Closing Thought–06Oct17

The year is 1961 and a recent Nightly News broadcast has told the world that the Sec. General of the Untied Nations, Dag Hammarskjold has been killed in a plane crash in Africa.

I bring this up because it is one of my first memories of me be interested in what is happen on the international stage….I recall that there was a wealth of speculation swirling around the crash…..was it shot down?  Was it engine trouble?  Was it a direct attack on the plane?

To this today there are still questions being asked with few good answers…..

Conspiracy theories claiming the 1961 plane crash that killed UN chief Dag Hammarskjold was orchestrated by the US government and its allies have been circulating for years—and may have just gained some weight. A fresh investigation into the Swedish diplomat’s death has uncovered a “significant amount of evidence” that his Douglas DC-6 plane was brought down by another aircraft while on a peace mission in Africa, according to a UN report seen by the Guardian. The report—based on undisclosed data provided by the US, UK, Belgium, Canada, and Germany—adds that both the US and UK had spies or surveillance aircraft near Ndola, in what is now Zambia, and intercepted radio traffic at the time the plane was brought down near Ndola’s airport.

Both the US and UK should therefore have evidence that, if presented, could solve the 56-year-old mystery, former Tanzanian chief justice Mohamed Chande Othman writes in the report. He notes the appointment of independent officials to search US and UK archives “is a step that must be taken before this matter … may rest.” But based on the evidence compiled so far—including witness accounts describing other aircraft in the area and flames coming from Hammarskjold’s plane before impact—”it appears plausible that external attack or threat may have been a cause of the crash,” Othman concludes. He also notes evidence may back up the theory that a Belgian pilot working for rebels in the area mistakenly hit the plane with a warning shot meant to keep the plane from landing.

Like I said….this incident is what lead me down my path of international relations and study…..

Advertisements

It’s Gun Control Again

We have had another attack where multiple lives we lost by a douche with a gun….in this case many guns….and of course the debate has started again…all the political theater that this subject can muster.

Now is the time to look at the laws…..NO!  Now is not the time we should wait for calmer heads….

Gun Control?  Is that truly the conversation we should behaving right now?  Maybe not……

Statistician and writer Leah Libresco used to yearn for what she once considered “common-sense gun-control reforms.” Then she and her colleagues at FiveThirtyEight spent threemonthsanalyzing all 33,000 gun deaths the US sees per year, and her whole perspective changed. The sad truth is that the broad policies many people call for, like “banning assault weapons,” actually wouldn’t save the vast majority of those people, she writes. In the Washington Post, she delves into specific reasons why—in the case of an assault-weapons ban, gun hobbyists can easily turn a semi-automatic into an assault weapon, while skilled shooters can change magazines so quickly that limiting them might be “meaningless.” She also explains why it’s actually not useful to compare US gun laws with the strictly tightened laws in Britain and Australia.

So what could work in the US? “Narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.” That means individualized attention, like identifying gang members for intervention, putting police priority on women who are endangered by specific men, or getting older men (who make up the biggest share of gun suicides) access to care and help. In the end, Libresco “was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners,” she writes. “But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. … We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.” Read her full column.

Personally, I think this whole conversation that we seem to have with each attack….is not the conversation we should be having.

In closing I want to offer up some red meat for all those liberal haters (and there are many)….it comes from the most hated liberal…Michael Moore…..

In a move highly unlikely to be approved by the NRA, Michael Moore has come up with a replacement for what he says is the “ancient and outdated” Second Amendment. In a Facebook post Wednesday, Moore offered a 28th Amendment that protects the right of people to “be free from gun violence,” Hot Air reports. “A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed,” it reads.

“The public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right to own and fire a gun,” wrote Moore. He said under the new amendment, it will be possible to pass laws requiring people to keep their guns at government-regulated storage facilities instead of at home, the Hill reports. He also suggested limiting clips to six bullets, banning semi-automatic weapons, and requiring men buying guns to obtain waivers from current and former spouses. This approach, he wrote, will meet the needs of everybody except the “serial killer, the mass murderer, the violent ex-husband, the disgruntled employee, or the disturbed and bullied teenager.” (Lawmakers want to ban a device the Las Vegas gunman used.)

Let the yelling begin…..please have a medical specialist stand by.

Why The 2nd? – In Saner Thought

Special Note:  Here we go again!  A storm is heading for my hometown’s Main Street….set to hit Sunday as a Cat 1 (hopefully weaker)…..so I may be without internet for awhile…..bear with me and I will return as soon as possible.  chuq

Almost like clockwork we have had another horrific massacre by a  man with more guns than brains.

And as usual there will be the inevitable conversation about what the amendment means and how can we avoid this from happen again.

College of Political Knowledge Subject:  Early American History We have once again returned to the debate over guns since the horrible shooting deaths of children at Sandy Hook……all the…

Source: Why The 2nd? – In Saner Thought

The Right To Bear Arms

After the latest attack in Vegas we are having the usual conversation about gun control and/or gun rights.  It is inevitable that this issue be addressed after every attack…especially those with multiple victims.

I chose today to post all my thoughts on the 2nd….instead of like so many othersa drag it out for days….even weeks…..

An interesting point of view from the UK’s The Guardian…..

Its words have fueled centuries of debate – and not until 2008 did the supreme court clearly back an individual’s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense.

The second amendment has become a badge and bumper sticker, a shield for gun activists and scripture for much of the American right. But like other cherished texts, it is not as clear as many make it out to be.

The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

For most of the republic’s lifespan, from 1791 to 2008, those commas and clauses were debated by attorneys and senators, slave owners and freedmen, judges, Black Panthers, governors and lobbyists. For some, the militia was key; for others the right that shall not be infringed; for yet others, the question of states versus the federal government. For the most part, the supreme court stayed out it.

Source: The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean? | US news | The Guardian

I offer up my thoughts on why the 2nd was put into the Constitution…..my next post will be those thoughts….