So I've been hearing this a lot from conservatives as of late, that if Obamacare continues to bomb, it could be the death knell of Progressivism for a generation. Some have even suggested that it could destroy the Democratic party for a generation. Here is my take:
1) Obamacare, if it really bombs, could really deal a severe blow to the whole Progressive cause, one which calls for a large, activist role for the central government in the economy and in people's lives, for possibly at least a decade or more, maybe two to three decades even. I am more cautious because nowadays with the Internet, politics is a bit different than how it used to be.
2) In terms of destroying the Democratic party, I think this is about as realistic as the constant claims of the death of the GOP. However, it could possibly destroy the more far-leftist behavior that the current Democratic party has been in favor of under President Obama.
IMO, what would really be ironic is if the GOP is continually unable to win the presidency due to its social conservatism (same-sex marriage and the like), but yet the Democratic party in winning the presidency is no longer able to pursue the solidly leftist agenda that it has been pursuing via President Obama.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
The Future of the GOP
I am wondering if the GOP will be able to get another candidate elected as President anymore. Some argue that the mainstream GOP's social conservatism (completely against abortion, anti-same sex marriage, etc...) is going to prevent this and is a good deal why Romney lost the 2012 election. If this is the case though, I fear for the GOP because it seems that either in the GOP, there are the ultra-right-wing Tea Party conservatives who scare away independent voters, or the more "moderate" conservatives who are essentially too moderate and come across more as a lighthearted version of a Democrat as opposed to a conservative who just happens to be moderate.
By this, I mean many a "moderate" conservative has proven unable to defend basic conservative principles. They don't know how to fight against criticism of conservatism from the Left. A conservative who happens to be moderate is one that will come across as clearly conservative, but just more moderate on issues. At least that is how I see it anyway. A Bob Dole, a John McCain, a Mitt Romney, etc...are the moderate kind who are/were more like lighthearted Democrats. A Ted Cruz, a Rand Paul, a Sarah Palin, etc...these are your far-right Tea Party conservatives. Neither type seems able to win a presidential election for being either too right or too moderate.
Four problems I see with the GOP are:
1) Appearance of ramming religion down people's throats: Not all GOPers seek to do this, but there are some that do and this hurts the party
2) The harsh, hardline rhetoric against same-sex marriage strikes many as being thinly-veiled anti-gay bigotry on the party of the GOP: Again, this is not the case with all GOPers, but with many it seems to be the case, and this hurts the party
3) The harsh, hardline rhetoric against illegal immigration strikes many people as being thinly-veiled racism: again, most GOPers are not racist, but the hardline rhetoric strikes many independents as the GOP being racist. It also scares the daylights out of the Hispanic and Latino community
4) The extremist pro-life position of the GOP turns off many women and independents
If these problems are in fact keeping away enough independents and women from voting for the GOP in the presidential elections, then either the GOP will have to change itself on some of these issues or it won't be able to win another presidential election. Now I don't think this is set in stone, however, for a few reasons. During the 2012 election, some said that the GOP can no longer count on the white vote to be able to carry it through to a presidential win. Basically, that the white vote is no longer lare enough to outdo the minority-women-independent-leftwing-youth block that tends to go more for the Democratic party.
Maybe this is the case, but the thing is, Romney lost by about three million votes. Consequently, about three million Republicans stayed home during the election as they were not at all enthused about Romney. If these GOPers had come out and voted, then either Romney would have won or he would have lost by a much narrower margin. In addition to this, Romney had also been made irrelevant in the media right prior to the election by Hurricane Sandy, meanwhile Obama got a lot of great press from the crises and also, inadvertently, help from Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, a hardcore critic of Democrats, yet who gave great praise to Obama. This would be like Nancy Pelosi coming out in huge praise for George W. Bush. This hurt Romney as quite a few independent voters said that it was Obama's work regarding Sandy that made them decide to vote for him.
And then to top that off, 80% of the Hispanic/Latino vote went for Obama, instead of the more normal 60/40 split the Hispanic vote usually takes. If the GOP is next time able to win back more of the Hispanic vote, doesn't have a natural disaster sideline its convention or campaign (it will be harder next time for a natural disaster to sideline the campaign itself as the Democratic candidate will not be in office and thus not able to get press for directing aid as the President can), and can enthuse those three million Republicans who stayed home in 2012 while at the same time not scaring away three million independent voters as a result, then it could probably win in 2016.
Another aspect to this debate is that it would mean that the claim that the white vote is not adequate to outnumber the minorities, women, youth vote, etc...is incorrect (I am assuming the vast majority of those three million Republicans were white). I am not saying that this is a good thing, if the GOP is a predominately white party, but it would mean it can still win the presidency without needing to attract other groups. If the GOP can ease up its rhetoric and stance on abortion, and come across more reasonably regarding illegal immigration, and become more accepting of LGBT people, it naturally will start to attract these groups in larger numbers.
To win more of the Hispanic vote, I think the GOP needs to emphasize two things to Hispanics:
1) That the GOP, while against illegal immigration, understands that the government cannot just essentially slam a door shut on the border as that would cut in half families; that the GOP is very much a party of family values, and fully understands the concerns about family that the Hispanics have and is not going to do anything that just cuts families in half (how exactly to go about doing this with an immigration policy that appeals to conservatives I am not sure, but the GOP needs to have softer rhetoric with regards to the issue if it expects to win more Hispanics---also, the GOP really is supposed to be a party that understands family and family values and the importance of the family unit as a building block for society, and as such, should really have concern about this aspect of the Hispanic population that have combinations of illegals with legal immigrants).
2) Some Hispanics after the 2012 election said that they do not necessarily agree with the GOP's argument about limited government, that in their culture, people help one another and that is something that they strongly believe in. This is based on a misconception about conservatism however, i.e., that it is for a society in which people are on their own versus the Democratic party's view of a society in which everyone is in it together, which to them equals government programs. This type of wording was for example used during the Democratic National Convention. But it is an incorrect understanding of conservatism. Conservatism very much believes in people helping one another, but sees a distinction between society and government. Democrats and the political Left, on the other hand, equate the two as being one and the same.
Society consists of things such as the family, community, church, charity, etc...all of which are people helping one another, but none of which involve the government. Seeing a distinction between society and government is also not arguing against the existence of a form of welfare state for safety net purposes, it is just arguing that having a "we're in it together society" need not mean a bunch of government programs or a large social welfare state.
In explaining this, the GOP needs to explain to the Hispanic population that the reason it is for more limited government is because of how historically, many government programs intended to help people have only done the opposite and made the problems worse, how such programs can tend to explode in cost and be unsustainable financially, and so forth. That the GOP instead is for a limited size of welfare state for safety net purposes and believes fully in a society in which people help one another.
By this, I mean many a "moderate" conservative has proven unable to defend basic conservative principles. They don't know how to fight against criticism of conservatism from the Left. A conservative who happens to be moderate is one that will come across as clearly conservative, but just more moderate on issues. At least that is how I see it anyway. A Bob Dole, a John McCain, a Mitt Romney, etc...are the moderate kind who are/were more like lighthearted Democrats. A Ted Cruz, a Rand Paul, a Sarah Palin, etc...these are your far-right Tea Party conservatives. Neither type seems able to win a presidential election for being either too right or too moderate.
Four problems I see with the GOP are:
1) Appearance of ramming religion down people's throats: Not all GOPers seek to do this, but there are some that do and this hurts the party
2) The harsh, hardline rhetoric against same-sex marriage strikes many as being thinly-veiled anti-gay bigotry on the party of the GOP: Again, this is not the case with all GOPers, but with many it seems to be the case, and this hurts the party
3) The harsh, hardline rhetoric against illegal immigration strikes many people as being thinly-veiled racism: again, most GOPers are not racist, but the hardline rhetoric strikes many independents as the GOP being racist. It also scares the daylights out of the Hispanic and Latino community
4) The extremist pro-life position of the GOP turns off many women and independents
If these problems are in fact keeping away enough independents and women from voting for the GOP in the presidential elections, then either the GOP will have to change itself on some of these issues or it won't be able to win another presidential election. Now I don't think this is set in stone, however, for a few reasons. During the 2012 election, some said that the GOP can no longer count on the white vote to be able to carry it through to a presidential win. Basically, that the white vote is no longer lare enough to outdo the minority-women-independent-leftwing-youth block that tends to go more for the Democratic party.
Maybe this is the case, but the thing is, Romney lost by about three million votes. Consequently, about three million Republicans stayed home during the election as they were not at all enthused about Romney. If these GOPers had come out and voted, then either Romney would have won or he would have lost by a much narrower margin. In addition to this, Romney had also been made irrelevant in the media right prior to the election by Hurricane Sandy, meanwhile Obama got a lot of great press from the crises and also, inadvertently, help from Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, a hardcore critic of Democrats, yet who gave great praise to Obama. This would be like Nancy Pelosi coming out in huge praise for George W. Bush. This hurt Romney as quite a few independent voters said that it was Obama's work regarding Sandy that made them decide to vote for him.
And then to top that off, 80% of the Hispanic/Latino vote went for Obama, instead of the more normal 60/40 split the Hispanic vote usually takes. If the GOP is next time able to win back more of the Hispanic vote, doesn't have a natural disaster sideline its convention or campaign (it will be harder next time for a natural disaster to sideline the campaign itself as the Democratic candidate will not be in office and thus not able to get press for directing aid as the President can), and can enthuse those three million Republicans who stayed home in 2012 while at the same time not scaring away three million independent voters as a result, then it could probably win in 2016.
Another aspect to this debate is that it would mean that the claim that the white vote is not adequate to outnumber the minorities, women, youth vote, etc...is incorrect (I am assuming the vast majority of those three million Republicans were white). I am not saying that this is a good thing, if the GOP is a predominately white party, but it would mean it can still win the presidency without needing to attract other groups. If the GOP can ease up its rhetoric and stance on abortion, and come across more reasonably regarding illegal immigration, and become more accepting of LGBT people, it naturally will start to attract these groups in larger numbers.
To win more of the Hispanic vote, I think the GOP needs to emphasize two things to Hispanics:
1) That the GOP, while against illegal immigration, understands that the government cannot just essentially slam a door shut on the border as that would cut in half families; that the GOP is very much a party of family values, and fully understands the concerns about family that the Hispanics have and is not going to do anything that just cuts families in half (how exactly to go about doing this with an immigration policy that appeals to conservatives I am not sure, but the GOP needs to have softer rhetoric with regards to the issue if it expects to win more Hispanics---also, the GOP really is supposed to be a party that understands family and family values and the importance of the family unit as a building block for society, and as such, should really have concern about this aspect of the Hispanic population that have combinations of illegals with legal immigrants).
2) Some Hispanics after the 2012 election said that they do not necessarily agree with the GOP's argument about limited government, that in their culture, people help one another and that is something that they strongly believe in. This is based on a misconception about conservatism however, i.e., that it is for a society in which people are on their own versus the Democratic party's view of a society in which everyone is in it together, which to them equals government programs. This type of wording was for example used during the Democratic National Convention. But it is an incorrect understanding of conservatism. Conservatism very much believes in people helping one another, but sees a distinction between society and government. Democrats and the political Left, on the other hand, equate the two as being one and the same.
Society consists of things such as the family, community, church, charity, etc...all of which are people helping one another, but none of which involve the government. Seeing a distinction between society and government is also not arguing against the existence of a form of welfare state for safety net purposes, it is just arguing that having a "we're in it together society" need not mean a bunch of government programs or a large social welfare state.
In explaining this, the GOP needs to explain to the Hispanic population that the reason it is for more limited government is because of how historically, many government programs intended to help people have only done the opposite and made the problems worse, how such programs can tend to explode in cost and be unsustainable financially, and so forth. That the GOP instead is for a limited size of welfare state for safety net purposes and believes fully in a society in which people help one another.
China Bubble
So to anyone who has followed my blog for awhile will be aware, I have in the past often harped about the bubble in China and if/when it will burst and what the effect will be. I am willing to concede that I could be totally wrong on that and that the bubble was not the kind that will burst, however, after doing some Googling on the matter, it seems like the bubble is alive and growing in China right now. If this is the case, will the bubble have a breaking point at some point? Will it result in a crash that is unprecedented? And how would something like that affect the global economy, and the American economy in turn?
Will next year really be the calamity many are predicting?
So we are in interesting times. It seems that Obamacare could really be an epic policy disaster and it has the Democratic party scared to death. Myself, while it does seem this way, I don't think anyone will know for sure until if/when the website gets working and then next year, when people with employment-based health insurance start getting kicked off of their policies and forced to buy new policies.
I was rather shocked that President Obama said that they did not realize how difficult purchasing health insurance online was. This is the kind of thing that conservatives and libertarians have been yelling about since the legislation was proposed, i.e., that no one can predict exactly how such a massive and complex piece of legislation such as this will perform.
I am hoping that this helps the GOP in the 2014 elections, but time will tell. And in the 2016 Presidential elections.
I was rather shocked that President Obama said that they did not realize how difficult purchasing health insurance online was. This is the kind of thing that conservatives and libertarians have been yelling about since the legislation was proposed, i.e., that no one can predict exactly how such a massive and complex piece of legislation such as this will perform.
I am hoping that this helps the GOP in the 2014 elections, but time will tell. And in the 2016 Presidential elections.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Obamacare
So I am wondering how everything is going to go with the so-called Affordable Care Act. Is it going to collapse on itself or will it work well? If it does collapse, will the Democrats make the push for full-on single-payer? Personally, I am hoping the program collapses and that we do not end up with any single-payer system. I think there are better ways to repair the healthcare system of our country, and I do not want the government having such centralized control and/or influence over such a large portion of our economy.
I do worry about the direction of the United States, because we have seen what excessive spending has done to quite a few of the European nations. And unlike those nations, which do not have to spend much on national defense, the United States does, in order to maintain the global peace. So if the U.S. goes to route of the European social democracies, what happens to our military budget?
I do worry about the direction of the United States, because we have seen what excessive spending has done to quite a few of the European nations. And unlike those nations, which do not have to spend much on national defense, the United States does, in order to maintain the global peace. So if the U.S. goes to route of the European social democracies, what happens to our military budget?
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Information Arts
Science, engineering, and technology overall are subjects that fascinate me. At heart, I am an engineer. Profession-wise, I am intending to obtain some engineering degrees at a future date (right now I am in a bit of a predicament life situation-wise). Anyhow, one thing I find that I have tended to have a great deal of interest in is artwork that deals with communicating information. I don't know why this is, but I do find such things very beautiful. For example:
Maps
Globes
Clocks
Old-world navigational instruments
Technical drawings
Schematics and blueprints
Drafting (such as architectural drafting)
Graphical User Interfaces
Calligraphy
Fine books
These are all things I love. These are usually not considered as "art" but to me they are very much art, as they are often very beautiful and often require great skill to produce. That they serve a function doesn't take away from their being art (a lot of art that we think was done solely for purposes of beauty in the past actually served some very functional purposes too, for example much of ancient Greek sculpture, which served religious, political, etc...purposes).
Being that I love old-world technology such as steam engines, mechanical clocks and watches, maps, old-world navigation instruments, etc...I also am an admirer of the subculture known as Steampunk.
Maps
Globes
Clocks
Old-world navigational instruments
Technical drawings
Schematics and blueprints
Drafting (such as architectural drafting)
Graphical User Interfaces
Calligraphy
Fine books
These are all things I love. These are usually not considered as "art" but to me they are very much art, as they are often very beautiful and often require great skill to produce. That they serve a function doesn't take away from their being art (a lot of art that we think was done solely for purposes of beauty in the past actually served some very functional purposes too, for example much of ancient Greek sculpture, which served religious, political, etc...purposes).
Being that I love old-world technology such as steam engines, mechanical clocks and watches, maps, old-world navigation instruments, etc...I also am an admirer of the subculture known as Steampunk.
Foreign Policy
So it seems that President Obama's foreign policy has finally blown up on him. One major misconception I have always felt that many people had during the 2012 election was how it was said that usually, the Republican candidate is seen as being much stronger on foreign policy than the Democrat, but how in this case, the Democrat was seen as just as strong. The problem is, Obama was not really very strong on foreign policy, he just seemed that way because the limit of most Americans' knowledge on his foreign policy was that he used drones to gun down terrorists and he gave the order to have Osama bin Laden killed.
What all of this ignored was two-fold:
1) Neither one of those is per se really foreign policy
2) It ignored his weakness with regards to countries like Russia and Iran. For example, how he initially, upon first becoming President, tried appeasing Russia by giving up the missile defense shield and, at least as they themselves saw it, betraying our allies Poland and the Czech Republic.
It turned out that Mitt Romney was right on two things for which he was mocked, one on his claim that terrorists could cause a problem in Mali (which happened a few months later) and two, his claim that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe. I think this appearance of weakness from the United States is going to have some major longer-term repercussions for American, and global, security, as our allies are not going to be as willing to stick with us under the fear that we will not protect them, and at the same time, we are likely also going to see further aggression and challenges to our power.
I also think that the cultural attitude many Americans seem to have about the U.S. playing a smaller role in world affairs, due to their being sick of Iraq and Afghanistan, is a dangerous line of thinking. Like it or not, the United States underwrites global trade and global security. It is because of the United States that the European nations have been able to get away with spending so little on national defense since the end of World War 2 (and thus why they have been able to spend so much money on their bloated social welfare states). If the United States withdraws from the global stage, it will create a power vacuum, one which will be replaced by something far worse (Russia-Iran-China).
And talk about energy independence will not free the U.S. security-wise from global affairs either. Even if the U.S. made itself 100% independent of Middle Eastern oil, the problem is that plenty of the other major economies in the world get a sizeable amount of their oil from the Middle East. What this means is that if a blow-up ever occurs in the Middle East, and their economies thus tank big-time, it will tank the U.S. economy, which is interlinked with them, as well, and thus force us into the conflict. Also our support of Israel (which I fully support 100%) will keep us involved in the Middle East.
I do wonder why President Obama has seemed so naïve and amateur on a few issues regarding foreign policy. For example, I am not any foreign policy expert, but thus far, he has said/done the following:
1) In the third presidential debate, one of the arguments that he made is that we spend more on defense than all the other major countries combined. Is he unaware that that is because they spend virtually nothing? It isn't that they all spend a reasonable amount and the U.S. way overspends. Trust me, the U.S. military budget is not excessive. If anything, it is severely underfunded right now and should have its budget increased significantly, but the money isn't there. The vehicles of the Army and Marine Corps have been driven way beyond what their original intended service life was supposed to be because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and because the soldiers had to bolt armor onto those vehicles that they were not made to handle, it added a lot of additional wear-and-tear on the vehicles. So the vehicles have been driven way beyond what they were supposed to be and with a whole lot of extra wear-and-tear to boot. The Marine Corps is especially hit hard by this as they have always made due with older equipment.
The military should always be in a state where it can fight a sizeable conflict if necessary. Not being in such a state only invites aggression. Some may say, "Well even in its current state, the U.S. military is still plenty capable of bombing any other country to the Moon if required." The problem is that bombing capability means nothing if the military lacks the ability to send in a sizeable contingent of ground troops. This is because if bombing the country creates a power vacuum whereby utter chaos breaks out and you have the problem of things like WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists, then use of ground troops is going to be required.
Yet one of the major concerns of the military with regards to possibly bombing Syria is that if we do so, and the situation unravels where ground troops are needed, the military is in no position right now to be getting into such a conflict. The military should always be in a position where it can fight such a conflict if need be. To be in the current state it is in is a very precarious position for the United States to be in and can only invite aggression from our enemies.
