Severe Weather Alerts


This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

I watched the President lay out his recommendations this morning and then watched the reaction come in from Congress.  Just a few thoughts.

-I actually started this morning watching the NRA’s online commercial comparing Secret Service Protection for the First family to armed guards for all schools.  Doesn’t this commercial begin with a false premise?

NRA Commercial

Federal Protection is required…not as much for the safety of the First Family, but to make sure someone can’t kidnap a member of the President’s family and then put the President, and by extension, the Country in a compromising position.  The school the President’s daughter’s attend is surely safer than one my kids would attend but that’s not because the President is making a decision only protect his kids.  

So I was thinking about this recommendation for the NRA about the Feds paying to put armed guards in schools.  It would be costly but I think we should do it…and I know exactly where to find the committed Patriots to pay for it.  If the NRA believes guns are the solution to keeping our kids safe…how about a %5000 tax on all weapons and ammunition?  If it sounds like a good idea…and it’s the right thing to do…why not pay for it?

The President used his authority to enact 23 Executive orders.  This got a lot f Republican hackles up.  Mark Murray from NBC News did a fact check and found…it should probably have drawn a lot of yawns.  It sounded like the President did a lot.  In truth, Murray reports, much of the action simply enforced laws already on the books or directed someone to write a letter.  The action and reaction shows that much of this is political theatre on both sides.

The actual action the President wants Congress to take is the real debate.  Why the ban on as the President put it “military assault type weapons” ?  That’s a debate Congress should have.  Why indeed.  I am interested in hearing from people.  My mind waders to the absurd and I wonder…if my Second amendment rights can not be restricted to ban weapons that have no other purpose but supporting a Military assault…Why can’t I go even bigger.  Why can’t I buy a fully armed Abrams tank?  What’s the limit, if any of the Second amendment?

-I go back to the research already done.  The Study from Penn S after the assault weapons ban ran out in 2009 concluded it’s the capacity of the clip not the weapon.  Some have already argued nothing that the President proposed would have changed Newtown or Aurora.  Doesn’t there at least have to be an open debate about that question?  A guy walks into a theatre with high-capacity magazines and mows down dozens of people.  If he only had ten bullets…isn’t it possible…even likely, someone would have tackled the guy while he changed clips?…  isn’t it possible someone would have been able to get away instead of meeting a hail of gunfire ad they stood to run away?  Why can’t we at least have the conversation?  

-I will say again, I personally support someone’s right to own a gun for recreation or for protection.  It may be proven true that none of this will actually prevent the next mass shooting/killing.  I simply don’t accept the argument that this is a power play by the government to take away people’s guns.  

-Finally, I was reminded how broken our system is listening to Author Dorris Kearns Goodwin last night at the Greater Des Moines Partnership Dinner.  She spoke of the risks Lincoln took to his own power and the willingness he showed to hear viewpoints other than his own.  After a bloody Civil war he made his second Inaugural Speech about forgiveness not vengeance.  He took men who disagreed with his view and made them his closest advisors…  He showed a level of Statesmanship that no one in Washington is even close to.  

Our Country has shown the best of itself when we (and our leaders) were able to adapt to a changing world while maintaining our founding principles.  Obstruction for the sake of obstruction isn’t one of those.  There has to be a way to maintain the right to own a gun AND seek out ways to prevent irresponsible or destructive use of the freedoms.  

I am open to the idea that I am wrong…I’d like to hear what you think..