Monday, December 17, 2012


Nancy Lanza
The United States of America was not built on cozy tea time chats with British troops. The principle of gun ownership and the citizen’s right to bear arms is not outdated. Nor is the concept of forming opinions on such things based on fact, not emotion.

No one knows the events that led to this week’s tragic Connecticut shootings. No one knows what transpired in the home Nancy Lanza shared with her son, Adam. Only the police might know whether Adam was able to arm himself by breaking into a gun safe or cabinet. Or whether he might have found a gun she kept for self defense and used it to blow out the lock on a cabinet. Or did he have free access? Did his mother have reason to believe he shouldn’t? In light of myriad reports, second-hand accounts, innuendos and undisciplined discussions about Nancy, lambasting her because she owned more than one firearm – which was strictly her business - consider this:

Try to imagine your own life painted in the words of critics. If you have an upscale collection of kitchen knives that you keep sharpened and in a wooden block for easy access, you are “slice happy”. If you own a gun and responsibly stay in practice by going to the range once a month, you are ominously “honing your sniper skills”. If you do this with more than one legal weapon, you are “obsessed with guns, proficient with multiple firearms”. If you keep food, water, batteries, medicine and blankets in the basement, you are “a closet survivalist, stockpiling supplies”. If you have all those things in the basement along with extra rounds of ammunition, you are “prepared for Armageddon” (as in “Armageddon outta here, but you first!”).

Shame on you.
Can I have your number?


  1. Now, Lynne, the significant other won't like hearing you're soliciting phone numbers!

    P.S. It's great to hear from you again!

    Cheers . . . Me

  2. Have a Merry Christmas, Lynne!! :-)

    Cheers . . . Scourge

  3. I couldn't have said it better myself, Lynne.