Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:21156
Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!pull-news.sonic-news.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Subject: +*+*+*+ Solomon's Private File #222 "CNN Gun Control" +*+*+*+
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 06:11:09 -0400
From: " +Grant. " <+Grant@grant.grant>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Reply-To: +Grant.
Organization: .
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 308
Message-ID: <57b7f47d$0$55906$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: df273ce8.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=?U:WZe935h[40PdiKi@9HQL?0kYOcDh@ZC]W3m^EaQWWcTbO5NF?kN^58Z8MMN8fY]^bMg:0hjj]U1PHXo:KBXN]kR]d<fb9Xb^X989bMV6CTP
Solomon's Private File #222
These stories about Stephen and Solomon take place starting in
1950's. Stephen wrote about his life in letters to a penpal, and then
in a secure blog, in case he lost his memory again, in the master
computer in his school for gifted students, which he started attending
in 2016 in a new incarnation, until his death. Now his son Solomon is
attending the same school, and is writing in his own secure blog for
his future incarnations.
All characters are fictitious, even if some of them might have names
that belong to some actual people, or act like people we know.
Solomon is 25 in this story, in the Fall of 2051.
Solomon's Private File #222 "CNN Gun Control"
START Page
I said to Hawk, "Al Qaeda is still around, and is just as bad as the
Taliban, and both are in a lot of countries." He said, "Quick! Gimme
the specs!" I pushed the info at him, and he said, "Done. Thanks." I
said, "Took your time, huh?" Pokes and some wrestling. I said, "Been
watching. A lot of irritation in some places. Happy children, though.
Wow!" He said, "What happened?" I showed him, and he laughed. A child
had grabbed the hand of a man and deliberately put it on a rifle so it
would be changed into spun sugar, and then very happily licked it. I
gave that video to CNN, and they put it right on air, with the caption
I gave them of, "How to lick violence."
Then the pres of CNN called. He said, "Thank you very much for that
image! We've had a lot of good comments about it. We'd like to do a
show on gun control. Want to participate?" I said, "If I do, it's going
to be worse than the abortion show. I'll say things NOBODY will expect.
And some are very good expectorators." Chuckles. I said, "Why, is
simple. I was there when that amendment was written and sent for
approval." He said, "We have to have you!" I said, "I should charge
extra. Oh, wait, you don't pay me!" He said, "We could, if you used
money." I said, "Standard high class consultant fees to PBS, and
announce it. If you want to do it. You make more than enough off of me,
and the public approval of that couldn't hurt." He said, "You've sold
me! We'll do it. The Solomon Contribution." I said, "Don't make me
regret it!" He chuckles.
I shifted to the studio after they went on air. Don said to me,
"Solomon, I've noticed something. Your teleporting is somehow different
than it was a few years ago." I said, "Sharp eye. I should check myself
for cuts." He chuckled. I said, "There IS a difference. I don't
teleport myself much anymore. I just create a presence where I want one
to be." He said, "Oh. But I don't know what that means." I said,
"Sorry. All you're going to get. So, what's this about, gun control?
Alright. I think it's a very good idea. Who wants to lose control of
their guns, and have them go shooting all over, by themselves?"
Chuckles and irritation. I said, "I'll just watch for a while." He
nodded, and then encouraged the other guests to make their cases. At
one point, I said, "Hold on there! There is no need for yelling and
insults. Do them separately. This side do the yelling, and this side do
the insults, and you switch every thirty seconds. Begin." Dead silence.
Then Don laughed loudly. Some joined with chuckles. They went to break.
Don said, "The Master Psychologist at work!" I said, "Oh, that was
work? Then I'd better do some of that for real when we come back.
