So, according the Webb of Virginia, since criminals have guns, we have to arm the citizens. Having an armed police force, some of them with military-grade weaponry, isn't enough: now we want The People packing heat, too. That'll show 'em!
The thing is, I'm not entirely sure that the gun freaks are wrong about this. For every time that a maniac who legally got his hands on a gun kills someone, there might be -- might be -- a person who's successfully defended themselves with a weapon. You don't know, because the first kind gets publicity, the second kind doesn't. I don't like the idea of armed civilians, but I almost understand it.
But the idea tha that they should be allowed to legally carry a weapon secretly in my state because the laws in another state allow it - that, I don't get. That, I reject. As I do the weasel politicians who suck at the teat of the NRA and grovel at the feet of their deep pockets. I know that it's easier for me to carp from the sidelines than it is to be in the limelight -- one of the curses of Democrats is that we try to see the other guy's side, unlike Republicans, who frequently can't even conceive of another side -- but that doesn't make it right, or defensible. Hidden weapons? No, thanks. And no, thanks to the senators who supported the concept.
Including you, Casey.
62 comments:
Guns are used for a variety of reason, sport, self protection, varmint control, food gathering to name a few. Your opinion seems to indicate that anything which can and does kill should be removed from society. What about pocket knives, cars, baseball bats to get started, should be ban them also? If sportsman don't have guns to hunt how will we control the growing deer population? What about the $$$ in licenses and taxes sportsman pay that support our wildlife conservation programs? I live in a rural area where a home invasion might take the police 15-30 minutes to respond if they even know about since I have no neighbors. Law enforcement works very hard and do a great job but they can't be everywhere all the time. We must be able to take care of our selves till they get there which most of the time is after the event has played out. I agree that just handing a gun to someone and telling the to put it on the belt and protect them selves without any training is not a good idea so people should be responsible enough to get training, practice then get more training often to keep their skills sharp. I do this myself quite often and don't feel I should sacrifice my life and belongings because someone didn't get some training. Guns are a fact of life now and no matter of law and the confiscation can get them out of the hands of criminals so we need to get on with life and allow the people to defend their selves and to continue the many peaceful uses for firearms. On a side note about "Black" weapons "Military" weapons what ever you want to call them. Did you realize that most all of our weapons that people own either have roots in these types of weapons or are civilian versions of them. The rifles I grew up hunting deer with where both WWII era 03A3 30-06 Rifles, one was customized and looked nothing like a military gun and the other is 100% original. They both are great hunting guns. I have a tactical shotgun and some tactical type rifles which I use for varmint control and if I was still into hunting I could easily use them for that. A varmint at a 100 yards is not much of a challenge for me if I have a good place to rest the rifle. I also enjoy long range pistol shooting with a service type Glock pistol. This is my sport like many play basketball or football or whatever sport they enjoy. How many kids are killed playing football every year, maybe we should ban them from playing it? My goal is not flame or yell and scream or shout 4 letter words but to education and have a productive exchange of ideas. If you would like to know more about my views or discuss this further check out my web site at http://www.shootthebull.tv
Respectively, M. Jantz
No, dammit, I do NOT think that. I used to, I admit it, but over time, I've come to the conclusion that there is a legitimate reason for having personal weapons. I don't like it, but I understand it
What I don't like is when people who like guns demand that I acknowledge their right to gun ownership, but they won't acknowledge my right to safety. Its as if they said well, you know you can drive a car without a license, so the way to protect yourself against getting hit by an unlicensed driver is to let everyone drive, no license needed. That makes no sense to me.
Fulminating gun freaks drive me right up the wall. Responsible gun owners do not.
This world is full of all types of people and it's impossible to regulate the idiots from the down right criminals. This applies to not only guns but to many items we posses and use on a regular basis. I agree I'm not crazy about the idiot, fanatics out there but we can't penalize the law abiding normal people because of a few idiots and criminals. It's a dangerous world out there with or without guns, the genie is out of the bottle and we can't put him back. Law abiding, well trained citizens must be able to protect them selves and guns provide a excellent way of doing this from a safe distance. The anti-gun groups/people are not just targeting CCW they will not rest till not a single law abiding citizen of this country has a gun which will mean the criminals have free reign and can assault us without fear of a substantial defense.
You could go further than that, and point out the legally licensed people who've done evil things with guns. As I say, I don't like that people want handguns, but I understand it. Wishing won't make the world different.
I am sure that there are people (I hope you are not one) who will say 'Well, Bill, since you agree that handguns are okay, then you must agree that long guns and fast-firing/high capacity guns are okay, too'. I don't. The long guns, for hunters, yes. AK47s, machine pistols? No way.
CCW, I just don't get. I can allow that there might be times when its a good idea, but as a rule of thumb, I just don't see it.
I think that the NRA is 95% reasonable people who like and/or use guns. Its the fanatics that scare me. And the politicians in their pocket. I think it ironic that some of them can support looser handgun controls, but they have a private police force where they work, just to keep those guns out. I don't have that option.
You are correct, hand guns are not going away, they are a very useful tool and a fun sporting item. Have you ever spent time at a firing range with any type of handgun, Semi-Auto Rifle such as the AK-47, AR-15, or even a Ruger 10/22? Besides useful they are just darn fun! I can spend hours at the range shooting these up to 300 yards with the exception of the AK-47 which is pretty much just a close range weapon. They make great hunting, varmint control and sporting rifles. Like I said previously, most all firearms ever developed and used by civilians where either surplus military or adapted from a military design. The bolt action rifle has it's history in the Mauser 98, Springfield 1903 both of which of been used for game hunting by many sportsman for decades now, I myself included. My wife and I will be deer hunting in the fall with a AR-10 .308/7.62x51 NATO which is a incredibly accurate rifle probably out to 500 or even 1000 yards. I know it's much more accurate than I am. Now for Class III weapons such as Fully Automatic Assault Rifles, Machine Guns, Short Guns and others that fall into the category. Yes they don't' really have any use for hunting or civilian personal protection unless society collapses and every person is fighting for their very survival. Why would I want one or why should anyone be able to own them? They are just FUN!!!!! I'll bet you and everyone else owns something that has no real use but it's just fun and that is the category these fall into. If the truth was known I'd bet you that there is a extraordinarily small number of these that ever get used for illegal actions. They are very expensive and I'm sure kept in a highly secure area by those that can afford them.
If you don't want to carry a weapon by all means please don't. We live in the United States of America and you have the undeclared right to not protect your self so if you choose to exercise it that's OK. I on the other hand the the right to keep and bare arms and the right to carry a concealed weapon for my own protection and I choose to exercise it. I will also use my weapon to protect myself and others around me including you if we are in the same general area when a criminal decides to start assaulting law abiding citizens.
By no means am I subject to the delusion that the NRA or any other large organization of this size is perfect but in order to protect my 2nd Amendment Rights a large organization with a large budget is required to get the attention of our government in Washington and in each state's capital. I also am angered by the politicians who have a armed security detail making the decision that I don't need a firearm to protect myself if they are not going to provide me with the same armed security as they enjoy. Either provide for my protection or let me have the ability to legally protect my self.
Because we are citizens of the United States of America I am guaranteed certain rights by the Constitution and it Amendments, some of those amendments also known as the bill of rights are given by God himself and no country as the authority to take them from. This discussion is a great example of the 1st Amendment and I thank God that we can debate the issues without fear from the Government but if we don't exercise our God Given Rights they may be restricted and removed if we allow them to.
May I post a transcript of our debate on my blog with a link to yours? I think my readers would be very interested
Thanks!
