The Texas governor just spoke and here’s his exact quote, celebrating reducing the fees for getting a conceal carry permit: “I’m gonna carry this around in case I see any reporters,” Abbott joked while holding his bullet-ridden target sheet. We are indeed headed for some different times in this country…because the governors comment, and the new congressman’s conduct in Montana, also create a reaction…and the shooting of governors and congressmen becomes much more likely than the targeting of reporters…

The shooting of anyone should be condemned in general, and when it does occur it should be closely examined in detail, even when it is done for reasons of self-protection, or for the protection of the public. The shooting of reporters, governors, congressmen and even criminals should be spoken, written and fought against at every opportunity. For members of the country’s current leadership to engage in dialogue and actual conduct in contradiction to that, is for them to encourage bringing down that kind of conduct upon themselves. Lincoln, Kennedy, Kennedy, King, Reagan and more.

Does the country profit when its leaders are shot?
Why are these leaders encouraging such conduct?
Is it lead in the water?
Is it now a requirement that leadership is drawn from the lowest spectrum of the I.Q. charts?
Is it just males acting like thousand pound gorillas because they have absolutely no clue what it is like to engage in actual physical violence?

The assault on any kind of gun controls, or gun control laws, continues under the current administration. It becomes ever more difficult to understand the right wing’s desire to put more and more guns into the hands of more and more people. Presuming that the Obamacare provisions, which allowed for many more Americans to have health insurance, is eventually overturned, sending twenty-three million citizens out into the cold when it comes to pre-existing conditions, or any health care insurance at all, does the continuing distribution of firearms make any logical sense? Presuming that all twenty-three million have, or can very easily get hold of, a well-made American firearm, what kind of a logician does it take to calculate that a decent percentage of those people might be mad enough to take up arms?

When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” Those words were written many years ago by singer and poet Bob Dylan, but they definitely apply today to the human condition when it comes to guns and staying alive. A mathematically conscious, and logically adept, social scientist might conclude that maybe only one hundredth of one percent might take up arms and seek redress for being left to die because of losing health care. That leaves only 23 would-be assassins or insurgents. How many did it take to kill either Kennedy, or King, or to shoot Reagan, and why are not the powers that be interested in this potential culture-changing statistic? Instead, the proliferation of guns is both ongoing and expanding, and the bellicosity of the country’s leaders is growing ever greater. The military and the police combined, including all the personnel that make up those controlling organization, do not hold a candle to a well-armed and inflamed public. Two point six million people serve in the roles of police and military.

The U.S. population is 322 million, give or take a few. There are estimated to be three hundred and eleven million guns in the country. That’s 2.6 million against 322 million, if it should ever come to that. You don’t have to be a math scholar, or even an expert in simple arithmetic to figure out those odds. It does not make any more sense to continue to arm the public than it does to go after the people out there trying to tell everyone what is going on. No one is asked an opinion about whom they might want to shoot, or whom they would shoot under any circumstance, when they purchase a weapon. Why is anyone recommending violent action, including shooting, be taken against people who write what other people consider opinion or factual errors? Why would anyone in a leadership position in the United States, a country known to have a very high assassination rate amongst its leaders, ever encourage any kind of willful violence at all?

Senator Fielder in San Diego came in out of the republican cold to declare, “Guess Ben Jacobs got more than he bargained for when he decided to tangle with Greg Gianforte.” That followed the potentially self-realizing Abbot comment, and Gianforte’s assault. What are these people thinking? Is it assumed that the progressive side of America is so peaceful, retiring and docile that it will simply absorb and move on from such acts and comments without returning fire? Hopefully, the liberal side will retain its sanity, as the other side goes off on a ridiculously macho, and potentially very deadly, jaunt to the very edge of the cliff. More women and people of minority racial extraction are now purchasing guns. Is it going to take a violent political nightmare to end this insanity? All of these people, every last one of them engaging in bellicosity, have neither committed deadly violence, nor had deadly violence committed against themselves. Why is it that America will not hire its combat experienced veterans, who have engaged in such things (and all come to not want to engage in them again), to be tempered leaders? The mostly white, male, aged and bellicose Americans blustering about their right to be armed, need to be stood down by the simple public revelation that these macho men are nothing more or less than self-doubting men, afraid to be seen as the weak men they really are.
~~ James Strauss

Sign up for Updates