Skip navigation

Recent war of words on gun control (should be firearms control), Afghanistan and new cabinet members produced many thoughts in my head and I need to get them out. The fire arm situation comes down to who can invoke a reasonable solution to a prickly problem. It is understood that the tragedies could possibly have been prevented but what would have prevented them? We have a host of laws in most states on firearm ownership and use but we have nothing on the mental state of a person purchasing or owning them. There are background checks and these checks no doubt have prevented the sale of firearms to some. We have no method of determining the mental state of an existing firearm owner of future purchasers. It is possible that perhaps the limitation on who can own or purchase “assault” type weapons could have prevented or  limited the loss of life and injury in the recent events but it seems that the doers of these bad deeds had mental issues that would by law (if it existed) have been prevented them from purchasing or owning firearms. It is true that the Connecticut situation is different in that the shooter did not own or purchase the firearms but had access. It appears that a list of solutions are possible up to and including a special license to buy or own “assault” type weapons but will this do the job? I have no specific recommendations but some sort of special application could apply to these type of weapons where the applicant would have to survive a mental provision or test. On to Afghanistan: The president of Afghanistan is not an ally and never will be, he is no more than the highest ranking feudal leader in the country and will always be. He will take aid and assistance from anyone who will give it and give nothing back beyond lip service. WE need to get out and let the chips fall where they may. Cabinetry: There are several proposed members of the Presidents cabinet and some prove to be controversial but never the less most if not all will be confirmed. The Congress appears to take more interest in small issues to avoid the biggest issue-the economy, that being said I again state that we need to think in terms of changing the membership of Congress on the State and Federal level. No more to be said today on this. Happy New Year.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: