Groups > Heffalumps and Woozles

Regarding the first Amendment, I'll follow Jefferson. On the Second, I guess I have to follow my Dad. He had a rifle and shotgun that he kept hidden unloaded under his bed. He taught my brothers and me how to shoot them, but he also taught us that they were for food-HUNTING only.

After college graduation, I was a newspaper reporter on the police beat. I asked a senior police officer about the use of guns in self defense. He said, "you'd be better off having a good watch dog." If someone attempted to brake into your house, without showing a gun, and you shot him outside your house (i.e., on your porch), you better drag him into your house. Otherwise, you'd be faced with murder. If he died on your front lawn, you'd be faced with murder.

I learned a lot of respect for guns when I was growing up. For me as a result of my military father, guns are not playthings. They were serious weapons to be used only for the killing of animals for food. Nothing more.

While living in New Hampshire, most of my neighbors owned guns and went hunting every season. Yet, none of us kids ever took guns lightly. We all learned early that guns were not toys to be played with. We all learned to handle guns with the deepest respect because of the harm they could cause. I cannot imagine any of my neighbors who owned guns spending his time out on a range shooting automatic rifles for the sport of it. They had too much respect for guns and for the killing power of guns.

When my Dad died, his unloaded rifle and shotgun were hidden under his bed. I didn't know he still owned them. He never spoke of them. Maybe because he was a GI, he never thought of guns as a recreation.

I can see the argument - but I don't completely buy it. There is organization behind some of the lies. People should be furious over that. Rupert Murdock wants to expand the reach of Fox, and drown out competition, as an example. People need to be furious, and express that rage, in the hope that it is heard loudly enough to prevent the erosion of legislative safeguards against that event.

And I'm hoping for a good bit more than simply a change in tone in DC - I think Obama has demonstrated an ability to 'get chit done' - obviously he can't do it alone, and he won't get "everything" - but at the very least I'm sure he won't feed the public a series of lies, one after another - he can't. Not when the right spins reality as some sort of surreal, twisted, mad fantasy . . .

The republican adminstration has threatened our national security, in a wide variety of ways - and on the basis of national security they would sell out our freedoms as well.

People should be furious.

The change in tone will have to start somewhere; remember that a part of the goal is to make politics so repugnant, that decent people will stay away ... and to a large extent, they have stopped paying attention altogether.

Don't worry about me, Dog - - I'm old and cranky and got involved in politics fighting the insanity of Vietnam. I admire Obama's tone and style ... but I'm game for a fight if that's what it takes to clear the air. Why, just last night I answered one particularly nasty message this way:

You, madam, are what's wrong with politics today. Your twisted ideology is the disease. And your hatred of the opposition party, a cancer. Good night.

RRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrowf.

Please don't mistake my meaning. I think both styles serve very distinct, and necessary, goals.

You are absolutely correct when you say the purpose is to turn people away, and one measure of the sucess of the effort is seen in the statement "they are all the same" - which is most clearly absurd and will not hold up on examination.

You provide facts and a clarity to them that is indeed most needed, if those who have turned away are to be persuaded to turn back, and examine the cost of all that has been done in our name.

Absent outright violence and overthrow of the republican machine, simple rage alone is not enough to secure our republic from this cancer within.

We must have greater participation.

You have a fine gift - a skill, where you tread carefully between persuasion and scorn,

and it was never my intent to imply otherwise.

E pluribus unum, baby! Democracy demands that we take part ... or they'll take it away, bit by bit, article by article.

"Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called "other conditions.''

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. - Congressman Ron Paul (R)-TX source