Skip to content

Ft Hood Massacre – Religous Fanatic or Disgruntled Soldier?

Saturday, November 7, 2009

I think its pretty clear by now that the recent shooting at Ft Hood was not the work of a disgruntled soldier but in fact a terrorist act by a religous Muslim fanatic.  And therin lies the rub.  Do we call this what it really is?  Or, in the interests of not fanning the dying flames of anti-muslim sentiments in this country do we gloss over Nidal Hassan’s radical islamic beliefs and simply call this pre-post traumatic stress disorder?  Believe it or not, this is a difficult question even for me.  Over at my favorite liberal blog, writers are already decrying the inevitable anti-islam backlash – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/good-reason-for-muslims-t_b_349492.html  or using this as yet another excuse to enact more gun control – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/fort-hood-shooting-1-dist_b_348895.htmlwhile other more conservative bloggers (like me) are calling this for what it really is -http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/07/report-hasan-attended-same-radical-mosque-as-911-hijackers/

While I do not feel that the enemy is “infiltrating” our military, the possibility is there.  The fact that this man was able to rise to the rank of Major shows that we are perhaps not doing as much screening as we should and in the right places.  Those of us who have held a security clearance know that the screening process for thes clearances is fairly thorough, but not until you get up to the higher clearance levels.  There is no indication that Nidal Hassan ever had any type of clearance and as a psychiatrist I would not necessarily expect him to.  So what processes are in place to ensure that a muslim-american with these types of religous beliefs does not slip through the cracks again?  And should our men and women in uniform trust those muslim-americans they currently serve with?

This could have been much worse.  Had Nidal Hassan been something other than a psyciatrist, he could have caused far more damage than he did.  Of course, he would have gone through more screening to get access to that kind of firepower so maybe the system would have prevented him.  We will never know.  But can we even screem out people based on religous beliefs?  I believe under current law, we cannot.  I think we need to take a harder look at just how much “political correctness” is going to end up costing us in the future.

Rich

Filed in From the Center of Things, Rich, Uncategorized | | Comments (9)

Death and taxes -Mostly taxes.

Monday, November 2, 2009

With all of the screaming about the massive “unsustainable” spending in Washington (which I disagree with) and the paranoia from the right about their taxes going up, I thought I’d post a couple of thoughts on taxes.

I sure wish everyone paid theirs.  Unfortunately many people don’t.  I also have problems with people bitching about certain tax rates going up, the whole, “if you make more than $100,000 ($150,000, $200,000, $250,000 -whatever)” thing.  However there are many currently legal loopholes that more financially sound (I refuse to say “rich” -I’m not a key word man) people repeatedly use to lower the taxes that they pay.  Here’s my reforms:

1.  Only one domicile per person may be used at one time as a tax deduction in federal or state income tax calculations.  No more buying 2, 3, 4 homes to hide your money in.  If you make that much, you should pay your fair share.

2.  Only one retirement (or maybe two other long-term savings) account(s) per person may be used at one time to be used as a federal or state income tax deductions.

3.  No more tax exemptions for religious institutions.  Now, before the hate mail arrives, I only mean the exemptions above and beyond those given to normal charities.  The property taxes, charitable donations not directly used for charitable activities that benefit the people as a whole, not just the faithful.  The initial basis of forming tax exemptions (which are not one thing, but a combination of local, state and federal court rulings) was to encourage private citizens to “take care” of problems that the government would rather not, but it has to benefit everyone.  It cannot target a single group.  This concept has been grossly blown out of proportion and I am tired of people getting rich off of people’s faith (extreme but realistic example:  Scientology).  If we remove the tax exempt status, we are still not supporting a single religion, nor preventing anyone from their free exercise.

It’s unfortunate that we can’t change the past (spending), but this would sure help towards the future, maybe we could afford to dramatically lower the corporate tax’s and spur real economic growth in this country…

Thoughts?

