thenorphletpaperboy: Common Sense Gun Control

thenorphletpaperboy: Common Sense Gun Control:                         Common Sense Gun Control Well, yeah, I’m going to dive into the gun control deep water, and here’s a heads...

Common Sense Gun Control

                        Common Sense Gun Control

Well, yeah, I’m going to dive into the gun control deep water, and here’s a heads up. I was eight when I received my first gun, a Mossberg .20-gauge bolt action, three shot clip, and four years later a Browning Sweet 16. Along the way, toward college, I acquired a .22 riffle and a .22 pistol. When I headed to the University, I took all of them with me, and when I checked into Razorback Hall, carrying my guns, with a pistol tucked in my belt, a faculty member opened the dorm door for me. So, don’t try to paint me as a liberal, anti-gun activist. That won’t fly. I’ve spent more time in the woods and on Arkansas lakes and rivers than 95% of the folks who are whining about someone trying to take away their guns and Second Amendment rights. Okay?

Now, let’s look at a key part of the problem. The problem is not Richard carrying guns into Razorback Hall. It’s really very simple: It is allowing guns that are designed strictly for the purpose of killing as many people as possible in the shortest period of time to be in the hands of someone who wants to terrorize a school, concert, or a city street. That deranged person’s goal is to create havoc and kill as many people as possible. That’s the problem, and certain guns are a key part of the problem.

Of course, if you are in a Special Forces Squad trapped in a Middle Eastern remote village and are about to be attacked by 50 ISIS fighters, a gun that will kill as many of the terrorist as possible in the shortest amount of time is the weapon you want to have in your hands. However, that same weapon in the hands of a school terrorist almost guarantees a huge number of causalities. When a gun is capable of firing astounding numbers of high caliber rounds in a very short period of time and the person using the gun is intent upon killing as many people as possible, you can insert the name of all the school massacres and that weapon is 90% of problem. Remove that weapon from the mix, and you reduce the number of deaths.

All guns are designed with a purpose in mind, and shotguns and other weapons of that nature are designed to kill small game. Of course, rifles that are used for deer hunting are made with that in mind. Weapons that are made to kill people have two different identifying characteristics. They are automatic, rapid fire, enabling the shooter to inflict as much damage as possible on the human target or targets, and the ammunition is of sufficient caliber to do as much physical damage to that target as possible. That’s why there are so many causalities. The high caliber specially designed rounds are to kill and rip into the human body, and what would be a minor flesh wound with a .22 caliber bullet, becomes a fatal shot when the round comes from a military weapon.

If we are honest, with our evaluation of the problem, we will realize that even with the toughest gun laws imaginable, we can never completely eliminate gun related deaths. However, we can reduce them. I know you can hunt deer with an AR-15, but you can also hunt deer with hand grenades. Yes, I am proposing we eliminate the ownership of weapons specifically designed to kill humans. Those weapons belong in the military, and not in the hand of a mentally ill shooter, and don’t give me the old guns don’t kill people kill people kill people crap, because that’s the biggest lie in the Second Amendment argument.

Guns that are made with the premise that they will be used to kill humans should be in the hands of the military, and unless we make that a mandate, we will never stop the massacres of our school children. Hunting rifles that haven’t been modified and other weapons used for hunting and sports of that nature can kill, but because of the time it takes to reload, and, if the weapon is not a modified, automatic firing weapon, the deaths in any encounter with a person who is intent upon killing innocent people will drop. No, the killing of school children won’t stop, but the number of deaths will drop significantly.

After the horrific Sandy Hook School killing of first and second graders in Connecticut, the state enacted some strict gun ownership laws. The gun related deaths dropped dramatically. So that blows the idea that gun control doesn’t work.

Now, a few words to our congressmen and senators: If you can vote against removing military weapons from the hands of the terrorists who kill school children, then you have sold your soul to the NRA, have the spine of a jellyfish, and have the blood of hundreds of innocent victims on your hands.

    No, we can’t realistically stop all the school shooting, but we can reduce the number of deaths. Does the Second Amendment give you the unrestricted right to have any weapon? Can you carry a bazooka or ring your vest with hand grenades, or put howitzers in your front yard or drive a tank through your downtown? No, of course you can’t! Those weapons are restricted to the military, thank God! Are your Second Amendment rights more important than the deaths of hundreds of innocent individuals? What if one of those students were your child?

thenorphletpaperboy: Don't Tear Down our Monuments!

thenorphletpaperboy: Don't Tear Down our Monuments!:           ARKANSAS                                   By        Richard Mason                   Don't tear down our...

Don't Tear Down our Monuments!

          ARKANSAS

                                  By

       Richard Mason

                  Don't tear down our monuments!

