PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

Thanks kindly SSmoothie. May: Thanks kindly SSmoothie. May the light keep burning and the dreams keep us smiling even in our sleep.

Years ago my son got into a: Years ago my son got into a heated argument with a gun-rights supporter, and finally concluded the discourse with: "While we're arguing about this, there is probably someone else being killed by a gun."   Just moments later, my son's critic looked at his phone and discovered the breaking news: there had been another mass shooting.   I wish we didn't have to argue about whether or not we'll do whatever it takes to save a human life. Some things are too precious to politicize. Or not. Seems politics has to wrap its ferocious tentacles around every damn thing. But hearing both sides of this issue, the result of growing up in a ultra conservative household, I did realize that both sides do value human life. They just have different ideas on how to preserve it while maintaining constitutional rights.   The problem is that while people are wrangling over the "how"s and protesting on both sides, more lives are being lost. Very young lives. Lives that we'll never, never get back, even if we do finally agree on a solution.   In this astute perspective, you address one of the arguments that I've heard again and again: "guns don't kill, people do". Sounds nice, catchy, but there's much more to it, and you presented a rebuttal that is coherent and hard to deny because of your logical analogy.   Now I can imagine some gun owners' knee-jerk reaction of fear that you're advocating a total gun ban. Which clearly you're not, any more than you're suggesting the government should confiscate cars because we don't allow a nine year old to get behind the wheel and mow down a few pedestrians like the "nerd next door, who has a chemistry set in his parents' garage" with dreams of his own meth lab one day.   You also make it clear that you're focusing on military-grade weapons, not day-to-day weapons for self-defense, as you intelligently expressed: "The right to bear arms should not be abrogated; the right to bear weapons of mass or multiple destructions should be . . . Do you really need an assault weapon to blow some geese out of the sky, or execute that pesty gopher that continues to rape your tomato patch?" Well played, Word Meister.   Your appeal to our leaders and to the compassionate sanity of our civilization (the only country on Earth to experience mass shootings to this appalling degree) was a worthy opponent to the status quo that is only resulting in more deaths and unspeakable suffering.   A persuasive case.   

Jesus: It is engraved in fabric by a seamstress

Hey: Blankshot

The first along with: Then why respond at all?

What’s wrong with what I wrote?: Manuevering from the tumultuous topic of psychedelics- especially prevalent in the modern west as ever before- to the vexed ridicules of sexuality- and all the stigma that goes along with it- as a reasonable plea to 'discard the second amendment from our eternally esteemed constitution!' you seem to have summoned the Dickhead in your varied narration as a philisophical substitute for the many-menegaried mind to chime-

Thank you very much.  That is: Thank you very much.  That is quite a compliment, and I appreciate it.