I agree about the security detail. There's an interesting (and quite old) political novel called The Wanting of Levine wherein one of the characters urges a presidential candidate to be more careful, don't do what the Secret Service doesn't want him to do. He replies that a study of presidential assassins shows that they're drawn to the circumstances of power, not power itself. Surrounding yourself with armed people makes it more likely that they'll try to break through to you. But, the aide protests, if you don't have that security, if they do try, they're much more likely to succeed. The candidate shrugs. Can't win them all, he says.
I didn't agree with the Supreme Court decision regarding the second amendment (I'm sure that's a surprise to you), as I feel the second amendment's intended to say that since a militia was important, you shouldn't try to keep one from forming by taking people's guns. I don't think we need militas any more, but I know that others disagree. Some vehemently. Some, with guns. Think how safe that makes me feel. I suppose some would say 'well, since there are crazies with guns, you need your own to protect yourself'. And here I thought that's what the police were for.
I do wish that fierce gun advocates could see the other side of the argument. I never get the impression that any do. Any agreement to any reason to restrict gun ownership or use is taken by them as total and complete surrender. That attitude is what fuels the opposing attitudes. Not to say that there aren't freaks on my side, too.
Link? Well, the idea makes me queasy -- I don't want to encourage people who are more interested in flaming me than understanding -- but if you want to, go ahead.
It all boils down to you do what you have to so that you are as secure as you can be and then leave the ultimate ending up the God. I have always been of the belief that when you time comes there is nothing you can do to stop it but that doesn't mean we are to sit back and do nothing.
Armed Militias made up of civilians under most circumstances are not required but if we are not prepared non will exist when they are needed. Had the Japanese or the Germans invaded during WWII they would of found a largely armed civilization which would of been costly to defeat. Nazi Germany disarmed it's citizens to prevent them from opposing them and as unlikely as it "may" be in the US it could happen here. If we are unarmed and unprepared then we will loose our freedoms which have been fought for by many brave young Americans who have paid the ultimate price for freedom with their lives. To sit back and allow our country to become soft and unable to defend our selves would be a disgrace to their memory and sacrifice.
The police are here to protect us but have no legal requirement to do so. There have been many court cases where people have requested help from the Police which was not received for a variety of reasons and each one has been dismissed. The police can not be everywhere all the time and mostly arrive after the assault to investigate what has already taken place. Your security is ultimately up to YOU and no one else.
I just finished a book on the history of our Constitution and one of the concerns of those that wrote it was the fact that if once a right is not expressly given or reserved it is in danger. The old saying "Give him/her a inch and he/her will take a mile" is true of the nature of man. If we agree to say no firearms that have trigger pulls less than 3.5 lbs then that opens up the possibility of amendments that might further restrict the firearms we can posses. This can go the other way to, OK we will allow you to restrict conceal carry to a certain type of gun now then in 2 years to 2 types then in 2 years 4 types and so on so it pretty much is a all or nothing type of battle.
Yes, no matter what issue there is there will always be extremest on both sides, it is inevitable so we deal with them and get on with life.
I've not a problem yet with people who read my blog they generally are cool headed and willing to debate civilly as we are. If you would like no link to your blog I would be glad to publish with out but debate is good and with the good comes the bad we just deal with it.
I tend not to be a confrontational person, as I don't enjoy them. Others do, I suppose.
I find it hard to believe that the police don't have a legal responsibility to protect us. I'm sure that there are times when they aren't required to do something that people think they ought to do, though. I've never been a cop, but my feeling is that they have a tough job. Little events like having the President weigh in with his opinion of your actions likely doesn't help.
I'm dismayed by your example of the trigger pull. It sounds much like the NRA's beloved 'slippery slope' argument. If gun control becomes an all or nothing argument, I know which side they'd be on, and it's not mine. I don't think it has to be all or nothing, but I strongly suspect they do.
In answer to your earlier question, I've only fired one handgun -- a 38 that we had as part of the uniform when I was in the Air Force. I did enjoy it. I'd do that sort of thing again, I think, if I could be sure I wasn't supporting the NRA by so doing.
I agree with on the confrontational part, I'm about as anti-confrontation as they get until I get on certain subject that I'm passionate about such as Guns, Politics and Faith/Religion which is why I start the http://www.shootthebull.tv blog. It actually was supposed to be a podcast and may some day be but for now I'm sticking with the written part.
As for the Government AKA Law Enforcement's requirement to protect citizens check out the Wikipedia page for Warren v. District of Columbia http://bit.ly/wHNVu where three rape victims sued because police lost track of the calls for help and didn't respond in a timely manner. There case was lost and the court ruled that the police of no legal responsibility to provide personal protection. There are lots of other cases with the same outcome.
The "Slippery Slope" argument is nothing new as our founding fathers where very worried about this type of issue in government and almost didn't ratify the Constitution because of it. As a side note many of their worries while debating the Constitution are now coming to fruition proving their concerns.
As you said firearms can be entertaining but like many things invented by man they can be used for evil but we can't ban and confiscate everything that has a evil use. If you ever are in NW Oklahoma area you have a open invitation to a few hours at the range with some scary guns to see how you feel after you've had a chance to shoot them. Kinda like your vegetables, nobody said you have to like them just have to try them once before you decide one way or the other. I'm pretty sure pulling the trigger on a firearm is not a show of support for the NRA however the more you do it the more you may find yourself changing sides and writing that check to join.
A check? to the NRA? I can't see that ever happening. They'd have to agree that there's a difference between having sport rifles in Montana and Uzis in Philadelphia, for starters.
Not to worry. That slippery slope has plenty of bought-and-paid-for politicians to keep the NRA from sliding too far.
R. Frazier (From www.shootthebull.tv)
Some good points made by you in that debate. I just don't understand his and other's fear of the 'extremists' arming themselves. I'm more fearful of the criminals who create victims by the hundreds daily. If it is up to police to protect us all, we need to increase our forces by thousands-fold as well as enforcing tougher laws including capital punishment. I'm not sure many liberals would opt for this. I say we let strong CCW opponents live in crime-ridden areas for a while and see if their opinions change. Either way, don't take away my rights just because of your phobias.
I would love to have a Uzi, I could terrorize the local skunks like never before!
Thanks for the spirited debate, I've enjoyed it. If you come up with any other thoughts let me know would love to continue the conversation.
Oh, I'd love an Uzi too. I'd just hurt myself, though (g).
As for the other's comments --
1) I thought CCW meant Concealed Carry Weapon. Not so?
2) Fear of extremists arming themselves? Well, yeah, but thats not why I'm for gun control. I want it to keep it from the hands of people who ought not to have them (and yes, I know 'But they'll just go elsewhere!' Hey, you have to start somewhere). I reconize (don't like, but recognize) the idea that people want to be armed to protect themselves because they don't think the cops can do it all. Well, okay. But when they say that it ought to be okay to own an Uzi in Philadelpia (or wherever), no controls, no nothing -- sorry, no. Can't buy that. Its the refusal of organizations like the NRA to accept that concept that keep me against them and all that they want (even though I suspect that I'd support most of what they do.)
As for the conversation -- I think its desperately necessary. Though there are some areas where we will never agree, I think that there are many where we would. WHen my daughter was younger and going on play dates, we'd always ask if there were weapons in the house. If they said yes, we asked if they were locked up. People always seemed surprised that we'd accept their word on that.
Hey, not all gun control advocates are gun grabbers, you know!
Oh, and capital punishment? Not out of the question, at all.
Too bad your correspondent didn't like anything I said, though.
Yes, CCW does mean Concealed Carry Weapon.
