Look For Another DOW Dive Today - After Dotard's 25 Percent Steel Tariff Idiocy

Recall that during Trump's bombastic  and tempestuous 2016 campaign he frequently singled out China for attack, saying the trade relationship was “the greatest theft in the history of the world” and comparing it to “rape”. He also pledged to protect the U.S. steel industry and his action yesterday was the first major step in fulfilling those promises. Let us again agree this man is a benighted halfwit and loon who doesn't know what he is doing from day to day and has no mind - or brain  of  his own. (Look at his latest 180 with the gun control issue.)

In his reckless tweet earlier this morning, the traitor - who had not one word to say about Putin's new claims of a long range "Mach 10" nuclear rocket - chirped that a trade war is "good". See his tweet at the top. This is the mentally deranged nitwit and traitor puppet we have sitting in the seat of power. And it's easy for him to say that with his typical bravado when he has the money to cover the stock market losses that will possibly take place again today.

Yes, you read that correctly! According to The Financial Times, the U.S. Equity Futures point to further losses today.  Perhaps in the 400 plus point drop  realm we saw in the DOW yesterday. Incredibly Donnie Dotard  doesn't even know that China is not the biggest steel supplier to the U.S. That honor goes to our neighbor, Canada.  Canada has the largest share of steel imports to the U.S. at 16%, according to data from the Department of Commerce. That is followed by Brazil and South Korea, with steel imports from China down 5% in the most recent period.

More disturbing, according to the FT, the EU will now consider imposing its own "safeguard" tariffs. on imports of steel and aluminum "in response to the U.S. to level national  security  tariffs on imports  on the metals from around the world."  This warning came from the EU's top trade official, Cecilia Malmstrom.  She also warned of a "serious domino effect"  from this.  Not an exaggeration because it affects every nation that needs steel, or uses it (and aluminum) in manufacture.

Let's backtrack now and consider what is meant by a "national security tariff on imports."   This arises because the only way a president can raise tariffs by way of executive order is by citing a national security need to do so. This has been in the wake of the past thirty years' impetus toward globalization and numerous rulings by the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Otherwise, congress has complete jurisdiction over tariffs. Indeed, congress could still pass legislation that blocks Dotard's reckless action, if he actually does formalize his yap using an E.O.

Why did the DOW drop 420 points yesterday? What does this have to do with Trump's flapping gums announcing off the cuff a 25 percent tariff on steel and 10 percent on aluminum ?  Well, because Wall Street knows that tariffs are actually taxes and the Street has an aversion to these in whatever guise. These taxes are not actually paid by the foreign nations to which the tariffs are directed, but by American consumers - e.g. by increasing the cost of imported goods.  Because other nations will respond with their own tariffs, like the EU, it means the cost of American goods will also be increased. If then American goods see a drop in purchase overseas, there is the risk of American job losses.

What about Trump's actual target,  China? According to   Li Xinchuang -   vice secretary-general of the China Iron and Steel Association:

“The impact on China is not big.  Nothing can be done about Trump. We are already numb to him.."

According to Louis Kuijs, head of Asia economics at the Oxford Economics consultancy in Hong Kong,:

"If you really want to hurt China’s exports to the US you need to look at electronics and telecommunications items. It’s much harder to find agreement on that because many US companies would face collateral damage and it would raise prices for US consumers.”

Kuijs said the steel and aluminum tariffs were designed to score political points, and many of Trump’s advisers were veterans of heavy industry.  He added:

“U.S. officials are looking at issues surrounding intellectual property and forced transfers [in China], but they haven’t figured out a way to weaponize it and inflict pain on China without hurting US companies,” 

In the meantime, look for the most incompetent administration in U.S. history to continue stumbling on numerous policy fronts, from immigration, to trade and revising gun laws. This is what you get when you have a deranged traitor in power who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground - but does have a huge boner for Putin and Russia.

Vatican Demands "Thousands of Trained Exorcists" For Demonic Possession Crisis - Can We Agree Bunkum Never Dies?

The header for the NBC Today story in yesterday's 2nd hour was: "Vatican Training More Exorcists Among Rising Reports of Demonic Possession"- which featured  interviews with a couple of padres including one Spaniard who insisted he was getting at least "one excorcism request" per week. Another insisted the "demand is definitely exceeding the supply" e.g. of trained exorcists. And,we are expected to believe that because of this increased demand,  the Vatican will have to train thousands in the art of exorcising Old Scratch wherever he appears.   May I offer one suggestion? That they commence by sending a team of exorcists to the White House to get all the demons out of the "Prince of Lies", aka Donald Trump?

