A Juggler's Life for Me?!

I just spent a few days with my son in New York City.  I wanted to get a taste of his life as a professional juggler.  As it turned out, he had a gig one of the nights I was there, and I decided it would be fun to accompany him.  He had been hired to juggle at an Orthodox Jewish wedding in suburban New Jersey.  That seemed to me to be a bit out of the ordinary, but who am I to say what’s ordinary in the life of a juggler?  It took us several hours to get to the wedding venue, first by subway and then by bus.  We walked the last 2 ½ miles from the bus station to the hall where the wedding was held.  The walk was excruciating to me, but not because of its length.  Tons of pollen were in the air and it kept getting under my contact lenses.  My eyes were in pain and watering so badly I could barely see as we hiked through suburban housing developments and observed the green dusting of pollen on cars and sidewalks. 

Our plan had been to arrive early and to grab some supper at a fast food place.  The early part worked out OK.  We arrived a little after 7:00pm for an 8:30 gig.  The supper part?  Not so well.  There wasn’t a restaurant, grocery store or any type of place to buy food anywhere in the vicinity of the wedding hall.  Maybe, I thought, they would offer us a few appetizers or even send us a plate of food from the kitchen.  No such luck.  Fortunately, we had a couple of apples and two snack-sized bags of chocolate chip cookies in our backpacks.  As the smell of food wafted past our noses, we noshed on our apples and cookies and hoped there would be a McDonald’s nearby when we got back to the bus station. 

They say the devil is in the details and the guy who had hired my son to juggle for this wedding provided very few of them.  We had no idea when he was supposed to juggle, how he was supposed to juggle or where he was supposed to juggle.  We didn’t know whether the hall had a sound system he could use, whether he could use the band’s sound system or whether he was supposed to use his own.  (He had brought a portable sound system just in case.)  It turned out that it was the groom who hired him, and the groom clearly had other things on his mind.  The only thing we knew for sure is that my son needed to perform while wearing a yarmulke, which was graciously supplied by the groom.  So we cooled our heels in a hallway, feeling horribly out of place and trying to make sure we weren’t doing anything that might offend the Orthodox Jewish wedding guests.

Suddenly, a bearded guy in a dark suit (looking a lot like a hundred other male guests at the wedding) appeared to tell my son the time had come for him to juggle.  Fortunately, a fellow that worked at the hall invited me to accompany him through the kitchen and into the hall so I could see my son’s performance.  It looked like the band was going to take a break, and it still hadn’t been made clear what sound system was going to be used for my son’s juggling music.  However, the band decided to play on.  They lit into a series of fast and furious Klezmer-style songs, and my son juggled to match the tunes.  Rings were flying, clubs were sailing, balls were cascading and then rings were in the air again.  Then, what’s that?  A muppet made an appearance, and suddenly he was flying high into the air.  I almost expected to see a kitchen sink being juggled as my son pulled out all stops in this Jugglemania of a show.  The Jewish men formed a circle around him as he juggled, and the Jewish women peered around the edge of the partition that separated the men from the women to get a better look. 

Then, in the middle of my son’s performance, I saw flaming torches being tossed into the air.  A Jewish teen had run into the middle of the circle juggling fire.  Not to be outdone, my son pulled out knives and started to juggle them.  Then the Jewish juggler lit his hat on fire as he ran around juggling the lit torches!  At this point I was glad my son didn’t decide to continue this game of one-upmanship by slicing and dicing his yarmulke with the knives.  A short time later, the band finished playing and the guy with the flaming hat beat it against a table cloth to put out the flames.  That seemed to indicate that the show was over. 

The bearded guy in the dark suit and hat appeared again and told my son to come back and do some more juggling once everyone had settled down to dinner.  I didn’t get to see that part, but it was shortened when the groom stood up to give a speech.  That was the end of the gig. 

