Burch: Raging hypocrisy

Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 10:05pm
By Michael R. Burch

Dana McLendon, a Franklin alderman, will see the NRA’s insanity and raise it the pot limit. But it’s a crackpot bet. He wants to allow guns in municipal buildings on the premise that, as he put it, “When the bad guy with the gun arrives, the only effective response is the good guy with a gun.”

McLendon’s zany theory is like saying that the “only way” to prevent people from making bombs and killing other people is to have the “good guys” blow up the “bad guys” first. But obviously a much better way to protect innocent people from being blown to bits is to regulate the distribution of chemicals that can be used to create bombs. And our government does just that. But if we can regulate the distribution of potentially lethal chemicals, why can’t we regulate the distribution of obviously lethal weapons and ammo?

Yes, the Second Amendment creates the right of citizens to bear arms. But it has never been an unlimited right. Bombs are a type of arms. But surely no one with a functioning brain thinks American citizens have the “right” to own and bear nuclear bombs. There must be sane limits to our rights. If every human being has an inalienable right to bear any type of armament, then obviously Iranians have the right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. So why is our government trying to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

There is a glaring problem when politicians say two contrary things. Tennessee’s lunatic fringe leadership is saying, on one hand, that ordinary citizens have the unlimited right to own and bear arms, because of the Second Amendment. But none of them think that Muslim citizens of Tennessee have the right to own and bear nuclear weapons, or any type of arms that might be used in acts of large-scale terrorism.

If Tennessee legislators have the right to protect themselves from terrorists bearing super-lethal weapons, why don’t we have the right to protect innocent schoolchildren from madmen bearing super-lethal guns? Are the lives of adult legislators more valuable than the lives of children?

One or the other must be true: either citizens have the unlimited right to own and bear arms, or the government has the right to regulate the distribution of arms which are too lethal for private use. And if anyone deserves to be protected, it is our children, not self-serving politicians.

And let’s get real: Tennessee politicians and judges don’t believe for a second in the right of ordinary citizens to bear arms in their august presence. They are never going to allow us to carry guns into their courthouses and legislative plazas. The only armed people they will allow near them while they work are trained professionals. Nor do they believe for a second in the “right” of ordinary citizens to exercise their unlimited freedom of speech during court sessions and government proceedings. (If you want to test my theory, just try standing up in the middle of a trial and screaming the First Amendment at the top of our lungs. If you don’t quickly shut up and sit down, the judge will have you arrested, hauled off to jail and fined.)

Tennessee’s politicians and judges are raging hypocrites. They are willing to allow us and our children to become targets in a shooting gallery. But they will never accept that risk themselves. Dana McLendon has a pipe dream. His fellow legislators are not stupid enough to risk their lives. They are, however, hypocritical enough to risk our lives, and our children’s lives, while protecting their own.

Why are we paying cowardly, self-serving hypocrites to protect themselves while turning our children into sitting ducks for madmen armed with super-lethal weapons?

Michael R. Burch is a Nashville-based editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry and other “things literary” at www.thehypertexts.com.

Filed under: City Voices

299 Comments on this post:

By: Captain Nemo on 2/11/13 at 9:08

I have got to go for now. Some of my gentlemen friends and I are going to play a real gentlemen’s game of Polo today.

By: Moonglow1 on 2/11/13 at 9:08

Moonglow1:

Loner, thank you for the kind words. Yes, we speak "words of wisdom in a TN forest thick with hypocracy and religiousity." Your posts make sense to me so perhaps we are cut from the same cloth brother Loner.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 9:09

Ben - The point you made was, I want to do what I want to do, regardless of what is best for the majority. My "jollies" ha! ha! mean more to me that anything. Me, Me, Me is Ben's motto!

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 9:20

Nemo, why don't you bring the gentlemen over to my yacht later for high tea?

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 9:28

No it is not. The irrational fears of the majority should not be my concern though... just as homophobia of the majority should not be the concern of a gay man. Taking away my sport rifles that I enjoy shooting is not going to make society one bit safer.

You don't care though because depriving me that liberty costs you nothing and, in fact, you relish the idea because it does harm to a group of people you dislike.

Banning the bottle or cars that exceed the legal speed limit would be statistically more effective at 'SAVING LIVES' than banning scary looking weapons that constitute fraction of a fraction of all gun murders with gun murders being a fraction of deaths caused by highway fatalities and alcohol. Bacon is higher on the list than guns but it's an emotional popularity contest not a decision of logic and reason.

