The Columbus Dispatch prints yet another far right-wing gun rant letter-to-the-editor

Being as progressive as I am, it's getting a tad tiring having to wade through all the far-right talking points I read in the editorial and letter-to-the-editor pages of the Columbus Dispatch. The latest one comes courtesy of Dick Alexander from Pickerington, Ohio. In today's paper, his letter-to-the-editor, entitled, "Anti-Gun Zealots Disrespect Constitution," was printed and said this:

"The Associated Press article 'One nation, divided over guns' in the Sunday Dispatch was a waste of the paper it was printed on. Everyone knows about the divide.

The end result desired by gun opponents is pretty simple to accomplish: change the U.S. Constitution. The anti-gun groups want to achieve their end results by using a tactic of President Barack Obama, by circumventing the Constitution.

If 60 percent of the public wanted to restrict guns, it would still require changing our Constitution to achieve that goal. The left’s mantra is always the same: Can't we all just come together to solve our gun problems?

What the anti-gun folks mean is, let’s trample on the Constitution. I wonder what those anti-gun supporters would say if they were forbidden to speak their mind about gun control. Oh, I forgot: Freedom of speech is a constitutional right."

Yes, including the title, Mr. Dick wrote some form of the word "Constitution" six times in this rather short letter. The term appears to be one of the far-right's special words they repeat over and over again, so much so that Freddy Krueger's nails going against a chalkboard doesn't actually sound half bad.

Liberal: "Guns?"

Mr. Dick: "Constitution!"

Liberal: "Machine guns?"

Mr. Dick: "Constitution!"

Liberal: "Rocket launchers?"

Mr. Dick: "Constitution!"

Liberal: "Tanks?"

Mr. Dick: "Constitution!"

Liberal: "Your name?"

Mr. Dick: "Constitution!"

Alright, so I'll give. In what ways did President Obama "circumvent" the Constitution, Mr. Dick? Through Obamacare? That healthcare plan which was upheld as being Constitutional by the conservative Supreme Court? I'll be darned.

Also, referring to gun-control proponents as gun opponents makes about as much sense as calling traffic-law proponents car opponents. Just because a person supports expanded background checks on gun owners doesn't make that person "anti-gun." If a person supports traffic lights and stop signs, I'm not going to call that individual "anti-car." If one were to support traffic laws, that doesn't mean they want the government to take away everyone's cars. The same goes for guns. If one supports gun-control measures, that doesn't mean they want the government to take away everyone's guns either.

Lastly, Constitutional rights are not absolute. There are grey areas depending upon the situation. Sure, we're afforded the freedom of speech in the Constitution. However, that "freedom" isn't always available to us. We're not free to yell bomb on an airplane, scream fire in a movie theater, use discriminatory words or other profane language at most areas of employment, threaten someone - especially if they hold some power, etc. We can yell as loud as we'd like that we have freedom of speech, but that doesn't always make it so. To think that, one must be naive, in denial, or both. Like with speech, there are grey areas to one's Constitutional right of owning a firearm. Have a history of violent behavior and don't attempt to purchase a gun via the gun-show-no-background-check loophole? Then good luck! In many states, you can't carry a gun with you to bars, restaurants, and of course, airports. Again, you can scream as loud as possible that you have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't always make it the case. Also, let's not pretend to know what the Founding Fathers would be telling us about how the Constitution is to be perceived and interpreted in modern-day society, because we don't know now and never will know. That would be like us speaking out against gay marriage rights in the name of Jesus, whom isn't around to speak for himself. Oh, nevermind - I guess that happens as well...

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/12/11/1-anti-gun-zealots-disrespect-constitution.html

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog