Oooooo.....shiny object!

The argument over arms is a hot topic, yet AGAIN. This isn’t a new battle, just like a latent disease. It most often rears its ugly head unfortunately following a sensationalized event. A Washington Times editorial author puts misrepresentation of gun issues and examples into the hot seat. I agree in most respects. Reports pop up of gun toting citizens trying to prove their point by publicly carrying around the exact type of weapon they fear will be banned. Sensationalism sells-point blank. Who wants an example of a supporter of her right to bear arms reflecting a 38 year old mother of two, full time nurse who just spoon fed your ailing mother carrying a concealed weapon(with license to) that  you've walked past a hundred times on the street.....or better yet is seated next to you in government class. At the risk of sounding hypocritical, I believe the authors intended audience would be a reader with an ability to think critically or at the very least, one with an open enough mind to consider the points made. As much as it would be all sh*** & giggles to believe the news is delivered simply to educate and inform us of current happenings in our world, news is a business. There have been incidences in which the visual or verbal report delivered in braodcasts I have noted it purposefully focusing on a particular detail-such as race, or socioeconomic status. One section of the article brings forth an example that the race of a single anonymous citizen carrying an assault aka semi-automatic rifle at an Obama town hall meeting was obscured. The network blacked out the face of a black man? I recall seeing not long ago the visual of a completely identifiable white male paying for an item at a counter with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder. Both were attempting to prove a point for whatever reason. Even if unintentional, this type of  oversight will evoke a response in some that turn the issue into a racial one versus the actual one-gun control.  The current issues will be initially presented and then there may come an equally sensitive non related issue with the potential of sending the original point being made reeling off onto a tangent. The public may believe that the news networks have and abide by a moral or ethical responsibility to report information fairly and equally-without intentional bias, but the one that makes the difference to the networks is the legal one and the same amendments that protect our munitions ownership protects their subjective reporting.  I can only advise fellow citizens of the advice I have given my own future gun owning offspring-always consider your source of information. This author falls under the guise of "staff members" of the Washington Post. I can validate the general idea but without someone willing to take either the credit or blame and lend their credentials to it, it can definitely be filed away under the above basic parenting principle I mentioned.

Its for my glaucoma, I swear.....

Reefer madness!!!....or is really? The short article touches briefly on national government's blossoming interest in marijuana. It briefly mentions a few bills that propose taxes on marijuana and removing the plant from the list of banned substances. This is a debatable "layer cake" form of federalism.  Legalization has been argued on a state level for years, now I seem to be reading more about the feds wanting to be dealt in too. Realistically America will never be drug free, but if there is a deterrant for anything in our culture-slap a tax on it! Regulation of marijuana and a taxing system will be difficult to organize and establish. I have faith in the fact that if there is a dollar to be made-our legislature will find it.http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/pot-legalization-goes-federal/