Haven't done this in a while, but this would have been pretty long as a Facebook post. It is pretty much just a reaction to executive orders proposed by the President to help curtail gun violence. tl;dr version: meh. It's a bunch of commitments to send letters, issue memos, and ask for money (from Congress) in the budget to hire more people. Nothing Earth-shattering here. The only things of any real significance are the actions related to defining who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms (which they take a "we'll know it when we see it" approach), actions related to use of gun trusts (but no specifics on that), and using Social Security Administration information to restrict firearm ownership based on inability to manage your affairs.
Full text is here. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
1) Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks. - Meh.
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks." - My interpretation, is anyone who has a table at a gun show will need a license if they want to sell guns. That's pretty much the way it is now with a few outliers. If you have enough guns to sell where you need a table at a gun show to do it, I am OK with this.
"ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity." - Yeah. Mass shooters and dangerous felons were spending the time and money to incorporate and set up gun trusts. Sure.
"Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history." - They are going to send letters asking LEOs to do what they were SUPPOSED to be doing already.
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is overhauling the background check system to make it more effective and efficient. The envisioned improvements include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to buy a gun. The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks." - Every gun control proponents dream come true. Faster background checks. Kind of a fan of this one since it will really only apply to people who needed additional review.
2) Make our communities safer from gun violence. - Meh
"The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws." - Enforcing gun laws that are already on the books? Does this mean they will actually prosecute straw purchasers now instead of cutting plea deals? Crazy talk.
"The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws." - Budget item so Congress will have to approve the funds.
"ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network." - Assuming that $4 million is already in their budget, whatever.
"ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit." - Already law.
"The Attorney General issued a memo encouraging every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts." - A memo.
3) Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system. - Not a fan of the SSA action.
"The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care." - Another proposed expense that will need to be approved by Congress.
"The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons." - This one I am not a fan of. Assigning someone to take care of your finances because you forget to pay your bills on occasion should not disqualify you from owning a firearm. This one will need to be handled VERY carefully.
"The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons." - Until I find out what those "specific mental health reasons" are, I will have to reserve judgement on that one.
4) Shape the future of gun safety technology. - Meh.
"The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology." - I don't have a problem with researching gun safety technology. I don't know that I think the government should be footing the bill for it, but that's a different issue.
"The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety." - Again, we are talking research items not rules.
"Congress should support the President’s request for resources for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws, as well as a new $500 million investment to address mental health issues." - Already covered. Something Congress needs to authorize.
"Because we all must do our part to keep our communities safe, the Administration is also calling on States and local governments to do all they can to keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce gun violence. It is also calling on private-sector leaders to follow the lead of other businesses that have taken voluntary steps to make it harder for dangerous individuals to get their hands on a gun. In the coming weeks, the Administration will engage with manufacturers, retailers, and other private-sector leaders to explore what more they can do." - Another request for organizations to "do something".
Keeping Guns Out of the Wrong Hands Through Background Checks
"Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks." - not a fan of the "we'll know it when we see it" definition of "engaged in the business".
"Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation." - Gun trusts have become popular because 1) you can use electronic processing of forms with the ATF which is WAY faster (weeks instead of months), 2) if you buy a significant number of items that require ATF registration like supressors (why do I need to pay $200 and get a background check to get a muffler?), it greatly cuts down on the paperwork, 3) in states where owning of firearms is illegal without a permit, (like when my father passed away and my mother had to stop what she was doing and worry about handling the guns she was unlicensed for because the police called her) you have time to work stuff out.
"Ensure States are providing records to the background check system, and work cooperatively with jurisdictions to improve reporting." - Sure.
"Make the background check system more efficient and effective." - These 230 individuals will be handling the checks that are flagged for further scrutiny, which most are not. I am cool with making resources available to make sure that people do not walk out of a store with a gun because the background check took too long, and no I am not willing to get rid of the 3 day maximum.
Making Our Communities Safer from Gun Violence
"Ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws." - Prosecuting stuff that is already illegal is a brilliant strategy. Perhaps they should have tried that earlier. NIBIN is not going to track down anybody. Similar programs in NY and MD have been proven to be useless and discontinued them.
"Ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about the theft or loss of their guns." - Already a requirement. This is just going to clarify who is responsible for doing it (the shipper).
"Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts." - Another memo. Domestic violence sucks, so yay?
Increase Mental Health Treatment and Reporting to the Background Check System - OK, I find this comical. "We must continue to remove the stigma around mental illness and its treatment" by using it as a disqualifier for owning a firearm.
"Dedicate significant new resources to increase access to mental health care." - Good, if you can get Congress to sign off on it.
"Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm." - Nope. Forgetting to pay your cable bill does not mean you should lose the right to defend yourself. Dementia is one thing, absent-mindedness is another.
"Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information to the background check system." - Removing HIPAA from the equation seems legit if it is THE ONLY reason that the information was not being reported.
Shaping the Future of Gun Safety Technology - Microstamping has nothing to do with safety.
"Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to take two important steps to promote smart gun technology." - As the largest single purchased of firearms in the country, I am cool with them investing in the technology. It should be noted though, that unless you get the military and LEOs to use the technology, it will go nowhere with most gun owners.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Components of the AWB
I put together a little post about the items that are in Senator
Feinstein's proposed 2013 Assault Weapon Ban. What follows is a picture of it available from a popular
retailer (where available) and a
description of the item. The pictures do not show the item attached to a weapon.
There are plenty of those pictures all over the internet. I think that causes confusion and I would like you to judge the item on its own without the firearm that it is associated with. If you have a
friend on the internet who is either for or against gun control, you
have seen one already anyway. Please keep in mind that if a firearm has ANY ONE of these features, it becomes and assault weapon.
Pistol Grip - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/2-MFTEPGI47FDE.jpg
It is a piece of plastic/rubber. It is in the shape of a pistol (hence the name). You hold it. If someone can explain to me how you can kill more people by twisting your wrist 15 degrees instead of 45 degrees, I will ban the things in a heartbeat. It is an ergonomic feature. It made the weapons more comfortable to use. For service men and women who had to hold their weapons for 12+ hours it is a great innovation. Aurora boy and the Newton asshat were not going to get a cramp and stop shooting.
Forward Grip - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/3-1029180_A.jpg
Pretty much the same as above, only your wrist is twisted 0 degrees instead of 90 when holding the gun by the barrel shroud. Speaking of which...
Barrel Shroud - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/9-89137.jpg
This is where you hold the front of the gun. Some of them have mounting points that you can mount things like the "forward grip" mentioned above. It keeps you from burning your hands on the barrel. Something similar is on every single rifle in existence. It is just usually made of wood and doesn't surround the barrel. Most upgraded versions include a rail system that you can use to mount things like scopes and other sighting equipment. Most firearms are capable of having accessories added to them.
Folding, Telescoping, or Detachable Stock - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/6-1021494.jpg, http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/ARR-852.jpg,
Folding
Telescoping (Collapsible)
Detachable
???
It is a piece of plastic that you rest against your shoulder when firing your weapon. Collapsible/telescoping means you can adjust the length to fit the person using the weapon. A 14 year old who is using a shotgun for small game hunting does not have the same length arms as an 18 year old. Women do not tend to have the same arm length as men. It is to allow the weapon to be adjusted to fit the shooter. The folding stock folds at a pivot point that you can see in the above image. I will concede that the folding stock can be used to make a weapon shorter and therefore make it more concealable, but the weapons used in these shootings were not concealed. They were out in the open from the start. No concealment attempts were made. The detachable stock escapes me. I guess you can remove the stock completely, but you can do the same thing with a hack saw on a wooden stock. So I am not sure what they mean here.
Grenade Launcher or Rocket Launcher - http://www.kiesler.com/shop/ProductImages/M203_2.jpg
Grenade Launcher
Rocket Launcher
???
I could only find a picture of a grenade launcher. I tried really hard to find an image of a gun mounted rocket launcher, but strangely, I cannot find a picture of an item that you hold IN FRONT OF YOU and throws FLAMES OUT OF THE BACK of it that you would then attach to your gun. I am pretty sure that the flames from the rocket would generate enough heat to melt most of the above equipment and likely set off the rounds held in the magazine sitting directly behind where it would attach to the gun. Oh yeah, it would also likely set you on fire.