-Matt

Filed in Thoughts from the Left side of the Aisle | | Comments (4)

Big Brother IS Listening

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Shortly after the events of 9/11, the Bush administration sought and was granted fairly sweeping powers to combat terrorism by Congress.  Well, “sweeping powers” may be a mis-statement depending on yor point of view.  I really don’t feel like delving into the intricate details, so lets just summarize by saying that the Executive Branch was authorized by Congress to use whatever military “force” was deemed necessary to ensure that something like 9/11 did not happen again.  The Executive Branch then used this authorization to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and also to step up its intelligence gathering.  Almost nothing I am about to mention is new information.  I am bringing this subject up merely to refresh the dialogue in peoples minds.  When Bush was in office, this “Warrantless Wiretapping” program was in the news often.  Now that Mr. Obama has inherited this program and shows every sign of continuing it unabated, not quite so much attention from the media.  Hmmmmm.

Now since intelligence gathering is a vital part of waging war, the Administration reasoned that it could do pretty much whatever it wanted with regards to surveillance.   Having been in the military for longer than I care to admit, I agree with this assertion.  What I do not agree with is that it grants the Executive Branch the right to spy on United States Citizens without following the rules laid out in the Constitution and many, many lines of US Civil Code.  Others will disagree with me.  I have had many discussions with people who freely admit that they have no problem with the Federal Government listening in on their phone calls and e-mails because “I have nothing to hide”. 

Of course this program is secret and thus we can’t really now for sure what the feds are listening to, but we do know a few things.  In late 2002, AT&T cooperated with the NSA and installed a beam splitter on the backbone in their facility in San Francisco.   A great feature of fiber optics is that you can split the signal with vitually no signal loss and send identical streams to different locations.  In the case of AT&T, one stream continues to its destination (your home or office) while an identical stream goes into a secure room (room 641a) and is processed by some very high powered servers.  Now, I do not know for sure that room 641a is still operating, internet chatter on the subject dries up around late 2008, but I see no reason why it and other rooms like it would not still be operating today.  It should also be noted that room 641a likely began operation in 2003, but was not reported until a whistleblower at AT&T broke the story.

Even before room 641a, the FBI was using a piece of software called “Carnivore” to sniff out e-mails.  Carnovore was a rather un-remarkable tool in that it was basically just a packet sniffer, what made it stand out was its ability to use various criteria to filter out what the person using it wanted to zero in on.  The FBI later abandoned Carnivore in favor of commercially available software and hardware from a company called Narus.  Coincidentally, Narus is also who builds the machines the NSA used (uses?) in room 641a.  If this little article about Narus doesn’t give you visions of 1984, then you should probably re-read that Orwell classic.  And don’t even think about giving me any guff about using Wikipedia.  This is a blog, not a research paper.  I am sure there is plenty more info out there on Narus, I just don’t feel like digging tonight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NarusInsight

Now, I understand the need for surveillance, and I understand the need for that surveillance to be secret at times.  We already have a system in place for that though, and its called FISA (Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act) and it allows officials to get warrants from a secret court and go monitor whoever they want.  Since its inception in 1978, the FISA court has awarded over 19,000 warrants and denied only 5.  So I think its pretty easy to get one.  As useless as this system is, at least its a system that keeps us a littel further away from the slippery slope that we are on.  For you Star Wars fans, don’t forget that Palpatines rise to Emperor really started when the Senate granted him all those “Emergency” powers…

Filed in Rich, Ultra Conservative to Just a Little Right | | Comments (2)

How to Make a Marriage Last Forever (or at least until the kids move out)

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Yes, I know this is supposed to be a political blog, but sometimes I just don’t feel like talking about politics (those times are rare but they do occur).  Today is one of those days.  I have been alternating between writing a paper on minimizing overtime on large construction projects and reading the news and frankly I am just about out of serious thinking juice.  Additionally, this blog has started to take itself a little too seriously and damnit its time to have some fun for a change.  So don’t take this one too seriously because its not meant to be.  If you disagree with the below points, feel free to chime in but you have to do it in a humorous tongue-in-cheek manner!!!

After nearly twenty wonderful years of marriage, I feel I would be remiss if I did not pass along at least a little of what I have learned about how to keep a marriage together.  I have to admit though that I am not entirely sure I actually learned these things or if they were, in fact, subtly transferred into my head via a rolling pin and skillet.  Okay, just kidding, my wife doesn’t beat me.  At least not as much anymore.  So, over the next few posts in this category, I will attempt to impart a little wisdom to those of you who either are not yet married, newly married, or simply want to take delight in me relating how stupid I am and how hard it has been to learn these lessons.

First we need to dispel a few marriage advice myths.