Interesting expressions." Chuckles. Back from break, Don asked for my
opinions. I said, "Let's clarify some terms, first. The second
amendment says the right to bear arms. Does that mean sleeveless
shirts?" Stunned silence. Then one said, "Are you serious?" I said,
"Then tell us what the word means; 'arms'." He said, "In this context,
it means weapons." I said, "So, not specifically guns? Speak up! I
asked you a question!" He said, "All weapons, including guns." I said,
"Including shoulder launched missiles?" He said, "It would have to
include that." I said, "50mm howitzers?" He said, "Yes." I said,
"Hydrogen bombs?" He said, "That, too, but it's ridiculous!" I said,
"Hydrogen bombs are about as far from ridiculous as our current
technology gets. So, please explain what you meant by that." He said,
"It's ridiculous that people should have them in their homes." I said,
"But it's in the Constitution. Therefore, you should be all for it.
What's the problem? You started this, you finish it!" He said,
"Alright, there should be some limits."
I said, "And where is the power to impose those limits?" One said,
"The government." I said, "Any American government is legally able to
impose those limits, and has done that since before there was ever a
United States. In the old west, many towns had an ordinance banning all
guns. People were required to drop them off at the sherif's, and take
them back when they left. Significantly extending the lifespans of the
sherifs. And that extended into statehood. Now, a question. What did
the founding fathers have in mind with the Second Amendment? Be aware,
I was one of them." I said with a grin, "I see some hesitation here." A
few chuckles. One said, "To be able to oppose tyranny." I said, "What
kind of tyranny?" He said, "Oppressive government?" I said, "Wrong. Try
again. I see no taker. Oppression is often a matter of opinion, but
systematic discrimination, is beyond that. The colonies were originally
settled by English Protestants, and a little later, also some
Catholics. In England, a Catholic King tried to disarm only the
Protestants, so the Catholics, including the government, could abuse
them er, safely. This intent was eventually abandoned, prevented
officially by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, that said only
Parliament could do that. Well, if an actual Parliament happened to be
around when the subject came up again. Remembering that, is WHY the
Second Amendment exists, even though some of us opposed it." We went to
break.
One said, "This is becoming VERY interesting!" There was more
agreement with that than some expected. Back from break, I said, "Now
onto another word. What does militia mean?" One said, "Put simply,
'citizen soldiers'." I said, "And it's said to be necessary to the
security of a free State. Oh, and by State, it was meant, nation. Why
was it necessary? I see you don't know. There is no specific provision
for a standing army to actually exist in the Constitution, even though
it was mentioned among the powers of the President. The reason for that
was, we couldn't pay for it! We were dead broke and deep in debt. So we
didn't have one in the beginning, after the war was over, when I
finally got England to recognize us. We counted on our armed citizens
to defend our new country, as they had very ably just done so. THAT'S
what we meant by militia, and to have that, our citizens had to have
their own weapons at home with them. They already owned them. We just
couldn't afford to pay for new ones. They were safe then, too. You
don't want to keep a flintlock loaded all the time. Powder could go
bad. Try to fire it, and you could just have a flash in the pan. I see
one of our experts recognizes the origin of that saying." He nodded. I
said, "And they had swords and bayonets, too. You might not believe how
many British soldiers were done in by farm tools. Now, we have a
standing army, but we also have our militia, which is the National
Guard. FINE and brave people!" We went to break.
Back from break, I said, "With the National Guard being our official
militia, we don't need other citizens to keep guns for that reason. So
now to the right to bear arms. It is established that it was to prevent
a helpless population from being selectively targeted, and to enable
the country to be defended in war, in the absence of a standing army.
And we have to admit, they would have used the Heston argument. Right.
Give up their guns over their dead bodies. Which in many cases, would
actually have happened. It was a pretty lawless time, and the natives
were seriously annoyed by the Western expansion, and were fighting
back, beyond the expected culture clash. And many needed to hunt to
survive. But what did we actually mean by arms? Anybody?" One said, "I
see where you're going. They could only mean what they knew about it.
Muskets and swords, and an occasional canon." I said, "Yes. Obvious,
actually. So, in the strict interpretation of the amendment, as it was
obviously intended, which the gun lobby insists on saying, we should
only allow those kinds of weapons. Comments, er, rational comments,
anyone?" One said, "We should do that!" I said, "And who didn't expect
that?" Chuckles. One said, "But other nations have them. We would be
unequal and not as able to defend ourselves." I said, "We still have
the National Guard and their ISSUED weapons. We are not in a
playground, and they are not toys we should be jealous that some other
kids have. Next?"