Like I've said many times the "Gun Genie" is out of the bottle and can't be put back in so with that said I, personally want to have a firearm with me all the time and everywhere I go which isn't possible because some places don't allow them by law or by choice. Go's back to living in the United States of America, they have the choice to prevent me from carrying in their business and I have the choice to not patronize their business. An Uzi is a scary black gun and about the only purpose for owning one fun and part of a collection unless like I previously mentioned society as we know comes to an end and we have to fight our way out. Personally I'm picking a weapon with a bit more firepower than a 9mm, it's fun to shoot for practice but it might just piss off the bad guy. I think as you mentioned we've come to the point where inherent beliefs take over, just as you would never convince me that my God isn't real and my that my guns are bad, I probably won't convince that my guns are all good, necessary and should not be restricted. All gun control advocates might not be "Gun Grabbers" but the most dangerous are and they reside in Washington DC so I cannot take the chance that they will take that proverbial "Mile" if we give them the "Inch". The price for me and the members of the NRA and like organizations being right and us not doing anything to stop them is to high so I must oppose any and all gun control.
Believe it or not I'm not real big on Capital Punishment. But that's a whole other subject and I won't get started on it.
Except that I'm not trying to convince you that your guns are bad. I hope you believe that.
Interesting arguement. Glad I am on the outside looking in! I can see both sides of it.
In my poly sci course, they claimed that the "militia" referred to in your constitution was in fact and in effect, a local police force. Since in 1776, they didn't HAVE any police forces, only military and locally raised regiments called militias. I admit it makes a sort of sense to rephrase it to read "and the right of a town to arm a duly authorized police force shall not be infringed".
I also note that it says nothing about arming the populace, or about concealed weapons. I guess a competent democracy can make their own ordinaces as the requirement arises. And last I checked, regardless of some quite valid questions which have come up lately, the US in general HAS a competent democracy. It is the envy of the world. (The fact that there ARE questions proofs the pudding)
And gosh knows there is plenty of statistics and experience to determine if arming an entire population is more or less dangerous than not doing so. But then, we have lies, damned lies and statistics dont we?
Personally, I don't care what the law says...I would rather be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6. On the other hand, MY guns are sealed up inside walls that I will have to smash out to get at them if needed. Well out of reach of any opportunistic burgular or trespassing neighbourhood kids, or for that matter, jackbooted invaders.
I think that if the gun lobby would just be willing to admit that Uzis aren't the same as sporting rifles, it'd be a great start. Of course, they won't. They'd say 'well, those kids at Columbine didn't use Uzis, they used regular handguns, so whats the point?'
Death doesn't faze them.
I think it still goes back to the proverbial "Gun Genie". Uzi, or S&W 686 or even a muzzle loading black powder gun, it doesn't matter what you do the criminals will use what ever they get their hands on so banning a specific gun is to an extend pointless. I understand you can put much more lead downrange with a full auto than with a muzzle loader but it only takes one projectile finding it's spot. Remember Goliath, that was just a rock from a sling shot that a boy used.
My purpose for www.shoothebull.tv and these exchanges is not as much to change your mind just to put forth why I believe what I do and If someone happens to change their mind because of it that's great. I love to share my sport, my faith and my politics with friends. If they don't agree that's ok as long as they don't try to prevent me from enjoying and practicing them.
I don't know if we will ever be able to settle the debate of whether the militia in the 2nd Amendment is the Army, civilian police or armed citizens. It seems many very well educated people have very good arguments in each direction. I look at it as a individual right because of the history of the era when it was written. I think they knew that the armed citizen is what allowed the US to win it's independence from England. We didn't have much of a army at the time so the people had to take up arms. The Government must live in fear of it's people not the other way around. When the Government no longer fears it's people it will start eroding the rights of the people away until we no longer have a free country.
I am in no way advocating a civil war but in a worst case scenario where a tyrannical government has taken control the people must have the ability to remove it and install a government of their choice. We've done it once before and can do it again if need be.
I'm sorry I missed this, Bill.
That misplaced comma in the 2nd Amendment sure created a problem!
A point or two, if I may?
"God" did not hand down the Bill of Rights - the States insisted on them before they would ratify The Constitution. The old argument about God handing down The Constitution is a bit of a fallacy run amuck. Check Reid Amar's biography of the document if there's any doubt.
It's a secular document, written at a time when being an atheist was punishable by death. Of course it's going to retain some references to a deity - but that doesn't make it a religious tract.
The English/British have a right to bear arms - it's in a bill dating back to 1689.
The problem just before the Revolution was a local governor deciding to remove the right of citizens to bear arms. (I can't remember if it was the Massachusetts gov, or the New York one, sorry.) This, effectively, meant starvation for many. It was done to prevent the populace shooting at the British soldiers. It didn't work.
I have yet to see a definitive, non-NRA funded, study showing that guns in the hands of barely trained civilians prevents or deters crime or otherwise keeps people safe. On the other hand, there hardly seems to be a month going by without some poor sap being shot by a mishandled legal weapon. The empirical evidence seems to suggest that guns and people don't mix that well.
The police do have a legal obligation to protect the population. Whether they can realize it in a manner that people want is a different question, and not one that's been answered. Or asked.
Nor do I see much effort at helping people cope with the adrenalin rush. Violence is not something most people experience on a regular basis. NRA fear-mongering notwithstanding. (If we went by the NRA's perception of gun-laden crime, we'd be fined for not wearing holsters, like cowboys in the wild west! We'd also be living a world that makes the death toll of Law & Order - all of the shows - look benign!) People who are not used to the confusion and fear of violence are expected to use guns to defend themselves? How?
The NRA wants it both ways: they seem to think we're in the middle of an out of control crime spree, and that reasonable people would be perfectly happy shooting to kill. (To wound? Since when does a professional shooter shoot to wound? It's too hard, except for maybe a few Olympic-level shooters.) An out of control populace, and a reasonable one - all in one? I'm not sure about that.
As far as the football analogy, I suspect many more children die from gunshots than from football practice.
And one point of irony: the NRA, usually being strong advocates of States' Rights, are perfectly happy to usurp the rights of States to legislate firearms. Isn't that just a little contradictory?
Finally, a personal note: I, too, live in a rural area. We see a lot of hunters around here - so much so, I have "No Hunting" signs all around my property. What I don't understand is why I always see evidence of hunters, long after they've gone home. Beer and soda cans (beer cans significantly outnumbering the soda cans) infest the area they parked their trucks. It seems hunters are so concerned about wildlife conservation, they have little to no energy, or interest, for environmental conservation.
We also have a few idiots who are perfectly happy shooting into the air, ala Baghdad, when they want to celebrate - at 1AM in the morning. Tell me - what is the defense against that?
I'm not interested in taking people's guns from them - unless they're criminals. I do question why someone should own a high-powered rifle that's only purpose is hunting and kill men, though.
Carolyn Ann
Because guns iz guns, according to the NRA.
I do despair of being able to come to an accomodation with these folks. I feel my blood pressure rise just a bit when I remember Charlton Heston on the stage at an NRA convention, waving a flintlock and saying that they would be victorious 'because we've got the guns!' That sums up the hardcore NRA, to me, and I despise it. I don't scorn most NRA members, but I think that even to the moderates among them, its a 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mindset. They see any limitation as an invitation to Armageddon. Individually, they'd likely admit that controls on who can get a gun, and what kind, make sense, but organizationally? Never happen. Though I do wonder on occasion what they'd say if someone shot up the NRA headquarters.
I hope I do this right but my replies should be in bold:
I'm sorry I missed this, Bill.
That misplaced comma in the 2nd Amendment sure created a problem!
What misplaced "," if it isn't there it isn't there.
A point or two, if I may?
