Some thoughts on guns and 2nd Amendment.

I responded to a friend the other day on Facebook.

The NBC link is about a murder in Texas with a chainsaw. So now in theory because they look evil and are dangerous they should be banned right. According to how politician’s look at things they should. Let’s not look at the human factor, just the tool that was used. I never said we don’t need some form of gun control, we do. What I am saying with this is that with tool no matter what its designed to do, whether it’s a car, chainsaw, hammer, screwdriver, gun, power tool, it can be and has been used to injure and or kill another human being. The gentleman in China that killed multiple people used a knife. So accordingly too the arguments over gun control, guns are dangerous in untrained hands or in the hands of the criminal, that being said this is true for all other tools out there .So it could be argued that all tools are dangerous and should be controlled. The hammer was the cause of many deaths here in the US, so we should ban them or how about cars. This is not about apples or oranges, a tool is tool no matter what its designed to do, but in the hands of HUMAN a tool can be used, whether they are untrained, a criminal, mentally incapable, to hurt other living beings. The main point being no matter the tool It takes a HUMAN to the do the deed, so why aren't we working on that instead. Why aren't they working on the human?

"They" are, but it's a tough row to hoe.

Meanwhile, various groups and hospitals are working on domestic abuse (and trying to help women out of bad situations in which they are threatened with guns daily), and police and ATF are trying to get the ability to track guns back to the store and close down the TINY % of stores that seem to be providing the 99% of guns in crime, and the background check legislation is to prevent those "flawed" humans from acquiring more guns easily, and the legislators are trying to identify the "bad" ones and pass laws to prevent them from owning a gun.

While some of these tactics may not suit you, remember that almost all of them (with the exception of the magazine limit - which is silly) were proposed by the NRA in the first place because they stood a very good chance of working to lower the gun violence, take guns out of the hands of idiots and crazies, and take some heat out of the situation and let us all breathe easier.

Back to the chainsaw - I don't care about the weapon: this man should be stripped of all rights to ever own a gun or any kind of dangerous tool. and be in Jail. Using him as a strawman doesn't help either side of the argument.

And for all of the 2nd amendment absolutists: the "original intent" was that Protestant white men were citizens, Catholic white men were tolerated, and pretty much everyone else: women, Blacks, children, Asians, Original-Americans (Indians), etc., were expected to follow orders, shut up, and be servile.

Over the last few centuries, we have interpreted, altered and re-configured the Constitution many times. If we can pass Prohibition and then come to our senses a few years later, then we have to agree that nothing is certain in this country. If we can pretend that a corporation has personal free-speech rights instead of simply being the owner's free speech rights, then we are very far from "original intent".

We have spent the last 230 years trying to improve this country and sometimes need to fix our improvements ... so what fix do you propose? What method do you have for identifying the idiots and crazies who are the "real problem"? What process do you propose to use for removing the guns of those the courts (for it will have to be they) determine shouldn't be allowed to have guns? What checks and balances will we install to make sure that no one who ISN'T on the banned list ever loses a gun?

Students and Social Media - Delaware gets Smart

It's not signed by the Governor yet, but Delaware may institute intelligence ...

Both chambers of the Delaware Legislature have now given unanimous approval to a bill that would keep schools from taking even a single peek at their students’ social media profiles. The prohibition applies to all the state’s students, regardless of whether they are enrolled in a public or a private school. The measure, HB 309, is one of a pair dealing with social media privacy. The other, HB 308, addresses the kind of access employers may demand of their current or potential employees, and is still being debated by lawmakers.

About freaking time. Until it happens, though, my long-standing advice to students who are required to "friend" a school employee: make a new account.

The student should have two Facebook accounts and two Twitter accounts, two of everything that the school feels like monitoring.

One, under the student's real name: nice and shiny and clean and sanitized - posts about squeaky clean and honest living, the thrill of academics, and messages to parents and family. Use this one to set up future job prospects and post photos showing one in a good light. Use this one to help your grandmother get on Facebook. "Friend" your seven-year-old nephew and be a positive influence. Dutifully give this information to the goody-two-shoes compliance officer and don't forget to friend the coach and his flunkies.

The second account, set up under a pseudonym such as "Attila the Bunny Rabbit" is the one that has all of the true friends, the honesty and the fun.

For me, this is the difference between the Math Curmudgeon and my real life. Plausible Deniability.

Facebook and Privacy - Athletes this time

"Student athletes at various universities are finding out that they have no expectation of privacy with regards to their use of social media. A recent revision in the handbook of the University of North Carolina states:

 “Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team members’ social networking sites and postings. The athletics department also reserves the right to have other staff members monitor athletes’ posts.”

I say, "So what?" Yes, it's an invasion of privacy. Yes, it raises First Amendment questions. No, the college has no right to look at what the student posts on Facebook. Why shouldn't we scream about it?

The student should have two Facebook accounts and two twitter accounts, two of everything that the coach feels like monitoring.

One, under the student's real name: nice and shiny and clean and sanitized - posts about squeaky clean and honest living, the thrill of academics, and messages to parents and family. Use this one to set up future job prospects and post photos showing one in a good light. Dutifully give this information to the goody-two-shoes compliance officer and don't forget to friend the coach and his flunkies.

The second account, set up under a pseudonym such as "Attila the Bunny Rabbit" is the one that has all of the true friends, the honesty and the fun.

For me, this is the difference between the Math Curmudgeon and my real life. Plausible Deniability.


Article Source.

Thanks for Showing the World how nice we are, but Go Home

Political warning: I'm going there, and rambling.

Now, all you Second-Amendment hating folks who think that ready access to guns (as is the case up here) is a sure-fire way to have gunfire and irresponsibility, watch this story as it unfolds. As furious as this band of morons makes us, none of them will be shot. Really. (Though, the case might be made for it ...)

You can picket and protest gay marriages at the local public school (why? What a random idea.) and make an ass of yourself over something that doesn't apply, but you won't be forcibly removed and the local yokels won't shoot you. This is proper gun control. This is how it should be. You can walk down the street with your rifle over your shoulder and no one notices except the tourists. I suppose you could attend a protest with it. Funnily enough, though, I doubt anyone will. Folks up here understand nuance. They understand civil debate. They don't scream and hyperventilate over issues and then go running for their weapons to settle things.

As Howard Dean said many years ago while he was Governor, "If there had been an effective gun-control law, I'd have passed it. But there never was and none of the other Governors could show me one that worked in their states, either. So I dropped the issue." Of course, he wouldn't have been able to pass it, but the point was made.

Church hate group to visit Vt. on Sept. 1

MONTPELIER – A religious hate group from Kansas said this week it would travel to Vermont on Sept. 1 to protest the start of the state's new same-sex marriage law.

The Westboro Baptist Church – a small and controversial religious organization known for protesting the funerals of U.S. soldiers – said it would demonstrate outside of the Montpelier High School, the Statehouse and the city's clerk office, according to a news release.

The group – which made headlines for protesting outside of the funerals of United States soldiers killed overseas – said it objects to the "pervert-run Montpelier High School" and the "sodomite brothel masquerading as a Legislature."

"The stench of Vermont – as with Sodom – has reached the nostrils of an angry God," states the organization's press release, which is filled with offensive and derogatory terms for gays and lesbians.

Peter Evans, principal at Montpelier's high school, said he learned about the upcoming protest Tuesday morning after the church called the city's police department to inform them of their plans. Evans said he has no idea why they are targeting the school.

I know. The school nickname is "The Solons" because Montpelier's the state capital. I bet the church group just assumed that was one of those gay-lesbian "Code Words."