San Francisco was a sea of Santas last Saturday.
Protesting "sit-lie" with parody Christmas Carols in Berkeley CA.
Could the Republicans be missing an excellent opportunity to make new inroads in the gun debate by politicizing Santa Claus and advocating that the only safe and sane way to prevent an invasion robbery at Santa's toy factory, which would spoil an incalculable number of children's Christmas celebrations, is to provide the elves with guns and give them firearms training and require them to spend time on the firing range every month.
Would it be politicizing freedom of speech to maintain that
no topic on God's Green Earth is so sacred that it merits an automatic
exemption from the tendency of politicians to turn every possible subject of
conversation at the local pub to their own advantage?
When hundreds (thousands?) of Santa's Elves turned out on a cold rainy day in San Francisco to participate in the 2012 Santacon pub crawl, wasn't the absence of any political activists supporting their about to become illegal right to be naked in public just a matter of common sense and not a verdict on the issue itself?
Theoretically freedom of speech is a good thing, but there
are (as the Supreme Court decreed) limits.
People are not free to disseminate misinformation (as Mike Malloy
pointed out on his radio show for December 17, 2012) such as yelling "Fire!" in
a crowded theater where there is no blaze.
Fox News, however, has used a case in Florida to establish their right to broadcast falsehoods as news. Is there a difference between yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no blaze and pretending that fibs are news?
Does Fox's right to tell fibs in newscasts override the
United Supreme Court's "Fire!" ruling about misinformation? If so, does that mean it is OK to slip some
fabricated facts into the gun control debate?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, dontcha know that opens up a new can of worms and now the lawyers will insinuate themselves into the fookin' debate and the issue will get sidetracked (and completely bogged down) with defining words such as trying to establish what the meaning of "is" is? Isn't it best to just ignore certain things?
In the mid Sixties, in Stroudsburg
Pa., on Christmas day a fellow
stressed out, killed his family, set the house on fire, and walked off into the
sunset. He was put on the FBI's ten most
wanted list but after a decade of remaining there, he was quietly and
surreptitiously removed from that version of the Criminal Hall of Fame. It is exceedingly difficult, if not
impossible, to find his name on the Internets.
Did he use a gun? Who knows?
The movie "Rare Export" provided a scientific explanation for several of the Christmas myths (such as flying reindeer) but it was ignored by the pop culture radar and was relegated to the "cult movie" category and is given the silent treatment by political pundits. For connoisseurs of esoteric entertainment, it is a treasure to be cherished.
Speaking of Norway,
Simo Hà ¤yhà ¤y used a rifle to kill 542 men and became a national hero. He was a sniper helping fend off an attack
from Russia.
United States Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock used a rifle to take out a Viet Cong general from more than a mile away. He had one confirmed kill from 2,500 (no typo) yards out. For a time he held the record for a sniper kill record from the longest distance. Do gun critics want to establish 2,500 yards as the radius for gun free zones around schools?
Hathcock used one bullet carefully aimed to achieve
precision with each of his shots rating rather than sending a "Hail Mary" style
fusillade of ammunition towards his target. Critics of the large capacity
magazines might want to emphasize Hathcock's enviable skill and efficiency and
disparage the use of a rapid burst of bullets with results that illustrate the
law of averages. Stressing quality
rather than quantity when it comes to displays of marksmanship might get gun
enthusiasts to listen to the opposing point of view. Unfortunately that line of argumentation
doesn't apply in the Lanza case.
Some people have wondered why this particular mass shooting has provoked such a universal interest and emotional response. Has any pundit pointed out the fact that usually such incidents involve a massive number of shots fired and the law of averages. The shooter in the Connecticut school killed 26 people and was reported to have fired a hundred rounds. The numbers make him sound more like some one using the execution style rather than randomness and perhaps that subconsciously disturbs the public more than the other killers who use the law of averages to do their dirty work. He was a one man firing squad and not a man unleashing a fusillade of random shots.
The contrast of the One Percenters vs. everyone else is
especially sad this year when TV ads challenge the fat cats to buy luxury cars
for those on their Christmas gift list while some of the unemployed have to
face the possibility that their unemployment checks will be terminated on New
Year's day.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