It should be noted that just like all other class 3 weapons, (Fully automatic weapons such as M-16s, AK-47 [full auto version, not semi-automatics], Tommy guns and my personal favorite, the Dillon minigun) these are HIGHLY regulated and very EXPENSIVE. You can only buy them if they were manufactured PRIOR to 1984 and you cannot purchase one without undergoing a background check with the BATFE (aka ATF), fingerprints taken by local law enforcement, approval of local law enforcement and $200 for the transfer from he previous owner. This usually requires a 2 - 6 month wait for the paperwork to clear the BATFE process. On top of that, if you want the high explosive rounds, you again have to deal with theB ATFE and get certified in handling explosives. It should be said that I have used one with practice rounds (chalk filled rounds) and I am a FRIGHTENINGLY good shot with them. Way better than I am with the actual rifle. Suffice it to say, they are already way more illegal than they would be under this ban. Note that not a single mass shooting has used a grenade/rocket launcher.
Threaded Barrel - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/GNS-161.jpg
Sorry. This is actually a pistol barrel, but I couldn't find any good images of a rifle barrel. Just imagine it is about 4 times longer. Threaded barrels are regular barrels with threads cut onto the end of them like you would find on a a standard bolt that you can buy at The Home Depot. They are there to screw on compensators, flash hiders and silencers. Compensators redirect some of the gasses produced by the gun powder in the combustion chamber to help keep your gun from creeping upward while firing it. The flash hider helps block some of the light from the burning powder from appearing above the barrel so it doesn't block your view. Everyone thinks they know what a silencer is. It's not what you think. On a weapon other than a .22 it does not make the firearm whisper quiet. It makes it so you can shoot without hearing protection. That's it. Shooting a gun in a closed environment, like your home, can permanently damage your hearing.
So to sum up,
Grips - comfort/control
Collapsible stock - comfort/adjustment for different size shooters
Barrel shroud - keeps you from burning your support hand
Threaded barrel - attachments
Grenade Launcher - Already heavily regulated/registered/restricted/expensive
I would like to also note that these weapons are modular. You can buy a weapon that is perfectly legal and buy ALL of these items LEGALLY in the aftermarket and attach them to your gun. No legislation has been put forward to ban the manufacture and sale of these items. Just selling them when pre-installed on a firearm would be illegal. Of course it would be illegal to be CAUGHT with a weapon configured this way, if the authorities could prove the weapon was modified after the ban was put in place. Of course, I don't have to tell you how criminals and the mentally unbalanced feel about obeying the law...
High Capacity Magazines - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/MAG-056.jpg
I chose the grand-poo bah of high capacity for the picture. The 100 round C-Mag Beta magazine. A lot of emphasis has been put on the 30 and 100 round magazines available for firearms. This part of the post is specifically aimed toward the AR-15/AK-47 pattern weapons, but applies to handguns too. For most handguns, the standard capacity, with a few exceptions, is around 15 rounds which is more than the 10 allowed. Take the legal 10 round magazine (that in NY you can only out 7 rounds in). Do me a favor and count to 5. 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi, 4 Missisissippi, 5 Mississippi. Did you have time to recognize that the shooter was out of ammunition, move from behind cover that I am hoping you were hiding behind while they were shooting and subdue the attacker? No? Neither does anyone else. The difference between a 10 round magazine and a 30 round magazine aggregate for an UNTRAINED person such as myself? 2 x 5 seconds or 10 seconds. For someone who actually practices? 2 x 2 seconds or 4 seconds. For the 100 round magazine pictured above? 18 and 45seconds respectively. If you are thinking you are going to take out a shooter in the 2 - 5 seconds it takes him to change magazines you are a fool. There is a reason why there is the old saying, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." Hell, you probably don't even have a knife since most security policies don't allow you to carry a knife either.
Ammunition
The guy in Aurora had 6000 rounds of ammunition. Holy shit, that's insane! Actually, it's not. When I go to the range, I will go through 200 - 300 rounds in a normal day. That would be 20 - 30 trips to the range. But then there are times when, in the course of a weekend, I can go through 500 - 600 rounds depending on the weather and the company. And I am not a heavy shooter. But here is the best part. People say he had 6000 rounds like he took it all with him. Unless he had a wagon or wheel-barrow he was not carrying 6000 rounds of ammunition with him. 1000 rounds of .233 weighs roughly 28lbs. 6 x 28 = 168 pounds. Good luck with that.
Ammunition does not go bad. The people, like myself, who are going to use it anyways stock up because buying in bulk SAVES MONEY and shooting is pretty damn expensive. You go to Costco and stock up on TP? I do the same thing with ammunition. I currently have over 1200 rounds of .223, 500 rounds of 357 Magnum, 1000 rounds of 357 sig (sadly this is one of the least expensive handgun rounds available when it would be one of the more expensive under normal circumstances) and about 300 rounds of .40. That is roughly 3000 rounds of ammunition. I'm not going to be shooting up a school or a mall or a college campus. Having more than 50 rounds of ammunition does not make me a killer.
What to do
I am not saying that legislation is off the table. I am not advocating for the status quo. I just don't believe that making roughly 80 million American citizens, who have done nothing wrong, criminals. There are things that can totally be implemented that I would support. I have zero problems with improving the background check system. Most states do not report criminals or people adjudicated mentally unfit to own a firearm to the federal NICS system. Improving compliance in this area might have stopped Aurora boy from getting his weapons. They would not have stopped the Newtown asshat since he got his by taking his mom's legally owned firearm and shooting her in the face with it so he could take the rest. I stop short of registration. They are different. For me the 4th amendment comes into play here. Having a database of all of the firearms that I have is not necessary to determine if I should get to purchase a new firearm, and as we have seen, some people would publish that information of they could get a hold of it, making law-abiding citizens targets of crime. I have no problem with prosecuting straw purchasers. I have no problem with prosecuting people who attempt to purchase firearms who fail the background check. Most of these are already law, but not enforced or are underfunded. I also support getting people who would be disqualified from owning a firearm due to being adjudicated mentally unfit treatment. I would much rather pay to prevent them from committing a crime than pay to incarcerate them after the fact. And since one of the primary motivators for gun violence, outside of being bat-shit insane is the violence fostered by the drug trade, let's work on legalizing some of that stuff.
Feel free to comment below. If it doesn't make sense to you why I think this would be utterly and completely ineffective, I will be happy to provide alternate examples or whatever else is necessary if you are truly interested.
Pistol Grip - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/2-MFTEPGI47FDE.jpg
It is a piece of plastic/rubber. It is in the shape of a pistol (hence the name). You hold it. If someone can explain to me how you can kill more people by twisting your wrist 15 degrees instead of 45 degrees, I will ban the things in a heartbeat. It is an ergonomic feature. It made the weapons more comfortable to use. For service men and women who had to hold their weapons for 12+ hours it is a great innovation. Aurora boy and the Newton asshat were not going to get a cramp and stop shooting.
Forward Grip - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/3-1029180_A.jpg
Pretty much the same as above, only your wrist is twisted 0 degrees instead of 90 when holding the gun by the barrel shroud. Speaking of which...
Barrel Shroud - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/9-89137.jpg
This is where you hold the front of the gun. Some of them have mounting points that you can mount things like the "forward grip" mentioned above. It keeps you from burning your hands on the barrel. Something similar is on every single rifle in existence. It is just usually made of wood and doesn't surround the barrel. Most upgraded versions include a rail system that you can use to mount things like scopes and other sighting equipment. Most firearms are capable of having accessories added to them.
Folding, Telescoping, or Detachable Stock - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/6-1021494.jpg, http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/ARR-852.jpg,
Folding
Telescoping (Collapsible)
Detachable
???
