The M-1 garand rifle is a semi-automatic weapon that was standard equipment for the infantrymen during WWII and the Korean war. That rifle holds a clip containing 8 rounds of 30 caliber ammo in which to defend themselves and their positions from all directions. The infantrymen and his M-1 rifle got the job done. If you were in the Marine Corps, that rifle stayed next to you the whole time you served on active duty whether you were in combat or not.
So why do rifles in the hands of civilians have to hold more rounds of ammo than an M-1 rifle, especially during such dangerous times? Is it a macho thing? Is it just because we believe the second ammendment gives us the right? Does it make us feel big? Do hunters really need more rounds and if so how do you justify that when gun violence is out of control in civilian life. Why should any rifle or hand gun hold more rounds of ammo than a military or law enforcement weapon?
I believe reasonable people would recognize that they should not. The NRA, politicians and those that oppose this reasonable concept are at odds at what has been taking place in America. Everyone has to give up something for the common good. The NRA's statement that the answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun sounds good but has not stopped the gun violence even though there are more good guys with guns than bad guys.
One day some one with "standing" will challenge the second ammendment in court. When that day comes this writer is not so sure the Supreme Court, no matter its make up, will interpret the ammendment with as liberal a decision as the NRA believes. The NRA believes the second ammendment is so liberal, any one can own and carry a gun with out restrictions.
It takes reasonable people with understanding to face the gun violence problem and come up with a reasonable solution that works. Tough talk has not and will not solve the problem and we know the NRA's position never will.
This commentary written by John Lucia.
Friday, July 4, 2014
James Varney, Rob Maness And His Contract With Louisiana
In a Times Picayune editorial of July 2, conservative writer James Varney listed a 12 point "Contract With Louisiana" by Rob Maness, the conservative republican candidate running for Mary Landrieu's U.S. Senate seat in congress. Varney says Maness acknowledged that Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract With America" was on his mind when crafting his own. Maness is supported by tea party activist Sarah Palin.
Voters in Louisiana should remember that no one asked for Gingrich's "Contract" and that he himself was forced to resign in disgrace at a time when he was speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. There is no wanting at the present time in Louisiana for Maness' "Contract." It is really a political song and dance that can not be enforced. It is also void of substance. The article trells the reader that Maness is positioning himself as the "most conservative candidate." That is a slap at his other opponent in the race, republican representative Bill Cassidy.
I guess voters should be impressed when one is the "most conservative," it sounds superior. Of course we know how conservatives under the George W. Bush administration turned out and we also know how the do nothing conservatives in congress today are failing the people and the country. There are two items in Maness' "Contract" that Varney alludes too that is so silly and worthless: (1) TWO TERM LIMIT PLEDGE; What good will that do if he accepts the special interest groups camaign money? (2) HE WILL ONLY SPEND 80% OF HIS OFFICE BUDGET; Now that is a real good one. He does not even know what number his office budget will be and he says such a thing.
The article also pointed out that Maness said, this senate election should be one of ideas and now that he has name recognition its time for specific policy ideas to become the discussion. This writer will drink to that and it has been the subject of this writers commentaries many times over how conservative republicans can not articulate a policy or what they stand for. Maybe Varney and Maness are reading "PolitiDose."
Is a "Contract" really necessary when all Maness has to say is: I support raising the minimum wage to $15 hour; or I support Immigration Reform now; or I support equal pay for women; or I believe in balancing the federal budget; or I believe corporate welfare in the form of tax loopholes, tax exemption, tax breaks should be eliminated; or that special interest groups and lobbyist should be kept out of the halls of congress; or I will not support the repeal of the ACA, 51 times has been enough. The list could go on and on but I am sure Maness, Varney, Gingrich and other conservatives understand.
The voters in Louisiana need no more gimmicks such as a "Contract With Louisiana." The people have lived through 6 years of Bobby Jindal's gimmicks and that really says it all.
This commentary written by John Lucia.
Voters in Louisiana should remember that no one asked for Gingrich's "Contract" and that he himself was forced to resign in disgrace at a time when he was speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. There is no wanting at the present time in Louisiana for Maness' "Contract." It is really a political song and dance that can not be enforced. It is also void of substance. The article trells the reader that Maness is positioning himself as the "most conservative candidate." That is a slap at his other opponent in the race, republican representative Bill Cassidy.
I guess voters should be impressed when one is the "most conservative," it sounds superior. Of course we know how conservatives under the George W. Bush administration turned out and we also know how the do nothing conservatives in congress today are failing the people and the country. There are two items in Maness' "Contract" that Varney alludes too that is so silly and worthless: (1) TWO TERM LIMIT PLEDGE; What good will that do if he accepts the special interest groups camaign money? (2) HE WILL ONLY SPEND 80% OF HIS OFFICE BUDGET; Now that is a real good one. He does not even know what number his office budget will be and he says such a thing.
The article also pointed out that Maness said, this senate election should be one of ideas and now that he has name recognition its time for specific policy ideas to become the discussion. This writer will drink to that and it has been the subject of this writers commentaries many times over how conservative republicans can not articulate a policy or what they stand for. Maybe Varney and Maness are reading "PolitiDose."
Is a "Contract" really necessary when all Maness has to say is: I support raising the minimum wage to $15 hour; or I support Immigration Reform now; or I support equal pay for women; or I believe in balancing the federal budget; or I believe corporate welfare in the form of tax loopholes, tax exemption, tax breaks should be eliminated; or that special interest groups and lobbyist should be kept out of the halls of congress; or I will not support the repeal of the ACA, 51 times has been enough. The list could go on and on but I am sure Maness, Varney, Gingrich and other conservatives understand.
The voters in Louisiana need no more gimmicks such as a "Contract With Louisiana." The people have lived through 6 years of Bobby Jindal's gimmicks and that really says it all.
This commentary written by John Lucia.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)