Burch: Raging hypocrisy

Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 10:05pm
By Michael R. Burch

Dana McLendon, a Franklin alderman, will see the NRA’s insanity and raise it the pot limit. But it’s a crackpot bet. He wants to allow guns in municipal buildings on the premise that, as he put it, “When the bad guy with the gun arrives, the only effective response is the good guy with a gun.”

McLendon’s zany theory is like saying that the “only way” to prevent people from making bombs and killing other people is to have the “good guys” blow up the “bad guys” first. But obviously a much better way to protect innocent people from being blown to bits is to regulate the distribution of chemicals that can be used to create bombs. And our government does just that. But if we can regulate the distribution of potentially lethal chemicals, why can’t we regulate the distribution of obviously lethal weapons and ammo?

Yes, the Second Amendment creates the right of citizens to bear arms. But it has never been an unlimited right. Bombs are a type of arms. But surely no one with a functioning brain thinks American citizens have the “right” to own and bear nuclear bombs. There must be sane limits to our rights. If every human being has an inalienable right to bear any type of armament, then obviously Iranians have the right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. So why is our government trying to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

There is a glaring problem when politicians say two contrary things. Tennessee’s lunatic fringe leadership is saying, on one hand, that ordinary citizens have the unlimited right to own and bear arms, because of the Second Amendment. But none of them think that Muslim citizens of Tennessee have the right to own and bear nuclear weapons, or any type of arms that might be used in acts of large-scale terrorism.

If Tennessee legislators have the right to protect themselves from terrorists bearing super-lethal weapons, why don’t we have the right to protect innocent schoolchildren from madmen bearing super-lethal guns? Are the lives of adult legislators more valuable than the lives of children?

One or the other must be true: either citizens have the unlimited right to own and bear arms, or the government has the right to regulate the distribution of arms which are too lethal for private use. And if anyone deserves to be protected, it is our children, not self-serving politicians.

And let’s get real: Tennessee politicians and judges don’t believe for a second in the right of ordinary citizens to bear arms in their august presence. They are never going to allow us to carry guns into their courthouses and legislative plazas. The only armed people they will allow near them while they work are trained professionals. Nor do they believe for a second in the “right” of ordinary citizens to exercise their unlimited freedom of speech during court sessions and government proceedings. (If you want to test my theory, just try standing up in the middle of a trial and screaming the First Amendment at the top of our lungs. If you don’t quickly shut up and sit down, the judge will have you arrested, hauled off to jail and fined.)

Tennessee’s politicians and judges are raging hypocrites. They are willing to allow us and our children to become targets in a shooting gallery. But they will never accept that risk themselves. Dana McLendon has a pipe dream. His fellow legislators are not stupid enough to risk their lives. They are, however, hypocritical enough to risk our lives, and our children’s lives, while protecting their own.

Why are we paying cowardly, self-serving hypocrites to protect themselves while turning our children into sitting ducks for madmen armed with super-lethal weapons?

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

299 Comments on this post:

By: Captain Nemo on 2/8/13 at 8:58

By: Rasputin72 on 2/7/13 at 4:55
NEMO.......I am running late for cocktails, however if you want to withhold information that might absolve you from being a lying buffoon that is quite acceptable to me.

Raspy old boy, by your being so mystified as to who I am and not knowing, just make me happy.

By: Captain Nemo on 2/8/13 at 9:01

By: yogiman on 2/6/13 at 9:06
One proven fact, dumba$$: If Rasputin72's is equal to me mentally, that means he is far superior to your mentality. And you're proving it every day.

Now here is some great testimony of these two being mental equals. LOL

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 9:01

I do not foresee the use of drones, tanks, or ballistic missiles against me or my family, gd.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/Inselian.jpg

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 9:03

Are we to learn the same lesson across the nation of cities with gun bans about violent crime, gd? Are we to re-learn the lessons of the UK when the weak are denied the right to defend themselves against the strong?

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 9:04

Sorry that last one was to be directed to blanket.

By: bfra on 2/8/13 at 9:05

Ben has donned a chicken little suit, now we have 2 of them. Ben & yogi!