It is a piece of plastic that you rest against your shoulder when firing your weapon. Collapsible/telescoping means you can adjust the length to fit the person using the weapon. A 14 year old who is using a shotgun for small game hunting does not have the same length arms as an 18 year old. Women do not tend to have the same arm length as men. It is to allow the weapon to be adjusted to fit the shooter. The folding stock folds at a pivot point that you can see in the above image. I will concede that the folding stock can be used to make a weapon shorter and therefore make it more concealable, but the weapons used in these shootings were not concealed. They were out in the open from the start. No concealment attempts were made. The detachable stock escapes me. I guess you can remove the stock completely, but you can do the same thing with a hack saw on a wooden stock. So I am not sure what they mean here.
Grenade Launcher or Rocket Launcher - http://www.kiesler.com/shop/ProductImages/M203_2.jpg
Grenade Launcher
Rocket Launcher
???
I could only find a picture of a grenade launcher. I tried really hard to find an image of a gun mounted rocket launcher, but strangely, I cannot find a picture of an item that you hold IN FRONT OF YOU and throws FLAMES OUT OF THE BACK of it that you would then attach to your gun. I am pretty sure that the flames from the rocket would generate enough heat to melt most of the above equipment and likely set off the rounds held in the magazine sitting directly behind where it would attach to the gun. Oh yeah, it would also likely set you on fire.
It should be noted that just like all other class 3 weapons, (Fully automatic weapons such as M-16s, AK-47 [full auto version, not semi-automatics], Tommy guns and my personal favorite, the Dillon minigun) these are HIGHLY regulated and very EXPENSIVE. You can only buy them if they were manufactured PRIOR to 1984 and you cannot purchase one without undergoing a background check with the BATFE (aka ATF), fingerprints taken by local law enforcement, approval of local law enforcement and $200 for the transfer from he previous owner. This usually requires a 2 - 6 month wait for the paperwork to clear the BATFE process. On top of that, if you want the high explosive rounds, you again have to deal with theB ATFE and get certified in handling explosives. It should be said that I have used one with practice rounds (chalk filled rounds) and I am a FRIGHTENINGLY good shot with them. Way better than I am with the actual rifle. Suffice it to say, they are already way more illegal than they would be under this ban. Note that not a single mass shooting has used a grenade/rocket launcher.
Threaded Barrel - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/GNS-161.jpg
Sorry. This is actually a pistol barrel, but I couldn't find any good images of a rifle barrel. Just imagine it is about 4 times longer. Threaded barrels are regular barrels with threads cut onto the end of them like you would find on a a standard bolt that you can buy at The Home Depot. They are there to screw on compensators, flash hiders and silencers. Compensators redirect some of the gasses produced by the gun powder in the combustion chamber to help keep your gun from creeping upward while firing it. The flash hider helps block some of the light from the burning powder from appearing above the barrel so it doesn't block your view. Everyone thinks they know what a silencer is. It's not what you think. On a weapon other than a .22 it does not make the firearm whisper quiet. It makes it so you can shoot without hearing protection. That's it. Shooting a gun in a closed environment, like your home, can permanently damage your hearing.
So to sum up,
Grips - comfort/control
Collapsible stock - comfort/adjustment for different size shooters
Barrel shroud - keeps you from burning your support hand
Threaded barrel - attachments
Grenade Launcher - Already heavily regulated/registered/restricted/expensive
I would like to also note that these weapons are modular. You can buy a weapon that is perfectly legal and buy ALL of these items LEGALLY in the aftermarket and attach them to your gun. No legislation has been put forward to ban the manufacture and sale of these items. Just selling them when pre-installed on a firearm would be illegal. Of course it would be illegal to be CAUGHT with a weapon configured this way, if the authorities could prove the weapon was modified after the ban was put in place. Of course, I don't have to tell you how criminals and the mentally unbalanced feel about obeying the law...
High Capacity Magazines - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/MAG-056.jpg
I chose the grand-poo bah of high capacity for the picture. The 100 round C-Mag Beta magazine. A lot of emphasis has been put on the 30 and 100 round magazines available for firearms. This part of the post is specifically aimed toward the AR-15/AK-47 pattern weapons, but applies to handguns too. For most handguns, the standard capacity, with a few exceptions, is around 15 rounds which is more than the 10 allowed. Take the legal 10 round magazine (that in NY you can only out 7 rounds in). Do me a favor and count to 5. 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi, 4 Missisissippi, 5 Mississippi. Did you have time to recognize that the shooter was out of ammunition, move from behind cover that I am hoping you were hiding behind while they were shooting and subdue the attacker? No? Neither does anyone else. The difference between a 10 round magazine and a 30 round magazine aggregate for an UNTRAINED person such as myself? 2 x 5 seconds or 10 seconds. For someone who actually practices? 2 x 2 seconds or 4 seconds. For the 100 round magazine pictured above? 18 and 45seconds respectively. If you are thinking you are going to take out a shooter in the 2 - 5 seconds it takes him to change magazines you are a fool. There is a reason why there is the old saying, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." Hell, you probably don't even have a knife since most security policies don't allow you to carry a knife either.
Ammunition
The guy in Aurora had 6000 rounds of ammunition. Holy shit, that's insane! Actually, it's not. When I go to the range, I will go through 200 - 300 rounds in a normal day. That would be 20 - 30 trips to the range. But then there are times when, in the course of a weekend, I can go through 500 - 600 rounds depending on the weather and the company. And I am not a heavy shooter. But here is the best part. People say he had 6000 rounds like he took it all with him. Unless he had a wagon or wheel-barrow he was not carrying 6000 rounds of ammunition with him. 1000 rounds of .233 weighs roughly 28lbs. 6 x 28 = 168 pounds. Good luck with that.
Ammunition does not go bad. The people, like myself, who are going to use it anyways stock up because buying in bulk SAVES MONEY and shooting is pretty damn expensive. You go to Costco and stock up on TP? I do the same thing with ammunition. I currently have over 1200 rounds of .223, 500 rounds of 357 Magnum, 1000 rounds of 357 sig (sadly this is one of the least expensive handgun rounds available when it would be one of the more expensive under normal circumstances) and about 300 rounds of .40. That is roughly 3000 rounds of ammunition. I'm not going to be shooting up a school or a mall or a college campus. Having more than 50 rounds of ammunition does not make me a killer.
What to do
I am not saying that legislation is off the table. I am not advocating for the status quo. I just don't believe that making roughly 80 million American citizens, who have done nothing wrong, criminals. There are things that can totally be implemented that I would support. I have zero problems with improving the background check system. Most states do not report criminals or people adjudicated mentally unfit to own a firearm to the federal NICS system. Improving compliance in this area might have stopped Aurora boy from getting his weapons. They would not have stopped the Newtown asshat since he got his by taking his mom's legally owned firearm and shooting her in the face with it so he could take the rest. I stop short of registration. They are different. For me the 4th amendment comes into play here. Having a database of all of the firearms that I have is not necessary to determine if I should get to purchase a new firearm, and as we have seen, some people would publish that information of they could get a hold of it, making law-abiding citizens targets of crime. I have no problem with prosecuting straw purchasers. I have no problem with prosecuting people who attempt to purchase firearms who fail the background check. Most of these are already law, but not enforced or are underfunded. I also support getting people who would be disqualified from owning a firearm due to being adjudicated mentally unfit treatment. I would much rather pay to prevent them from committing a crime than pay to incarcerate them after the fact. And since one of the primary motivators for gun violence, outside of being bat-shit insane is the violence fostered by the drug trade, let's work on legalizing some of that stuff.
Feel free to comment below. If it doesn't make sense to you why I think this would be utterly and completely ineffective, I will be happy to provide alternate examples or whatever else is necessary if you are truly interested.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Hopefully Some Useful Discussion to Avoid Tragedy
I'm kind of tired of posting the same thing on Facebook over and
over. So I am going to say them here and link back if I feel it's
necessary. This is not going to be complete. It would be so long,
nobody would read it. It is more of a jumping off point. If you want
to discuss further, then by all means, comment below. If you don't, well don't. I only ask that if you do, you keep it civil. On an issue like this, at a time like this, emotions
can run high. Everyone feels like the other side doesn't get it.
Everyone needs to remember that the person on the other side of the
discussion is not evil. They are just trying to do what they think is
right. They are approaching it from a different viewpoint based on
their beliefs and their personal experiences, not from a position of
malice. OK, disclaimer out of the way, so let's get to it.
