistake to bring the United States into the war.

Our 2nd amendment was mentioned many times the reason Japan did not invade the USA.

Why change our constitution and give another nation that privilege?

By: Ask01 on 1/19/13 at 9:23

Thanks you, slacker.

I try to be objective, but reluctantly confess I fail miserably sometimes. I really am a middle of the road, middle class schlub just trying to get by, but sometimes I slip from one side or the other.

I believe the key to happiness, which I from time to time misplace, is to not play into others madness as much as possible.

Have a great day, see you later.

By: Ask01 on 1/19/13 at 10:08

Much has been made about the Second Amendment being a deterent to the hostile take over of the United States. Some even attribute the failure of the Empire of Japan did not invade the United States during World War II to that small portion of thr U. S. Constitution.

Of course, in all fairness, the only references I could uncover were on pro gun websites.

The one point ignored by those sites, and I suppose all weapons enthusiasts, is that the average gun owner of that era only had hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns. There were no assault weapons. (Please note, for the sake of clarity and preciseness, I said average. One cannot count the true overboard loon with an arsenal in the garage.)

The argument is about assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Not your everyday common firearm.

Let me repeat to be sure everyone comprehends.

This is about assault weapons and high capacity magazines only.

Standard weapons are not affected.

I know, however, it is only a matter of time before a Tennessee legislator tries to label this a 'gateway law,' leading to stricter laws. As if we aren't already the laughing stock for the nation with their other legislation.

By: govskeptic on 1/19/13 at 10:34

Rather amazing that on the weekend of our great First Lady's 49th Birthday and
the weekend of the 2nd Inauguration of our Immaculate President that Mr Burch
and TCP puts out an Editorial on Southern hillbillies and gun control. Don't
these people know the theme being presented by the Obama Administration on
this weekend is a renewal of our non-partisanship, just getting along, and a
huge come togetherness for glad handing, music, fashion, and hugs? Put
on your "WE WON" buttons and join the parade!