Compromising on guns
EDITOR: Gun-control hype is a waste of energy. At best, a meaningless, toothless piece of legislation will be passed. The number of deaths prevented will be zero.
I'm not in favor of unlimited guns, but I'm a realist. Mass killings are certainly the worst example of violence, but violence is more widespread. Bullying, harassment, domestic abuse — all point to a culture of intolerance and hate.
We protect our children from drugs, pornography and alcohol abuse. We don't need studies to know that glorification of getting high or objectifying women is wrong. And we don't let the misuse of the First Amendment stand in our way. Why, when we will not allow advertisers to show fornication, shooting up or drunken orgies, do we allow them to advertise their morbid, bloodless, emotionless killing day after day on TV?
The National Rifle Association spends a lot of time and money fighting gun control. And the gun-control folks spend a lot of time, etc., fighting back. The compromise would be to stop pushing against the NRA in return for its willingness to work to stop the proliferation of violence in advertising, video games and entertainment.
Let's become an example of compromise by working out a solution with the NRA instead of promoting intolerance.
Where's the proof?
EDITOR: In all the hoopla about going into Syria, there is still no real proof that Bashar Assad ordered the chemical weapons attack. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry say they did, but any more information is behind closed doors.
Where is the proof? It could just as well be the rebels/Hezbollah and al-Qaida that let them loose so it would look like Assad did it. They got the chemicals when Saddam Hussein sent them over to Syria just before the Iraq war. He had two months to hide anything.
There is no other reason for Obama, the peacenik, to want to bomb Assad's holdings than to get rid of him so his buddies, the rebels, could reign.