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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)