SUNDAY RESPITE-I Can Begin Again-Larnelle Harris

I'll be gone a few days. See you on the 3rd.

WHY KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

If you just HAD to be hit by a bullet, which of the above would you rather be hit with, the big fellow on the right or the smaller guy on the left?

I know, I know. Most of would rather not be hit by either one. But if you had to choose, which one would you choose?

The bullet on the left is the smallest, and as you move to the right the bullets are larger.

Turns out that, starting with the second bullet from the left and moving to the right, three of those rounds are used for hunting: the 30-30; the 308 and the 30-06. The former is a sort of "entry level" big game bullet, the 30-06 is a really sophisticated big game round.

The bullet on the far left is used in the infamous AK47.

One of the arguments made about the simi-automatic imitation AK47 used in some mass shooter events is that nobody needs an assault rifle.

As far as it goes, that is true. It just doesn't go very far. Some people WANT one (for non-nefarious purposes), and that should be enough.

In the military version of the AK47 the bullet used is designed to both spin and sort-of wabble as it flies toward its target. It really slices the target up as it enters. That is what would happen on the battlefield.

It does not travel as fast or as far as the other three, but it is very effective when it hits its target. If the target is living, it is probably going to die or be badly maimed.

The ammunition for the military version of the AK47 is not readily available to the general public. There are about a dozen complicated forms to fill out to buy a limited quantity, IF one is allowed to buy them at all.

The ammunition for the civilian version of this rifle is designed to spin (as are almost all rounds of ammunition - it's called "rifling"), but it does not wabble. It is more easily purchased.

The civilian version of the AK-47 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as deer-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The M&P 15 is similar, though it fires a much smaller bullet — .223 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .30-inch rounds used by the AK-47.

Why would anyone own a so-called "assault rifle" and why should they be allowed to do so?

The answer lies in the fundamental concept of liberty and its usurpation by the federal government.

If the government had its way, we would all be driving a Prius (or some other "green" car). Why should any of us be allowed to drive a Lincoln Town Car or an SUV, gas guzzling, heavy "killer" cars?

Being run into by a Lincoln Town Car or an SUV would be much more devastating than being hit by a Prius, no? Therefore, a Lincoln Town Car or SUV is much more dangerous than a Prius.

(BTW: States license drivers, not the federal government and driving is a privilege, not a right.)

The answer to the question of why anyone should be allowed to drive a Lincoln Town Car is simple: because they want to.

That's liberty.

Why would one own a water heater that is not government certified at a certain efficiency level? Because they want to.

That's liberty.

Why would one own an assault style weapon? Because they want to.

That's liberty.

Millions of simi-automatic fire arms are owned by the general public (not all of them imitation AK47s). Only a minute number of them are ever used for illegal purposes.

Some of those owners are collectors; some of them just love to target shoot with them as a sport. They have an innate right to own those guns and the Constitution recognizes the right to "keep and bear" arms.

And if they are called to be in a militia in a time of weapons shortage (not an unlikely event, given the draconian cut-backs to the military budget proposed) or for any other reason, they will have a weapon to use. (Just trying to help our liberal friends understand the real meaning of the Second Amendment.)

Everyone deplores the mass shootings that have occurred over the years in our country. But the problem is not the guns.

In every instance it can be shown that the person wielding the fire arm was mentally ill, emotionally unstable and/or suffered severe social aberrations.

It follows, then, that what we need to do is to recognize the symptoms of these disorders, identify those who exhibit them and to prevent them from possessing lethal weapons as much as possible.

The Second Amendment does not need to be altered, and the government does not need to step on anybody's rights (which they LOVE to do).

The people have a right to "keep and bear arms," and the federal government has no business involving itself in the issue.

EMPTY THEATERS

In case you missed the irony, this from the people who showed us HOW to glorify gun violence.

Every actor and actress in this video is shown in the movie in which he/she appeared that featured and/or glorified gun violence.

If they are sincere, and I have no reason to believe that they are, let them to a man/woman refuse to have any part in a movie that features gun violence of any kind.

No more James Bond, "license to kill," no more Terminator, no more Rambo, no more "ah'll be bach," no more Bonnie and Clyde, Boyz N the Hood,  Godfather (I, II, III IV,  V...XX), no more Gunfight at the OK Coral, no more Gone with the Wind.

No more movie theater patrons.

There is nobody that I care any less about than movie actors and actresses. There is nobody who has any less right to lecture me than this group of magna-hypocrites.

Let them take a stand for what they pretend to believe.

Go ahead...I'll wait.

While we're waiting, check THIS out.

HERE IT COMES!

ObamaCare is on its way!

Oh, thrill! Oh, excitement!

We can all hardly wait.

The second phase begins in 2013 and it includes some long awaited condiments that we all have wanted, probably since the opening days of the Republic.

