Grammys, Guns, God and Gibberish



I intended to write something of a lighter nature today. And, I did—on Facebook.


On a few hours' sleep, I wrote the following about the Grammy Awards, of which I happened to see about 15 minutes last night. To quote myself:


Evolution of Reaction to the Grammys:

Back in the Day: I'll watch, if nothing better to do.
10 or so years later: I'll watch, if nothing better on TV
Add another 5 to 10 years: How could he/she/they win?
Recently: Who the hell is (are) he/she/they?
Now: Oh, the Grammys were on last night? I used to love that show.



After seeing this, I was going to expound a little, but something else from my ubiquitous Facebook news stream caught my eye. It was one of those posters with a trite saying or politically-charged platitude  that I often try to ignore, but this one stuck in my craw just a little more than most and it had nothing to do with the friend who passed it on. He’s a good guy, from all I know.



The text was this, and perhaps it’s poetry to some:


If a madman wants to kill innocent people, he will find a way.

Killers don’t need guns to kill people.

Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer.

9-11 terrorists used box cutters and planes.

The Nazis used cyanide gas…

Taking guns from innocent people will not protect innocent people.

The problem is not guns. It is a Godless society.


Most days, I would have ignored this, and I certainly did not intend to blog about gun control today. But, here I am, responding in some measure to something spread by a group called “Support our troops or get the f-k out.”  Am I desperate for material, or what?


First of all, I have no idea what aligning oneself with the NRA has to do with supporting the troops, but I realize that this is all red meat served up to those who like to see red in both day-to-day life and on electoral maps. And when you have so much wisdom…as the Support our troops or get the f-k out brain surgeons certainly do…why limit your posts to solely military issues?


And yes, there are overly simplistic idiots on the left who, I guess, like to serve blue veggies to their supporters. Hmmm…I boxed myself in there, as I am a meat-eating, God-fearing liberal. That’s why I like more of a balanced meal—of ideas, if not food.


Sadly, the gun control issue is an incredibly divisive one, but what isn’t divisive these days? Certainly, there should be room for common ground to talk about how to make the United States a safer place, but like so many other issues, intelligent listening and speaking seems to be a lost art.


As for the Support Our Troops poster, I’ll try to respond in quick poster-size snippets to some of their assertions with what else…bullet points.


  • Of course there are other ways for madmen to klll innocent people, but guns are used a great and sickening percentage of the time.
  • No, guns by themselves don’t kill people, people do, but people with guns can be a pretty combustible combination.
  • Who exactly is trying to round up all the guns? What is on the table is more or less an assault weapons ban, or limitation…which may not do much…but no, the government is not coming for Johnny and Susie’s guns.
  • I believe in God, and believe that such a belief helps me develop an ethical, moral sense. There are many atheists and agnostics who also have very high morality, as well as those who purport to believe in God who commit all kinds of “evil.” So, now, where are we in this whole Godless Society paradigm and what form would a more Godfull Society take?


Two more thoughts come quickly to mind, and this is where I wonder how exactly we descended into such a clueless society where people (verbally and physically) shoot first and assess situations later.


Guns and weapons are already regulated in some fashion, aren’t they—by age and by prior history. At what point is exploring the best way to do this a violation of Constitutional rights? Of course, any measures seriously being discussed pose absolutely no threat to the Second Amendment.


By the same token, our economy has always been under some type of government control, via taxation and other measures. At what point…or perhaps, at what rate of taxation…do such measures cross into socialism and communism?


Maybe, I should pose these questions directly to the “Support our troops” brain trust. Now, back to the 1980s Grammy Awards.

You may leave thoughtful comments here …but please, no spam.  Keep it kosher, and uncanned.


(Blogger image was not original, well, not my original…thank you to


I know you're not a follower, but please follow me on Twitter

My Facebook Fan page is right here.

To order my new (co-authored) book, please click me.




2 Responses to Grammys, Guns, God and Gibberish

  • William Graham says:

    Matt!  Thanks for an intelligent and safe place to trade opposing views.  I can't begin to tell you how many "non-starter" conversations I've tried to get off the ground out on the internet but couldn't because someone's passion was interfering with their ability to communicate.

    I respect many of your points, but disagree with you regarding the issue of an assault weapon ban.  I believe such a ban is, in fact, tantamount to taking away Johnny and Susie's guns.  Any gun restriction essentially allows a potential bully to mandate the size of the stick you intend to beat him with.

    Here is my standard opening gambit to save us a few cycles.  Please let me know where I first go off the rails in your opinion.

    "Why do you need a 16 round magazine?"  

    "So I can fire 16 bullets without reloading of course!"  

    "The number of times you would be in a situation with such a need is very limited."  

    "So the number of times I woud fire 16 bullets without reloading would be very limited."  

    "But you're speaking from the point of view of a law abiding citizen."

    "I have no other."

    "But what about criminals?  They wouldn't show the same restraint.  They haven't shown the same restraint.  They must be stopped."

    "So there it is- My rights should be impinged based on the point of view of a criminal.  What we need to fix up the fact that some folks won't obey the law…is to make some more laws we'd like them to obey."



    • admin says:


      Thanks for taking the time to read and reply. I don't think you went off the rails here, even if we disagree in part.

      Within the nuts and bolts of the issue, I am not an expert on classes of weapons – far from it – but the tenor of my reply would be this, There is nothing inherently (or practically) unconstitutional about regulating the sale of weapons. So why can't we ('we' being "America", not the two of us) have a sane conversation about this withoout invoking all the polemics about tyranny, Second Amendment rights,, etc…That just stirs up the masses (or, them asses) to no good effect.

      The ease of obtaining various types of weapons from sale and re-sale is at least a component of the amount of murders being committed. Even if there may be a variety of other causes, why can't this be addressed in a sane way to at least try to ameliortate some of the problem? And, I don't completely subscribe to the "outlawed/outlaws" argument or its derivatives.