Brian Greenspun: This Is Your Brain On Drugs

Brian Greenspun is a son of a somewhat famous, at least in his own mind, newspaper owner and reporter. Brian Greenspun is a terrible disappointment to his father as a son, businessman and newspaper person.
Today's editorial shows once again, it seems Greenspun has a drug addled mind.
For instance, the editorial headline from his rantings is this:
Our children shouldn’t have to live in a savage world
Savage world?  Seriously, unless a child was at Sandy Hook or live in Obama's Chicago, 99.999% of kids in the United States do not live in a savage world and never have been.
Then more babble: Not any more. At least not right now. Bullet-riddled bodies of 6-year-old children – our 6-year-old children — have a way of moving even the most hard-hearted, callous and uncaring among us. Now, we’re in a position of having a conversation about why such tragedies are tolerated in the land of the free and home of the brave.  http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jan/20/our-children-shouldnt-have-live-savage-world/
The Sandy Hook tragedy is not tolerated, you moron.  But you idiots on the left have not show ever, what would have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings.  Not 1 idea that has been presented so far would have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings.
And then there is this: We also have a president who is elected to represent all of the people and to act on our behalf to both follow the law and advance our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is pretty simple, after all.
Really?  That is what the president does?  Does the President really represent everyone or does he represent his party?  Does Obama really represent Republicans?  Does Obama follow the law?  And since when is a president is supposed to advance our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  How does he do that without Congress passing laws?  Would the left say President Bush advanced our rights to life, liberty and happiness?
So, if burying our children under mountains of debt is wrong, immoral and un-American, can it be any less immoral to bury them for real under mountains of dirt just because we have our collective heads buried deeply in the sands of a time that no longer exists?
Of course not. The Second Amendment, for whatever purpose our Founding Fathers saw fit, cannot ever be allowed to be the shield behind which cowards, crazy people and others just hell-bent on finding government conspiracies can hide. Not when our children are dying at their desks.
Unless I am wrong, we have had 2 school house shootings in the past 6 years (the Amish school shooting) and 1 more since 1999 (Columbine).  Before then, there have been several school shootings, with very few kids, if any, dying in their elementary school desks.
Yes, there are many this past week who are screaming bloody murder that President Barrack Obama would use children to make his point that it is time to act, to do something to break the inertia that allows mass murders to continue. The news channels are full of people crying out that emotions have no part in a national debate about gun safety, gun control or whatever other term you want to use for the effort to provide sanity to policies that put the United States at or near the top of every list for gun violence.
Yes, it was wrong for Obama to use kids to make his case, right after his press secretary condemned a NRA ad that mentioned Obama's kids in their ad.
I don’t know if what President Obama has proposed regarding assault weapons, ammunition clips, gun show loop holes, registration of weapons, mental health and school security is enough or too much to help. What I do know is that it is a holistic approach that could very well work. At least to reduce the great majority of massacres that have become a part of our everyday lives — and deaths.
So, you idiot, you don't know what will help, but you are willing to sacrifice the rights of law abiding citizens for no apparent reason, once again, shows, that your drug addled mind doesn't have a clue.
It is your choice what you choose to read: the Bible or the Constitution. In either case it is absolutely clear that we have the obligation to protect and defend the lives of those who come after us.
Of course, Greenspun doesn't want to talk about the facts that guns have saved lives, adults and children in their homes, on the street, in businesses and other places.  Greenspun would not allow women who are being stalked, a right to protect themselves, he wouldn't allow women or fathers to protect themselves in their homes from burglars and others who break into their houses, he would not allow business owners to protect their lives when they are being threatened with thugs with guns.
Let's face it, Greenspun, while mentally challenged, and has failed in almost in everything hehas tried, doesn't want people to have guns to protect themselves.  He would rather let the criminal thugs have the guns and let you fend for yourself with anything but guns.
What a disappointment Brian Greenspun must be to his father and mother who used to run the newspaper, before Brian ran it into the ground.