We called a cab and got back to the bus station around 11:00pm.  Of course, there was no McDonald’s or anything else within walking distance of the station.  We finally grabbed a slice of pizza when we got back to the city around 1:30am – a real bargain at $1/slice.  We hopped a subway and arrived at his apartment around 2:30.  Thank God there was a cold beer in the fridge!  We talked for a bit to decompress from our adventure and went to bed around 3:00am.

A juggler’s life is certainly different from the work I knew as a corporate lawyer for over 30 years.  For my son, there is no such thing as a typical day at the office.  Every gig is a new adventure.  I am glad that I was able to accompany him on this one. 

x

Gladdening the Heart

A friend at the goat races

A few weeks ago I attended the goat races sponsored by Sly Fox Beer in Phoenixville, PA.  http://www.slyfoxbeer.com/.  Simon, a three-legged goat, was the winner and was honored by having his name appended to the brewery’s 2013 Mai Bock.  The prior year’s winner, Peggy, was also a three-legged goat, making one wonder that if three legs are better than four, perhaps two are better than three.  I may just have to come back next year to see if that theory has any merit. 

While I certainly enjoyed seeing the various varieties of goats and the racing techniques used by their trainers, the main draw for me and the thousands that attended was the beer.  Is that OK to say?  Or does enjoying a good, craft beer or three automatically label me as a lush?

 

The truth is that we have a love-hate relationship with alcohol in America.  Around two-thirds of Americans say they consume alcohol at least occasionally according to a recent Gallup survey.  However, we mostly feel guilty doing it.  Perhaps it’s the result of how tightly religion is woven into the fabric of American society.  According to a 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, close to 85% of Americans claim a religious affiliation.  Some religions, like Islam, prohibit alcohol consumption outright.  America’s majority religion, Christianity, is ambivalent about drinking alcohol. 

If you take a detailed tour of the Christian Bible, you will find much to justify arguments on both sides of the issue.  But the parts that speak most strongly against consuming alcohol principally deal with its abuse.  Perhaps we can all agree that it’s not a good idea to get stinking drunk.  That’s when bad things are most likely to happen.  Certainly, driving a car is about the stupidest thing one can do while under the influence of alcohol.  Also, people with an addiction problem shouldn't drink regardless of what it says in the Bible.  Addiction issues and other problems associated with overindulgence are the reasons that many Christians believe drinking alcohol should be equated with sinning, and that good Christians should be teetotalers.  It’s thinking like that, of course, that brought us the 18^th Amendment and Prohibition.  Fortunately, the Prohibition experiment in this country was short-lived.

Personally, I take my guidance from David in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New.  Psalm 104, which is usually attributed to David, thanks God for “wine that gladdens the heart of man.”  Jesus, who was a descendant of David, made wine from water at Cana to gladden the hearts of those attending the wedding.  If that’s not enough to inform us that he approved of wine, Jesus tells us that according to the religious authorities of his day:

John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and [they said], “He has a demon.” The Son of Man came eating and drinking and [they said] “Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.”  (Luke 7: 33-34) 

That is one of my favorite quotes from Jesus, because it provides so much insight into his character and, perhaps, his appearance.  While the Pharisees, who opposed what Jesus was teaching no doubt went too far in describing him as a glutton and a drunkard, there are ample passages that provide evidence that Jesus liked to eat and drink.  Jesus knew that many barriers tend to break down when you dine with people.  He knew that there is virtually no better way of reaching people and gaining their trust than to share a meal and a few drinks with them.  Consequently, if I were a casting director making a movie about Jesus and his ministry, I would find someone who looks like they enjoy eating and drinking.  I would forego the Viggo Mortensen-types for someone more like Jack Black.  In fact, the fellow pictured at the top of this post would be perfect for my version of the story of Jesus. 

So fellow Christians, feel free to do as Jesus did and have a drink or two with friends and acquaintances.  It will gladden your heart whether you are watching the goat races or your favorite hockey team compete for the Stanley Cup.  And it’s the Christian thing to do, so there’s no reason to feel guilty about it.

