Just a simple message about the division in politics and the affect on citizens.

Gang: Regarding the ''Who started it first?' Debate on the aggressive, attack language, It is a counter productive argument that only leads to a Hatfield- McCoy conclusion.

Of course, the Trump Train is the engine pulling all the cars, but that train left the station back in the 1960's ( at least) and attacks just go unabated. Perhaps, rather than that metaphor that Mark Twain used in Huck Finn (with different family names), it would serve the nation to remember that 'a plague on both houses' can only be truly ended with real change.

The most obvious to me is the weapons used in violent attacks.. Both sides need to agree on one simple thing : we have a right to have a gun or rifle, but all assault weapons of of the nature used in the recent assassination attempts in DC on Republicans must be banned. Confiscated with restitution if necessary.. Both sides give in. Gun checks and gun show sales need closer scrutiny.

First, come together in deeds, not just words and then recognize the that debate on issues is not a call to arms. We need a "Farewell to Arms"

With apologies to Twain, Hemingway and Shakespeare.

Bob Pacilio

Addendum: (After two of my former students commented on FB explaining the confusion about what is an 'assault weapon', here is my reaction:

I've thought more on the subject and your replies. Yes, the crazy folks will look to do as much damage as possible. Note: in Britain with restrictions on guns, the assailants use their cars. Imagine if the had access to some assault weapons? As for The Constitution., the 'right to bear arms' is not my issue- it is about the right for citizens to carry military grade assault weapons. Surely, the number of rounds fired in so quick a time is part the 'prevention' needed since sometimes it gives defense a chance to stop an assassin; no real prevention can stop the 'suspects' because the number exceeds 300,000 in major cities alone. As for comparisons to prohibition, bootlegging liquor is a different skill set to these precise weapons. Yes, it can still happen. The question is this : taking no action means no effort is made because it may not be substantial. My position in terms of a divided Congress and nation is an effort will at least tell Americans that the government has drawn a line at a particular weapon of choice. 

 I also am quite proud to say both of my former students knowledgeable opinions regarding the definitions of 'assault weapons' speak volumes about their understanding of this debate. However, just today, it was on reported that 70 % of guns confiscated by Mexican police are made in the USA. it is a sad truth that this, of all products is what nations want from us the most. Ironically, these same weapons land into the hands of cartels and the used against us.

The killer at the baseball field had one type of 'assault weapon. So did the kid at Sandy Hook and the killer in Arizona with Gabby Giffords...I agree with both of my former students that it is a tough call, but doing nothing is just that, doing nothing. Virginia has no gun restrictions whatsoever , not even registration.

My knowledge of firearms is very limited. The bigger point is whatever the issue or the type of forearm, etc. it is the act of compromise not just the talk of 'getting along better'. So since this recent event highlights the gun debate,but still the sides will not compromise. I believe  some substantive compromise can be a start. Look to the global warming crisis. Neither side makes a move to do something significant.

 The 'coming together in Congress' talk is cheap; it is what compromises that actually occur where both sides give a little.I chose gun legislation as an example since it was on the hearts and minds of so many in Congress...but alas, little will be done.

Sorry for my longest blog...ever.  Bob

Like

 · Reply · 22 hrs