From my Cold Dead Hands

I wonder what the founding fathers would say to us now if they where still alive.

My theory says that after they marvel at the iPad, and then catch up world history through Mel Gibson movies, they would be thrilled to see how we have flourished, and disappointed at our public discourse has reverted to that of eight year old who thinks taping a cheetah to their grandmothers back is safer then drinking a double shot of five hour energy.

In my observations over the past month, in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, I have observed that this issue is much more grey then you would guess listening to most pundits in the media, both left or right. Let me explain, some people hear that taking away certain types of weapons, namely assault rifles in this argument, or they hear that clip sizes are being reduced, and they believe that the second amendment is being treated like Chris Brown's girlfriend. This is a tough pill to swallow because obviously there is a need to put some restrictions on the statement 'right to bear arms'. Does your neighbor have the right to have a nuclear weapon? Heavens no! Why? Because, there is an unnecessary danger to too many people if someone has a set of arms capable of such destruction. I'm a firm believer that the second amendment was put there as an ultimate check and balance for the people of this country against a government that holds the potential to subdue the populace at some point in this countries history.The point I'm trying to make is that reasonable restrictions on your right to bear arms, not unlike yelling "Fire!" in the middle of a crowded theater is a restriction of the first amendment. Pun intended.

If an individual sees the need to be armed with the capacity to ward off a battalion of marines, not only is that standard completely unreasonable, I probably would un-friend you on Facebook. Nothing personal.

So there is a line, but we seem to argue ourselves silly trying when determining where this line is. A dance line of all living former presidential candidates seems more obtainable then getting a consensus on where this line is drawn. Watching people trying to get folks to their side of thinking is almost as painful to witness as envisioning the aforementioned dance troop.

I was watching Lawrence O'Donnell last night (a fact of which I am not proud of) as he showed video of President Reagan giving a speech where he was urging congress to pass the Brady Bill (which enacts background checks in most gun purchasing cases) back in the nineties. He prefaced this clip, with that god awful smirk of his, claiming the Reagan would be in support of the Presidents action. completely ignoring the fact that Reagan was calling on congress to pass a law, not for the President to simply enact it. Meanwhile  The NRA points out that the president's own children are protected with weapons similar to those people want to ban. This entire country is protected by Air Craft carriers and missiles that it's citizens can't run down to Costco and purchase. Of course the same protections are not extended to the citizens of New York.

This is a complicated issue and any attempts to say otherwise, well, I ain't buying it. The real clear issue of the day? Was the President right to simply state a law, sign a piece of paper and through a party? Of course not.  I tried once to pass an executive order in my house the other day without garnering the popular support of the congress that is my wife. Suffice to say the policy I called 'topless twinkles Tuesday' is not the law of the land, and not just cause there are no more Twinkies  The laws Obama are proposing are not currently on the books, therefore he has no authority to pass them and enforce them. I also said the same thing about the government forcing you to buy a private service during the good 'ol days of the Obama Care debates, so take my legal point of view with a grain of salt. While we stockpile munitions under our bed waiting for either the zombies to try and eat us, or for the government to take our babies, the wool has once again been pulled over our eyes. We are less of a democracy today then we where yesterday and the debate is about when Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's and how many ninja's the Presidents kids are entitled to. I stand by waiting for the lawsuit against the Presidents action and hope for the best there. By then, hopefully, the blood boiling over Sandy Hook will be reduced to a simmer and congress can go about it's constitutional authority of building consensus via pork and buyouts. When we may realize that these laws probably won't prevent another tragedy like Sandy Hook.

Final Thought: You need an ID to buy a gun, but not to vote. Discuss.