On healthcare and "socialized" medicine

OK. That did it. I'm fed up with people trashing the concept of "socialized" medicine or government run healthcare.

I served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam. When I was on active duty, if I needed any healthcare I could go to any military medical facility in the country or anywhere else in the world - I would be admitted without question and could receive some of the best care available in the world. If I fell ill and was not near a military medical facility, I could, and in fact did, go to a civilian hospital. All I needed to do was to show my military identification card and I was treated without any question about how I would pay for the treatment. I could receive any of the medical care provided by that facility and its doctors without having to pay out of pocket for it.

As a veteran, I now receive my healthcare from the VA. Again, I can go into any VA medical care facility anywhere in the country and I am readily taken in for treatment without question asked. I can receive any of the care that is available in that facility. I have found the healthcare I received from the VA (I have been treated in different geographic locations and a total of six different facilities in three states in the past three years) to be every bit as good as the care I received from privately insured health care. If a particular test or treatment is not available in the local VA medical facility, I am sent to a public medical facility for it. When I have gone to the public facility, I was admitted without any question and without having to come out of pocket to pay for it. I was not asked how I would pay for it. I didn't have to sign anything promising to be personally responsible for the charges.

What is really spectacular is that where ever I am in the country, when I go into a VA healthcare facility, they have access to my entire medical record. If I am brought into a VA emergency room unconscious, they will know immediately what medications I am on, what care I have been under, what lab results have been and what I am allergic to. If you are traveling in another part of the country, even with the best insurance available to you, what do you think the chances of that are?

My military healthcare and my VA healthcare are, in the simplest terms, "socialized medicine." When opponents talk about it they make socialized medicine or government run healthcare a big bogeyman, using comparisons to problems in the Canadian or British healthcare systems. They can look at other systems elsewhere in the world all they want. I’d prefer to assess how good that care would be by looking at what the military and VA do.

Sure, sure, you say, but look at the problems at Walter Reed and in the VA healthcare system. I agree. There are problems in both systems of healthcare. There are also serious problems in private healthcare. The rates of nosocomial infections (infections acquired while undergoing medical care) are outrageously high. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "(f)or every 100 patients admitted to US hospitals in 2002, 4.5 patients developed a nosocomial infection." In the 1990's the National Institutes of Health reported that a 12-year University of Iowa study concluded that "(n)osocomial bloodstream infections occur at a rate of 1.3 to 14.5 per 1000 hospital admissions and are believed to lead directly to 62,500 deaths per year in the United States." Nosocomial infections are a leading cause of death in the U.S. with estimates ranging as high as 105,000 per year. (Walk into any VA healthcare facility and see what you find - disinfectant hand wipe dispensers hanging everywhere as well as handwashing signs posted where everyone, providers, patients and visitors, see them. I've never seen anything like that in a public hospital or private doctor's office.)

The Centers for Disease Control maintains an entire section devoted to reducing the incidence of nosocomial infections. Beyond nosocomial infections, it is reported that in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 there were an average of 195,000 people who died in each one of those years due to in-hospital medical errors.

Nope, I think, all things considered, that socialized medicine might just be a good idea for us to pursue in our effort to provide good quality healthcare to all Americans. When we accomplish that, I believe that we will find that the cost of healthcare is dramatically reduced and the quality of life in America is dramatically improved for everyone. But, don't just listen to me - see what others are saying about the quality of VA healthcare (American Journal of Managed Care) and comparisons between VA and private sector healthcare (VAWatchdog dot org.)

"Sarah Palin's" performance

See? Tina Fey did a pretty good job and managed to somewhat rehabilitate Sarah Palin's image. Although, I do think it was a bit tacky of her to do that winking stuff. Really, Tina, don't you think that was just a bit over the top?

Sarah Palin will excel in the debate Thursday night

Oh ye of little faith. Do you really believe that John McCain would permit Sarah Palin to go into a debate with Joe Biden armed with only her keen intellect and her unbridled interest in world affairs? I mean, I know he's old but I don't think he is senile yet.

No, we will experience an October surprise Thursday night.

The McCain campaign has hired Tina Fey to fill in for Sarah Palin in the debate.

I'm betting that we'll see an exciting debate after all.

Why I favor a "flat tax"

I know, I know, it makes me sound nuts. No, wait. Let me explain.

We, the taxpayers, are bailing a bunch of corporations out of the mess they have made for themselves. I propose that we levy a strict flat tax on the compensation and benefits for all of the corporate heads of any corporation we are bailing out. If the CEO walks away with a golden parachute valued at $53 million, why, just let that CEO deposit 90% of that with the Treasury Department.

That's all.

Pretty wise, huh?

Sarah Palin and Lindsay Lohan

Who would have thought that it would take Lindsay Lohan to do what we've been waiting for the media to do - put Sarah Palin into proper perspective?

Lindsay has her blog on Myspace - Lindsay posted yesterday:

Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow
minded, media obsessed homophobe?

She also asked rhetorically:

Is it a sin to be gay?

Or to use birth control?

Or to have sex before marriage?

Now, I don't know about you but I suspect I know the answer to the latter question. And, I am not talking about her 17 year old pregnant daughter.

No, this weekend some of the cable channels ran a profile on Palin - one of the things they pointed out was that Palin gave birth to her son 8 months after she got married.

Hmmm. Now, I don't profess to be a math whiz or anything but isn't there a missing month in there somewhere?

Maybe she only thinks it's a sin if you or I have sex before marriage.

John McCain and Google

I have to give credit where it is due. Craig Ferguson pointed this out the other night.

It seems that John McCain has finally figured out how to conduct a google search on the computer.

The first thing he found on the internet was a Veep candidate.

I guess that's what we get for goading him about not knowing anything about computers.

Who God Supports in November

Well, they're at it again. Stuart Shepard of James Dobson's Focus on the Family asked people to pray for rain on August 28, 2008 so Barack Obama's speech would be rained out. Well, you will recall that Barack had incredible weather and gave an inspirational speech. So much for Dobson, et al.

Guess what happened as the Repugs began gathering for their convention? God sent a hurricane to blow them out of their entire convention. In fact, not just Hurricane Gustav, but also Hurricane Hanna due to hit land around Charleston, SC later this week and Hurricane Ike due to scrape the entire east coast of Florida by the end of the week. Yes, God sent three hurricanes - in one week - to get his message through to the religious right. Wonder if they'll get it?

Can you imagine how pissed the people in the Twin Cities are? All of those stores that went out and stocked up counting on the Repugs showing up for a wild and crazy convention with all of their money to spend (since they are the only ones who have benefited from the Repug economic policies.) Then, instead of spending all of that money they all went home so they don't look insensitive to hurricane victims. (The only place up there getting the tourist traffic they anticipated is the airport restroom made famous by Larry Craig.)

In other news, let's talk about the latest from the Repug's nominee for VEEP, Governor Sarah Palin. She's supposed to appeal to the religious right, gun lovers, anti-environmentalists, anti-abortionists and is hailed as a champion of fighting corruption in government.

BREAKING NEWS: As I write this, Governor Sarah Palin just hired a lawyer to defend her in the investigation going on for her alleged ethics violations in Alaska.

Anyway, she still appeals to the religious right, doesn't she?

Palin's seventeen year old high school senior daughter is a bit promiscuous - she is 5 months pregnant!

Oops!

Now, really, that's not much different from stuff that a lot of families across the nation face every year, too. It's just that Governor Palin is supposed to stand for so-called "faith and values."

On the more positive side of this story, at least Governor and Mr. Palin said they are proud of their daughter. Well, actually, they said they are proud of her because she's going to have the baby. And they look forward to becoming grandparents.

Just think - that baby will have an uncle only 8 months older than it is. That is exciting.

I wonder how all of that news might be playing for the two younger sisters of the gravid eldest daughter:

"Hm-m-m-m. Mom and Dad are proud of Sis for getting knocked up. I want Mom and Dad to be proud of me. I think I need to get busy and get pregnant so Mom and Dad will be proud of me, too."

Oh, lordy, lordy. I think Jerry Falwell must be rolling over in his grave.

Now, it's also reported that John McCain knew about the pregnancy before selecting Sarah Palin. He was not bothered by that fact. I wonder how the far right will take that news?

They shouldn't be surprised. I mean, talking about family values, remember when John McCain came back from Vietnam? While he was held prisoner, his former beauty contestant wife was involved in a horrendous accident and sustained serious injuries - as a result of which she was no longer her former svelte self. So, in the ensuing years after coming home McCain engaged in quite a number of affairs. Real family values, there.