"God" did not hand down the Bill of Rights - the States insisted on them before they would ratify The Constitution. The old argument about God handing down The Constitution is a bit of a fallacy run amuck. Check Reid Amar's biography of the document if there's any doubt.
The states did demand the "Bill of Rights" because if a right isn't specified, you don't have it. They where fearful of a tyrannical government run amok with power.
It's a secular document, written at a time when being an atheist was punishable by death. Of course it's going to retain some references to a deity - but that doesn't make it a religious tract.
Many of the men who where instrumental in the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where Christian and intended this "Secular" document to reflect their Christian values. At the same time it did not restrict your religion to any one in particular. Society may have looked down upon those whom where not Christian at the time but this document did not. God is all about free will and desires a intimate relationship with us but it is of no value to him if we don't come freely and of our own will.
The English/British have a right to bear arms - it's in a bill dating back to 1689.
Our government did take many aspects from the British government, we learned from their mistakes. At the time they did have the right to "bear arms" which they have given up and are not regretting this action.
The problem just before the Revolution was a local governor deciding to remove the right of citizens to bear arms. (I can't remember if it was the Massachusetts gov, or the New York one, sorry.) This, effectively, meant starvation for many. It was done to prevent the populace shooting at the British soldiers. It didn't work.
I'm not aware of the specific case but good example of how disarming the people doesn't work.
Continued
I have yet to see a definitive, non-NRA funded, study showing that guns in the hands of barely trained civilians prevents or deters crime or otherwise keeps people safe. On the other hand, there hardly seems to be a month going by without some poor sap being shot by a mishandled legal weapon. The empirical evidence seems to suggest that guns and people don't mix that well.
You do have one point here, "barely trained", each person arming him/her self should take it upon them selves to further their training and practice to keep those skills fresh. With that said put yourself in the place of being confounted with a attacker in your own home who as the intention of assaulting and killing you and anyone else in the house. Say you can get to the phone and call 911 and the Police respond in say 5 minutes. What do you think the attacker can accomplish in that if you are not armed vs. if you are armed. Sometimes the very possession of a weapon can deter the attacker and no shots are required other times even if you are "untrained" if someone is firing a gun at you (the attacker) your going to run. Make this personal, I don't care about society in general, this is YOU, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR HOME, what are you going to do. Tell them to wait a few minutes till the Police get there? The attacker could of done what they came to do and fled or even got caught by the police but your have been hurt or killed already. All the police get to do is investigate many times or at least minimize the attack but not stop it before it done.
The police do have a legal obligation to protect the population. Whether they can realize it in a manner that people want is a different question, and not one that's been answered. Or asked.
What law says the police have a legal obligation to protect us? There have been MANY cases where the police have been challenged because they did not protect someone and each time the police win. Please show me what law requires them to protect you!
Continued
Nor do I see much effort at helping people cope with the adrenalin rush. Violence is not something most people experience on a regular basis. NRA fear-mongering notwithstanding. (If we went by the NRA's perception of gun-laden crime, we'd be fined for not wearing holsters, like cowboys in the wild west! We'd also be living a world that makes the death toll of Law & Order - all of the shows - look benign!) People who are not used to the confusion and fear of violence are expected to use guns to defend themselves? How?
I just don't believe this is true. The NRA, although not perfect, is trying to protect our right to "Keep and Bear Arms". If you choose not to exercise this right that ok, it doesn't say you MUST keep and bear arms. I choose to exercise my right, but I have friends that don't. God Bless America!
The NRA wants it both ways: they seem to think we're in the middle of an out of control crime spree, and that reasonable people would be perfectly happy shooting to kill. (To wound? Since when does a professional shooter shoot to wound? It's too hard, except for maybe a few Olympic-level shooters.) An out of control populace, and a reasonable one - all in one? I'm not sure about that.
I've also never heard this. Anytime the use of a firearm aka deadly force is used you must assume that the person which is attacking you will be killed and if you can't justify the use of deadly force then you shouldn't be using the gun in that situation. The object when using a weapon of any type is to stop the attack, not specifically to kill the attacker. The effect of a armed society is that a attacker must consider that the person he/she is assaulting may posses a weapon which acts as a deturant in their decision making. Not that it will prevent all crime or that everyone who uses a weapon will use it successfully but it does improve their chances. Some attackers may go in with no regard to their own lives or that of those they are attacking due to drugs or other motivations.
As far as the football analogy, I suspect many more children die from gunshots than from football practice.
This will take some time, I'll get back with you when I have more information.
Continued
And one point of irony: the NRA, usually being strong advocates of States' Rights, are perfectly happy to usurp the rights of States to legislate firearms. Isn't that just a little contradictory?
Can you give me an example of what you are talking about, I'm not sure I'm clear to what you are saying.
Finally, a personal note: I, too, live in a rural area. We see a lot of hunters around here - so much so, I have "No Hunting" signs all around my property. What I don't understand is why I always see evidence of hunters, long after they've gone home. Beer and soda cans (beer cans significantly outnumbering the soda cans) infest the area they parked their trucks. It seems hunters are so concerned about wildlife conservation, they have little to no energy, or interest, for environmental conservation.
I agree, there are many "Bad Apples" in the bunch but can't judge them all by this small group. There is a majority of them that are very concerned about the management of our wildlife and the the lands that they live on. The NRA and other organizations are supporting legislation to prosecute these people and remove them from the sport.
We also have a few idiots who are perfectly happy shooting into the air, ala Baghdad, when they want to celebrate - at 1AM in the morning. Tell me - what is the defense against that?
Your are talking about "Criminal" activity, not the actions of "Law Abiding" citizens/gun owners. They should also be prosecuted for their crimes and removed from the sport/right of ownership.
I'm not interested in taking people's guns from them - unless they're criminals. I do question why someone should own a high-powered rifle that's only purpose is hunting and kill men, though.
Didn't you just answer your own question, "Hunting". Many are also used in competitions and just for fun. There is a gowning popularity of long range shooting with 50 BMG which has always been a military only round. Now most gun stores stock these huge guns which only purpose is for competition in the Long Range events or a competition with one's self just for the coolness of knowing you just hit a 24" target at 1000 yards. Sounds like great fun to me but I can't afford the 8,000 to 10,000 price tag for the gun then $5.00 and up per shoot. I don't thing some gang banger or druggie is going to get one of these to rob you. Not to mention weigh I'm guessing around 20lbs depending on the gun. A little hard to stick in your coat.
Carolyn Ann
Actually the British have always had the right to bear arms as individual civilian citizens, however the right to create a militia was, and still is carefully controlled under British Common Law. (Most of Canada has inherited this body of legislation, for better or worse.) The reason being, of course that there was no regular army, only regiments which were often privately funded and raised, and sometimes ended up being the staging ground for a political coup. Lots of examples of that in English history, and South America in particular is endemic with examples of just that.
But then, I am hardly a constitutional lawyer, though as a cross border purveyor of weapons, I do have to have a nodding familiarity of the law as it stands in both the US and Canada. And I was peripherally involved in the creation of the "gun control" legislation in Canada. The key word here is "control", that is, controlling your firearm with proper trigger locks and gun safes, taking responsiblility for its use and misuse and the widespread "hunter-safety" courses which are a pre-requisite to obtain an aquisition certificate.
Not perfect, but the legislation seems to work all right, mostly keeping little Johnny from bringing his dad's guns to school, and it has kept MY guns from being stolen on two separate occassions. I don't see a slippery slope involved in compulsory training and lock up security.
Just my stir of the pot....
(and I will say it again...the US democratic system is the envy of the world. Enough people want to stick a comma into an amendment, then you can vote on it. But a lot of special interests will be upset with you either way.)
