Social Security, I have seen and been told by various individuals and news sources, is completely “Off the table.” Similarly, I have been informed repeatedly that Social Security does not have anything whatsoever to do with the deficit. Presumably not everyone agrees with this as it seems Obama may (or may not ) have agreed to cuts in that program during his negotiations with Republicans. Progressives are outraged over this possibility, and for good reason. I have no idea if Obama is indeed going to agree to cuts in Social Security or not (I sincerely hope he is not). In any case why is it so difficult to know whether it adds to the deficit or not, or whether or not it is off the table. This would seem to me to be a pretty straightforward question. I personally believe those who say it has nothing to do with the deficit, but I’m not so sure about whether it is off the table or not. It is apparently not for Republicans who keep worrying over it like a dog with a bone that has been buried several times and has been devoid of sustenance for years, they just somehow keep hoping they will get somewhere with their persistent attempt to destroy it, as they have been trying to do ever since FDR managed to create it so many years ago. Social Security is the greatest government program ever enacted, it has been unbelievably successful, and ought to be expanded.
I fear we are going to have the same situation with the issue of gun control, no matter what Obama might accomplish, there will be those (mostly Republicans, of course) that will never give up in their attempts to arm ever man, woman, and child in America. Even now there are those like Governor Perry of Texas who argues that teachers should be armed, and he is not alone in this completely demented idea (don’t forget Congressman Louie from Texas and many others). How anyone in their right mind (which, unfortunately, I guess eliminates most of these gun nuts) could possibly believe the solution to gun violence is to add more guns is a complete mystery to me. But if that is what they want I suggest they should not stop with merely arming teachers, they should arm the children as well. I suggest that every child entering school for the first grade should receive, along with their other school supplies, a handgun of their choice. You know, either a revolver or a semi-automatic pistol, maybe pink or lavender (they actually produce guns of these colors these days, presumably for ladies) that will fit easily into their childish hands. I have no doubt this idea will absolutely delight the gun manufacturers who have bought the Republican Party to promote and market their product of misery and death. The subject of guns could be part of the regular curriculum just like readin,’ ritin,’ and ‘rithmatic. Among other benefits this would acquaint them with the metric system (6.25 mm equals .25 caliber, 9mm equals .38 caliber, and etc.). As they move up in school they could graduate to bigger and more powerful guns and ammunition, master ballistics and hollow points, concealed weaponry, how to shoot first and ask questions later, stand your ground, and such, until, upon graduation, they could receive as a graduation gift the gun of their choice (probably nothing bigger than .50 caliber). There could be courses in shooting various weapons (maybe starting at first with spear throwing and archery) and fast-draw tournaments (perhaps even knife throwing as an occasional diversion), as part of the regular school sports program.
Such a program would have certain benefits. For example, after a generation or two there would be no one running around with a gun without having been well trained in its operation. There would be a well-trained public in small arms use (unless you wanted to expand the program into the really big stuff) that could easily take up arms in the advent of hostilities (if they so desired, but this could backfire). It would create lots of jobs manufacturing guns, also require more teachers and staff, and so on. It would make the manufacturers money hand over fist and create a demand for certain natural resources benefitting miners, and so on. It would also most likely put an end to bullying as an inscription once found on a handgun suggested: “Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size, just call on me my friend for I will equalize.”
Of course on the downside it would no longer be necessary to buy Congresspersons thus forcing them to sell out to someone else. It might also lead to gunfights in the alleys behind the schools as children would probably rather shoot than fight. More importantly, it would doubtless lead to much more gun violence than already exists because if everyone was armed and attempted to shoot those who were shooting at them there would be chaos and more and more deaths. Furthermore, unless there was some way to discriminate against some children you would be training the wrong ones as well as the rest. And finally, the militarization of American culture, already an international problem, would become much worse. Actually I don’t think this is a good idea, don’t know why I even thought of it, and I’m sorry for wasting both my and your time.
The National Rifle Association says, 'Guns don't kill people. People do'. But I think the gun helps.