And Jesus, He Wants to Go to Venus

What does Elton John’s song, Levon, have to do with climate change? Not much, really, but the line about Levon’s son, Jesus, going to Venus made me think about Earth’s sister planet. At one time scientists speculated that its thick clouds hid a watery planet where rain fell constantly. Actually, based on space probes that have explored Venus over the past 50 years, we have learned that the dense clouds on the second planet from the sun hide one of the most inhospitable places in our solar system. The average surface temperature on Venus is nearly 900 degrees Fahrenheit. The reason? Venus is blanketed by a dense atmosphere consisting primarily of carbon dioxide (CO2). Because it traps heat radiation from the sun like glass in a greenhouse, CO2 is known as a greenhouse gas. With CO2 comprising over 95% of its atmosphere, Venus has a major greenhouse effect resulting in global warming run amok. 
Like Venus, the Earth has CO2 in its atmosphere. Unlike Venus, CO2 comprises only a very small portion of it. In October 2012 the CO2 concentration in earth’s atmosphere was measured at 0.0391% or 391 parts per million (ppm). What concerns many scientists is that this concentration has increased significantly since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century when it was around 280 ppm.

The steam engine, perfected by James Watt in 1778 derived its power by burning coal which also became a key fuel for generating electricity. In 1859, the first commercial oil well was drilled in the U.S. at Titusville, PA. At first there wasn’t much of a market for this black liquid, but it became pure gold after Henry Ford showed us how to burn gasoline by introducing us to his Model T in 1908. These and other developments led to the rapid industrialization of the western world and resulted in the burning of massive amounts of coal, oil and natural gas over the past 200 years. Today, most scientists believe that the CO2 released from the combustion of these fossil fuels is largely responsible for the observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere over this period of time.

According to U.S. EPA’s website, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in the earth’s average temperature. This, in turn, will cause a decrease in snow cover, ice and permafrost which will lead to a rise in sea levels putting many coastal cities at risk. It will also contribute to the acidification of the oceans and will have a significant effect on weather and precipitation patterns. (See, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html.) In other words, things will be different and probably not in a good way.

So what can be done to prevent these consequences? Reducing CO2 emissions is not as easy as slapping pollution control devices on our cars and power plants. Theoretically, CO2 can be broken down into carbon and oxygen with the addition of energy – the reversal of the combustion process. The only genius who has been able to invent a pollution control device that does that is someone called “God.” His invention is called “plants.” Using energy from the sun and a chemical called chlorophyll, these so-called plants use energy from the sun to convert CO2 into carbohydrates and oxygen through a process called “photosynthesis.”

Over thousands of years, God’s pollution control devices “treated” carbon dioxide generated by natural processes (like when animals exhale) creating a rough balance that kept the CO2 concentration fairly stable. The problem is that God’s pollution control devices haven’t been able to keep up with all the extra CO2 currently being produced by mankind. Consequently, the excess CO2 is causing a buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere.

The only man-made alternative to reduce CO2 emissions is to burn less fossil fuel. Short of massive changes to our lifestyles in the developed world, there are presently only two ways to accomplish this: 1) improve energy efficiency so we need less fuel to meet our energy needs, or 2) develop alternative sources of energy that don’t release greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. There are a number of ways to make this happen, such as voluntary conservation efforts and making greater use of solar, wind and, yes, even nuclear power to meet our electrical needs. Alternatively, we can adopt laws and regulations designed to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions such as by increasing vehicle fuel economy standards, by imposing taxes on carbon or by adopting pollution reduction schemes like cap and trade.

Such measures are opposed by climate change skeptics who deny the existence of global warming or at least deny that mankind’s activities have anything to do with it. These skeptics claim that observed warming trends such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap are simply part of the natural cycle and will not be influenced by how much or how little fossil fuels we burn.