By now you know that tanning booths are already paying a penalty (tax) just for existing. It’s a 10% “sales tax” on indoor tanning sessions. It started in 2010.

Pharmaceutical companies that make or import brand-name drugs are already paying fees; they totaled $2.5 billion in 2011, their first year.

Well, that’s just the beginning.

Starting January 1, 2013, individuals making more than $200,000 per year will face an additional 3.8% tax on investment income. They will also face a .9% increase on Medicare taxes. It’s their “fair share.” A couple making more than $250,000 will face the same tax. This is not related to the proposal to increase taxes on the "rich" with regard to the fiscal cliff.

Drug companies insurers and medical device manufacturers will have to pay new fees and taxes. The companies that make pacemakers, artificial hips and coronary stents will be taxed 2.3% as an excise tax on their sales.

In 2014, employers with more than 50 employees, a very large segment of the small business community, must pay their employees health insurance premiums will face a penalty of $2,000 per employee, with the first 30 workers not counting toward the total.

The entire health insurance industry faces an annual fee that begins at $8 billion beginning in 2014.

The coups de grace is on people who don’t’ get health insurance. In 2014 their penalty will begin. By 2016, they will pay an average penalty of around $1,200 annually.

Roughly 20 million people will eventually receive a tax credit to help them pay for insurance premiums.

That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

Take from them and then give them a tax credit.

That means that in order for the federal government to benefit at its desired level, the original tax has to be higher to compensate for the credit.

It is obviously going to give Americans great joy to pay these additional taxes and fees.

The ones who we can expect to be the happiest are the leftist/liberal/progressives who will just be ecstatic to send more of their hard-earned money to the government.

I am SO happy for them!

THEY DIDN'T HAVE A GUN

BEIJING (AP) — A man angered by a court ruling in the murder of his daughter rammed a car loaded with a gas tank and firecrackers into a group of middle schoolers, injuring 13 in the country's latest attack on students.

The man ran down 23 students at Fengning No. 1 Middle School in northern China's Hebei province on Monday, the official Xinhua News Agency said Tuesday, citing local police.

Xinhua said the man, identified as 48-year-old Yin Tiejun, later lit a bottle of diesel in an attempt to set his car on fire.

Police put out the fire and found the gas tank and firecrackers in the trunk of the car, but Xinhua said Yin told police in an interrogation later that the materials were not meant for an attack.

Yin has been detained on charges of endangering public safety, Xinhua said.

Xinhua described Yin as having been upset for years that a court did not sentence to death all four assailants involved in the murder of his daughter three years ago. The report did not give further details of the murder but said the children hurt in Monday's car crash were not tied to the case.

Xinhua said the man did not act under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Students were hospitalized with injuries that included skull fractures and crushed feet, Xinhua said.

The local Fengning county government confirmed the incident in a written statement and said Yin was driving a Geely sedan.

Citing eyewitnesses, the Beijing-based state-run Jinghua Times said the accident occurred when students were leaving school for noon break and that the car accelerated and knocked down students, many of whom were on bikes.

On Dec. 14, a Chinese man took a kitchen knife and went on a stabbing spree that left 23 students wounded in an elementary school in Henan province.

China has seen more than a half-dozen school attacks in less than three years...China largely prohibits private ownership of guns.

There was more to these stories, but the point, of course, is that cars don't kill people, people kill people. Nobody has suggested banning cars because they are used to cause mass mayhem.

Likewise, knives don't kill people. People kill people. Nobody has suggested banning knives because they are used to cause mass mayhem.

My son collects knives, daggers and swords, all of which could be used to cause bodily harm. Someone could even steal one or more and go on a stabbing spree.

Carrying the logic one step further, guns don't kill people. People kill people. Yet there has been quite a clamour to ban guns.

Wouldn't it be better to repeal the laws and ordinances that reinforce the political correctness that prohibits us from recognizing that someone needs to be taken off the streets because he(she) is unstable? Wouldn't it be better to profile people who are likely to snap and get them help before they cause mayhem?

That would help prevent mass mayhem of many kinds, rather than focusing on guns alone.

The latest example, of course, is four volunteer firefighters responding to a pre-dawn house fire who were shot Monday morning, two fatally, leading to a shootout in suburban Rochester, N.Y. with the alleged gunman.

The gunman was known to have had mental issues and was unstable, but nothing was done about it.

How long are we going to let this stuff go on until we take the really appropriate steps to stop it? How long before we take these mentally disturbed people out of the general population?

ADDENDUM: I am not the first to advocate armed officers in schools. The darling of the left did it.

The Chistmas Story-Michael W. Smith

What Child is This-Andrea Bocelli (With Mary J. Blige)

Carol of the Bells from the University of Mobile’s Christmas Spectacular.