Indeed, according to several other sources, demonic activity appears to be on the rise not only in Europe but in the U.S. See e.g.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/us-exorcists-demonic-activity-on-the-riseurope but in the U.S. 

Therein we also learn:

"There is an alarming increase in demonic activity being reported by those who work in exorcism ministry, said the exorcist for the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. Although steps are being taken to increase the number of exorcists, demand is still outpacing supply.

Father Vincent Lampert has been an exorcist for the Archdiocese of Indianapolis since 2005 and is the pastor at St. Malachy’s in Indianapolis. He trained at the North American College in Rome and assisted with more than 40 exorcisms with longtime Italian exorcist Father Carmine De Filippi. Although the identities of most exorcists are hidden, Father Lampert often gives talks to warn against evil and turn people toward the power of God.

In an interview with the Register, he said that he sees an increasing number of people involved in Satanic rituals and opening themselves up to evil.

“The problem isn’t that the devil has upped his game, but more people are willing to play it,” Father Lampert said. He pointed to rampant pornography, illegal drugs use and the occult. “Where there is demonic activity, there is always an entry point,” he said.

Adding:

"He explained that demonic infestation happens in places where things might move and there are loud noises. With vexation, a person is physically attacked and might have marks such as bruises, bites or scratches. Demonic obsession involves mental attacks, such as persistent thoughts of evil racing through one’s mind.

“In possession I have seen eyes rolled back in the head, throwing out obscenities, bodily contortions, foul odors, temperatures drop in the room, and I’ve witnessed someone levitating.”

An entry point? Give me a break.  Eyes rolling back in the head? Likely an opioid overdose! Foul odors? A flatulence problem and perhaps suffering from lactose intolerance.  Shouting obscenities? Ever heard of Tourette's syndrome?   Levitating?  Have you taken into account brief gyrations from a prone position displacing a body briefly (10 -50 ms)   above a surface? Have you measured the "altitude" and the actual duration?

A far more compelling explanation for this demonic inicrease was offered by UK psychologist Chris French in the NBC piece. That is, by adopting the "possession" mantle the "victims" can more easily absolve themselves of any responsibility for their actons (e.g. "The Devil made me do it")

To see Prof. French's lecture on the psychology of demonic possession go to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOW1CS0OC_Q


It will be well worth your investment of time!

Astonishingly,  according to Prof. French, "belief in possession is widespread both geographically and historically and is far from rare in modern western societies". A YouGov poll of 1,000 US adults last year found that over half of the respondents endorsed belief in possession and 20% remained unsure. Only 11% said categorically that they did not believe people could be “possessed by the devil”.

Only eleven percent? One out of every nine?  8 out of every 9 buy into this baloney? You must be kidding!

What this tells me, convincingly, is that the promise of the Enlightenment has never been fulfilled - even in the West.  It couldn't have been if the methods of rational inquiry and  science engendered from it never made their way into the brains of these people.  They may have taken a high school (or even 1st year university) biology, physics or chemistry course and even memorized a lot of formulas and  mastered some principles (conservation of mass- energy) but it clearly hasn't been embedded into their core being.  It hasn't become second nature.  It is more or less in the background "mental ether"  since their superstitious instincts take precedence over their prefrontal cortex and remain intact.

Prof. French in a separate article pointed out that the condition that would often have been interpreted in a similar manner to demonic possession in ages past is Tourette’s syndrome.  He also noted:

"Interestingly, the first recorded description of a case of Tourette’s may be in the Malleus Maleficarum (or Witch’s Hammer) published in the 15th century by Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Kraemer. This notorious book served as a guide for identifying witches and the possessed and included a description of a priest whose tics were thought to be a result of possession by the devil."   

Recall I did a blog post on this topic back in  November, 2012,  in terms of rooting out demonic incubi and succubi, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/beware-of-sexual-congress-with-succubi.html

In the same  article Prof. French noted:

"Of course, we must not forget that the outcome for the person who is labelled as “possessed” can sometimes be far from positive. To give one notorious example, the parents of 23-year-old Anneliese Michel and two West German priests were convicted in 1978 of causing her death (they received suspended sentences). They had starved the young epileptic as part of a horrendous 11-month exorcism. She weighed just 68 pounds (5 stone or 30 kilograms) at the time of her death. The Guardian has noted that belief in possession has been a factor in several child abuse cases in the UK, including the tragic death of Victoria Climbié in 2000.