2) His establishing a red line regarding Syria and use of chemical weapons. Did it not occur to him that if the red line was crossed, that he would have to do something? It is like he was caught completely off-guard or something. I mean it shouldn't take an expert or even a highly-intelligent person to know not to create any ultimatum unless you are willing and/or able to take action about it. One would think he would have at least consulted with his advisors, asking them the question, "IS there anything we can really do if Syria uses chemical weapons?" I have read some theorize that he has surrounded himself with yes-men is the problem.
3) He has said that "the tide of war" is receding. How is he so sure of that? If history is any lesson, wars can have a nasty habit of popping up when people least expect them. No one saw World War I when Europe was on the cusp of it, and then when it was clear that a conflict was going to occur, most thought that it would be very short. This reminds me of how he has said that wind and solar power are the energy sources of the future. Again, how can he know that for sure? (but that is a different topic).
Anyways, just wanted to get all that off my chest.
What all of this ignored was two-fold:
1) Neither one of those is per se really foreign policy
2) It ignored his weakness with regards to countries like Russia and Iran. For example, how he initially, upon first becoming President, tried appeasing Russia by giving up the missile defense shield and, at least as they themselves saw it, betraying our allies Poland and the Czech Republic.
It turned out that Mitt Romney was right on two things for which he was mocked, one on his claim that terrorists could cause a problem in Mali (which happened a few months later) and two, his claim that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe. I think this appearance of weakness from the United States is going to have some major longer-term repercussions for American, and global, security, as our allies are not going to be as willing to stick with us under the fear that we will not protect them, and at the same time, we are likely also going to see further aggression and challenges to our power.
I also think that the cultural attitude many Americans seem to have about the U.S. playing a smaller role in world affairs, due to their being sick of Iraq and Afghanistan, is a dangerous line of thinking. Like it or not, the United States underwrites global trade and global security. It is because of the United States that the European nations have been able to get away with spending so little on national defense since the end of World War 2 (and thus why they have been able to spend so much money on their bloated social welfare states). If the United States withdraws from the global stage, it will create a power vacuum, one which will be replaced by something far worse (Russia-Iran-China).
And talk about energy independence will not free the U.S. security-wise from global affairs either. Even if the U.S. made itself 100% independent of Middle Eastern oil, the problem is that plenty of the other major economies in the world get a sizeable amount of their oil from the Middle East. What this means is that if a blow-up ever occurs in the Middle East, and their economies thus tank big-time, it will tank the U.S. economy, which is interlinked with them, as well, and thus force us into the conflict. Also our support of Israel (which I fully support 100%) will keep us involved in the Middle East.
I do wonder why President Obama has seemed so naïve and amateur on a few issues regarding foreign policy. For example, I am not any foreign policy expert, but thus far, he has said/done the following:
1) In the third presidential debate, one of the arguments that he made is that we spend more on defense than all the other major countries combined. Is he unaware that that is because they spend virtually nothing? It isn't that they all spend a reasonable amount and the U.S. way overspends. Trust me, the U.S. military budget is not excessive. If anything, it is severely underfunded right now and should have its budget increased significantly, but the money isn't there. The vehicles of the Army and Marine Corps have been driven way beyond what their original intended service life was supposed to be because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and because the soldiers had to bolt armor onto those vehicles that they were not made to handle, it added a lot of additional wear-and-tear on the vehicles. So the vehicles have been driven way beyond what they were supposed to be and with a whole lot of extra wear-and-tear to boot. The Marine Corps is especially hit hard by this as they have always made due with older equipment.
The military should always be in a state where it can fight a sizeable conflict if necessary. Not being in such a state only invites aggression. Some may say, "Well even in its current state, the U.S. military is still plenty capable of bombing any other country to the Moon if required." The problem is that bombing capability means nothing if the military lacks the ability to send in a sizeable contingent of ground troops. This is because if bombing the country creates a power vacuum whereby utter chaos breaks out and you have the problem of things like WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists, then use of ground troops is going to be required.
Yet one of the major concerns of the military with regards to possibly bombing Syria is that if we do so, and the situation unravels where ground troops are needed, the military is in no position right now to be getting into such a conflict. The military should always be in a position where it can fight such a conflict if need be. To be in the current state it is in is a very precarious position for the United States to be in and can only invite aggression from our enemies.
2) His establishing a red line regarding Syria and use of chemical weapons. Did it not occur to him that if the red line was crossed, that he would have to do something? It is like he was caught completely off-guard or something. I mean it shouldn't take an expert or even a highly-intelligent person to know not to create any ultimatum unless you are willing and/or able to take action about it. One would think he would have at least consulted with his advisors, asking them the question, "IS there anything we can really do if Syria uses chemical weapons?" I have read some theorize that he has surrounded himself with yes-men is the problem.
3) He has said that "the tide of war" is receding. How is he so sure of that? If history is any lesson, wars can have a nasty habit of popping up when people least expect them. No one saw World War I when Europe was on the cusp of it, and then when it was clear that a conflict was going to occur, most thought that it would be very short. This reminds me of how he has said that wind and solar power are the energy sources of the future. Again, how can he know that for sure? (but that is a different topic).
Anyways, just wanted to get all that off my chest.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
President Obama Resorting to Typical Strawman
President Obama is claiming that the GOP's top priority is making sure that thirty million people don't have health insurance. This is such an oversimplified strawman that I do not even know where to begin. But it goes back to the old leftist line of thinking that if one is against a particular government program, that they are against helping people period. By his logic, if the GOP was against the government nationalizing the agriculture industry, the GOP would be against people being able to eat.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Still here...
To whomever may be reading this (if there are any people who read this blog), I am still here and have not abandoned this blog or anything. Just have not had much to write about as of late. I do plan to write more posts soon though and get back to more regularly writing for the blog.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
The Four Problems With Comparing Gun Control to Regulation of Speech
Sometimes, the statement is made that we ban certain forms of speech, so we can also regulate certain forms of firearms. Well there's about four things wrong with this, IMO:
1) Yes, speech can be regulated to some degree and certain forms even outlawed, such as the classic, "Fire in a crowded movie theater" example. But the government cannot just regulate speech however they please. The same is true with firearms. The government can regulate firearms (and does!), but it historically has had good reasons for most (not all) regulations, such as regulating automatic fire weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, powerful weapons (generally guns over .50 caliber), and of course other weapons ranging from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons to battle tanks and attack helicopters and so forth.
2) If speech was regulated in the way that some want to regulate guns, then it would no longer be a question of what are you not allowed to say, but rather, what ARE you allowed to say, and you would have to get a permit to be able to say it, and then be very limited in terms of the medium in which you could speak.
3) To compare an "assault weapons ban" to speech laws would be like if politicians were to propose an "Assault Speech Ban" or maybe a "Hate Speech" ban, but then they get to define "Assault Speech" or "Hate Speech" However they please (say speech critical of government).
4) Many gun control proponents say, "We just want to ban the assault weapons, but we are fine with guns for legitimate hunters and sport shooters." This would be like saying, "We just want to ban the hate speech" (defined as being any speech critical of government let's say) "but we are fine with free speech for legitimate authors, playwrights, scriptwriters, etc..." well it would immediately be pointed out that the First Amendment is not about solely protecting free speech as a form of recreation, it is about protecting free speech so that a person can express their views and be critical of the government. Just the same, the Second Amendment is not about protecting a right to arms solely for recreational purposes either, it is about protecting the right of a person to keep arms in the event that a person or group of persons seeks to make war on that person and/or their family, and if the government was to move towards authoritarianism.
1) Yes, speech can be regulated to some degree and certain forms even outlawed, such as the classic, "Fire in a crowded movie theater" example. But the government cannot just regulate speech however they please. The same is true with firearms. The government can regulate firearms (and does!), but it historically has had good reasons for most (not all) regulations, such as regulating automatic fire weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, powerful weapons (generally guns over .50 caliber), and of course other weapons ranging from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons to battle tanks and attack helicopters and so forth.
2) If speech was regulated in the way that some want to regulate guns, then it would no longer be a question of what are you not allowed to say, but rather, what ARE you allowed to say, and you would have to get a permit to be able to say it, and then be very limited in terms of the medium in which you could speak.
3) To compare an "assault weapons ban" to speech laws would be like if politicians were to propose an "Assault Speech Ban" or maybe a "Hate Speech" ban, but then they get to define "Assault Speech" or "Hate Speech" However they please (say speech critical of government).
4) Many gun control proponents say, "We just want to ban the assault weapons, but we are fine with guns for legitimate hunters and sport shooters." This would be like saying, "We just want to ban the hate speech" (defined as being any speech critical of government let's say) "but we are fine with free speech for legitimate authors, playwrights, scriptwriters, etc..." well it would immediately be pointed out that the First Amendment is not about solely protecting free speech as a form of recreation, it is about protecting free speech so that a person can express their views and be critical of the government. Just the same, the Second Amendment is not about protecting a right to arms solely for recreational purposes either, it is about protecting the right of a person to keep arms in the event that a person or group of persons seeks to make war on that person and/or their family, and if the government was to move towards authoritarianism.
Gun Control Bill Dies in Senate
Personally, I am fine with universal background checks, the problem with the whole idea is that the likely only way to enforce it is to have a gun registry. And gun registries generally lead to gun confiscation. We've seen it happen already in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when the police chief ordered his police officers to go door-to-door and confiscate people's firearms. We've also had politicians, such as Diane Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo, talk about gun confiscation. So we have politicians who would be willing to do it, if they had the ability.
It also is a complete affront to the idea of your fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It is not the government's business what guns you own unless they are a special type of gun such as an automatic fire weapon, explosives, or something like that. So overall, it is probably good that it died for now.
It also is a complete affront to the idea of your fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It is not the government's business what guns you own unless they are a special type of gun such as an automatic fire weapon, explosives, or something like that. So overall, it is probably good that it died for now.
