Progressives and gun control
Progressives tend to see the world as they think it ought to be rather than as it is. That leads them to think they can find a magic solution to any problem and legislate it.
They themselves are hypocritical about it. For example, Warren Buffet wants higher tax rates he says, because he pays less then his secretary. If that were really the problem all he has to do is fire the CPAs he has hired to minimize his taxes, and send a bigger check. Nothing stops him from paying more tax.
The issue of gun control* is a great example of the hypocrisy of the progressive elite. Michael Bloomberg tries his best to keep ordinary citizens from having firearms while surrounding himself with armed body guards. Does he think he needs protecting but you and I do not?
We have to work with what we have. People are an enormously diverse lot. Most are what we consider “good”, but many are not. That is reality. Why there are bad people is not the question. What to do about them is. Paraphrasing something attributed to Jesus: The bad will always be with us. Laws should be based on the reality of mankind rather then anybody's idea of how we should be.**
As long as some people feel the need to be able to defend themselves, there will be firearms. Why not make it easy for law-abiding people to defend themselves while making it harder for criminals?
* “Gun control defined: The theory that criminals who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.” http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/super-mo...
** I realize I am wishing something that will never be because people who make laws keep trying to mold the world rather then regulate what is.
They themselves are hypocritical about it. For example, Warren Buffet wants higher tax rates he says, because he pays less then his secretary. If that were really the problem all he has to do is fire the CPAs he has hired to minimize his taxes, and send a bigger check. Nothing stops him from paying more tax.
The issue of gun control* is a great example of the hypocrisy of the progressive elite. Michael Bloomberg tries his best to keep ordinary citizens from having firearms while surrounding himself with armed body guards. Does he think he needs protecting but you and I do not?
We have to work with what we have. People are an enormously diverse lot. Most are what we consider “good”, but many are not. That is reality. Why there are bad people is not the question. What to do about them is. Paraphrasing something attributed to Jesus: The bad will always be with us. Laws should be based on the reality of mankind rather then anybody's idea of how we should be.**
As long as some people feel the need to be able to defend themselves, there will be firearms. Why not make it easy for law-abiding people to defend themselves while making it harder for criminals?
* “Gun control defined: The theory that criminals who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.” http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/super-mo...
** I realize I am wishing something that will never be because people who make laws keep trying to mold the world rather then regulate what is.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
--- H.L. Mencken."
Going on my home page tonight...
Just another Obama/Krugman Memorial Quotation...
"When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon," she said. "I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me. ...."
Just shows the sense of radical self-entitlement of one of the people working hard to take your rights away...
BTW - she says gave it up in 2012. The question being - as a Senator, does she carry "regimental" and figure as the high and privileged no one would *dare* infringe on *her* second amendment rights as she wishes to infringe upon yours, or does she merely employ a cadre of armed guards to protect herself under the color of the "Oh, How shocking, I would *never* have a firearm!" clause?
Just because she used the murder of a mayor and city councilman to propel herself into a huge political career...
Chris Kyle ....... with one shot?! -- j
"Gun control means using both hands."
By holding to that position, you immediately permit those that want to control, to ignore 'shall not be infringed' and begin to make and expand inroads on the gun control front. And since you now have allowed 'some infringement', all the gun control crowd has to do now is make more things illegal, a bigger umbrella if you will, to further restrict 'law abiding people' who can have guns. Your approach will eventually lead to no fully law abiding people with guns.
The answer is as the founders intended. Government has no business nor privilege to interfere in the natural right of self defense.
Situation #1. If 100% of the US civilians owned guns and the US gov decided to take over and impose military rule and they were willing to go to any lengths to do so - How much good would privately owned guns do against tanks and nukes?
Situation #2. If no civilians owned guns and the US decided to impose military rule - how long would it take for US civilians to own military equipment? After all, if I can shoot soldier with a bow and arrow, then I have his guns. Then I shoot another soldier with the first guy's guns and now You have a gun too. etc.
Situation #3. India successfully revolted against the British Empire without armed superiority. They just refused to do what they were ordered to do.
I have deliberately set up some extreme scenarios, but please bear with me a moment. Firstly, I do have more confidence than many of you do in the military. I think that US troops told to fire on US civilians would stop doing so pretty darn soon (if they did it at all). It is not the members (or ex-) of the military who are proponents of gun control and liberalism.
What I think gun control is about is 'the feeling of helplessness' and the willingness to 'let daddy take care of it all.
When the American public is willing to be castratos and turn over their cojones and guns to the government, it means that people have forgotten freedom. If people want to be free, then whether or not we have guns is not going to matter: we WILL be free. If we want to be free, then the military will side with US, not with the government. If we want to be free, then we will not obey the commands of the people who want to make serfs of us. There is no more stubborn a country of black sheep than the USA. If we set our wills to do something - we will do it.
