Comment Archives: stories: Opinion: Danehy
Re: “Danehy”
As Amy Farrah Fowler said when she first met Sheldon Cooper, "I don't object to the concept of a deity, but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance." I just think that I should be on time for stuff. And I don't own a cellphone.
Re: “Danehy”
Isn't it interesting that everybody else's religion is totally ridiculous? And everybody else's behavior in my religion is totally wrong? Danehy, do you really think god likes you better because you get there on time, and turn your cellphone off? Or, if you are late, he likes you better because you piously stand in back?
Well, I hate to tell you, but you are dead wrong. It is MY religion that makes sense, not yours. It is MY behavior that god likes best, not yours. It is MY jesus, with MY features that is the right one - not yours. And (the capper) if you don't agree with ME, it is heresy, blasphemy, and you should be put to death!
As for the papal stuff, I don't think he has any more clue about it than you or I. Or any less, for that matter. My Sunday morning sacrilege.
Re: “Danehy”
You wanna know what Jesus looks like?
"Then I turned to see the (loud voice like the sound of a trumpet) that was speaking w me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across his chest w a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze that has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice roared like the sound of many rushing waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two edged sword, and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man." (Rev1:12-17a)
Problems w the standard image we see are many. Right, He was mideastern and not caucasian. Then it flies in the face of the Biblical command not to create any image of anything on earth or in heaven. (Exo20, and maybe here we can see one reason for that command.) Since moreoever, that beatific smile makes us feel all warm and fuzzy; "Aw, He's just all loving and will forgive anything I do."
And He does. Read on to the rest of Rev 1:17,18. "And He placed His right hand on me, saying, 'Do not be afraid, I am the first and the Last, and the Living One, and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.'"
He put His hand on John, lifted him back up. After, that is, John fell on his face.
Re: “Danehy”
Cut the Christmas/Easter catholics some slack. You should be grateful for the company. You would be surprised how many of them have to work on Sundays. Take a hint from the Greek Orthodox church. For them, mass is 24/7 and people come and go in the middle of stuff all the time. As far as your papal wish list, don't expect miracles.
Re: “Danehy”
Tom ,Tom, Tom, lining up kindergarteners on the capitol step and gunning them down, really, reading your articles reminds me of the story of the guy who is hitting his own head with a hammer............ My mother couldn't believe you would write that during times such as these and wanted to see for herself, but of course I could hand her the paper because of all the scrotum squeezing analogies. Its not that I disagree with what you say its just, why so sophmoric, I guess you think you are funny.
Re: “Danehy”
Uh... There are mentally challenged people who shouldn't be on the streets. Unfortunately, they are because some credentialed people a few decades ago thought that psychotropic drugs would solve it all. They were wrong. These folks use guns, or whatever weapon is handy, to workout their problems. Both Laughner and Adam Lanza had fantasizes about driving a car at high speed into their victims. If guns weren't available, they could have found an alternative.
So it is about the killers.... Not their killing tactics. Get the killers off the street and there will be less killing . It worked before...no reason to think it won't work now.
Re: “Danehy”
It's pretty damn simple, as I see it. The gun fetishists clearly care more about their weapons than they do about human beings. Most gun owners aren't crazy, but there is a hard-core minority that worships weaponry above all else -- and has a stranglehold on the United States Congress. All of us have an opportunity to change this in 2014, if we would only do it.
Re: “Danehy”
They now represent manufacturers is a bogus argument. Of course this is an editorial opinion and you are entitled to say what you choose, facts be damned. You have the bully pulpit.
The NRA gets a fair amount of money from me every year, and I am not a manufacturer. I am the NRA and I vote.
Re: “Danehy”
They used to represent gun owners. Now they represent the manufacturers.
Re: “Danehy”
Tom, here's a fact for you: it appears you really know nothing about the NRA. They represent "gun owners" not the manufacturers. The manufacturers only advertise in their publications. Kinda like saying you are an owner of a strip club, since they advertise in your paper. Your nice little tirade was a bit short on facts and reality. I am tired of seeing the anti-gun herd parading the "poor victims" every chance they get. Try stopping the real nuts from getting the weapons in the first place. None of the new laws are directed in that direction only at law abiding citizens who prefer the right to protect themselves and/or to hunt. If you lived in the real world where law enforcement may show up within an hour or two of calling 911, you just might reconsider your position.
Re: “Danehy”
You managed to insult me twice in one column. I'm a life memberof the N.R.A., so I'm an idiot. I'm also a former stoner who's been to more Dead concerts than I can count. Thus, I'm an idiot. Allow me to throw a wrench into the works by presenting a few of those nasty facts. Last week in Conn. they passed a whole slew of new gun control laws. Sadly, had these laws been in place last Dec. the tragic shooting would have occured all the same. But, those people feel better and after all, isn't that all that matters? Symbolism over substance, the Left's mantra.
