Some of my best friends own guns! :p
Personally, I sleep with a loaded baseball bat under my bed. On a strict risk analysis, it makes no sense for me to own a gun. Gun violence around here is shown in suicides, hunting accidents, justifiable homicide -- that husband needed killing -- and, uh, breakdowns of family education -- lil' Johnnie found his father's gun and shot his brother.
There has been only one case around here in the past 40 years of gun violence with a hoodlum intruding -- that hoodlum had the gun and shot BEFORE the victim could get his own gun. Yes, it was a targeted assassination, and I learned not to make enemies. :p
However, I support everybody having a gun for hunting or self-defense, if they so choose. Banning guns does not work.
But an assault rifle with a magazine larger than six bullets, a machine gun or anything that sprays bullets is not really a weapon used in hunting or self-defense -- no one except law enforcement or the military has the need to possess such; thusly, I'd have no qualms with a ban on such.
After all, guns do not kill people, bullets kill people. Limit magazines to, say, six bullets. If you can't stop an intruder with six shots, you probably deserve to be intruded upon! :p
Intelligent gun control laws will not prevent "good people" from owning guns or obtaining concealed weapons permits should they qualify or sleeping with the barrel of their gun in their mouth (like Gomer Pyle -- ;O) . Possessing an "arsenal" of weapons, ammunition or explosives is evidence of intent to kill or maim or do serious damage and worthy of serious jail time.
Same principal as with drugs. Get caught with one or two joints, slap on the wrist and a diversionary program leading to dismissal. Get caught with 50 lbs of marijuana, you'll spend quite a few years in prison because you're a dealer.
An armed society is a polite society, right? More guns!?! [rolleyes]
What we, as a society, must do is a better job of identifying these Nuts BEFORE they shoot -- instead of arguing with Nuts! :p The argument is over -- the Nuts have won. Let's try to limit the damage, shall we?
Friday, July 27, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Post #347 It's The Rules, Stupid!
Hey, Mitt Romney: No one hates your money; we hate the rules you play by -- a lower tax rate, frivolous deductions, Swiss bank accounts....
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4IpIuOmDihA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4IpIuOmDihA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Friday, July 13, 2012
Post #346 Justice For The Unarmed Juvenile, Pt. III
George Zimmerman, the armed adult charged with killing unarmed juvenile Trayvon Martin, told police he took his "gun, aimed it at him, and fired one shot" after Martin allegedly threw repeated punches at him, according to police video.
Well, according to the Sanford Police Department: "The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter. Zimmerman, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review, and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of Martin, made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood."
Zimmerman found Martin guilty of looking like a thug -- and that is not a good reason to aim your gun and fire a shot. That is an act of execution, not self-defense.
The police report identifies two occasions at which the armed adult could have diffused the situation.
#1. Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck.
"Investigative findings show that Zimmerman admitted avoiding a confrontation with Martin while Zimmerman was observing Martin from his vehicle, because, as he told investigators, he was afraid of Martin. Later in the encounter, Zimmerman exited his vehicle, in spite of his earlier admission to investigators that he was afraid of Martin, and followed Martin in an effort to maintain surveillance of him while Zimmerman awaited the arrival of law enforcement officers. His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject."
#2. Zimmerman should have identified himself.
When, according to Zimmerman, Martin asked, "What is your problem?" -- that was good time for Zimmerman to have identified himself instead of replying "I don't have a problem." Then, Zimmerman said Martin attacked him and was astride him, beating him, when Zimmerman fired a single shot into Martin's torso.
Really?
Well, the autopsy shows defensive wounds on Martin, bruises on his pinkies -- wounds not accounted for by Zimmerman's tale. No offensive wounds on Martin. So, no, the evidence does not back up Zimmerman.
"Investigative findings show the physical dimension of Trayvon Martin, and that of George Zimmerman, coupled with the absence of any specialized training in hand to hand combat between either combatant, did not place George Zimmerman in an extraordinary or exceptional disadvantage of apparent physical ability or defensive capacity."
In simple terms, Martin wasn't capable of beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
"Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him, during which neither a deadly weapon nor deadly force was deployed by Trayvon Martin."
Well, in simple terms, Martin wasn't beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
Well, Well, Well....
Well, according to the Sanford Police Department: "The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter. Zimmerman, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review, and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of Martin, made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood."
Zimmerman found Martin guilty of looking like a thug -- and that is not a good reason to aim your gun and fire a shot. That is an act of execution, not self-defense.
The police report identifies two occasions at which the armed adult could have diffused the situation.
#1. Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck.
"Investigative findings show that Zimmerman admitted avoiding a confrontation with Martin while Zimmerman was observing Martin from his vehicle, because, as he told investigators, he was afraid of Martin. Later in the encounter, Zimmerman exited his vehicle, in spite of his earlier admission to investigators that he was afraid of Martin, and followed Martin in an effort to maintain surveillance of him while Zimmerman awaited the arrival of law enforcement officers. His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject."
#2. Zimmerman should have identified himself.
