Out of tragedy must come something good - curb on violence

In light of the tragedy that descended upon a small community in Connecticut, the call for greater gun control has been ringing across the nation. Rightfully so. After a string of horrific shooting sprees - Sikh temple, Colorado movie theater, a shopping mall in Wisconsin to name a few - the question of having such fire arms available to the general public remains in question. Of course the NRA remains a powerful if not controlling body in US politics, and because of their sway, true reform will have a difficult time coming to light.

All this stems from a few words written by the founding fathers -

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

I will not get into a legal discussion or interpretation of these words, rather I think we need to put this into context. When these words were written the United States was a former colony, an upstart in the world. They were breaking from what was the hegemon at the time - England. A nation who's empire the sun never set upon. A nation with the largest navy in the world and a world class standing army. The United States was comprised of a number of farmers and merchants who happened to own muskets to protect their land, hunt and form said militia. Contrast that with today. The United States has the world's most sophisticated military. Period. Therefore the need to have a well regulated militia is unnecessary.

Does this mean we should no longer have the right to bear arms? Of course not. But the right to bear arms does not have the necessity of maintaining a militia. Therefore there should be the ability of imposing greater safety controls on acquiring and keeping those weapons.

• Background checks - If you are a business trying to get a liquor license you have to submit to a lengthy review. If you want to secure a loan, same idea. Or drive a car.
• Increased eduction - You need to take classes to learn to drive a car. Or to be certified with CPR. How about handling a weapon?
• Improved gun safety - Mandatory checks such as gun locks, minimizing capacity of ammo clips and the like. Ban on certain weapons.

I realize these are nothing earth shattering. I also realize they do not prevent all gun violence. I also realize that if you reduce the amount of guns, or at least the access to guns, you reduce the probability that someone with bad intentions gets access to one. The saying that "guns don't kill people do" is correct. But if the people that want to kill do not have access to tools of death, how successful can they be?

Chick-fil-a uproar...tempest in a tea cup

First I will say...it has been a while since I published anything on this blog. I do not expect to post too often (I do write 2 other blogs!) but from time to time I will write some of my views on more "charged" topics that are related to politics. The recent uproar over Chick-fil-a motivated me to write about this. For those in the dark here is a recap of what is happening - Chick-fil-a corporate has come out and made statements about being "pro-family" meaning the way defined in the Bible:


"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

This comes from an interview given to the Bapist Press, click here for full interview. This has led to uproar from both sides. The side that is for equality and the side that is for traditional marriage. Now when it comes to the question of gay marriage, my stance is simple - if two people love each other and want to commit to each other (and enjoy the legal and societal recognition) then let them. Honestly, one thing the world cannot ever have enough of are people who love one another and want to commit to one another.

To me this is a larger issue, with regards to Chick-fil-a, I think we are making too much of the situation. Here is why.

Dan Cathy, the President and COO of Chick-fil-a, has a right to make his stand and company philosophy public as well as be proud of it. The constitution gives him this right. Now, one can argue that his stance is about "family values" are a veiled anti-gay violation of civil rights view point...that is a debate for another day. Even so, as a citizen, Dan has the right to express this. As a business, Dan does NOT have the right to discriminate against his employees or patrons. From what I can tell, Chick-fil-a abides by the laws of the land when it comes to hiring practice, work environment and treating patrons. The likes of Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee also have the right to rally their followers to support Chick-fil-a by purchasing their products.

From the other side, folks like Tom Menino has the right to send a letter to Chick-fil-a expressing his distaste for their stance on the topic as well as suggest he would not be welcoming for the franchise. To read the Menino letter click here. What I find sad yet typical in such a debate is that Menino is not telling Chick-fil-a it will not be allowed to come to Boston but rather: "I urge to to back out of your plans to locate in Boston." Funny no where do I see he saying - you will not come here and I will do whatever I can to prevent it.

Both sides have the right to make their views public. Chick-fil-a as a business, appears to continue to follow the laws of the nation. This is becoming a tempest in a tea cup.

My take is the following - which ever side you fall on vote with your feet and wallet. Do not believe in what Chick-fil-a stands for, don't eat there. If you want to show your support for Dan's point of view then by all means spend your money there. I think this has become a tempest in a tea cup...the issue of gay rights and marriage are by no means trivial, but Chick-fil-a, as long as they respect the laws of the land, have a right to express their opinion. And unlike their chicken and waffle fries, can be and are distasteful.