Just wonderin'

I don't often comment on the news, but two news pieces have really caught my attention this morning.

The first: A Victory for Gun Advocates in Royal Oak

As a general rule, I really don't have a problem with people who legally carry guns. Please note that I said, "legally carry." For every "law abiding citizen" who is proudly licensed to carry a gun, there are several more who have no right to handle a weapon at any time, in any place. But they do. One clip I watched yesterday showed a well-groomed, upstanding looking young fellow, with his holstered handgun clearly in view, earnestly pleading that "only criminals commit murder." The people who are licensed to carry have had extensive background checks, etc., etc. Point well taken. However, I contend that one becomes a criminal when the murder is committed. No matter who you were five minutes before.

My question is, why would you feel like it was important to carry your weapon at a music festival? Please, just give me one legitimate reason why any law-abiding citizen would have a need for a gun when they are at an event where the major activities are viewing art, listening to music, eating some tasty festival fare and, presumably, enjoying a beverage or two? (Stereotype alert:) We're not talking NASCAR or an Elvis festival, guys. This is not going to attract people who want to carry guns in the first place.

Maybe there is something I'm just not seeing here, but since when did saying "your guns are not welcome here" become an infringement on everyone's constitutional rights? I'm not saying that you don't have a right to carry a gun. Perhaps you do, and that's between you and the law; I have nothing to say about that. But to bring one along to a family oriented festival just because you can, seems just a little presumptuous to me.

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. And that's all I have to say about that.

Really, that's not all I have to say about that ... but it's all I'm going to say right now.


The next news article of note was actually a blog post that I found on someone else's Facebook wall. I found this equally intriguing: History Eraser Button 

Over the last few weeks there has been quite the brou-ha over a group that has proposed to build a mosque in New York City, somewhat in proximity to what has come to be known as Ground Zero, the former site of the World Trade Centers that were destroyed by extremist terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001.

Now, I don't personally know anyone who practices the Islamic faith, so I'm just sayin', I believe that most Islamic people are basically peace-loving, normal people. I have studied enough about religion in my lifetime to know that the tenets of their faith are actually quite similar to those of us of the Christian persuasion. Yes, some of them look and dress differently than typical "Americans." Again, that is their right and they are entitled to practice faith as their conscience dictates. Right? Isn't that one of the principles on which this nation is founded? Or is it only if they are "like us" that they're allowed to have religious freedom? Or the freedom to build their house of worship wherever they happen to own property?

This blog article caught my interest because it's mostly pictures. That whole "thousand words" thing definitely applies here. It was amazing to see the variety of seemingly acceptable property uses within a stone's throw* of Ground Zero. But the couple hundred words below the pictures are also very thought provoking. I applaud the blogger, Daryl Lang, for his stand on this issue. His point: There are a lot of diverse activities within the same general distance (two or three blocks) from the former World Trade Center site. Some of them are ethnic restaurants, others are delicately described as "gentleman's clubs". There are also enterprises like t-shirt stands hawking WTC/Ground Zero souvenirs. Talk about stomping on "Hallowed Ground*".

I took a few additional moments to follow the links to this page for The Community Center at Park 51. Fascinating. It's not even a "Mosque," but a Community Center. At this proposed community center, they not only want to reach out to diverse Muslim and non-Muslim populations in New York City, but to promote cultural understanding, mutual respect, environmental sustainability, education, service, and spiritual growth for all.

A place like this deserves to be built, regardless of its proposed location. And wouldn't it be nice if Americans decided to support the fact that a group--of any creed--really wants to promote cultural understanding or education or sustainability or spiritual growth for all. 


I don't know. Somehow, I see a connection here, but I'm still grasping at it a little bit. Like, it's OK to trample on the rights of respectable Muslims, because a few other Muslims are extremist terrorists who might blow something up. But it's not OK to trample on the rights of responsible gun-owners, even though some people who own guns will shoot people.

Am I getting it now?

Just wonderin' here.

--------------------------------------------
(*Sarah Palin's word. I hate to even mention her name within my blog, so I made her a footnote at the end.)