The official recognition of such pre-Enlightenment beliefs by the Vatican will do nothing to prevent future tragedies of this kind."

And believe me, more tragedies will occur if this garbage continues. That elicits the question: Why have  Enlightenment values not taken hold?

Readers might regard this stuff as flaky but they'd be wrong. In fact, under Pope Francis, who frequently mentions the Devil, exorcisms are booming. As Exhibit "A" there's  The Pope Leo XIII Institute for the “education & training of priests in the holy ministry of exorcism and deliverance."  which opened in 2014 when the initial exorcist jabber got on the radar. 

Often quoted at that time was Father Francesco Bamonte, president of the Italy-based International Association for Exorcists. Back in 2014 he opined:

“Diabolical possessions are on the increase as a result of people subscribing to occultism. The few exorcists that we have in the dioceses are often not able to handle the enormous number of requests for help.”

While it is true that exorcism has been taught as part of Catholic theology – as my old Loyola University Theology notes show, e.g.

No truly mature and rational priest or Bishop really believes that. It is merely fed to them, like the whole concept of “sin”, to keep the faithful at the level of malleable infants to be controlled. I left the Church precisely because I wanted to be an independent thinker …and doer. Not bound to any silly, centuries -old dictates or dogmas.

But that hasn't halted the new breed of superstitious twits from spreading their malarkey - likely as a tactic to take the heat off the Vatican for the sex abuse scandal -  and also create a new demand for Church services and even joining (or rejoining) Mother Church. Why? Well to pump back up her falling numbers! (Pew Religion Research surveys have found Catholic numbers have plummeted by at least 10 percent over the last decade.)

Now, we return to the question of why the Enlightenment values haven't been absorbed - including by university -educated people. The basic reason is that they may go to the finest schools, even "Ivy League" - but they never learned the skills associated with critical thinking.  Hence, they never learned to question claims from alleged authorities deeply and critically.   In addition, too many of those graduating with degrees today only have a limited, one-dimensional education whether in science, business or whatever. They lack the breadth of the liberal arts grounding, i.e. being exposed to multiple domains of learning, that we had in the past. (My background, for example, included not only physics and advanced math but theology, biblical exegesis, philosophy, ethics, logic ...oh, and English literature.)

Hence, because their education - such as it is - amounts to literal "ivory towers" - they often find themselves perched atop one or other and unable to connect, integrate and unify disparate findings from other areas.   I mention this because it is precisely such an integrated disciplinary approach which enables the most effective critical thinking. This kind of critical thinking then, becomes a powerful tool whether applied to investigating statistical anomalies in solar flare and CME occurrence in magnetically complex regions,  the Kennedy assassination,  crop circles or demonic possessions and exorcisms.

Those who fail to see how a space physicist could also investigate such things as political assassinations and exorcism,  even questioning the validity (or veracity)  of such "off specialty" inquiries, merely expose their own limited educations and being stuck on academic "steeples".  (Assuming they possess academic backgrounds at all!) They are unable to integrate aptitudes, knowledge and can't see how others can.  Bolstering this view is the WSJ piece (3/2,  p. A13) by Michael Zimm extolling the import of liberal arts education, e.g. :

"Liberal arts courses don't offer clearly defined answers to questions. Rather they nurture disagreements among students and help them to develop the ability to marshal cogent arguments in support of defensibe positions."

Those without such education are often unable to apply critical thinking to disparate claims - especially in the supernatural realm. Such people then become hostage to these  absurd claims, and - if something is remotely not understood - fall prey to the nonsense.  Consider that the most fundamental  premise for existence of demons, and by extension "Satan" - is that there is a supernatural domain.

Once one admits to the existence of this "plane" then he is also liable to accept it can intrude into our material plane, and hence demonic possession.   As I noted in my ASTRONOMY magazine article:  ‘The God Factor’ (Astronomy Forum, March, 1990), science selectively excludes problems for which no practical method of inquiry exists. The supernatural, which is neither measurable or verifiable, falls into this category and that includes ‘God’ - if depicted as "causeless" and "supernatural"  as well as "Satan" and hence, demons and demonic possession.

