Why do I look younger than other people my age?

That's me, front center row in the tie-dyed T-shirt.  It was a 60's  theme

        We've been dealing with some minor controversy in the past couple of posts on this blog, so today I thought I'd hit a really big topic that might make some of you enraged, others amused, and still others scratching your heads wondering why I'm such a dopey guy sometimes.   This may be my most controversial post of all.

        A post by Karen Walker stirred me to add this bit of nonsense to my blog composition queue and I figured now might be the time to pull out the big guns--er, maybe I shouldn't go there and instead say, now seemed like a good time to get a bit silly.

       At my 25th high school reunion--this would have been in 1994 if you're interested in math--I made an interesting discovery.  Nearly all of my fellow classmates except for a few of the more exceptional looking women had aged much more than I had.  Most of them looked like they had ten years or more on me.  Had I not recognized them I would have thought I'd walked into the wrong reunion.

        The good-looking women I figured were probably being helped by make-up, but the guys all looked liked they'd graduated years ahead of me.  I puzzled over this phenomena wondering why I had not aged like they had.  I felt this smug satisfaction of now being the best looking guy in my class.  Even the guys who had been the hunks and lookers when they were seniors in high school were now looking more like plain old senior citizens.

        Over the next several years I became more aware of how I gauged against my old friends--and I emphasize old.  They were aging but I didn't look much older than I did in college.  Oh sure, sometimes the lady at Jack-in-the-Box gave me a senior citizen discount when I stopped by for breakfast on my way to work, but she probably did that for everybody.  No way did I look like any senior citizen.

        Then not long ago my wife and I were wondering about the age of a certain lady we know.  I knew she had to be older than I.  And then she mentioned what her age was--three years older than I am.  I commented to my wife how much older the lady looked than I look.

         "Not really," my wife responded.

          Taken aback I said, "She looks a lot older than I do."   And then added, "Doesn't she?"

          "You don't look that much younger," my wife said.

          Thanks for that vote of confidence, dear.  I didn't understand.  What was my wife seeing that I wasn't?   I went to the mirror to check it out.  There he was--same young looking guy as always.   The hair was maybe not as dark as it used to be.  That is, what hair was left.  The face was still the same face I'd always known.  I didn't look all that different.

         Oh sure, I can feel my body falling apart, but I'm just out of shape and tired.  When I tell my doctor she tells me it's because I'm getting older.  Duh--I guarantee you I'm still just as young as I was back when I was younger.  I can see it in the mirror.  Yeah, it's the same me I've always known.

        Isn't it?

Related articles

• Mind Over Chronology/ Age Is A State Of Mind
• I'm Not Afraid of My 20 Year High School Reunion. ~ Sandy Rosenblatt
• Life Lesson #& - You're Not Getting any Younger!

If They Take Away Our Guns, Then What?

PART 2:

Summer's End. Lexington Green, 11 September 2002. Photo taken in Minute Man National Historical Park. Sculpture : "Minuteman" by sculptor Henry Hudson Kitson (1863-1947), dedicated April 19, 1900. Erected 1899 : SIRIS (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

         I'm sure that many of you are getting sick and tired of the gun control issue, but since it's going to continue to be in the news and a topic of many posts on other blogs I thought I'd wrap up my discussion that began on my previous post.   I encourage you to check out that post if you missed it and be sure to read through the comments.  There were some very good points made on both sides.  My commenters are some of the best.

        In  today's post I must admit to being a bit lazy as well as a bit haphazard.   The information to follow is an excerpt from one of those forwarded emails of dubious origin.  These "facts" sound credible in some cases and possible in others.  I researched some of these tidbits without spending hours to do so and as with any internet search of controversial topics I found a plethora of evidence proving as well as debunking these.  Let's face it, sometimes the internet is totally wacky.

       To preserve my own credibility I will neither say yea nor nay to any of these, but I do believe if not true there is a semblance of truth to all of these.  This piece may have originated with Paul Harvey on Monday, November 6, 2000 according to some sources.  For those of you who accept Snopes.com as the gospel of fact-checking, they have not yet determined the veracity of the information.    I invite you to tell us what you know about these "facts" or provide other similar examples.


Some Facts on Gun Control

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.. From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,
a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952,
20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

         So what do you think?


What Others Have Been Saying:

       If you are interested in reading some other opinions from bloggers, here are a few to check out:

Matt Conlon did a good post on the topic of gun control at Gun Control Is Being Able to Hit Your Target.  

Andrew Leon looks at the other side of the argument at Strange Pegs. 

Larry Cavanaugh also tackles the topic at Discconnected 

Chuck has his say at Apocalypse Now.

Stephen T McCarthy has also done his own post on the topic at Ferret Faced Fascist Friends.

Related articles

• A Brief History of Gun Control Around the World
• Gun Control FACTS ...By Paul Harvey
• Gun control and tyranny in history

How Far Should the U.S. Go with Gun Control?

Summer's End. Lexington Green, 11 September 2002. Photo taken in Minute Man National Historical Park. Sculpture : "Minuteman" by sculptor Henry Hudson Kitson (1863-1947), dedicated April 19, 1900. Erected 1899 : SIRIS (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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 Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Everybody's Talking About Guns

        There's a rising furor regarding the issues of gun control since the December Newtown school shooting incident.  The Aurora theater massacre shooter is in the news of late with preliminary hearings underway.  Continued reports of gun violence in the United States have been hitting the news on a daily basis.