I took the time to read this blog in it's entirety yesterday and I found it interesting. I would like to state I am a gun owner, hunter, and sportsman. Fastunit64 brings up many good points and so do many of the gun control advocates. Some issues I would like to address, the militia at the time of the Revolutionary war they where farmers with rifles far superior to the British weapons and the Continental army. The volunteers that came to the rescue of the continental army, we have since classified as a militia but the vast majority where farmers everyday citizen, some with and some without tactical knowledge of battle but all knowing how to fight. These men where raised with guns, this is still true today many people in the United States of America are still raised with guns in the home. I was taught to shoot a rifle at very young age and in that education process you are taught to respect the firearm and its power, people that do not teach this are foolish even those of you who do not like guns should teach a respect for the firearm and what it can do.
I hope that addressed anyone who thinks the 2nd amendment only applies to the police. However if it does not here is a quote from one of our founding fathers "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson seems pretty clear to me, who he intended. Another Jefferson quote as far as why we need guns is "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." I will be more blunt than fastunit64 he is not talking about hunting rifles in this statement he is saying weapons to fight with. Remember the farmers firearms where superior to the armies and this was really a true statement up until the Civil War. Recently this has changed with the eroding of our right to access weapons.
I agree that the NRA isn't perfect but right now its the only voice that has enough power to effect the protection of my rights so I am forced to support it.
I personally do not believe that the constitution is the inspired word of God I don't think anyone every intended it to be. However the Document clearly states a protection of religious freedoms. The statement that atheist where killed for their beliefs I again fall back to a Jefferson quote "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." If your statement was true that quote would of got him killed but yet he was still elected President. I know I quote Jefferson to much but of our founding fathers he is the one that I feel connected to, probably his agricultural background. Many more things I would like to weigh in about but I am out of time for now. But what I would really like to know from the gun control side is how logistically you ever intend to register America's firearms. I personally one gun owner will not ever submit to the registering of my firearms. I believe in my right to bear arms to the point that I would defend it with what ever means necessary are you truly willing to split our country even further over a right guaranteed me by the 2nd amendment. I again ask, I have committed no crimes are you willing to pickup a firearm and take my life cause it is the only way you will ever get mine. I do not want to defend but I am willing are you.
Ok, Mr. Heston's waving a gun around may of been a little extreme but he made a point. There is a quote I seen last week on twitter, I'm not sure where it originated but it said that "Those that give up there guns will plow the fields of those that don't" I may of missed a word but it's correct for the meaning.
We must be careful, it's human nature to desire wealth and power and the more we get the more we want. If we allow the government to place restrictions on our rights even when they seem appropriate we allow them to be further restricted. Kinda like so many do with their credit cards, "It's only $10 a month payment" then another $10 and another and another..... Finally you are paying many hundreds of dollars a month or you have lost your right to keep and bear arms. Obviously criminals shouldn't possess firearms and they already are not supposed to posses a weapon. Isn't that enough of a restriction?
If someone ever would decide to "Shoot up the NRA Headquarters" I hope that's one hell of a gun fight with all the guns I would expect in there. Kinda doesn't' make sence if it's anti-gun people though does it?
Cerulean Bil; Shoot up the NRA head quarters you didn't really say that did you. I don't know how I missed that but understand the reason that won't happen is the same reason to let me keep my guns. The shooter would lose, we are not like you we don't wait to be victims. The criminals know that why do you think in rural America our crime rates are so low, Law enforcement can be miles away but most house holds still own guns. Criminals know we are not easy victims
Farmer -- you read the blog in its entirety? Good lord, that's thousands of posts! (g)
I agree, there are a lot of people who know how to use guns. In a conflict, should the uniformed, organized forces not be able to protect us, we'll be glad to have them. Or as they said in Red Dawn, Wolverines!
The idea of having weapons as a protection against tyranny seems outdated to me, but I know that there are people who believe thats a real possibility. I corresponded for a while with a woman who was a member of an organization called 'Second Amendment Sisters', trying to understand what it was about guns that so seized her attention, and the attention of people like her. From her, I got the message that she didn't completely trust the government, and didn't ever want to be in a position where she could not defend herself against them, should the need arise. She also was very, very strongly a believer that you 'do for yourself - don't wait for others to do for you'. A minor indicator of that was that she home-schooled her children because she did not want to rely on organized schools. To be honest, I started out thinking she was a bit of a crackpot, but over time I thought No, she's not -- but her views are very different from mine.
I've said more than once that its not so much that I hate the NRA as I hate the positions that it takes. I do not object to the personal ownership of guns. I wish people wouldn't, but I have come to understand it. What I hate is when it says that ownership of any type of gun ought to be legal. One shot derringers are the same as machine pistols and belt-fed weapons. I can't buy that. I know that the NRA is for gun safety, gun use training, sporting programs. All good things. But allowing private ownership of fully functional or modifiable automatic weapons? No way. Theres no legitimate reason for wanting that level of firepower. Unless, of course, you're a drug kingpin, or you're surrounded by rampaging zombies.
Am I willing to split the country over this? I doubt it would come to that. Ah, you say, but what if it did? Well, then, I suppose we'd find out if all the private militias could defeat the forces of law and order -- and in so attempting, you'd become my enemy. In defending the concept that unlimited, unrestricted, uncontrolled weapon ownership is a desirable thing, you'd be saying that you don't care what the side effects and after effects of that stance would be. You'd be willing to take the chance that I'll die because one evil person has access to that high capacity/high speed weapon. Or even just access to perfectly legal but unlocked weaponry. Gee, sorry, but hey, you know, Second Amendment!
Put it simply:
Gun ownership isn't wrong.
Irresponsible gun ownership is.
Farmer --
No, I didn't advocate shooting up the NRA headquarters. I wondered, though, if their opinion on the worth of unrestricted gun ownership would change if they paid the price in their own blood. My guess is, they'd say that proved more weaponry was needed.
I hope that never happens. Even on the NRA, which is willing to see me die for their beliefs, I wouldn't wish that.
People seem to be wanting more and more for the Government to take care of them, be the parent to their children, provide them food, clothing, shelter and health care. What happened to the values that the USA was founded on? Work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor. Take care of yourself, your family and when a friend is in need help him out. We have seen in the recent history of national disasters people going nuts, blaming the Government for not being their to take care of them. Store up some water, food, medications and other daily needs, be ready for when the grocery store isn't there. Take some responsibility for your self and your actions. Have we gotten so irresponsible that we can't even own a firearm, we are adults and should act accordingly. Full auto machine guns are legal, all you have to do is pass the same checks you would normally plus a little extra scrutiny and pay a $200 tax then you can have one legally. I've only shot a M60 with blanks as a kid but damn they are fun. I'd love to have one but you know as expensive as they are it's the ammo that would keep you from having fun. Even you (Cerulean) said you'd like to have a Uzi. Did you mean a semi-auto or the full auto for maximum fun. Ok, I agree not everyone needs a Howitzer but you know how much fun that would be. I wounder how much a shell for one of those costs?
BTW, I want to be there when the idiot shoots up the NRA to watch and see the look on his face when he realizes how stupid of a idea that was! I guess that would qualify for a Darwin award?
Darwin award? Heck, they'd rename the award in that guys honor.
