Excellent blog. I like the idea of an infrastructure gun. Would that the same passion exist! How about a deficit gun?
How about a 'Common Since Gun' for all those people out there who want to ban 'Assault Rifles' because they look scary.
Fact while no hard data is available on 'Assault Rifles' the number of people murdered in the US (most recent year statistics are available 2010) by long rifle is 358 (FBI) and with 'Assault Rifles making up an estimated 5 to 7% of these murders that would make it about 25 people. While terrible it is hardly an epidemic at only 0.19% of the total murders in the FBI database (2010). For comparison the FBI lists 745 murders by hand, feet or fist in 2010 making it 30 times more likely you will be murdered by someone using no weapon at all when compared to an Assault Rifle.
How about eliminating semiautomatics which no one really needs anyway and dispensing with the assault rifle nonsense altogether? And by the way, research into gun violence was suppressed during the Bush administration as a sop to the NRA.The carnage will continue while America sleeps.
I read about mass shootings every day which are facilitated by guns capable of a high rate of fire.Do we need such guns? Please note that I am not one of those "gun grabbers" that you may have read about. I think private citizens have every right to own a gun --just not any gun.
I think you may be one of the one- issue Americans described in my blog.
How many drunk driving deaths are "facilitated" each DAY by cars and alcohol?
How many fatal beatings have been "facilitated" by baseball bats, pipes, and other blunt objects?
Recently, a mass stabbing was "facilitated" by a rampaging knife in China. Thank God it was not a full grown mentally unstable sword!
Why, why is it so hard to acknowledge that the issue is PEOPLE and not guns?
The Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights to protect "We The People" from a tyranical government that our Founding Fathers predicted would happen one day if we were not vigilant. They understood man's human nature was to consolidate all power into a central government and one person. When asked by a reporter at the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philidelphia, what kind of a government they created, Benjamin Franklin stated "A Republic if you can keep it". He was predicting where we are today. The Second Amendment is to insure that the People and the Independent States can protect themselves from a tyrannical Federal Government and dictator. Why do you think that the Federal Government wants gun control?
Ironside,So are you making a case for sedition? Would the sacred white buffalo return to the plains if a Republican were in power? The militia argument is nonsense,an anachronism at best.Militias had only a limited nuisance value during the Revolution. The whole idea has even less currency today. A Browning is no match for a Blackhawk."We The People" will not profit from the philosophy you are pushing.
Revisionist history is not your strong suit. Stick to rhetoric. Many people I know could be a pain pain in the rotor to a Blackhawk.
Bryant, what fiscal issue would you like to discuss. I think taxes should be raised (some). I think spending should be cut (where?) I think entitlement spending should be cut more than defense spending because 1) defense spending usually means some time of employment for thousands and 2) Like it or not defense spending (one way or another) keeps the bad people in the world at bay. I have no faith that if we simply laid down our arms in peace that they would give us any.
I am willing to discuss fiscal issue with passion most anytime.
Charlie, i'm glad your friends are skilled marksmen , but what if we exercised the same passion for the peaceful exercise of power?
i am not a revisionist. The Continental army and the French made the strategic difference during the Revolutionary War. Yorktown , the decisive battle of the Revolutionary War, was possible only because of the Continentals, the French army and the French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse.
We should be indebted to the French whatever their motives. In fact, French support for the American Revolution and the financial burden that such support entailed precipitated the French Revolution.This a part of the historical record.
I am not taking anything away from the brave men who served in the militias ,but they lacked the training and the support necessary to make a strategic difference.
We would be wise to take a lesson from the history discussed in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, an instructive book.if you read that history, it becomes very clear that being a superpower is a dubious honor. The role of military hegemon exacts a heavy toll upon any country.You are right when you describe the world as the world as a dangerous place, but armies can also be a crushing burden and the survival of any nation is dependent on other factors besides military power.Quite frankly,our present military commitments are unsustainable.This is not a new lesson. Look at the British or ,in ancient times, the Roman Empire.What is needed now is nation building -- in this country.
