text:
The Burial of Innocence: A Newtown Postscript
The burials have already begun, up there in Connecticut. Cheeky young football fan Jack Pinto and rambunctious, bright-eyed Noah Pozner both went to their graves under a leaden December sky, a week before Christmas Eve, that most magical of nights. They were six years old, both of them — absurdly, maddeningly young to be laid out in caskets like their ancestors and lowered permanently into the ground. Their eighteen schoolmates, also dead, would be following soon, along with the six brave women who tried to protect them. Twenty-six homes in this leafy corner of New England would be desolate beyond consolation this Christmas.
Make that a hundred million homes, because an entire nation has been numbed and traumatized by the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. We won't know a fraction of the anguish those Newtown parents are feeling now as they bury those innocent sprites and confront those silent bedrooms, but we're anguished all the same.
Innocence lost. It's one of the eternal themes threading its way through world literature, and we Americans have spoken about it before. Pundits lamented our loss of innocence after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. In fact, we had already been losing it for decades.
Let me count the ways: Rock. Rap. Blood-spattered movies. Trash TV. Escalating public profanity. Deliberately repellent art. The damnable cult of "cool." Eviction of religion (and with it, the teaching of morality) from our public schools. The rise of religious fanaticism. Relentless irony in comedy and conversation (why are we afraid to be sincere?). Mockery of simple, good-hearted squareness. Veneration of antiheroes. The rise of divorce and the fracturing of families.
The list goes on… The loss of mutual loyalty between employers and employees. The decline of community spirit. ("Communities" are now made up of people who look like us, vote like us, worship like us, have sex like us.) The ongoing decay of our cities. The ownership of elected representatives by powerful moneyed interests. The slow and sinister transmutation of heartfelt patriotism into belligerent "exceptionalism." The ruthless pursuit of unlimited wealth at the top of society — coupled with the abandonment of personal responsibility at the bottom. The brutal ugliness of so many toys and video games marketed to American boys. Mass shootings of innocent people. In short, we're a mess.
Innocence lost. When I was a boy, back in the faded golden light of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years, we were brought up to emulate people of worth and character: Washington, Lincoln, Clara Barton, Helen Keller, Lou Gehrig, George Washington Carver. These were our models, not the pop star du jour. Our favorite TV hosts promoted solid values along with the fun. I remember them fondly: Buffalo Bob Smith, Captain Kangaroo, Shari Lewis and a galaxy of kindly, unsung local personalities who influenced us more than they ever supposed.
We knew our neighbors, walked to school without fear, swapped baseball cards, played freely and joyously with our friends (no pre-arranged, parent-supervised play dates for us!). The nerdier boys among us (and nerds were probably a majority in those days) found quiet joy in stamp-collecting, model-building, Monopoly, or peering at the moon through rickety telescopes.
Such innocent pursuits seem almost comical now, but they nourished and satisfied us. By contrast, too many of today's socially marginalized boys seem to require body piercings, "goth" garb, homicidal video games and semi-automatic weapons. The dark side calls to them, and they've become too deadened and morally feckless to resist its charms. Eventually, as some of them slowly lose their sanity and their attachment to the human community, the bloody slaughter of innocents begins to gain a weird, wild appeal.
The gun control debate is coming to a head now, accompanied by puffy clouds of hot verbiage. And yet the solution is simpler than the talking heads would lead us to think. Here it is: we need to preserve our right to bear arms, and we need to ban semi-automatic weapons. And yes, that goes for those evil ammo clips, too. Especially the ammo clips, because we can't do anything about the millions of assault weapons already in circulation. End of story. No compromise. No exceptions.
I've never been a hunter — and I feel for the hunter's inoffensive victims — but I can understand the excitement of the chase. I can even understand the need to keep an ordinary gun handy for self-defense. What I will never understand is the need for any sane person to collect weapons expressly designed to mow down dozens of human beings with minimal effort.
Who in their right mind would embrace semi-automatic weapons? Only gun dealers, the NRA and its paid shills (including our Congressmen), rigid Second Amendment fundamentalists and the half-demented survivalists who look forward to the day when they can blast the government troops who invade their homesteads. But it's enough.
Cars kill thousands more people each year, the pro-gun pundits are fond of reminding us. Should we ban them? They miss the point: cars have multiple uses and benefits aside from smashing into hapless drivers and pedestrians. By contrast, the only purpose of a semi-automatic weapon is to kill multiple people with alarming efficiency. You don't need an assault rifle to gun down an intruder in your home or business. You don't even need one to stop a lunatic armed with assault weapons. A single well-aimed bullet would do the trick. Better yet, don't give the lunatic access to assault weapons. Give him proper psychiatric care instead.
We need to reclaim our innocence, and we need to reclaim it now. An impossible task, you say? Too late, you insist? Nonsense. It won't be easy to stuff all those evils back into the bag. In fact, it will take a heroic effort — but that's precisely why it appeals to me.
How do we recover our cultural sanity without winding back the clock to the 1950s? Start with the children.
Back when my son was in kindergarten and first grade, I'd volunteer one morning each week to help the teachers and assist the little folks with their reading skills. I fell in love with those kids. I was looking at the human animal in its purest and most charming state: mirthful and mischievous, joyously uninhibited, sweet and trusting and full of wonder… old enough to make amazingly astute observations, but still too young to have been corrupted by the deadly influences of our culture.
A six-year-old child today is a timeless representative of our species, still as perfect and unsullied as the children of ancient Athens or Victorian England. If we can rescue a single generation of children from shabby values… if we can nurture them and guide them and still let them be their endearingly anarchic selves… maybe we can start to reverse the cultural rot that's eating away at us today.
The bright and heartbreakingly lovable faces of the twenty juvenile Newtown victims, broadcast endlessly over the media in recent days, filled me with sadness but also with hope. I'm sure many of us feel as if we've come to know those children, and we'll never forget them. The spark of life in their young eyes will remain with us, will never be extinguished, and will help us understand how human nature at its purest and best can ultimately conquer all manner of evil.
December 19, 2012 12:50 am
I posted this to my Facebook page, along with a link to an article on Salon.com about yet ANOTHER film premier cancellation (Cruise's "Jack Reacher"):
I've posted this article so I can have the opportunity to say that this cancellation shit needs to STOP, and NOW. Several TV shows and episodes have been cancelled, as well as the premiers of a few action films (like Tarantino's "Django Unchained"). To describe this as a ludicrous over-reaction is akin to describing water as wet.
Folks, the massacre in Sandy Hook was a horrific tragedy, and in its wake many have quite rightly called for a re-examination of gun laws here in the United States. But lets be clear: it wasn't an *unprecedented* act of brutality, in the way that 9/11 was, nor did it happen on live national television, turning all of us into unwilling and horrified witnesses to the moment of death of thousands of people. The hysteria has to stop. I myself have had more than a few brooding moments contemplating what it must have been like, for example, for the officers who had to tell the parents of those dead kids that their children were gone, all at the same time and in the same room. I can't even begin to imagine something so demoralizing, so frought with guilty responsibility. But in the end I snap out of it, because I realize that the children in question aren't *mine*, and the parents in question are not my family, friends or even neighbors. They live 3,000 miles away, and while they are my countrymen and women, the crime committed against them was not ideologically biased against our mutual country, so I am not duty-bound to take on their grief as my own, as we all so rightly did in the wake of 9/11.
I blame the Internet for the magnification of everyone's emotions. When Patrick Purdy shot down a dozen or so children in the yard of their Stockton, California schoolhouse in 1989, it was a huge story – LOCALLY. The State of California reacted with one voice in telling their representatives in Sacramento to enact new gun control legislation, and they did. The rest of the country? Not so much; in fact, not at all. But then the country was not burdened with the infernal echo chamber that the Internet becomes at times like this, acting like an inescapable national PA system blaring 24/7, driving all of us to distraction.
We can and must get beyond this cultural noise in order to come to an equitable agreement as to what is a wise and just reaction to this incident. I beg all of you to try and remember that in the says and weeks ahead.
You and I agree about much, Rick (I'm assuming you read the blog posting I linked to my Facebook page a couple of days ago). I'm not sure I'm with on *all* of the cultural points you make, but generally speaking I think you are correct. The question is: what do we DO about it?
December 19, 2012 2:06 am
You are so right about this, Rob. There is a kind of "tragedy porn" aspect to the media coverage of these events that needs to stop so that people can move on, past the agonizing emotion that paralyzes our ability to act with reason.
December 19, 2012 2:10 am
"Tragedy porn" – an apt phrase if ever I saw one in this regard. Well put.
December 19, 2012 9:18 am
Rob, for some reason, wrote Asmiths post for him. Strange world.
Laws, all ineffective. Ban drunken driving? Why bother, people will do it anyway. Same with child pornography.
The libertarian outlook is that nothing should be illegal because people will do it anyhow.
What nonsense.
The libertarian candidate won 1% of teh vote last election, that is the extent of the attraction of this idea.
Its a rabbit hole, a distraction. And its not going to work this time.
Rick was correct about everything he said. Kudus rick nice to have you back.
December 19, 2012 10:16 am
I don't think anyone has said that nothing should be illegal because people will do it anyhow…..but there is a real dishonesty in politicians' response to tragedies that takes the form of them saying "We will pass laws to make sure that this will never happen again!" when the truth, which they well know, is that bad things have always happened and will continue to happen, regardless of any government action.
Any pursuit of an ideal, perfect world is ultimately doomed to failure, because humans are not perfect. And, while it is absolutely true that some legal responses to tragedy do, in fact, help,it is just as absolutely true that some of them don't, and some of them create the conditions that cause different tragedies.
And, no, this does not mean that we shouldn't try….but it does mean that we shouldn't exploit raw emotion and pass laws by promising that government can create a world in which nothing bad will happen again.
December 19, 2012 10:44 am
Priscilla, the argument has been made over and over here by our libertarians that government and laws are some kind a liberal "magic". No they don't actually say that there should be no laws, but they are against every law that they think has the slightest so-called liberal pedigree.
For my part I have not seen the politicians who are promising that all these problems will end if we ban assault weapons. Not being disingenious, here can you direct me to someone who has said that? Sweeping generalities have I am sure been made, but that one I need to see.
Anyone who believes that banning the extreme forms of weaponry is going to have an immediate or total effect is very naive. I will be satisfied to slowly change the culture and wait a good long time for gradual improvement.
December 19, 2012 12:11 pm
When you are so offbase on something I have tired to drill in how do you expect me to believe you have a clue ?
Libertarians are STRONG supports of the rule of law.
I do not think anyone at all believes that murder is acceptable.
Libertarians believe that the ONLY natural right that humans surrender in acceptance of the social contract is that of initiating violence.
To the extent that there is a core principle to libertarianism that would be it.
The ineffectiveness of many laws is a utilitarian not libertarian argument.
It is neither libertarian, liberal, conservative nor moderate.
It is a bad idea to pass laws that will routinely be disobeyed regardless of ones political values. It undermines respect for the law.
The presumption that when something has occurred we should just pass a new law that we know ahead of time will be flouted is pure idiocy irrespective of ideology. It is destructive of society. It is destructive even if you are liberal.
The more liberal presumption that you should redesign society – change peoples values by passing laws is a more liberal form of lunacy. It is a demand for a police state in order to achieve social reprogramming. Is that really your wish.
We are supposed to obey the law because it reflects the core values of a super majority of the people. Ordinarily only a tiny percentage of people – sociopaths and the extremely desperate obey laws primarily from fear of punishment.
Ordinary people would obey them even if they were not written.
When you pass laws willy nilly that fail the test o being part of the practically instinctive values of ordinary people, you harm the law. You erode peoples respect for it, you convert laws from core societal values to the edicts of an increasingly totalitarian state obey solely because of threat of punishment.
December 19, 2012 10:35 am
Bastiat, you are correct abut one thing, the abortion extremist lobby is an obscenity, partial birth abortions and the like are not too much for them. They apply libertarian principles to abortion, just as the NRA applies libertarian principles to guns, both with extreme and obscene results.
This belief in magic that liberals supposedly have, well since you mean laws and government in general, it sure ain't just liberals and the fairy tale is that there is some place on earth where people are living happily without laws and government. Does government work? Yes, it does, just not perfectly.
The argument continues to be offered by the far right that this tragedy is nothing to worry about, and sometime some members of the far left reach around the ideological globe and meet the far right and agree. Unfortunately that is one more piece of evidence that ideology dehumanizes people and gets them to accept absurd and obscene ideas. (Here come a vast school of complete red herrings such as lightening strikes from our libertarian fanatics, I know)
I'll freaking guarantee you that that vast majority of Americans will not buy this idea that these tragedies are nothing at all to worry about, mere statistical rarities that we all need to calm down about. When the southern Senators with NRA A ratings and the NRA itself start to cave in and make reasonable noises, you can be sure that have their own data on what Americans (rather than the statistically-biased pool of internet yakkers) think about this and it sure as %$#^ ISN'T that we should all just be calm about this.
The decent waiting period prior to action unfortunately will overlap the next tragedy, ad infinitum forever. No thanks. This time, action.
December 19, 2012 6:23 pm
So now you want to use "libertarian" as an adjective to describe anything you think is evil.
Like most of the population, libertarians are split on abortion.
I doubt you will find but a tiny number of libertarians favoring partial birth abortion.
The liberal beleif in magic is the belief that you can accomplish something by passing a law.
Most of us understand that you can not alter the orbit of the earth by passing laws.
But neither you nor liberals understand that there is far more than law can not effect than that it can. Further that even when laws do have effect, the effects are always far broader than intended.
The liberal belief in magic, is that you can pass a law, that man and nature will respond exactly as legislators expected, and there will be no unintended consequences.
That is nearly never true.
When you have worked out the correct legislative solution to the tragic US deaths by lightning then we can entertain the problem of extremely rare mass murders.
December 19, 2012 11:04 am
My family, kids, nieces, old friends are beginning their christmas visits. And I have a couple of musical events to prepare for. So, I hope I can stop this obsessive posting and find some one to replace my point of view here (Rick just did that perfectly.)
If I stick my nose in in the next two weeks please someone give me a damn good wacking and chase me out.
December 19, 2012 12:52 pm
Looks to me the problem that existed earlier with politics and guns still exist today. No one is calling for a group of individuals to meet a discuss solution that could have a direct positive impact on things like this, including far left liberal politicians and members of the ultra conservative NRA. They are once again making knee jerk reactionary decisions to ban automatic and semi automatic weapons that will do little in the long run in stopping this type of thing from happening. I have said in other comments earlier this week my positions and thought, so will not bore anyone with those again.
I do believe and once again will say it is going to take a complete effort by all working together to make a difference, not just some politician looking for votes that introduces legislation that will go no where.
December 19, 2012 1:53 pm
The world has changed and is changing. In both good ways and bad, and it will continue to do so.
We look around and find so much that chocks us personally, it is easy to say that life was better when we were younger. But if we are really honest with ourselves, life was no better then.
There has been a bizarre liberal nostalgia for the 1950's in the past couple of years. A period with a growing middle class, low "income inequality", extremely progressive taxes, strong unions. The era of "Happy Days".
World War II had built the US into the largest manufacturing giant that had ever existed and concurrently obliterated the productive capacity of the entire rest of the developed world. That dominance was not some divine american right.
That was the era of McCarthyism, "Duck and cover", the Rosenbergs, the cold war. Nulear tests. The Korean War, the french defeat in indo-china, the begining of the Vietnam War, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Castro, the Chinese invasion of Tibet.
It was a period of building racial conflict that eventually led to the race Riots of the 60's.
Homosexuality was criminal. Abortion, Rape, Peodophila, child abuse, were back alley matters not to be talked about, much less fixed, American was intensely patrarchical "Father knows Best". and era of Blacklists,
It was the zenith of white corporate male america.
Art & Music were erroding our morals. Rock & Roll, Jazz, Beatnick's, Playboy, Kerouac, "Lolita", "Howl"
More than 1/5 the country lived in poverty far worse than all but a tiny portion of those in poverty today experience.
The era of "Separate but equal" , of KKK bombings and Bull Conner.
and on and on.
We are changing rapidly, as we have been for atleast two centuries.
All that change is not good, but most of it is.
The 50's were a good time – better than the 30's and 40's. They gave birth to the 60's and eventually to today.
There are important values that we have weakened or lost, the strength of our families and our communities, and others.
We need to look for the real causes of those loss, and what we need to do to get them back. But we need to be careful that in our nostalgia for the past we do not actually bring back that past.
December 19, 2012 1:57 pm
The law is an abysmally bad tool for altering people values.
Using the law to change culture is totalitarianism.
It is no different from what Lenin or Mao attempted.
December 19, 2012 3:01 pm
My take on our modern culture.
I can not stand "Rap" music and its progeny. It just is not music to me.
I particularly can not stand violent, cop-killer, misogynist music.
I will protest it, rant about it, box my children's ears if I say them playing it.
I will do everything in my power to persuade people to make choices I like better, I will do absolutely nothing to force them.
Modern employers are no more loyal to employees than employees to employers.
Why should that surprise you ? In the 50's your choice of jobs was limited to those in your small community. If you went looking for another job, everyone knew where you worked. So long as your employer thrived and you did not screw up royally you had your job for life (or atleast until the 60's), conversely it took decades to advance, being better, faster, smarter got you ahead – very slowly. Today you can get a job anywhere in the nation. screw up at your previous job, and you get a fresh start across town or across country. Do well and your employer better reward you quickly or you are headed elsewhere.
Even in the midst of the current recession, if you are white, college educated, and have a productive job – engineering rather than philosophy, your unemployment rate is tiny and diminishing.
If you are a young black male with no skills and no education, you are SOL.
If anything conditions are better than the 50's.
I do not like most of what comes from hollywood, but I have no problem finding entertainment that I enjoy. In 1960 on a good day with foil on the antena I could pick up 3 programs in black and white to pick from. Today there are hundreds of thousands of shows I can watch at any moment.
A free market that provides me what I want also provides everyone else what they want – even if I do not like their choices.
I share a many of your distastes, but no one has tied me to a chair and forced me to listen to hiphop or watch Zombie Apocalypse. I can power up my TV, Computer or phone and find thousands of things that I like.
I have 8000 songs that I love on my phone. I am not stuck with a 3 transistor radio that picks up 4 AM stations.