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/8/13 at 9:06

Ben, no one is saying that. See, you guys build strawmen instead of addressing the topic at hand. Stronger background checks and keeping track of guns sales are not unreasonable things. No one is talking about not allowing you to have a gun to defend yourself.

By: gdiafante on 2/8/13 at 9:07

Ben, you must really not understand the legislation proposed. NONE of it will prevent one person from being able to defend themselves "against the strong".

It will, however, prevent them from using automatic weapons as the means of that defense. It doesn't mean you still can't own a firearm. Talk about a strawman...

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 9:09

It will be worse in America because the youth... particularly the minority youth are educated that the world is unfair and they consider themselves just in breaking society's rules as a remedy.

When the firewall of firearms falls in this country it's going to be very ugly for the law-abiding civil society; as it is the threat of an armed response that maintains the delicate balance of power we have now. This is illustrated well in cities like Chicago, DC, and Detroit already where there gun bans have upset the balance of power and their citizens suffer at the hands of the uncivilized thugs.

By: Captain Nemo on 2/8/13 at 9:10

By: Rasputin72 on 2/8/13 at 7:16

For example, one could say that Charles Manson was a Raving Maniac. One could say that Michael R.Burch was a Raving Maniac. Manson clearly left the "raving side" of his personality and the "maniac" took over.

This comes from one who is so mania about himself, is so comical in it self.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/8/13 at 9:15

Oh for cryin' out loud, Ben. What a bunch of bunk. BTW, what year did Chicago have the most gun crime and what was the number of homicides that year? Do you even know before you use that as a reference point????

By: Captain Nemo on 2/8/13 at 9:20

By: Rasputin72 on 2/8/13 at 7:34
LONER.....In a country where the diversity is the order of the day, "Ludicrous" has to be in the eye and mind of the beholder.

Diversity breeds many opinions.

For the narcissi like Rasputin that only sees himself as all, diversity would mean danger to his well being. Diversity means that the eyes of the world would not be on Raspy.

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 9:25

People no more 'need' that bottle of liquor than I need my Mini 14... but I enjoy it... it's a ball to shoot... and I find the collective ownership of such weapons by our citizenry to be a great deterrent against enemies foreign and domestic.

The liquor, in fact, has no such inherent value to society and it's determent is well known.

I enjoy my weapons from an artistic perspective. I enjoy possessing them like someone else might enjoy a fine piece of art. Does anyone really need a fine piece of art? Couldn't that money be better spent on the poor or on teachers or firefighters? Who really needs more than 200-300 square feet of living area for that matter. Isn't it just decadence and couldn't that resource be put to better use elsewhere in society?

There is no 'need' for a car that will exceed the speed limit? Do we allow people to have such dangerous possessions just because they like them? Because they want them?

If we really want to save lives we could drop the maximum speed limit to 20mph and enforce it with an iron fist.

The simple fact is that we balance society's wants against society's risks. Your ban list has little to do with reason and much to do with emotional unpopularity of an agenda promoted by government to diminish the power of the individual and increase the power of the collective. Any one of the founders could have explained the dangers of this mentality.

By: Captain Nemo on 2/8/13 at 9:26

It appears that paranoia is rampant today.

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 9:27

It's because only the criminals have guns in Chicago, bn.

By: gdiafante on 2/8/13 at 9:29

People no more 'need' that bottle of liquor than I need my Mini 14... but I enjoy it... it's a ball to shoot... and I find the collective ownership of such weapons by our citizenry to be a great deterrent against enemies foreign and domestic.

So you don't need it, you want it, like a spoiled child. And, I've got news for you, the oceans provide more of a deterrent to foreign enemies than your mini 14.

And again with liquor...FYI, Jesus turned water into wine, not an AK47.

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 9:44

The point is that we have lots of things in society we don't need... many, as in the case of liquor, being more dangerous than my rifle and without any of the offsetting benefits.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have liquor. I'm saying that deciding such things based on emotional popularity is not right. To do so opens up a hypocrisy charge against those who decry gun ownership but defend homosexuality as a minority right. If the majority says we don't NEED homosexual behavior as a society does it give society the right to ban it?