He also dated his current wife while he was still living with his first wife. And he lied about it.

And he filed an application for a marriage license to his current wife before he was even divorced from his first wife. And he lied about that.

When asked about those two lies, he said it was 30 years ago and he just doesn't remember.

This really has the makings for a fun campaign.

Barack Obama's Judgment, Patriotism and Experience

You sure can tell it's election year. The pollsters got just about every primary election really wrong yet that's all the talking heads can find to talk about - particularly since Barack won't tell who he is selecting for his Veep Candidate. (I still hope it's a big surprise whose initials are HC and used to be HRC. Wouldn't that screw with all of their minds?)

Anyway, we hear John McCain say he is not questioning Obama's patriotism but he and his campaign keep questioning his patriotism. Well, if any of you believe any of that internet crap floating around, that my dear uncle believes and keeps sending me, I'm not talking to you - you knew before the subject came up that you would not vote for Obama. No, I'm not saying you are a racist - it's just that you have never considered voting for a fellow whose skin is so dark.

Back to the point. I'm not sure anyone believes McCain or the Repugs and there's really no way to prove that Obama is patriotic. I mean, Bush and Cheney wear those little flags on their lapels and ducked service to the country during a war - and look what they've done to the country. So, I think it best to ignore the patriotism crap; it's a stupid claim anyway. Let's look at history and imagine how different people would have handled it.

Let's go back to October, 1962. 14 days that month to be precise. John F. Kennedy was our President. They had argued that Richard Nixon had experience and Kennedy did not during the election. Ah, yes, I date myself - I remember that October and the events that took place. I was living in Southern California and wondered if that would soon become our East Coast. Enter the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We came that month closer than we ever did to an outright nuclear war. President Kennedy drew his advisers close and agonized over the crisis for two weeks. The CIA obtained aerial photographs demonstrating that the Soviet Union was setting up missiles - nuclear ones - in Cuba aimed right at the old US of A. Could'a wiped out a whole lot of our southern states and the east coast.

Now, granted, I don't recall that we were quite at the place where we could each destroy the world ten times over - but in the 1950's John Foster Dulles, Dwight Eisenhower's Secretary of State, used the term "massive retaliation" in describing what the U.S. response would be to a Soviet invasion in Europe. Thus was born the concept of "Mutual Assured Destruction" - MAD - (some say the genesis of "MAD Magazine") - that is to say that both sides were so armed that an attack by one would result in such a massive retaliation by the other that both sides would be, most assuredly, destroyed.

Enter Nikita Khrushchev's plan to set up missiles in Cuba, capable of delivering a horrendous attack upon the U.S. mainland. It was readily known that we could not permit that to stand. President Kennedy met with his advisers and military leaders. What was not known publicly at the time was how hard the military leaders pushed for a nuclear strike against Cuba. They really believed that only such a strike would permit us to survive as a world leader.

Ultimately, President Kennedy called Khrushchev's bluff and imposed a naval blockade preventing any more Soviet ships from transporting weaponry to Cuba and vowing to board and inspect such ships or to sink them if they tried to run the blockade. Khrushchev backed down and withdrew the missiles.

Now, those who didn't like Kennedy will still argue that we got a raw deal out of it. Nonsense. We are still here which demonstrates that President John F. Kennedy, the U.S. Senator with no real world affairs experience, did what I doubt any other President in recent memory could have pulled off. He succeeded because of his keen intellect and judgment. That's what Barack Obama touts when explaining why he believes he would be a good President. Frankly, I agree with him.

What if Lyndon Johnson were President at that time? Well, given that he gave in to military leaders so much in the lead up to and expansion of the Vietnam War, I think we would have initiated that strike on Cuba. I think President Johnson was wise enough that he would have quickly seen what a mistake that was and, before the red phone in the White House melted, would have called Khrushchev and canceled the rest of MAD.

What about President Richard Nixon? Well, he took over the Vietnam War on a promise that he had a secret plan to end it - which was simply a campaign slogan we later learned. So, given his extreme paranoia, it is not likely that Nixon would have surrounded himself with people of the calibre of Kennedy's people. Plus, Nixon would have felt a need to show himself stronger that his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, the former President and former General. No, I think we would have had a nuclear exchange with him, too.