But if we loose our will, if we do not want to be free...if freedom is no longer important to us, then having guns will not make difference. And the willingness to have our guns taken away from us is an indication that we have reached that point.
Jan
(Wanting to remind folks that I was the one who posted about Total Resistance by von Dach. I am not saying that bow and arrow is more effective than a gun or that guerrilla action is not effective.)
Second, you are probably right about the active duty military, but there are significant swaths of the upper echelon that have been culled in the past few years. One wonders about how much the remaining military hierarchy values their oath (seems the politicians don't value it very much).
Third, the current admin has expanded the militarization of all aspects of executive alphabet soup agencies. To whom will these quasi-military forces be loyal? They do not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and depend on their livelihood from gov't.
Fourth, a significant portion of those owning fire arms have already self-identified - whether through some form of registration, back-ground check, purchase of ammo via credit card, or even registering for a hunting license. Those forms of identification will be used to confiscate the weapons when it comes time.
Fifth, I do believe in gun-control. A firm grip, proper sight picture, and controlled breathing is critical in hitting what you want. ;-)
I write this because I think the vast majority of military members are completely loyal the the US and take the oath of office seriously. The oath for both officers and enlisted includes the phrase “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Generals comprise a very small part of the military – in the US Air Force in 1988 out of about 400,000 only 400 were generals.
The military force we all need to be concerned with is the one Obama is creating as a domestic army – sort of like Hitler's brown shirts. Watch out for the losers wearing a TSA uniforms.
Jan
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). So help me God may be omitted.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a member of the military is to obey all LAWFUL orders. A member of the military may not be punished for disobeying an unlawful order (for instance, to shoot at civilians, foreign or domestic).
reconcile the situation when the enemy is a
domestic terrorist....... -- j
While Buffet may have said 'I pay less taxes than my secretary,' that's very unlikely unless virtually all of his 'income' is shielded from "INCOME tax bites" in the first place (thank the same government for ENACTING those loopholes, btw...) or he might have really meant that his income Tax RATE is lower than that of his secretary and none of the mainscream media morons can think far enough to imagine that the number of DOLLARS he pays in taxes is probably a lot higher than the number of DOLLARS his secretary is on the hook for.
In either case, yep, if he thinks he's 'undertaxed,' he can damned well pay more freely, but hasn't given us any proof he's doing that, or he could lobby for flat-rate income taxes based on ALL sources of Income (salary, stock option exercises, and all other kinds of compensation), so there would be NO WAY he could pay 'less taxes than his secretary"!
Now, I don't hear of him doing either such thing, so I have concluded that the Red H of Hypocrisy should hang around HIS neck.
But I still think that anything and everything Buffet does is driven by his own love of money and that's his primary driver... not what he says in his many self-deprecating or 'aw shucks' articles and quotations.
:)
... clearly enough?
:D
On gun control, I have a collection of over 100 firearms (military, assault, historical, and cowboy levers), I have no interest in gun control... although I do believe reasonable measures are needed to keep society operating in a relatively smooth fashion... (bans on felons owning firearms or severely mentally ill are fine with me). Beyond that, the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" and its rather hard to figure out a place for gun control within that language. Felons give up their rights... as does an active duty soldier while on-duty for example and business owners are free to not allow open-carry in their place of business in my opinion (it's their business/property/choice). Mental illness can blur the lines of understanding and perception between right & wrong, something the founding fathers wouldn't have understood and can be a factor of our cities and people in close-quarters compared to everyone having 250 or 1000 acres at the time of the founding.
I'm about a 90/10 against any form of gun control you can say.
Jan
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
How do you make a gift to reduce debt held by the public?
If you wish to do so, make a check payable to “Bureau of the Public Debt.” You can send it to: Bureau of the Public Debt, Department G, P.O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188. Or you can enclose the check with your income tax return when you file.
Tip: You may be able to deduct this gift on your 2006 tax return.
According to the most recent IRS Data Book, last year 48 taxpayers mailed in contributions to reduce the public debt, for a total of exactly $21,179. That's $441 per gift. Since 1982, there have been a total of 16,122 voluntary contributions to reduce the debt, for a grand total of $9.8 million—or about 0.00012 percent of the nation's public debt of $8,367,661,575,868 as of March 29, 2006 according to the U.S. Treasury.
They even make it easy These liberal loonies that feel so guilty about having so much can give till it hurts. I am sure the Government will take every dime they send in.
At the time they were enacted, much as today, the bill of rights were enacted. What the anti-American nutballs like Bloomberg regret is there are people who (a) took civics in High School, and (b) choose not to forget history, that (c) keep people of their ilk from having absolute power over we the people... while they demand the American Citizenry cower in manufactured fear to the point of giving up their rights for alleged (and non-existant) security, some of us really are not fond of a return to the leadership style of King George III... or some Corsican named Buonaparte...