RIP
Wasn't able to get to my blog as of late, so I just wanted to say a few things:
1) RIP to Margaret Thatcher, who stood up to Communism and turned the U.K. around, making it a world power again.
2) RIP to all of the people maimed and killed in the Boston Marathon.
1) RIP to Margaret Thatcher, who stood up to Communism and turned the U.K. around, making it a world power again.
2) RIP to all of the people maimed and killed in the Boston Marathon.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Assault Weapons Ban Gone for Now
In gun control news, if you've been following the news as of late, you know that the Congress has shelved the Assault Weapons Ban. Right now they are just going after universal background checks. I would say people should be vigilant with regards to universal background checks because while on the surface, they can seem like basic common sense, the problem with them is a few-fold:
1) They are likely impossible to enforce without creating a federal gun registry. The concept of a gun registry goes against the entire concept of having a right to keep and bear arms. If one had to register their books with the government, then the whole concept of freedom of information would seem odd.
2) Gun registries almost always lead to gun confiscation at some point in the future (for example, Canada). This is what has happened in other countries that have created such registries and it has been talked about being done here in America by people such as Dianne Feinstein, Governor Cuomo, and other politicians in the U.S. It also was done in New Orleans by the police in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
In another part of the news, Governor Cuomo of New York, upon realizing the ridiculousness of the NY SAFE Act's limiting people to seven-round magazines, which are very rare except for handguns, has decided that ten round magazines will remain legal, but people will only be allowed to load them with seven rounds at most. Which makes complete logical sense of course, because any criminal intent on shooting a place up will of course make sure to load their ten round magazines with only seven rounds each.
In the event anyone actually reads this blog of mine who believes in gun rights, keep abreast of your state and local governments, as there are some highly restrictive proposals being made.
1) They are likely impossible to enforce without creating a federal gun registry. The concept of a gun registry goes against the entire concept of having a right to keep and bear arms. If one had to register their books with the government, then the whole concept of freedom of information would seem odd.
2) Gun registries almost always lead to gun confiscation at some point in the future (for example, Canada). This is what has happened in other countries that have created such registries and it has been talked about being done here in America by people such as Dianne Feinstein, Governor Cuomo, and other politicians in the U.S. It also was done in New Orleans by the police in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
In another part of the news, Governor Cuomo of New York, upon realizing the ridiculousness of the NY SAFE Act's limiting people to seven-round magazines, which are very rare except for handguns, has decided that ten round magazines will remain legal, but people will only be allowed to load them with seven rounds at most. Which makes complete logical sense of course, because any criminal intent on shooting a place up will of course make sure to load their ten round magazines with only seven rounds each.
In the event anyone actually reads this blog of mine who believes in gun rights, keep abreast of your state and local governments, as there are some highly restrictive proposals being made.
Wealthy Versus Rich
I don't know if I have written about this topic before (I honestly forget), but I figured I would write about it now just in case I haven't before. Basically, I just wanted to give my personal opinion on being "wealthy" versus being "rich." In common discourse, the two terms are often used interchangeably, and I suppose it is a bit arbitrary in how I will define them as well, but to me they represent two different aspects of life.
"Wealthy"
To me, "wealth" would essentially be one's ownership of things valued by society. This can be representated in various ways (having lots of money for example). But it's your assets that produce income, and/or your things that are valued by society, that make one wealthy, that are what one can trade, via our financial system, for the variety of goods and services in existence.
An aspect of this opinion that has gotten me in trouble among some folk is that in my opinion, in some sense, almost all people in modern America are wealthy, it's just a question of how wealthy one is. But even a person living below the poverty line in America is wealthy by Third World standards and by the standards under which the average middle-class person lived say back in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.
The reason I make this argument is that "wealth" can also be defined by what goods and services one can purchase. The more goods and services that one can purchase, the wealthier one is. As many goods and services exist today that either did not exist before or were only available to the very wealthy before, modern people are much wealthier than their ancestors and in comparison to people living in the Third World. The average family living in a home with the following:
Running hot and cold water
Shower
Refrigerator and freezer
Air conditioning and heat
Computer
Internet
Cable
Television (and now more and more a flat-screen for even poor folks)
Cell phone
Access to innumerable fresh food and drink
Bed and other furniture
Car with basic heating, air conditioning, radio, etc...(and nowadays you can add separately things likea backup camera and a GPS system if the car is an older model that didn't come with those)
....and so forth, such a family is wealthy by the standards of the family living in some Third World country without ANY of the above. I read a story for example about a woman in Haiti who had to make mud pies (yes, mud pies) just to have something to feed her children as they were starving. In comparison to such people, even a person in the U.S. who doesn't have healthcare, still has access to very basic forms of healthcare that the lack of could have killed you in the past (and will still kill you if you lack it). For example, if you cut yourself and have no access to hygiene. If the cut gets infected, you could be in big trouble. But in modern America, no one worries about a cut. You run to the sink, wash it with soap and water, apply alcohol, maybe something like Neosporin, a Band-Aid, and you're set to go. You also can purchase basic medications that can help with sicknesses that in prior times might have killed someone (for example, I had to take Tylenol to keep my fever down when I was suffering the allergic reaction I wrote about some posts back).
As said though, the above arguments oftentimes get me in trouble nonetheless. The most hilarious response (to me anyway) that I'll oftentimes get is that I must have never been poor or had to "go without." Or it'll be something smart-alic, such as, "So what you're saying is because someone can buy a Playstation, they must not be poor," or something along that line. But I'm not arguing that the average person doesn't struggle or anything, I'm just pointing out that it's a large difference between having all these basic luxuries and struggling to pay bills versus struggling just to be able to survive period. The truly poor in America would be your homeless, and even then, many of them are obese, because they get enough calories, it's just they are low-quality calories. But that would mean being homeless in America is likely still better than the life of a Third World person.
Anyways though, those are my thoughts on what constitutes being "wealthy."
"Rich"
Being "rich," in my opinion, is related to, but not the same as, being wealthy. To me, having a rich life involves things like:
Family
Friends
A career/profession that you enjoy
Hobbies you enjoy
Good health
In general, things that make you happy in life
Now there are plenty of wealthy people (by my definition of wealth) that do not have a rich life (by my definition of rich). And there are plenty of people that have a rich life in this world who would not meet the definition of wealthy necessarilly. You might have a standard of living much poorer than that of the average American even, yet still have a very rich life in terms of your profession, family life, friends, etc...
Of course, the best way is to try and have both! To be both wealthy and have a rich life. The trick is to figure out how to pursue and achieve both. I do not know the exact answer to that question and am striving for it myself.
"Wealthy"
To me, "wealth" would essentially be one's ownership of things valued by society. This can be representated in various ways (having lots of money for example). But it's your assets that produce income, and/or your things that are valued by society, that make one wealthy, that are what one can trade, via our financial system, for the variety of goods and services in existence.
An aspect of this opinion that has gotten me in trouble among some folk is that in my opinion, in some sense, almost all people in modern America are wealthy, it's just a question of how wealthy one is. But even a person living below the poverty line in America is wealthy by Third World standards and by the standards under which the average middle-class person lived say back in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.
The reason I make this argument is that "wealth" can also be defined by what goods and services one can purchase. The more goods and services that one can purchase, the wealthier one is. As many goods and services exist today that either did not exist before or were only available to the very wealthy before, modern people are much wealthier than their ancestors and in comparison to people living in the Third World. The average family living in a home with the following:
Running hot and cold water
Shower
Refrigerator and freezer
Air conditioning and heat
Computer
Internet
Cable
Television (and now more and more a flat-screen for even poor folks)
Cell phone
Access to innumerable fresh food and drink
Bed and other furniture
Car with basic heating, air conditioning, radio, etc...(and nowadays you can add separately things likea backup camera and a GPS system if the car is an older model that didn't come with those)
....and so forth, such a family is wealthy by the standards of the family living in some Third World country without ANY of the above. I read a story for example about a woman in Haiti who had to make mud pies (yes, mud pies) just to have something to feed her children as they were starving. In comparison to such people, even a person in the U.S. who doesn't have healthcare, still has access to very basic forms of healthcare that the lack of could have killed you in the past (and will still kill you if you lack it). For example, if you cut yourself and have no access to hygiene. If the cut gets infected, you could be in big trouble. But in modern America, no one worries about a cut. You run to the sink, wash it with soap and water, apply alcohol, maybe something like Neosporin, a Band-Aid, and you're set to go. You also can purchase basic medications that can help with sicknesses that in prior times might have killed someone (for example, I had to take Tylenol to keep my fever down when I was suffering the allergic reaction I wrote about some posts back).
As said though, the above arguments oftentimes get me in trouble nonetheless. The most hilarious response (to me anyway) that I'll oftentimes get is that I must have never been poor or had to "go without." Or it'll be something smart-alic, such as, "So what you're saying is because someone can buy a Playstation, they must not be poor," or something along that line. But I'm not arguing that the average person doesn't struggle or anything, I'm just pointing out that it's a large difference between having all these basic luxuries and struggling to pay bills versus struggling just to be able to survive period. The truly poor in America would be your homeless, and even then, many of them are obese, because they get enough calories, it's just they are low-quality calories. But that would mean being homeless in America is likely still better than the life of a Third World person.
Anyways though, those are my thoughts on what constitutes being "wealthy."
"Rich"
Being "rich," in my opinion, is related to, but not the same as, being wealthy. To me, having a rich life involves things like:
Family
Friends
A career/profession that you enjoy
Hobbies you enjoy
Good health
In general, things that make you happy in life
Now there are plenty of wealthy people (by my definition of wealth) that do not have a rich life (by my definition of rich). And there are plenty of people that have a rich life in this world who would not meet the definition of wealthy necessarilly. You might have a standard of living much poorer than that of the average American even, yet still have a very rich life in terms of your profession, family life, friends, etc...
Of course, the best way is to try and have both! To be both wealthy and have a rich life. The trick is to figure out how to pursue and achieve both. I do not know the exact answer to that question and am striving for it myself.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Should Schools Have Armed Security?