That's why the founders were smart enough to include constitutional protections for gun ownership.

By: gdiafante on 2/8/13 at 9:50

I'm not saying we shouldn't have liquor. I'm saying that deciding such things based on emotional popularity is not right.

Aren't you doing exactly that? And, again, what is being proposed doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. Not only are you being hypocritical, you're being paranoid. You're creating a crisis were none exists.

By: bfra on 2/8/13 at 9:55

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 9:27
It's because only the criminals have guns in Chicago, bn.
=========================================
What kind of crap is that statement?

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/8/13 at 10:18

Crap. That's exactly the type of statement that is. That's my hometown. I can tell you the crap that's being touted around is not factually correct!

By: yogiman on 2/8/13 at 10:37

Pretty close, Loner.

I served 7 years in the Navy, 3 years in the prison (did I happen to see you in there?) and 28 year in the weather service. So yeah, I worked for the 'guvmunt' 38 years. I operated the first weather radar in Nashville as part of my "tour of duty". That was actually one of the first radars the entire weather service operated.

So how many years can you brag about working for the 'guvmunt'?

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 10:38

There are huge legal obstacles to personal gun ownership in Chicago and DC to which only the law abiding adhere. The law abiding are effectively disarmed... and vulnerable to those who intend them harm and ignore such laws. Common Sense BN

By: yogiman on 2/8/13 at 10:41

Oh, and like you, Loner; I never leave home without it and you would never know it unless it becomes needed.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/8/13 at 10:46

The law abiding are not "effectively disarmed." Do you know the opinion of the people who live in the pockets of high crime area in Chicago? They want strong gun laws and want them to be enforced. This is from the people who LIVE there, not some Monday morning quarterback posting from Nashville.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/8/13 at 10:48

yogi, has it ever occurred to you that a feeble old man like yourself could be overpowered and have the guns smacked out of your shaky little hands?

By: bfra on 2/8/13 at 10:51

With his MO, he might not even have a gun. The people at the gun store he was tooting about, never heard of him. Yogi pops off about a lot of things that have been shown to be untrue.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/8/13 at 10:52

yogi fife.

By: yogiman on 2/8/13 at 10:53

Darn,

I thought I was smarter than y'all. It only took you 4 years to figure me out. How in the world did you do it so fast?

I've always thought intelligent people were as smart as they thought they were. Error on my point, eh?

By: gdiafante on 2/8/13 at 10:57

Yogi spent 7 years in the Navy yet didn't know what the term "squid" meant.

Yogi was operating the radar when it penetrated his skull, alerting the weather service of a massive low pressure system between his ears.

And, yogi, Loner is a retired postal worker. Pay attention, dumbass.

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 10:58

Illinois has no carry law Blanket. It's a de facto public gun ban on anyone who follows the law. Among the public only the criminals are armed.

Should Lynyrd Skynyrd be successful and get all the guns dumped 'to the bottom of the sea'... it just eliminates the ability of the weak to defend against the strong. Violent crime rate will soar here in America just the same as it did in the UK... worse even because of the cultural angst fostered by our political class.

By: bfra on 2/8/13 at 11:00

Didn't think yogi's pea brain would remember, but with what his comments were, he was figured out in about 2 days. He has til yet to post a true comment with any kind of verification.

By: bfra on 2/8/13 at 11:01

Ben has finally lost it completely!

By: yogiman on 2/8/13 at 11:03

Loner,

Unlike you, government employees were on a different retirement program. We did not pay into Social Security. I understand in your childhood you didn't know that. But after I retired from the government, I went to work in security and pad into Social Security. I don't know about know, but back then you had to pay into the program for 10 years. So, yeah, I earned two retirement programs.

By: yogiman on 2/8/13 at 11:09

Well, kids,

As I've posted before on your usurper in office; time will tell. At my age, I hope I'm still living when you all learn of your ignorance. I hate to think I might miss that laugh.