All the rebellion of youth you decry today was present in the 50's.
James Dean – Rebel without a cause. Howl, Lolita.
What is different today – it takes an awful lot more for the children of the 21st century to shock their parents – the children of the 60's. We punctuated life with profanity, to get our attention they must marinate us in it. Big deal.
Aside from the destruction of families and communities, i see none of your complaints as particularly new. I am sure Noah bemoaned the music and culture of Ham, Shem, and Japheth.
Our children are learning about the adult world far earlier than we did. My 16 year old knows more about sex than I do. But kids are waiting longer, and behaving more responsibly – not long enough or responsibly enough to make their parents happy, but they are actually dong better than we did. I wish I could preserve the innocence of 6 year olds a bit longer, but that is not inside my power. Regardless, whatever the flaws of the world in which they know more earlier, it is a better world than the one that preceded it.
Like you I decry the destruction of our families and communities.
Unlike you I do not see the cause of that in changes in our culture.
Our families and community are being systematically, destroyed by our government.
Sometimes intentionally, and others by accident.
The social safety-net you wax on lavishly, increases dependence on government and diminishes our connections with our neighbors and family.
Parents are expected to raise their children, but children are not expected to care for their elderly parents. That is the job o social security, medicare, government.
The destruction of the black family by the welfare state is a well documented crime. Though some of that was done with good intentions, a thorough examinations of history shows plenty of real malice. James Baldwin famously dubbed Urban Renewal "Negro Removal"
Building codes and zoning regulations have destroyed communities.
In the 60's our neighborhood got together to burn their leaves. Today my neighbor calls the police if I burn anything, or my grass is to high.
In the 60's my parents would ask a neighbor to look after me for a few minutes while they walked to the grocery store.
If you think Walmart has destroyed your local stores – try to open a grocery store in your suburban home ?
Families, neighborhoods, churches, communities all exist because they are needed. When government steps in and to do the task they perform, we should not be surprised when those institutions that filled those roles before wither and die.
December 19, 2012 3:11 pm
Gallup polling on gun laws.
Look at the trends.
Gun ownership is actually declining slowly.
Violence of all kinds has been trending downward.
Support for the private ownership of handguns is almost 3:1
Even Support for the ownership of Assualt Weapons is 53:43
Gun sales laws should be kept the same or made less strict – 54:44
All these will take a small hit as a result of this incident, but the long term trends strongly favor less gun laws, and it is unlikely they are going to change.
It is unlikely congress will act, even democrats read polls. It is likely there will be sabre rattling, possibly even a symbolic vote, but only so long as there is no possibility of legislation passing.
December 19, 2012 3:26 pm
Things are not evil. Evil is an attribute of human beings.
Handguns, "assault weapons", gun clips, machette's, gasoline, …. are all tools, each capable of being used for a variety of purposes.
Tools amplify the power and skills of humans. Whether they are microscopes or howitzers.
Only Adam Lanza had the ability to determine whether his actions would be for good or evil. Once he chose evil, the AR-15 (not an assault weapon according to the 1994 Assault weapons act) was just the particular tool he chose. Any available tool that amplified his power would have been suitable. You can learn how to make small fuel air bombs on youtube. Killing people – even large numbers of people is not particularly hard.
Contrary to Rick, mass murder's are not easily thwarted. Their objective is infamy. They are intelligent, dedicated, creative, planners. Assault weapons may be one of the least heinous choices they could make.
December 19, 2012 4:58 pm
I think I grew up in much the same world you did
One of my earliest memories is the JFK Assassination.
Followed by MLK and RFK.
Silent Spring
The Population Bomb
IRA Bombings
The Munich Olympic Massacre
Various airline hijackings.
The Achille Larga
Various Red Brigade attacks accross the world
I remember the Ghetto riots of the 60's.
I remember Vietnam.
I remember the constant fear of nuclear winter.
I remember the 67, 73 Yom Kippur wars.
The 1973 oil crisis,
Iran Contra
The 1979 Oil crisis,
The Iranian Embassy hostage crisis.
The Beruit Barracks bombing.
When we married in 1983, my wife had no intentions of bringing children into a world we thought was going to hell and could end at any time.
In 1998 my wife and I adopted our first child. In nearly two decades everything had changed.
We do not live in a perfect world today, and the world of my youth is not as bad as a list of the disasters portrays.
At the same time – even with our many current problems – all of which are clearly the responsibility of government, we still live in a constantly improving world.
My children will inherit from me a better world than the one i inherited from my father.
I am proud of my part in that.
The period of my youth – which you keep looking back at with nostalgia, is not something I would want to bring back.
If that is our golden era – then please leave me with today.
If that is what good government means – please don't bring it back.
If that is the pinnacle of non-partisan cooperation – let us have political rancor.
I chose to have kids. It was no accident, nor something that just happened without thought. In doing so I was making a conscious decision – both that i saw the world as a better place than it was a few decades earlier and that I had faith and would work hard towards continuing to improve it.
The cold war and all the other evils of my youth were not overcome by military might. They were not defeated by government planning and programs.
The entire world has experienced an explosion of freedom. Economic freedom, political freedom.
The very things that you and most posters on TNM rant about are the CAUSES of the better world I am giving to my children.
I think it is despicable that the president and prominent liberals are lying to everyone and telling them that the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer.
I was upper middle class in the sixties I am middle class today – my position has declined, and yet in every possible way I am far better off. I own two apartment buildings that provide for working poor families. They are nearly as well off as I was in the sixties.
I wish that time travel were possible and I could give each and everyone of you who yearns for that better era in the past a one way ticket back.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Please do not force me to repeat the past you long for.
Take off the blinders. There is plenty wrong with the world. But it is still a fantastic place. I fully expect our government to ruin the economy several more times in the next decade or so before they learn they are the disease not the cure. STILL I see the future as bright. Yet you want to return to the 60's and now even the 50's. Please go. But leave me here.
It is this that separates us
You see a world that was not, a world that is not, and a world that can not be and whine.
I see the world as it was, as it is and as it will be, and celebrate.
December 20, 2012 11:05 am
This creating taste, or creating a craving argument is equally meaningless.
You are claiming that individuals are not responsible for themselves.
That forces more powerful than they are control them.
Sorry, even where people choose to follow cultural leaders – they choose.
The entertainment industry does not seek to push people to crave something they do not want. It seeks to figure out what they want that they do not know they want. It is not the same thing. They may depend on the tendency of many of us to choose to follow leaders, but the leaders still have to respond positively.
Whether Rap existed in the 1950's or not is meaningless – iPods didnt exist either that does nto mean people would not have wanted them. And even if there would have been no market for Rap in the 50's there is now – and an awful lot of people are expressing their preference by buying it. Further Precursor's to Rap existed much earlier than the 50's. I have some call and response Negro chain gain music that I actually like that very strongly resembles Rap.
If something is "inherently unlikeable" why is it that all our tastes change.
I hated cheese as a child. I love it now.
I hated Opera – mostly I still don't, but some I love.
I do not believe your claim to support free speech.
I think you are tolerant of some noxious expression, but ultimately are willing to use the law to stop something if you do not like it enough. You have openly advocated regulated political advertisement – if political speech is not free no speech is.
Pressure producers all you wish. Boycott, protest, rant and rave. Buy stock in competitors. Urge others to do the same.
I am entirely behind you.
The "Hayes Code" came about to avoid state censorship. That is wrong. The moment you invoke the power of government – even to blackmail people into voluntarily censoring themselves, you have crossed the line. It is called prior restraint, and it has a chilling effect.
You say that top down does not work, but my sense is that you hold it in reserve as a last resort, or second to last, or for leverage, or you would just prefer not to have to resort to it, or you will resort to it nearly always but with reluctant rhetoric.
Nor is that perception restricted to just speech issues.
I believe that given most any issue, your answer is going to be "I am sorry, but in this instance I reluctantly think government must act". You are the "reluctant central planner".
Ignoring libertarian and sticking entirely to practical arguments, government only works when the problem has clearly definable bright lines, that everyone can understand even if they do not agree on – and those bright lines have to work.
If it were actually possible to define a narrow class of products that could practically be banned, that would radically reduce mass killings and argument could be made for government action. but that is not the case. Even banning all guns would likely have limited impact on mass killings.
In 1994 Congress did something symbolic and impractical. The essentially banned nasty looking weapons. That was effectively the same as banning Rap music.
It was wisely allowed to expire in 2004.
Symbolic laws are nearly always bad. They are emotional responses to problems that require logic.
Problems that require discretion, case by case consideration, are unsuitable for top down approaches.
Further even all problems that are amenable to top-down solutions are not problems government should solve. The sole distinguishing characteristic of government is force. If a problem does not require force, it should not be solved by government.
December 20, 2012 12:42 pm
With all the comments and reactions that have been made on this site, on other sites, on radio shows, tv shows and polticial venues, the one thing I have not heard or read yet is the real problem that exist in America today.
We have a problem with violence in America. Only when a tragedy such as Sandy Hook occurs do we hear much out of our leadership. Then it is knee jerk reactions that will make everyone feel good until the next tragedy occurs.
We do not see leadership in Washington where the real cause of problems are explored so real solutions can be put into place well before another shooting, truck bomb blast, car bomb or other mass distruction occurs in America.
The result of the problem not being discussed proactively and solutions found is death. And not until we have leadership and not political followers worried about the next election will anything change.
December 20, 2012 2:12 pm
The rate of violence has been declining throughout human history.
Primitive man was incredibly violent.
Before the enlightenment rates of violence were much higher than today.
Each of the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries have seen a steady trend of decreasing violence at most every scale.
The US has a reputation for violence. We do still have a higher rate of violent death than the UK. But the UK actually has twice the violent crime rate the US has – more injuries, less deaths.
Certainly we should consider efforts to reduce violence even further, but if we start from the presumption that our time and our culture are among the most violent, then we are making a false start.
Two themes that I keep trying to drive:
Real world data and trends often if not usually run counter to what we are repeatedly told.
In most everyday at most every scale, the world is getting better year by year, decade by decade, century by century. The trends are near universal, everywhere at every scale. The root cause of this is greater freedom.
If we are unable to see the world accurately as it is, then how can we possibly believe with have any clue how to address the worlds problems ?
December 20, 2012 6:01 pm
I am not disagreeing with most everything people have said concerning this subject. There have been good comments as well as some that many would believe unacceptible depending on ones interpretation of the constitution. For me, people can base decisions on a stict adherence of the words or they can base their decisions on trying to determine what the founding fathers would put in that document today that would cover the same rights they put in it over 200 years ago.
My comment is based on the fact that we do not have a government that will look at an issue when it is not "an issue". They will not look at tax reform until taxes are an issue with deficits. They will not look at deficit reduction until it is bumping up against the debt limit. They will not look at spending reductions until they can't rob the people of anymore money through increased tax rates. And they will not look at violence in America, even if it is declining as you say it is, until we have a crazy go off and kills a bunch of people. That is not leadership, it is a bunch of leeches on society trying to cover their as5es so they can run for reelection in 2-4 years and can hold up some committee or bill they introduced or voted on to save their skins.
And when new laws are written, gun control is tightened, nuts are not allowed to possess guns and another columbine or Sandy Hook occurs, everyone will ask "how did this happen, we have laws against things like this"? And again, nothing will be done to get to the root of the problem, that being young white males immune to hurt and death due to the environment they were raise in and societies inaction to help them when help is needed.
December 21, 2012 10:52 am
Why do you presume that government is even supposed to do so much ?
All the fiscal woes that they are not acting on – they created.
Taxes and spending are not too high because legislators did nothing for the past 4 decades.
The largest problems we face today are because of what congress has done for decades.
Over and Over here at TNM I am told Social Security is not a ponzi scheme.
Well it pays off retiring investors using the investment of new ones. That is the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme. Regardless, it is headed towards a 23% shortfall very soon. And as I keep trying to get through to everyone, there is no magic money tree. Tax the rich tax the poor tax corporations, it does not matter, whatever you do to obtain the money to cover the shortfall – we will all have less. You can not take from business or the "rich" without reducing investment, diminishing what all of us have in the future.
We do not need leaders in congress. We need less.
?unfortunately the leaders have comitted us to spending that can not be paid for, and now we need leadership to fix that.
December 21, 2012 12:51 pm
Asmith, I think you miss my point completely. I did not say congress or our leaders have not taken action on different issues. I said they are taking the wrong actions.
If they did what they were suppose to do years ago, we would not be in the position today that the best action for them to take on the debt and deficit is the Simpson Bowles recommendations. Had they balanced the budget for the past 30 years and passed sensible laws concerning banking and private enterprise then we might have a vibrant economy and 2008 may have never happened.
That is the same for violence in America. If they would have sensible discussions about why violence occurs, then maybe the private sector could address some of the issues, but right now everyone is just reacting to protect their piece of the constitution and nothing gets done to change anything. Congress does not have to spend money to bring members from different walks of life to discuss ways to address problems. They just think they need to spend money and pass laws.
So now we have the NRA protecting the rights to own guns and attacking video games and movies, we have movie producers protecting their right to make any movie they want and attacking the guns and then the video game producers are doing their thing protecting their piece of the pie.
And does anyone think anything is going to change in that environment?
December 21, 2012 4:51 pm
I do not think i missed your point, and we agree on much.
My point is that it really is not the job of our politicians to lead.
Even in the rare instances where government has a legitimate role, government action should be driven, not leading.
When government acts, it should be with the full support of a super majority of the people, with all interests aligned.
December 21, 2012 5:51 pm
"Even in the rare instances where government has a legitimate role, government action should be driven, not leading"
OK I can accept part of your position. But in response to your comment I put in quotes, that is the problem with our government today. It is driven. It is driven by special interest groups and not the people as in "We the People" as stated in the constitution.
As for leading, if not the role of the government to ask mental health workers, gun manufacturers, video game software CEO's, movie producers, law enforcement representatives, military representatives and any other person or industry you can think of involved with violence in America in someway to gather and discuss violence, whose role is it to get all these people together to come up with ideas that will "drive" action by the government?
December 22, 2012 1:06 am
Ron P;
So a bunch of you get together and stomp into your senators office demanding say – gun control laws.
Aren't you a "special interest".
Absent a situation where the overwhelming majority demand action, any group asking anything of legislators are special interests.
Maybe there are good special interests and bad ones – but being a "special interest" does not distinguish one group seeking their way from another.
As our constitution is setup, "We the People" get our say on the first tuesday in November on even numbered years. In between our elected representatives are supposed to act in the best interests off the nation – not the whim of the people. We are not a democracy. Our founders scorned democracy.
No it is not the role of government to go out of its way to gather a group of special interests together to tell it how to solve problems that never were its business in the first place.
Do you want your doctor consulting with lawn care specialists before removing your appendix ?
We were on to something here for a while. There was some understanding of our individual and collective power in a free world.
but once you add government, you remove freedom.
Government does not persuade, it does not dynamically balance competing values, wants and needs. It directs from the top with force.
I can not defend you, even if I agree with you, once you resort to force to achieve your goals. Government is force. If whatever you are trying to attain can be accomplished without force, it can be accomplished without government.
December 22, 2012 12:38 pm
In many instances we agree, but on a few we will have to disagree. Unlike you, I believe an individual is elected by their voters to represent their interest in congress as long as it is not something illegal. One mans (or women's) "best interest of the nation" is anothers "worst nightmare". If an individual is elected by a majority of voters and he/she has been elected on a position(s) that the voters desire, then it is up to that individual to vote for laws that support those positions. I do not beleive one should be elected on one set of positions and then when they get to office they vote the opposite because that is what they believe to "be in the best interst of the country". If someone is elected to represent a districts belief that lower taxes and decreased spending is required, it is up to them to insure they vote for those positions.
As for our example of the doctor asking a lawn expert before operating, the lawn expert has no knowledge of medicine. But that same doctor might consult with a surgeon, your internist, a gastrointerologist and a few more doctors before making a recommendation on the course of treatment.
If we can not get everyone involved in the "industry of violence" to consult government and discuss the impact their individual piece of the environment has on society, how can we ever overcome the fights that take place with no improvements ever happening.
December 21, 2012 4:25 pm
What should we do when bitter cold weather drives larger than normal numbers to the homeless shelter.
Why fine the shelter for overcrowding of course!
December 21, 2012 5:38 pm
asmith..what do you think we should do if there are 65 people. You kick one out into the street is what you do. Rules are rules!!!!We can't have anyone questioning the decisions governmental leaders make. They know what best for all of us.
(Please know this is sarcasm!!!)
December 21, 2012 4:44 pm
Apparently the left and the right agree – Sen. Boxer and the NRA both want to turn our schools into stalags.
And another Mass Killing in Texas !!!, oh, sorry, forgot, Texas – even the ticket takers are armed
December 21, 2012 5:02 pm
Mr. Etzioni;
Starts off in the right direction.
We each have the right to ban guns (or anything else), in our homes, churches, theaters stores. We have the right to make the rules regarding anything that is ours. We have the right as individuals and groups to agree to voluntary standards of conduct among ourselves
What we can not do is impose rules behavior in public or within their own property on others.
December 21, 2012 7:05 pm
Mr. Etzioni's idea of advertising that one's home or community is gun-free is just…stupid.
December 22, 2012 8:37 am
Yes, it's stupid for schools, too. I assume that the whole "gun-free school" idea was aimed at keeping students from bringing guns to school, which is perfectly logical….my son was almost suspended from middle school once, because he brought a squirt gun to school (it was pink, no less!) to use in a skit for his English class. That was my first experience with the "zero-tolerance" anti-mentality of the public schools.
Of course, now that the NRA has endorsed putting armed guards in schools, the left has quickly condemned the idea….despite the fact that, literally, the day before, the NYT had an editorial suggesting it as a possible option. Consensus and compromise have become dirty words…..tribal fealty is where it's at.
December 22, 2012 12:47 pm
pearows..Two local counties in my area have proposed increasing the school resource officer divisions so their is one officer in each school. The problem is the cost as the rural county estimates the cost would be about $400K per year additional cost. Both proposed this well before the NRA made its proposal, but I would guess some who supported the proposals before the NRA spoke out would now be against it.