So in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, the NRA came under a lot of heat for proposing that the public schools have armed security in them. The level of criticism leveled I think showed how a lot of the people who were calling for both sides to come together and have a meaningful discussion on the issue were not really serious about this. The real irony has been those who claimed that the NRA and Wayne LaPierre had lost credibility on the issue for proposing this, yet who considered themselves credible on the subject as their proposed solution is the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban."
A few points I wanted to make on this proposal of the NRA's though:
1) Many of the critics say that the NRA's proposed solution to guns in the schools is more guns. That the NRA's solution is for there to be armed guards in the schools who will shoot it out with the gunmen in such events among the children, and thus the NRA loses credibility. Their (the critics) solution is instead to get the guns out of the hands of the shooters in the first place. Well the the problem with this is that for one, it's virtually impossible to get the guns out of the hands of the shooters. Even if we banned the further sale and manufacture of all guns in this country, there's millions out there in circulation right now (and a whole lot of additional ones have flowed out with the panic buying that has occurred in the wake of the shooting). So it would be virtually impossible to stop the shooters from having guns at any point in the near-term.
But let's say that we repealed the Second Amendment and then went on acquiring all the guns in circulation. Provided that this could even be done, it would likely be a multi-decade process to get all the guns out of circulation. So even if one would prefer to to do this, banning all guns, I would think that while that was being done, it would make sense possibly to put armed security into the schools.
So even if one disagrees with the NRA's proposal as an end solution, it would still make sense as a near-term temporary solution for some decades until all the guns could be rid from society. The gun-grabbers' plan would involve a period of leaving the schools unsecured for the years to decades it would take to get all the guns out of circulation.
2) Some say that the children, even if protected by armed security, will not be any safer when outside of the school in say a supermarket or a mall (Chris Wallace said this to Wayne LaPierre in his interview with him on Fox News Sunday). Well to this I say, if that's the line of reasoning, then we might as well get rid of the special standards for engineering and construction that we have for school buses. Because it makes no sense to require those buses to be built to any special standards because the children are not going to be secured by those standards when they are riding in vehicles that are not school buses (like their parents' car/minivan/SUV). And we may as well also get rid of the security in the IRS buildings, because surely the IRS employees are not safe when out and about either.
The reason for securing these buildings and vehicles is because they hold a large number of a certain type of personnel that needs protection. In the case of an IRS building, you have a large number of IRS employees all concentrated together in one building. Such buildings are thus ripe targets for those who might want to harm IRS employees. Sure, they could try to go after individual employees outside of the building, but there are a lot who would just want to rage against the IRS itself and mass-kill IRs employees. And if the whole building is just left wide open for someone to just walk in, well that's asking for an attack at some point.
With a schoolbus, you have a vehicle that carries a large number of children. If something bad happens to the bus, thus a large number of children could either be injured and/or killed. So we require the buses to be constructed to special standards. With a school, you have what is a warehouse filled with children for a good portion of the day. Such a building is a major target for anyone intent on slaughtering children. Such a person is likely not going to go to a mall or a supermarket. Yes, individual children will be at more risk, but only to a general mass-shooter who wants to shoot at anybody or to someone after a specific child. Regarding a person intent specifically on slaughtering children in large numbers, they are going to head to the building filled with children, preferably one labeled as a "Gun Free Zone." And even if they just want to shoot up a large number of people period, adults or children, schools are ripe targets for this.
So the NRA's suggestion is, just like with the schoolbuses and IRS buildings, we should increase the security of the schools. It is not a fail-safe solution, but one that can help prevent future mass shootings. It is often pointed out that Columbine had security and that didn't stop the shooters. But a third of the schools in the country already have armed security, so it must work to some degree as a form of deterrant, or there would be no point in investing money in it. The amount of security return the security provides must be worth the cost of investing money in it, or I doubt the schools would continue to do so.
A few points I wanted to make on this proposal of the NRA's though:
1) Many of the critics say that the NRA's proposed solution to guns in the schools is more guns. That the NRA's solution is for there to be armed guards in the schools who will shoot it out with the gunmen in such events among the children, and thus the NRA loses credibility. Their (the critics) solution is instead to get the guns out of the hands of the shooters in the first place. Well the the problem with this is that for one, it's virtually impossible to get the guns out of the hands of the shooters. Even if we banned the further sale and manufacture of all guns in this country, there's millions out there in circulation right now (and a whole lot of additional ones have flowed out with the panic buying that has occurred in the wake of the shooting). So it would be virtually impossible to stop the shooters from having guns at any point in the near-term.
But let's say that we repealed the Second Amendment and then went on acquiring all the guns in circulation. Provided that this could even be done, it would likely be a multi-decade process to get all the guns out of circulation. So even if one would prefer to to do this, banning all guns, I would think that while that was being done, it would make sense possibly to put armed security into the schools.
So even if one disagrees with the NRA's proposal as an end solution, it would still make sense as a near-term temporary solution for some decades until all the guns could be rid from society. The gun-grabbers' plan would involve a period of leaving the schools unsecured for the years to decades it would take to get all the guns out of circulation.
2) Some say that the children, even if protected by armed security, will not be any safer when outside of the school in say a supermarket or a mall (Chris Wallace said this to Wayne LaPierre in his interview with him on Fox News Sunday). Well to this I say, if that's the line of reasoning, then we might as well get rid of the special standards for engineering and construction that we have for school buses. Because it makes no sense to require those buses to be built to any special standards because the children are not going to be secured by those standards when they are riding in vehicles that are not school buses (like their parents' car/minivan/SUV). And we may as well also get rid of the security in the IRS buildings, because surely the IRS employees are not safe when out and about either.
The reason for securing these buildings and vehicles is because they hold a large number of a certain type of personnel that needs protection. In the case of an IRS building, you have a large number of IRS employees all concentrated together in one building. Such buildings are thus ripe targets for those who might want to harm IRS employees. Sure, they could try to go after individual employees outside of the building, but there are a lot who would just want to rage against the IRS itself and mass-kill IRs employees. And if the whole building is just left wide open for someone to just walk in, well that's asking for an attack at some point.
With a schoolbus, you have a vehicle that carries a large number of children. If something bad happens to the bus, thus a large number of children could either be injured and/or killed. So we require the buses to be constructed to special standards. With a school, you have what is a warehouse filled with children for a good portion of the day. Such a building is a major target for anyone intent on slaughtering children. Such a person is likely not going to go to a mall or a supermarket. Yes, individual children will be at more risk, but only to a general mass-shooter who wants to shoot at anybody or to someone after a specific child. Regarding a person intent specifically on slaughtering children in large numbers, they are going to head to the building filled with children, preferably one labeled as a "Gun Free Zone." And even if they just want to shoot up a large number of people period, adults or children, schools are ripe targets for this.
So the NRA's suggestion is, just like with the schoolbuses and IRS buildings, we should increase the security of the schools. It is not a fail-safe solution, but one that can help prevent future mass shootings. It is often pointed out that Columbine had security and that didn't stop the shooters. But a third of the schools in the country already have armed security, so it must work to some degree as a form of deterrant, or there would be no point in investing money in it. The amount of security return the security provides must be worth the cost of investing money in it, or I doubt the schools would continue to do so.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
The Founders Could Have Envisioned Repeating Arms
A repeating arm is a gun that can hold more then one round and fire round after round successively. One of the arguments often made is that the Founders, when writing the Second Amendment, could never have imagined the types of guns that we have today. While this could possibly be true with regards to machine guns, it is likely not true with regards to repeating guns. It also is a flimsy argument because if applied to the First Amendment, one could argue that the Founders could not have imagined mediums such as radio, television, the Internet, and so forth either.
One of the great misconceptions many people have however about the time period in which the Second Amendment was written is that the state-of-the-art in terms of firearms were single-shot muskets. That isn't the case. The reality is that repeating arms had been in existence already for decades at the time, it's just that they were not widespread. You had arms for example such as the Cookson repeating rifle (invented 1750) which held twelve shots and the Girandoni air rifle (invented 1779, eight years before the Constitution was written) which held twenty-two shots, that was created for use by the Austrian Army and of which one was carried by Lewis and Clarke in their expedition. So the technology existed for repeating guns, just they were not as widespread. The earliest repeating guns date all the way back to the late 1600s!
When muskets and cannon were first invented, they too were not widespread. It took improvements in the design, manufacturing, etc...of such weapons before they began to become widespread, but they eventually did. Cannon were also widespread at the time (the vast majority of cannon before and for a time after the Civil War were privately-owned---there were also privately-owned gun boats with multiple cannon). So it would have been perfectly logical to assume that as time went on, and manufacturing technology improved, that repeating guns would eventually become widely available as well, and that is exactly what happened.
Here are a few videos:
One of the great misconceptions many people have however about the time period in which the Second Amendment was written is that the state-of-the-art in terms of firearms were single-shot muskets. That isn't the case. The reality is that repeating arms had been in existence already for decades at the time, it's just that they were not widespread. You had arms for example such as the Cookson repeating rifle (invented 1750) which held twelve shots and the Girandoni air rifle (invented 1779, eight years before the Constitution was written) which held twenty-two shots, that was created for use by the Austrian Army and of which one was carried by Lewis and Clarke in their expedition. So the technology existed for repeating guns, just they were not as widespread. The earliest repeating guns date all the way back to the late 1600s!
When muskets and cannon were first invented, they too were not widespread. It took improvements in the design, manufacturing, etc...of such weapons before they began to become widespread, but they eventually did. Cannon were also widespread at the time (the vast majority of cannon before and for a time after the Civil War were privately-owned---there were also privately-owned gun boats with multiple cannon). So it would have been perfectly logical to assume that as time went on, and manufacturing technology improved, that repeating guns would eventually become widely available as well, and that is exactly what happened.