When, according to Zimmerman, Martin asked, "What is your problem?" -- that was good time for Zimmerman to have identified himself instead of replying "I don't have a problem." Then, Zimmerman said Martin attacked him and was astride him, beating him, when Zimmerman fired a single shot into Martin's torso.
Really?
Well, the autopsy shows defensive wounds on Martin, bruises on his pinkies -- wounds not accounted for by Zimmerman's tale. No offensive wounds on Martin. So, no, the evidence does not back up Zimmerman.
"Investigative findings show the physical dimension of Trayvon Martin, and that of George Zimmerman, coupled with the absence of any specialized training in hand to hand combat between either combatant, did not place George Zimmerman in an extraordinary or exceptional disadvantage of apparent physical ability or defensive capacity."
In simple terms, Martin wasn't capable of beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
"Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him, during which neither a deadly weapon nor deadly force was deployed by Trayvon Martin."
Well, in simple terms, Martin wasn't beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
Well, Well, Well....
Friday, July 06, 2012
Post #145 America The Beautiful!, Pt. II
Are all men created equal? Absolutely: The Declaration of Independence, like the Constitution, does not classify people according to sex or race. The Declaration of Independence's central proposition -- equality -- applies to men and women alike, regardless of skin color (or religion, for that matter). The observed inequalities of individual men and women -- in intelligence or strength, for examples -- are insignificant and dramatically underscore the ways in which all human beings, as a species, are equal in their nature. The Declaration of Independence speaks of "all men" and not "all human beings" because the former is a more rhetorically powerful way to describe mankind. Another way to think of this is that all humans have equal value -- everyone has an equal standing before the law.
Yes, much of the preceding paragraph came, word for word, from the American Heritage website. If the preceding paragraph does not match your bigotry, take it up with the American Heritage folks.
Does our unalienable right to Life interfere with others' unalienable rights? Absolutely not. The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights: the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The right to Life protects the individual's ability to take all those actions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his life -- buying health insurance, for example. There is only one fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived: A man's right to his own life. Life is the vessel which carries both our Liberty and Happiness. So, our unalienable right to Life TRUMPS Donald Trump's right to a tax cut (his pursuit of Happiness). Since life is the standard and the fundamental justification for all rights and all values, a "right" that makes life impossible is a wicked, life-negating contradiction. Selfishness is NOT a virtue -- it is part of greed, one of the seven deadly sins!
Wasn't Ayn Rand an atheist? Not that there's anything wrong with that! :p
Governments of the people and by the people that tax have a responsibility for the people. Of course. governments do many things poorly that the private sector can do better -- Government: Thy middle name is "waste and fraud." But an essential role of government is to do the heavy-lifting that the private sector cannot do -- Obamacare promotes freedom by giving real choices for citizens. If you have ever been mugged by Life, you will understand the tyranny, not of government, but of the social dynamics that define our health care system. The freedom to be left alone is no real freedom at all, since Obamacare -- or Romneycare or Medicare4all -- is essential to the possibility of valuable options in life -- the freedom to be left alone interferes with government securing our unalienable rights, which is why governments are instituted in the first place. The freedom to be left alone is really a call for anarchy.
Brotherhood -- a feeling of fellowship and sympathy and compassion for other people
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
Yes, much of the preceding paragraph came, word for word, from the American Heritage website. If the preceding paragraph does not match your bigotry, take it up with the American Heritage folks.
Does our unalienable right to Life interfere with others' unalienable rights? Absolutely not. The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights: the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The right to Life protects the individual's ability to take all those actions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his life -- buying health insurance, for example. There is only one fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived: A man's right to his own life. Life is the vessel which carries both our Liberty and Happiness. So, our unalienable right to Life TRUMPS Donald Trump's right to a tax cut (his pursuit of Happiness). Since life is the standard and the fundamental justification for all rights and all values, a "right" that makes life impossible is a wicked, life-negating contradiction. Selfishness is NOT a virtue -- it is part of greed, one of the seven deadly sins!
Wasn't Ayn Rand an atheist? Not that there's anything wrong with that! :p
Governments of the people and by the people that tax have a responsibility for the people. Of course. governments do many things poorly that the private sector can do better -- Government: Thy middle name is "waste and fraud." But an essential role of government is to do the heavy-lifting that the private sector cannot do -- Obamacare promotes freedom by giving real choices for citizens. If you have ever been mugged by Life, you will understand the tyranny, not of government, but of the social dynamics that define our health care system. The freedom to be left alone is no real freedom at all, since Obamacare -- or Romneycare or Medicare4all -- is essential to the possibility of valuable options in life -- the freedom to be left alone interferes with government securing our unalienable rights, which is why governments are instituted in the first place. The freedom to be left alone is really a call for anarchy.
Brotherhood -- a feeling of fellowship and sympathy and compassion for other people
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
Monday, July 02, 2012
Post #144 America The Beautiful!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -- that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
That is my political philosophy. What do you see as the proper role of Government?