I agree, the nanny state is growing. I am not sure why. I know that conservates like to say that it's because the liberals want it; they don't want any harm to ever come to anyone (whats that? you got wet in the rain? Sue the umbrella manufacturer!) Liberals (like me) like to say its because unrestricted corporate power has stomped on the little guy, and someone needs to rein in that corporate greed. Part, too, is that we don't know our neighbors, so we don't want to help them. I'll tell you a story about that. Years ago, when I was living in Dallas, I saw a woman with a flat tire in a mall parking lot. Tired of all the buzz about how friendly Dallas was (I sure didn't think so), I said Dammit, I'll show THEM. I stopped, changed her tire, and (I was practicing this line the whole time) when I was done, I said 'No problem. Consider that an act of NORTHERN hospitality." She said "Really? We're from Connecticut!" Arghh.... But now, we don't even do that. Certainly, not in the cities. Not even in the suburban, somewhat rural place I live now. Should we? Yeah... I think we should.
I know full auto is fun. Only fired one once (years ago, in the military), but I know its fun. I also know what access to that kind of weapon can do for your average criminal. You -- well, I don't know you, but I'll assume you'd keep it safe -- make sure some kid, some idiot, some criminal can't get his hands on it. Can you promise me that none of them ever will? I know, thats unfair, because you can't. So, just promise me that if they ever do, they won't hurt me, my family, my loved ones with it. Oh, that's too much, too? Darn.
I'll say this again. I am not opposed to private gun ownership. I'm opposed to giving people the chance to do massive harm with them. What's wrong with that?
Used to be be OK to stop and help a stranger but now days they might rob, kidnap or worse shoot you. For someone I know I got to great lengths to help them. For someone I don't it depends on the situation. Last year a motorist stopped to help someone and was killed just 30 minutes from here. If I don't feel I can safely help them I notify the police to get them help. We have to be smart about our security and ready to defend ourselves if we get in a bad situation.
As withing everything in life we have to take responsibility for our possessions, our actions and our security.
It sounds like we may agree on some of the finer points but not the big picture. I can't condone the restriction of my rights because there are a few idiots out there.
I do everything I consider reasonable to safeguard my weapons from the bad guys but there are never any guarantees in life which leads back to the reason I have guns.
"I can't condone the restriction of my rights because there are a few idiots out there."
If we disagree about the legitimacy of any restrictions, I guess we disagree, then. I'm sorry about that.
When the Great Liberal Jihad starts, I'll see if I can hide you under the tarp in the garage!
Cerulean Bill; I must clarify I read this thread I like your discussion.
You say there is no tyranny, have you seen the videos of the Gun confiscation after Katrina check this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4. To me the police are a branch of the Government and they did confiscate guns I only gave you one video but their are many more on youtube of this act. That is Tyranny is it not. Wikipedia' definition of Tyranny or Tyrant In modern usage, a tyrant carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls.
The part I would like you to look at is interests of a small oligarchy. I hope you agree after 911 it was kind of the Old West Scenario yet the Police confiscated guns from non criminals, honest citizens that had done nothing wrong and needed the weapons to protect themselves and their property. Now I ask in this situation the citizens where placed in did they not need a weapon, can you justify what the police did to the first Lady in the video she doesn't look very threatning to me. You chose to trust the police for your safety but they have no known obligation to do so. If you are attacked do they have a legal obligation to stop the attack. The answer is no they do not; you have no legal recourse against them if you suffer injury or loss. These people where placed in greater danger for what reason. These people where free Americans and the Government stepped over the line. Call me a Nut Job or a wacko as you referenced for the Lady in your post but this happened why should I trust them.
I also would like you to think back to the Bank Robbery in Calfornia a few years ago where two armed men exited the bank with automatic weapons and shot it out with the police. The police where out gunned and turned to a local Gun Store for weapons; The Gun store is owned by a Private Citizen and with out questions or 10 miles of red tape he handed them weapons and ammo. The guns the robbers had where illegally acquired yet they still had them. Did the law keep them from having them! nope. Yet a private citizen without questions saved their butts would they of provided him weapons without question if the situation was reversed. Why should I trust them and better yet why should I be forced to trust the governement for my protection. I am running out of time again and I know the two cases I gave you where the extreme but they are two cases that without question did occur in the first there is the confiscation of weapons and in the second the weapons you fear for people to own saved the day.
In summary do I trust the Police nope, do I trust the Government not hardly, there is legislation now to force registration of legally obtained fire arms and pay tax on each one. You stated that you do not believe it will come to a separation of our country. I again state I am a citizen of the United States in good standing, no criminal history yet you are willing to deny my 2nd ammendment rights and put me in a situation where I am forced to defend them. You stated you are willing to declare me an enemy. To me that is a great shame I have commited no crimes against you, yet you are willing to declare me an enemy. It is truly a shame our country has deteriated to this, maybe you are willing to trade freedom for safety I am not, maybe the day of men like me are finished but understand to me nothing is more important than fredom.
I'm not willing to declare you an enemy at the moment, FG. What I said was that if gun owners felt that their ownership of guns was more important to them than abiding by the rule of law, so that they fired up their own militias to fight against the organized forces, *then* you'd be my enemy.
At the moment, you're not. You're someone who wants guns more than I do, one that wants them more than I'm comfortable with. But you're not my enemy.
Yes, there are times when I don't trust the police, either. The thing is, I trust them more than I trust militias. The militia, I have no control over. I'm trusting to their good intentions. The police, I have some control over, via the law. What law controls what a militia can do?
I wish I could agree with you and Fastunit more, FG. I suspect you're both decent people doing what you think is right. I respect that. Its the ownership of weapons of mass destruction that pushes me over the line. That, I just can't abide.
Think of it this way: most people think its okay for us to have nukes; its not okay for North Korea to have them. Why? Because we KNOW us, we can control us. North Korea is out of control -- who knows what they'll do?
Who knows what a militia will do? Who knows how safe the owner of a high capacity/high speed weapon will keep it, what he'll do with it? You'll say 'Just keeping me and mine safe', and I can understand that. You'll promise never to leave it unsecured, never let Kim Il Jong borrow it, never bring it into a bar and have one or two, despite what the law might say, and then get into a fight and whip it out -- and I think 'How do I know?'
But I do thank you for your thoughts.
I make no promises about a beer or two (g). However I think are dis agreement boils down to your need of a false safety versus my freedom. Weapons of Mass Destruction a bit of an overkill there but I can see where you r going. All I can say is respect my rights and I will do the same. Trample my rights and I also will do the same. By the way I am not a member of any organized militia. All I am is one free man that doesn't cow down to anyone be that the Government or the Police, they will never have a problem with me unless they chose to.
Actually, I'm not a beer drinker, or indeed much of one at all. But for you, I'd make an exception. What a guy!
I'm not sure what you mean by 'false safety', but my hunch is that you mean 'Bill thinks the cops will protect him, but he can't be sure of that. With a gun in your fist, you're sure'. Is that about it?
Yeah, WMD is an overstatement. Various 'yeah, but' statements occur to me, but I'll stop there.
Respect your rights? That's a touchy issue, because I think your rights don't include owning major league weapons, and I suspect you do. But, with that as a dividing line, yes, I agree; I'll support your right to have handguns and long weapons. (Usual caveats about the people who aren't currently allowed to have weaponry.) I'd appreciate it if you'd support my desire not to get shot by anyone, but I suppose that's too much to ask.
You do scare me a bit with the comment about bowing down, though.
Bill the term I used is cowing down its a slang term; to mean know one will scare me to the point of submission. Its basically used in reference to a cattle dog that has been kicked one to many times and has lost his will or shows fear. In this life there are people who are submissive to the will of others and there are people who will stand on their own. Our nation was founded by men of independence and now it seems we have fallen into a nation of dependence.