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 11:13

Emotion... faith in the collective... Pollyannish Utopianism that views darkness and woe as emanating from the the gun itself like some evil totem... like Frodo and the Ring... "If we just get rid of all the guns"... geezzz

By: Mike Burch on 2/8/13 at 11:18

Everyone,

Thanks as always for your comments. I think Loner hit the nail on the rusty head when he said:

Break out the coonskin caps.

A pretty smart guy (Einstein) said that we can't solve problems using the same methods that created the problems. He also defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

Only a few third-world nations have higher gun death rates per capita than Tennessee. Our judges and politicians don't allow anyone to carry concealed weapons in their august presence. Why are they not affording our children the same protections?

By: BenDover on 2/8/13 at 11:27

Of course they don't have more gun deaths Mike... most of them ban the liberty of gun ownership. Compare violent crime rates.

And throw out Memphis too while you're at it. It's a statistical outlier outside the normal bounds of civilized southern society.

By: Moonglow1 on 2/8/13 at 11:36

Moonglow1: Until corporations stop coming to TN, the TN idiot legislators will continue to promote stupidity. Money is all they understand and when the money stops flowing from corporations, they will "change their tune." Recently, FedEx, Volkswagen, and others are very much against "guns on their premises."

These Teas do not respect freedom nor do they understand the Constitution. They are ideologues and stupid ones at that.

Freedom means that citizens have the right to be safe. As a matter of fact, government is charged with protecting citizens. I have the right to be protected from semi-automatic weapons brandished by idiots.

The problem we have is that these Tea in TN who govern, hate government. So why are they governing. They are not performing their government duties. Instead they are promoting their right wing ALEC financed ideology which is bad for America and contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

I propose that some of us enlightened people living in Tennessee meet at Fido's and organize a super PAC to demonstrate to the world we are not all crazy in TN and to counter in a rational way the crazy legislators in TN.

Our idiot Governor is still “studying whether or not to expand Medicaid as per The Affordable Health Care Act, yet TN bills itself as the Healthcare Capital of the World. If we are, then we should be at the forefront of the new healthcare paradigm. Instead, we are giving tax breaks to HCA a billion dollar for-profit company, to relocate on West End. Well then, as an “investor” I expect shares in their stock. Isn’t that what free enterprise is all about?

Well, in TN, it seems to be all about guns guns and more guns.
Instead we could truly be leaders in healthcare. Also, we are leaders in for-profit prisons. That should tell you something about TN priorities!!!!

By: bfra on 2/8/13 at 11:44

Moonglow 2 - HCA has really got to keep that profit pouring in now. Frist has got to keep up on Ms. Frist's divorce settlement. Empty your pockets, taxpayers, these robbers (without guns) gotta have that money.

By: Moonglow1 on 2/8/13 at 11:45

Moonglow1: I feel I need "ideological" protection from the crazy ideologues that comprise our TN legislature. I don't need guns, I need intelligence to counter their stupidity which sadly seems to be "winning the hearts and minds" of most Tennesseans because most here are not educated. Few people graduate from high school, and in fact, corporations and our "idiots" in the TN government have decided to look out of state for qualified IT people since there aren't many here. At the same time, the TN government denigrates unemployed people. Crazy crazy and crazier....

All the rejects are coming here like Michelle Rhee and her x, the current Commissioner of Education and Roberto Gonzales. They know there is money to be made based on the TN ideology: give aways to "free enterprise" like Charter Schools and of course we know what Gonzales stands for and he supports guns guns and more guns and of course does not respect the rule of law.

Maybe the Music Industry can help. Someone please help us in this God forsaken state. Remove the cancerous ideologues from office next time we vote. Get some decent candidates to vote for next time around.

By: budlight on 2/8/13 at 11:46

McLendon’s zany theory is like saying that the “only way” to prevent people from making bombs and killing other people is to have the “good guys” blow up the “bad guys” first. But obviously a much better way to protect innocent people from being blown to bits is to regulate the distribution of chemicals that can be used to create bombs. And our government does just that. But if we can regulate the distribution of potentially lethal chemicals, why can’t we regulate the distribution of obviously lethal weapons and ammo?

Burch, can you say Oklahoma? Can you say Tim McVeigh? Where was the "regulation of potentially lethal weapons" - bombs in that case?