The first of these myths is the one that most of you have heard many times and may actually believe.  This one is so blatantly stupid, I can’t believe we even need to discuss it, but here it goes.

Marriage Advice Myth #1 – Marry Someone who enjoys the same things you enjoy.

What idiot ever thought this one up?  I truly believe he was either delusional or enjoyed practical jokes.  And this one is a doozy of a joke.  Lets explore the implications of this if indeed one were to try to follow it.  Guys, I want you to imagine that you have just found the “perfect” woman.  She is gorgeous and smart (but not smarter than you). She loves football, beer and all the outdoor sports that you love, and to top it all off she even gets along with your mom!

Sounds great doesn’t she?  Yeah, for about a year or two.  At first its great.  You get to watch all the games on Sunday, she likes the same beer as you so Christmas shopping is easy, and you always have a fishing buddy.  At some point though, you are gonna want to go to your “Man Cave”.  What’s that you say?  Oh that’s right, you don’t have a Man Cave!  You have a den with his and hers Green Bay Packers recliners and matching footstools.  Well thats okay, how about you go enjoy some quality belchin’, fartin’, beer dirnkin’, chili eatin’ alone time at your shack on the lake?  Guess who is coming along and cooking the chili?  After a few years of this, you will have to start taking pastry classes just to be able to get some “Me” time.

For you ladies, the above does not apply.  Believe it or not, there are women out there that enjoy all those man-things we love so much.  If you gals manage to find a guy though that likes all the stuff you like, he is already taken by a guy that likes all the stuff he likes.

So guys, find a gal that only likes one, maybe two of the things you like.  Ideally, she should share your fondness for fine microbrew beers because the only real men who should know how to make the perfect cosmopolitan get paid to do that sort of thing.  If you really need to have two things in common, I recommend off road racing.  Like it or not, they really are better drivers than us, and every girl loves a big truck anyway, right?

Disclaimer:  In the unlikely event that my wife actually reads this blog, the above opinions in no way reflect the actual opinions of the author and should in now way be interpreted as reality.  I love spending time with my wife and honey, I will never stop perfecting my cosmopolitan recipe.  I have actually grown quite fond of them over the years.

Rich

Filed in Rich, The Married Life | | Comments (1)

“Obscene” Health Insurance Profits

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Over the last several months as I have watched the Health Insurance debate bounce back and forth, one particular item has always bugged me a little bit.  The pro-government health care advocates continually point to the “obscene” profits that the insurance companies supposedly make.  This struck me as fairly odd since there are a large number of non-profit helath insurance organizations in the market that these private companies would have to comptete with.  How could any company possibly turn a massive profit if it had to compete with a not for profit company selling the same products?  Well, as it turns out, they actually don’t make a massive profit!

Reporters Calvin Woodward and Tom Murphy did a little fact-checking (thats gotta tick the administration off) and found that health insurance profits on average were far below other large companies (Tupperware, Coors, railroads, its a long list…).  For example, communication network companies ran profits of around 20% compared to a little over 2% for the health insurance companies.  Maybe the Democrats have a different dictionary than the rest of us, but I would hardly call 2% of ANYTHING obscene!  And these people have the nerve to attack FOX news for distorting reality?  Really?

The more I write about this one, the more ticked off I get.  What is it going to take to make the bleeding heart wanna be do gooders realize that this is not about health care, its about power!  The party that currently has control will do everything they can to gain as much power and grow government as much as possible while they control all three branches.  As much as I dislike their ideology, I can not say they are stupid.  They have an agenda, and they are following it.  Its time for all the sheep to wake up and realize that the shepherd only takes care of them because they serve a more profitable purpose down the line.

Full text of Wooward and Murphy’s story here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

Rich

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (8)

What is “Hate” anyway?

Friday, October 23, 2009

Thank god the new hate crime bill was passed.  We can all breath a sigh of relief knowing that it is now illegal to physical assault someone based on their sexual orientation.  I am absolutely thrilled.  Alright, not really.

Isn’t “assault” already illegal?

Yes, yes it is.