False Safety; The truth is Bill no matter how many guns I have or for you how many police you have we are truly never safe. The only safety I have in this life is my belief in Jesus Christ. Most guns used in crimes are illegal Bill. Bill I am a volunteer EMT for our local county wide ambulance I have no doubts of the damage that can be caused by a gun or a knife or for that matter a piece of pipe etc. I have seen it. This I want you to understand safety is an illusion. Bill I have walked the streets of New Orleans pre Katrina, Washington DC, Chicago and many other cities I have met some strange characters in my journey and enjoyed it all. In Chicago they attempted to mug me on Old Navy Pier; they where just kids I stood my ground, no I didn't have a gun, I wish I would of but the three young men seen a Man standing there that wasn't just going to give them my money. Our soicety has been cowed to the point we are scared to defend ourselves. I got to go to work for awhile.
Huh -- I'd never heard that phrase before. It makes sense. And I agree with you, pretty much -- you DO have to stick up for yourself. Certainly, there aren't a lot of people who'll do it for you. Not much 'relying on the kindness of strangers' these days.
Overall, I think you're right. Does that surprise you?
No Bill it does not surprise me, its just we have different approaches to our safety your more indirect (relying upon others,) mine more direct I will rely upon myself. I think we are seeing a changing in the times maybe your way will win out or maybe not. When I think about the future I worry for our Nation. I think our leadership has sold their soul republican or democrat, I will spare you that discussion here. All I know I will live my life minding my own business and wish others would do the same. Increasingly I am not allowed to they tax me for things I don't believe in, pass laws I can't and will not support. The Government sticks there nose where it doesn't belong. I guess I am becoming more of an isolationist. Do I believe in a World economy NO, the rest of the world relies upon our dollars for their economy (Even my Dodge Pickup was made in Mexico). Do I care what happens in Europe; nope. My belief in Christ says I should but in reality I don't. The one thing I liked about Bush is if you jacked with him he messed your whole world up. Do I think he was a great President? nope, Do I think he was an intelligent President? nope. I do think he was President in one of the most critical times of the world. Do I think obama is any better? nope. I don't want you to think I care wether he is black or white because I don't. I wont say I don't have prejudice cause I think we all do if we look in our hearts, maybe a younger generation will be able to say they are not.
Obama is totally awesome and anyone who disagrees is an idiot.
Okay, if you're still here -- no, I don't believe that. I do support him, but I know he's not The One, by any means. I think he's bright and hyperactive, both of which we need. I think he's made and will make mistakes. The size of the debt scares the hell out of me, but I don't see where he had much alternative -- some, yes, but not much. As for the One Big World philosphy -- let's just say I'm not a fan of NAFTA or off-shoring jobs. I'm willing to pay more for what I use if it would help keep it being made here.
we agree once again except for your comments regarding obama, he is a mistake but not sure McCain would of been any better. However I do agree he is intelligent, and hyperactive, I also think Mayor Daily, Chicago politics in General is corrupt and that is his background. He associates himself with people of very questionable character; You have to wonder why. The one thing I would point out McCain has demonstrated his character over a lifetime. I respect McCain and yet I have no respect for obama. The financial mess we are in is our fault we all choose to blame the Government but the basic facts are people didn't rely up on themselves to pay back the loans and where over extended. We can blame corp., we can blame gov, and we can blame banks but it boils down to we over extended ourselves and that is our fault no body elses. Clinton put in place legislation to require banks to loan money to people who couldn't afford it and yet they signed the note. I am sorry but we as Americans did it to ourselves. You say the bail out was necessary, yet I believe it will only prolong the inevitable. Unless people get a lot more intelligent they will still borrow money they can't payback. My home is paid for, I have no mortgage. I worked my butt off to accomplish this, now I am being asked to work my butt off to pay for their mistake, I am just a common man why should I do that. What do those people do for me? What service do they do that I need? Why do I care if GM fails? Yes sounds kind of heartless; I guess I am? Are they going to make a law that says I have to care? I guess they did when they bailed all them people out cause somebody is going to have to pay for it, unlike most people, I know you have to work for what you get. So no I don't agree we should of bailed out GM and Dodge. My next pickup will be a Ford. I don't agree we should of bailed out the Investment Banks. I see no way our Country will survive the inflation that is coming but I will. Not much to do with Guns and I appologize for that. I do want to add obama didn't start this trend but he sure has escalated it and his health care plan will even more.
You touch on a lot of topics there. So -
I think McCain's an honorable person who was desperate to win. He would have been bearable, but his choice of Vice President doomed him. There were better people available.
Daly of Chicago, I know little about, but his political ancestry is suspect. Its a corrupt political environment. Hardly the only one, though.
The financial mess we're in is the result of a lot of people living over the edge. They weren't all greedy; some were suckered into it. I put a lot of the blame on the Bush (and Clinton) administrations for relaxing/eliminating financial control and inspection functions. I don't like the idea of government having to perform that function, but I like even less what happens when rich people can do as they like. It only takes a few of them to screw things up royally for the non-rich of us. In a way, its like spoiled brat-pack Hollywood actors; they honestly think they're above the rest of the country, and that normal laws and morality don't apply to them.
The bailout, I do think was necessary. I think of it like cleaning out the sewer; it stinks, but living with the result of not doing it is worse. I totally agree with your disgust; I just don't see any alternative. Without it, the wealthy would have still been okay, and the non-wealthy would have been screwed. Personally, I don't want to see a Great Depression II. Sequels almost always suck.
The question of 'who should be allowed to collapse' is a tough one. Personally, I think that any company that can't make it should collapse, and then I think 'yes, but the CEOs who drove the company into the ground will still have millions in assets; what happens to the people who work there?' Which is, I suppose, why I'm a Democrat.
The health care thing -- I don't like the idea of living in a country where people have to stick with a job because it has health care benefits. I want an alternative to that. Yes, whats being cooked up is a boondoggle, in many ways similar to the financial bailout, but, again, whats the alternative? I do wish he wasn't pushing it right NOW, though. I think its because, as tough as it is to do now, it'd be harder later. He's hoping political capital (and the mood of the country) will help make it happen.
Hardly the only one doesn't excuse it for me. I know they play a political game I am not equiped to play but just once I would like to vote for a guy that I thought was honest.
You know you say they are suckered in, well you know you and I live in the same world as they do, I didn't get suckered in. Why should I pay?
The people working for the CEO's that made million while they bankrupted the country. Well life isn't fair sorry I am over it. If you are a good worker and have a talent you can find work. If not find one if you are a lazy bastard drawing a huge check for putting a part on an assembly line, you where over paid in the first place.
Health care is not simple for me I know the system has problems. If I pay cash for something they discount it they charge me 20.00 for a pill that I brought with me and refuse to remove it from my bill. I think throw some of the corrupt bastards in Jail will solve some of that. The main thing for me is Why should I pay for someone elses insurance. Have you been to a VA hospital they suck. I know in our own little ambulance service I have been asked to start things that people didn't really need because it won't hurt them and we can charge for it. Screw that I will never do that, fire me I don't care. Sometimes people have to Stand Up and say I am not going to do that. What happened to America's Back Bone. In a Utopia situation I wish everyone could have everything to help their health. However, this isn't no dream and I don't want to pay for their care my own is expensive enough.
I agree obama is rushing things thru, how is that working for him. Do you remember paying bonuses to the executives of the bankrupt banks. We need to slow up and not just pass junk. His popularity is dropping everyday good or bad its true its because of things like that.
