More on guns...

Just in case any of you don’t know my stance on guns- I like them.  I like them a lot.  Sure, some may say it is an unhealthy obsession.  Mom thinks it is because I watched violent tv shows like CHiPs and Hunter as a very small child.  Perhaps it was the Christmas that I got a Red Ryder bb gun from Santa that set me on this path of firearm love.  Whatever the case may be, I do enjoy shooting guns.  Please don’t mistake this for some sort of apocalyptic  end of the world stance on life, where I stockpile guns and wait for zombies to rise so I can shoot them and live in a world with no electricity and no government and no…well, you get the picture.  I would call myself a gun enthusiast (not really, ‘cause then I would have to kick my own rear end) in the same vein as people are enthusiasts about cars, or golf, or musical instruments, or model planes, or chess.  Get the picture?  It’s a hobby that I find no weirder or strange than the aforementioned hobbies.

That being said, as far as gun control, I have heard all the arguments for it, and it has yet to change my mind.   There are some common arguments that I hear, and just so we do not repeat ourselves here, here are my responses to them.

Guns kill people.  So do knives, cars, baseball bats, tire irons, fists, feet, piano wire, rope, electricity, water, heat, cold, bungee jumping, mountain biking, horses, tigers, bears, dogs, viruses, hammers, nail guns, lakes, boats, airplanes, bricks, rocks, cliffs, trees, skydiving, scuba diving, sharks, repelling,, etc.  If you don’t get my point- lots of things kill people, but we do not outright ban them.

Guns kill people part 2.  No, they don’t.  I can set a loaded gun on a table and at no point will it kill someone.  It can’t.  it is not alive, it is not capable of manipulating itself, it is not capable of aiming itself.  It cannot kill.  A person could pick up the gun and use it to kill another human.  A person can pick up a baseball bat and use it to kill someone.  A person can pick up a knife and use it to kill another person, but there is no crusade bellowing “Knives kill people!”  In my scant 30 years of life, not once has a knife from the kitchen ever killed me or someone I know on its own.  It is the same with guns.  It is a tool, one that people use for a variety of purposes from sport to hunting to fighting wars.  Someone has to use it to kill.  Blame the person, not the tool.

Crazy, evil people use a myriad of things to kill or hurt other people.  I don’t think it is going to make much difference what they use, the point is if they want to kill or hurt someone, they will find a way.  Banning guns ain’t gonna stop them.

But, you say, guns are more dangerous and deadly than a lot of things you just listed.  I would agree.  But any of the things listed above, especially automobiles can be deadly in the hands of an irresponsible person.  We do not ban cars, and I know more people personally that have been killed or severely injured in a car accident than killed or injured with a gun. 

That is probably a long enough post for now.  I will post more arguments I have heard and my responses to them.

Peace- I’m out.

 

 

My silence is broken...

SCOTUS rejected Chicago’s handgun ban.  I know most of you will say “boy, Danny is probably ecstatic right now, that loveable, cuddly lump of right wing angst!”  But, you would be wrong.  Well, not too wrong, just a little.  Lemme ‘splain, before some think I have lost my mind.

First, I am very happy with this ruling.  I think bans like this are bred out of an illogical fear knee-jerk reactionism.  These types of bans do not address the root cause of crime, but rather symptoms of crime.  It is like going to a doctor with an infection, and instead of treating the infection, he prescribes Tylenol just to keep the fever, the symptom of an infection, away.  I could go on and on about what the underlying causes of crime are, but that is another post.  Anyway, I think this ruling does give back some of the freedom that we should have.

I am hesitant with this ruling for another reason.  My states rights/libertarianism is showing on this one.  I think states should largely be left alone from Federal intrusion.  If a state wants to ban guns, give out socialized medicine, have exorbitant taxes, dictate what kind of car you can drive, when you can run your A/C, then you can move to California and see how well you do.  Hey, maybe spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax will create a successful economy and a wonderful place to live, just like California.

If you want to live in a state with the opposite philosophy, then you can move to a place like Texas.  If you want to live someplace in between, then you can choose from  48 other states. 

My point is, I think if you let states run themselves with whatever philosophy they choose, it will be apparent what works and what doesn’t.  I know some will say that it can’t happen that way since states and their economies are tied in to each other, and it wouldn’t be practical, but hey, I can dream can’t I?

I know some, like Spencer will argue that states cannot trample on fundamental rights laid out in the constitution.  I would agree as well.  That is why I am very, very happy about this ruling, and only slightly, very slightly unhappy about it.

Now, everyone feel free to comment and express their own views, but let me say I may or may not respond, as my time is very limited on looking and updating the blog, and also because with gun control I am very stubborn and already have made my mind up.  There is little that anyone could say that will make me think any differently about my views.  So nah nanana booboo.

Peace- I’m out.

response to Spencer

I do not disagree with you. You are addressing the clean up phase of the spill. In that area Obama is failing horribly. I am referring to the actual leak and the many people who wonder why Obama hasn't stopped the leak yet. I am referring to the people who are screaming for Obama to kick BP out and take over the efforts to stop the leak.

