July 1, 2013 9:35:15 AM
Comments on Sunday's paper
Sunday's paper had a few stories/articles that caught my attention and generated an opinion. Here goes nothing.
The new "open carry" law just went into effect on July 1, and it seems that a lot of people, especially business owners in particular, plus law enforcement, are running scared. I don't blame them. Up until now, if you hung a pistol by a fishing line, the part under the fishing line was "concealed", and therefore it was a "concealed weapon." The concealed carry law allows law-abiding citizens, who have passed an FBI background check, to carry a gun concealed in most places, except where prohibited by law or signs banning them. If part of the gun was accidentally exposed, it was no longer "concealed," and -- in effect -- "open carry" for maybe a split second, putting the carrier in violation of the law. People who have concealed-carry permits are the least likely people in the world to commit crimes.
No permit is required for "open carry," because the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Now that "open carry" has been defined by the legislature, people are worried that "undesirable" characters will go around with guns strapped on their hips. It'll be hard for those who wear their pants around their ankles, but I'd sure like to see that!
Store owners are falling all over themselves to post signs prohibiting the carrying of weapons in their premises, which is their right, but they need to put their knees back out of the jerk mode and think. Every mass killing that has occurred in the U.S. has happened in so-called "gun-free zones." Only law-abiding citizens obey laws! Punks are going to carry weapons anywhere they please, sign or no sign. The only responsible thing to do, if a store owner wishes to ensure the safety of his/her customers, is to post signs prohibiting the carrying of weapons unless the carrier has a valid concealed carry permit. That will make your premises safer.
Columbus is moving closer to getting a Highway 45 bypass built. Great! Prediction: if the Supervisors and/or City Council don't zone the land along the new bypass to be commercial building-free, the "old" Highway 45 North four-lane will soon have little to no traffic on it as businesses move to the new bypass. Then the "bypass" will become just as congested, if not more so, than the current route. Also, the bypass will need limited access and exit, so it will truly be a bypass for travelers who don't want to be slowed down by city traffic. Leave the land current-use.
So, "cracker" doesn't compare to the n-word? What about "honky"? Both have been used by blacks expressly to denigrate whites. If a word is intended as a slur, it is a slur by the user and inferred as such by the person to whom it was addressed. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to be insulted by terms they find belittling, but that sword cuts both ways. You can't use racist terms and then get "offended" when they are used against you. I would really like to see the end of all racist terms, but that will never happen in my lifetime. Maybe they will begin to fade away more and more, but everybody has to do their part, and a double-standard doesn't help. If you don't want others (of a different skin color) using the n-word, what gives you the right to use it but deny others? Clean up your own back yard before you complain about somebody else's.
Finally, on the subject of gay marriage, the only role government ought to have in marriage is to keep records for posterity. Marriage, to me and to millions of others, is a covenant between a man and a woman and God. If a church wishes to recognize the union between two same-sex couples, why should the government care? Like-wise, if a church says that is against their teachings, what business is it of the government?
I'm not for "gay marriage," but I don't have the right to forbid adults from doing what they want to do. I just don't want to see two homosexuals making out in public. I really don't like seeing two heterosexuals making out in public either. That should be private.
One argument says that polygamy/polyandry or adult/minor marriages would be next. There is no need for polygamy any more. The world is over-populated now. I don't care what pedophiles claim, sex by an adult with a child is immoral. Children do not have the mental capacity to consent to sex, nor the physical capacity to resist rape. A line needs to be etched in stone, and no one allowed to cross it.
We need to use good old-fashioned common sense and a true Christian attitude in dealing with our fellow man.