If you want to increase the punishment then increase the maximum assault/murder/whatever penalty under the law.  Any Judge or jury in the united states has the right to determine the punishment of the crime as defined in the law.  The whole, “not punishable by more than… etc” part.  If the Judge or jury feels the crime was more abhorrent for whatever reason, than he/she/they have the right to sentence the maximum jail time.  This new law serves absolutely no purpose.  This is just one in a series of “feel good” legislative bills passed for no other reason than, well, to make people “feel good.”  There is no easier way to feel good than to identify a group of people (must be a small, rather sadly looked-upon group) draft up some legislation, which is identical to laws that already exist, pass it, pat each other on the back, and congratulate each other on making people “feel good.”

Politicians could be accomplishing something practical, helpful, or at the very least not spending so much money, but no, next year’s election is rapidly approaching and the realization that nothing has been accomplished is right behind.  So here is the legislation which they can point to when asked what they did the advance the rights of minority groups, “Well, we made it MORE illegal to assault people based on gender.”

More illegal.

I’ll say it again (even though its my quote).  More illegal.

All crimes are illegal.  But some crimes are more illegal than others…

I know I’ve heard that somewhere.  But never mind.  This is the kind of utter nonsense and waste that comes out of Washington D.C. that quasi-democrats like myself really hate.  HAT-I guess I better not use that word, speech hasn’t been free for quite some time and I don’t want to find myself in jail.  There are many things in the world that bother me: religious intolerance, famine, disease, poverty, marginalization of human life, but the three things that REALLY bother me, and I hope bother most Americans, are Redundancy, Rhetoric, and Waste.

We see right through you, Washington, don’t think for one second that you’re off the hook.  You want my vote?  Earn it.  And dangling a piece of “feel good” nonsense in front of my face isn’t going to do it.

-Matthew

Filed in From the Center of Things, Matt | | Comments (12)

Limits on Executive Pay: Should We?

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

I read a fairly interesting piece today which discussed the recent announcement from the White House of new guidelines on executive pay for companies who received bailout money.  The article starrted me thinking about the reasons that people believe CEO’s make too much many and just how much is too much.  You can read it as well here: http://blog.kld.com/kld/president-obama-limits-salaries-at-bailed-out-banks-investors-to-seek-say-on-pay-at-100-corporations-in-2009/

According to the AFL-CIO, in 2008 the average compensation package for a S&P 500 CEO was $10.9 million.  A short look at each company shows a wide range around this average from only a few million upwards of more than 20 million.  I will be the first to admit that $20 million is a huge sum no matter what job you are doing.  Before we go crying off to big brother though, maybe we should take a look at just how much that really is and where all that money comes from.

In 2007, the CEO of Boeing Aircraft made about $14 million.  That same year, Boeing made about $4 billion in total profits.  I’ll let you do the math, but as a percentage of company profits, $14 million is not very much.  This is only one example, but I am sure the same holds true for most other Fortune 500 companies.  A company that makes a lot of money can afford to pay the big bucks to the guy with all the responsibility.  Now, setting aside the whole total CEO pay issue, lets look at what those CEO’s make compared to their employees.  After all, if a company is making enough to pay the CEO the big bucks, then the average employee pay should go up as well right?  Well, not necessarily true as it turns out and this is where the real injustice is in my opinion.

In 1965, the average CEO of a large company made about 24 times what the average worker earned.  By 2007, CEO pay had risen to 275 times that of an average worker.  Over the last 40 years, we have seen the emergence of a class of top level managers who demand, and get far more in compensation than they rightfully deserve.  Right or wrong, this is where we have found ourselves and I believe we can emerge from the other end looking much better without government intervention.  More and more shareholder groups are starting to hold CEO’s accountable and reducing benefits packages.  Keep in mind that the largest increases in CEO pay have taken place over the last ten years as this class of managers matured and took root.  Most of these high paid execs are in their 60′s and likely will not be working much longer.  Maybe if we cut their pay a little we can entice them to go ahead and retire and get out of the way.

Rich

Filed in From the Center of Things, Rich | | Comments (6)

White House vs Fox News

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

So it appears the White House administration is not very pleased with Fox News’ coverage of them and their policies.   Somehow, I seriously doubt that this is the first time that a political entity has felt that a segment of the press was not on the same page as them idealogically.   I am also fairly certain that this is not the first time an administration has made disparaging remarks about that segment of the press.  So what is different this time around?   The difference this time around is that a growning number of people are not only paying attention to what that segment of the press is saying, but are actually taking action based on that “News”.