Here are a few videos:
Lawsuit Against Governor Cuomo's Gun Control Legislation
The NRA and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association are preparing to file a lawsuit against the NY SAFE Act, the gun control legislation passed by Governor Cuomo. I hope they are successful, however I have some trepidation over it if the ban is to be upheld. Some question whether the ban is constitutional because it bans a majority of hand guns due to the magazine limitation being set at seven rounds now. But I would think that it is blatantly un-Constitutional just by virtue of the fact that it bans the AR-15 rifle.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion in DC v Heller, stated that the Second Amendment is not an "unlimited right," that the government can regulate arms ownership, and that dangerous and unusual weapons can be regulated or banned. True, but the AR-15 is not a dangerous or unusual weapon. It is to the contrary a low-powered rifle that until the past few decades wasn't even taken seriously by most serious gun enthusiasts, who viewed it as nothing more then one step above being a toy. It has been on the market since 1964, and has been the best-selling rifle in this country for some years now, and a very good selling rifle in years before that, which is why so many companies manufacture AR-15 rifles nowadays. As such, there is nothing "dangerous" or "unusual" about it. It is the contrary, the epitomy of the type of gun that the Second Amendment should explicitly protect.
I wish the 2nd Amendment lawyers in this case the best of luck.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion in DC v Heller, stated that the Second Amendment is not an "unlimited right," that the government can regulate arms ownership, and that dangerous and unusual weapons can be regulated or banned. True, but the AR-15 is not a dangerous or unusual weapon. It is to the contrary a low-powered rifle that until the past few decades wasn't even taken seriously by most serious gun enthusiasts, who viewed it as nothing more then one step above being a toy. It has been on the market since 1964, and has been the best-selling rifle in this country for some years now, and a very good selling rifle in years before that, which is why so many companies manufacture AR-15 rifles nowadays. As such, there is nothing "dangerous" or "unusual" about it. It is the contrary, the epitomy of the type of gun that the Second Amendment should explicitly protect.
I wish the 2nd Amendment lawyers in this case the best of luck.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Jessie Duff on Gun Misconceptions
Well FINALLY, someone on television actually gives a demonstration regarding the misconceptions of these firearms:
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Preciousness of Life
Well I am just getting over having had a severe allergic reaction to an amoxicillin pill. Turns out I am very allergic it seems to all penicillin-based medications most likely. This has been a recurring pattern for me each time I have had surgery or received some medication. This represents the fourth time in my life where upon taking some kind of medication (this time for a minor eye surgery), I had a bad allergic reaction. However, this time was severe. I am going to have to get one of those special bracelets that alert medical professionals not to give me certain medications in the event I end up in say a car accident or what have you.
However, this reaction was particularly severe. I am lucky that the doctor did not tell me to take two pills instead of one, or I might be dead now. The night started off with me vomiting, developing a high fever, and full body rash. I luckily didn't get hives, but it was a nasty red rash nonetheless. My body and face swelled up very badly, and I lost my ability to taste food (which is just now coming back---let me tell you, you don't realize how much you enjoy the ability to taste food until you lose it!). The rash did not really itch much, but I was bedridden for days. I had to go to an urgent care facility where they found I was severely dehydrated from the vomiting, and htey gave me an IV and told me to take Tylenol every four hours to bring down my fever.
One of the worst parts was how hot I felt. My face felt extremely hot and my head overall felt very hot. This is one of the maddening parts of the reaction. After a few days, I woke up and my head and face felt cool! I literally felt reborn I have to tell you. It was like I had been subjected to the pits of hell and was now being reborn. How nice it was to just lie in bed and feel cool! People sure take that for granted. The rash became very itchy later that day, which was utterly maddening, but luckily the itch died off the next day. I have since been recovering.
My heart rate has been abnormally high, I am going to have to get this checked by a doctor if it continues into next week. While I have been feeling much more "normal," I have found that my body is still very tired and needs a lot more sleep. It's like I would sleep the whole night, a normal length, and feel very tired upon waking still. Also, my skin has been flaking off. My father did some research and told me I might have a version of what is called Stephen Johnson Syndrome, which is a condition that can be triggered by an allergic reaction to a penicillin that can cause the epidermal layer of the skin to slough off. However, this is a severe reaction that requires hospitalization and treatment in a burn unit. It is believed by many from what I have read that Stephen Johnson Syndrome is itself a lighter version of what is called Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, which is a condition in which the epidermal layer detaches completely from the body due to a severe allergic reaction.
As bad as my reaction was, it could have been a lot worse, so I thank God I didn't have to go through that ordeal and my heart goes out to those that do. For me, it's been more like having gotten a full-body sunburn. Rather than peeling, as said my skin has been flaking off. My head has constant dandriff right now, and my back and arms have especially been flaking. My face was flaking for a day or so and my neck has been as well. My legs are now beginning to flake too, but thus far my chest and stomach area have remained normal. I suppose the rash didn't get those areas as badly.
It undermines however how precious life and good health is. One moment you are healthy as can be and one pill later and you are on the verge of death. I know it sounds very cliched, but seriously, never take life or good health for granted. Always be cognizant in particular about your health and do your best to preserve it as you age via eating healthy and obtaining basic exercise.
However, this reaction was particularly severe. I am lucky that the doctor did not tell me to take two pills instead of one, or I might be dead now. The night started off with me vomiting, developing a high fever, and full body rash. I luckily didn't get hives, but it was a nasty red rash nonetheless. My body and face swelled up very badly, and I lost my ability to taste food (which is just now coming back---let me tell you, you don't realize how much you enjoy the ability to taste food until you lose it!). The rash did not really itch much, but I was bedridden for days. I had to go to an urgent care facility where they found I was severely dehydrated from the vomiting, and htey gave me an IV and told me to take Tylenol every four hours to bring down my fever.
One of the worst parts was how hot I felt. My face felt extremely hot and my head overall felt very hot. This is one of the maddening parts of the reaction. After a few days, I woke up and my head and face felt cool! I literally felt reborn I have to tell you. It was like I had been subjected to the pits of hell and was now being reborn. How nice it was to just lie in bed and feel cool! People sure take that for granted. The rash became very itchy later that day, which was utterly maddening, but luckily the itch died off the next day. I have since been recovering.
My heart rate has been abnormally high, I am going to have to get this checked by a doctor if it continues into next week. While I have been feeling much more "normal," I have found that my body is still very tired and needs a lot more sleep. It's like I would sleep the whole night, a normal length, and feel very tired upon waking still. Also, my skin has been flaking off. My father did some research and told me I might have a version of what is called Stephen Johnson Syndrome, which is a condition that can be triggered by an allergic reaction to a penicillin that can cause the epidermal layer of the skin to slough off. However, this is a severe reaction that requires hospitalization and treatment in a burn unit. It is believed by many from what I have read that Stephen Johnson Syndrome is itself a lighter version of what is called Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, which is a condition in which the epidermal layer detaches completely from the body due to a severe allergic reaction.
As bad as my reaction was, it could have been a lot worse, so I thank God I didn't have to go through that ordeal and my heart goes out to those that do. For me, it's been more like having gotten a full-body sunburn. Rather than peeling, as said my skin has been flaking off. My head has constant dandriff right now, and my back and arms have especially been flaking. My face was flaking for a day or so and my neck has been as well. My legs are now beginning to flake too, but thus far my chest and stomach area have remained normal. I suppose the rash didn't get those areas as badly.
It undermines however how precious life and good health is. One moment you are healthy as can be and one pill later and you are on the verge of death. I know it sounds very cliched, but seriously, never take life or good health for granted. Always be cognizant in particular about your health and do your best to preserve it as you age via eating healthy and obtaining basic exercise.
Assault Weapons Ban
So today President Obama outlined his various proposals on how to supposedly reduce gun violence, including measures such as the Assault Weapons Ban. I felt I should clear a few things up on this particular piece of legislation.
Myth #1: Assault Weapons
Contrary to what so many in the media and politicians believe, there really is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The term assault weapon was a political term that was created in order to give the gun control movement an "in" with regards to being able to ban what amount to being scary-looking guns. Obviously, saying one wants to ban scary-looking guns would not go over well politically. So the term assault weapon was invented and now they are considered a type of firearm.
What gets a gun the label "assault weapon?" Under the old Assault Weapons Ban and under most of the state bans, it needs at least two of the following features:
Folding or collapsible stock
Flash suppressor
Pistol grip
Grenade launcher
Bayonet lug
Under Dianne Feinstein's new Assault Weapons Ban which she is going to introduce this Thursday (January 3rd), which is much more draconian than the first ban, the term will apply to a gun that has at least one of those features, along with some other features. Thus it effectively will outlaw an enormous number of firearms. It explicitly outlaws numerous firearms and indirectly outlaws numerous others (such as the AR-15) via this method. New York's Governor Guomo just signed into law yesterday a law that redefines "assault weapon" as any weapon with a detachable magazine and at least one military-style feature, so it most likely will outlaw the AR-15. The only way around this I could think of could be what is called the "bullet button," which is used in California AR-15s. Basically, it's a mechanism that holds the magazine in place where you need a special tool in order to detach the magazine from the rifle. This makes it where the magazine is not "technically" a "detachable" magazine. Whether such AR-15s will be able to make it in New York I have no idea, but I have a feeling the politicians will revise the law to include this as well after looking at how quickly they rammed through this gun control legislation.
Now you'll notice that these cosmetic features do not exactly have anything to do with the actual capability of the gun itself.
If a criminal fixes a bayonet (when has that ever happened?) and then points the gun at you, the bayonet on the gun is not the source of your concern there.
Regarding the grenade launcher, it actually referred to an obsolete WWII-era grenade launcher. But regardless, you can't buy the grenades for any such grenade launcher anyhow, new or obsolete model.
The flash suppressor is a safety mechanism for the shooter that suppresses the flash from the gun shot so that the shooter can see better where they are shooting.
The pistol grip is something the gun control folk have an unusual fascination with. I don't why personally, as a rifle without a pistol girp can be fired just as quickly as one with a pistol grip.