One said, "Then only the criminals would have them, putting good
citizens in danger." I said, "That's true, if they have them. Anybody
want some spun sugar?" Grins. One said, "I didn't think of that." One
"That's a valid point. Home protection, and the Supreme Court has ruled
on that in approval. DC v Heller, in 2008. Even though it is much more
likely for a gun at home to be used in the home to kill a family
member, than to actually protect them. Oh, don't look at me like that.
You know I have to be fair, and legal, too. Got a law degree now. Can't
ignore that, can I?" Chuckles. I said, "But I will tell you that an
assault rifle in the confines of most homes is NOT an appropriate
firearm for defense. Very difficult to shoot around doors and corners,
and bullets are likely to go right through the walls, and even the
neighbor's house. I see some agreement with that. If you need a long
weapon, a shotgun would be better. And aim isn't needed to be so
precise. And you would wake up the entire neighborhood. Which would be
good or bad, depending on where you live, and how many things they've
permanently borrowed from you." Chuckles.
I said, "So we need protection from criminals. But by using guns?"
One said, "Even if they aren't armed with guns, four of them can still
kill an entire family." I said, "Correct. Valid point. Guns aren't
called equalizers for nothing. So, for self protection, guns are
legitimately useful. Some are needed on the job, and that job can be in
transporting criminally tempting items such as gems, and at home. While
I don't like that, I have to say it's a valid need, and for which which
the Supreme Court as ruled in favor. But they didn't say WHICH guns, or
how many per person or home. Muskets, which was what was originally
intended?" One said, "You said it. Not reliable to keep loaded, and so
couldn't be used in an emergency." I said, "Right. And single shot
against multiple attackers, just annoys them. And the first shot
usually misses." More nods. I said, "But the government is legally
empowered to regulate arms, just not prohibit ALL of them.
Disagreements so far?" None.
I said, "Now we talk about who should have what. Who shouldn't?" They
listed felons and mentally unstable people. I said, "Well, you've just
eliminated politicians." Appreciative chuckles. I said, "It's fine to
keep them away from guns, but HOW, is the real problem. Background
checks don't uncover er, odd people. If those were all locked up,
possibly half the people in this room wouldn't be here. I'll let you
think about which half." Chuckles. I said, "It was kind of a joke, but
to illustrate a serious point. We know who will use a gun wrongly, only
AFTER they do it. And private sales don't have background checks. There
are bigger problems. There are a lot of stolen guns all over the place,
and cross border travel. Limiting gun sales, and who should own them,
doesn't affect any of those who already have them, legally or not. Any
new laws need to have a way included in them, to implement them fairly.
It couldn't be done well before. It can now, with my assistance. I can
know where every gun in this country is, and how legal it is, and can
do with them whatever the law allows. If I am asked to. So, now I ask
you to propose some sensible gun laws, with all that has been discussed
here, in mind."
One said, "What about hunting and hobbies?" I said, "Included. Guns
can be kept at ranges. Guns for hunting can be stored with the police
until used. I'm not saying those things should be done, but just
illustrating ideas. In Israel, they require people to have training in
them, and psychological exams, and pass both, before they are allowed
to have a civilian license for any firearm, and that license must be
renewed every three years. I like those laws very much. Australia has
good and effective gun laws, too. Don't use the argument that only
criminals will have guns. I can fix that in seconds, if that action
could be made legal. Also include in your consideration, buy-back
systems. They've been successful at times. And stiffer punishment for
people who don't secure their guns. They don't report stolen or
privately sold guns, and those guns are involved in a crime, they
should be held accountable for that, almost as much as those who used
the guns. We all want less criminal and accidental use of guns. Lets
get together to make that happen. Gun er, enthusiasts, you're going to
have to bend a little, if you want to have any pay attention to you at
all. Remember the muskets premiss. I think I could argue that
effectively before any US court. And the other side who might want ban
all guns, need to know that isn't going to happen, per the Supreme
Court, whether you or I like it or not. We'll go to break now. When we
come back, you'll have half an hour to start work on this."
Off air, I said, "Anybody got any loose wows?" Chuckles. I said,
"Don, I know what you might be thinking, about something I said. Save
that for another time, please." He nodded. He nodded and said, "I
didn't expect all this. I know, you've heard that before. But you're
leading this discussion, and very well!" Nods. I said, "Well, you
invited me. What else SHOULD you expect? We can't escape that I know
more than anybody here about a lot of things, and I think well and
fast. You didn't think I wouldn't actually use any of that?" He said,
"You're right. I should have thought of that. It's just how strong you
sound here. We're used to you being more er, less strong." I said,
"Actually, its that you prefer me that way. Who wants to see me here
like that rapist did?" He said, "Oh!" Thoughtful nods.
Back on air, they did have a very productive discussion. at the end
of it, I said, "Thank you very much for your good work. A little
reminder. This has been live before the public, and recorded.
Significantly changed opinions about stated positions and conclusions
could be viewed as something like insincerity." Some grins. I said, "I
hope we can move forward on this, not backward. Your next job is to
light a fire under your politicians to have them not refuse to explode
into action. Alright, I'll accept groans." Chuckles. I said, "But I'm
being deadly serious, literally. Inaction will result in more innocent
deaths than we KNOW need to be. Do we agree on this?" They all did. Don
thanked us all, and closed the show.
Don said to me, "Think anything good will come of this?" I said, "I
can be cynical on my own time." Chuckles. I said, "If the pro gun group
is smart, they will go along with this, because if they don't, they
being severely discredited, so that people, including politicians, will
just stop listening to them, they may have to deal with stronger anti
gun laws than they need to now. They might even think I could possibly
issue a moral ruling on guns, making religions really push their people
to obey it. I've said this before, but I don't think people are able to
accept this. Psionic people feel the feelings of others to some degree.
I am the most powerful and the most sensitive. Every human being who is
hurt, hurts me. Yes, I feel it ALL. That includes their DEATHS. My
people didn't know this about me, and they're crying. Now. ALL of them.
It hurts us more, that we shouldn't help more than we are allowed to
do, but people and societies must decide their own fate. That is God's
rule, and I am His."
Some of them were crying, too. Don said to me, "Are you the Son of
God?" I said, "There are no words that describe that usefully. All you
would use, would mean something inaccurate. In one way, we are all
direct children of God, because he created our souls. And He directs
our reincarnations, and what we remember of them, so we are even more
His direct creations. But when we become able to, we join with God
after our last lives, and become a part of Him. Then we ARE God. I
can't really say anything more about that without causing useless
confusion. But I see that doesn't satisfy you. God has for millennia,
and is currently even more, managing my existence a lot more directly
than others, more so than he did with my father, practically forcing me
to improve. He has a greater purpose for this and me. Someday I will
know what it is. That's all I can say about it that will make the least
bit of sense to you. One more thing. I let your control room record
this. They may use it, but as usual, without edits. Ending now. We are
private. Any extra comments of a non personal kind?" Silence. I said,
"No God contact today, but I did bring an extra large clip of hugs with
me." Some tentative smiles. Hawk ported in to help, and I did the hugs.
They noticed his tears. We left.
Back home, even Kam was there, along with a steady stream of all the
rest, with hugs and kisses with love. She said, "I should have
suspected, by all the little things you've been doing, that would have
been too much for a detector web." George said, "That's it! I should
have seen it, too. Why didn't you tell us?" I looked around, and he
said, "Oh. Right. Silly question." I poked him. But with love.
CNN ran the extra bit at the end, without comment. Cameras did show
that the announcer had some not so dry eyes in presenting it.
Interestingly, there was very little comment about it from the public,
but a lot of comment about the show. Most of it was good.
END Page
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Grant
|
|