True Story

Once upon a time, in America, there was a person who wanted something very badly. This person held solid conservative values. She believed in hard work. She believed in family. She believed in the church and service to her community.

But this thing this person wanted, it turns out, wasn’t so easy to get. Everyone in her community agreed she should have it; it was the perfect fit for her sensibility.

She discovered, when she tried to get this thing, that she had to have a criminal history background check. After that, a child abuse background check. Then, once she cleared those, she needed to be finger printed and those fingerprints registered with the FBI.

So what was this thing that required such a thorough investigation of her background, her character and the assurance of future identification just in case?

Was it purchasing a gun?

Oh, this is America, people. Of course not.

This person wanted to work in the Children’s Section of her local library.

finger printing

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “True Story

  1. Imagine how a man feels. Our local library, like many others, has a sign that says “No unaccompanied males allowed” in the children section.
    So as a grandfather I can’t walk in to check out books for my grandkids to read at home.

    I think this is one of the many signs of a greatly out of control, way too intrusive government.

    Bob S.

  2. Wow, I didn’t know that, and that is very sad (perhaps you could be fingerprinted,etc? :). But these laws are on the local level, not federal (I think.) It saddens me that we put bandaids on child safety, even as we allow them to be massacred.

  3. Deb Paulson,

    Wow, I didn’t know that, and that is very sad (perhaps you could be fingerprinted,etc?

    I have been fingerprinted, and a background check conducted. I have passed every qualification to carry a concealed firearm in the state of Texas.

    It saddens me that we put bandaids on child safety, even as we allow them to be massacred.

    Frankly in my opinion, issues like this — trying to bubble wrap our children — has lead to greater instances of massacres, not fewer. We stop decent people like you and I from doing what is right through layers of red tape and hassle while the criminals walk right by the ‘gun free zone’ signs.
    Most of the massacres have taken place where decent people are prohibited by law, by regulation by employment rules from fighting back. Let’s stop giving the murderers free reign.

    Bob S.

  4. Deb – the ‘merica we live in is not the same place that we grew up in (with few exceptions). You will make a fine librarian.

  5. I’ve run into this same garbage trying to volunteer with scouts. At some point it’s just not worth the hassle.

  6. Well, I hope you don’t give up if it’s something you really want to do. And I’ve no quibble with trying to keep children safe from adults with bad intentions, it’s just that it’s a lot in one sector and a little in another.

  7. Bob S., You raise interesting points that are well thought out, but we do come from opposite ends on this. I don’t believe escalating the capacity for violence is the answer. From my point of view, if I felt I needed to carry a gun, it would mean that a basic capacity for trust would have been destroyed inside of me, and that would make the quality of my life very much diminished. I used to sail in drug pirate waters and everyone said that I should have a gun. Couldn’t do it. I can’t separate myself that much from the rest of humanity where I would be willing to kill them.

  8. I’m very happy to hear you are a responsible gun owner. And it must be frustrating for those like you who have to put up with the polarizing caused by irresponsible gun owners.

  9. Deb Paulson,

    I understand we come from different perspectives on this issue. I appreciate the calm and thoughtful replies.

    I don’t believe escalating the capacity for violence is the answer.
    I don’t see it as ‘escalating the capacity for violence’. Please understand I’m not trying to be offensive, just stating the obvious. I’m a husband and a father. I do not see my wife or my daughter, how ever capable otherwise, being equal to the average male in physical strength. In order to ‘escalate the potential for violence’ — they would have to be equal in violence capability to begin with.

    Same with most unarmed adults versus armed adults. We aren’t escalating anything – just making the playing field equal. If you haven’t researched mass shooting events, for example, I recommend you do so. That would be a major concern regarding children, right? So what happens when an armed murderer starts a spree? He normally continues until he encounters armed opposition — equal capacity for violence, not escalated. At the time equal opposition is encountered, he either suicides or is stopped by the armed opposition.

    The same goes for ‘ordinary’ violent crime; rape, robbery, etc. I wish I could claim to be John Rambo or Superman but the truth is I’m 51 years old and was never the best fighter around. I don’t think I could fend off a younger and definitely can’t defeat multiple criminals hand to hand. I know, it’s hard to believe but most gun owners recognize this basic truth. And for women, the situation is even more unequal.

    From my point of view, if I felt I needed to carry a gun, it would mean that a basic capacity for trust would have been destroyed inside of me,

    I respect that point of view. I really do. I held it for many years also. But I started researching the issue and found out I was naive. We already can’t trust some people in society. Now I firmly believe we can trust most people, history and statistics prove this is true. But we already show we don’t trust so many folks it is crazy; ‘stranger danger’, ‘defensive driving’, ‘don’t take candy from strangers’, ‘un-inusured motorist insurance’. How is recognizing the level of violence that some people can sink to unrealistic?

    It is my 2nd most fervent prayer that I will never need to use my firearm on another living being. It is my most fervent prayer that I will be able to do what it takes to be there for my family; in some cases, that means using up to lethal force to be there for my family.

    I can’t separate myself that much from the rest of humanity where I would be willing to kill them.

    Haven’t they already separated themselves from humanity when they chose to deliberately hurt others through crime?
    My perspective radically shifted when I married 12 years ago. I gained a wife and 3 wonderful kids; in my opinion it isn’t enough to just provide for them financially (medical and life insurance) but shouldn’t I do what I can to actually be there for them day in and day out?
    I love them enough that I put my ability to be there with them over the life/health of a thug who tries to harm me. Is that unreasonable?

    Shouldn’t we have a responsibility to society to protect the innocents from the predators? If you haven’t read Rory Miller’s “Facing Violence, Preparing for the Unexpected” I highly recommend it. There are people out there who don’t see us has human; but as either walking resources to be exploited or things to be used for their pleasure. And some people get pleasure from some really sick ways. Those people have already separated themselves from society. Think of the lives that have been saved (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.wy58jErer) or that could have been prevented had someone with been there already armed.

    And it must be frustrating for those like you who have to put up with the polarizing caused by irresponsible gun owners.

    Again I want to thank you for the forum to respond, the temperate response and the willingness to consider (evident by your words) my thoughts. I know it is equally frustrating for people like you to deal with irresponsible gun control advocates.
    I think we both agree that we come from a different perspective and wish to convince the other of the benefits and ethics of our position. I definitely don’t want to force anyone to be armed if they don’t want to — and it seems you aren’t advocating disarmament. Nice to have a discussion about the middle.

    Bob S.

  10. Bob S. Thanks for your comment, which you know I had to approve in order for it to show up here. I do it so that people reading can see how a discussion CAN be had by two people with different positions and how moderation in both can lead to a civil discourse. I respect your articulate and thoughtful response and I appreciate that you respect mine.

  11. Wow, Debra. Looking at your “About” page for the first time, I see you are quite an accomplished artist, and in more category than one. I bow down to your impressiveness! I’m happy you read my post on Lassie and liked it so much. What was it about my meager post that made you click Like? Are you, too, a Lassie aficionado?

  12. Yes! I wanted a collie (Lassie) for the longest time when I was young. Have you read any books by Albert Payson Terhune? “Lad, a Dog” etc. All about smart collie dogs and I wouldn’t be surprised if Lassie was inspired by them. Thanks for writing about Lassie and for reading my blog–really appreciate it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s