These views, of course, run counter to the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists (97% according to NASA) that global warming is the result of human activities. (See, http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.) But even assuming for the sake of argument that the skeptics are right, think about what would happen if we took steps anyhow to reduce the burning of fossil fuels through conservation measures and using alternative sources of energy. We would have more coal, oil and natural gas to pass on to future generations of mankind. While most of these materials are burned for fuel today, some are used to manufacture products such as lubricants, plastics, pharmaceuticals, dyes and solvents. Conserving these resources now will allow more to be available in the future for these and other uses that have not yet been discovered. Why rush to burn them now, unless our concern is that the energy companies are not making enough profits?

Isn’t conserving what that great inventor, God, asked us to do in the Book of Genesis – to be good stewards of his creation? And Jesus teaches us, “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Lk 12: 15, 34.)

My wife says that for Christians, the global warming problem is a little like believing in Jesus. If believing in Jesus will get you to heaven, but you’re not sure there is a heaven, then you should still believe. If it turns out there is no heaven, then believing did you no harm and may have done you some good. But if there is a heaven, then believing could save you. Likewise, if we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels to avoid global warming and it turns out that the skeptics are right, at least we will have conserved resources for future generations to use. But if it turns out that the overwhelming opinion of today’s climate scientist is correct, then reducing greenhouse gas emissions could save the planet. 

And when Jesus one day makes plans to return to Earth, he won’t decide to go to Venus because it’s cooler there.

Come Together

Several weeks ago I was able to get one of my blog postings published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  On the one hand, it felt great to get something published.  On the other hand, it made me feel that each and every posting now had to be brilliant enough to be in a newspaper or magazine.  While striving for perfection may be commendable, it should not be at the expense of creating a high hurdle for each new posting to leap.  My objective for this blog is to write.  The Pulitzer is not something I need to worry about for some time to come. 

So what should be the focus of this post?  I have so far written about guns, gay marriage and income inequality.  Americans are incredibly divided over these issues, with some fiercely advocating change and others just as fiercely arguing for maintenance of the status quo.  So rather than address another issue that divides, I thought I would seek to write about a program that all people of good will can support.

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh recently teamed up with Habitat for Humanity of Greater Pittsburgh to renovate a home in the Borough of Sharpsburg, which is located about 5 miles northeast of the city.  When the renovations are complete, the home will be sold to a family that is currently living in substandard housing conditions in the Northview Heights Projects on Pittsburgh’s North Side. 

Many people have only a vague idea of what Habitat for Humanity does, recalling, perhaps some connection between the organization and former President Jimmy Carter – he and Rosalynn have been frequent volunteers.  Habitat for Humanity’s global mission is to provide decent, affordable housing for people in need.  It fulfills this mission by either building modest new homes or renovating existing homes.  Work on the home is performed by volunteers, often from churches or the faith community. 

Importantly, the program bills itself as “a hand up, not a hand out.”  Eligible families purchase the Habitat homes.  Their down payment consists of performing at least 500 hours of “sweat equity” on the home or other homes in the program.  In addition to instilling a sense of ownership and pride in the families, the work teaches valuable skills that will benefit them in maintaining the home they purchase.  The balance of the cost of the home is paid by the family through an interest-free mortgage.  For example, the family purchasing the Sharpsburg house will make a monthly mortgage payment of between $450 and $550.  Proceeds from mortgage payments are re-invested by Habitat to provide other homes for families in need. 

My church, St. Peter’s in the borough of Brentwood, will participate in a workday at the Habitat house in June.  About a dozen of our parishioners participated in a similar project in Sharpsburg in 2010 and found it to be a rewarding experience.  Significantly, our parishioners represent a wide range of political views from the far right to the far left and many points in between.  Yet this project received wide support, both financial and hands-on, from throughout this broad spectrum of political views. 