Fly, I actually agree with your last paragraph.
Unlike the Romans or the British, we do not seek to establish an empire maintained with standing armies. Please don't try to pretend that we do. We fight wars, rebuild infrastructure... and leave. Been doing that since 1846.
I agree that armies are expensive, but what I believe is sucking the life out of our country are the parasites. Welfare dynasties four generations deep. Illegal aliens treated at the hospital at government expense. Foreign aid to countries we should not and cannot trust; countries that actually aid our enemies. Corrupt politicians from both parties taking graft with both hands, and STILL getting re-elected.
Sorry, if I was wielding the fiscal knife, things would be A LOT different...
One last thought for the night.
"...peaceful exercise of power"
OK.... no foreign aid to any country that does not share the American ideals of democracy and freedom. No money, no food, no arms. Nothing. Nada. Let them eat their damn oil or sand or whatever natural resource they have.
OMG, the bleeding heart liberals would have a COW over what a greedy country we are and that's not a Christian way to behave, etc.
Well.... I am a Christian, but I ain't Christ. I might turn the other cheek once or twice, but don't kick me in the privates, kill my friends and then complain that my country is corrupting your country. No sir, that don't cut it.
Don't want to argue fiscal policy right now. I'm tired of it and of politicians sidestepping their responsibilities to the country. Besides, I think you and I agree more than disagree.
But, I take issue with your statement about empire building, "We fight wars, rebuild infrastructure... and leave". We are still in Germany, still in Okinawa and Japan, still in South Korea, still in the Phillipines, and so it goes. And, yes, many arguments can be made about why we're still at Ramstein or along the DMZ in South Korea or anywhere else for that matter. But, bottom line is the question, "Do we have to be there?"
US foreign policy and foreign aid has rarely considered democracy and/or human rights; unless it served US interests. We overthrew the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile because he was (gasp) a Socialist and replaced him with the brutal military regime of August Pinochet. We decried the election of Morsi in Egypt because of his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas in Palestine (even to refusing to scknowledge the results). And we wonder why other countries call us hypocritical? It is interesting to watch Morsi's chickens coming home to roost. Apparently he misjudged the religious fervor (or lack) of most Egyptians and underestimated the economic drivers of the protests against Mubarak.
But, the same can be said for virtually every other state in the world. National interests come first and if those national interests are best served by a dictator rather than an elected official in another country, the nation (if capable) will probably takes actions to correct the situation. If incapable, the nation will seek the most favorable accomodation.
As to "bleeding heart liberals" having a cow because not supporting non-democratic regimes might be un-Christian, I thought those two terms were mutually exclusive. Aren't "bleeding heart liberals" waging war on Christianity in America?
What specific bug bit you for your last post, particularly your final statement?
We probably do agree more than disagree.
When I say that we 'leave', I mean that we do not force our culture on the country, nor do we remain as overlords. Are we still in Germany - Yes. Still in Korea and Japan - Yes. At the invitation and with the approval of the government and the of those countries. Would we leave if asked - Yes. Philippines, France, Spain, Greece.
As for what governments our government chooses to support, I scratch my head as much or more than you do. Truth is, no one in power asked me, and when I offer my opinion, they do not listen.
The bug that bit my buns on the last paragraph was a reference to the aid we give Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. I do not comment on this a lot, but I have not forgot where the 9/11 hijackers came from, and I will not forget where Osama spent years hiding. It is very un-Christian to feel like I do toward those countries, but as I said, I am not Christ. Cutting ALL aid to those countries would be a nice start, but prolly not the end if I were in charge.
And while I am on this rant, let me add this (reason #762 I will NEVER be elected president) - I will talk and negotiate with anybody. And I will do it honestly and in good faith. But when the other party back-slides to get more concessions (N Korea), well, we are done. The next sound you hear will be the sound of your country starving. Invade S Korea? Go on if you're feeling froggy. Attack the US - worst mistake that country would ever, ever make.
I agree with your negotiation stance. You can't lose anything by talking and seeking common ground and mutual interests.