Let's continue with Mr. Jefferson: "... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [of securing unalienable rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Which brings us to Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The responsible (those with health insurance) ALREADY pay for the irresponsible (those without health insurance), and Obamacare targets those deadbeats. I am sick and tired of paying for those deadbeats, and it's about time the law stepped in. >:( The good news for those deadbeats who are whining that they can't afford health insurance is that Obamacare addresses those concerns. Now, grow up, get off your duff and buy some health insurance or pay up!
OK, conservatives: The ball is in your court. Tell us a better way of delivering health care (securing my unalienable right to Life). Hint -- "repealing Obamacare" doesn't cut it. How would you "fix" Obamacare?
I made that challenge at a 'board I frequent, and I got this reply:
For starters, stop killing jobs and promoting SodaStamps, er, I mean FoodStamps. How healthy is soda? I understand why bottled water isn't allowed, but why is soda? Not a biggie, just looking for consistency.
Torte reform cutting down on defensive medicine, HSAs, FSAs, offer plans for catastrophic care only for people who want them. We used to call that "major medical". If people could be trusted to make their own choices with HSA accounts, competition would drive costs lower and people who be more motivated to stay well or even try nontraditional medicine.
OK, I have questions:
Who is killing jobs? Are those who send jobs to India killing jobs? When Governor Chris Christie pulled New Jersey out of the subway project under Manhattan, did he kill jobs?
I, too, am against food stamps -- it's just another currency. Make the payments in cash, and eliminate the food stamp bureaucracy.
Well, torte reform is ALREADY in effect in 30 states... with middling results. It has NOT been the windfall to healthcare that was predicted. Kind of like the lottery here -- NOT what we were promised.
Obamacare still allows HSAs and FSAs, but it toughens the rules to make sure healthcare is bought -- NOT hot tubs. If I chose a 'healthcare lite' plan and then got injured in a car wreck, can I then upgrade to a 'major medical?' Obamacare avoids that question, making sure that I am covered in all circumstances.
Who is more motivated to stay well than those without health insurance? Unfortunately, life does not always work that way -- motivation does not always equal staying well.
I have diabetes. As you may or may not know, diabetes is an expensive disease to have and is -- Thank Goodness -- covered by Medicare. A couple of years ago, I developed a heart rhythm problem and was prescribed some drugs under George W. Bush's infamous Plan D complete with a 'doughnut hole.' Obamacare closed the 'doughnut hole' -- thusly, saving my life (securing my unalienable right to Life).
Thank You for your response, and I appreciate your faith in the free market. With all due respect, I think my unalienable right to Life is too important to leave to the whims of the free market. That is why I support Obamacare.
That is my political philosophy. What do you see as the proper role of Government?
Let's continue with Mr. Jefferson: "... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [of securing unalienable rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Which brings us to Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The responsible (those with health insurance) ALREADY pay for the irresponsible (those without health insurance), and Obamacare targets those deadbeats. I am sick and tired of paying for those deadbeats, and it's about time the law stepped in. >:( The good news for those deadbeats who are whining that they can't afford health insurance is that Obamacare addresses those concerns. Now, grow up, get off your duff and buy some health insurance or pay up!
OK, conservatives: The ball is in your court. Tell us a better way of delivering health care (securing my unalienable right to Life). Hint -- "repealing Obamacare" doesn't cut it. How would you "fix" Obamacare?
I made that challenge at a 'board I frequent, and I got this reply:
For starters, stop killing jobs and promoting SodaStamps, er, I mean FoodStamps. How healthy is soda? I understand why bottled water isn't allowed, but why is soda? Not a biggie, just looking for consistency.
Torte reform cutting down on defensive medicine, HSAs, FSAs, offer plans for catastrophic care only for people who want them. We used to call that "major medical". If people could be trusted to make their own choices with HSA accounts, competition would drive costs lower and people who be more motivated to stay well or even try nontraditional medicine.
OK, I have questions:
Who is killing jobs? Are those who send jobs to India killing jobs? When Governor Chris Christie pulled New Jersey out of the subway project under Manhattan, did he kill jobs?
I, too, am against food stamps -- it's just another currency. Make the payments in cash, and eliminate the food stamp bureaucracy.
Well, torte reform is ALREADY in effect in 30 states... with middling results. It has NOT been the windfall to healthcare that was predicted. Kind of like the lottery here -- NOT what we were promised.
Obamacare still allows HSAs and FSAs, but it toughens the rules to make sure healthcare is bought -- NOT hot tubs. If I chose a 'healthcare lite' plan and then got injured in a car wreck, can I then upgrade to a 'major medical?' Obamacare avoids that question, making sure that I am covered in all circumstances.
Who is more motivated to stay well than those without health insurance? Unfortunately, life does not always work that way -- motivation does not always equal staying well.
I have diabetes. As you may or may not know, diabetes is an expensive disease to have and is -- Thank Goodness -- covered by Medicare. A couple of years ago, I developed a heart rhythm problem and was prescribed some drugs under George W. Bush's infamous Plan D complete with a 'doughnut hole.' Obamacare closed the 'doughnut hole' -- thusly, saving my life (securing my unalienable right to Life).
Thank You for your response, and I appreciate your faith in the free market. With all due respect, I think my unalienable right to Life is too important to leave to the whims of the free market. That is why I support Obamacare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)