So while trying to change the world relative to many issues can create conflict and animosity, perhaps there is at least one area where people of goodwill of all political stripes can come together and accomplish something significant.  I’m not suggesting that anyone give up trying to accomplish change in other areas.  Rather, I’m suggesting that you consider taking a short break from whatever other issues you are passionate about and come together with your local chapter of Habitat for Humanity to create a habitable home for a family striving to improve their lives.  I think that’s change we can all believe in.

Everybody Wants to Be . . ..

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases challenging the constitutionality of laws restricting same-sex couples from marrying. While recent polls show increasing support by Americans for granting same-sex couples the right to marry, there is still a significant percentage of the population that is opposed to the idea. Why are so many Americans opposed to same-sex marriage?  Based on reader’s comments to various news articles on the subject, I think it boils down to two main reasons.  Many are opposed on the basis of their religion.  The other reason seems to be that allowing same-sex unions would negatively impact our society by undercutting “traditional family values.”  What does this mean?  I think some people are concerned that if our society condones same-sex marriage it will send a message to young people that it is completely acceptable to be gay.  If that happens, they fear that everybody will want to be LGBT.  Just imagine people parading through the streets like that scene from Disney’s Aristocats.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI7cIYcnTRU.  But instead of singing, “Everybody wants to be a cat,” they’d be singing, “Everybody wants to be L-G B-T!” 

Regarding the religious basis for opposition, Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians will point first to the Biblical book of Leviticus. However, Leviticus prohibits many things modern society doesn't consider sinful, such as planting your fields with two kinds of seed, wearing clothing woven from two types of material, getting a tattoo, and ordering your steak medium rare. So perhaps the Levitical prohibitions should be examined in the context of Jewish society around 3,000 years ago. These were hard times when war and famine could wipe out thousands of people. In such times it was imperative to produce lots of healthy offspring. Even then, the dangers of inbreeding would have been empirically observed making the Levitical prohibitions against marriage between close relatives understandable. At the same time, any union that planted a man's seed where it could not grow would have been viewed as an offense against a community that placed a high value on having children. This would explain the prohibitions in Leviticus against relations with animals and heterosexual relations during a woman's monthly period when she is infertile. It also would explain why Onan's apparent act of birth control in Genesis, Chapter 38 was "wicked in the Lord's sight" resulting in his being struck down by God. Assuming that men were viewed as the source of life because they provided the seed that merely required fertile ground to produce a child also might explain why Leviticus prohibited relations between men, but did not contain a parallel prohibition for women.  

In the Christian New Testament, Paul's Letter to the Romans and his First Letter to the Corinthians contain passages that echo the Levitical prohibitions against same-sex unions. However, Jesus was entirely silent on the matter through the four New Testament gospels. In contrast, Jesus was extremely critical of divorce. So why is it that Americans willingly accept the prevalence of divorce, yet are reluctant to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry?  

I think it all comes down to the idea of choice. The Baltimore Catechism teaches that sinning requires a person’s choice to do something that is wrong in the eyes of the church.  So classification of same-sex relations as sinful relies on the premise that being LGBT is a choice. In other words, we are all born to be heterosexuals, but some individuals for various reasons choose to desire members of their own sex.  This is the view that has prevailed for thousands of years.  If being LGBT is truly a choice, I wonder why people have continued to make this choice despite being publicly ostracized and in many cases prosecuted as criminals? If it were a choice, such measures should have long ago eliminated LGBTs from the world.  So why are they still here and demanding equal rights no less? 

I believe it is because they have no choice.  Though researchers have not yet discovered a "gay gene," it is beginning to look like sexual orientation is a matter of how some individuals are wired and not a matter of a "lifestyle choice." I am not a scientist but have observed a number of cases where young children appeared to be gay long before they had any notion of what sex was about. Not surprisingly, they came out as gay men many years later.   