And the unintended consequences of a cowed disarmed society is well documented in recent world history.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 9:31

Ben, NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY ALL YOUR GUNS. Having restrictions and enforcing them is not taking away your liberties. Setting a speed limit didn't take away your liberties of driving, did it? But setting speed limits saves lives. And no one is relishing in ftaking away your recreational activities. You really are paranoid and selfish.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 9:33

Oh well Ben, there is no way you can defend your selfish attitude. If they do ban assault weapons, I wish I know where to send them to get your little pea shooter. Then you can use firecrackers to watch things go "POP".

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 9:39

s/h/b "knew"

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 9:39

Selfishness is imposing your irrational fears on others bfra.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 9:46

What do you think you are trying to do Ben? Your's aren't fears, except that they might take away your little assault rifle. Your's are selfish, I want to do what I want to do regardless of anyone else.

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 9:46

A speed limit is how I'm allowed to use the item in public, blanket.

Like not being allowed to target practice on the War Memorial... or not being allowed to kill people.

These restrictions are already in place.

The argument you are making is not speed limit but, more, that I'm not allowed to own a Corvette.

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 9:49

No my argument is, I'm in no way harming anyone else so leave me alone.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 9:51

There are certain cars that are not allowed on the road, Ben. You can argue all you want but you're just showing your inability to think outside of your selfish little existance.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 9:51

BS Ben! People own Corvettes everyday. My son has an antique one, he still drives.. Your argument, as usual, is pure bull. You are getting amusing while scratching for excuses for being so dumb.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 9:55

Blanket - Ben has lost all credibility on the subject & too dumb to admit it.

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 9:55

Analogous argument, bfra? Do they really let you teach school?

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 9:57

Only in your weak mind Ben!

By: yogiman on 2/11/13 at 9:59

How many people are killed by accidents caused by people driving in the speed limits compared to how many people are killed by accidents caused by peo0ple exceeding the speed limits, B2?

And why is YOUR "selfish attitude" superior to everyone else' attitude, bfra. Are you that superior to them that things should "go your way"?

I like my attitude better than yours.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 10:00

yogi, your lack of critical thinking skills is astounding.

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 10:03

Well... enough of this. You guys have convinced me. I'm going to cut up all my guns... salt them all down real well and throw them in Priest lake so they can't possibly wrestle themselves from the vault and go on a children killing rampage. I saw that Mini 14 and the Glock 23 whispering together and then sneering with a menacing attitude last time I was in there so you're right. They are just too dangerous to exist.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 10:09

Grow up, Ben.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 10:11

Ben - Funny part & after all the dialogue, from some of the things you have put on this board, so like yogi, I doubt that you even have these guns. In the past you have made a lot of claims that you later contradicted. You & yogi have bad habits of posting untruths. Anyway, assault weapons should be banned, except for Military & Police.

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 10:19

Actually we're just repeating ourselves now Blanket. My points (and their misrepresentations) are here for anyone who cares to read them... which will be no one. If you care to understand your opposition you can read them... or if you'd rather just continue to try to strong-arm and bully against a minority of people who disagree with you to advance your cause you can do that too. That's how Prohibition was passed so you've got a model to work from.

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 10:20

I defy you to document a single contradiction, bfra.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 10:21

Aren't laws based on what benefits the majority of people, Ben? You have a warped definition of bullying.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 10:23

If even one life is saved isn't that more valuable than someone's entertainment?

By: yogiman on 2/11/13 at 10:33

B2,

I'll argue my critical thinking is far superior to yours when I question the legality of a person in the Oval Office who refuses to identify himself to your who so readily accepts him as your president when you don't even know the guy's name.

Tell me, presuming he was a natural born citizen and lost his American citizenship when he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, what law gave him his natural born status back when he has never made a statement about repatriating his citizenship. That is if he was ever an American citizen.

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 10:33

Blanket, do you not see the problem with what you have just suggested?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch. Our constitutional Republic is founded to protect individual life, liberty and property. Unless you have a good reason to take away my guns (and since it's way behind bacon in the danger to society chart, you don't) then you have to leave me alone.