My fear with this proposal is if the federal government becomes involved. We all see what a great job the TSA is doing at airports. One can only imagine what kind of experts we would get at schools.
December 22, 2012 2:38 pm
Sen. Boxer – send national guard to schools.
Personally i think it is a bad idea.
but it is not a "liberal" bad idea or a "Conservative" bad idea.
Apparently the left thought it was a good idea until the NRA pushed it.
Again one of the issues that troubles me at TNM
I think far too many here see ideas as good or bad depending on who said them rather than what was said.
NRA – Bad, norquist – Bad, NYT – Good, Obama – Good.
Often I think little thought is put into actually examining an idea.
Personally, I think most of the current GOP house is too far to the left on taxes and spending – not based on ideology, but on the scale of our problems and how much worse they will become if we do not deal with them NOW.
But here as in much of the country, there is still this idiotic belief that somehow we can have a budget whose BASELINE has grown by 1/3 since 2007, run $1T deficits forever without consequence.
Like it or not, spending is going to be cut – most spending.
Certainly we should weed out waste – though we are bad at that – there is a reason government waste exists – it is a natural consequence of a powerful state. Regardless, we can not fix our problems with cuts arround the edges. We can not fix them by taxing the crap out of the rich – even if it worked. We are going to have to cut many things we care about.
better smaller cuts now, then terminating the programs entirely later.
But few – even here are prepared to grasp that.
The president is still talking about INCREASING spending.
If the GOP is insufficiently fiscally responsible, what does that say for the president and democrats ?
Ian is going to rant that I as spouting libertarian extremism.
I would suguest that the best chance everyone who wants them has of preserving all those safetynet programs you value, is to cut spending by almost $1T/year NOW. Otherwise all too soon the choice will be between a totalitarian state that can not give you what you want, and a free state that will not. If you wish to preserve anything close to the status quo you need to act now.
RP permalinkDecember 22, 2012 7:44 pm
Good idea, Pat–though I would still favor going all the way to full on well screened dedicated security guards. In addition to stopping an armed intruder bent on the slaughter of innocents, they could liaison with the police cruisers you mention for any suspicious behavior, including possible explosives. They could also intervene in fights between students (at the older age levels). Unfortunately, with the recent endorsement of school guards by the NRA president, the media can be expected to pan the idea. An uphill battle looms.
December 23, 2012 9:27 am
it's funny….there are armed guards at all federal and state office buildings – many county buildings as well – and I would imagine in big cities like NYC, Chicago, LA. Most big museums and art galleries employ armed guards and they patrol big sports arenas, as well.
But the president of the NRA suggests school guards, and all of a sudden he is – per the headline of The Daily News in NY – "The Craziest Man on Earth"?? This is a world gone mad.
I don't know whether I support the idea or not….it sounds reasonable to me, along with some of the gun control reforms that have been suggested.
But to call the idea "crazy," just because the "other side" has proposed it? That IS crazy, and that's what goes on all the time now. The clusterfark known as the fiscal cliff "negotiations" is nothing more than a political war, with the goal being to blame the ultimate result on the other side. It's disgusting and demoralizing beyond belief, And, yes, I do place more responsibility on the President and his party, but only because, right now, they hold the power to stop this, but they would rather destroy the GOP than try and work together for real reforms. The GOP did little better when they were in charge.
Anyway, Merry Christmas!!
December 23, 2012 1:07 am
How well has gun control worked for england ?
Click to access guncontrolinengland.pdf
Not so well
December 23, 2012 1:23 am
Why do so many of you believe that adding police, security guards, national guard, or retired soldiers are going to make our schools more safe, yet you are reluctant to consider allowing teachers with carry permits to have weapons locked in their classrooms ?
The latter is likely to be a far better deterrent than all the predictable security you can come up with, and costs nothing.
Given a choice between a free as in low cost AND free as in greater liberty solution, and one that is both expensive and even more constraining, you all are rushing to the expensive unfree solution.
Most police officers are NOT highly trained with weapons – while there are exceptions the norm is that they are less practiced than the average gun owner. I am not particularly looking to malign police.
But I am noting that the average police officer, security guard, …. is likley to be significantly less skilled with weapons than any Adam Lanza they might encounter, and at best only marginally more skilled than the average teacher with a carry permit.
If you want to improve the odds more – allow permitted teachers to keep weapons locked in their classroom desk – but require them to maintain some minimal level of proficiency higher than that of the ordinary police officer.
December 23, 2012 1:11 pm
I would like to see what info you are using to support your position that police officers are less than efficient in the use of firearms. I understand that there may be some in "Poedunk, USA" somewhere that may not be trained, but I would hope they are the exception.
Why is it that we can have armed guards working for the TSA flying on airplanes and it is a good thing. A friend of mine left a job as a software engineer and went to work for the TSA flying across country. He had little training in guns until he took that job. The same would hold true for guards in schools.
As for teachers having guns, would this be a requirement? What about the teacher that is affraid of guns? One that does not own a gun? Who supplies the guns? Who makes sure the teachers are properly trained? Who is responsible for covering a room if one teacher does not have a gun?
One thing I do find extremely interesting is the liberals position on the second amendment rights and their position to limit and enfringe on those rights to increase safety, but they consistently bring up right to privacy and not enfringing on that right when mental health is brought into the discussion.
Teachers with guns, school guards, limiting gun clips, better background checks that include mental health info, etc all have to be part of the discussion. Who directs that discussion is also up for discussion as some beleive that is part of societies responsibility and other governments responsibility.
December 23, 2012 1:32 pm
Did someone say that i was in favor of the TSA ?
I doubt a more useless government agency could possibly be conceived of.
Last I checked every single attempted terrorist action invovling air travel subsequent to 9//11 has been thwarted by passengers.
The TSA is security theater intended to make us feel like government is doing something for us, it serves no other purpose
As to the firearms skills of police – I have been able to find little data.
A small portion of police officers – and a larger portion of gun owners in general are very well trained. They are very knowledgeable about guns, and skilled in their use. But in both groups these are a significant minority.
Throughout the country most officers receive minimal training.
Conditions vary from force to force, but continued demonstration of even minimal proficiency is by far the exception rather than the rule.
Most police officers never use their weapons during their entire career.
The best data we have is for NYC where when an officer fires, the data shows that the hit something in less than 1 in 3 incidents, that in 2 of three of those they hit an innocent bystander rather than a perpetrator.
There are separate studies by police indicating that the limited marksmanship training that some officers receive is nearly useless and often counter to the skills necessary to successfully confront armed perpetrators in public situations.
Again I am not seeking to bash police.
The minimal requirements to be a police officer in much of the country are having a high school degree, being over 21, and passing an examination. Though some officers have further education and training.
Regardless, there is no reason to presume that a police officer is solely by virtue of their job better with weapons,
December 23, 2012 1:46 pm
I am not seeking to obligate teachers or anyone else in a school or anywhere else to be armed.
I am suggesting the we allow it.
Teachers are already subject to background checks that are more thorough than the police, the military or gun ownership require.
Still some problems slip through. If that is true of teachers why would you expect that thorough background checks are going to work for school security ?
Nor do I have problems imposing further conditions on those teachers that chose to bring weapons to school such as:
That they must be locked up within the school.
If you personally wish you can seek further training.
While I do believe in the right to bear arms, rights are something we have with respect to government. There is no right to have a gun at work, nor a reason that employers can not allow guns but with whatever conditions they deem appropriate.
I am proposing allowing teachers to bring weapons, as an effective cost free means of reducing mass killings in schools.
I strongly suspect that would both reduce the number of attempts AND reduce the number of casualties.
I also suspect it would increase the total number killed by guns in schools – but I think that would also be true with security guards and additional policing.
But there would be far fewer successful mass killings.
And since we seem fixated on preventing something rarer than a death by lightning strike I have offered what I believe is both the most effective and least burdensome means of doing that.
My solution still might arguably be a bad idea – but it is still a better one than turning our schools into prisons.
December 23, 2012 1:57 pm
And JBastiat is correct, the strongest deterrents against intelligent perpetrators, is increasing the number of unknowns they have to deal with.
An armed security guard whose presence is known whose patterns can be determined, is just another victim. Maintaining the level of preparedness needed to keep an armed guard immediately ready to dispatch an Adam Lana, would make schools worse than prisons and ensure far more accidental deaths than mass killers inflict.
Even allowing teachers to have guns in school may only drive the next Adam Lanza to chose a different means of killing than door to door with an AR-15.
Part of what I am trying to get through, is that top down planning is usually a bad solution to most problems. For every action there is a reaction. Not usually the one planners expected.
It does not matter whether we are talking about top down solutions to mass killing or unemployment. Whatever solution we impose there will be unanticipated consequences – that will likely be greater than the desired effects.
Organic solutions are not uniform or monolithic, they are more flexible, and dynamially adaptable they have less unintended consequences
December 23, 2012 1:39 am
What happens when government steps out ?
Things get better.
December 23, 2012 1:02 pm
Yes ! Lets invite the police and soldiers into our schools permanently.
Wouldn't that be wonderful for our children !
Oh, we have done this already ? And its working out pretty horribly ?
When you give someone power, they are going to use it.
And not in the way that you had hoped.
December 23, 2012 1:32 pm
Maybe if the police issued a citation to the parents at the same time they issued a citation to the child, then the childs behavior would change!!!!! Schools have little authority to issue disciplinary actions against kids these days, so they hire police to do what police can legally do. If they do take disciplinary action they risk some legal action being taken against them, so making the parents a co-conspirator in the misbehavior of the kids might cause parents to bring discipline into their kids lives and might reduce the number of citations the officers have to write up.
December 24, 2012 1:28 am
You seem to be missing the point. The addition of pseudo police to the schools made things worse not better. It turned ordinary small discipline problems into crimes.
Schools have a great deal of disciplinary power today. They do not need to hire police. When was the last time you heard of a successful lawsuit against a school district over its treatment of children ?
From the instant your child leaves your front door in the morning until the enter it again in the evening, your childs school has absolute power and authority over them. The very best a parent can do is remove their children from the public school district – and often even that is not possible.
I honestly hope that no parent here ever has to discover how great the power their local school has over their child, and how little is their own.
In the instances cited, officers did not HAVE to write up any citations – and should not have done so for any but actually serious offenses.
December 24, 2012 1:06 pm
And I guess thats why we hear so many stories about the great discipline in schools today.
Damn, and I paid for three kids to go to private school and all this time discipline was existing in the public schools all along. Someone sure lied to me!
December 24, 2012 1:26 pm
I was told that sending my kids to private school was not good for them because it "sheltered" them from things in real life, like contact with drugs, alcohol, etc. " They needed to come in contact with that stuff to learn how to deal with it".
What it did do was give me the ability to control somewhat their contact with those that had discipline issues in public schools and mine grew up about like those you mention.
December 23, 2012 2:57 pm
The web site Defense distributed is in the process of creating opensource plans and instructions to allow making your own AR-15 using readily available and decreasing in price 3D printers.
It is already possible to produce completely plastic untraceable handguns capable of firing 200 rounds without failure.
Banning, censoring, etc. do not work.
December 23, 2012 7:50 pm
Great column today by Ross Douthat:
"Unfortunately for our country, the Bloomberg versus LaPierre contrast is basically all of American politics today. Our society is divided between an ascendant center-left that's far too confident in its own rigor and righteousness and a conservatism that's marched into an ideological cul-de-sac and is currently battering its head against the wall."
December 24, 2012 2:00 am
I thought LaPierre and Sen. Boxer were on the same side ?
Despite this election, despite Sandy Hook, the center left is not ascendant. If anything I think we are at the high water mark of progressivism. There is no where to go forward.
Democrats should be terrified by this last election. Facing a lackluster candidate that they spent nearly a billion dollars misrepresenting, with a media atleast twice as fawning and complicit as normal, with the largest percentage of the population on the dole ever, with the strongest minority support they are ever likely to get, Barack Obama squeeked by.
Our future is the failure of medicare, the failure of PPACA, the failure of social security.
All too soon we will see seniors pitted against the poor in the battle for entitlements.
This is what liberalism has brought us too.
The president is demanding higher taxes on the rich as the solution to all our problems, yet recent government figures show that Obama's plan will yeild $23B/year in increased revenue, and Boehner's plan B would have yeilded $22B. Yet the total cost of all the middle class tax cuts about to expire is $500B/year.
We have a spending problem not a revenue problem, and regardless higher taxes on the rich are not going to pay the interest on this years new debt.
It is not free markets that are failing, it is big government.
I think it is a foregone conclusion that the left is doomed. The open question is whether the vaccuum will be filled by the more libertarian friendly Tea Party or resurgent neo-cons, and social conservatives.
December 24, 2012 2:15 am
as part of holidays buying I was at Target – where I found nearly the same corksrew I had bought several years ago for my father at a cost of over $100 then for $9.95, and better made. Through out the store I noticed numerous products that were high end good – if available at all a decade ago, being sold as cheap commodities.
At Walmart I bought my kids earphones – 4 total for just a bit over $10. My first earphones cost $100, were bulky required adapters costing more than todays, and sounded pretty crappy comparatively. I have a server that I use for my home, that has less resources and power than any of the cell phones I saw on sale.
I bought each of my kids a $25 gift card from McDonalds – and each came with something like $30 of coupons.
At the grocery store I bought a big bag of some kind of exotic nuts. There was a whole section full of different kinds of nuts. When I was young you could have peanuts, almonds and cashews were luxuries, now there are nuts I have never heard of for a few cents more than peanuts.
My wife buys things in the fruit and vegetable section with names I never heard of – as a child we had lettuce.
And on and on and on.
Life is just so much worse than when i was younger. These pesky choices, someone should take them all away. After all don't we all have the same wants and needs ?
If a single type of health insurance is good enough for all of us why should we have choices in nuts, or chocolate, or lettuce or …. ?
TNSGWazzoo permalinkDecember 24, 2012 10:01 am
Among the options that could be at school disposal, why not have non lethal ones, tear gas canisters. I've been tear gassed, it puts a damper on you and may signal a shooter that the marines have landed its time to turn the gun on himself.
Just a nice holiday afterthought.
December 25, 2012 11:53 am
As usual, Dr. Sowell knocks it out of the park on gun control. A sample:
"Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.
Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals."
December 26, 2012 1:39 am
Pat & JBastiat;
I would ask you what are the circumstances where the death penalty is justified ?
Emmette Dalton, was a lawman before becoming a Bank robber, killed numerous people during his spree as a bank robber, including 6 in the bank robbery that ended his career.
He was shot 23 times, sentenced to life in prison, paroled after 14 years, and subsequently lived a productive and useful life.
Today it takes far less to get a death sentence.
So what crimes require the death penalty ?
We have redefined premeditation as being even a few seconds forethought.
Crimes of passion can be extremely violent.
It is reasonably well understood in the criminal justice system that most murderers are highly unlikely to kill again. The conditions provoking most murders tend to be rare and unique.
Do we execute the mentally retarded ? The actually mentally ill ? children ?
My guess is that after you have eliminated all the cases where the evidence is just not strong enough, and all cases where the crime is just not heinous enough, and …
You will have little left.
We still do not know for certain who the Boston Strangler really was.
There are a few crimes I would have little objection the the death penalty, but not many, and not your ordinary everyday murders. After you eliminate all crimes insufficiently heinous, and all cases where proof is not good enough, there are so few left, it is not really worth death advocates getting their dander up over.
RP permalinkDecember 26, 2012 4:36 pm
Sorry– I meant to type zero executions since 2006.
December 26, 2012 7:52 pm
Take the inmates off Death row. It is far cheaper.
Federal records indicate that cases involving the death penalty are a minimum of $350K (and more like $1M) more expensive to prosecute – that is just for the prosecutors side of the trial that does not include appeals – many of which are mandatory for death penalty cases, nor does it cover the additional cost for defense which is nearly always also covered by the government. It does not cover the enormous damage done to our judiciary system as it tears itself apart trying to overcome the natural inclinations of even conservative jurists to avoid signing death warrants and to give real consideration as to whether the trial was fair enough to execute someone. Nor does it address the fact that imprisonment on death row is far more expensive than in the rest o the prison system, and destructive not only of the inmates, but the guards.
Charles Manson now 77 avoided the death penalty, is actually parole-able
Do you honestly think anyone is letting him out ?
December 28, 2012 11:58 pm
I can never get worked up over the death penalty. I am in favor of it – I think – but I am also easily persuaded by the arguments against it. Knowing when to impose the death penalty often seems to to me like the defining pornography…you know it when you see it. Charles Manson would have been an excellent candidate by that measure.
December 29, 2012 3:42 pm
If we were debating economics, you would not allow the left side of TNM to get away with made up scenarios. The real world never is as clean as some hypothetical. The real world is messy and things are not clear. This does not improve when the topic changes from economics to the death penalty.
In 1982, a 21-year-old cocktail waitress named Debra Sue Carter was raped and murdered, and for five years the police could not solve the crime. For reasons that were never clear, they suspected Ron Williamson and his friend Dennis Fritz. The two were finally arrested in 1987 and charged with capital murder.
With no physical evidence, the prosecution's case was built on junk science and the testimony of jailhouse snitches and convicts. Dennis Fritz was found guilty and given a life sentence. Ron Williamson was sent to death row.
Williams spent years on death row, he was eventually cleared when a conservative pro-death penalty appeals court judge was unwilling to sign off on his execution based on the flimsy evidence. Williams received a stay 5 days from execution. A hearing was held and all the evidence from the original trial came apart.
Williams was eventually exhonerated using DNA evidence. The actual perpetrator of the crime was eventually determined.
Several innmates on the same death row as Williams were also eventually exhonerated.
More details if you wish. Or you could read Grisholm's book. "The innocent Man"
Or you could try
Regardless, the death penalty is a difficult and complex issue.
It is easy to defend in an antiseptic hypothetical world were guilt is certain.
But in the real world things are nearly always less clear.
December 31, 2012 1:03 pm
jbastiat..as one that has flipped from favoring the DP to not favoring it based on such evidence as provided by asmith, I could also be convinced that Hassan, Bundy, McVeign and others should get the DP. But the problem I have is the number of individuals that are convicted and sentenced to death using the same laws that convict and sentence the Hassans, etc. that are found not guilty years later. How many individuals that did not commit the crime and are not found innocent later end up dead based on our current DP laws? They are the ones that don't have the money for lawyers or publicity passes them by so no one looks at their case to find them innocent later.