So would our society fall apart if same-sex couples had the right to marry?  Would Everybody want to be L-G B-T?  Despite the fact that same-sex marriage is still prohibited in 34 states, most people would agree that the negative consequences associated with being openly LGBT have decreased significantly in American society in the past 25 years.  Nevertheless, in exit polling taken during the last two Presidential elections, the number of respondents that self-identified as LGBT remained very low – less than 5 percent.  That says to me you’re either a cat or you’re not, and your rights should not depend on how God made you.

A Christian Nation?

Last week the Roman Catholic Church elected Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to be its new pope.  Cardinal Bergoglio chose the name Francis to honor St. Francis of Assisi. Reportedly, as it became clear that the vote was going his way, the cardinal next to him leaned over and advised Cardinal Bergoglio, "Don't forget the poor."  The pope-to-be immediately thought of Francis of Assisi.  "[F]or me he is the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and protects others," said Pope Francis to an audience of journalists on Saturday, March 16th.  As a cardinal and archbishop of Buenos Aires, the man who will forever be known as Pope Francis lived humbly and pursued a ministry of helping the poor. He now has an opportunity to re-shape a global church long captivated by pomp, power and vast wealth into something that would be more recognizable to its founder.

Scripture tells us that in the early church, "all the believers were together, and had everything in common.  Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."  (Acts 2: 44-45, NIV).  The choice of early Christians to give up their wealth for the benefit of the Christian community meant, "There were no needy persons among them."  (Acts 4: 34)  In fact, in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, we learn that selling one's possessions and holding some of the proceeds back for personal use had severe consequences. (Acts 5:1-10). 

Why did the early Christians choose to live this way?  The four Gospels contain multiple stories of Jesus preaching about giving up wealth and helping the poor.  As an example, in the Sermon on the Mount he preached, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy and thieves do not break in and steal.  For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."  And, "No one can serve two masters.  Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve both God and Money."  (Matthew 6:19-21, 24, NIV). 

Also in Matthew's Gospel is the story of the rich young man who asks Jesus how he might obtain eternal life.  After hearing that he has kept the Commandments, Jesus tells him, "[G]o, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.  Then come, follow me."  (Matthew 19:21).  There are a number of other stories in the four Gospels where Jesus preaches a gospel of sharing one's wealth and helping the poor.  However, search as you might, you won't find any stories where Jesus admonishes a beggar to get a job.  Nor will you find any instances where Jesus advises his disciples that before you give to a beggar, make sure he will not waste the money on wine or other foolish pursuits.

The tension between those advocating a message of sharing and those unwilling to part with their wealth has been a constant in the Christian Church ever since the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity by the Edict of Milan in 313.  As Christianity became the established religion in Europe and church leaders accumulated vast wealth, orders like the Franciscans appeared to re-emphasize the need to give up one's wealth and help the poor. 

While many have called the United States a Christian Nation, today there is a wide political gulf between Christians who believe government should have a role in helping the poor and those whose philosophy might best be described as "I've got mine; to hell with the rest of you."  The poor are perceived by many as lazy, stupid and undeserving of help. The rich, on the other hand, are celebrated for their ambition, resourcefulness and entrepreneurial abilities.  Many appear to consider it a greater sin to ask the wealthy to contribute more to the needs of our nation than it is to take away assistance provided to the poor.  Many consider it outrageous to raise the legislated minimum wage to $9 or $10/hour, but have no problem with CEOs and other corporate officers earning millions of dollars/year.  In both cases, they are getting what they deserve, or so believe many who profess to be followers of Jesus.

It will be interesting to hear what Pope Francis has to say about what it means to be a Christian in a society like ours - an affluent society, but one with many, many poor.  Will he support Bishops and priests who tell their flocks to not vote for politicians because they support gay marriage or a woman's right to choose?  Or will he tell his church leaders to begin supporting politicians who support programs to help the poor, even if it means higher taxes for the rich? 

Only time will tell if this new pontiff will stick to his message, the message of his namesake, and the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.