I think what we have here is a large segment of the population that when disaster strikes, they are waiting for Uncle Sam to kiss the booboos and make everything better immediately. they did it with Bush and Katrina. They wondered why Bush didn't evacuate New Orleans. Now they are wondering why Obama didn't plug the leak. I am quite confident that the government would take 8 times as long to fix the leak than BP will take.
This is the point of my post. the cleanup efforts are a whole other discussion.
So there.

On a somewhat related note, the EPA brought together the best minds they could find to figure out how to stop the leak. One of the "experts" they called in was one James Cameron, the mega intellectual director extraordinaire. Given who this administration is running to for ideas, I think it is a good thing for humanity that they are letting BP fix the leak.

a brief foray back into the seedy world of politics...

Just a potpourri of thoughts…

 

I just have to ask all those that loathe George Bush- 20 years from now am I still gonna have to listen to everything being blamed on Bush?  How long is the Obama Administration going to keep blaming Bush for things?  At some point enough policies will be in place that the current administration will have to own it.  For now it sounds like a lot of people have loser’s elbow.  (to demonstrate what ‘loser’s elbow’ is, first point your index finger out, like you are pointing at somebody.  Take your other hand and cup it under your elbow.  Now jab your pointing finger hand towards something [may I suggest a picture of George W.] whilst repeating “it’s your fault, it’s your fault!”.  Do that enough and eventually you will have to see a doctor as you will have a condition similar to tennis elbow, but its called ‘Loser’s Elbow’)

 

The Oil Spill…

First I would just like to say that this is not Obama’s fault.  I would also mention that BP is not some evil, sinister corporation that is not fixing this because it hates the inbred shrimp fisherman of the Gulf and  the environment.

I think a little logical thought would help- first, this spill is going to cost BP an enormous amount of money and reputation.  This could likely put BP into a serious financial problem.  What evil, profit worshipping corporation is going to purposely endanger their profits like this?  In that same vein of thinking, with BP knowing what a huge disaster this is for their bottom-line, does it not stand to reason then that they are doing everything they can to stop the leak?  It was an accident.  Lets get the leak stopped first, then we can evaluate what went wrong and see if there is any culpability on anyone’s part.

 Further I would like to go on record as defending Obama a little (shocking, I know).  Really what can he do?  Don a scuba tank and a teleprompter and go down there and inspire the pipe to stop gushing oil?  Perhaps we could hook his enormous brain up to a computer and use it to come up with a solution to the leak?  Better yet, why don’t we just follow the solution he has already given to “Plug the damn hole!”.  He can do no more to stop the leak than Bush could to stop a hurricane.

I do however think the people who blamed Bush for Katrina should go ahead and blame Obama for this spill.  You guys wouldn’t want to be hypocrites, would you?  You see, I didn’t think there was a whole lot Bush could have done to get people out of New Orleans (state and local sovereignty issues), and I don’t think there is a whole lot Obama can do in the current situation.  So I am consistent.

Now just so you don’t think that I have suffered brain trauma, here are my criticisms of the administrations handling of this disaster- as I said before, lets concentrate on fixing the problem, rather than wasting time and effort trying to find someone to blame for this.  After all, did Obama not run on the promise to change the status quo of politics?  What is the status quo of politics when it comes to disasters?  Assigning blame early and often.  Instead of sending Holder down there to investigate criminal activities, focus on the problem.  As Sharel pointed out, it is a little like an ER doc trying to figure out who hit who before working on the car accident victim.  Beyond that, I think it helps little to start threatening everyone associated with this effort with criminal charges.  It is counterproductive. 

Peace- I’m Out.

Enjoy...

Conclusions

I grow tired of the healthcare discussion…it displeases me.  So this will be the last post on healthcare for a while.  We have had a rousing discussion, and points were made on both sides, but in all seriousness, I think we are all intelligent people that have already made our minds up.  We could spend months going back and forth on this issue, and since this is my totalitarian blog, I choose to move on after this post.            

But first, a few last thoughts on the bill.  Sharel’s post sums up nicely what the philosophical opposition to this bill is.  By mandating that we have to do something, we are being deprived of a choice to make.  Like it or not, this diminishes our agency.  I feel, and Sharel does too, that we have an obligation as a disciple of Christ to help the poor and the needy and the sick.  The key word is WE, not the government.  When the government takes over, it too diminishes our ability to take care of the poor and the needy.  Agency in this life means suffering and unfairness abound.  Opposing this healthcare bill does not mean we don’t care about the poor or the needy.  It doesn’t mean that we like the way the system is run right now.  It doesn’t mean we are ok with people going through bankruptcy because from no fault of their own, they became ill.  These are things that need to be addressed, but I don’t think this bill addresses any of this.              