I think there is some sort of misconception. It seems that there are folks out there who think that people like myself, who enjoy shooting guns for fun, are looking to remove all gun restrictions and are hoping that one day we will get called upon to fend off an army of criminals so we can straight up murder people's asses.
I have zero interest in actually shooting someone. I like to shoot. I have a concealed carry permit. I don't carry, but I have one for practical purposes. I like shooting different guns and different calibers. I am OK with preventing individuals who have a reasonable chance of harming someone from owning a gun. I have started teaching my kids how to shoot a BB gun. I want them to understand guns. To understand their inherent dangers and how to properly be around and handle guns. How to treat a gun, especially an unfamiliar one. To learn good habits at a relatively young age so they take hold and become habit. I am willing to discuss "real" gun control as long as your definition of "real" is not solely comprised of the outright ban of guns. What I am not willing to do is tolerate people who have never fired a gun, have no understanding of how firearms work, the differences in the various calibers or the actual ballistics involved in a bullet impacting a target trying to tell me what type of gun is "legitimate" for a civilian to own.
People who do not understand that a .223 round fired from a bolt action "hunting rifle" (H/R) and a semi-automatic "assault rifle" (A/R) have the same terminal ballistics, lecturing me on what gun is appropriate or inappropriate to have, angers me. People who don't understand that a pistol grip, a collapsible stock, a heat shield, a bayonet lug or accessory rails do not make an A/R do more damage than a similarly chambered H/R lecturing me on what my gun should look like irritate me. Do they enhance the overall effectiveness of a weapon? Of course they do. Otherwise the military would not issue them, but they are more about ergonomics for the soldier than making it deadlier. If I hand you 100 rounds of .223 and have you shoot them from a H/R and hand you another 100 rounds and shoot them from a A/R you will find that the A/R does not kill at a statistically significant higher ratio than a H/R using the same ammunition.
Now, if you want to talk about a semi-automatic action being unnecessary? Bring it. You want to talk about limiting the capacity of magazines? I would love to have that conversation as well. Talk about the ineffectiveness of the mental health portion of the background checks? Great topic that is finally getting some notice. The ability to buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check? Happy to oblige. Talk about the possibility that the people who commit acts like mass shootings only do it to become famous (or infamous)? Just because Morgan Freeman didn't actually say it doesn't make it any less valid. Let's talk about things that might make an actual difference instead of banning weapons because of a knee-jerk reaction to cosmetic crap.
Now that I have said my peace, feel free to say yours.
I think there is some sort of misconception. It seems that there are folks out there who think that people like myself, who enjoy shooting guns for fun, are looking to remove all gun restrictions and are hoping that one day we will get called upon to fend off an army of criminals so we can straight up murder people's asses.
I have zero interest in actually shooting someone. I like to shoot. I have a concealed carry permit. I don't carry, but I have one for practical purposes. I like shooting different guns and different calibers. I am OK with preventing individuals who have a reasonable chance of harming someone from owning a gun. I have started teaching my kids how to shoot a BB gun. I want them to understand guns. To understand their inherent dangers and how to properly be around and handle guns. How to treat a gun, especially an unfamiliar one. To learn good habits at a relatively young age so they take hold and become habit. I am willing to discuss "real" gun control as long as your definition of "real" is not solely comprised of the outright ban of guns. What I am not willing to do is tolerate people who have never fired a gun, have no understanding of how firearms work, the differences in the various calibers or the actual ballistics involved in a bullet impacting a target trying to tell me what type of gun is "legitimate" for a civilian to own.
People who do not understand that a .223 round fired from a bolt action "hunting rifle" (H/R) and a semi-automatic "assault rifle" (A/R) have the same terminal ballistics, lecturing me on what gun is appropriate or inappropriate to have, angers me. People who don't understand that a pistol grip, a collapsible stock, a heat shield, a bayonet lug or accessory rails do not make an A/R do more damage than a similarly chambered H/R lecturing me on what my gun should look like irritate me. Do they enhance the overall effectiveness of a weapon? Of course they do. Otherwise the military would not issue them, but they are more about ergonomics for the soldier than making it deadlier. If I hand you 100 rounds of .223 and have you shoot them from a H/R and hand you another 100 rounds and shoot them from a A/R you will find that the A/R does not kill at a statistically significant higher ratio than a H/R using the same ammunition.
Now, if you want to talk about a semi-automatic action being unnecessary? Bring it. You want to talk about limiting the capacity of magazines? I would love to have that conversation as well. Talk about the ineffectiveness of the mental health portion of the background checks? Great topic that is finally getting some notice. The ability to buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check? Happy to oblige. Talk about the possibility that the people who commit acts like mass shootings only do it to become famous (or infamous)? Just because Morgan Freeman didn't actually say it doesn't make it any less valid. Let's talk about things that might make an actual difference instead of banning weapons because of a knee-jerk reaction to cosmetic crap.
Now that I have said my peace, feel free to say yours.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Why I am Incompatible with Liberalism/Progressivism
I should start out saying I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I don't like either of those two options. They all do the same things, but justify them differently. I don't care who you support, what your agenda is, get out and vote. Vote for anyone. Anyone you want. Just not someone with an (R) or a (D) after their name. That being said, here's the meat.
Liberals/progressives seem to think that you can solve problems of inequity by involving the government. Think everyone should have health care? Federal government should provide it to the people. Too many people dying in car crashes? Federal government should pass legislation the make cars safer. Think people don't make enough money? Federal government should pass legislation to increase wages. Think corporations are acting against the interests of their employees and customers? Federal government should create a regulatory framework to make sure the corporations act responsibly.
Here is the thing. Forget for a second that I am a cold, heartless SoB. I'll give you that one. Forget that I believe in personal responsibility and working to solve your own problems instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you. Maybe I'm wrong on that one. Forget that I believe that the government should look to the people for direction instead of the government telling us how to live our lives. Let's put those things aside. Answer me this question. Do you trust your government?
You see, I wouldn't have so much of an issue with the government handling some of the aspects of our day to day lives if I trusted them. There are a couple levels of trust. Trust that they tell the truth, that they have our best interest at heart and that they are sufficiently knowledgeable/capable. Can you honestly sit there and tell me that you trust the people that are running this country? Opinions on the Congress, both houses, are abysmal. The Supreme Court isn't even trusted anymore. The President? I'm not going to count that one. Presidents are always a lightning rod of scrutiny. We don't trust the institutions that are supposed to regulate industries. We don't trust the people who make the laws. We don't trust the people who enforce the laws. We don't trust the people who interpret the laws. You sit there and tell me that the Congress is bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists. The President is bought and paid for with corporate donations to political actions committees (PACs). Even the Supreme Court is bought and paid for because their family owns stock in medical companies. So THESE are the people you want making the big decisions. The people who are owned by the very organizations that you think the government should be protecting us from. Yup. That makes sense.
But wait. I'm sorry. Your guy/girl/group is different. They are incorruptible. They said XYZ. They would never do ABC. They said they wouldn't. If we elect them, everything will be different. They wouldn't maintain the same policies that the previous administration held and that you abhorred. Yup. That's never happened. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan. We added Libya. We're eyeballing Syria and Iran. Gitmo? Still there. Surveillance on our own population? Patriot Act, so check. Indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without Due Process? Thank you NDAA. The government didn't fall apart when the Republicans captured the house. It wasn't ruined when the Democrats captured the presidency and maintained control of the Senate. It wasn't ruined when the previous president was Republican. It wasn't ruined when the previous House and Senate were controlled by Democrats. It wasn't ruined in the previous administration. Or the one before that. It has been a steady decline. Over time, politicians from our two perceived options for parties have proven, time and again, that they have the moral fortitude of overcooked pasta. They lie, they cheat (both their constituents and on their spouses), they hold other politicians' legislation hostage unless they get what they want (even when it's unrelated) like they are 3-year-olds.
Let's also not forget that we are letting people with backgrounds in law, business and politics craft legislation about education, transportation, medicine, environment, energy, the Internet, cyber security, defense, the economy, trade, foreign policy. Fields they have ZERO experience in. The people they get their information from to make these decisions? The lobbyists. The ones nobody trusts.