Re: “Danehy”
I think the progressive pack is chasing the wrong suspect. This is a mental health issue...not a gun issue. In the 1970's/1980's mental health institutions were closed down because the experts felt that the mentally ill could be cured with drugs. Before that period mass murders were relatively rare. After that they are more common ( I'm talking about all-at-once murders like Newtown not sequential murders like in Chicago) . Gun ownership levels were higher before the 1970's mainly because hunting was more widespread. It is pretty clear that , in some cases, the drugs for the mentally ill strategy doesn't work. All of the notable mass murder incedents like Columbine, VaTech, Newtown, Tucson, Denver, etc involved people who were on, or recently got off, psychotropic drugs. If we are going to fix this problem, let's at least focus on the real issue.
Re: “Danehy”
I sincerely believe that if you lined up a group of kindergartners on the Capitol steps and then gunned them down on national TV, the reaction of some members of Congress would be, "Damn, now I have to use the side entrance so I don't get blood on my shoes."
It's enought to gag a maggot, that, unfortunately, that is a likely scenario. Hardly ever, does one find a modicum of sorrow from most of them about all the violent gun deaths that occur regularly.
Re: “Danehy”
"According to FBI statistics, in 2011 in the United States, 8,583 people were murdered with guns." This statistic made me think a bit about this topic differently than my usual anti gun, anti NRA rant. According to a variety of websites, but specifically this one from Wikkipedia, there were less US military ( total 8519) casualties in Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present) combined than those above mentioned gun deaths at home. Granted many of those deaths occurred with bombs, roadside devices, suicide attacks etc. It is as though our country is engaged in a civil war. Like it or not, guns make these deaths easier. Just the other day, I read an account where a man with a knife, or box cutter stabbed/slashed 14 or so students on a small Texas campus. As of this date, I do not believe anyone died because of the attack.
Freedom is wonderful. I can recall the first time I rode a bike, and felt that wonderful feeling of freedom that I still enjoy daily 55 years later. Yet, to sound like a 5th grade teacher lecturing a social studies class, freedom comes with responsibility. The NRA and gun enthusiasts need to step up and act responsibly since we cannot prejudge or predict who is violently insane. The fact that there may not even be a congressional vote regarding legislation is insulting to the survivors of all senseless attacks. Their loved ones died in vain. The attacks are senseless, not hateful. Senseless because of mentally handicapped violence. It's too bad that the senselessness doesn't stop there.
On a separate note, Tom, you don't need to stoop to locker room language/phrasiology to make a point well supported by facts. It's not professional, and it undermines your argument. I am no prude, I love language with all it's vulgarity and eloquence. However, when it is in the form of the written word in print, it has the tendency to compromise your otherwise good logic.
Re: “Danehy”
Mass shootings are extremely traumatic and make super news stories but around 30 people are killed in mass shootings per year in the U.S. Meanwhile, 32,000 per year are killed in car accidents. Which issue merits more attention?
The deaths caused by global warming due to carbon emitted in production newspaper articles and TV shows about the mass shootings (and the gun control proposals that follow) will probably exceed the number of actual deaths from the shootings themselves.
Re: “Danehy”
Not even a relevant question. Knee-jerk reactions to bad events generally make for bad law, and unintended consequences.
Re: “Danehy”
When was the last time congress passed any law with teeth? They are all watered down compromises. You can be certain that any issue of any importance whatsoever will be gridlocked until the weakest form of the law is passed a day late and a dollar short. A law on background checks, when it finally does pass, will be so weak and ineffectual and it will have zero impact on the amount of gun deaths in America. The real solution, to ban and confiscate all guns, will not happen until lawlessness gets so completely out of hand that a fascist dictator gains control of the government (with the help and approbation of the people) and unilaterally takes action to bring the lawlessness under control. It will take a Hitler-like charismatic dictator to accomplish it. Give it another hundred years or so. We will see if the cure is worse than the disease. But we are definitely headed in that direction. When people see a weak and powerless government, they vote for dictators who promise to get things done. This is the road we are traveling down every time congress fails to get the job done.
Re: “Danehy”
Yea, let's just ban everything. That should take care of the problem.
Re: “Danehy”
Imagine if Jackie Robinson was gay! His story would have been completely different. Many straight football players will resent the presence of a gay man in the locker room. They resent female sports reporters access to locker rooms, too. But they are also pragmatic. There's more to life than a person's sexual preference. Players of all stripes will overlook any behavior outside the game if a player helps put wins on the board. Gay players are going to have to leave their preference outside the locker room in the interest of getting along with their teammates. If they don't, their cause for equal rights will continue to be set back by players who resent their locker room being sexualized to make a point that has nothing to do with the sport. Calling someone a gay football player is like calling someone a lesbian economist. The two terms have nothing to do with each other. They can be two seperate aspects of the same human being in the same way that being a married or single football player has no bearing on how he plays football.
© 2013 Tucson Weekly | 3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 | P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 | (520) 294-1200 | Powered by Foundation
Re: “Danehy”
One day in the not-too-distant future, we will all look back on this era and marvel at the idiocy that marks our current political discourse. Anarchists are being heralded as defenders of freedom, while those who cry out for common sense are being called socialists and Nazis -- and the desires of a vast majority of 9 out of 10 Americans are ridiculed by sycophantic media whores who unabashedly pander to the powerful forces of greed and paranoia. It is all a shameful carnival of ignorance and egomania that completely contradicts our conviction that we are a civilized nation.