The folding or collapsible stock has to be one of the craziest of these. The stock is the part of the rifle that rests against one's shoulder when they are aiming the rifle. How a stock that can fold to the side on the gun or be adjusted to different lengths makes the weapon an "assault weapon" is beyond me.
As such, the draconian ban Senator Feinstein and the President is proposing amounts to blatantly infringing on people's Second Amendment rights by taking advantage of a slaughter that happened while doing very little that actually addresses the key issue at hand, i.e. how to prevent future Newtowns from happening. The Assault Weapons Ban is really a very crafty piece of legislation from the gun control perspective. Basically what it allows is for the gun control people to claim a type of weapon exists that doesn't and to call for its banning, and then to act as if they are the adults in the conversation while going up against a bunch of dogmatic, unyielding gun nuts who will not compromise on the most "sane and reasonable" gun control legislation. The reality of course is that such legislation is very unreasonable and lacking in sanity.
The Republican party itself tends not to help with this as many of the Republican politicians themselves do not understand that there really is no such thing as an assault weapon, which leads to some inane defenses they put up against an assault weapons ban. Milton Friedman once spoke about how with all policy proposals, there are the "do-gooders" and then the people with an agenda. With the assault weapons ban, there are a lot of do-gooders in the Democratic party as well, people who mean well and who just don't know any better. The people with the agenda, who do know better but who purposely mislead the public on this issue are the ones who are the ideologues on this.
Myth #2: The AR-15 is a Powerful Rifle
The AR-15 is most definitely not a powerful rifle. It is a rather low-powered rifle, to the point that one can't even use it to hunt any kind of large game. It is simply very militaristic-looking rifle is all. Too many people judge the weapon by how it looks as opposed to bothering to learn about what it actually is. This myth has been repeated in particular by Senator Feinstein. The reality is that the AR-15 is sort of like the Jeep Wrangler of the firearms world: very durable, modular, customizable, useful, etc...but just as the Wrangler is not a vehicle you'd use to tow a trailer or haul a heavy load, the AR-15 is not a gun one would use for any application requiring a powerful gun.
So why do soldiers carry AR-15s? Because back in the old days of soldiering, soldiers carried what were known as "battle rifles." Battle rifles are bigger, more powerful rifles that fire a full-power cartridge. The militaries of the world realized that most soldiers do not engage one another until much closer than the distances that battle rifles can shoot out to, so it did not make sense to have soldiers carrying such big, powerful, heavy rifles when they could be equipped with more lightweight, smaller rifles, with smaller ammunition, which would also let them carry more ammunition. This was especially important during the Cold War as NATO forces were outnumbered by Warsaw Pact forces.
In terms of the AR-15 itself, it is actually too weak of a rifle to even be used for hunting any kind of large game. It makes an excellent varmint hunting rifle however (yes people do very much hunt with so-called "assault weapons," contrary to the claims of people such as Senator Feinstein and Governor Cuomo). It's bigger brother, the AR-10 (from which the design of the AR-15 originated from) makes an excellent general-purpose hunting rifle.
Myth #3: Weapons of War
This is another oft-repeated claim, that "weapons of war" have no place in the hands of civilians. President Obama repeated this claim today in his speech with the children, where he said something to the effect of weapons of the theater of war have no place in movie theaters. The problem is in defining exactly what a "weapon of war" is. Unless on is referring to something like a machine gun, an automatic fire weapon, there is no such thing as a "weapon of war." A gun is a gun, to put it simply. It isn't as if one needs a special kind of gun to be able to kill a human being. A human being, biologically, is an animal. It's a high-functioning animal, but it's an animal nonetheless. It's an animal with a powerful brain, hands, that is bipedal, can think abstactly, speaks languages, can fashion tools, makes clothing for itself, has developed culture, and advanced civilizations, but it's still an animal.
And the gun doesn't care whether it is shooting at the animal known as a deer, the animal known as a bear, the animal known as a coyote, or the animal known as a human. It will kill or inflict damage in all just the same. When soldiers shoot at other humans at war, they are shooting at animals. They are just shooting at animals that happen to be the same type of animal they are, other human beings. The practice of adopting military rifles for hunting purposes goes back to the days of the Revolution. Military rifles generally make excellent hunting rifles. And some hunting rifles make excellent military rifles. For example, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps both use variants of what is a very popular bolt-action hunting rifle, the Remington 700, for use as a sniper rifle. The Army's variant is called the M24 and the Marine Corps's variant is called the M40.
Some people might wonder, "Why are SNIPER RIFLES legal for people to buy. Who needs one of those?" Well the reason is because "sniper rifle," "hunting rifle," are the same gun. If you can use it to shoot a bear from a distance and kill it, you most definitely can use it to shoot a human from a distance and kill it. The term "sniper rifle" is also rather arbitrary, as technically any rifle could be used as a sniper rifle if it will do the job. For example, the "DC sniper" (John Allen Muhammad) used an AR-15 to shoot at his victims. The AR-15 is usually not though of as any sniper rifle.
Myth #4: Automatic Fire Weapons
Automatic fire weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934 via the National Firearms Act, and their manufacture outlawed in this country since 1986. One can own ones made before 1986, but to do so requires getting permission from your local police (if they say no, that stops you right there) and then undergoing a very extensive background check. There is a waiting period of many months, and the gun itself will cost you a lot of money (perhaps around $10K to $20K) because such guns are so rare. The problem is too many politicians confuse what are semi-automatic guns that look identical to their automatic fire cousins with being actual automatic fire weapons. All guns manufactured in the United States must be manufactured where they cannot easily be converted into automatic fire weapons as well.
Now in fairness to this, there in recent times has been created a sort of "workaround" to this, which is called bump-firing. Bump-fire mechanisms basically let you fire a semi-automatic gun at a very high rate of speed, to the point that it is essentially the same as an automatic fire weapon. "Technically," such guns are not automatic fire as they are semi-automatics with a mechanism that lets them fire very quickly, as opposed to having an actual automatic fire mechanism inside the gun. But the effect is very similar. Personally, I think such devices are a disaster waiting to happen for the gun industry, because if some maniac decides to use such a device to go on a shooting spree at let's say a crowd, the media is going to focus on this "workaround."
By having automatic fire weapons outlawed, the gun rights proponents have a good fact on our side. We shouldn't undermine it. We may sometimes have to jump up and down and scream from the rooftops that automatic fire weapons are not legal, and that the ones that are are very regulated, but at least the facts are there. Bump-fire mechanism undermine this whole argument. I would not myself outlaw bump-fire mechanism, but make it where one needs a special permit to acquire one.
Myth #5: The National Rifle Association is Just an Arm of the Gun Industry
The NRA, usually called "the gun lobby," often gets derided as just being an arm for the gun manufacturing industry, but this isn't the case. The reason is because contrary to what the gun control people want people to think, gun manufacturing is actually not that large of an industry. It is about $12 billion a year. That's pretty puny when one compares it to say Wal-Mart, one company, that has revenues in the $450 billion range. Or Exxon-Mobil, which had revenues in 2011 of about $483 billion. Bank of America was over $100 billion. The major defense companies tend to be in the $30 to $40 billion revenue range. These are lobbies. A little $12 billion manufacturing industry is not going to have anywhere near the financial wherewithall to give the NRA the kind of influence that it has in Washington.
What gives the NRA it's influence is its membership, over four million dues-paying members, along with other people who send the NRA donations even though they are not members. Whenever politicians talk about the "ultra-powerful NRA," or that they have "run up against the NRA," what they really mean is that they have run up against a large amount of the American people. If the American people sotp funding the NRA, then it will lose its influence. Now it is true that the gun manufacturers give money to the NRA. But by themselves, they are not enough to give it the influence it has.
This small size of the gun manufacturing industry is actually quite beneficial to those who desire gun control as it presents an ample opportunity to try to get rid of guns simply by regulating, taxing, and/or suing these companies out of existence. Congress actually had to pass a law (to the chagrin of the gun control movement) saying essentially that one cannot just frivolously sue a gun manufacturer because the company's gun was used for nefarious purposes.
The phrase "the gun lobby" is also misleading as well. Groups like the NRA are not "the gun lobby," they are a lobby for gun rights, to protect a Constitutional right which many are constantly seeking to infringe upon. The gun control movement has lately taken to calling themselves "gun safety" advocates. This sounds a lot nicer then "gun control" which is why they are adopting it. The media have been happy to pick up on the usage of this term however, albeit while continuing to refer to gun rights proponents and groups as "the gun lobby."
I am hoping that the Assault Weapons Ban President Obama has proposed does not pass Congress. If you care about your gun rights, now is the tie to write your Congressmen, the leaders of the parties, even the President (make yourself heard), and I'll also say give some funds to groups like the NRA as they'll need them to lobby in order to protect our Second Amendment rights.
Myth #1: Assault Weapons
Contrary to what so many in the media and politicians believe, there really is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The term assault weapon was a political term that was created in order to give the gun control movement an "in" with regards to being able to ban what amount to being scary-looking guns. Obviously, saying one wants to ban scary-looking guns would not go over well politically. So the term assault weapon was invented and now they are considered a type of firearm.
What gets a gun the label "assault weapon?" Under the old Assault Weapons Ban and under most of the state bans, it needs at least two of the following features:
Folding or collapsible stock
Flash suppressor
Pistol grip
Grenade launcher
Bayonet lug
Under Dianne Feinstein's new Assault Weapons Ban which she is going to introduce this Thursday (January 3rd), which is much more draconian than the first ban, the term will apply to a gun that has at least one of those features, along with some other features. Thus it effectively will outlaw an enormous number of firearms. It explicitly outlaws numerous firearms and indirectly outlaws numerous others (such as the AR-15) via this method. New York's Governor Guomo just signed into law yesterday a law that redefines "assault weapon" as any weapon with a detachable magazine and at least one military-style feature, so it most likely will outlaw the AR-15. The only way around this I could think of could be what is called the "bullet button," which is used in California AR-15s. Basically, it's a mechanism that holds the magazine in place where you need a special tool in order to detach the magazine from the rifle. This makes it where the magazine is not "technically" a "detachable" magazine. Whether such AR-15s will be able to make it in New York I have no idea, but I have a feeling the politicians will revise the law to include this as well after looking at how quickly they rammed through this gun control legislation.