Now let's say that you get all your people in. And they do exactly what they say they will do. And they are experienced enough to make intelligent decisions regarding the topics above. What happens when they are not in there anymore. What happens when the other guys are back in. And now you have to live with their ideas on the above topics? Oh, now it doesn't seem like such a good idea, does it?
Liberals/progressives seem to think that you can solve problems of inequity by involving the government. Think everyone should have health care? Federal government should provide it to the people. Too many people dying in car crashes? Federal government should pass legislation the make cars safer. Think people don't make enough money? Federal government should pass legislation to increase wages. Think corporations are acting against the interests of their employees and customers? Federal government should create a regulatory framework to make sure the corporations act responsibly.
Here is the thing. Forget for a second that I am a cold, heartless SoB. I'll give you that one. Forget that I believe in personal responsibility and working to solve your own problems instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you. Maybe I'm wrong on that one. Forget that I believe that the government should look to the people for direction instead of the government telling us how to live our lives. Let's put those things aside. Answer me this question. Do you trust your government?
You see, I wouldn't have so much of an issue with the government handling some of the aspects of our day to day lives if I trusted them. There are a couple levels of trust. Trust that they tell the truth, that they have our best interest at heart and that they are sufficiently knowledgeable/capable. Can you honestly sit there and tell me that you trust the people that are running this country? Opinions on the Congress, both houses, are abysmal. The Supreme Court isn't even trusted anymore. The President? I'm not going to count that one. Presidents are always a lightning rod of scrutiny. We don't trust the institutions that are supposed to regulate industries. We don't trust the people who make the laws. We don't trust the people who enforce the laws. We don't trust the people who interpret the laws. You sit there and tell me that the Congress is bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists. The President is bought and paid for with corporate donations to political actions committees (PACs). Even the Supreme Court is bought and paid for because their family owns stock in medical companies. So THESE are the people you want making the big decisions. The people who are owned by the very organizations that you think the government should be protecting us from. Yup. That makes sense.
But wait. I'm sorry. Your guy/girl/group is different. They are incorruptible. They said XYZ. They would never do ABC. They said they wouldn't. If we elect them, everything will be different. They wouldn't maintain the same policies that the previous administration held and that you abhorred. Yup. That's never happened. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan. We added Libya. We're eyeballing Syria and Iran. Gitmo? Still there. Surveillance on our own population? Patriot Act, so check. Indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without Due Process? Thank you NDAA. The government didn't fall apart when the Republicans captured the house. It wasn't ruined when the Democrats captured the presidency and maintained control of the Senate. It wasn't ruined when the previous president was Republican. It wasn't ruined when the previous House and Senate were controlled by Democrats. It wasn't ruined in the previous administration. Or the one before that. It has been a steady decline. Over time, politicians from our two perceived options for parties have proven, time and again, that they have the moral fortitude of overcooked pasta. They lie, they cheat (both their constituents and on their spouses), they hold other politicians' legislation hostage unless they get what they want (even when it's unrelated) like they are 3-year-olds.
Let's also not forget that we are letting people with backgrounds in law, business and politics craft legislation about education, transportation, medicine, environment, energy, the Internet, cyber security, defense, the economy, trade, foreign policy. Fields they have ZERO experience in. The people they get their information from to make these decisions? The lobbyists. The ones nobody trusts.
Now let's say that you get all your people in. And they do exactly what they say they will do. And they are experienced enough to make intelligent decisions regarding the topics above. What happens when they are not in there anymore. What happens when the other guys are back in. And now you have to live with their ideas on the above topics? Oh, now it doesn't seem like such a good idea, does it?
Friday, October 22, 2010
Religion vs. Science: Do we have to choose?
I have been watching a lot of videos on YouTube lately. I have been watching a lot of videos with the arguments of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. I say Intelligent Design because that is what the "agnostic" term is for Creationism and that is what they want to call it. If that is what they want to call it, so be it, I'll play along.
I should point out that I am a big believer in science. I am not a believer in a specific God. Especially a God that has an inherent interest in the affairs of Man. I tend to believe that if there is a God(s), he/she/it is at best an interested observer. He doesn't have a particular interest in any particular one of us, anymore than a child would take a particular interest in a specific ant in his ant farm. He is likely to be more interested in the interactions among the ants, but the fate of any specific one is not really important to him. The concept of a specific God that takes and interest in the people of the Earth in the traditional sense is usually presented as benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient. I just find too many contradictions in the actions, or lack of actions for that to make any sense to me. I am not going to get into details. That's not really what this post is about. This is really just to give you an idea of my perspective so that you might be able to appreciate where I am coming from. So let's not get into a "Is there a God" debate. There is no way convince a non-believer there is and a believer that there is not.
What I am interested in is that it seems that in the posts that I have watched on YouTube, there seems to be a war brewing. Evolutionists seem to think that IDists are trying to use the schools to teach religion violating the separation of church and state. IDists seem to think that Evolutionists are trying to lead people away from God for whatever nefarious reason. Andit seems that with relatively little exception, that you have to choose one or the other. There seems to be no common ground.
I guess I can't understand why it is that the two have to be mutually exclusive. Evolution doesn't purport to explain the beginning of the universe. It just claims to explain how life got to its current state. I've watched video upon video laying out each side's position. I think there is some pretty substantial evidence that Evolution is correct. I don't see much evidence from the ID side of the house that is compelling from a scientific perspective. This would be fine if it was still Creationism, but Creationism is not allowed to be taught in schools because it is clearly religious and the separation of church and state prevents a specific religion from being promoted by government institutions. So Intelligent Design was created by taking Creationism and removing the word "God" and replacing it with "Intelligent Designer". This in theory makes it palatable to school systems because it does not promote a religion. But try to suggest that an alien was the intelligent designer to a proponent of this particular theory and see what they say. Since ID is proposed as a scientific theory, it doesn't get the pass that a religious idea gets. At least not from me. For a scientific theory to be considered valid, the scientist has to make observations, create hypotheses, design tests to validate the hypotheses and then present his data to the community where it can be debated and discussed. Evolution has had 150 years to people collecting data and testing hypotheses and it has built a track record of finding things that can be used to fill holes in expected ways to get from one organism to another. Yes there are some gaps, but if I had a nickle for every gap human beings have had in their knowledge and has later been filled, I would be sitting on a beach in Maui sipping a friggin' Mai Tai. However, I don't see anything in the ID camp that is testable. It all comes down to "since we don't know, it must be %insert intelligent designer here%." If that isn't faith, I don't know what is. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with faith. Faith is fine. It's fine in a church. It is fine in your home. It is fine in a philosophy class. It is fine in a number of settings. A science classroom however, is not one of them.
The same thing happens with the Big Bang vs Genesis. What was before the Big Bang? Who knows? Scientists don't. Some people have some notions, but nothing that is universally accepted. Nothing that is really beyond the hypothesis phase. They have some notions of things they would expect to find if it is true and they are designing tests to see if they can find these things. What is dark matter? No idea. Might not even be matter. Dark energy? Clueless. Could just be we have gravity wrong. Lots of ideas. Not a single answer. But there is some inherent testability. With "God did it", how do you test that? You can't. It's the very definition of faith. Again, I would never deny someone their faith. You have a right to believe whatever you want, but the science classroom is not the place for it.
I don't even know what to say about Old Earth vs. New Earth. Again, I'm not sure I understand why this is such a problem. I mean, I guess if you take a literal interpretation of the Bible, and you add up the ages of all of the patriarchs and you get that 6,000 year number I can see it being difficult to accept a 4.6 billion year old Earth. But if you have even a slightly less than literal interpretation of the Bible, why is 4.6 billion years so evil? The arguments I've seen are all very hand-wavy at best. The only thing that had any sort of proof for a young Earth, involved demonstrating that human and dinosaur footprints were found near each other in some locations and some rock wall paintings of things that looked kind of like dinosaurs. At least they are trying to post some evidence. This almost would not offend me if it were taught in schools. There's some evidence at least. Something other than "we don't know so it must be %insert deity of choice%". I don't think it would stand up too well in a room full of paleontologists, geologists, cosmologists, etc, but hey, it's something.
So here is the question I put forth.
In YOUR view, are science and religion simply incompatible? Is it one or the other? Is there room for both in a person's life?
Please feel free to comment below. As always, be civil. I am happy to have your opinions, and I am happy to see differing opinions, but no personal attacks. If name calling starts, comments will be closed. And remember. No is there, isn't there a God(s). The question is if there is room for both religion and science in a person's life? Does it have to be one or the other?
I should point out that I am a big believer in science. I am not a believer in a specific God. Especially a God that has an inherent interest in the affairs of Man. I tend to believe that if there is a God(s), he/she/it is at best an interested observer. He doesn't have a particular interest in any particular one of us, anymore than a child would take a particular interest in a specific ant in his ant farm. He is likely to be more interested in the interactions among the ants, but the fate of any specific one is not really important to him. The concept of a specific God that takes and interest in the people of the Earth in the traditional sense is usually presented as benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient. I just find too many contradictions in the actions, or lack of actions for that to make any sense to me. I am not going to get into details. That's not really what this post is about. This is really just to give you an idea of my perspective so that you might be able to appreciate where I am coming from. So let's not get into a "Is there a God" debate. There is no way convince a non-believer there is and a believer that there is not.
What I am interested in is that it seems that in the posts that I have watched on YouTube, there seems to be a war brewing. Evolutionists seem to think that IDists are trying to use the schools to teach religion violating the separation of church and state. IDists seem to think that Evolutionists are trying to lead people away from God for whatever nefarious reason. Andit seems that with relatively little exception, that you have to choose one or the other. There seems to be no common ground.
I guess I can't understand why it is that the two have to be mutually exclusive. Evolution doesn't purport to explain the beginning of the universe. It just claims to explain how life got to its current state. I've watched video upon video laying out each side's position. I think there is some pretty substantial evidence that Evolution is correct. I don't see much evidence from the ID side of the house that is compelling from a scientific perspective. This would be fine if it was still Creationism, but Creationism is not allowed to be taught in schools because it is clearly religious and the separation of church and state prevents a specific religion from being promoted by government institutions. So Intelligent Design was created by taking Creationism and removing the word "God" and replacing it with "Intelligent Designer". This in theory makes it palatable to school systems because it does not promote a religion. But try to suggest that an alien was the intelligent designer to a proponent of this particular theory and see what they say. Since ID is proposed as a scientific theory, it doesn't get the pass that a religious idea gets. At least not from me. For a scientific theory to be considered valid, the scientist has to make observations, create hypotheses, design tests to validate the hypotheses and then present his data to the community where it can be debated and discussed. Evolution has had 150 years to people collecting data and testing hypotheses and it has built a track record of finding things that can be used to fill holes in expected ways to get from one organism to another. Yes there are some gaps, but if I had a nickle for every gap human beings have had in their knowledge and has later been filled, I would be sitting on a beach in Maui sipping a friggin' Mai Tai. However, I don't see anything in the ID camp that is testable. It all comes down to "since we don't know, it must be %insert intelligent designer here%." If that isn't faith, I don't know what is. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with faith. Faith is fine. It's fine in a church. It is fine in your home. It is fine in a philosophy class. It is fine in a number of settings. A science classroom however, is not one of them.
The same thing happens with the Big Bang vs Genesis. What was before the Big Bang? Who knows? Scientists don't. Some people have some notions, but nothing that is universally accepted. Nothing that is really beyond the hypothesis phase. They have some notions of things they would expect to find if it is true and they are designing tests to see if they can find these things. What is dark matter? No idea. Might not even be matter. Dark energy? Clueless. Could just be we have gravity wrong. Lots of ideas. Not a single answer. But there is some inherent testability. With "God did it", how do you test that? You can't. It's the very definition of faith. Again, I would never deny someone their faith. You have a right to believe whatever you want, but the science classroom is not the place for it.
I don't even know what to say about Old Earth vs. New Earth. Again, I'm not sure I understand why this is such a problem. I mean, I guess if you take a literal interpretation of the Bible, and you add up the ages of all of the patriarchs and you get that 6,000 year number I can see it being difficult to accept a 4.6 billion year old Earth. But if you have even a slightly less than literal interpretation of the Bible, why is 4.6 billion years so evil? The arguments I've seen are all very hand-wavy at best. The only thing that had any sort of proof for a young Earth, involved demonstrating that human and dinosaur footprints were found near each other in some locations and some rock wall paintings of things that looked kind of like dinosaurs. At least they are trying to post some evidence. This almost would not offend me if it were taught in schools. There's some evidence at least. Something other than "we don't know so it must be %insert deity of choice%". I don't think it would stand up too well in a room full of paleontologists, geologists, cosmologists, etc, but hey, it's something.
So here is the question I put forth.
In YOUR view, are science and religion simply incompatible? Is it one or the other? Is there room for both in a person's life?
Please feel free to comment below. As always, be civil. I am happy to have your opinions, and I am happy to see differing opinions, but no personal attacks. If name calling starts, comments will be closed. And remember. No is there, isn't there a God(s). The question is if there is room for both religion and science in a person's life? Does it have to be one or the other?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
What I Believe - For the Record
A friend of mine has stated that there are people who, since the popularity of the teabagger movement, have been preaching tea party tag lines and in some instances are preaching contradictory ideologies.
I just want to go on the record. These are my beliefs. I am not saying I have a full understanding of political ideologies. I am not going to tell you I am a Conservative, a Liberal, a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Socialist, a Communist, a Green or one of about 10,000 other relabeled hacked together ideologies that, like every other religion (yeah I am calling them religions) out there, profess to be the best. I guess if you held a gun to my head, I would say the ideas proposed by Libertarians interest me the most. In their purest form, I think they are somewhat impractical, but they are pretty good. Here's what I believe. On the record. For all to see. Take it for what it is worth.
In a political system, I want a few things. I don't think I am asking for much here. I believe in the following for every person. It's a long list. It is going to be tough to comprehend.
1) Everyone has the right to life. Duh.
2) Everyone has the right to pursue their happiness. What is the point of life if you can't be happy?
3) Everyone has the right to attain and RETAIN the things that enhance either their life or their happiness.
4) Under no circumstances can someone's pursuit of their rights infringe on another person's rights.
WHEW! I don't know about you, but I need a nap. But seriously, that's it. It's not complicated.
I believe first and foremost in CHOICE. An individual's right to choose is instrumental in exercising their rights. Taking away an individual's choice, is the biggest violation of a human's rights that I can conceive of. Anything that a government does to limit choices of an individual are, in my opinion, wrong. Here is what I think government SHOULD do. Protect it's citizen's rights. Fairly simple and straight forward. Allow me to preserve my own life and the life of other people. Allow me to pursue things that make me happy. Allow me to keep my stuff. Prevent people from stopping me from exercising my rights.
1) I don't need a government to tell me what to do. In my house, I do what I want. I choose what I do and when I do it. If I go to dinner at a restaurant, I don't need the FDA telling my chef how much sodium chloride to put in my food while they are cooking it. I don't need them telling my beverage companies how much sugar they can put in my beverages. I don't want the government telling my restaurants how small of a smoking space they should have. There is not a person out there that does not know that if you are fat there are three options for you. Reduce caloric intake by restricting fat, carbohydrates and protein, increase your physical exertion, or better yet, both. It's not rocket science. There is not a person who does not know how bad smoking is for them. There is not a person out there that doesn't know that drugs and alcohol are bad for you. It is not news. But it makes people happy. You want to tell someone they shouldn't eat at McDonald's? Go ahead. But don't tell McDonald's they can only salt their fries with a single arch of salt instead of the standard two arches of salt. (Yeah. That's seriously how they dose the salt. The make a pair of arches, just like on the sign.) It is up to the individual to make that choice. What I think government SHOULD do in this situation? Make sure the ground beef doesn't kill me by making sure it is safe from microbes and toxins. Make sure that the conditions that limit food contamination are in place. I am even OK with them SUGGESTING how I should eat. But they should not force me to eat that way. That's it. Not complicated.
2) I want to smoke me some crack. It's awesome. It's the best thing ever. You know what I want the government to do about it? Make sure there isn't drain cleaner in it. Make sure I'm not high off my ass when I am driving down the road endangering other people's lives. Maybe come up with recommended maximum dosing. That's pretty much it. It's simple.
3) I have a nice pile of cash in the middle of my living room. It's a good five feet high and full of $50 and $100 bills. Must be millions of dollars in it. I like to roll around in it. I want it to be there when I get home from making more money. I then want to take that money I made and add it to the pile in the middle of my living room. If someone comes into my house and tries to take my money, I want to be able to defend my money. My life too if necessary. All he government has to do is not get in my way. If they manage to get my money? I want them to work on getting it back. If they can prevent it in the first place? Even better.
I don't think I am asking a lot here. I don't have a problem with being taxed to provide for these things. Military, police, firemen, FDA inspectors? All good. I don't have a problem with regulations that support these things. Paying taxes is a requirement. HOW those taxes are spent though, is another issue.
Taking my money so that you can then subsidize farmers? Not cool. Let the market set the prices. You want to cut taxes on farmers to ease their expenses? Fine. Don't pay them to dump out milk. Don't pay them to not grow crops. (Sadly, both happen.) Taking my money so you can subsidize solar panels? Not cool. Instead, tax breaks would be appropriate or, heaven forbid, making them complete on price instead of giving them money so they don't have to. Tax credits for people who buy energy efficient appliances? Appropriate as well. Taking my money so you can conduct a "war on drugs" is not cool. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol during the depression. Why would it work with drugs now? Stop filling prisons with people whose sole crime is they like to get high. On top of the cost of a war against people who like to get high, I have to feed and clothe them in the name of this holy crusade against the evils of drugs. At the very least, conduct the right war. Go after the dealers if you are going to go through with something this stupid. You know. The drug dealers. The people who actually sell the drugs? Now if they happen to harm someone while they are high? Throw the friggin' book at them.
Secure our borders. Keep people who are not authorized to be here out, especially people who would like to blow us up, or sell us drugs, and provide a path for people to come in. One of the best things about this country is the way we USED TO mix and match ideas and get the best of both worlds. Having points of view from other cultures made this country strong. We still need fresh ideas from other cultures. I am all for people coming here the right way.
I hope it is clear. If you have questions, please post below.
I just want to go on the record. These are my beliefs. I am not saying I have a full understanding of political ideologies. I am not going to tell you I am a Conservative, a Liberal, a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Socialist, a Communist, a Green or one of about 10,000 other relabeled hacked together ideologies that, like every other religion (yeah I am calling them religions) out there, profess to be the best. I guess if you held a gun to my head, I would say the ideas proposed by Libertarians interest me the most. In their purest form, I think they are somewhat impractical, but they are pretty good. Here's what I believe. On the record. For all to see. Take it for what it is worth.
In a political system, I want a few things. I don't think I am asking for much here. I believe in the following for every person. It's a long list. It is going to be tough to comprehend.
1) Everyone has the right to life. Duh.
2) Everyone has the right to pursue their happiness. What is the point of life if you can't be happy?
3) Everyone has the right to attain and RETAIN the things that enhance either their life or their happiness.
4) Under no circumstances can someone's pursuit of their rights infringe on another person's rights.
WHEW! I don't know about you, but I need a nap. But seriously, that's it. It's not complicated.
I believe first and foremost in CHOICE. An individual's right to choose is instrumental in exercising their rights. Taking away an individual's choice, is the biggest violation of a human's rights that I can conceive of. Anything that a government does to limit choices of an individual are, in my opinion, wrong. Here is what I think government SHOULD do. Protect it's citizen's rights. Fairly simple and straight forward. Allow me to preserve my own life and the life of other people. Allow me to pursue things that make me happy. Allow me to keep my stuff. Prevent people from stopping me from exercising my rights.
1) I don't need a government to tell me what to do. In my house, I do what I want. I choose what I do and when I do it. If I go to dinner at a restaurant, I don't need the FDA telling my chef how much sodium chloride to put in my food while they are cooking it. I don't need them telling my beverage companies how much sugar they can put in my beverages. I don't want the government telling my restaurants how small of a smoking space they should have. There is not a person out there that does not know that if you are fat there are three options for you. Reduce caloric intake by restricting fat, carbohydrates and protein, increase your physical exertion, or better yet, both. It's not rocket science. There is not a person who does not know how bad smoking is for them. There is not a person out there that doesn't know that drugs and alcohol are bad for you. It is not news. But it makes people happy. You want to tell someone they shouldn't eat at McDonald's? Go ahead. But don't tell McDonald's they can only salt their fries with a single arch of salt instead of the standard two arches of salt. (Yeah. That's seriously how they dose the salt. The make a pair of arches, just like on the sign.) It is up to the individual to make that choice. What I think government SHOULD do in this situation? Make sure the ground beef doesn't kill me by making sure it is safe from microbes and toxins. Make sure that the conditions that limit food contamination are in place. I am even OK with them SUGGESTING how I should eat. But they should not force me to eat that way. That's it. Not complicated.
2) I want to smoke me some crack. It's awesome. It's the best thing ever. You know what I want the government to do about it? Make sure there isn't drain cleaner in it. Make sure I'm not high off my ass when I am driving down the road endangering other people's lives. Maybe come up with recommended maximum dosing. That's pretty much it. It's simple.
3) I have a nice pile of cash in the middle of my living room. It's a good five feet high and full of $50 and $100 bills. Must be millions of dollars in it. I like to roll around in it. I want it to be there when I get home from making more money. I then want to take that money I made and add it to the pile in the middle of my living room. If someone comes into my house and tries to take my money, I want to be able to defend my money. My life too if necessary. All he government has to do is not get in my way. If they manage to get my money? I want them to work on getting it back. If they can prevent it in the first place? Even better.
I don't think I am asking a lot here. I don't have a problem with being taxed to provide for these things. Military, police, firemen, FDA inspectors? All good. I don't have a problem with regulations that support these things. Paying taxes is a requirement. HOW those taxes are spent though, is another issue.
Taking my money so that you can then subsidize farmers? Not cool. Let the market set the prices. You want to cut taxes on farmers to ease their expenses? Fine. Don't pay them to dump out milk. Don't pay them to not grow crops. (Sadly, both happen.) Taking my money so you can subsidize solar panels? Not cool. Instead, tax breaks would be appropriate or, heaven forbid, making them complete on price instead of giving them money so they don't have to. Tax credits for people who buy energy efficient appliances? Appropriate as well. Taking my money so you can conduct a "war on drugs" is not cool. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol during the depression. Why would it work with drugs now? Stop filling prisons with people whose sole crime is they like to get high. On top of the cost of a war against people who like to get high, I have to feed and clothe them in the name of this holy crusade against the evils of drugs. At the very least, conduct the right war. Go after the dealers if you are going to go through with something this stupid. You know. The drug dealers. The people who actually sell the drugs? Now if they happen to harm someone while they are high? Throw the friggin' book at them.
Secure our borders. Keep people who are not authorized to be here out, especially people who would like to blow us up, or sell us drugs, and provide a path for people to come in. One of the best things about this country is the way we USED TO mix and match ideas and get the best of both worlds. Having points of view from other cultures made this country strong. We still need fresh ideas from other cultures. I am all for people coming here the right way.
I hope it is clear. If you have questions, please post below.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Stories I am tired of
The good news, no guns. The bad news, in this post, racist teabagging and the gulf.
Well... I guess Bill Maher is a teabagger. He will be thrilled to hear this. I mean, teabaggers are racist and this has got to be the single most racist thing that I have heard said about Obama in either public or private conversations. Check it out here and tell me what you think. There is, of course, the obvious exception of black comedians who, by definition, cannot say anything racist about black people and since they are black, cannot possibly be a member of a racist organization.
The thing is that I am getting a bit tired of this story. Outside of the one incident with the black representatives heading in to the health care vote, I don't know of a single instance of any kind of racist sentiment being uttered by a teabagger. Whenever the teabaggers are called racist, that is the only example I ever here. I guess that it could be a function of the media that I am exposed to. The only media that I read really are articles posted by people I follow on Twitter (mostly conservative with a dash liberal thrown in), some Daily Show, some Colbert Report, and every once in a while, Rachel Maddow. I know. Rachel Maddow is a bit of a guilty pleasure. It's like watching a mirror-universe version or Bill O'Reilly, but with boobs. Boobs are good. If you're wondering, the mirror version of Glenn Beck would be Keith Olberman, who has no boobs. In Glenn Beck's case, boobs are not good.
You know the other story I'm getting tired of? The "BP is evil" story. Look, I am not by any stretch an environmentalist. If you want to hug trees, go check out my friend's blog "Musings of a (Fairly) Young Contrarian". It's a good read. He blogs about the environment, human rights, social issues and unfortunately, soccer. It is not for the faint of heart. I mean how much soccer can one person read about? Anyway, back to my thoughts. I don't mean that I am tired of the oil spill in the gulf story. Far from it. I am as interested as anyone else. It's an important story and I believe that a lot can be learned from what happened and changes can be made to make sure that it either doesn't happen again or, at the very least, that the impact is nowhere near this degree of severity.
Understand this. I am not happy about the situation in the Gulf. I am angry that it happened. I am angry that there are people out of work. I am angry that people lost their lives. I am angry that there is an ecosystem that is all but destroyed. I am angry that there are ways of life that are likely to come to and end for families that have been working for generations. I am angry that it has taken so long for any kind of functioning solution to show up. I am angry that the US government has taken precisely ZERO actions to assess or direct the response. I am not happy that they were impotent to stop BP from spraying the most toxic versions of the chemical dispersants into the ocean further damaging the ecosystem. But I am probably the MOST angry that the best response to this disaster that I have seen has come from KEVIN FREAKING COSTNER! Given all of this, I don't think BP is evil. Negligent? Yes. Incompetent? Certainly. But "evil?" It's a bit of a stretch. In my mind evil implies an intention to cause harm. That is the single over-arching goal. Death, destruction, mayhem.
Of the how many oil rigs in the gulf, what is it 3,500? This is the first one I have heard of with a significant oil spill. Did their safety measures fail? Yes. Did they have multiple layers of fail-safe systems fail? Yes. Was it their rig? Yes. Did they fail to keep these systems functional? Yes. Was it their fault? Yes. But was it their intent? Only if they are the real life incarnations of Bond villains. I mean come on. Seriously. You think that they were bored and said, "Let's dump a shitload of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and wreak havoc on the environment, sabotage our political win for new offshore drilling, cost ourselves billions of dollars and do irrevocable damage to our reputation. It will be... wait for it... LEGENDARY!" Do I fault them? Absolutely. It was the grossest form of negligence possible in an oil organization. I also fault the government that was supposed to regulate them. Why the hell are they taking my money to pay inspectors and fly them around the gulf and, you know, inspect stuff, if they are not finding things EXACTLY LIKE THIS? Isn't it their job to find this stuff and stop it before the worst case scenario happens? But on the flip side, as much as I fault BP, they are probably one of the few organizations that can mobilize and fund the efforts necessary to clean up the mess. And they are incentivized to find a solution and find it quickly. They do not have a bureaucracy (why the hell does that word have so many consonants? Even its spelling is wasteful.) to deal with. They don't have to have committee meetings in front of television cameras and posture for reelection. They are far more nimble than the US government.
The best part is that when all is said and done, nothing will change. BP will get a slap on the wrist. Their profits last year were a little over $16 Billion dollars. See page 3 of this report from BP's site. The government will institute some meaningless and toothless regulations that looks like they've put BP in their place, but will result in no change in the safety of the environment, and no change in BPs practices. It will however make it look like they were tough on "Big Oil" and those "evil" profit making companies. Because everyone knows that making profit is evil. I've said my piece. Feel free to comment below.
Well... I guess Bill Maher is a teabagger. He will be thrilled to hear this. I mean, teabaggers are racist and this has got to be the single most racist thing that I have heard said about Obama in either public or private conversations. Check it out here and tell me what you think. There is, of course, the obvious exception of black comedians who, by definition, cannot say anything racist about black people and since they are black, cannot possibly be a member of a racist organization.
The thing is that I am getting a bit tired of this story. Outside of the one incident with the black representatives heading in to the health care vote, I don't know of a single instance of any kind of racist sentiment being uttered by a teabagger. Whenever the teabaggers are called racist, that is the only example I ever here. I guess that it could be a function of the media that I am exposed to. The only media that I read really are articles posted by people I follow on Twitter (mostly conservative with a dash liberal thrown in), some Daily Show, some Colbert Report, and every once in a while, Rachel Maddow. I know. Rachel Maddow is a bit of a guilty pleasure. It's like watching a mirror-universe version or Bill O'Reilly, but with boobs. Boobs are good. If you're wondering, the mirror version of Glenn Beck would be Keith Olberman, who has no boobs. In Glenn Beck's case, boobs are not good.
You know the other story I'm getting tired of? The "BP is evil" story. Look, I am not by any stretch an environmentalist. If you want to hug trees, go check out my friend's blog "Musings of a (Fairly) Young Contrarian". It's a good read. He blogs about the environment, human rights, social issues and unfortunately, soccer. It is not for the faint of heart. I mean how much soccer can one person read about? Anyway, back to my thoughts. I don't mean that I am tired of the oil spill in the gulf story. Far from it. I am as interested as anyone else. It's an important story and I believe that a lot can be learned from what happened and changes can be made to make sure that it either doesn't happen again or, at the very least, that the impact is nowhere near this degree of severity.
Understand this. I am not happy about the situation in the Gulf. I am angry that it happened. I am angry that there are people out of work. I am angry that people lost their lives. I am angry that there is an ecosystem that is all but destroyed. I am angry that there are ways of life that are likely to come to and end for families that have been working for generations. I am angry that it has taken so long for any kind of functioning solution to show up. I am angry that the US government has taken precisely ZERO actions to assess or direct the response. I am not happy that they were impotent to stop BP from spraying the most toxic versions of the chemical dispersants into the ocean further damaging the ecosystem. But I am probably the MOST angry that the best response to this disaster that I have seen has come from KEVIN FREAKING COSTNER! Given all of this, I don't think BP is evil. Negligent? Yes. Incompetent? Certainly. But "evil?" It's a bit of a stretch. In my mind evil implies an intention to cause harm. That is the single over-arching goal. Death, destruction, mayhem.
Of the how many oil rigs in the gulf, what is it 3,500? This is the first one I have heard of with a significant oil spill. Did their safety measures fail? Yes. Did they have multiple layers of fail-safe systems fail? Yes. Was it their rig? Yes. Did they fail to keep these systems functional? Yes. Was it their fault? Yes. But was it their intent? Only if they are the real life incarnations of Bond villains. I mean come on. Seriously. You think that they were bored and said, "Let's dump a shitload of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and wreak havoc on the environment, sabotage our political win for new offshore drilling, cost ourselves billions of dollars and do irrevocable damage to our reputation. It will be... wait for it... LEGENDARY!" Do I fault them? Absolutely. It was the grossest form of negligence possible in an oil organization. I also fault the government that was supposed to regulate them. Why the hell are they taking my money to pay inspectors and fly them around the gulf and, you know, inspect stuff, if they are not finding things EXACTLY LIKE THIS? Isn't it their job to find this stuff and stop it before the worst case scenario happens? But on the flip side, as much as I fault BP, they are probably one of the few organizations that can mobilize and fund the efforts necessary to clean up the mess. And they are incentivized to find a solution and find it quickly. They do not have a bureaucracy (why the hell does that word have so many consonants? Even its spelling is wasteful.) to deal with. They don't have to have committee meetings in front of television cameras and posture for reelection. They are far more nimble than the US government.
The best part is that when all is said and done, nothing will change. BP will get a slap on the wrist. Their profits last year were a little over $16 Billion dollars. See page 3 of this report from BP's site. The government will institute some meaningless and toothless regulations that looks like they've put BP in their place, but will result in no change in the safety of the environment, and no change in BPs practices. It will however make it look like they were tough on "Big Oil" and those "evil" profit making companies. Because everyone knows that making profit is evil. I've said my piece. Feel free to comment below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