How about President Gerald Ford? I liked him. For a Republican, he was not a bad fellow. However, as the only President who was never elected to national office, he was not a particularly strong leader. It's likely Khrushchev would have run roughshod over him and we would be looking for left over nuclear weapons in Cuba today. Maybe some of the drug cartels would own them by now.

This nuclear exchange, by the way, would probably not have destroyed both countries as it would have quickly been stopped by smarter people - it probably would have knocked Florida off of the map and rendered Cuba a big, radioactive rock. It would probably glow brighter than a full moon at night.

President Jimmy Carter. Well, he really had a tough time with the hostages so I think we probably would have just learned to live with Cuban missiles. Who knows where we'd be by now.

President Ronald Reagan. Wow. I mean, he was just an actor. He was acting all 8 years - well, probably only the first 5 or 6. After that, Nancy ran things as Alzheimer's set in with Ronnie. No, likely we'd have heard lots of bravado and all that stuff but I think he would have acquiesced and let them stay in exchange for money for Nicaragua.

What do you think President Daddy Bush would have done? Well, his only ambition in life was to become President. He really didn't know what to do once he got there. I think he would have done a fairly inept job although he would have appealed to the UN and Saudi Arabia to help. I think we'd still be living with a nuclear Cuba right now.

President Bill Clinton, I think, would not have listened to the military leaders. However, the Republicans in Congress would have been screaming "wag the dog" so he would have been hamstrung from taking intelligent action - I think we'd still have weapons aimed at us from Havana.

Now, we have to consider what might have happened if President W were in the White House then. Aside from the fact that he would be lying out on the White House lawn trying to recover from his latest binge or trying to sort out his cocaine addled brain, he’d have been the worst. Let’s pretend that he was the age and condition he has been in for the last few years. In fact, all of these Presidents would have had the same Cabinets with them in 1962 that they actually had in office.

So, let's see, W would have had Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and all the rest. He would have acted like we were still back in the days of cowboys. What would he have done? With him I think it's clear that none of us would exist anymore. When those in Times Square would be celebrating the winding down of the year on New Year's Eve, the only ones there to celebrate would be cockroaches. We’d have had all out nuclear war. Unfortunately, he never would have given any consideration to what would need to be done after the missiles were launched.

Now, fast forward to the current campaign. What if John McCain was President? Well, he said yesterday that he supports a draft so that we can maintain a military large enough to staff all of the various wars he wants to run. With his response to the Georgia thing the other day, I think it's clear that McCain would have handed the reins over to the military leaders who would have run amok launching everything we had. Yup - plenty of bluster and bravado and no one survived but the cockroaches.

What do I think a President Barack Obama would have done? I actually think that he would have dealt with it in much the same way President Kennedy did. He is smart. He is not overly intellectual but he has a good and strong mind - he is really intelligent and has the ability to study and understand all aspects of a problem like that. He thinks and knows what he's thinking about. He understands what he is saying when he says it. I believe he, like Kennedy, would have been able to analyze the pros and cons of every conceivable action and its consequences. I think he would have realized what Kennedy did - we can't go off half-cocked but at the same time we could not back down. We had to be strong without bluster and bravado. Bluster and bravado, in the wrong measure at the wrong time, frankly, can get you killed.

So, let McCain say what he wants. If we faced another crisis like we did in 1962, I want a President who won't throw out a bunch of talking points but, rather, will huddle up in the Situation Room and reason out a proper course of action to take. I'm ready for another President who can go to Berlin to give a speech and bring out a huge crowd who loves him. I'm ready to get back to the days when Americans travel through Europe and are revered for being Americans.

Besides, how funny would it be to have a President B.O.?

Go, Barack.

Whatever will happen in Pennsylvania Tuesday?

Who knows. Barack says he thinks Hillary will win but he'll do much better than anyone expected. Some say Hillary has to win by double digits to remain viable. Howard Dean is wringing his hands.

Nobody knows what the polls mean because men lie to the pollsters and claim that they will vote for a woman when they wouldn't think of doing that, and white people lie to the pollsters and claim that they'll vote for a black guy when they wouldn't think of doing that.

It sounds more and more like Hillary does not really like Barack. Just look at the way she looks at him.



So, if Barack wins the nomination, there is fear that Hillary's supporters won't vote for him. Oh, Howard Dean just threw up his hands. He doesn't know what he'll do in August if the Super Delegates don't bail him out by June.