Demonology perhaps saw its greatest advancement and takeover of human brains - like your typical mind virus - when humans began to take pen to paper to draw demonic characters. For example, in one ancient text the following prominent demons were given names  - and hence - to many of the weaker minded, existence:


Naturally, naming the demon then became an important part of exorcism rituals.  Watch the movie "The Exorcist" again and see if you can pick out the point where the demon possessing Reagan is named by the exorcist. (Hint: the demon's name was Pazuzu, also called "Captain Howdy" by Reagan.)

Christian theologians - with endless time on their hands and nothing positive to energize their brains- ultimately worked out whole hierarchies for Hell. Basically, if one examined them, they pretty well resembled what one beholds in modern corporations. The "head CEO" was Lucifer or “Beelzebub” who – as the Christian top Devil- was to lord it over all other circles and levels. The 2nd hierarchy was to be ruled by Carreau, the Prince of Powers. His specialty was “hardening human hearts”(Lauran Paine, ‘The Heirarchy of Hell’, p. 62)

The third hierarchy was under "Lord Belial". Each hierarchy had its own prince under Satan (Lucifer) and its own specialty for temptation. Probably the total number of Devils in all the hierarchies numbered two thousand, if one omitted their (demonic) “choirs” or sub-orders, which members were to be known as “demons”. To these were allotted the real dirty work of human possession. (Dirty work because a demon never knew when he might be violently ejected from his host!)

It bears noting that the Catholic Church's ritual of exorcism was founded and promulgated not on the belief that demonic possession was real, but that the afflicted person believed it was real. Thus, the rite of exorcism was initiated as a memetic template to cure the belief in the person's possession, not any objective possession per se. Up to now, indeed, no one has been able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that any demonic possession has ever occurred, never mind absurd fictional portrayals like those in 'The Exorcist'.

Doubts that possession was real probably surfaced first just after the period of the Inquisition. This is because the tortures and executions of the Inquisition were self-sustaining, because none of the greatest theological minds could figure out how one might exterminate demons or Devils permanently by killing the allegedly possessed humans. Because they could not be killed, and could still possess humans (according to the Inquisition), then whenever you tortured a heretic or apostate to death  the possessing devil or demon would just skip to another forlorn soul, who in turn would have to be killed. With that possessing demon jumping to another ,…..and so on keeping the Inquisition’s fires and torture wheels going indefinitely.

Eventually, the Church's great brains figured out they could potentially slaughter every single living member of the "Body of Christ" yet not be able to get at the demons or Satan himself! In other words, their own feverish delusions were having them on, leading them to excessive actions and reactions that didn't do a damned thing to advance the welfare of the "Body of Christ".

Adding fuel to Satan-mania was the Malleus Maleficarum of Heinrich Kramer (Dean of Cologne University) and Jacob Sprenger (Dominican Inquisitor General of Germany). This was the book which gave the prescriptions for exposing those possessed, or under the influence of familiars or witches or other demonic entities (succubi, incubi) under a Bull issued by Pope Innocent VIII.

Because this book allowed persecution to spread to tens of thousands of women - as "witches" - it soon became evident to the best and brightest that belief in demonic possession was in fact a recipe for self-extermination, not purification!

At the very least it meant one half of humanity being exterminated, since generally, throughout the Middle Ages, the belief persisted that the female was closer by far to the demonic hordes, by virtue of her enhanced carnality. Indeed, the demise of male virtue as well as mental power could allegedly be traced to female wiles, and what better way to enhance them than using a herb like savin (given by a witch)

Given the “evidence” of any one or all of these the accused witch could be apprehended and subjected to “the question”. This meant usually prodding her flesh with special instruments to locate the mark of “the Beast” (666) or any similar mark usually associated with the Devil. If a first pass wasn’t enough gradually more pressure and torture would be applied, usually ending up in some sort of disfigurement being found eventually and attributed to the Devil. According to author Peter Stanford (‘The Devil’, 1996, p. 162):

“Witches and warlocks provided an easy target for the Church, intent on rallying the faithful with a bout of demonization”

Probably over a half million innocent women throughout the West underwent such appalling tortures merely to appease savage and depraved minds they didn't have a demon lurking inside them.

Thus, the road to what should have been permanent  rejection of  demonic possession was replete with horrible suffering and endless death. In other words, nearly 2 million innocent humans had to be brutalized, maimed or slaughtered, before humans (at least in the West) figured out that retaining a belief in demonic possession did not redound to their benefit. But alas, that human cost appears to have been for nothing as we see the demands for this archaic and questionable practice resurrected now in the 21st century.