A Gun Like Mine

I am a gun owner.  There, I said it.  I like my gun.  I've had it ever since I was a young boy.  I haven't used it in a while, but I wouldn't want to give it up even if President Obama knocked on my front door and told me to hand it over.  My rifle has a 50 shot magazine, and I used it to teach my daughter and son how to shoot.  I don't think there should be any government restrictions on the kind of gun that I have.  In fact, I wouldn't have a problem if everyone beyond the age of 12 in the US of A had a gun like mine.  What kind of gun do I have?  I have a Daisy 50-shot, pump action BB gun.  I've used it to put away many a tin can over the years, nicked a few trees, and in a weak moment may have even stung a few denim-covered butts. 

My brother-in-law is also a gun owner.  I'm not talking about my blind brother-in-law who thankfully chooses to not exercise his Second Amendment rights.  I am talking about my other brother-in-law - the one who wears cowboy hats.  In all honesty, I would have to concede that there shouldn't be any restrictions on his gun either.  He is a Revolutionary War re-enactor and has a muzzleloader similar to what a well-regulated militia would have had around the time the Second Amendment was adopted.  Unlike my gun, his can actually kill people.  Unlike modern military rifles, his only holds one bullet at a time, and it takes a while to re-load and get off another shot.

On December 14, 2012 twenty-eight people died from gun violence in Newtown, Connecticut, including the perpetrator of the crime.  The fact that 20 of the victims were young children gave renewed vigor to those advocating some controls on guns.  I am among those who believe there should be reasonable controls to restrict access to guns designed for no other purpose than to kill people.  The controls proposed by the Obama administration in the wake of the Newtown massacre included universal background checks for all firearm sales, reinstatement and strengthening of the ban on assault weapons, limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and banning the possession of armor-piercing ammunition by anyone other than the police or military. 

Despite the proposed limits on the size of magazines, I don't think these controls would cover a gun like mine.  Nor would they affect guns typically used by hunters.  None of the weapons covered by the proposed controls are used to kill animals, except those of the human variety. Unlike my brother-in-law's gun, the ones covered by the President's proposal could kill many people in very little time.

Gun advocates intent on resisting any controls seem to be focusing their arguments on the use of the covered weapons for self-defense or to resist a government takeover by a tyrant.  These arguments are born of fear - of the unwelcome intruder, or of a government takeover - something that hasn't happened since our nation was formed over 225 years ago.  It's hard to argue against fear.  Those favoring some controls are left with arguing that the fear is irrational.  They argue that a shotgun should be sufficient for self-defense, and that the government is not likely to be taken over by a dictator.  However reasonable these arguments may sound to the one making them, the person motivated by fear will not be convinced.  Franklin Roosevelt was right when he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.  Fear can paralyze us from taking any action to control potential gun violence. 

Meanwhile, as Newtown fades into the distance in our nation's collective rear view mirror, the likelihood of inaction increases and people continue to die from gun violence. According to the Slate.com website, over 2,605 people have been killed by gun violence in the 3 months since Newtown.  That's approaching the number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks. We took prompt action and started two wars to avenge those deaths.  Why are we not motivated to act promptly to do something about the thousands that die each year from guns?

Perhaps gun control advocates are simply taking the wrong approach.  Rather than restrict the possession of certain firearms, perhaps we should simply impose a tax on their sale.  The proceeds could be used to fund our healthcare system.  At the same time we might consider requiring gun owners to obtain no-fault insurance against personal injury or property damage that might be caused by the guns they possess.  The insurance market would determine the size of insurance premiums, but logically, the more dangerous the gun, the higher the premium.  Victims of gun violence or their survivors would at least receive some compensation for being shot at. 

A gun like mine is not going to provide much protection for anyone using it for self-defense and won't be of much use in resisting a government takeover.  On the other hand, you can get off 50 shots pretty quickly, and I don't think it would cost very much to insure.  So instead of buying an AR-15 or AK-47, consider getting a gun like mine.