So for every Hassan, Bundy and the rest, how many innocent individuals being put to death are acceptible until you would want a change in our laws? In my area, the Innocent Project takes years of court battles just to get new evidence admitted. DA's and the state fight to their last dollar to stop any new trials from happening. And when they do occur, in most cases the inmate is found to be not guilty.
If you can provide information on any state's regulations that are 100% fool proof in making sure not one innocent person is convicted and sentenced to death for a crime they did not commit, then I could support that law. But if one person can be executed that did not commit a crime using the same laws to seentence Hassan, etc, then I am unable to support that law since I believe one innocent life saved is worth many spending life in prison without chance or parole.
January 3, 2013 1:18 am
Try this.
For the record this is just one of a long line of prosecutorial misconduct cases.
The state is immune from suit over the misconduct of a prosecutor, and the prosecutor is also immune. If Prosecutors are free to do as they please without consequence – and that is absolutely the current state of affairs according to the US supreme court, then why exactly do you expect them to behave ?
This particular case is also indicative of the jihad US Attorneys have waged against anyone trying to alleviate pain in the chronically or terminally ill.
January 3, 2013 1:42 am
In virtually every single case of exoneration evidence of prosecutorial misconduct starting with the original trial and proceeding through to the bitter end is common.
I think in my entire life I have only once read of a prosecutor willing to take a second look at the possibility that someone they convicted might actually be innocent.
In most cases of exoneration the prosecutors are still claiming despite DNA or other irrefutable evidence – because overturning a conviction is incredibly hard, that the defendant was actually guilty.
Mike NiFong the prosecutor in the Duke LaCrosse case was by most accounts a fair and reasonable prosecutor, and still he pushed prosecution long past the point where it was obvious to nearly everyone this was a miscarraige of justice.
I constantly hear interviews where the prosecutor says that it is their job to prove guilt and the defense attorneys job to prove innocence. That if an innocent person is convicted that is not their responsibility.
NOOOO! Defense attorney represent their clients, not society or justice. But prosecutors represent society and justice. It is their job to find the truth not to convict defendants.
Remember for every innocent person convicted, there is a guilty person walking free.
Society as a whole as well as victims and their families are entitles to justice – but justice is not the conviction of someone for a crime, it is the conviction of the guilty person. Anything less is worse than no conviction at all.
In a 2003 study of criminal convictions harmful prosecutorial misconduct (not just misconduct, but misconduct likely to lead to an erroneous outcome) was found in 17.6% of all criminal cases. Of 255 individuals exonerated by DNA Prosecutorial misconduct was raised in 60 of the prior appeals, and eventually found in 18% of all cases.
Defense attorney's do not raise a claim of prosecutorial misconduct lightly. Just making such a claim is nearly assured to result in ethics charges against the defense attorney.
Prosecutors – even the good ones are notoriously vindictive, and the bad ones have every motivation to use all their power to punish anyone trying to expose them.
Further the courts are incredibly resistant to such claims. No less than the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly said there is no consequence for prosecutorial misconduct.
Why do you expect a system that rewards winning over justice, and where cheating to win has no consequences is going to work ?
Why are you so concerned about the purported "tricks" of defense attorney's most of which are either myth's or long ago closed, yet you are blind to the fact that many prosecutors long ago lost any interest in justice ?
January 3, 2013 2:13 am
The responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his
duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.
– American Bar Association
Click to access Innocence_Project_Pros_Misconduct.pdf
Click to access ProsecutorialMisconduct_Exec_Sum.pdf
January 3, 2013 2:38 am
Convicting the Innocent
Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong
Is Eyewitness Testimony Inherently Unreliable?
The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
January 3, 2013 12:42 pm
Canada discovers that it has under estimated its economic growth by about 1% – equivalent to a doubling of its standard of living in one generation.
Though this is about only a single factor of many factors effecting GDP, growth, profits and incomes, the gist still is that real standard of living has improved twice as much as was thought because the difference between prices and wages is higher than beleived.
A significant factor in this is those evil imports.
As a nation moves from the production of lower to higher value goods it imports more lower value goods. The result is that productivity goes up – more value is produced with the same labor, wages do not tend to go up – but standard of living increases because the same wages by more imported goods.
Even Krugman grasps that trade is usually a win-win. He just fails to grasp that even "unfair" trade is a win-win.
January 3, 2013 12:50 pm
Are we more polarized than ever ?
Maybe not.
Though our voting patterns have tended to tended to be increasingly geographically polarized, the percent of precincts where one party has more than 60% of the registered voters has declined from 50% in the 60's to less than 15% today.
We are less strongly affiliated with political parties, more likely to split votes, more likely to vote based on candidates than party.
January 4, 2013 7:04 pm
Wow, you totally miss the point on gun control and the meaning of the second amendment as do a startling number of Americans. The right of the citizens to bear arms is not for protection against other citizens but protection against a malevolent government, then kind of government we've seen develop over the last 20 years. Its startling… we attempt to explain the motives and actions of the irrational through rational discourse. Then we attempt to restrain the rational participants of our common civilization to protect us against those who care nothing for our laws. Its like pulling the covers over your head to protect you from the ghost who has just walked through a wall.
January 6, 2013 2:30 pm
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is debatable. some of the scholarship that lead to Heller, demonstrated that liek modern politicians our founders were playing politics – the drafts and language right down to coma's semicolons were deliberate efforts to allow different states to beleive the language meant what they wished it to.
Conversely the debate on the 14th amendment made it clear that it was specifically intended to confer an individual right to arms to negro's.
If the threat of armed insurection were accepted as a legitimate constitutional purpose, then prohibitions against individuals owning machine guns, tanks, or weapons of mass destruction would be unconstitutional.
I personally think that the possibility that individuals – particularly in their homes might be armed constitutes a legitimate restraint on police power.
Aside from few quotes from individual founders there is no constitutional basis to believe that the 2nd amendment confers a right to overthrow the government – as appealing as that might be some days.
January 7, 2013 11:14 am
There are numerous incidents like this all the time.
Immediately after Newtown there was an incident in texas where someone rushed into a Movie theater and started shooting and was stopped by someone legally carrying a gun.
We do not know how many "mass killings" are forestalled by armed citizens, but of those that manage to get reported there appear to be 3-4 times as many Newtown like attempts that are stopped before large numbers are killed. But these do not get nearly the same press coverage.
We have to be extremely careful about data covering only a small part of the entire story.
The US does have more gun deaths per capita than any other developed country. We also have more deaths by violence.
But adjusted for demographic differences those death rates are the same or lower than those of Canada, or the EU.
Further the UK has 2-4 times the rate of violent crime the US has, and Finland is worse still. The overall rates of violent crime in the US are comparable to much of the EU.
Broader gun ownership, more recognition of gun rights would almost certainly reduce mass killings. But it would likely increase the total number of deaths. But few of those would be worthy of weeks of coverage by the national news.
We have spent almost a month in national angst over Newtown,
Yet every day 25 children under 20 are killed in traffic accidents (down 30% in the last decade). Atleast 26 children 5-9 are are killed in traffic accidents.
We are debating significant and expensive societal changes that will have significant unintended consequences in order to maybe reduce deaths from a rare event while like causing a net increase from less unusual events.
January 7, 2013 11:29 am
Apparently violence is natural – or so says Jane Goodall
"Conservatively estimated risk of violent death was 271 per 100,000" For humans in the US the rate is 6.5/100,000 or almost 1/50th that of the Great Apes.
Violence rates in the UK.
January 7, 2013 2:37 pm
I know I am late to this discussion, but I discovered this web site while searching the internet for methods to return US Leadership to more moderate roots. What I see going on at the Federal Level and on-line is nothing short of two extreme sides prepared to start a civil war over issues. I tend to think of myself as a Republican even though I seem to agree more often with Democrats over the issues. Why am I a Republican? Well, most of the issues I think of as 'social' issues rather than 'governmental' issues. While laws regarding social issues determine our culture and seem to be the concern of liberals, governmental issues determine the preservation of our way of life as those Americans who lived before us enjoyed being Americans and are held dearly by Republicans. Additionally, those on the Left seem to have a penchant for turning a 'discussion' on issues into name-calling and mud-slinging fests that do more harm than good and I don't care to be associated with that type of person.
In my opinion, the top issue is ensuring the economic stability of our nation by maintaining the principles of our economic prosperity that have led us to become the most productive and innovative country in the world. Liberals argue that the 'thieves' on Wall Street are responsible for our current economic collapse, that George Bush was just so 'stupid' that he let us fail. Liberals argue for Socialism (communism, whatever –ism you want to describe that 'shares' equally among everyone – human nature does not allow for such a utopian government or society). We did this to ourselves folks. We created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to involve the government in the loan-making business. We passed legislation in the name of 'equality' for everyone in every case and forced banks to make loans that they otherwise would not have made based on the applicant's financial ability to pay the loan back. Inventive Wall Streeters somehow found a way to profit from risky loans (I still haven't figured that one out). Hopefully you other Moderates (and I assume you are also financially responsible) have wondered over the years how it is that the guy next door can afford a new 4-wheel drive truck, a snowmobile, motor home, pool and garden tractor when you make more money and couldn't afford to put gas in the truck's tank for a month. We did this to ourselves to the point that other countries have been lured into bailing us out and much like the Japanese in the 80s, the Chinese are beginning to 'own' America. I visited the USSR a week after the fall of Communism and I can tell you first hand it does not work – but I feel that's the way we are going. Without a viable, vital financial system, the government can't fix your roads; provide protection from crime or fire, and many other services provided by it.
Preservation of our freedoms is what makes us Americans. Yes, the shooting of toddlers in a school was an occasion for sadness. I hear so many people upset – about the NRA and 'assault-style' weapons. I hear less about how we protect our children from potential future attacks. The NRA, after a brief silence on the issue following the event, said that they recommend armed, trained personnel on-campus as deterrence. On Facebook, my liberal, college educated friends responded with scorn and ridicule asking if the NRA was going to pay for the guards, why the NRA was such a dastardly organization for advocating against gun laws and control. Accusations of illegal arms sales to bolster the NRA's lobby have been rampant. Folks, the NRA lobbies for our rights as Americans as spelled out in our Constitution. It fairly represents a majority of Americans. But more realistically, how can the NRA 'block' the votes made by Senators and Representatives when they have no vote in the House and Senate? The last time gun laws were put in place, a large number of incumbents found themselves unemployed the day after the election. If this is such a 'critical' issue, they should be voting as they believe their constituents want them to and re-election be dammed.
Bans and Laws like these just don't work. Prohibition was a huge failure. It resulted in corrupt government officials and crime rates that went through the roof. A ban on 'assault-style' weapons is like saying we are going to prevent further fatalities on our highways caused by drunk drivers by banning wine.
I used to be one who asked, 'What the heck does anyone need with a semi-automatic rifle'? Then my son got involved in shooting. He has WWII rifles from several of the combatant countries, most of which shoot every bit as fast and with a much higher caliber than the 'assault-style' weapons currently being looked at by the government. He also owns 'assault-style' weapons. We love to go to the range to shoot at targets. We don't hunt, but the calibers of all his rifles are the same as those used by hunters all over the world with the exception of Elephant hunters. He knows the history of each of his weapons, its variants, and its notable marksmen. He has carefully restored each of his weapons and knows them inside and out. He treats them with respect and handles them with extreme care. Restrict clips to a smaller number of rounds? That just means more 5 second breaks between shots. It does not deter.
My point of this long diatribe is that there is way more to this gun issue than hunting and defending Liberty. Like bowling, car collecting, stamp collecting and any other hobby, this sport provides a social outlet for people with like interests – part of the freedom to pursue happiness, also a written part of our Constitution. Everyone wants a fool-proof answer to the recent shootings, but in our day and age, no one can guarantee that you will return from work, school or even the grocery with 100% certainty.
What causes a person to shoot up a school? Video Games! TV! Movies! If that is so, what inspired John Wayne Gacy? Ted Bundy? Jeffery Dahmer? When I went to elementary school, there were special programs for kids identified as 'different'. They were kept separate from us, even having their own transportation. About the time I went to Junior High School, the 'special' kids were mainstreamed into the school by well-meaning but misguided people who wanted 'equal' education for their kids. Because of this 'mainstreaming' my class acquired an individual that was bigger and stronger than the biggest teacher we had and who had no qualms about swinging a valise-sized briefcase at your head during change of classroom. Along the way, the specially-trained staff was no longer needed for these individuals and we have lost that professional career forever. Again, regardless of our good intentions, we did this to ourselves.
Current proposed legislation is aimed at the eventual elimination of all firearms. As a moderate, I cannot willfully sit by and let one of our rights as Americans be summarily erased.
Thanks for starting this forum Mr. Bayan. My goal is to bring moderation back to our government. What can be done to achieve it?
January 7, 2013 4:21 pm
Dan, nice to hear from a new voice. I too found this site while trying to find one that allowed different views to be discussed without the massive putdowns, name calling and other negative comments when one posted something that others did not agree with on other "moderate(?) sites. I am also one of the newer individuals to this site, but since coming I have found that there are disagreements on subjects, but not too much in the way of derogatory comments when one does not agree. Most of the time the comments are directed to the positions and not the individual.
That is not to say it does not happen, but it seems to be isolated when it does. Hope you find the same enjoyment that I have found so far.
January 8, 2013 10:48 am
Welcome Dan;
I found your remarks interesting and share most of them.
The left and right are not homogenous – even if we all tend to portray them that way.
Nor do our values fall on a simple left right scale. Few of us fit perfectly into a specific political identity or ideology.
Whatever the conditions there is always a way to profit. I can profit from the drug war by selling drugs, or I can do so by selling prisons. Wall Street profited by creating and selling the type of loans government wanted from them.
Markets are not free just because they gleefully and profitably do as government wants.
They are only free when government is not providing rewards and incentives, or offering bailouts.
So long as government has the power to offer rewards and incentives, or to punish and impose barriers people we will seek to leverage that government power to our own benefit.
There are aspects of our past that were superior to the present.
There is no debate that the quality of our education has declined over the past several decades. but those areas where our world has gotten worse are the exception rather than the rule. The trend in nearly all areas has been improvement. Our lives are better even today than a few decades ago.
Those areas such as public schools where things have declined over the past century are universally those with the greatest government control.
January 8, 2013 3:26 pm
asmith – By and large, I agree with you. I believe there needs to be some room at the local levels of Government to encourage economic growth; things like tax relief for a specific, specified period to encourage new businesses. Incentives at the National level seem too self-serving on the parts of the elected officials there. jbastiat – yes, I agree 100%
January 7, 2013 5:47 pm
Glad you brought up Prohibition, Dan, and the reality that it actually created more crime. I'm sure that gun control activists would say "But, alcohol doesn't kill anyone," when the truth is that the arguments for the Volstead Act sounded very similar to the arguments for banning "assault weapons:" alcohol was inherently evil and caused crime, injury and death….
The self-righteousness of some anti-gun activists is similar to the attitude of The Temperance Society, come to think of it….
January 8, 2013 10:40 am
About a year ago I read 'Last Call' by Daniel Okrent regarding the rise and fall of Prohibition. It interested me because frankly I knew very little about the how and why of the subject. The devilishly clever maneuvers and tactics used by a great MINORITY to change the very Constitution to govern the entire country were startling and frankly frightening. I see with our current Federal Administration the very same tactics being employed to implement programs to again govern the majority. The gun control issue to me is a linchpin in the strategy being used by the Administration. Just as a criminal will be deterred from entering your house if there is even the potential that he may lose his life due to an armed owner/occupant, the Administration will hesitate to implement programs it is well aware may outrage a majority of Americans to take up arms as directed by the Constitution, they will continue to bide their time until such a threat is minimized.
I want to believe that gun control/restrictions/bans/elimination will never be passed in the US, but we've seen The National Health Care Act voted in without anyone conversant in the details of the bill or a detailed analysis of it's potential impact on our Country. I didn't expect the re-election of the current administration (although I wasn't crazy about the only other candidate with a snowball's chance of winning). I didn't expect that our media (which isn't really 'our' media) to seemingly function like that great Socialist news organ, Pravda. I also understand that Fox News feels the need to match outrageous, far-left statements with equally outrageous far-right reports. But where does that leave us, the majority who understand that everything in moderation isn't necessarily a bad thing nor wishy-washy.
I wouldn't be so concerned about banning assault weapons if I didn't think it would pass. I see assault weapons legislation as the small crack in the bottom of the dam we call our rights. It frankly scares me that the possibility is there.
January 8, 2013 11:01 am
I have not read "Last Call" but I have read much about Wilson era politics.
The Federal Reserve, The 16th amendment, Womens Suffrage, and prohibition were all intrinsically politically interwoven. They were also essential to the later establishment of the New Deal.
Prohibition actually worked – if your definition of worked is that it reduced alcohol consumption and improved health. Of course it created organised crime and made a significant percentage of us into law breakers.
January 8, 2013 1:48 pm
Rick, it is my understanding that you can own a machine gun if you have filled out
ATF form 4; section 5320.4 and it is approved by local law enforcement. We have a local politician that was nominated for a position on a board and since he owns a machine gun and filled out this form, he withdrew his name from consideration due to the problems with gun ownership at this time. Could be wrong but thats whats in the local paper.
As for rights, one only needs to look at the wiretap laws to find out how one small step into rights is a giant leap for the government. Wiretap laws were meant for domestic uses when criminal activities werre suspected. They were meant for a very limited use. Now theyy are used for international monitoring of any calls anyone makes. You go to the middle east, call home and that call can be monitored if you use key words or phrases that hit certain requirements. Each small step leads to a larger step.
Another small step is domestic drone surveillance. If you own a home with a fenced in back yard that your wife enjoys sunbathing next to the pool without a top on, do you expect her privacy to be protected or do you expect a drone to be overhead viewing what is going on the the neighborhood? Is this an enfringement of rights or is this expected to fight crime? What about drones viewing inside second story windows of homes?
Gun rights is the same. One small step by government leads to one more step. If you want the laws changed, then amend the constitution to clearly define gun ownership and what "right to bear arms" means today. We need to stop interpreting what the founders meant based on liberal or conservative thinking on SCOTUS. That court was suppose to be non political, but one can not say that for the court since the Roosevelt era.