In fact, I think this bill is going to really hurt me and my family.  We are the people stuck in the middle that make too much for help, but not enough to cover all the proposed costs.  Sharel and I have worked hard to manage our finances, and we have less going out in money than we have coming in not because we make a lot, but because we have gone without a lot of things such as cell phones, or flat screen TV’s, new clothes, etc.  I would bet that I make less than most people reading this blog, and if you want to know how much I make, just ask, and I will shoot you an email.  All that hard work is being threatened by rising health care premiums to meet the government mandates.  And that is not me speculating what is going to happen, that is an acknowledged fact.  I don’t want to break the law, but if it is the difference of having to go on welfare because I can’t afford to pay my bills, or Sharel having to go to work or pay the $695 penalty, I will pay the $695 penalty.  I will take my chances with not being obedient to the laws of the land.  And if we get sick, we will sign up for insurance.  It sucks, and I won’t be proud of it, but I will not make Sharel work outside the home, it is too important that she raise our kids, not a daycare.

 

So that being said, I will move on.  And what will amuse me in the future?  Shall we talk about current political events?  Perhaps.  But probably not.  I think I will turn back to a rousing discussion of guns.  A few upcoming debates- .223 vs 7.62.  Glock vs. FNp.  AK vs AR.  Perhaps other debates, such as Courtesy flushes, who do they really help?  ’68 Camaro vs. ’76 Camaro.  K5 Blazer or Bronco?  Maybe I will have some more venting posts, such as what frustrates me about Boy Scouts, or working in an office full of women with only two toilets, one of which is a ladies room, the other a unisex restroom.  Or why Newsradio was the funniest sitcom ever on television.  Whatever I desire…

Peace- I’m out!

Thoughts from Sharel on the current discussion of healthcare...

From Sharel in answer to comments from the previous post:

Yes, WE the Lord's disciples are supposed to take care of the poor and needy, not the government. There is a difference as well between being compelled to give and giving of our own free will.

“It is the responsibility of every Latter-day Saint to work and so impart of his substance, regardless of the shifting standards of this world. We must uphold these principles and oppose every derogation of them. We must be careful not to adopt the commonly accepted practice of expecting the government or anyone other than ourselves to supply us with the necessities of life.”

– Marion G. Romney

All things to be done in the Lord's way and as we can see the government never does things in the Lords way.

We are supposed to take care of the needy and poor, but we should be able to do that without punishing others. Our whole purpose in helping the poor is to teach themselves how to help themselves as well. As history has shown us well that once you are in a welfare state, there is no incentive to go back. We should not just give stuff away and the church never just gives stuff away. Whenever help is given the gospel teaches the person who has been given something, to help out in return, to give back.

I guess it all comes down to a basic belief in what the governments role is. When we look beyond the health care bill there are fundamental beliefs about freedom and government.

I want to really reiterate how I DO NOT LIKE THE SYSTEM THE WAY IT IS, I keep getting from you how I must love how things are and that is not the case! We just don’t like this particular bill the way it is.

President Henry D. Moyle talked on this subject in these words:

“All we have to do is … examine any movement that may be brought into our midst … and if it … attempt[s] to deprive us in the slightest respect of our free agency, we should avoid it as we would avoid immorality or anything else that is vicious. … Free agency is as necessary for our eternal salvation as is our virtue. And … as we guard our virtue with our lives, so should we guard our free agency.” (Conference Report, Oct. 1947, p. 46.)

President Marion G. Romney, when he was a member of the Council of the Twelve, gave this advice:

“One of the fundamental doctrines of revealed truth is that … God endowed men with free agency (see Moses 7:32). The preservation of this free agency is more important than the preservation of life itself. … Everything which militates against man’s enjoyment of this endowment persuades not to believe in Christ, for he is the author of free agency.

“Now the world today is in the throes of a great social and political revolution. In almost every department of society laws and practices are being daily proposed and adopted which greatly alter the course of our lives. Indeed, some of them are literally shaking the foundations of our political and social institutions. If you would know truth from error in this bitterly contested arena, apply Mormon’s test to these innovations [as recorded in Moro. 7:16–18]. Do they facilitate or restrict the exercise of man’s divine endowment of free agency? Tested by this standard, most of them will fall quickly into their proper category as between good and evil.” (Speeches of the Year, Brigham Young University Press, 1957, pp. 10–11.)

“In this modern world plagued with counterfeits for the Lord’s plan, we must not be misled into supposing that we can discharge our obligations to the poor and the needy by shifting the responsibility to some governmental or other public agency. Only by voluntarily giving out of an abundant love for our neighbors can we develop that charity characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ (Moro. 7:47.) This we must develop if we would obtain eternal life.” (Conference Report, Oct. 1972, p. 115.)

The difference between having the means with which to administer welfare assistance taken from us and voluntarily contributing it out of our love of God and fellowman is the difference between freedom and slavery.- Marion G. Romney, “Church Welfare Services’ Basic Principles,” Ensign, May 1976, 120

P.S.- I still want the crepe and fruit sauce recipe.
Sharel