Marvin Dansie

Dave and Daryl - 

Before everyone signs off I would like to rant about a very important but controversial subject that is in the news these days: the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and Gun Control.

I wonder if the founding fathers would have been a little more specific about the “right to bear arms” if they could have glimpsed the technologies we have today.

THE HISTORY BEHIND THE 2^ND AMENDMENT :

In July of 1776, when the Continental Congress declared that the thirteen American colonies were independent states, the colonies had been at war (the Revolutionary War) with Great Britain for more than a year, but they had no army - they used the citizens of every colony as citizen soldiers - commonly known as militias. These citizen soldiers often had to provide their own weapons since the new Continental Congress had no money.

The militias had been used previously during the Seven Years War (1754-1763), a world wide war primarily between the British and the French. It was known in America as the French and Indian War. When a colony was under threat the militiamen would join the fight when they were needed and went home when they weren't. The militias were an important part of the national defense at the birth of our country.

The founding father knew that it was essential that the citizen soldiers be available to help in the defense of the country and gave congress the authority to call them forth.

The Constitution of the United States (adopted on September 17, 1787):

Article. I. Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

-To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions-

But it was the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution, adopted in December of 1791) that contained the 2nd Amendment:

Amendment II
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.

The ”arms” of the time were flint-lock pistols, muskets and smooth-bore rifles, all using black powder, and having a gun was pretty much a basic necessity for life in the new America. 

Back when the US had a population of about 2.5 million people, when Philadelphia was the largest city (with a population of about 40,000 - slightly more than the current combined populations of Springville and Mapleton), and when the western frontier was still well east of the Mississippi River.

THE GUN CONTROL ISSUE:

We currently have pretty much free access to almost any kind of gun. 

We have the freedom to own guns, but that freedom is not free. 

In 2011 there were 32,163 people in the US that were killed by a gun. That is 5 times more deaths in one year than occurred in the twelve years of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts (6,630 US service members from 2001 through 2012).

Is that a problem or is it worth the cost?

I’ll bet that if we were still using black power and smooth bore rifles we wouldn’t be having this problem.

Eric Bird

Did you hear about the new gun that Smith and Wesson came out with?  It is called the "Congessman".  It does not work and you cannot fire it.  Oh well.  May see you for lunch if I can get away from work.

Gary Averett

Hey Marv

Maybe I missed something, are you pro or con on gun control?  I for one am pro gun.  not control.   As I see it the 2nd was written so that we the people can protect ourself against enemies or goverment.  Just saying...

Kenneth Strong

Marv,   I can see what you are saying but my belief is that we all have the right to own guns.  I think that if there were controls to take away guns, then the law breakers would be the ones with the guns.  Even though the AR 15 was not around back in the 1700's it should be here today.  The thing that makes me mad is that the news media and some of the polititions keep refering to the use of the AR 15 at the school kids shooting.  It was never used in the shooting.  Just a story that they use to get guns away.  

Linda Schardine

I agree with you Gary & Ken. As a women, I do have a gun, even though I'm scared of it and hope I never have to use it. But I want the right to have it.

Statistically the places that have stricker gun laws have more crimes.

it's not the guns it's the people.  Criminals will always find a way to have guns and that's a fact, do we want us all to be unprotected?

Outside of our town there are some people who are trying to start a walled in city where everyone has to have guns and learn how to use them. Our town is kinda laughing, but most people here in north Idaho own guns. Probley if it were somewhere else people would be in an uproar, but people here come here to be able to live how they want.

I don't know what to think about it,I guess if ther're not terriosts and have sinister motives...

It's been in the paper and seems like it might happen. I'll keep an update, I think it's an interesting fact.

Marv, if the world goes to hell you guys can come here, we have lots of protecction.

There's my 2 cents.........

Debbie Lawrence (Clark)

Marv,   I'm with Gary, are you pro or con?

I stand with the gun owners.

google chicago and their gun laws.  They also have the highest gun murder rate in the country.

I do not own a gun, nor do I want one, but I do not want anyone to ban guns.  

I own a baseball bat, and I have incredible upper body strength.  Break into my house and you will limp away wishing I owned a gun.

Daryl Tucker

I feel a little silly having to actually say this, but you all know that Dave and I have a habit of saying many things with our tongues firmly planted in our cheeks, right?

That said, the following comments are made with absolute seriousness:

Marvin, your comments are valid and your points are well made. I have an opinion on the founders' original intent in creating our constitution. They were dealing with the issues of their time, but they had the foresight to recognize that times change and with them, the need to make adjustments. I don't think this notion does anything to change the truth for those who believe the constitution is divinely inspired. God would certainly have known that future generations would deal with situations the founders couldn't even have contemplated. I believe the constitution is a "living" document and for that reason, the Supreme Court of the United States exists as the third branch of government to provide us with modern interpretations. Care in the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court is vitally important, but that is a subject for another day.

I own guns. I no longer use any of them for hunting, but I take pleasure in their use as sporting arms used for shooting at targets. I don't think of them as weapons for self-defense, and I wonder what I would actually do if confronted with a situation where that would need to be a consideration. It's a tricky question. I have no desire to use them against another person, but what if it meant I was protecting the life, or lives, of others? It's a conundrum without a simple answer.

Our ancestors were completely capable of harvesting wildlife with flintlock muskets. Do we need an AR-15 for hunting? Probably, not. How much firepower is necessary for the protection of home and family? Who knows? If a volunteer militia is ever again necessary, maybe an AR-15 alone is insufficient. Perhaps we should stockpile some shoulder fired missiles, just in case. But you won't be finding any of those at my house. If it comes to that, I surrender.

My final thought on the subject is this: It still comes down to whose finger is on the trigger. I recently mourned the deaths of two young men (separate incidents) who were both victims of gun violence - one by his own hand and the other at the hands of another person. In neither situation was the gun at fault. It was the intent of the person who pulled the trigger and the gun was just the "tool" of choice. Had no gun been available to the suicide victim, he would have used something else and in the other incident, a tire iron, a knife, or some other lethal implement could just as easily have done the damage. At least the shotgun was quicker. Perhaps the question is not "how do we control guns?" Perhaps it is how do we change the people who hold them?

My two bits.

Robyn Hardy

Nice to read posts.  Keep it up.  I may not have much to say but i am always thinking.  I have guns and use them all the time at the range.  Used to hunt alot but don't in Arizona.  There are some gun laws we need, but don't take our guns away.  There are too many other solutions that could be tried.  I hope more post and  comments keep coming.  I just retired and it feels so good not to be working for the corporation any more.  Now I golf and ride my RZR around the deseret here.  Still have good health and blood pressure down and everything is fine.  Wish I could make it to utah for lunch we you guys sometime.  I will be there a couple of times this year.

Gary Averett

Ok.  the civil war, how many people died, some where over 200,000, the rifle used, a mussket,  one shot one kill.   So, mussket, or an AR 16/m15, it thakes only one.  So don't giveme this shit about control.   Goverment gets there feet in the door.  Then look out they will take all guns.   Resent leg.saying all gun owners must reguster.  There you are, if you have a gun you are a target.

Marvin Dansie

I find the debate about gun control interesting.

Why is it that in 2011, Detroit had 344 homicides. South of Detroit, across the Detroit River is Windsor, Ontario (it is just across the bridge). There hasn't been a homocide in two years.

I don't know if that says something about guns, or people. What is different between those two cities that makes it so dangerous to be in Detroit?

Kenneth Strong

One thing I know for sure is that Dennis, Denny and I had a great lunch today.  Wish others would have shown up.  We did manage to get lots of world problems solved without any argueing.  The food was good and the company was great.  Now the weather did suck.  Hope Dennis made it home ok with the freezing rain. 

Dennis Robertson

Ok I told the guys at lunch I resisted weighing in on the gun debate but here I go. The Founding Fathers wrote that document with the individual freedom of every American in mind. It was written to express what you can do, not what you can’t do. The only time they have tried restricting freedom with the Constitution was banning liquor and we all know how well that worked. Lately they have tried to ban flag burning with another amendment and it has failed because it's protected free speech as it should be. Now on to guns. When they finely decided to throw the English out of the country they were at a distinct disadvantage. They had no cannons they had to steal them from the English and they were out gunned out trained in every way. The whole Second Amendment was written with a tyrannical government in mind. Wither it is domestic or a foreign invading one. The old saying those with the guns make the rules applies to the reason for the Second Amendment. So Daryl is absolutely correct, even tho he said it tongue in cheek,  I should be able to have a few Stinger Missiles in my gun safe. In fact being a LAW BIDDING CITIZEN if I chose to have an M1 A1 Abrams Tank in my carport I should with out any interference from the government. Americans need to have the same firepower that they would be up against in a war with a government, friendly or foreign. Go into any house in Israel and you will find at least one fully automatic machine gun same with Switzerland. Both countries have a well armed citizens for the defense of their boarders. I am not saying that you won’t have gun violence but if this country would take allot better care of it's mentally ill and get tuff on crime and lifetime criminals. That would go along way to slow the problem. Sorry Marv but the comparison to Canada is not going to fly. They could not bunch their way out of a wet paper bag. The only reason they have not been invaded by someone is The US looks out for them. Just Kidding! About Canada.  By the way sorry about my bad use of english.       

Daryl Tucker

Sorry I had to miss lunch, yesterday. It's always great to get together. Robyn, let us know when you might be coming up and we'll plan something.

Marvin, I don't know what the gun control situation is in Canada, but  I believe at least part of the answer between the disparity between Windsor and Detroit is based on economics. Windsor and its leaders have wisely sought to diversify the souces of income for its residents, whereas Detroit has relied very heavily on its auto manufacturing industry to supply the majority of jobs and income. Windsor had its auto plants, too, but it also invested in pharmaceuticals, alternative energy, insurance and high tech companies. So, when the auto industry collapsed on both sides of the river, Windsor managed to fend off the serious unemployment and economic issues that have devastated Detroit. Windsor also has a metropolitan population of something like 300,000 as opposed to the 5 million plus people living in the Detroit metro area. But, 300 plus murders to zero can't be written off to relative population differences.

I think a lot has to involve the economic disparity between the two communities. My son lived in Detroit for a couple of years and felt relatively safe there. I have seen pictures he took and have heard his descriptions of neighborhoods where virtually half the homes were abandoned, burned out hulks, largely due to the poor circumstances of the people who used to live there. When the jobs went away, so did the pride people took in their surroundings and along with that, their pride in their own behavior. I also believe that when many of those people lost their financial support they became desperate enough to turn to violence and crime as a means of personal survival. Guns become a substitute for other forms of power and influence. Al Capone famously said, "You can get more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone." Still, it's not the gun, its the person and how they choose to use it. My question still hangs out there, "What can we do to change people from those who would harm themselves, or others,  into people who can love themselves and the others around them?"

Maybe a few thousand more jobs for the people of Detroit would help them lower their crime statistics.

Daryl Tucker

I guess Denny wasn't kidding!!!

Dennis Robertson

Tell me that would not be a fun afternoon on some dry lake bed. 

Daryl Tucker

Maybe we could  park some old cars around for target practice. Yee Haw!

Marvin Dansie

It is interesting that eveyone assumes I am an advocate for banning guns - that is not true (besides it would be impossible to ban guns in the US). I own and have owed guns, I used to hunt when I was younger and have always enjoyed target practicing.

I just wanted to whack that bee's nest with a stick a few times to see what kind of response I would get, and to make people think about how guns fit in our society. It is just one of the many issues that our nation (planet) faces that has no easy solution. We are free have guns - but there are costs. There is always an up side and a down side to every issue - and to make it real interesting everything keeps changing.

I will probably find a few other bee's nests to whack in the future.

Dennis Robertson

Well said Marv.

Gary Averett

Now that remindes me of the young Marv.  Crazy sence of humor, seeming so serious, when all the time  pulling everyones leg.   Damn cool to see you haven't  changed all that much my old friend......

Daryl Tucker

I wasn't making any assumptions about which side of the issue you are on, Marv. I just enjoyed the opportunity to throw down a few thoughts on the subject of my own.

Thanks for whacking that bees nest and I look forward to the whackings to come! I'd like to read some comments out there on the preservation of wilderness versus access by oil and mining interests to the natural resources contained in those areas. Anybody have a stick to start beating on that?

Linda Schardine

I knew it!!

Marvin, I told Debbie yesterday, I think Marvin is messing with people to see how they will react, I even called Lars (he was in Reno) and asked him what side he thought Marvin was on. He really didn't know. I said he does have a serious sense of humor so I am glad to hear I was right at something.

Good whacking job!!

Class of 69, Love & Peace and the right to whack hornets nests~~~~~

Marvin Dansie

Daryl,

That sounds like one of those bee nest topics ;-)

In our haste to exploit the natural resources of the country (planet), we trample other resources that are equally valuable and risk damaging the ecosystem of the planet in the process.

Remember the Keystone Pipeline? The one that President Obama would not approve.

The Keystone Pipeline was intended to transport oil from the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta, Canada to the US gulf coast for refining. That sounds pretty straight forward, until you understand the details.

The oil that is obtained from the oil sands is call bitumen, it is basically asphalt. Crude oil is a naturally occurring flammable liquid consisting of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons of various molecular weights and other liquid organic compounds (a fossil fuel). Over the eons, since the oil sands are porous and relatively close to the earth's surface, many of the lighter hydrocarbons flash off (evaporate) and so what is left is very thick and mixed with sand.

In order to transport this unrefined “oil” in a pipeline, the bitumen must either be heated (during the 2147 mile trip) or it must be mixed with a solvent that is subsequently removed during refining.

Did I mention that the bitumen is about 12 time more acidic than sweet-light crude, and that it is also loaded with abrasive sand? Currently there is no known way to effectively clean-up a bitumen spill, because it is heavy and doesn’t float, it doesn’t evaporate and it is poisonous. It would be a gift that keeps on giving (that's sarcasm Sheldon). 

The pipeline route crossed a very sensitive part of the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world.The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture (you know, the bread basket of the US).

A pipeline leak in that area could potentially contaminate the aquifer.

You think oil is valuable? How about food and drinking water? 

Charles (Chuck) Gividen

I have often wondered why the Canadians have not built an oil refinery to refine the oil that they are proposing to send to the US through a pipe.  It  seems that it would be more cost effective to do this.  I am sure that it takes a lot of time and money to build one, but why not get it done? 

I remember the Arab Oil Embargo back in the 60's, I believe.  We all pannicked because it was hard to get gas.  I remember talking to people who were traveling who said that they would pack in their vehicles 1-2 five gallon containers full of gas just so they could get to their destination.  We have come a long ways in responsibly developing our resources that heat our homes and fuel our vehicles.  We have the resources to take care of our own.  It makes me nervous to think that we depend so much on the oil from others, most of whom hate us.  I say, let's develop our own resources.  I know that we hear that we need to use solar, wind and the waves of the ocean to fuel our economy.  Many have tried to do just that, but have failed.  I guess that is the process that needs to take place in order to someday succeed.  Thomas Edison tried hundreds of times to perfect the light bulb before he came up with the right solution.  We too need to continue to perfect our technonogy to more efficiently harvest the wind, sun and the ocean's waves.  But in the meantime, we should continue to harvest those fuels that run the engines of this great nation.  And we have the technology to do it without harming the environment.  You know something, I would love to install a solar panel on the roof of my house.  It faces the south, and there are no trees or structures to block the sun.  You know why I have not done so?  It is because it is so blasted expensive.  There are those who want us to use these other energy resources, wind, sun, water, but to do so it is too expensive.  Make it more affordable and I would bet more people would take advantage of them.  I know I would. 

I know that they are trying to make algae into a fuel.  We have some people living in our area who are working on that.  Could be promising.  In talking about food, what about all the corn that is going into making gasoline?  It seems that we are using a lot of resources just to convert corn into gas.  I don't know if any of you have noticed, but over time the ethanol that is added to our gasoline sure messes up the carborators in our small engines, ie. lawn mowers, 4-wheelers, weedeaters, chainsaws, etc., especially if the gasoline remains in the engine, say, over the winter.  I have talked to dealers who sell 4-wheelers who have said that they will only put ethanal-free gas in any of their small engines.  Plus, I wonder how much we are subsidizing the farmers to grow corn which will be converted to gasoline.  If corn is so good it should stand on its own, right?

On a personal note, I don't believe that it was by chance that we have such vast energy resources in this country.  I think there is a reason.  Just a few of my thoughts.

Daryl Tucker

First of all, I believe in free enterprise. It is one of the foundation stones this great country is built upon. It gets a little tricky, though, when the rights of one group collide with the rights and freedoms of another. 

Chuck, like you I have been interested in the concept of solar energy as an alternative to fossil fuels for home heating and electricity. I started looking into the idea of passive solar back in the 1970s when people were putting solar panels on their houses that heated and recirculated water. Those panels didn't turn out to be particularly efficient and didn't  last. More recently PV (photovoltaic) panels have become a more reliable means of capturing the sun's energy, but they are still not able to compete with fossil fuel based electricity in terms of cost effectiveness. That gap is closing, however, so maybe one day we can justify putting solar panels on the roof. The negative side to this is that the Chinese are way out in front on the solar panel manufacturing. The infamous Solyndra disaster set US production back considerably in making our country competitive.  There are other alternative energy options that I think are being ignored that hold enormous potential for offsetting the need for burning fossil fuels. Right now you can have a geothermal system installed to heat and cool your home that will pay for itself in 7 to 10 years. It uses the constant underground temperatures that are consistent year round. It uses a "loop" of plastic pipe, buried underground and a heat pump unit that circulates heated or cooled water, or air, through your home. This system is basically available to anyone who wants to have it installed. It's available now.

I have read that one of the reasons the various pipeline projects are on hold is that over the past couple of years oil exploration efforts in the US have discovered large new reserves that mean we will be importing less and less oil from out of the country. President Obama has been touting our ability, as a country, to attain self-sufficiency in a few short years. "Scientific American" stated that we can be the world's top oil and natural gas producer by 2020 and a net exporter by 2030. (U.S. Poised for Energy Self-Sufficiency, Melissa C. Lott, November 13, 2012) Is this good news or bad? I'm no "tree hugger," but I also worry about whether, or not, we are being wise in how we use these resources. We have ignored the questions long enough. We need better answers.

Gary Averett

Ok you guys,

I've been thinking again, I know not good.  Things have taken a turn here as of late.  Now I quess I must spell everything right, my grammer must be correct.   I didn't grad.from some univ. in proper english, spelling, or grammer.  Mrs Kauffman would have failed me, or kicked my ass out of class, she did when we were young.   Look I'm a country boy, I talk like a country boy.   May us country people still talk here, using normal country talk?.....