Sadly, while the curse of belief in demonic possession had for a time retreated in the more enlightened West (thanks to the continuing benefits of rational skepticism and the Enlightenment) these dark ideas now seem to be making a comeback, thanks to anti-rationalists in the Church - as well as a 24/7 media cycle that can't get enough bull crap to broadcast.

For the confirmed skeptic or atheist, there is only one place to put this latest rush to sanctify baloney and superstition - in the dustbin of history - along with using leeches to bleed out disease, and slaughtering cats to stop the plague.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/09/did-satan-visit-loyola-university.html

Seriously? WSJ's McGurn Attacks Stoneman Douglas #Never Again Students

It was bad enough some months ago when WSJ columnist William McGurn was attacking Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller in his Main Street column ('Bob Mueller's sideshow, Oct. 31, p. A15.).  Mr. Mueller is a big guy and fearless prosecutor who can take care of himself (He also may want to check out McGurn's role in journalistic obstruction of justice on behalf of Donnie Dotard for consistently spinning bunkum on the Russia probe..)

Now, however, McGurn has come after the Parkland FL kids for their bravery and activism in confronting the maggots of the NRA. ('Our Childish Gun Debate', Feb. 28, p. A15)  McGurn began his attack  and I don't mince words - that's what I call denigrating the credibility of survivors and  activist students attempting to change the gun dynamic-  by defending the NRA's new queen of spin, Dana Loesch. This was when she - and fellow NRA slush fund taker Marco Rubio - appeared at a CNN Town Hall in Parkland.

The students singled out for McGurn's initial attacks were not named, but were identified by the questions asked one or both of the NRA tools, e.g.

A freshman had asked Loesch:

"Was the blood of my classmates and my teachers worth your blood money?"

And:

One Junior who survived the shooting dared to tell Rubio:

"When I look at you it's  difficult not to see Nikolas Cruz."

Let's take each of these in turn, and process they are coming from students at the school   who either lost classmates in the massacre   or survived themselves. This confers on their words special gravitas and meaning not available to anyone not there..  Given Loesch's role as a PR front person and spin meister, whose main job is to tamp down outrage by shifting blame - the freshman's question was totally justified. Hell, I would've asked it had I been in the frosh's place!

So also was the statement of the shooting  survivor at Rubio.  Given all Rubio has done is support AR-15 purchases in Florida, why would a victim not see Cruz in him, especially a traumatized victim?

Then Sheriff Scott Israel took fire because "he pointed fingers at everyone but himself".  Nope, he pointed them mainly at the gun sellers, the NRA (who prepped the AR ad "You are now issued your man card!")  and the ease with which a murderous assault weapon like the AR-15  could be purchased in his state and by someone as young as 18.

Anyway, McGurn concludes from this that the current debate in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting is "guided by two broad principles":

1) The idea that the most important thing is to "do something".

2) That we ought to look to high schoolers for the answers.

Notice that no account is take whatsoever of the sophistication or knowledge level of these "high schoolers" which is arguably surpassing that of most adult Americans (generally found to read at about the 6th grade level if they read at all.)

McGurn then rubs rhetorical salt into the wounds when he continues:

"Quick show of hands: How may of you look to your teens for political wisdom? Say whether it's that daughter obsessing over Snapchat streaks or the son spending his days eating Doritos and binge- gaming 'Grand Theft Auto'"

But see, he's conflating the politically adept and savvy Parkland students with the knuckle dragging trolls who have attacked them  as "crisis actors."  THOSE are the sorry lot ensconced in their parents' basements munching Doritos and swigging Mountain Dew while they rape fifty virtual women on Grand Theft Auto.

Then McGurn goes from frying pan into fire when he  writes this codswallop about the Stonemn students:

"As terrible as their experiences were, the attack gives  them no special insight into the complex array of public policies that might have prevented the disaster.".

On the contrary, their experience -  especially the immediate survivors - gives them the deepest insight into exactly what the primary cause of the slaughter was: the too easy access and wide availability of the AR-15 and other assault weapons. The key factor- after you subtract the psychos, the background checks, the waiting times and all other secondary issues - is always the lethal weapons. Just ask Scotland after the Dunblane massacre  and Australia after the Port Arthur massacre -  both occurring in 1996.