No, this is really not about Confederate Monuments. They just happen to be on this year’s tear down list. But the reason being used to take down the Confederate Monuments is sure to be used on other similar monuments. This is the reasoning: the Civil War is deemed to be a bad war for a whole host of reasons. In some circles, where it's labeled a bad war, they want all plaques, monuments, signs, and statues commemorating the losing side in that war destroyed.

Okay, so I guess that means we need to start determining good wars and bad wars, and then, of course, we'll take down the memorials to bad wars. But it seems that the winners always say their war was a good war. Of course, if we consider recent wars, it's hard to find a good one. The Gulf War to destroy the non-existent weapons of mass destruction or the never ending war in Afghanistan?  If we review the long list of good and bad wars, it’s hard to find a war that is justified, except for the Second World War. And if we check on all war monuments, signs, and statutes, we’ll find almost every war has its share. What do we do about all these pieces of history? Do we attempt to remove the “bad” war monuments? I sure don’t think so.

I believe the destruction of any monument that was erected in memory of a fallen soldier is wrong, and when we start down that path there is no ending. Certainly, we can look at the Civil War and without question mark it as our countries greatest tragedy. However, how about the Mississippi mother who lost three sons at Gettysburg, and after the war was over, helped raise the funds to erect a memorial to her fallen Confederate soldiers. Can you imagine that mother’s grief as she stood on a courthouse square and watched as the statue of a Confederate Soldier was unveiled? Do we have a. moral obligation to keep that monument, or can we just destroy it? But let's go a step further: Millions of Americans believe the Vietnam War was immoral and wrong. There were not only +50,000 Americans killed, but as many as 2,000,000 Vietnamese. Should we tear down all the memorials to that War? But before you answer, can you even imagine the pain of a father or brother as they trace the name of their fallen soldier on the Vietnam wall?  

I think what we must do is to consider the loss of American lives and its impact on our people. If we look at each of our war memorials as a tribute to a fallen soldier, the rush to erase history will diminish. Only when we put the personal feelings in place of a piece of granite can we realize that when a piece of stone was dedicated to the fallen of any American war there were family and friends who stood and looked at that dedication moment and mourned the loss. When we do that, we will put aside the good and bad war idea, and only look at the monument as a tribute to a fallen American hero.

Certainly, a monument in Germany to Hitler shouldn’t be allowed, but a monument to the Germany soldiers who died in that conflict should be. Yes, I agree slavery was a horrible part of our southern history, but 90% of the Southern Soldiers who fought in the war never owned slaves, and many of our nation's founders owned slaves, even George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Surely, we wouldn't try to erase our heritage by removing any reference to them. Well, let's look at our founding fathers. How many of the ones who signed the Declaration of Independences were slaveholders? The answer is 41 including Benjamin Franklin. Do we cut their names out of the Declaration of Independence? Of course not! Surely that should put to rest any idea that owning of slaves is a reason for banishment. It seems, we Americans are swayed by current events to respond irrationally to a tragedy by doing something, and many times later, after cooler heads reflect on the actions taken, they are reversed.

Ninety percent of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, so why did they fight? They fought for many reasons, but many expressed the simple statement that they fought to defend their homes.

The Civil War stirs deep passions in some people, and the idea that the breaking up of a statue would cause a mentally unbalanced individual to do an irrational act is enough of a reason to leave the monuments alone. 

Let's that a look at all the monuments around our country, not just the Confederate ones. I believe they have one overriding similarity. It's very simple: they exist as monuments to American heroes who gave their lives in battle. To me an American who gave his life on the beaches of Normandy, a soldier who died in the jungles of Vietnam, a Union soldier who died at Bull Run, and a Confederate soldier who yelled "For Virginia" as he charged across the fields of Gettysburg and died, are all American heroes, and if a group of Americans want to build a monument to their courage and memory, they should be allowed to, and no one should remove it.

thenorphletpaperboy: Money, Money, Money...

thenorphletpaperboy: Money, Money, Money...:                        Money, Money, Money…”   “Money, money, money,… money makes the world go ‘round, that clinking clanking sound t...

Money, Money, Money...

                       Money, Money, Money…” 

“Money, money, money,… money makes the world go ‘round, that clinking clanking sound that makes the world go ‘round.” Yes, you movie buffs guessed it. That right out of the Broadway Play and Movie Cabaret, but what has a decades old movie or play have to do with the good old USA? Well, it seems things haven’t changed, and if we look at our congress, and even glance at the ongoing budget considerations, you will come away with mumbling, “Money, money, money,” Yep, that’s the way we keep score, and lately it’s like certain companies and individuals have won the lottery. Just consider this: The current administration is proposing to add 80 billion dollars (at last count) to the defense budget. Of course, the +80 billion increase is a lot more than the Defense Department requested, but that doesn’t matter to those generous members of congress who are loading up every branch of the armed services, with extra ships for the Navy, more men for the military, and adding planes that will never see combat. Not only that there are gobs of military bases the Pentagon has requested be closed, and you and I know there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell those bases will be closed.  Congress is going to increase the Defense Department budget by some ungodly amount, and, they will refuse to even consider closing any of the facilities on the Pentagon list of bases to close.

Of course, we have 150,000 troops posted overseas to keep countries like Japan and the Philippines safe. These troops are left over from World War II, and serve no purpose except to cost us billions in defense spending each year. The sum total of wasted money is easily north of 200 billion, and with the deficit soaring, our health care costs and the needs of children and college students at an all-time high, why waste 200 billion dollars? The answer is actually fairly simple. It’s just a matter of dollars. You know it’s the old “money, money, money” again, but those defense dollars must go to the right people, and those people aren’t folks who need health care, college students, or needy kids. The 200 billion would easily pay for a complete college education for every high school graduate for the next five years, and have enough money left over to pay every child in America’s health cost for the next decade, and go a long way toward universal health care.  So why won’t congress do the right thing? Former President Dwight Eisenhower pinned it on the Military Industrial Complex. In other words there’s money to be made during a war or building the armaments necessary to fight a war, or paying companies to supply the troops around the world.

 However, peace is not good for business, if you are building yet another tank or destroyer or paying to put troops in the Philippines, its jobs and money for the big companies. That is why, during a Republican administration, the Defense Budget soars. There is not a country in the world that is a legitimate threat to the USA. The phony hand-waving by our congress because of the threat of North Korea, China or Russia is just like fake news. We have military that is more than a match for any or all of the above countries. Russia has a budget of only 20% of our Defense Budget and China and North Korea aren’t anyone’s idea of realistic threats to us.  The increased Defense Budget is just another bone like the tax bill to reward the big corporate supporters of the present administration. What could be simpler than that? Republicans always cut the taxes of the wealthy, pad the Defense Budget, and cut benefits for the poor and middle class. It’s what Republicans do. Who could possibly be surprised at that observation?

Of course, it’s not just unnecessary Defense Department spending, it’s also a failure of congress to close bases and other facilities that are no longer needed and to quit adding ships the Navy says they have no use for and planes the Air Force doesn’t want. But let’s look at closing bases. This little boondoggle is a bipartisan issue and Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. I have yet to see one congressman or senator vote to close a base in their state or district. We have outmoded pieces of decades old military equipment sitting on runways and in storage that are useless in a modern war, and of course that’s bad enough, but our and your home state congressman or senator not only wants to keep those pieces of junk lying around, but they insist they be replaced and added to even though they know it’s a waste of money. Naturally, when you confront one of our representatives about closing a base in their state, they will cook up some farfetched, implausibly scenario that shows why their home state pieces of outmoded junk should be kept in top shape, and no, we can’t shut down the Little Rock Air Force Base or you fill in the blanks. 

But what really gets me is the lack of accountability. If an elected representative is going to waste a 200 billion dollars of taxpayer’s money, at least they should have the guts to stand up in a town hall meeting and defend their actions. Of course, you and I know they won’t, and what’s even worse, when it’s time to run for office again, they show up with their hands out, unless they are like Congressman Bruce Westerman, who has sugar daddies in the forestry companies, who since 2014 have kicked in $142,000 into campaign funds. Well, what a coincidence, do you think the super corporate friendly forestry bill he has introduced has anything to do with all that money? Environmentalists are lining up to oppose making our National Forests industry timber farms, and guess what? Surprise, surprise, the timber industry supports the bill. My God, Congressman, have you no shame? Why don’t you have the guts to show up for a Town Hall Meeting and answer some of you constitutions questions? Are you afraid some little gray-haired lady will hit you will a tough question, or do you just want to keep sucking the public tit without being held accountable for the way your voting?

thenorphletpaperboy: Environmental Notes

thenorphletpaperboy: Environmental Notes:                           A RKANSAS                                    BY                      RICHARD MASON                ...

Environmental Notes

                          ARKANSAS

                                   BY

                     RICHARD MASON

                          Environmental Notes                                                      

                                                  

Mountain Lions roam our woods.

I was sitting in my SUV at Walmart when a friend walked up and started a conversation.  During the conversation, we talked about the dozens of mountain lion sightings in South Arkansas, and then he mentioned a confirmed sighting west of Magnolia of a female mountain lion with three cubs. There have been many other reports not only in South Arkansas, but in Northwest Arkansas near the Buffalo National River. Of course, the proof of mountain lions in Arkansas is the fact that last year a deer hunter killed one in Bradley County, and adding to the sighting in southwest Arkansas, a local doctor told me he and his wife had seen two mountain lions cross the road west of Magnolia.

I think the evidence is overwhelming, and we can conclusively state that we have somewhere around 20 to 30 cougars in our state, and based on a this recent sighting of a female with three cubs, we have a breeding population. I hope the Game and Fish Commission will take notice and admit the obvious. There is a breeding population of mountain lions in Arkansas, and since our ecosystem desperately needs to be rebalanced, they will put a hunting moratorium on the shooting of cougars with a $20,000 fine for a violation.  If you agree send an email to Stan.Jones@agfc.ar.gov.

Mountain lions are in Arkansas because they have an extended range, and that is determined by the amount of prey available to the animals. All of the rivers in the United States from the Continental Divide in Colorado to the Appalachian Mountains flow east and south and the dense underbrush along the river banks gives the migrating cougars as easy path south and eastward along with excellent prey. The ultimate proof of how far a mountain lion can roam is the discovery of a mountain lion in New England this past year that was tagged in Colorado.

Of course, why mountain lions would come to Arkansas is also an easy answer: Feral hogs, possibly as many as a million, roam our woods, and they are a lot easier to catch than a spooked whitetail deer. Naturally, if we want to reduce our feral hog population, we should increase the number of animals that dine on hog meat. So hunters; for God’s sake don’t shoot a mountain lion, but nail every feral hog you see. Note the reasons below.

*                               *                                     *                         

Feral Hogs are taking over. Since my column on feral hogs, I’ve heard from a whole raft of folks, and the consensus is that the problem boarders on catastrophic. A little figuring will shock you: In the several weeks since my column was published as many as 25,000 new feral hogs will have been added to Arkansas’s soaring hog population, and the bad news is most of these hogs will mature, and since the state is almost void of hog predators, the 12,500 extra sows will have three litters a year of a minimum of 6, which will add an estimated 225,000 feral hogs to the state over the next five year. Yes, and if you consider all the hogs, a population of over 2,000,000 is a minimum number that will roam our forest in five years, and you don’t have to be a math genius to see the impending disaster. The Game and Fish Commission needs to address this problem and put a bounty on feral hogs. Stan.Jones@agfc.ar.gov

                                     *                                   *                                      *

Evolution is not a theory, it’s a fact, and that goes for global warming. Yes, global warming, which creates climate change is caused by human activity, and the California wildfires, mudslides, and hurricanes on the Gulf Coast have been intensified because of climate change. Of course, the earth is not 6000 years old, it’s several billion years old, it’s not flat and dinosaurs didn’t exist along with the first humans. Please don’t let your predetermined judgment cloud the facts about our planet, and when 98% of the scientific community says something, don’t embarrass yourself by saying you don’t believe them, and when a geologist tells you spreading hog manure on the Swiss Cheese Boone Limestone will pollute the Buffalo National River, don’t sound like a backwoods dumb-ass and say “Uh, well, you know, I don’t think the hog farm will pollute the Buffalo.” Yes, I have heard more than one uninformed, but intelligent person, say those very words.  

                                *                                         *                                    *

Everything in the environment has a purpose, and as Chief Seattle once said, “Man is only a part of the thread of life, and what he does to the web he does to himself…..Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that we cannot eat money.” Chief Seattle 1786 - 1866

Of course that means exterminating certain so called undesirable species such as wolves, cougars, bears, and yes, even snakes, has consequences. The ecology of the natural world is complex and intertwined, and when a species is removed it has a direct effect on other species. The current disappearance of our quail is an excellent example. We have removed most of the small size animal’s predators, and the population of raccoons, possums, armadillos, and feral hogs, has exploded.

 Where have all our quail gone? The quail nests have been destroyed by this overwhelming increase in these quail egg-eating animals. So, if we ever want to hear a bobwhite whistle again, we will have to reduce the animals that prey on ground nesting birds. The only way to restore a damaged ecosystem is to repair the web of nature, and of course that means to restore the predators that prey on small quail egg eating animals. Anyone who thinks loss of habitat is the cause of the diminished quail population should get out from behind their desk and take a look at the millions of acres in our state with good quail habit that are void of quail. We need more bobcats, coyotes, bears, mountain lions, and wolves in our woods, and unless we rewild these animals into the fabric of our state, we will continue to have a disruptive ecosystem, which will be substantially less than if we returned to a harmony with nature. So when you see a coyote, bobcat, or any other predator that will help control the overabundance of feral hogs, quail eating raccoons, possums, and other overabundant small animals, don’t shoot them! But when you see a feral hog---blast away. By the way, the young piglets are a super edible part of the feral hog population, and if you really want to bring home a superior dining package, shoot the small piglets. If our restaurants would feature roast suckling pig on their menu, they’d have folks standing in line.