        The arguments for gun control and bans are one of the main media topics of the past month.   President Obama and VP Biden are telling Americans that the issue of stopping gun violence is of top priority.  The NRA lobby is on the defense while the anti-assault weapon soapbox is bubbling over with those who want to add their voice to the debate.

        Who is right?  What is the answer?  The Second Amendment is the most cited defense by gun advocates.   I think this might also be the most misunderstood and misinterpreted aspect of the argument on both sides.   

          In my post Should We Ban (Insert Topic Here)? I offered a brief overview of some of the topics that came to my mind because of the gun violence debate.   I plan to address as many of these as I can on Tossing It Out in the future.  In this current post the topic of guns themselves seems the best place to begin.

          I'm no expert on guns or the constitution, but I'll attempt to tackle this based on the way I read the amendment, what I understand about history, and my interpretation as reasoned out by sense of logic.  You experts can call me out on where I get it wrong.   I'm going to try to keep this bare bones simple and I'll leave it to you to make it as complex as you wish.  Don't worry if you disagree with what I say here.  I'm just tossing out some ideas for you readers to consider.  My own personal beliefs may not even be in agreement with what I say here so don't worry about offending me.  We're just talking and trying to figure things out, right?

 What Is the Second Amendment Saying?

           We often hear the argument that citizens have the right to own guns for hunting, recreational shooting, personal protection, or collecting.  In reality these are merely red herrings that have been added to confuse the original intent of the amendment.   These may all have legitimate merit as reasons to be permitted to own guns, but these should not be part of the Second Amendment argument.

           Let's dissect the amendment to see what it is saying:

           A well regulated Militia...   A militia is a regional defense force--a small army to be activated during emergencies.   This is separate from our standing federal military branches.   The militias consist of unpaid volunteers who assemble when regional defense in necessary, including incursion by foreign invaders, threats of local militant groups, or agents of an oppressive tyrannical government.      

          ...being necessary to the security of a free State...  The militias are for the protection of the citizenry.  The point of having a militia is to keep our institutions, our families, our communities, and our values safe from those--meaning anyone--who would take them away from us and threaten our way of life.  This threat can include our own United States federal government in extreme circumstances.

           ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms... Citizens--the people who would constitute said militia--have the right to own and retain in their possessions weaponry that would be essential for maintaining a "well regulated Militia".   They have the right to carry these weapons as I would interpret this clause and the nature of these weapons is not specified.  If the federal army or invading alien forces have weapons, then the militia should have a reasonable amount of parity.  I would go so far to interpret this as including machine guns, grenades, and hand-held rocket launchers.  

               ...shall not be infringed.   Neither the United States government nor any other government body can take this right away from us if we are acting in a responsible manner with our arms.  Even the implicit threat in keeping a government registration or record of who owns guns and the history of the gun owners' affiliations might be questionable in that this knowledge could allow the government to impinge upon the rights and freedom of these individuals.  Background checks and felony reports, though possibly a good tool for keeping guns out of the wrong hands, could even be questionable in certain cases.  

Is The Second Amendment Outdated?

             Arguments have been made that the founding fathers would not have intended their amendment to include anything other than simple single shot firearms.   I would disagree.  After all, these guys were revolutionaries who had just violently overthrown what they considered to be a tyrannical oppressive government that had a well armed occupying military force.  The founders were aware of what means could be necessary to overthrow a government such as this and they understood the advantage of having a parity of power--that is, similar weapons as held by the enemies.  We should not be expected to be holding our own against modern weapons with outdated eighteenth century muskets.

             Another argument might be presented that we no longer need to worry about our government oppressing us.  There are checks and balances in place.  Our government will never turn on us and we will be protected by our government against any invaders.  Can we necessarily absolutely depend on this?

               Shouldn't we be able to keep arms of any sort just in case?  The unthinkable could happen.  But those who insist that since we are safe and that paranoid delusional fantasies will never happen, then what's the point of being armed and making preparations for such a thing.   These conspiratorial fears are so unlikely there is no reason to be worrying about them.

               Think about this:   According to all odds, most of us will never be involved in a serious automobile accident, yet we feel safer with seat belts, air bags, and auto insurance.  Even though there are a very small number of airplane crashes relative to the number of daily passenger flights, we feel much more secure knowing there are safety devices on board and plans of action in case of a flight emergency or disaster.  The likelihood of most public buildings catching fire is relatively rare, yet it's common practice and a matter of law that they have fire extinguishers, alarms, and escapes.

            The fact is that throughout many aspects of life we prepare ourselves for things that will probably never happen and we hope never will.   But since they could happen, we prepare and accept this as the proper thing to do.   Why shouldn't we be prepared for those long shot, but possible fears when it involves protection from the government or other potential threats?  After all, government is people and people have been known to do some very bad things.

            Even now, with the talk of bans, restrictions, and investigations, you should be paying close attention and thinking about who will protect you when the government starts taking away a freedom that you hold dear.   Executive order anyone?

           What freedoms are you willing to give up?   What freedom do you personally hold so dear that you would fight to keep it?   Is there anything worth fighting for?   Worth killing for?   Has any war been worth the cost?   

            

            

Related articles

• The "right" to bear arms does not exist
• Assault on the Second Amendment
• From Second Amendment to assault weapons ban: A look at U.S. gun laws
• BROWN: Americans are too smart for gun control
• Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry
• New Jersey Lawmaker Pushes Bill to Require Psychological Testing for All Gun Purchases
• Amend the Second Amendment
• Discussing The Second Amendment