In each case, the nation in question immediately could cut through the clutter and dross and see that the overwhelming factor was the weapon. Control the weapon and you control the carnage This is not rocket science.   Those Parkland students then, contrary to McGurn's spin,  have the most intimate insights into the events and from that know exactly what needs to be done:banning all assault rifles nationally like Maryland did last year at state level.

McGurn's most offensive and egregious spin came next when he appeared to put down the Rightist loons who were "missing the point' by accusing the students of being "actors" or using "scripted" remarks, i.e.presumably handed them by real liberal anti-gun activists. He wrote:

"These teens do not need to be scripted. Their youth and earnestness makes it all but impossible for any counter argument without looking indifferent to the horror  these kids have been through. If you don't agree with what they want they seem to suggest you are OK with mass shootings."

So McGurn damns them with a kind of faint praise (or fake pity) on account of their "violent experience", But he  also suggests no argument can be made against them because -  they have too much sympathy?!  This is a cop out only a toad like McGurn could make, especially when he actually followed it up by the earlier quoted BS, e.g. "Quick show of hands...how many of you look to teens for political advice etc."

In other words, McGurn isn't the least bit phased by the "earnestness" of the #NeverAgain students.  He just finds their arguments too intense, real and unchallengeable for his liking, so better to first suggest there are no counters that can be advanced, and second...hell they're mostly just teens playing video games and stuffing their faces with Doritos in their parents' basements - so why take advice from them? Transl. Why take their movement seriously at all, it could well as be a Tide pods eating contest. Besides it won't last. (Which is the take of way too many adults).

Disgusting, and the students themselves ought to be enraged  by this display of yellow op-ed journalism as well. But hey, for McGurn it's par for the course - especially when he's raging about how many fetuses need to be saved. (But evidently he doesn't care too much about the already born).

At the end, McGurn tries to turn the tables on all progressive opponents of these weapons by citing a Guardian UK writer (a "liberal",  of course) who:

"conceded she was shocked by how little evidence there was behind gun control policies."

But  he (and she)  may have missed the memo that there's a good reason for "little evidence" in circulation.. It has to do with the N.R.A.-backed Dickey Amendment, which was passed in 1996- named for the congress critter  who sponsored it, former Representative Jay Dickey, an Arkansas Republican..

It reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”. In other words, actual research was to be suppressed in the interest of the NRA gun lobby and culture.  Reinforcing this, reporter Sam Roberts wrote last year in The Times, that the legislation “stripped $2.6 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — the precise amount budgeted for a study of the health effects of shootings.”

Had the Guardian liberal reporter not been hobbled and blinded by this reason for deficient information she'd have learned of a CDC finding from the early 90s that there are three times more homicides in families that own  guns than those that don't.

In the meantime, William McGurn at the very least owes those students at Stoneman an apology for the disparaging and vile way he put them down.

On the positive side of the news, Dick's Sporting Goods stores have now ceased all sales of assault style rifles.  On the negative side, we learned this a.m. (CBS) the guntards are again freaking out that their precious kill weapons will be seized so sales of AR-15s have now increased by threefold since the Parkland FLA shooting.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/miles-mogulescu/77940/gun-control-legislation-is-constitutional

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jan-dizard/77939/prayers-and-sensible-gun-regulations

Excerpt:

Let's be honest with one another. The sensible thing to do is to ban the private possession of high capacity, semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity semi-automatic pistols. Ban new sales and launch an aggressive program to buy back these guns. The deranged 19 year old who killed seventeen people did so in four minutes, getting off at least 100 hundred rounds. These weapons have no place in civil society. They are designed to inflict maximum damage to an enemy--they need to be restricted to the military and law enforcement personnel. Banning them won't stop suicides or "ordinary" homicides but experience shows that a ban will make mass shootings rare and less lethal.

I'm an avid bird hunter and have several shotguns, a couple of deer rifles, and a couple of handguns. I enjoy target shooting with friends. I am not anti-gun. But I am appalled by the NRA's and Republican allies' refusal to get assault weapons off the street. Sure, it's about mental illness but it's also about the GUN.

Easy access to these weapons of mass murder have nothing to do with insuring our freedom. In fact, they make us less free. The mass shootings of the past decade have blighted a generation of youngsters who have had to endure active shooter drills. When I was a kid, fire drills were occasions of levity, almost as good as recess. Ask yourself in which nation do school children feel freer from the specter of mass murder: Denmark or England or the U.S.?