Listen, I respect your right to disagree with everything on the planet, so please respect my (our) rights to disagree with you. Just because I own a gun that does not mean I will use it to harm some innocent person. I would only use a weapon to defend myself in my home or whereever I might be in harms way from a person who intends to rob or kill me.

Usually guns are not the problem; people are the problem. Case in point: Cop on the run, killing spree and mayhem. He has a mental disorder and you can probably bet it is PTSD from a war he was in. There is no one size fits all crime, or one size fits all answer.

But taking away a clip with 20 or 100 rounds will not stop the carnage. Only when we all look to someone higher than our own self to be "accountable" to will the carnage stop. The problem is that too many people are caught up in their own "self-righteous self" that they will never submit to a higher power (and I do not mean the gov-ment).

G, the level of paranoia is fueled by the media. It is pouring out the nonsenses daily in triple and more doses!

By: budlight on 2/8/13 at 11:47

So why is our government trying to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

Burch, you forgot about North Korea. They would blow up South Korea, China and Japan in a NY minute. How do you feel about that?

By: Moonglow1 on 2/8/13 at 11:47

Moonglow1

Annie Get Your Gun
And Haslam too
We need more, we have too few!
We love guns in this state
Git the law passed, we can't wait

Ode from the TN Legislature to the Public

By: Moonglow1 on 2/8/13 at 11:50

Moonglow1

By: bfra on 2/8/13 at 11:44
HCA has really got to keep that profit pouring in now. Frist has got to keep up on Ms. Frist's divorce settlement. Empty your pockets, taxpayers, these robbers (without guns) gotta have that money.

SO TRUE bfa, I wonder where Old Bill is living now. I understand the wife got the bid house on Bowling, the one that looks like a "mini white house."

So true they are robbers without guns.

By: gdiafante on 2/8/13 at 12:03

like Frodo and the Ring... "If we just get rid of all the guns"... geezzz

Are you retarded? Seriously. I don't know how else to put it because your hysterical rants keep ignoring the fact that no one is attempting to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Geeezzz indeed.

By: Loner on 2/8/13 at 12:08

Here's just a slice of a TN gun-lover's rant:

"Gun critics often throw out the canard about people owning cannons or tanks not being the intent of the 2nd amendment but if you read the writings of the founders this was exactly the intent... at least it was for the populace to have armament to prevent a runaway government tyranny (mention of which now gets you labeled a crack-pot regardless of the repeated lessons in our recent history in support of such a statement)."

Ben reiterated the Southern revisionist view of the 2nd amendment....the idea that the Founders put that amendment in there so that disgruntled rebels could take up arms against the duly elected, but "tyrannical" federal government.

According to this view, the Founders expected patriots to do their duty and violently oppose tyranny in Washington, DC....it was not just a right to do so, but a duty.

Of course, this view was the seed-stock for the Great Secession and the War Between the States...the problematic amendment should have been abolished after the Southern states went into rebellion mode.

The real purpose of the 2nd amendment was related to Southern militia and there duties and responsibilities to the rich white folks who owned all those African Negro slaves. The Southern militia were used to put down slave revolts and to intimidate and terrorize the slaves into submission. This was the purpose of the 2nd amendment....it was a Southern demand that should have been denied.

Here's a credible source on the relationship between slavery and the militia:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/8/13 at 12:14

but...but...the civil war was about states rights! lol

By: Loner on 2/8/13 at 12:15

I knew it, Yogi is not just getting a guvmint pension, he double dipped and gets Social Security too. The addled tea-bagger still wants to bring down the usurper-controlled guvmint in Washington, DC....even if that means that his primary income source suddenly dries up

The GOP just loves idiots who vote against their own best interests...it's the party of A-holes, elected by idiots. Yogi is poster-boy material.

By: Loner on 2/8/13 at 12:17

Thank you, Mike Burch...I come from a long line of carpenters...hitting the nail squarely on the head is in my genes.....natural selection.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/8/13 at 12:26

The "conservative" jerks who post here are the ones that Lee Atwater referred to as the "extra chromosome conservatives."