January 8, 2013 7:07 pm
Rick, re: your comment that this is a rallying cry for the conservative base, I see it as just the opposite. I think you would be surprised to see the number of moderates and liberals who are gun owners and second amendment supporters. To the far left, however, the idea of gun ownership by private citizens has always been threatening…the vast majority of gun owners are not arming against the government, but, for some reason, that is how the left perceives it. On the other hand, I do wonder why it is necessary for law-abiding gun owners to have their names and addresses be a matter of public record? When the Governor of NY starts talking about confiscating legally owned firearms (which he has) it strikes me that is is not particularly paranoid for gun owners to believe that the government might raid their homes.
Dan Markum permalinkJanuary 9, 2013 12:04 pm
I agree!
January 8, 2013 10:55 am
Prohibition does not work.
Government works when it dictates what we can not do, rather than what we can not own.
When the actions that it punishes violate clear norms held nearly unanimously by the people – not just simple majorities, and when its prohibitions are rooted in easily understandable principles – thou shalt not kill. And when it punishes us for what we have done rather that prohibits what we might do.
January 8, 2013 6:05 pm
Rick Bayan – Thanks again for hosting this site. My simplest answer to your reply concerning banning 'Assault-Type' weapons is best exemplified by the graphic on the following link:
I'm always ready with a long explanation though.
As noted by another blogger here, automatic weapons never really went away, they were just put under such severe restrictions and the potential penalties for violating them were so great that they only live on in a very small sector of the overall firearms sport. I had a friend who was an automatic weapons dealer. He had to pass stringent background checks to get his special license, but he could sell automatic weapons to others licensed as he was. So, they're still out there.
Now, on to 'assault-style' weapons. Because the shooter at the school used one, the weapon was found 'guilty' in the court of Liberal opinion as to why these children were gunned down. The weapon in question shot a .223 caliber bullet. Note that the very same weapon without modification, can fire a .22 caliber bullet. Not very high powered at all – I have shot the same weapon and can attest that the .223 round isn't very 'high-powered'. The Boy Scouts have used .22 Caliber rifles at their camps for years.
As the picture on the link shows, the 'civilian' style .223 caliber weapon has the same capability as the 'Assault-style' .223 caliber weapon. Yes, te 'assault-style' weapon does 'look' meaner but so did the Batmobile from the 1960s show and it was simply a Ford Futura with a facelift. Same capabilities, different window-dressing.
OK, so maybe rate of fire is the real problem. Now we're talking semi-automatic vs bolt-action. Semi-automatic allows you to shoot the weapon just as fast as you can pull the trigger until you run out of bullets. Many 'civil' firearms used for competitive target shooting, sport and hunting are semi-automatic. Most 'Assault-style' weapons are semi-automatics. So in essence, banning 'assault-style' weapons simply takes one class of semi-automatic weapon away from the crazy shooter. As I have said before, you won't stop drunk driving if you ban wine. Same thing with banning supposed 'assault-style' weapons to prevent future incidents. Once banned and everything remaining the same, the next school shooter will use a legal semi-automatic and now a lot of 'civil' rifles and a high percentage of handguns will be declared 'guilty' and the debate begins again until they too are banned. The nasty side of this 'clean' discussion involves the use of shotguns. If a crazy really wanted to make a statement, he'd use a shotgun, semi-automatic or not. The resulting abattoir would make the strongest stomach turn.
As I said previously, my son has several military weapons. The M-1 Garand, carried by our troops in WWII is a semi-automatic and has a 7 shot clip. At the end of the clip, the magazine self-ejects with an audible 'ping'. One need only slap another clip in (2-3 seconds from vest to the weapon) and the bolt slams home by itself and you're ready to fire. His British Enfield is a bolt-action rifle with a magazine (meaning that you have to pull the bolt back to eject the spent shell and the magazine automatically feeds the next round into the chamber, closing the bolt makes the weapon ready to fire). Sound cumbersome? Yes it is, but in the wars the British fought in India, a practiced infantryman was expected to meet the standards of the 'Mad Minute'; 60 aimed shots in sixty seconds (this includes changing magazines since the Lee-Enfield magazine holds 10 rounds).
So, this addresses rate of fire and magazine capacity (not really a player as clips are very inexpensive and in a lot of cases resemble strips of metal rather than anything used to load a gun with). My point is that there is VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE between what the Liberals and Liberal Media call 'assault-style' weapons and the ones they claim they are not going after.
It took 20 minutes for the police to respond to the school shooting in Newtown. I don't blame the tragedy on the response time of the police. But one must also remember that all Police and Fire operate on the well-established operational order that they have to go home at the end of their shift. If there is no one in a house and entering it will endanger the life of a fireman, the fire forces will watch it burn down. Can't blame them. But in the time it took for a response, twenty persons were killed. That's 1 person per minute. As I understand it, the shooter loosed somewhere near 200 rounds in this time (one might argue that the shooter was envisioning himself as an action hero from a movie by 'spraying and praying' and actually did MUCH LESS damage than he could have had he been more methodical). He had a rifle and 2 pistols, the occupants including the adults were defenseless for 20 minutes. Had he been going for strictly high body count, he could have used ANY weapon (including a Boy Scout .22) to execute well over 100 people; after all, he was 'in charge' by virtue of being armed. I would argue that he could have done a great deal of damage armed with only a samurai sword in those 20 minutes.
As evidenced by Prohibition, total bans don't work. The weapons ban in Australia has led to a skyrocketing crime rate (search youtube for Australian gun ban for the exact stats). And in the case of firearms, a partial ban will not cut it when one considers the objective of the ban as 'protecting our school children'. Connecticut's gun regulations and bans prior to this incident were held up as the shining National Standard by Liberals all over the Country. Since the shooting, no one is mentioning them. They were meaningless to one person who was intent on violating 'thou shall not kill.'
But the objective doesn't seem to be the protection of our children. Instead of looking for systemic answers, the media and Liberals have jumped on a specific type of firearm that 'just looks mean'. What good is a weapon of this type? What value do they have? I would ask what good is collecting stamps? Baseball cards? Vintage cars (cars CAN kill people, vintage or not), etc? In the year since my son got into this sport, I've come into contact with a wide variety of activities involving firearms. Like most hobbies, there is a lot more than meets the eye. With firearms, the width and breadth of the variety of activities seems to be limitless.
People make the mistake of saying 'Home defense and hunting are the only things I can think of to use a firearm for.' There's so much more to this sport. We met a lot of really nice people who are always willing to help and provide advice. The people who participate in the myriad shooting 'styles' are some of the nicest people you would ever meet. Participants value safety above all else and it is well-known that everyone on the range is responsible for everyone's safety. The strongest drink I have ever seen on a range is root beer. I myself did not realize just how huge this sport is until my son got involved. It's not just a bunch of rednecks out blasting away at bottles (though it is fun). Colleges actually award full-ride scholarships for target shooting and two young ladies from my last gun club are attending College for free. Youths participating in this sport are the most level-headed, safety conscious kids I have ever met (most of the time they call you 'Sir'!). It may sound ridiculous to an anti-gun person, but this is a pastime that brings people and families together – and in this day and age, I'd approve of octopus wrestling if it allows us to have more in-depth relationships with our children and others in our communities. The right to pursue happiness ring any bells out there?
No, I don't expect to defend my home from the Federal Government (but remember the concept of Posse Comitatus – no one is sending the US military to my door). Based on the level of shouting done by the Liberal Media and Left-wingers over this issue makes me suspect that they are using this unfortunate incident as a springboard to get their foot in the door to aid in reaching their ultimate goal – this total disarmament of the US public.
Following 9/11 no one even remotely mentioned banning airliners, but look how many innocents were killed (worse, how many leaped 110 stories as a result of those airliners' actions?). People actually blamed the buildings themselves for falling (I was amazed they stood after getting hit – I've been near a large commercial style jet full of fuel that burned to the tires and the heat was indescribable over 200 yards away). So, instead of anthropomorphing the blame on the airliners what was done? Airport security was tightened. The Federal Government has literally given billions to the States to bolster Police, Fire, Ambulance, HazMAT, Hospitals, Public Health, Public Works in Homeland Security funds to improve our deterrence and response capabilities to terrorist attack. Yet when the NRA, an organization with the mission to defend one of our Constitutional Rights that were seen as so important they are written right in it recommended armed professionals to deter future incidents, the Liberals and media immediately jumped on the cost of such a program. We can spend billions on other things, but protecting our children is too costly? If one cannot smell a cover story here, I suggest they are dead or dying already.
Thanks for your ear!
January 8, 2013 12:14 am
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." ~ Adolph Hitler
"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."~ Josef Stalin
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." ~ Mao Tse Tung
""The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements…They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results." ~ Benito Mussolini
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ~ The Dalai Lama
Guns scare me…there are no guns in my house, and, in the past, i insisted that my husband sell guns that he inherited from his uncle, because I was nervous about possessing them – we had small kids at the time, and all of those "kids shooting themselves accidentally" scared the hell out of me.. Lately, i am reconsidering, and looking into purchasing a handgun and learning to use it. Thank you, gun control activists, lol.
January 8, 2013 11:03 am
A different kind of gun control
January 8, 2013 11:05 am
The hypocracy of hiring armed guards to protect you after you publish the names and addresses of tens of thousands of law abiding gun owners.
January 8, 2013 11:11 am
I would also note for Rick that this issue is not essentially different from requiring disclosure of political contributions.
We need open government – that means the actions of GOVERNMENT must be totally in the open. It does not mean that the information government keeps on the legal acts of private citizens should be public knowledge.
No US government allows public access to the tax returns of its citizens. Even different branches of government are prohibited from access to that information.
To the greatest extent possible government should not be collecting information on the private lives of citizens. To the extent it must it should not be sharing that information.
But virtually everything that government does should be completely available to the people.
Government actions are public. Most non-government actions are private.
January 8, 2013 12:57 pm
I understand the concerns about publishing a map of gun ownership, but I would think the ones that should be upset are the home owners that show there home to not have a weapon. If you are a thief and want to rob someone of the belongings of value, whose house are you going to break into? The one where the owner has a gun or the one where the owner does not own a gun? For some reason, it seems to me to be safer breaking into the one where a gun is not present, but since I am basically a coward when it comes to getting shot, I might be wrong.
January 8, 2013 11:20 am
The seen and the unseen – Cash for Clunkers version.
Why is it that people beleive that government can act without making more of a mess than they started with regardless of good intentions.
January 8, 2013 2:32 pm
This is what is wrong in America today. No one can have a conversation about any political position without an arguement developing. Why is it only those with extreme views on any issue are in the public limelight?
The nonpolitical middle seems to be letting this country go to hell and they don't seem to care. Maybe when it gets there they will then wake up and see what the far left and far right did. Hopefully the damage will be repairable.
January 8, 2013 6:22 pm
Thanks, sir, for an outstanding comment!
January 9, 2013 9:44 am
Regarding the paper that published the map of legal gun owners…Gawker has now published a 400 page list of all of the legally registered gun owners in NYC.
I have read several reports about women with restraining orders who are now fearful that their abusive ex-husbands and boyfriends will be able to find them, prison guards who have had inmates tell them that they know where their families live and will harm them if the guards piss them off, lawyers and retired cops who have been stalked by vengeful criminals that they have put in prison, etc…….
This is truly outrageous in my opinion…innocent lives are being intentionally put at risk in so many ways….and by sanctimonious hypocrites, who say that they are doing this to help "keep us safer" from gun violence?? Ugh.
January 9, 2013 9:55 am
Yes, Priscilla, but these are just DETAILS. You clearly don't understand how passionate the newspaper feels about this issue. So what if a few gun owners get hurt, in a sense, they deserve it, given, you know, that they legally own guns.
We need to send you to camp. so that your attitude gets adjusted.
Indeed, the inmates have taken over the asylum.
January 9, 2013 11:20 am
These lists are also lists of who to rob – Anyone NOT on those lists.
It not only makes the gun owners less safe, but it makes everyone else less safe too.
I do not have a functioning registered firearm in my home, but if a list of local gun owners names and addresses were published I might feel compelled to go out and purchase a weapon.
The absence of my address on that list would be a giant red flag inviting burglars to my home.
January 9, 2013 11:16 am
Aside from the issue regarding those legally possessing firearms.
It should be noted that these lists are also lists of those homes that DO NOT have guns, and therefore are safe to burglarize.
Publishing what should be private information about specific individual private citizens, can always be used to societies detriment.
January 9, 2013 2:21 pm
It is not just the obvious use of some piece of information that matters, it is also the less obvious uses – possibly even unforeseeable uses.
It is not just the people singled out and identified, it is also the people singled out and identified because they are NOT on whatever list.
It is not possible to foresee exactly what use can be made of some list of people.
When that list sourced to government it is all the worse.
We have no choice with respect to government.
January 9, 2013 12:56 pm
pearows..I am out of touch with some of these issues. So please educate me so I have all the facts. I have found individuals that I have lost touch with years ago and had no idea where they moved and now lived by doing searches on the internet. Just their names offered some information, but having just a little extra info like a professional organization or some other personal info provided me enough to find their current address.
If I can find old school mates without too many hours on the internet, why is the publishing of information in the paper going to allow someone who wants to harm another going to make this happen. Would they not be able to find that info anyway regardless?
I do not agree with publishing this info, but once you obtain a permit to own a gun, does anyone really believe that information will not be available through the freedom of information act?
Rick asked earlier why some have concerns about any gun control. Could this enfringement on the right to privacy through the freedom of information act be one example of how the government takes one small step to create a giant leap?
January 9, 2013 1:31 pm
Ron, I agree that it is much easier these days to locate old friends and aquaintances….but, there are those who work diligently to keep their whereabouts private and off the internet for a variety of reasons. I'll give you two examples from my own circle:
My college roommate, with whom I remained in close touch for about 15 years after graduation, despite her moving to Texas and then Florida, divorced her husband about 10 years ago. I subsequently discovered that it had been an abusive relationship and she moved from Florida, with her youngest child, then still a teenager, after the divorce. She stopped contacting virtually all of her old friends. I have searched for her whereabouts many, many times – she does not come up on Google, nor does she have a Facebook account under any of the names that I knew her by. I discovered the Facebook page of who I believe to be her oldest son, and I sent him a message, saying that I hoped all was well with his mother and to send her my regards. He never replied, and the next time I went to check his Facebook page, it was gone. My old friend clearly does not want to be found.
A woman with who I worked, escaped an abusive husband, sneaking out of her house in the dead of night, with her 4 year old daughter, and flying from Michigan to NJ, where she rented a house under her father's name and started a new life.Two years later, her husband discovered where she was living through a conversation with a mutual acquaintance who was not aware of the situation and he burst into her home one day, took her and his daughter hostage and claimed that they would all die in a double-murder/suicide (yes, he had a gun, acquired illegally). Thankfully, she was able to distract him and call 911 during the crisis, and a SWAT team saved the day…her husband was in prison for 18 months.
Private information on the internet is a big problem for women like this. When newspapers start publishing it for the purpose of furthering a political agenda, with no regard for the risks involved, I think that is borderline, if not outrigh criminal invasion of privacy.
January 9, 2013 1:58 pm
I wonder if one of the counties refused to allow this information from being released took this all the way to SCOTUS based on the exemption to FOIA that the disclosure would endanger the life or safety of an individual would be upheld? Most likely there would need to be someone that would come forward (and maybe not identified other than to the court) who would be a co-defendant in the case that would be endangered by the release of the information.
But who knows, the right to privacy isn't what it used to be, but whats new with this government?
January 9, 2013 2:13 pm
Most of what is on the internet about you or your friends got there becuase you provided it freely, and you knew or should have know it would be widely available.
Further you were never obligated to do so.
Absent a failure on the part of online vendors – one that you should have rights of redress against, what you purchased privately, what you own and what you do not own is only on the internet because you chose to provide it to someone.
Should we require all businesses to post the names, and addresses of all their clients and everything that each of them purchased ?
Should your neighbors and/or criminals be able to find out how much jewelry you own ? Whether you have a coin collection ?
Whether you subscribe to Playboy or Hustler or National Enquirer ?
Worse still what if they published an interactive map so that you could query it to figure out what neighborhoods would be best to rob ?
Worse yet. When you publish exactly who does own something, you are also publishing exactly who does not.
I do not own a registered gun. I do not own a working gun of any kind.
How is it in my interests to have a local paper publish a map that tells anyone who wants to know that it is safe to Rob my house ?
Even if gun owners had no expectation of privacy – what about those people who chose not to own a gun. Don't they have control over whether the world finds that out ?
Whenever you take a government database that identifies everyone who has made some specific choice and publish it, you have also identified everyone who has not made that same choice.
Marraige licenses are public. Some states allow same sex marraige.
What if some newspaper chose to publish all the names and addresses of gay couples on an interactive map – it is just public record information what is wrong with that ?
Even ignoring the discriminatory issues – lists of gay male couples is again a list of places to rob. these are couples with generally high incomes, and usually no kids.
Why dont we put up an interactive map of dog owners – now as a smart criminal I can combine that with the gun owners map and really zero in on those who I can rob safely.
Why dont we put up the names and addresses of school children – so that we can make the task of pedophiles easier ?
January 9, 2013 3:16 pm
Asmith, I think we are in agreement with identification in the newspapers and not making some information public. However, when one applies for a gun permit, they are giving that information freely. Is that to say that they should expect that information to be made public?
I would not think that to be the case, but since the government took a small step in passing the freedom of information act and that step has now grown into a giant leap that allows for papers to publish gun owner addresses, one would have to expect anything you give the government to become public at some point in time.
January 9, 2013 10:57 am
As a former Department Head for a small (under 70,000 people) rural county and a retired Military Officer, I agree that we can't lump 'the Government', including appointees and workers, into one category; that's just not fair. However, my experience with Local, State and Federal levels of Government through my past positions had led me to believe that Americans have a whole lot more to learn about how their Government functions than what they learned in Civics class.