Now you'll notice that these cosmetic features do not exactly have anything to do with the actual capability of the gun itself.
If a criminal fixes a bayonet (when has that ever happened?) and then points the gun at you, the bayonet on the gun is not the source of your concern there.
Regarding the grenade launcher, it actually referred to an obsolete WWII-era grenade launcher. But regardless, you can't buy the grenades for any such grenade launcher anyhow, new or obsolete model.
The flash suppressor is a safety mechanism for the shooter that suppresses the flash from the gun shot so that the shooter can see better where they are shooting.
The pistol grip is something the gun control folk have an unusual fascination with. I don't why personally, as a rifle without a pistol girp can be fired just as quickly as one with a pistol grip.
The folding or collapsible stock has to be one of the craziest of these. The stock is the part of the rifle that rests against one's shoulder when they are aiming the rifle. How a stock that can fold to the side on the gun or be adjusted to different lengths makes the weapon an "assault weapon" is beyond me.
As such, the draconian ban Senator Feinstein and the President is proposing amounts to blatantly infringing on people's Second Amendment rights by taking advantage of a slaughter that happened while doing very little that actually addresses the key issue at hand, i.e. how to prevent future Newtowns from happening. The Assault Weapons Ban is really a very crafty piece of legislation from the gun control perspective. Basically what it allows is for the gun control people to claim a type of weapon exists that doesn't and to call for its banning, and then to act as if they are the adults in the conversation while going up against a bunch of dogmatic, unyielding gun nuts who will not compromise on the most "sane and reasonable" gun control legislation. The reality of course is that such legislation is very unreasonable and lacking in sanity.
The Republican party itself tends not to help with this as many of the Republican politicians themselves do not understand that there really is no such thing as an assault weapon, which leads to some inane defenses they put up against an assault weapons ban. Milton Friedman once spoke about how with all policy proposals, there are the "do-gooders" and then the people with an agenda. With the assault weapons ban, there are a lot of do-gooders in the Democratic party as well, people who mean well and who just don't know any better. The people with the agenda, who do know better but who purposely mislead the public on this issue are the ones who are the ideologues on this.
Myth #2: The AR-15 is a Powerful Rifle
The AR-15 is most definitely not a powerful rifle. It is a rather low-powered rifle, to the point that one can't even use it to hunt any kind of large game. It is simply very militaristic-looking rifle is all. Too many people judge the weapon by how it looks as opposed to bothering to learn about what it actually is. This myth has been repeated in particular by Senator Feinstein. The reality is that the AR-15 is sort of like the Jeep Wrangler of the firearms world: very durable, modular, customizable, useful, etc...but just as the Wrangler is not a vehicle you'd use to tow a trailer or haul a heavy load, the AR-15 is not a gun one would use for any application requiring a powerful gun.
So why do soldiers carry AR-15s? Because back in the old days of soldiering, soldiers carried what were known as "battle rifles." Battle rifles are bigger, more powerful rifles that fire a full-power cartridge. The militaries of the world realized that most soldiers do not engage one another until much closer than the distances that battle rifles can shoot out to, so it did not make sense to have soldiers carrying such big, powerful, heavy rifles when they could be equipped with more lightweight, smaller rifles, with smaller ammunition, which would also let them carry more ammunition. This was especially important during the Cold War as NATO forces were outnumbered by Warsaw Pact forces.
In terms of the AR-15 itself, it is actually too weak of a rifle to even be used for hunting any kind of large game. It makes an excellent varmint hunting rifle however (yes people do very much hunt with so-called "assault weapons," contrary to the claims of people such as Senator Feinstein and Governor Cuomo). It's bigger brother, the AR-10 (from which the design of the AR-15 originated from) makes an excellent general-purpose hunting rifle.
Myth #3: Weapons of War
This is another oft-repeated claim, that "weapons of war" have no place in the hands of civilians. President Obama repeated this claim today in his speech with the children, where he said something to the effect of weapons of the theater of war have no place in movie theaters. The problem is in defining exactly what a "weapon of war" is. Unless on is referring to something like a machine gun, an automatic fire weapon, there is no such thing as a "weapon of war." A gun is a gun, to put it simply. It isn't as if one needs a special kind of gun to be able to kill a human being. A human being, biologically, is an animal. It's a high-functioning animal, but it's an animal nonetheless. It's an animal with a powerful brain, hands, that is bipedal, can think abstactly, speaks languages, can fashion tools, makes clothing for itself, has developed culture, and advanced civilizations, but it's still an animal.
And the gun doesn't care whether it is shooting at the animal known as a deer, the animal known as a bear, the animal known as a coyote, or the animal known as a human. It will kill or inflict damage in all just the same. When soldiers shoot at other humans at war, they are shooting at animals. They are just shooting at animals that happen to be the same type of animal they are, other human beings. The practice of adopting military rifles for hunting purposes goes back to the days of the Revolution. Military rifles generally make excellent hunting rifles. And some hunting rifles make excellent military rifles. For example, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps both use variants of what is a very popular bolt-action hunting rifle, the Remington 700, for use as a sniper rifle. The Army's variant is called the M24 and the Marine Corps's variant is called the M40.
Some people might wonder, "Why are SNIPER RIFLES legal for people to buy. Who needs one of those?" Well the reason is because "sniper rifle," "hunting rifle," are the same gun. If you can use it to shoot a bear from a distance and kill it, you most definitely can use it to shoot a human from a distance and kill it. The term "sniper rifle" is also rather arbitrary, as technically any rifle could be used as a sniper rifle if it will do the job. For example, the "DC sniper" (John Allen Muhammad) used an AR-15 to shoot at his victims. The AR-15 is usually not though of as any sniper rifle.
Myth #4: Automatic Fire Weapons
Automatic fire weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934 via the National Firearms Act, and their manufacture outlawed in this country since 1986. One can own ones made before 1986, but to do so requires getting permission from your local police (if they say no, that stops you right there) and then undergoing a very extensive background check. There is a waiting period of many months, and the gun itself will cost you a lot of money (perhaps around $10K to $20K) because such guns are so rare. The problem is too many politicians confuse what are semi-automatic guns that look identical to their automatic fire cousins with being actual automatic fire weapons. All guns manufactured in the United States must be manufactured where they cannot easily be converted into automatic fire weapons as well.
Now in fairness to this, there in recent times has been created a sort of "workaround" to this, which is called bump-firing. Bump-fire mechanisms basically let you fire a semi-automatic gun at a very high rate of speed, to the point that it is essentially the same as an automatic fire weapon. "Technically," such guns are not automatic fire as they are semi-automatics with a mechanism that lets them fire very quickly, as opposed to having an actual automatic fire mechanism inside the gun. But the effect is very similar. Personally, I think such devices are a disaster waiting to happen for the gun industry, because if some maniac decides to use such a device to go on a shooting spree at let's say a crowd, the media is going to focus on this "workaround."
By having automatic fire weapons outlawed, the gun rights proponents have a good fact on our side. We shouldn't undermine it. We may sometimes have to jump up and down and scream from the rooftops that automatic fire weapons are not legal, and that the ones that are are very regulated, but at least the facts are there. Bump-fire mechanism undermine this whole argument. I would not myself outlaw bump-fire mechanism, but make it where one needs a special permit to acquire one.
Myth #5: The National Rifle Association is Just an Arm of the Gun Industry
The NRA, usually called "the gun lobby," often gets derided as just being an arm for the gun manufacturing industry, but this isn't the case. The reason is because contrary to what the gun control people want people to think, gun manufacturing is actually not that large of an industry. It is about $12 billion a year. That's pretty puny when one compares it to say Wal-Mart, one company, that has revenues in the $450 billion range. Or Exxon-Mobil, which had revenues in 2011 of about $483 billion. Bank of America was over $100 billion. The major defense companies tend to be in the $30 to $40 billion revenue range. These are lobbies. A little $12 billion manufacturing industry is not going to have anywhere near the financial wherewithall to give the NRA the kind of influence that it has in Washington.
What gives the NRA it's influence is its membership, over four million dues-paying members, along with other people who send the NRA donations even though they are not members. Whenever politicians talk about the "ultra-powerful NRA," or that they have "run up against the NRA," what they really mean is that they have run up against a large amount of the American people. If the American people sotp funding the NRA, then it will lose its influence. Now it is true that the gun manufacturers give money to the NRA. But by themselves, they are not enough to give it the influence it has.
This small size of the gun manufacturing industry is actually quite beneficial to those who desire gun control as it presents an ample opportunity to try to get rid of guns simply by regulating, taxing, and/or suing these companies out of existence. Congress actually had to pass a law (to the chagrin of the gun control movement) saying essentially that one cannot just frivolously sue a gun manufacturer because the company's gun was used for nefarious purposes.
The phrase "the gun lobby" is also misleading as well. Groups like the NRA are not "the gun lobby," they are a lobby for gun rights, to protect a Constitutional right which many are constantly seeking to infringe upon. The gun control movement has lately taken to calling themselves "gun safety" advocates. This sounds a lot nicer then "gun control" which is why they are adopting it. The media have been happy to pick up on the usage of this term however, albeit while continuing to refer to gun rights proponents and groups as "the gun lobby."
I am hoping that the Assault Weapons Ban President Obama has proposed does not pass Congress. If you care about your gun rights, now is the tie to write your Congressmen, the leaders of the parties, even the President (make yourself heard), and I'll also say give some funds to groups like the NRA as they'll need them to lobby in order to protect our Second Amendment rights.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)