any takers?

This truly is just downright disheartening. Really.

I just got a call on my cell phone from a local number I didn't recognize, and because my cell phone is my only phone I do occasionally get marketing calls, so I ignored it. Upon receiving a voicemail, I promptly checked it out.

The somewhat downtrodden voice with which I was presented belonged to one PFC Richard Boris from the United States Army. He was calling because he had received information that I may be interested in joining the U.S. Army or the U.S. Army Reserve, and if it was true I should give him a call back (at a number at odds with the one on which he was calling me).

Is this really what we've come to? Is the United States Armed Forces really cold-calling cell phones looking for people to sign up for a war the majority of the country (to say nothing about the rest of the world) disagrees with?

Yes (if you hadn't yet guessed). Yes they are. How do I know this? Because nowhere does there exist information – credible or otherwise – indicating any level of interest on my part in joining the U.S. Army or the U.S. Army Reserve.

what makes guns more important than privacy?

Politics, to state the obvious, is full of contradictions and hypocrisy. Everyone knows that, I know, but I've begun thinking today about one hypocrisy in particular that irks me more than most ... which is saying something!


We as a country are being told (almost entirely by the neocons) that in order to fight the war on terrorism effectively, we must be willing to give up some of our precious freedoms, such as our freedom of privacy and freedom to be safe from unwarranted searches and seizures. We are being told that giving these up is absolutely essential to making our country safer and more secure.
Give up a few of your rights, and you can walk down the street feeling confident that you will not be attacked by a terrorist.

That's peachy, but my concern is this: most of the people who are saying these things are the very same people who are fighting AGAINST gun control legislation. There are kids getting shot in and around schools by other kids every day in this country, not to mention people using guns in violent crimes all the time. Enacting some form of gun control legislation surely would make it more difficult for a 14-year-old to get his/her hands on a Glock, and yet these people firmly refuse to give up that right in the name of safety and security. Plus, not everybody owns a gun (although an enormous amount does). I only bring that up because it indicates that gun laws don't apply to everyone, while the right to privacy does. That's not to say I think we should do away with freedoms that apply only to some citizens, but as long as we have a government willing to curb some of our freedoms, wouldn't it make sense to consider first the ones that don't apply to everyone?

I just don't understand how people can be willing to ask that we all give up freedoms such as privacy to make us safer and refuse to budge on freedoms such as the right of everyone to own a gun, when doing so would save lives on a daily basis.

Anybody got any thoughts?