I believe that we need to look at those who work FOR the Government (Government Employees) as we do Deputy Sheriffs; they don't make the laws, policies or rules, they simply enforce them and by that responsibility become subject experts in their field. These are usually the folks you encounter at City Hall or the County Courthouse. In my capacity as a Government Employee, I have been called 'unfair', 'uncaring', 'heartless', and many expletives simply because I have not bent to the will of a taxpayer. The one I hate the most is the taxpayer who says I have to take his abuse because I am a Public 'Servant'. I would immediately correct them by saying; 'I am a Government EMPLOYEE, you ELECTED the Government SERVANTS; whom by the way are responsible for the Law/ordinance/procedure that I have no authority to change no matter how asinine it is or how I personally feel about it. It is the employee's job to provide information and service within existing rules, laws, and procedures, and they do not have the authority to arbitrarily change them because of the potentially disastrous consequences of doing so. Allowing one deviation opens the municipality to a host of legal issues including class-action lawsuits. Looking at it from that perspective, the 'stupid' procedures and proof of Identifications required for most Government transactions aren't there to harass you, they are there to protect the taxpayers of that municipality because once successfully sued, those compensatory funds awarded to the complainant have to come from somewhere; your taxes (the ONLY source of revenue available to Government). Government employees (usually Department Heads are consulted occasionally by the elected officials regarding some issues, but ultimately what is put down in law or procedure is the result of what those elected decide. I have been consulted on many issues by elected officials and have seen that advice/insight twisted into an unrecognizable policy many times. Finally, regardless of their title, a Government employee cannot promise, dedicate or even write a check for even the most compelling of human disaster stories. Only your elected officials have that authority. So the next time a clerk and you have a dispute and you threaten to go to 'The Mayor' or the 'County Commission' or the clerk recommends it, they aren't being flip; they're telling you where the authority really lies!
State employees come off to Local Employees as impotent demi-gods who seem intent on making the life of the local employee a living hell. However, they are simply doing their 'deputy' job as directed by their politically appointed 'boss' and their laws, rules and procedures.
Federal Employees can pretty much be lumped into the same 'Deputy' category. A prime example is FEMA inspectors. Their lot in life has been 'Hollywoodized' to the extent that when I first met two FEMA inspectors, I jokingly said, "Well, neither of you LOOK like Tommy Lee Jones… can I see your cool jet-black dually 4-wheel drive?" The two men, retired road engineers in their 60s looked perplexed and said, "We got here in a five-year old State car from the motor pool that we weren't sure would make it here."
Before getting into the next group I thought I'd share the identities of the two remaining monarchies left in the US; Volunteer Fire Chiefs and District Health Officials. What Volunteer Fire Chiefs establish as law in their district is the last word. There is no one above the Volunteer Fire Chief to go to – even the County Commission who grants their charter and district has the authority to 'fire' a Volunteer Fire Chief. (Chiefs of City or Paid Departments have to follow the directions of the municipality that pays them and are more limited in their monarchy). District Health Directors, while enforcing National and State Health Standards are the last words when it comes to Public Health issues in their Districts. Restaurant get closed down by the local inspector? The only appeal you have is to the District Health Director. Going any higher (State or Federal) does no good as they have no jurisdiction or control over that District.
Political appointees however have the authority of the elected individual/entity that appointed them. These include groups like the Water Board, the Weed Board, park Board(s), etc. In some Municipalities, the Sheriff, District Attorney (State's Attorney), Auditor, Treasurer and other Department Head positions may be appointed or elected depending on the County charter. I personally favor elected Sheriffs and D.A.s as conflicts of interest arise that can detract from these critical posts and the chance of cronyism is mitigated to some extent. Political appointee groups are funded by the local government but the local elected officials don't set their specific spending budget, although the groups realize that if they upset their masters too much, their budget will suffer. Most of these groups are run by older folks that have the time to attend to the business of the municipality.
Appointed individuals are a whole different animal. As a military Officer, I once witnessed a Senator's Aide upbraid a one-star General like he was a little kid. In a few weeks, the General lost his position and was posted to a career-ending assignment. These are people we know nothing about but they cruise our Nation on behalf of Nationally elected officials with their full authority and we didn't even vote for them!
Elected Officials. On the local level, the majority (not all – there are a few a people out there willing to run for office who want to make the system better) seem to be intent on 'fixing' the 'system' without any real in-depth knowledge of the 'system'. Most fixate on 'Government' expansion while implementing programs and laws that are aimed at putting them in the best light to facilitate their re-election regardless of the new requirements for money or manpower to enforce it. As a Department Head, I classified my relationship with the board of commissioners in my County as 'Antagonistic'. Instead of using employees as a source of knowledge and advice, they routinely use them to lay blame off themselves and belittle them. During one Commission Meeting, a Commissioner recommended that the Auditor follow a course of action that the Auditor pointed out was a Federal crime. The Commissioner's response? "There are Federal Work-release programs." He was not joking.
Having to attend Commission meetings as part of my job, I became convinced that EVERYONE needs to attend or view local city council or Commission meetings at least a few times a year. While the issues on the agenda may not seem relevant to you, you can get a good idea of the members of the board in relation to your views and you know the candidate much better so you can cast your votes accordingly. I was so disturbed by the obvious antics of one Commission Member I recommended that the meetings be made available on the web for public viewing – after all, webcams are cheap. It was quickly voted down with the reasoning that minutes of each meeting are already published. Minutes are a sanitized version of what really went on in the meeting and do not reflect enough information for you to determine your vote.
All your local Council or Commission meetings held during the workday? Demand that they schedule at least one a month for 'after hours'. Better yet, demand that they be put on the web!
Sorry about the novel, I have to learn to be less verbose.
January 9, 2013 1:15 pm
It is absolutely true that the decisions that those employed by government employees are made by a minuscule number of people.
But taking any job identifies one with the policies and views that job represents.
I have worked on projects related to national defense. That does not mean that I share every view of every neo-con in the country, but if i was a pacifist there is a clear moral conflict with that work. .
government employees – particularly those in enforcement areas are taking a job to uphold the law – whether they like it or not.
If as a prospective government employee you are uncomfortable being identified with the law you may have to uphold – then do not take the job.
No job is a right. Nor are you obligated to hold any specific job.
If you work for the tobacco industry, it is reasonable for people to identify you personally with the good and bad of that industry.
If that identification bothers you work elsewhere.
Is it reasonable to beleive the organist at Westboro Baptist church is not a big gay rights advocate ?
That the nurses at Planned Parenthood are generally supportive of abortion rights ?
If you are morally offended by the laws you must uphold as a government employee – take another job. If you do not then you should not take offense if the rest of us identify you as supporting those laws and the values they represent.
We are each free to make our own choices. We do not always have the infinite menu of choices we would prefer, but none of us are forced to buy a specific good for a particular seller, or to work for a specific employer.
If as a government employee you enforce laws you do not personally believe in, then you ARE saying that your opposition to that law, is not greater than your support of government as a whole, and your desire for your job.
whether you are a government or private employee, if your values really are at serious odds with your job – you should find other work.
And if they are not, then you should not be offended when others identify you with the values of the job.
Except for degree there is no difference between the claim that government employees are not responsible for the actions they take than the claim of guards at Auschwitz
that they were just following orders.
If what a government employee is doing offends their values – they need to take another job.
January 9, 2013 5:11 pm
I was referring to an earlier comment that said 'Don't wrap everyone who is involved in government into the same mold'. I was simply explaining the relationships between the various members in our Government. My point was; Government Employees are not servants and rarely do they have the power or authority to change laws and procedures on the spot. Elected Officials by and large seem to get elected to office dedicated to 'fixing' a 'broken' system (and then find themselves chagrined when the system is actually operating as it should under all the constraints it is put). The Political appointees can be very powerful even though they were not elected by anyone.
I said nothing about being at odds with laws, policies and procedures while employed by the government. It made no never mind to me if you didn't like the answer that by law or ordinance I was required to give you.
But people don't like to be told 'No'. So, because they don't understand our government and where the power to change things lie, they say; the guy at the DMV was giving me the runaround (code for 'The answer I received wasn't what I wanted to hear.').
The next time you call a government office and are given an answer you don't like, my point was: CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL; they are the only ones who have any authority to change things. I started my government employment with pride and because of the lack of leadership and abusive nature of those elected to lead, left in absolute disgust.
That job didn't offend me – in my previous life I was responsible for hundreds of deaths and can show you the finger i did it with.
January 9, 2013 1:37 pm
I strongly advocate that what little that government actually should do, should be made as public as possible.
But the real purpose of open government is to impede government.
When government must operate in the open, it does less.
The objective is not really more open government, but just less government.
Open government is the means to that end. It is not the end itself.
The public should not have to attend more commission meetings – because the various policy makers within our government should do empowered to do so little we should not have to spend our lives policing them.
The entire purpose of a free press, of open government, of …. is to restrain government.
Truly limited government only needs to be conducted in the open to assure that it stays within the bounds of the limited powers it was granted.
Various posters here constantly note all the evils that the captains of industry accomplish driven by greed. Yet in the real world we know that whether the developed world or the 3rd world, the real evil is being done by government.
Few businesses blatantly ask their employees to violate the law.
The personal and business liability incurred is enormous.
In those rare instances that some business does and believes it can get away with it,
it believes so because it has confidence that it will be protected by GOVERNMENT.
Jim Crow in the south was A SYSTEM OF LAWS AND GOVERNMENT.
It was no accident that racial persecution was enshrined in the law.
It was not sustainable without the force of law.
Power granted to government WILL be used for evil.
In many instances it will be badly used by otherwise good people.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
January 9, 2013 5:19 pm
As a moderate, I would say that Government is necessary and to not participate as an individual is simply sticking your head in the sand.
When they are running for office, politicians say what you want to hear, smile and kiss your baby. To really get to know your government, you MUST learn their true ethics by observing them in their work environment doing their elected duties.
To say that you don't need to directly observe those who govern you is to say that you're going to evaluate your employees based on their job interviews (obviously they are great people otherwise you wouldn't have hired them would you?).
January 9, 2013 3:03 pm
Why does everyone keep trying to claim that politics has somehow gotten worse more recently ?
Please actually look at the past. The politics of our founders was positively evil in comparison to that today. Every dirty political trick today originated centuries ago.
Read Machiavelli.
Even in the modern era,
in 1960 more than 50% of congressional districts had more than 60% of registered voters belonging to a single political party. Today that is true of only 15% of districts.
We are more partisan, more bitter, more vocal at this particularly moment.
That is common when things are difficult. We are in the midst of a great recession.
Further we are facing an enormous government crisis.
I do nto think that at any time during the history of this country has our government at nearly every level been as close to failing as it is today.
That is pretty close to indisputable. Myriads of local governments are dubiously solvent. An enormous number are facing unfunded future liabilities that are insurmountable.
State after state teeters on insolvency.
The federal government is borrowing 1 of every 4 dollars it spends with no end in sight.
The federal debt alone is equal to the entire economy.
The unfunded liabilities of social security and medicare are between 54T and over 100T – during our lifetimes and neither party is addressing that.
Congress has not passed a budget in years.
Though there have been some predicting a mess like this throughout my lifetime.
This one is real.
We can only kick the can so far.
We are going to have to do something and it is going to be unpleasant to someone.
I personally believe that our politicians as well as most posters here are not going to be able to confront the reality of the situation until we have real failure.
We are not there yet. We are not getting there tomorow. But it is no longer possible to claim we can not get there. Most of us grasp that absent serious government reform the future is bleak. Even with it, it is going to be unpleasant.
We are approaching a crisis with near certainty – most everyone grasps that.
But we do not agree about the solutions.
Both here and in washington we are having a great debate over the role of government.
We are addressing big issues – because there are no little solutions that are going to work.
We are past saving Social Security with a tweak. Whatever is done will be significant consequential and painful.
Every accomplishment of the progressive era is failing.
And like it or not there is no "moderate" answer. A compromise on taxes and spending will atbest delay our day of reckoning.
If there is a progressive solution – it is more radical than anything even Pres. Obama has come up with.
On the opposite side, the longer we delay the more moderate proposals such as Rand Pauls will become.
We are angry, contentious, bitter, antagonsitic, not because one party is seeking political advantage over the other – not that that is not happening, but because we are facing near certain failure unless we take steps that are far from moderate.
We have two major competing solutions. There is no common ground between them.
Nor can there be. Some tepid combination of tax increases and spending cuts is not going to do it.
Ultimately one side or the other is likely to win – not because they are more articulate, or more politically palletable, but because even if we can not agree on what the right solution is, we are not going to get there through compromise and moderation.
Our impending failure is too large for a tweak at the edges.
We are in a position where the one thing most of us understand with certainty is that a moderate solution, compromise, something in the middle will not work. Worse with each passing year any chance of that diminishes.
We need a 25% across the board cut in federal government spending or a 25% across the board increase in taxes on everyone right now just to preserve the status quo – and that is pretty bad.
Yet we can not agree to reduce the deficit – by any means by $1T over ten years – 1/10 of what we need to accomplish.
We are in the midst of a brutal ideological conflict.
It is not upon us because the Koch brothers have bought congress, or Sorros is intransgient.
It is on us because our system as it is today is failing, and most be addressed and we do not agree on the solution.
It is because with near certainty the working solution is going to be closer to one of the extremes than the center.
it is brutal because like it or not one side or the other is going to win.
Not because of their eloquence, but because we already know the moderate solutions will only by time.
The answer lies with one ideology or the other, not the middle.
Liberals know this. Conservatives know this.
This fight might last a decade, but one ideology is going to leave the field discredited.
We are facing an ideological sea change greater than occurred with the great depression.
So why is it that you expect civility, moderation, political harmony – things that have never before occured throughout the US political history ?
January 9, 2013 3:54 pm
Semi-automatic in the context of weapons generally and usually legally means that the trigger must be pulled one time for each shot fired, and that the next round will be automatically loaded to be fired.
Almost all weapons except most shotguns, and bolt action rifles are "semi-automatic"
Except for the fact that it is a rifle – and therefore more accurate at long range (and much harder to use in close quarters), the AR-15 that Adam Lanza used is no more deadly than numerous very small calibur handguns.
It is no more automatic or dangerous than a .cheap 22 pistol.
Nearly every handgun made is either easier to use, easier to load, or more powerful or both.
The most appealing feature of an AR-15 is that it looks alot like an M16.
Is that the standard by which you are going to chose what you ban and what you do not ?
Personally I would rather have the Adam Lanza's using an AR-15. It is not an easily concealable weapon. Its appearance in a school telegraphs the intentions of the person carrying it. While a .22 pistol and hundreds of rounds can easily be carried concealed.
As to high capacity magazines.
There is only one recorded instance where a mass killer has been overcome as they stop to reload. Even handguns can be reloaded in seconds.
The magazine is the cheapest and easiest to manufacture part of any weapon.
Everything you need to make your own high capacity AR-15 magazines is readily available online.
So what effect is limiting magazine capacity going to have ?
In reality the AR-15 is not a particularly heinous weapon.
It is less powerful and less easy to use than most handguns.
The left bandy's about the phrase "semi-automatic" as if somehow that makes a weapon especially heinous. Banning all weapons capable of firing multiple bullets without any action beyond pulling the trigger, would ban everything except bolt action rifles and most shotguns. It would ban all handguns.
Meanwhile there are numerous .22 caliber pistols that can handle as many as 15 rounds, many of which are very accurate – or dirt cheap that would have been easier for Adam Lanza to conceal, easier to use and at the short ranges inside a school more effective.
Plastic DIY .22 plans including for the AR-15 are readily available.
A $3000 CNC machine is capable of making just about anything you can make using a 3d printer out of steel – even the AR-15 is only forged aluminum, and if you look on the web a working weapon can be mode from parts you can buy at home depot for $20.
Prohibition does nto work.
January 9, 2013 4:59 pm
By the way, I was interested today in reading Joe Biden's comments about how Obama is going to "do something" through Exec Order about "gun saftey."
Gun "safety"? huh? This term showed up over and over again in the same context that we are used to seeing the term "gun control." Sorta kinda like "global warming" became "climate change" and federally funded birth/control & abortion became "reproductive rights"?
Not to mention, how does an executive order trump a constitutional amendment? I realize that there are dozens of Democrat legislators who would never vote for any anti-gun laws, because it would hurt their chances if re-election, so Obama is trying to bail them out here….but, it will be interesting to see if his EO mirrors Senator Feinstein's proposed gun -ban legislation.
Ah, remember the old days, when Bush was the President and it was an outrageous act of dictatorial power to bypass Congress by EO? I miss those days 😉
January 9, 2013 5:44 pm
I am not intimate with the arcanities of executive orders.
But I beleive they are really mostly limited to imposing limits on the government.
i.e. they are not law – atleast not for people outside of government.
Further they are limited to those areas that are the exclusive domain of the president.
Usually things that have a strong nexus with foreign policy, national defense.
One of the things that drives me completely nuts about the left is that they essentially beleive that Rick's "Why is this good" standard, is sufficient for anything.
That the purpose of government is whatever those with the most power decide it is.
I can not get most anyone here to grasp that limited government is not just some ideology. It is a bedrock principle. You can disagree with me about the limits, but the alternative to limited government is unlimited government – and that is tyranny, and slavery. This is not about extremes. there are only two positions, either government is limited or it is not. And unlimited government is tyranny and slavery.
Accept that government is limited – which should be obvious, and what is left is agreeing on the limits.
If you can not articulate what limits government should have – then you should not even vote. You have no basis beyond whim for avoiding tyranny.
Nor do I understand why the left fails to grasp this.
If government can do anything that the left wishes it could, then it can do anything the right wishes it could.
If all guns can be made illegal, then gun ownership can be made mandatory – unlimited government is slavery.
Take any law you wish. If it is not bound by some underlying and broadly accepted principle defining the limits of government. then there is absolutely no reason that the exact opposite law would not be equally legitimate.
if we can ban homosexuality we can require it.
If we can ban abortion we can require it.
Eight supreme court justices lead by famous progressive Oliver Wendel Holmes found that
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough". and allowed the state to forcibly sterilize Carrie Buck. Her daughter who was adjudicated feeble minded made her schools honor role several times before dying from measles.
"Why is it good" for the mentally deficient to reproduce ? Any dog breeder will tell you the likely outcome is not good.
An action is good if a single person wants it, and it does no violence to another.
That is the only justification that should ever be necessary. Any other standard is tyranny, and slavery.