The White House asserts that Fox is unfairly slanted to the right.  FOX acknowledge that many of their opinion based shows are conservative in nature, but their news segments remain completely unbiased.  To be honest, I do not watch enough of FOX News to be able to make a good judgement call in this one.  The few times I have watched FOX news, I have noticed that the news is delivered mostly from a conservative perspective but does not seem to be slanted in any specific direction.  I did watch FOX more than usual during the recent campaigns and noticed as many negative stories about Senator McCain as I did then Senator Obama.  Even so, if their news program are somewhat right leaning, why is the White House so upset?  Any television program has to garner ratings to stay alive and a News network is no exception.  FOX News fills an important gap that CNN and MSNBC ignored for years as they became more and more entrenched in pushing the liberal agenda.  FOX saw a need and filled it.  Based on recent ratings, this seems to be working quite well for them. As you can see in the link below, FOX is beating every other major news network by a very large margin.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-tops-cnn-msnbc-hln-combined-in-prime-time-monday/

The White House staff is a little upset also about the manner in which FOX conducts itself during interviews.  On a recent Sunday morning show, Chris Wallace actually had the audacity to call out a certain government administrator on certain facts.  Unlike other commentators this woman had encountered, Chris had actaully done some research prior to the interview and was ready with some difficult questions.  Wow!  Do they teach that in Journalism school or did Chris come with that idea all on his own?  White House Communications Director Anita Dunn actaully stated that she had never heard of any Sunday Morning news show host fact checking a guest.  Maybe she has been watching the wrong news shows.

The reality of it all is that people are naturally prone to fact check people that they don’t agree with.  If Anita Dunn does not want the administration to be fact checked then she should ensure she keeps her folks off of FOX and stick with more agreeable networks like MSNBC.  Again, I don’t see much of a problem with this.  If this administrattion continues to be this opaque vice transparent as they promised many months ago, they will likely find themselves looking for work like many of the rest of us in a few years.

Rich

Filed in Rich, Ultra Conservative to Just a Little Right | | Comments (5)

Back to the Basics of Gun Control

Sunday, October 18, 2009

First off, welcome to Chris as the second contributor to the blog!  I am sure he will have many great revelations for us and will help to tame my hard right leaning tendencies.  I am currently looking for one more contributor to add a left side point of view on things, more on that to come.  And now, a little more on gun control.

Chris and I have both mentioned various statistics in our discussions on gun control, both on this blog in other conversations amongst ourselves and other colleagues.  We have all pretty much concluded that the statistics are relatively meaningless (at least right now).  Depending on what statistics are used and how they are intrepreted, a wide variance of conclusions can be drawn.  These conclusions are invariably affected by the biases of the persons doing the interpreting.  The end result is that one really cannot prove or disprove the effectivenes of an armed population as a deterrent to crime.  I would however argue that common sense tells us that an armed and trained individual is less likely to become a victim of violent crime than the converse.  Again, this is a matter of opinion and won’t solve the issue.  For these reasons, I have decided to focus my discussions on the roots and history of firearm ownership in this country vice the current debate.

The majority of the people in the anti-gun crowd really do not grasp the basic issue at hand and continually make statements such as ”Why do you need to have a gun?”  or “The reasons the Second Ammendment was inserted just are not relevant anymore”.   In response, I have a question for all of those people who feel the need to disarm the law abiding citizens of this country – “Why do you feel the need to take our guns away?”  Yes, I know, nobody wants to take the guns away right?  Wrong.

      “Senator, If I could have banned them all- ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ -I would have!”  Diane Fienstein 1995

In that statement, Senator Fienstein vocalizes the emotion that many of our elected leaders share – Fear, irrational fear.  I simply cannot believe the excuse that their desire to take away the right to bear arms is driven by a desire to lower crime.  Absolutley nothing backs that up.  We already have a plethora of laws and agencies designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who have shown that they cannot be trusted.  I must then conclude that this actually a fear of  the citizens having the means to revolt against the tyranny that they would like to impose.  That sounds a bit harsh.  I do not believe that anyone currently in any meaningful position of power intends to impose an outright tyrannical system in this country.  I cannot say that for those who will come in later generations though.  History has shown us that once we surrender a liberty to the government, we lose it forever. 