According to Barack, Hillary has taken up Karl Rove's stategy by talking about Osama bin Laden. Barack complains that she is using fear to win votes, just as the Republicans have done in every election since 2002. He's really steamed and will not tolerate that from her. He's going to take the fight to her. He's invading her space.




So, when it's all over by Wednesday, what will the Democrats face? Will Hillary throw in the proverbial towel and let Barack have it? Will they keep fighting and trying to destroy each other all the way to Indiana and North Carolina? Will we find out that Barack knows more people with dumb ideas, so dumb that their thoughts will derail his campaign? Now that Hillary has the endorsement of Richard Mellon Scaife, when she gets to North Carolina will she enlist the aid of the Jesse Helms machine to make us all afraid of Barack? Will Barack drive a tank at Fort Bragg and look like a doofus?

Or will they, in the end, just kiss and make up?



Stay tuned - we'll find out soon.

Why American News Media is so Flacid

I know that many of us have wondered what’s wrong with our news media. They are pitiful. With all of the significant newsworthy stories circulating all over the world out there, all our media seems fixated on is junk like Paris Hilton’s latest party.

Well, it’s become a bit more clear to me why it’s so difficult to get the media to take news seriously. I saw this today:

NEW YORK (April 18) - A CNN reporter was arrested Friday in Central Park with what police say was a small amount of methamphetamine in his pocket, but he avoided jail time by agreeing to undergo drug counseling and therapy.

The New York Post, citing law enforcement sources, claims Richard Quest was caught with more than just drugs. The newspaper reports that Quest also had "a rope around his neck that was tied to his genitals, and a sex toy in his boot."

Okay. That explains it. I’m just expecting too much from them. Now I understand.

What in hell was he . . .

BENNY JETS TO THE U.S.

Pope Benedict XVI and his views on the Iraq War

Before he became Pope Benny (settle down – I’m a Catlik, so I can say that – also, my favourite Pope was JPII – not for what he stood for but for being quite the congenial fellow) he was Cardinal Ratzinger. Then playing the role of - what was it? - "God's rottweiler"? - he really did not seem to mince words about the so-called “Iraq War” and the excuses leading up to it. Not when he was a Cardinal. Many believe that his views have not changed. We can only hope.

Nope, Benny said “it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction . . . It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world.”

Now, tomorrow Pope Benny makes his first visit to the U.S. as Pope. Protocol says that he should visit the White House and the fellow living there. So, he will. I would love to be a fly on the wall when he does and he repeats that comment to Dubya. I expect that if Pope Benny has any – uh – well – you know – those two things down there, then he will pummel Dubya with “I told you so’s.”

After the invasion, at around the time Dubya donned his codpiece and rode on a jet onto that aircraft carrier to let the world know that his “mission” was accomplished, while then still a Cardinal, Ratzy said “There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, (likely talking about cluster bombs) today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.” He also said that the Catechism said nothing about the concept of “preventative war.” Dubya's in deep doo-doo.

I also hope that Pope Benny is very, very cautious. I remember what happened when the late, great Pope JPII met with Bush. Before that meeting, he was the picture of health:

You may recall how Pope JPII reacted to discovering the extent of Dubya’s intellect:

It went on – the poor Pope was really suffering as Dubya went on. He actually felt like God had abandoned him:

Finally, as President Dubya prepared to leave and offered to shake the Pope's hand, we can see clearly how much that single meeting took out of the Pope:

This candid moment was caught after Dubya left - it really tells the whole story:

Not long after that, many Catliks began to blame Dubya for killing the Pope. He never recovered from meeting and talking with ol' 43.

To cap it off, Dubya received a congratulatory kiss from Laura right in front of the late Pope JPII’s body. Disgraceful!

My message to Pope Benny? Get on your Jet and get out of here.

In other news, during the call-in portion of the Diane Rehm show on NPR this morning, while discussing Pope Benny's visit to the U.S., a caller observed that the Christian community in the U.S. is complicit in the mayhem that has come to be referred to as the "Iraq War" - you remember, the Operation Iraqi Liberation before Karl Rove realized the acronym was too accurate - since it was the Christian community that elected Dubya to his second term. Hmmm. Good point.

GUNS ON CAMPUS

We’re hearing a hue and cry for permitting college students to carry guns on campus. Some seemingly intelligent elected officials are actually proposing such legislation and talking up the idea. The concept is that if some deranged person walks into a classroom with intent to shoot and kill people, the armed students can respond by using their own guns to disable or kill the deranged person before he can do his evil deed. Well, probably just kill the deranged person.