Whenever you start deciding for other people, however good your intentions may be, you will end up doing evil.
January 10, 2013 9:27 am
I agree with you 100% asmith! I particularly like the Ban/Require litmus you used. In the gun control issue, while some communities have banned guns, reports of other communities requiring them have cropped up.
Adding to the veracity of your proposal, if the subject of the law in question does not present a public menace or threat, we should be free to pursue them. As your test indicates, most laws regarding guns, abortion, homosexuality, etc should be stricken because they pose no threat to the public well-being and have to do with activities of private citizens.
Well said!
January 10, 2013 1:59 pm
The test i offered that you like alot is just a restatement of the NAP – Non-aggression Principle.
That is THE core principle which nearly all ideological libertarians agree on.
It is pretty much the ONLY principle to libertarianism.
It is also the core of the Lockean Social Contract.
If you strongly agree with that, then not only are you libertarian, you are really pretty hard core libertarian.
Watch out you are about to be labeled a falling off the edge of the earth extremist.
January 10, 2013 6:09 pm
January 9, 2013 6:15 pm
This should concern everyone when our President begins acting like Hugo Chavez. It is one thing for him to issue executive orders that stop polution of streams, the distruction of wildlife or other issues that do not enfringe on the rights of individuals. It is something else to bypass the congress, SCOTUS and issue executive orders that enfirnge on rights.
But how many Americans are going to do what the younger generation did in the late 60's and 70's that brought down an administration and helped stop a war. Today too many people are too involved with "me" to worry about "us", so little by little rights are taken away, much like what happened in Venezuela.
January 9, 2013 11:29 pm
I am not given to paranoia or tin-foil hat conspiracy stuff, but I do believe that we are progressively becoming less free, and, worse, that more and more people really don't understand or give a damn. When the controversy over "All My Baby Mamas" elicits more spirited debate than whether or not the President can overrule the Constitution……well, I am not encouraged.
January 10, 2013 9:50 am
So what is the answer? Without organized leadership, moderates will continue doing what we are doing – wringing our hands on the internet. Maybe this forum needs to invite those elected officials that have displayed 'moderate' voting records to participate and serve as the focal point for our side of the story. We need to invite moderate friends of influence (local merchants and civic groups). I'm sure someone on this blog either is or knows a moderate marketing person – that's how the 'parties' do it.
We can be moderates that display solidarity and can be activists while being moderate. But we need leaders on the National, State and Local level. Recruit them! Ask them to join this site!
'The squeaky wheel gets the grease.' is especially true in the political arena (I've seen some pretty amazing things done when a citizen is persistent to the point of obsession).
Maybe we can have a 'Moderate Million Man March' (as we know you don't really need a Million, just say we do). And no slogan like "What do we want? Moderation! When do we want it? …Sometime in the near future?".
Seriously, anyone have suggestions for moderate Senators or Congressmen? Let's list them here! Then let's contact them!
We have only failed if we have failed to try.
January 10, 2013 2:04 pm
Stopping pollution of streams or protecting wildlife do infringe on our individual rights.
But government IS allowed to punish us for acting in ways that harm others – even when that infringes on our individual rights.
I do not think an executive order can apply to anything that is inside the scope of congress.
January 10, 2013 9:07 am
Here is the thing about this EO…I don't really think that the POTUS would go so far as to declare some kind of actual gun ban. It would create a huge legal backlash, and could conceivably damage his political capital right before he needs it for the debt ceiling debate and his upcoming immigration legislation. I think it will possibly include registration for buying ammunition, limits on the number of bullets in magazines, and possibly a voluntary federal buy-back of "assault weapons," defined as any semi-automatic.
This way, he "does something" to appease his anti-gun base, without risking too much.
Gun control was not a hot button issue until Newtown, despite the demands for gun bans after Tucson, Aurora and other mass shootings. I think that the left wing base has forced the issue, and Obama will gladly do something to appear that he is trying to "make us safer," without actually doing much at all, other than making life more full of red tape and obstacles for law-abiding gun owners.
January 10, 2013 10:12 am
Yet another non-action that makes Obama look like a hero.
January 10, 2013 12:24 pm
So it's "Hugo Chavez Lite" to start with?
January 10, 2013 10:04 am
Here is what happens when school officials are organized, trained and equipped and have on-site deterrence in the form of trained and armed personnel.
January 10, 2013 1:38 pm
According to this piece of untouchable legislation, the gun control issue is pretty much moot. To pass such laws or make any Executive Order to the contrary would put the elected officials responsible for it's passage/issue guilty of violating their Oath of Office.
Dick Act of 1902 – Has Anybody heard of it before?
07/23/20111 Comment
DICK ACT of 1902 . . .
CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.
"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.
The Honorable William Gordon
January 10, 2013 6:36 pm
"The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states."
If the president can ignore this part opf the act and send the National Guard to Iraq and other middle east conflicts, why should they follow this act when it come to gun control?
January 10, 2013 8:09 pm
This is one of the problems with the so called moderates here.
There is much public debate about GOP political strategy right now
Should the GOP attempt to leverage the debt ceiling, the continuing resolutions, the budget (now going on 4 years with no budget despite the fact that it is required by the constitution) to attempt to reign in spending ?
The problem is that there is no ability to negotiate
The GOP is accused of being hostage takers – simply because of the two political parties they are the only one making even tepid attempts to return us to fiscally viability.
You do not have to be an extremist falling off the edge of the earth libertarian, to grasp that we can not manage a decade of 25% of budget deficits. That we can not manage if we are continuously adding 6+% of GDP to the national debt every year for more than a decade.
I also do not see why it is extremism to wonder why the cost of the federal government has increased by 25% in one year and then stayed 25% above trend for 5 years.
The sooner we bring this under control the easier it will be. If you think making the tough decisions is painful and hard now – just wait a few more years.
The European governments we have been swooning over are in a double dip recession. Most of southern europe is 5 years into conditions that are WORSE than they were in either europe or the US during the great depression. Further they have little to no hope of recovery any time soon.
And we are driving in their direction, with the pedal to the metal.
But this president is unwilling to negotiate. He has made it perfectly clear, he will go to the edge.
I keep hearing that the GOP is threatening to force the country to default.
Frankly it is beyond belief that people can say this kind of crap with a straight face.
When you are on an unsustainable spending binge – cutting up the credit cards is not forcing default. It is the only responsible choice.
"An ADHD day trader with a cocaine habit and six months to live has more long-term planning skills than our congress"
The president does not even believe we have a spending problem.
In our entire history – not even in the midst of World War II were we able to collect 24% of GP in taxes.
And the left wants to talk about minting trillion dollar coins.
Is there anyone that grasps that what we spend must be paid for out of what we produce ? There is no magic trick to change the fact that the locusts of federal government devour 25% of what we produce.
An increase in taxes on the wealthy will not change that.
Helicopter Ben can print money until we need wheelbarrows full to buy bread, Treasury can try to pay of the debt with 16 of those shiny trillion dollar platinum coins.
No gimic changes the fact that the full faith and credit of the United states is NOT based on the constitution nor the government but the willingness of the people to surrender a significant portion of what they have produced to government.
So long as we can and are willing to do that there will be no default.
If we can not or will not, nothing will save us from default.
Refusal to raise the debt ceiling is NOT the equivalent of default.
All it means is that the government must operate only on the money it collects until the debt ceiling is raised..
That would be difficult and painful – but not impossible. It would mean a temporary cut back of 25% of spending.
An actual government shutdown – which is what will occur if there is no continuing resolution or budget deal is actually much more draconian.
In the one case the government can continue – so long as it spends no more than it takes in.
In the other, regardless of money available the entire government – except a small number of essential services, must stop completely.
January 11, 2013 10:08 am
Unfortunately, the only way for the populace to put any leverage on their elected officials is to either sue the government for violating the laws they are required to follow (the President is required by law to produce a budget yearly, the budget is required to be balanced, etc), recalling elected officials who are in violation of their oaths of office (not an easy thing to do), or revolting as prescribed by our Constitution (and how is that done without being viewed as extremists or worse as a member of a group intent on overthrowing the American Government – which BTW I view fits the Leftist politicians and Liberals).
The only practical and realistic control we seem to have is the voting rights we have.
Eliminating all but 'essential' services will cause a huge rift (larger than the one we have now) based on what definition of 'essential' services is decided. Once implemented, it's hard to recant a social program instituted by the Government. You then get the heart wrenching reports of senior citizens freezing in their homes, children without breakfast before school and handicapped who can't leave their homes.
Be the 'squeaky wheel' – shout it over and over again to your friends, elected officials until they 'get it' that government spending must be cut across the board. Vote for only those who support 'doing the job' as spelled out by existing laws.
January 11, 2013 12:38 pm
When the GOP took control of congress in the 90's, they came into control with the "Contract with America". It was clear. It was concise. It told the citizens what the GOP stood for. It told Americans what they were going to do.
Today, there is nothing like that available. They have no "list" of what they want to do that is communicated in a way that American's can understand. They want a balanced budget. How? Cut spending? What? How much? When? No new taxes on anyone. OK, so where does the revenue come from? Tax deduction eliminations. OK, which ones? No increase int he debt ceiling. Fine, what will they shut down to continue paying the bills already run up?
Ther problem is not an agenda, it is the communcation of the agenda that is lacking. Boehner should be out talking to any news outlet he can find, making speeches on the steps of the capital building and using any other means of communication as to what they are going to do instead of "crying" about what the Obama administration is not doing to negotiate in good faith.
If you want to be a good opposition party, then you need a good message to back it up and right now that does not exist. Obama has the upper hand and holds the deck of cards. Gingrich never let that happen and it rest on Boehner to take charge of the GOP message and get his ducks lined up for the battle.
January 11, 2013 11:56 am
Then it is time to call them on it! Shout it from the rooftops; tell your friends! Ask your elected representatives how these breaches of Oaths of Offices and the blatant disregard for the Constitution are allowed to continue (and they expect you to think they are acting in your best interest). Badger anyone you know in the media to 'expose' these egregious breaches!
Just because a law has been broken in the past (or the Constitution violated for that matter) does not mean that as Americans we condone it and are allowing the practices to continue.
The WPA and CCC instituted by FDR during the Depression were eventually found by the Supreme Court (following a private lawsuit) to be unconstitutional and therefore disbanded. FDR (and those elected officials that supported these organizations) were guilty of violating their Oaths of Offices and disregarding the US Constitution. No one ever prosecuted them or demanded their removal from office; it still does not make them innocent or right.
January 12, 2013 2:52 am
There is no such thing as an unrepealable law.
It is a well accepted principle of constitutional law that anything that one congress can do another can undo. Even socalled sacrosanct entitlement programs such as social security and medicare are only politically inviolable. Any future congress can declare social security ended effective immediately – perfectly legal and constitutional.
The only way to make a change that has a chance at being inviolable is to pass a constitutional amendment.
The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment recognizes an individual right to gun ownership. The extent of that right is indeterminant. It is unlikely that even the current supreme court would find a constitutional issue with an assault rifle ban. I would note that a supreme court holding that something is constitutional does nto make it a good idea. PPACA comes to mind.
January 12, 2013 11:43 am
Regardless, it is still on the books and still enforceable.
January 10, 2013 7:37 pm
5 Facts on Gun Violence
If you can nto see the world how it really is how do you expect to take actions ?
January 10, 2013 8:19 pm
More good government policy helping the poor of the world
January 10, 2013 8:21 pm
This was from a liberal blog.
After the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, my boss was asked by Speaker Pelosi to write and pass the legislation that created the National Instant Check System (we did, proudest thing I ever did). I was in charge of finding a way for the NRA and the Brady Campaign to endorse the final product (they did). Since so many are posting about more gun control, here are my observations about what is possible:
1) The NRA isn't successful because they are evil geniuses, they are successful because they have 20 7 million members and almost one-third of 46% of Americans household have a gun;
2) NRA members commit crimes at a much lower rate than most Americans;
3) There are more privately owned guns in America than there are people, we can't ban them…ever;
4) The rate of gun crime today is lower than it has been in 50 years;
5) Making sure people who need mental health care receive it, is all of our responsibilities. Ensuring that they never come into contact with guns is incredibly challenging;
6) During our negotiations, it wasn't the NRA that was opposed to putting the names of people receiving anti-psychotic medication into the Instant Check database…it was advocates for the mentally ill;
7) Reasonable gun owners would agree to a ban on high capacity bullet clips;
8) There probably should be a system where individual gun sales by individual owners be tracked nationally, but that wouldn't have made a difference in any mass shooting since Columbine;
9) The weapons yesterday were legally bought, registered, locked, and owned by the first victim;
10) Yesterday in China, a man walked into a school and stabbed 22 children. It was the fourth mass stabbing at a school in China this year. Private gun ownership is illegal in China.;
January 10, 2013 11:17 pm
Sounds very reasonable. There is the possibility that these will be the reasonable suggestions that VP Biden presents to Obama on Tuesday.
If so, an issue that could have been framed in a moderate and bipartisan way was, instead, politicized and made into yet another polarizing debate. Decent, moral and law-abiding people were unnecessarily demonized and the President and his party used an awful tragedy to score political points. I'm so tired of this.
asmith permalinkJanuary 12, 2013 2:42 am
One should note the NRA is a single issue advocacy group.
They are perfectly content to see harsh restrictions placed on violence in entertainment if that prevents further restrictions on gun ownership.
But the right to guns is not the only right we have. There is a first amendment as well as a second.
The problem with a ban on high capacity magazines is just that it is stupid.
While it is an infringement on rights – as is any prohibition, or any restriction based on what we might do rather than punishment for what we have done. That said it is not a significant infringement.
But it is an ineffectual one. High capacity magazines will be available whether they are legal or not. Mass Killers will be able to get them. Prohibiting them does little besides increase their price. Have we learned nothing from our other efforts at prohibiting things ? How well did prohibition work ? The war on Drugs ?
Must we do something ineffectual and stupid just to feel good ? To feel like we are doing something ?
Mental Health is a common theme among all mass killers. But statistically the mentally ill are no more likely to commit violent crimes as a whole than ordinary people. Only a single group – Paranoid Schizophrenics has a higher than ordinary tendency towards violence – and even they are far more likely than not never to act violently.
Adam Lanza's known mental health issues have absolutely no correlation with violence. Further evidence shows that psychiatrists and psychologists are no better than ordinary humans at predicting who will engage in violence and who will not.
We already prohibit people with mental health issues from purchasing guns. But there is no reason to believe that is effective – or that becoming more diligent about it would be effective.
The recent newspaper debacle is just ammunition against any national registration database. Lets publish a list of everyone nationwide who owns guns. The NRA is concerned that it will just be a list of who to confiscate weapons from, but it is also a list of who to steal them from, as well as a list of whose home not to burglarize. That sounds good – unless you are not on the list. Then your absence becomes an invitation to be burglarized
I would also note that of the thousands of people killed in this country only a few hundred are killed by rifles of all kinds – including "assault riffles". You are more likely to be beaten to death by someone with no weapon at all than to be killed by a rifle. The weapon involved in the overwhelming majority of gun deaths is a handgun, and nearly half of those deaths are suicides.
But lets ban assault weapons – it will make us feel like we are doing something. While we are at it, lets ban lightning strikes, heart attacks and cancer. Oh, and cigarettes, and alcohol, and …..
January 12, 2013 11:42 am
Asmith – thumbs up! Doing nothing on an emotional issue doesn't get you re-elected though! That's why ineffective legislation gets passed!
January 11, 2013 10:13 am
And our 'Pravda' will do it's best to make sure that this Liberal Blog never is seen by the general public. Like the Dick Bill.
January 11, 2013 10:07 pm
It's sad, isn't it? I saw a Facebook thing today, posted by one of my very liberal friends, that said "Your paranoid fantasies about fighting a future facist dictatorship do not trump my right to demand reasonable public health policies to curb gun violence!"
This is just ridiculous. The second amendment was clearly added to the Constitution to protect democracy and liberty, not public health. And reasonable public health and gun policies are not inconsistent with the Constitution.
But our 'Pravda' will make it so.
January 12, 2013 12:38 am
Interesting how its fine to enfringe on the right to bear arms, but let us try to curb violence in movies, limit content in video games or create a database of mental health patients that would show up in a background check and that is unconstitutional. For those that beleive in the constitution, they are all unconstitutional as it enfringes on rights.
If we could ever stop argueing, then maybe some solution to the issue might be devised, but nothing will happen as long as we have the leadership in Washington we have today.
January 12, 2013 11:36 am
To me there really is nothing to 'argue' about. The 2nd amentment and the Dick Bill make arguing over gun control a moot issue – the right to bear arms is not going away. They may regulate the daylights out of them but banning firearms just won't happen.
Anyways the real issue is being overlooked – how do we best protect our schools?
January 12, 2013 1:00 pm
"The crux of the gun issue, for me at least, is where do you draw the line between weapons that should be legal and those that should be illegal"
Rick, that puts you in the catagory of people that trust our government to do what is right and not do anything other than what is right. Those of us that are totally against a ban on any guns and ammo are in the catagory that we distrust our government in many instances and do not beleive it will do the right thing all the time.
We trusted our government to invest and protect social security funds. How did that work out? We trusted our government when it said we had to go to Viet Nam and stop communism from spreading far and wide across the far east. How did that work out? We trusted our government when it said Iraq had biological weapons and we had to stop them from using those. Was that the truth? And one can find hundreds of other examples to show where government can not be trusted.
Now they ask us to accept that they will not ban any weapons that do not meet a strict guideline or certain ammo loading mechanisms and that will never be expanded for other weapons. You believe that to be true at this time. I believe it to be the first step in an effort to control more weapons in the future. I also believe that any "standard" the government sets for movies and video games will also be the first steps in regulating content by the federal government. And finally, developing a database for mentally ill patients to be used during background checks will be the first steps in the use of this infomation by other government agencies for other reasons.
You have trust in your government. I do not. It has shown multiple times it can not be trusted. And if you look at words spoken by many of the founding fathers, they also held that same view toward trusting government to do the right thing.