       “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”       Thomas Jefferson

Here is where the “Thats just not relevant anymore” argument always comes up.  Those who use this quote (or any of the dozens of other Founding Father quotes that say the same thing) are labeled as fear mongers and anarchists.  As I said before, I don’t think the current sate of our government will result in tyranny, but what of 50 years from now?  100 years?  Does it really matter how long it will take?  I believe we owe it to our children and grand-children to preserve for them the ability to prevent just such a thing from happening.

 I know that I said earlier we could not trust statistics, and I still stick to that statement for the most part.  I do want to leave you with this interesting tidbit though:  In New York City, Mayor Bloombergs push to rid the streets of illegal guns was widley hailed in liberal circles as a success.  In fact, the number of guns recovered from crime scenes did drop by 13% and the number of people shot to death dropped from 347 in 2007 to 292 in 2008.  The only problem with this whole line of thought is that from 2007 to 2008, the OVERALL murder rate in NYC increased due to an increase in knife related homicide.  Sounds like a murder problem and not a gun problem to me.

Rich

Filed in Rich, Ultra Conservative to Just a Little Right, Uncategorized | | Comments (4)

Response to “A few thoughts…” post by Rich

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Hey all, Rich invited me to be a contributor and so I will start by commenting on Rich’s post.

In this I agree, but it goes far beyond gun control.  Left and right both use tragedies and accidents to further their agendas.  This is opportunistic and has been going on in some way shape or form since the Agricultural Revolution thousands of years ago.  This is an issue of human nature, those we agree with can do no wrong until they go off message, and those we oppose can’t seem to get anything right, no matter how much we may agree with them.

Gun control just happens to be the issue of the day, situations such as the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech had arguments on both sides.  Those that want stricter gun laws cited the types of guns used, the ease of access and the overly violent video games that ‘desensitize’ today’s youth  to the violence demonstrated.  Those that oppose gun laws cried about restrictions against possession of guns and lack of concealed-carry permits by staff and teachers that could have resolved the situation more quickly or may have deterred the violence in the first place.

Both sides choose extremes when the actual resolution needs to be somewhere in the middle.  Both sides are opportunistic and will weigh in on articles such as the one Rich started from, but both will continue to miss the mark.  The second Amendment states: ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  This is the most hotly contested part of the Constitution but its origin comes from Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776, originally drafted by George Mason, which states: “That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”   For one reason or another the drafters of the Bill of Rights left out much of the language, and they made few statements as to why.  George Mason’s thinking is clear in that those trained with arms should be allowed to carry guns, a Militia would be a step up, but private citizens should still be allowed to protect themselves and provide for the common defense of their State.

Rich is right in that those that fail to recognize social norms should not be reduced to ‘crazy’ or ‘nut job’ because they are exercising their rights.  But the argument lacking in his statement ignores the common sense restrictions that should be put into law.  Licensing should include mandatory demonstrations of competency and training, and restrictions against assault rifles and any weapon that can be configured for fully automatic operation should be denied the public, but hunting weapons and handguns have a very valid purposes within our society.    The strongest opposition to these policies should be the strongest proponent for responsible gun ownership and practical legislation but the NRA has argued that this is a ‘slippery slope’ to hand away all gun rights and I am sick of that position.  This is the position of everyone that cannot think of a cogent argument that is based upon substance…fear of what may come.  Get off your high horse and see the world that we live in, there is no legitimate justification for assault rifles in the hands of a private citizen, nor is there any valid argument to suggest that required training for a  license shouldn’t be implemented.  We require it for anyone operating a motor vehicle which has more uses than killing something or someone. (Guns don’t really have any other purpose, we can claim they do, but at their core, their design is to do just that, kill.)

But lets be clear here, the majority of gun related violence comes from those that obtain weapons illegally, and the incidents of domestic violence that end in gunfire would still be played out with similar ends, with or without a handgun, those situations just don’t get sensationalized.  Many of us recognize the potential harm that a gun represents, we can also recognize the inherent usefulness in these tools in regards to hunting and home defense, but at some point we need to acknowledge that there are some people that should not have guns, and there are some guns that no one but those trained and working in an organized unit, be it police or military, should have.  Until we can all acknowledge that we cannot move forward and make any real strides that will guarantee the rights protected by the Constitution while providing us with common sense policies designed to protect the public from those that would do wrong.

Chris

Filed in Chris, From the Center of Things | | Comments (2)
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline