The cast is off, but sometimes I wish it were back on again. They told me it would be sore and painful (isn't that the same thing?) for up to a year after the surgery. They also said I'd lose some flexibility and strength in my grip. Can you spell u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-t-e-m-e-n-t? I have almost no flexibility yet, and I can't hold on to much more than a beer bottle (thank God for that).
Fortunately, shooting is a little easier, though nowhere near what I could do before the surgery. The pain is not constant; it only hurts when I need to do something with both hands, and at other odd and infrequent times. I'll give it a few more months, but I'm doubting it will get much better strength, flexibility, or grip-wise. Hopefully the pain will go away altogether.
I joined the NFOA (Nebraska Firearms Owners Association) after coming across their website while trying to find some info on the proposal for a castle law in Nebraska submitted by Senator Christensen. I don't know how much good the organization does, or how active it is, but any voice in opposition to ridiculous anti-gun laws is better than none. Well, I take that back. I've heard some pro-gun ranters who embarrassed the Hell out of me and did nothing more than to make the anti-gunners even more sure that gun owners are a bunch of crazy fools.
I read some posts by a few of their members, and they seem to be firmly pro-gun without the extremist, name-calling, taunting often heard from the (truly nuts) gun nuts. I'll stick with them for a while at least and perhaps even contribute to their cause if it seems they are taking any action that might really bring change (like a castle law that makes sense).
6 comments:
Like much else in American politics, everyone else on the other side of the issue is an extremist -- thanks for doing your part to make the debate more intelligent and less vitriol. While I don't personally own a firearm of any sort, I have plenty of friends who do. My main worry about gun laws is less about the guns themselves and more about personal privacy in general. Comprehensive databases leave a lot of power in the hands of those who master them, and that scares me. In short, if you as a gun owner have nothing to "hide" per se, you have plenty to fear.
Best wishes and good luck,
-Trevor
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and I think I understand your concerns. I'm probably wrong to act according to my feelings, but I've always felt (or hoped) that common sense was something most people had if you could just get down to basics with them. Therefore, I'm not terribly concerned about privacy issues (though maybe I should be) when it comes to gun ownership (or other things for that matter). I have faith that common sense will prevail in the long run, and that people are smart enough to realize that guns are not the issue when it comes to illegal violent behavior. Instead, it is the natural tendancy of a certain number of people to fall outside of the norm when it comes to understanding right from wrong, or being properly socialized enough to care.
We're going to have some deviant behavior no matter what we do. If the deviants don't have aceess to guns, they will devise other ways, possibly more destructive and deadly ways, to show their displeasure with a society that most conform to, or to express what they feel is their power or privilege over it.
In short, if it's not too late for that, I don't care who knows I have a gun, as long as they don't try to take it from me. The last thing I would ever wish to do is to kill a human being (though I wouldn't hesitate if circumstances demanded it). I don't even like killing animals. I hunt, probably because of some genetic instinctual drive to acquire food, and I eat what I kill, but I feel remorse at the loss of a beautiful animal simply for my sustenance.
You seem like a fairly sharp guy, Trevor, and I like having you on my side(at least, it appears so).
My primary thought on gun control is that it just may end up hurting most those it was originally intended to help: the proverbial single lady mugged by a balaclava-wearing thug. I don't think that those pushing for stricter gun laws (registration, bans on concealed carry, caliber or magazine restrictions, etc.) are nefarious in their intent, but I believe they have not fully realized the unintended consequences of their proposals - economists would call these externalities.
For example, if I was a drug dealer selling a hard drug such as cocaine, I am rather sure that I am going to go to prison for quite some time if and when apprehended. Thus, for the extra personal safety (if "safety" in this case is shooting at police officers or other drug dealers) of having a gun, that possession of a weapon to commit a felony is just small beer. I.e., if I get 25 years without probation, what is another 5 years on top of the fun? Meanwhile, gun laws are followed by those who have more legitimate uses for guns such as personal protection, hunting, competition or any other ethical use., since they have more to lose than me as the hypothetical felon, like having the right to continue to own and use firearms in the future by not complying.
It's also cool to hear that there are hunters out there who have respect for what they do and the game they hunt. Too often, the hacks and screws at P.E.T.A. and A.L.F. get away with the impression that hunting is a wanton culling of innocent animals for pure bloodsport. As I often stress to such types, hunting by humans is necessary to manage game populations as their natural predators have been more or less eradicated in the last 150-200 years. This prevents deer and vehicle accidents from happening more often, so who are the cruel ones here?
-Trevor
I agree that there is probably no wicked intent on the part of those pushing for stricter gun control, though there may be a few who have some vested interest in doing so (such as paid lobbyists for anti-gun organizations). I feel the majority of anti-gunners simply have little or no first-hand experience with them. Or, the only experience they have had is a negative one (such as a tragic accidental shooting or a murdered relative or friend). They mistakenly believe it is possible to remove guns from our society and thereby be freed from all their worries of somehow being harmed by others. First of all, removing all the guns would be virtually impossible. Secondly, it would not stop accidental deaths or outright murders.
The additional penalties you mention for using a gun in the commission of some other crime are, at best, a fallback for prosecutors who fail to get a conviction for the real crime (assault, robbery, etc.). However, I don't see how you can rightfully penalize someone for possessing a gun if you can't prove they were doing something else illegal with it. Okay, if they were already a convicted felon or something, they have violated the law simply by possessing a firearm. In my opinion, though, if their original felony was of a serious nature (something that shows they have a tendency for violence and a total disgregard for right and wrong), they shouldn't be back on the streets in the first place where they can easily get a gun again.
I believe there are cases and situations where a person goes afoul of the law but shows genuine remorse, has no prior history of illegal activity, and stands a good chance of becoming a productive member of society if given another change. Then there are those who either have already demonstrated their disregard for the law and respect for their fellow human beings, or they commit a crime so serious that they should not be given the opportunity to do it again. They should either be executed or put away for life (without parole). If we'd stop mollycoddling the miscreants and provide swift and sure justice instead, perhaps the law would actually be a deterent for some of those who are tottering on the edge of a criminal life. Others won't be deterred by anything because they are either too stupid or too depraved. Even the death sentence is no deterrent the way we enforce it now (or fail to).
Steve, first thank you for joining the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association (NFOA) as you may know we are a comparatively new Pro-Second Amendment Rights organization. Our membership is rising quickly open to all Nebraska resents and there are no costs or fees for members to join. One of our goals is to help keep our members knowledgeable about present and forthcoming legislative bills. We also provide a convenient site for our various government representatives contact information.
If I may here is a quote from the
NFOA Mission Statement
"NFOA is organized for the purpose of voicing the opinion of its membership to the Nebraska Legislature and other law making bodies within the state as well as Federal level, as it pertains to firearms. NFOA members will also make it a priority to educate residents on firearms related issues."
As a board of director member I feel that I can say we are somewhat of a low key organization. We do have two volunteer lobbyists (un-paid) and are very active with the NE Unicameral. What we are not is radical, no camouflage uniforms here. However I have some for hunting.
Our members vary from a wide variety of diverse individuals everything including house wives, house men, certified firearm instructors’, lawyers and doctors.
If anyone is interested our web page is nebraskafirearms.org .
Hope your arm strength improves soon.
Randy A.
Randy:
I appreciate your comments. I don't post very often, but I seem to be getting a few people coming to read them now, so maybe I'll do more.
Post a Comment