January 12, 2013 4:33 pm
Semi-automatic firearms have been available to civilians for years for hunting. Every semi-automatic produced for hunting has a multi-bullet magazine of some capacity. Varmint rifles are semi-automatic because there may be several targets in an area. Larger caliber semi-automatic hunting firearms give you the confidence that the bear, moose or elk you just shot will not get to you before you can eject a shell, put in another one, aim and pull the trigger (as you would have to do with a bolt-action rifle). Some bolt action rifles have magazines, but still require you to pull the bolt back and slide it forward before firing. Just enough time for that animal to make a meal out of you.
As I've said before on this forum: the AR-15 used in Newtown is simply a .223 hunting rifle with doo-dads attached to it to give it a military look. The .223 bullet is used for 'varmint' hunting – rabbits, squirrels, up to coyotes. In many states they are illegal to use on larger game (wild boar, deer, etc, as they do not have the penetrating power to kill the animal with one shot. So much for 'High Powered' for the AR-15 eh General McChrystal?
AGAIN, THE ISSUE IS NOT WHICH GUNS SHOULD WE BAN, IT'S HOW DO WE BETTER PROTECT OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN? Banning assault rifles and not banning all firearms to achieve some level of security for our schools is like banning Wine to stop drunk driving; there are so many other choices. Handguns (the majority sold are semi-automatic) are the predominant firearm used in gun 'incidents' by a large percentage, but folks want to focus on the 'assault style' weapons because they were used at Newtown. As Ben Shapiro told Piers Morgan, "Justifying banning a specific weapon type because of the victims of Newtown is dancing on the graves of those victims. Saying that a type of weapon should be banned while ascribing it to 'safety of our children' has the same ethical impact of a parent holding their child up to a gunman.
Hand grenades, bazookas and mortars have never been a civilian weapon and are not even remotely considered by firearms enthusiasts as viable 'sport' firearms.
January 12, 2013 1:38 pm
Bingo, Ron.
Not all gun control advocates are looking to ban guns, but many are. That is just a fact, and it is also a fact that politicians rarely say what they really mean when discussing guns. Gabby Giffords and her husband have formed a gun control PAC, seeking to ban assault weapons. Giffords and the other victims of the Tucson shooting were shot with a handgun….so handguns will certainly meet their criteria for "assault weapons." It IS a slippery slope, by design.
The Founding Fathers did not put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights to protect hunters and gamesmen from losing their sport. They put it there to make sure that a potentially tyrannical government could not disarm its citizenry. The generation of Americans that lived through the Great Depression and WWII, witnessed the disarming of the German citizenry, but that does not seem to be a concern of today's liberals who seem to believe that nothing like that would ever happen here….and that anyone who thinks it could is an extremist wingnut.
January 10, 2013 8:22 pm
What is the actual historic results of fiscal austerity ?
January 10, 2013 10:55 pm
another example of the wonders of government – the Post office.
Does free market mail service work – Europe seems to think so.
January 10, 2013 11:11 pm
Are we better off that ever before – Housing edition.
It is interesting to note that though the housing bubble is readily apparent in the graphs, The current housing state appears to be a return to the trend line rather than a catastrophic failure – i.e. housing affordability is about where the long term trends indicate it would be, and the anomaly is the bubble.
I would also note that the median american home (or apartment) is twice the size of one in Europe (atleast), and twice the size it was 4 decades ago.
January 13, 2013 3:43 pm
I have little doubt that Rick and many so called moderates like him would eventually get to confiscating all weapons.
That is how "moderate" infringement on rights works.
First, you impose a small infringement – it sounds reasonable, the cost is not too high, then when it fails and you get another Newtown type incident – because there will alwaays be another, you decide that your minor imposition was not sufficient and you go a step further. This continues until there is no semblance of whatever right you started with left.
Nor is this specific to guns. Whenever you allow any infringement on any right without a clear bright line defining in a principled way the limits of allowable government infringement that is what you get.
Article I Section 10 of the Constitution bars the government from interfering in any way with contracts. A contract is any freely entered agreement between two people. For most of the history of this country that created an almost impenetrable barrier to the regulatory state. The contracts clause was an insuperable barrier to the New Deal and it had to go.
Today that portion of Article 1 Section 10 is meaningless.
All the legislation that requires the government to receive preferential treatment – common in medicare, social security, …. would all be unconstitutional if the contracts clause had the least teeth. All the legislation that prohibits privately contracting for a service that government provides – such as the exclusivity of medicare, would be unconstitutional.
Mandates – such as PPACA would be unconstitutional.
Most of modern government would be impossible if government was not allowed to interfere with the otherwise free and legal actions of ordinary people.
The importance of the contracts clause fell in a single event, but the intrusions on our basic rights that followed were all imposed in tiny steps that all seemed reasonable at the time.
That is how we lose our liberty – by little bits, in order to achieve some more important public good, that never actually gets accomplished.
Again look at the real world. It is beyond any doubt that we are all far better of than 50, 100, 200 years ago. But what of that improvement is attributable to anything government has done ?
Just as an example automotive safety has improved dramatically in the past 50 years.
There have been several clear broad regulatory actions that government advocates like to credit for saving lives. Manditory safety belts, Air Bags, but looking at the trend for traffic safety, it is a continuous gradual improvement with no significant departures from the trend. Automotive safety did not radically improve with the imposition of 55 mph speed limits, nor decline when they disappeared, there is no point at which you can say – there we imposed seatbelts, or there airbag laws took effect.
Numerous factors have improved driving safety – some have been human – we are actually becoming better drivers, same are market driven – cars themselves are gradually becoming safer – and we value that fairly highly.
The government has lobbied us HARD to move to smaller more fuel efficient cars. Yet look arround on the roads ? The average car is bigger and far safer than 5 decades ago.
We drive mini-vans and SUV's. Nor is it Tim Taylor types that are driving this. It is soccer mom's seeking to safely transport their families who have defied government edicts to buy small efficient cars. Even the poor buy bigger cars when they are able.
When I was a child the poor areas of my community had a plethora of "rice rockets" if there were cars at all. Now the common cars in that community are SUV's and BMW's.
Often older than those in more affluent areas, but still not Ford Focuses – and Japan produces luxury cars for the american market not tiny small cars.
we are buying what we want – not what government wants. Not what those who purportedly know better are telling us to buy. And as a result we are safer. That choice has involved trade-offs. Gas might be significantly cheaper if cars all got 45mph (or it might not because demand drives production, exploration, advanced technology and ultimately lowers costs.
My point is that we have done pretty well for ourselves – not because of, but in spite of government.
We will not be any safer if we ban "assault weapons" or high capacity ammunition magazines. Most of us intuitively grasp that. It is very hard to get the results we want when regulating at the center of action. It is impossible when we try to regulate the fringes. We might as well ban lightning as ban assault weapons the probability of acheiving our desired results is about as great.
But after banning magazines and assault weapons, when there is another Newton – and there will be, the need to have government "do something" will be no weaker.
Those who see a small loss of someone else's freedom as acceptable now will be just as willing to impose another small loss on someone else then.
January 13, 2013 3:57 pm
For the record I do not think confiscation of all weapons is what Rick intends, but it does not matter, because that is where his approach and logic eventually lead.
Further it is clear from his views on the regulation of speech,that Rick is perfectly willing to impose draconian infringements.
January 14, 2013 4:25 pm
Fuck You ASSHOLE
January 15, 2013 12:31 am
Rick, could be that there were enough Libertarians that came before us that stopped government from doing what we fear this time also. You trust elected officials. I do not. They have done nothing to gain my trust, just like most everyone else. Until someone earns my trust, I verify and test what their actions until that trust is earned. So far, elected officals have done nothing to make me think they will not take away rights one step at a time.
January 14, 2013 4:39 pm
So, Bloomberg's limiting of prescription drugs in order to curb drug abuse, despite the possibility that some poor people would have to "suffer a little bit" doesn't persuade you, Rick? Granted, I addressed this further down in the thread, but I see Bloomberg and his ilk as elitist big government at its worst, and I do think we tolerate that stuff at our own peril.
January 14, 2013 6:14 pm
You have the power to do anything that you can persuade our government to do that is within the boundaries of what it can do.
If you do not believe there are any definable limits to government, that means that you potentially have the power to do anything.
It also means that anyone else has the same power.
Without any defined limits at best you are talking about pure democracy, which is the system that compelled Socrates to drink hemlock.
At worst you have chosen a path towards totalitarianism – if you are lucky a benign totalitarianism that mostly serves you – at the expense of others.
Regardless, absent clearly defined limits to government
you are inevitably talking about continuous loss of rights until you have few or none.
In the world as YOU imagine it, the only question is at what rate we lose rights, not whether.
If it makes you happy to have me conceded that it might take many generations to get to servitude – fine.
But so long as you are NEVER willing to say this far but no father, So long as you ALWAYS see a government solution to every problem, you are on "The Road to Serfdom", and all we are debating is how fast we are traveling.
One of the reasons that you are progressive, is that you do not seem to grasp that.
That is an issue of LOGIC not one of ideology.
All expansions of government power, all regulations – no matter how beneficial come at a cost in freedom. You may chose to be blind to that, but it does not make it untrue.
If you believe that you are still free – try to start almost any business, try to open a resturaunt, a hair salon a lemonade stand.
You may be able to do so, but it is far harder than 50 years ago.
And for many poorer people who could have done it in the past, it is impossible today.
Maybe, just maybe the liberal argument that this has made us somehow safer is true – though I would argue that most if not all that improvement was inevitable, but even if the liberal claim is true, we have sacrificed alot of freedom – freedom that is most beneficial to those at the bottom not those at the top, in return for small improvements in security.
January 14, 2013 6:27 pm
I want to address some of your issues separately.
First taxes are NOT really lower than at anytime in your lifetime.
All that is changed is how they are collected.
The Federal government currently takes almost 25% of what we produce – that is up from a fairly stable average of 18.5% since WWII.
The overwhelming majority of that cost is paid by the richest 10% of us – who are also paying the lowest rates ever – which is about as good a proof as you could ever get of the laffer curve.
But regardless of tax rates, one quarter of the wealth we produce is being confiscated by government – and that is UP not down.
That government has managed to do that without your noticing does nto make it so.
That our standard of living has doubled over the past 50 years so that what we can buy with what is left over after our taxes is greater may make that less painful, but it does not make the bite of government smaller, and it does not mean that one way or another you are paying it.
Separately, the federal government is spending 1/4 more than it is collecting in taxes. That is a big deal – because either you or your children will eventually have to pay that – that is inescapable.
If our standard of living continues to rise – which it is not doing right now, then paying that increase in the future might not feel too painful – thought the current 25% deficit is too great to be overcome by improvements in standard of living.
So even if you were correct that your taxes were lower than ever before in your life – they are artificially low – the rates are phony, and unsustainable.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that ?
There is no question at all about "IF", only one of "WHEN".
We have time to fix this – but not much. And it will get harder in the future.
January 14, 2013 6:47 pm
You think there has been no loss of freedom ?
For most of my lifetime the US was ranked as the most free country in the world. Now we are no longer in the top ten. We have dropped below Canada – which is not particularly impressive.
Try hitchhiking.
Try not recycling, so we are being forced to waste enormous amounts of effort on something totally unproductive.
Try starting any of myriads of businesses ?
Try building your own home ?
The quintessential example of american architecture – Falling Water would be illegal in myriads of ways today.
Try burning your garbage ?
Try planting a garden in your front yard, or raising a goat in your back yard.
The government will dictate how many pets and of what type they may be.
Try chosing not to have health insurance ?
Try hiring a housekeeper ?
Try getting pain killers at the hospital,
Try getting a large soft drink at the theater
There are myriads more or more things you can not do, or can not do without great difficulty.
Nothing is ever removed from that list, and it grows larger and larger all the time.
You want to ban large ammunition clips – fine. But that will have absolutely zero effect on mass killings and you either know that or should know it. So what are you going to ban after the next mass killing – because there will be one ?
In the US death's from "Assault Weapons" are a tiny, tiny percent of all violent deaths, they are not even a consequential percentage of gun deaths. And the numbers have declined by a factor of 4 in the past decade.
Even if you reduced them to zero you will still have future mass killings – so what are you going to do next ?
I do not honestly beleive that there will ever come a point at which you will see some bad thing happen in the world and be willing to say – government should not respond to this. Sometimes bad things happen, or some bad things have to be tolerated because it is the cost of a free society, and because on net the harm we see is less than that which is unseen.
Again, I will agree the rate at which we are losing our freedoms is slow. The infringements are small.
But they are also endless. The biggest problem is not with Bernie Sanders and his ilk. It is that so called moderates such as yourself, never see any limits. See every problem as needing government intervention. Will accept permanently losing freedom bit by bit, in return for illusions.
January 14, 2013 6:49 pm
If the only place you have seen a loss of rights was smoking, then you are blind. But even so:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemoller.
January 14, 2013 7:02 pm
If you buy two mini-gulps instead of 1 big gulp – then you are both still less free – you have had to work harder, and pay more, and produce more waste to get what you wanted.
Further, you are circumventing the intent of the law – and for your information that too is illegal. Probably Bloomberg will not prosecute you – today. But eventually it will come – and you will be sitting there saying "well being forced to only buy one smaller drink than i want, that is not really too much of an imposition, I am still mostly free.
Recently my wife had a client – he was a squirley guy. He bought into the Y2K mess and removed all his money from the banks prior to the year 2000 – about 250K.
In 2003 he decided that maybe the banks were safe again.
And he started putting his money back into the bank.
But he knew than banks were required to report all cash deposits of 10,000 or more, so he deposited 9,000 at a time. This eventually came to the attention of the police, the DA, the state AG and the US Department of Justice.
They confiscated all his money, through him in jail for several years, and fined him 500K. His crime ? deliberately trying to avoid the bank reporting laws.
No one has charged him with getting his money in a nefarious fashion, or anything else.
Nor is this nearly as unusual as you think.
Across the country, law enforcement is confiscating money and property – because it might have some nexus with criminal activity.
small motel, hotel and resturaunt owners are being advised to keep their property mortgaged – never to own it free and clear, because the government may confiscate it.
They do nto have to charge the owner with anything. They just have to claim that the property may have been used in some pattern of criminal activities. It is not necescary that the owner participated in these, or knew about them. It is not even necescary to prove that they happened with certainty – only that it iwas likely they did.
What motel or hotel or resturant in this country has never had someone conduct a drug deal or prostitution ?
This stuff happens all the time. The media is just more interested in Sandy hook than the local mom and pop motel, so you do not hear about it.
January 13, 2013 6:16 pm
January 13, 2013 4:13 pm
Economics AND gun humor all in one.
January 14, 2013 1:33 am
Some interesting obeservations – if the author of this article is to be beleived, the recent rash of mass school killings with guns STARTED after we banned guns from schools
January 14, 2013 1:36 am
More of the same from an extremely prestigious legal blog.
January 14, 2013 10:02 am
Dave, I think that this specific argument – that gun control will inevitably lead to banning and confiscation – is an argument that well-meaning liberals/moderates reject, because their view of the government as always benevolent is at odds with the limited government view of the founding fathers, who understood that even benevolent rulers were still….well, rulers.
Look at what Mike Bloomberg is looking to do in NYC….restrict the amount of painkillers like oxycontin available to hospitals, in order to curb perscription drug abuse. He's already ordered it done in public hospitals and wants private hospitals to follow. Bloomberg's answer to the question of whether or not this might cause shortages for those who are in pain?
"…supposing it is really true, so you didn't get enough painkillers and you did have to suffer a little bit. The other side of the coin is people are dying and there's nothing perfect … There's nothing that you can possibly do where somebody isn't going to suffer, and it's always the same group [claiming], 'Everybody is heartless.' Come on, this is a very big problem." http://politicker.com/2013/01/bloomberg-slaps-down-criticism-of-painkiller-restriction-plan/
So, curbing the problem of drug abuse trumps the need of people who need pain killers, because it is " a big problem." Unless, of course, were to be, say, Mike Bloomberg, who needed more than a 3 day supply of medication for severe pain.
Because those kinds of laws only apply to the hoi polloi, I suppose. Or, at least that is what Bloomberg, surrounded by guards armed with semi-automatic weapons, apparently believes.
January 14, 2013 2:00 pm
My argument is NOT that if we allow restrictions on the number of rounds of ammunition in a magazine that this will be followed in short order by confiscation of guns.
It is that each small sacrifice of freedom and liberty makes the next easier.
Minor restrictions on guns today will lead to minor restrictions on other things tomorow – like pain killers and soda sizes.
The loss of freedom is accomplished in tiny increments.
We have already lost significant amounts o freedom – the ability of those at the bottom to open their own business today is nearly non-existent.
Most of use have fathers or grandfathers, or great grandfathers that came here with nothing and eventually made something of themselves.
The "Albert Knobs" character from the recent movie was a servant in a boarding home, yet had a reasonably aspiration to be a shop keeper. Numerous other characters managed to go from the dregs to running their own small business.
That is far harder – if not impossible today. Both the poor and the nation suffer because of that.
The primary if not ONLY reason those rungs are missing from our ladder is government regulations intended to make us all safer or otherwise better off.
The left has no grasp that even small losses of freedom have a cost – and those costs are rarely paid by the rich, or big business.
The losses are greatest on those with the least, they are losses of opportunity.
We can and will be safer and better off as a result of the improvements that will occur naturally – without any government action. And those improvements will come without any loss of freedom.
Even assuming that we will be safer and maybe better off as a result of legislation – both of which are far from certain, we will also be less free. We will have less opportunity, beneficial changes – large and small that we can not immagine, will not happen.
Everything government does is a loss of freedom and liberty.
By definition progressive government – government that grows without end no matter have small the increments are, still inevitably ends with slavery – it is "the Road to Serfdom"
Rick and many here are ultimately liberal – not moderate, because for nearly every problem, more government – and therefore less freedom is the answer.
If you can not articulate any principle to define any limit to government the end is slavery. It may take a century but it is still the inevitable end.
That government MUST be limited should be obvious. The debate should be on what principles define those limits.
But we are not having that debate.
January 14, 2013 4:26 pm
Fuck You ASSHOLE
January 14, 2013 3:23 pm
Dave, I understand your theoretical argument. But the average person does not see the loss of liberty coming until it is gone….the old frog in the slowly boiling pot story. Better to argue specifics with an emphasis on rights and freedoms than to argue theory.
Plus, I disa