Let’s think about this, now. Sure, some college students may be former members of the military, some of whom actually have training with firearms and maybe even combat experience. But, the bulk of the 18, 19 and 20 year olds in college have no such experience. They may have experience playing video games and may envision themselves as heroes should they be confronted with a situation where they are afforded the opportunity to save a campus full of young people from a deranged, gun toting person. In reality, they are possessed of the judgment of children just out of high school. But, oh, do they ever swagger as they walk around campus with a handgun strapped to their side.

So, what we will be telling kids as they get out of high school is that when you go to college, you can strap on a handgun and wear it to class. (Of course, this will permit the deranged, gun toting person to blend in more readily but that’s not what we’re talking about, is it?) Then we tell the kids that if you, in your inexperienced, untrained, youthful mind perceive a threat, you are free to jump in and “take care” of the situation whether there is actually a threat or not.

ASIDE: Now, I know a lot of college faculty members. I don’t know any who would be comfortable walking into a classroom with untrained kids carrying real guns with live ammunition. Come to think of it, a lot of courthouses in this country don’t even let uniformed police officers carry their own weapons into the courthouse when they are there to testify. Ever wonder why? Because it’s easier to control conduct in a courthouse if you control and strictly limit who is allowed to enter the building with firearms.

BACK TO OUR THINKING. Let’s imagine that your child is one of the kids sitting in the front row. Someone walks into the classroom during class and three gun toters in the back perceive a threat. Suddenly, like the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, they whip out their guns and commence to firing on the person who walked in. Of course, they are not very well trained in the use of handguns. For example, they don’t realize that when firing several shots from a handgun all of the rounds will not go exactly where their eyes are focused. No, many if not all of the shots will miss the target completely, particularly when fired from further back in the classroom. There’s a pretty good chance that some of the students, oh, maybe two or three of them, sitting in the front row will suddenly get shot in the back of their heads. Oh, drat!

Notwithstanding that this might not really be a deranged person who actually poses a threat except in the minds of the kids we have armed as campus vigilantes, what if it is a deranged person? Now he knows where to direct his high powered weapon of mass destruction first, which weapon is infinitely more accurate than the puny handguns our prospective heroes, who just killed three of their classmates, are firing. Then, our deranged person whips out his shotgun which, too, is far more accurate than the puny handguns our prospective heroes are using. Plus, now you don’t only have a deranged, gun toting person - you have a pissed off deranged, gun toting person who really has his adrenaline going.

Now, let’s also imagine that sitting in the second row is the best friend of your late child, someone who managed to get a call in to 911 to report shots fired in the classroom and was not killed by the first barrage of vigilante fire.

Now, imagine that you are the first police officer who arrives on the scene. All your late child’s late best friend was able to say before being hit by the second barrage of gunfire from the vigilantes was that shots were fired and what classroom they were in. Sorry, there was not enough time to give more information such as the fact that vigilantes were firing too, or a description of the deranged person or an indication of how many deranged people there were. As you, the first police officer on the scene, step into the classroom, all you see is the one surviving vigilante still firing his 9mm handgun. Unfortunately, the deranged person has stopped to put another clip of ammunition into his high powered automatic rifle. Do you wait and sort out who poses the threat before taking action or do you shoot to kill the person you see firing a handgun in the classroom? Drat, there went the last of the vigilantes. Then, while your attention as the first police officer on the scene is focused on the falling vigilante, unfortunately the deranged person now opens up on you. The last thing you remember in your whole police officer life is hearing the rapid fire from the deranged person’s automatic weapon that the Second Amendment purportedly says he has a right to buy before the rounds from it snuff out your life. Double drat!

On the other hand, maybe the best way to deal with this perceived threat is to make it exceedingly difficult for the deranged person to get the high powered weapon of mass destruction and shotgun in the first place. Let’s see, which ranks higher, the interpretation of the Second Amendment that says everyone, including the pissed, deranged gun toting person is entitled to carry any kind of guns he wants wherever he wants to carry them or the part of the Constitution that says that everyone, including your late child, and your late child’s late best friend is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Guns or life. Guns or life. Guns or life. Guns or life. Guns or life.

Tough choice, huh?