I do believe obama talks a good game do you remember him saying he wouldn't hire anyone who has worked as a lobyist in the past two years. Check all the people he has hired that where lobyist up until their new position with him. Sounds like someone selling out to me. Its not just that I can go on and on, it just boils down to I hold a man at his word and his word is XXit. I really thought he had something until he went back on his word. He hired people coming straight out of the banks causing the trouble Franklin Raines ring a bell. To me that is corruption at its finest. Cant run the bank but obama will hire him. I know the things he is doing aren't new its been happening for years, I just don't believe that makes it right. He is no saint to me, all I see is him costing me a lot more money. What about no tax increase for those making less than $250,000.00 for his plans to work he is passing tax increases on to us he is just hiding them in other things like cap-trade. His health care plan (which has since changed) but where he was going to tax my benefits. Those are taxes I am not stupid it goes back to his word is not worth XXit.
Ah, there I have an advantage -- I did vote for someone that I thought was honest. I still think that. Its just that now, I'm being reminded that he's an honest politician -- which means, check your wallet on the way out.
I don't think that being a good worker and having talent is enough, anymore -- not as a general statement, anyway. If you've got a skill that you can do by yourself - woodworker, mechanic, accountant - you're better off than if you have to rely on an organization. The flip side is that the organization can give you things -- support, supplies, a paycheck when work is slow -- that working alone can't do.
Health care payment is a mess, no doubt about it. I'm having dental work done, and for various reasons my dental insurance won't cover it. The dentist said he wouldn't charge me what he'd charge the insurance company - he'll charge about half that. Well, good, thanks, I think -- and then I think He's not taking a loss, because he's getting from me what he would have gotten from the insurance company's 'usual and customary' charge! (Even notice how a UCR charge is less than you've ever seen anyone charge? ) So I wonder why we accept what the insurance company says he ought to charge? An acquaintance of mine, a doctor, says they'll give a discount for cash, just so they don't have to deal with insurance, billing, and all of that. Again, I think Well, good -- but they're not losing on the deal. So, why do we do it this way? And don't get me started on the 'preexisting condition' nonsense.
The bonuses stink. I don't care if they're 'required by contract'. If we (the people) own the controlling share of the business, why can't we say No Dice? I know, some say 'well, we need these people to unravel their mess thats got all of us tied up'. I don't care for that. I'd like to say 'How about this as a deal -- you clean it up and we won't send you to live with Bernie Madoff'.
The lobbyist thing -- well, yes - that's Obama being a politician. And yet, I think he's better than anyone else who was running. To be honest, I'm not sure there ARE such things as totally clean national politicians. I think they get so dependent on money -- and who's got the money? -- that they HAVE to pay attention to what those companies want. I don't think that Obama is as in their pocket as McCain might have been -- you recall how many lobbyists were on his campaign staff? -- but clean? Totally clean? I doubt it highly.
Obama said some interesting things about politicians and their need for money in Audacity of Hope. I didn't enjoy reading that part, because it sounded so true.
I agree with you on so many things in your last comment, except for honest. How can you think that he has done nothing but lie, so many times, I do agree he is intelligent the way he words things to sway the American Public but they are seeing thru him everyday. It gives me hope!! I really appreciate the fight the Blue Dog democrats are putting upa fight!! I love their style, I don't know much about them but I believe they are doing their best to fight the good fight with the most incredible pressure being placed upon them. Even if they lose they fought and have won a fan. I do hope their consituents will look at them and say that is a good man or worman to have in office. Doesn't care politicaly who brought the issue up but votes how he or she feals with their heart. McCain never made a big deal of the no lobbyists obama did stated it over and over. I do agree lobyists are not the answer but don't say you won't hire them and then do. That brands you a Liar in my book.
I agree that McCain flip flopped on so many views to make the run for President and I think in the end it cost him.
What is your oppinion of Ron Paul just curious?
I really think a lot more people should be in Jail over the mess they made in Banking, and I work for a Bank.
Ron Paul -- generally, I like him. I think he's more radical than he could actually sustain if he ever got elected, and I don't agree with the idea that 'if its not in the Constitution, we shouldn't have it', but I like his fierceness and his general principles.
I like that you call him radical for believing in the Constitution. I know I kind of tied two of your thoughts together but it just struck me funny, that you a stated liberal would call him radical. He was my candidate of choice. Now I guess if you have his bumper sticker on your vehicle the police are suppose to be careful you could be a Militia member.
Well, actually, by radical I mean his fierce insistance that if something isn't in the constitution, we shouldn't have it. I don't agree with that. The concepts, the principles, yes, but letter for letter? I can't buy that.
Did you hear of the incident between the TSA and the Ron Paul person, a while back? I thought it was pretty cool.
I would agree with you on Principles but they keep changing or diluting the principles. Such as earlier in your blog the person stating militia was police force, now we both know that isn't a correct statement. I hope I gave enough material to exhibit that fact. So yes I agree we need to go back and try to follow the Constitution as much as possible. I also would grant that we probably can't take back the right of women to vote, however, I think it would of saved us on Clinton (lol). I know some of the incident you are referring to but in no way do I know it all. I know he was stopped for having 4700 in cash. By the way when did cash become illegal? I am not saying its intelligent to carry that much cash but by no way is it illegal.
Cash ISN'T illegal. Thats the thing that really got me. He was stopped because they thought it was 'suspicious'. Thats the kind of activity that makes me think that people who are wary of government aren't *complete* fruitcakes. I think the TSA has a tough job, but bozos like that don't help. The killer is, they were likely doing exactly what their bosses told them to do -- just, in a particularly offensive way.
See this page for further info on that.
Bill you can no long tweet anything on twitter that is against obama what do you think does that sound right? How about a thread on twitter censoring comments.
Bill you can no long tweet anything on twitter that is against obama what do you think does that sound right? How about a thread on twitter censoring comments.
Hmmm....well, I'm of two minds about that.
On the one hand (and mostly), I think that DDOS attacks are the work of evil people -- pranksters at best, criminals at worst.
On the other, if it *just* blocks attacks on Obama, that's tolerable. Not okay, you understand, but - tolerable.
Now, if you know me at all, you know that I'm kidding about the second. DDOS is NEVER acceptable. I wouldn't even support a DDOS against the NRA -- though, okay, I would smile, just a bit.
Bill they are claiming denial of service attack, however a denial of service would shut it down but this is u can not post anything against health care, obama, its triggering off key words, Bill its not being done from the outside. Oklahoma has passed a Bill that states English is the official language and obama has threatened our federal funds in a letter to our attorney general. I don't kn0w how much you know about Oklahoma but we supply a lot of the Worlds food not just the United States and I simply was going to suggest obama might consider us refusing to feed him and see how he thinks about our federal funding. I like most Okies don't like being threatened and thats exactly what he's doing. Now we are being censored where the rest of the country doesn't even know what he's doing.
FG, I find it hard to believe your conclusions, though I do not doubt your sincerity.
As a test, I just posted, then deleted, the following from Twitter:
"This is a test post with invalid sentiments. I am anti Obama health care."
The post was successful.
Bill its killed several of mine, I don't know what to tell you but I think it might just be time to put up my own blog and website. It let me post just now but I am not alone the tweets are flowing with outrage from several conservative twitters that experienced the same thing as I did. I hope they have one of the town hall meetings close to me while I am still good and mad, I got some comments for them, and if they want to get rowdie I will introduce them to whole new world of rowdie.
If someone or something is intentionally killing your posts, as distinct from a random DDOS, then you can count me as a supporter, because that sort of thing isn't kosher, in my book.
The rowdiness (always liked that word 'rowdy', though I'm about as far from rowdy as you can get) is a different thing. I don't agree with people who think that discussion means shouting, and I abhor people who think that they best make their point by keeping the other side from making theirs. That's not only rude, but in my book, it's unAmerican.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/for_what_its_worth_the_best_aerial_picture_of_the_dc_tea_party_ive_seen_yet/ A picture from the the 9-12 march. How do you think obama is not dividing our country. Look at these people are we all wacko's
Post a Comment