Your irrational fears don't trump my liberties.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 10:34

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 10:20
I defy you to document a single contradiction, bfra.
==============================================

Only the name has been changed, from yogi, to reflect the difference. LOL

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 10:36

Ben, NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS!!!! For cryin' out loud already. No one needs to own an assault weapon. You can have your handguns and your hunting rifles.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 10:36

Ben - Can you not get it thru your selfish mind that, nobody is trying to take away anybody's guns!

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 10:38

In other words the gratuitous defamation about me posting untruths and contradictions cannot be sustained by any evidence you can or are willing to provide.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 10:38

Blanket - I am through! Ben is too selfish & pigheaded. If they ban assault weapons, he will find out.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 10:38

Ben, your entertainment does not trump the endangerment of others. No one is banning guns so that's a strawman.

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 10:39

Yes you are trying to take away my guns. My Mini 14 and Glock 23 are on your hit-list.

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 10:40

In other words the gratuitous defamation about me posting untruths and contradictions cannot be sustained by any evidence you can or are willing to provide.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 10:45

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 10:40
In other words the gratuitous defamation about me posting untruths and contradictions cannot be sustained by any evidence you can or are willing to provide.
===================================

Could be another "yogi" comment. Ben you know things you have posted that stretched the truth,. My time is more important than looking up your pretends or putons.

By: yogiman on 2/11/13 at 10:46

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, B2, and I like my vision better than yours.

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 10:46

BTW - Ben, do you stutter?

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 10:46

All guns are not being banned, Ben. You know damned well. Once again, what is more important, your entertainment or the endangerment of others?

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 10:49

My guns don't endanger others, Blanket.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 10:55

Assault weapons do. You're acting like a petulant child.

By: yogiman on 2/11/13 at 10:56

B2,

If Barry isn't interested in taking our guns away from us, why did he get in contact with the United Nations within 2 hours after being sworn back in office? And if you will, notice he said nothing about what kind of weapon he wants under his control.

May I refer you to the nations where dictators gained power: What was the first thing all of them did? Take the citizens guns.

I believe Americans are much wiser than those of other nations before us.

I see it as one of two ways: You are either ignorant of the subject or you are on his side. And I believe you and your "friends" on this site are on Barry's side by accepting him when you don't even know his official name. Is he Barry Soetoro (his last known name), or is he Barack Obama? If he's Barack Obama, when did he change his name back from Barry Soetoro?

By: bfra on 2/11/13 at 10:58

The other NUT chimes in!

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 11:05

bfra: "Could be another "yogi" comment. Ben you know things you have posted that stretched the truth,. My time is more important than looking up your pretends or putons."

Translation, "I make gratuitous claims to defame people with no evidence and that I'm unwilling to back up. "

I can say this with absolute certainty because I have not lied and therefore have had no need to contradict myself.

Anyway, this dead horse is already as tender as a Ruth's Chris filet.

Your position is that if I don't surrender my scary guns to the authority of the collective then I'm on par with a child murder. My position is that there are far more things society could ban that actually are statistically significant to saving lives and you guys are attacking my guns based on your emotion and not logic... simply because banning them won't affect you personally (except for likely the unintended consequences to society you refuse to consider).

You call me selfish for not wanting to give us something I dearly enjoy for no good reason. I call you selfish for wanting to impose your irrational fears on me.

'bout sum it up?

Good. That is all.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 2/11/13 at 11:09

Talk about twisting words. No one said you are on par with a child murderer. And just because other things that you deem dangerous are not regulated in a way you see fit does not justify the legality of assault weapons.

You call the endangerment of others "no good reason"? The fears are not irrational. You're simply selfish and small minded.

By: BenDover on 2/11/13 at 11:19

I am demonstrably not small minded, blanket.

Selfish is your opinion.

By: yogiman on 2/11/13 at 11:34

You just don't seem to understand, BenDover. They are so much smarter than we they know everything we should also know (it's called; we know it all). Don't believe me? Just ask them.

It would be good if they only had half the knowledge they think they have but are constantly proving they don't.

By: yogiman on 2/11/13 at 11:44

There's going to be an interesting show on radio at 2pm this afternoon. Go to
www.americaswebradio.com/ A lady named Linda Jordon, a housewife in Seattle WA, will explain about her getting fined for $13,000 for asking to see Obama's ID.

Obviously she/we have no right to know who in the hell he is.

By: Captain Nemo on 2/11/13 at 12:01

By your own words yogi ,I'm smarter than you. Now shut up.