You just don't get it, do you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns_12

I'm not a gun nut, on either side of the issue. Guns, as far as I'm concerned, are OK... to a point. I'm not a fanatic FOR them. I'm not a fanatic AGAINST them.

The problem I have here is with the politicians. They want this law because it makes them look like they've done something useful. Have they?

The law they're enacting attempts to ensure that guns aren't sold LEGALLY to people with mental health issues. This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I can agree to that. The question is... what consitututes a mental health issue? Is it someone who's obviously (visibly) got problems. I'd think that most people (I would hope) would already have a problem selling guns to such individuals. Is it meant to cover those with transient, or episodic, bouts of mental illness? Ok, you could make a case for that... fine. However, maybe it could also be used to cover pretty much anyone that displays any kind of anti-social behavior.... NOW WE'RE TALKING! This could be what we're all looking for. This could be a way around the constitution that will allow us to deny guns to anyone we choose! Rather than going into all of the myriad possibilities at this point... I'm gonna switch tracks...

What kind of fucking idiot, with even the slightest semblence of a clue, believes that, for even a moment, this will stop a person "with mental health issues" from getting their hands on a gun? When will the general public stop experiencing the "feel good" factor when this type of legislation is enacted. It's all total BULLSHIT!. Guns exist. Guns can be bought, both legally AND illegally. Period. They can also be stolen, for that matter.

Well then, let's take this further... We should make ALL guns illegal! Yeah, right. The only way this COULD ever work, is if our government both changed the consitution, AND went out and proactively wrested all the guns from LEGAL gun owners. Only then, could they go after all of the (even before the law) illegal guns. I'm pretty sure this would lead to the next Civil War.

The bottom line is: Bad shit happens from time to time in our free society. Guns are here. They're not going away anytime soon. Let's stop smiling, open-mouthed, everytime these politicians shower us with these excremental laws that have nothing to do with the issue, but everything to do with self-promotion. This is, literally, nothing but a great big steaming pile of shit disguised with a generous, gleaming layer of self-righteousnous.

Let's Crown the Patriots NOW!

Why wait until the end of the season. What's the point. The Patriots were handed the game the other day (against the Ravens), a game they otherwise would have lost, by the officials who were there to ensure fair play.

In the interest of full disclosure... I'm not a Ravens fan. I'm am a Dolphins fan, but I'm not a person who, necessarily, hates the Patriots. The Patriots ARE A VERY GOOD TEAM!

What constitutes having 'control of the ball' before a receiver goes out of bounds on a catch? My assumption was that the receiver had to have it in his clutches (i.e. have his hand(s) and or arm(s) firmly around it without bobbling it. The officials in the Ravens-Patriots game set a new standard... Apparently, you only have to have it balanced delicately on your fingertips as you step out of bounds.

The officials in the game last week either:
a) handed the game to the Patriots, or
b) set a whole new standard for 'control of the ball as the receiver goes out of bounds', or
c) were on acid, or
d) had money on the game

Let's give the officials the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's b)... shall we. Let's see just how many other calls go the same way the rest of the season.