Friday, January 25, 2013
The only defense/talking points I have heard against gun control legislation are:
1. the government will "eventually"??? ban all guns.
2. we need semi-automatic weapons for self-defense???
We can't just assume that the government will make a "leap" to ban ALL GUNS.....we need good safe legislation to keep us from "ANARCHY". The problem is we DO NOT have trustworthy and honest legislators to do the job!!!"...and some with a "far-right mentality" that "assumes doom & gloom" in any attempt to do that job.
Just because we have "speed laws" does not prevent us from "driving" or possessing a car!!
We have the right to own property....so we can buy a car;
but the state collects a tax on its purchase, your county makes you register it & pay another tax/fee, then you are required to purchase insurance for it, and then to "drive it" you have to obey speed laws along with many other road rule restrictions including, now, wearing seat belts.
Does that prevent you from buying or driving your car ???? NO!!!
Hopefully, it keeps us safer !!!
We have FREE SPEECH, but there are restrictions to prohibit "slander", libel, etc.......
so, on it goes in a "civilized society" where not "everyone" does the "right thing" or has the necessary individual responsibilty we would expect or hope for.
Bold Progessive by Zaid Jilani
The National Rifle Association (NRA), the main gun lobby, has refused to consider any common sense gun reforms following several mass shootings. It has instead chosen to be the primary group working to block reforms.
But the NRA wasn’t always so extreme. In fact, for the majority of its 141 year history, the organization backed gun regulation and rarely if ever claimed that regulations were unconstitutional.
In 1934, the group’s president Karl T. Frederick testified in support of certain gun regulations that later made it into the National Firearms Act of 1934, one of the first federal gun laws. The law regulated “gangster weapons” used by organized crime, such as machine guns and short barrel shotguns.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
THE ROOT CAUSES OF GUN VIOLENCE ARE MANY AS SHOWN ABOVE......
SURE, WE NEED TO KEEP OUR RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS AS GIVEN IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT......(I HAVE MINE AND PLAN TO KEEP IT)
BUT, THERE IS MORE TO FINDING A NEEDED SOLUTION TO THE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA......
"America's political left is culpable here, as well: as a group, the media is the Democrat Party's staunchest political ally, and, refusing to bite the hand that feeds, liberals have doggedly, hypocritically refused to pin certain root-cause labels where they truly belong."
"Many young people, here and abroad, now bedight their bodies with piercings and tattoos in efforts to emulate the deranged freaks (of all races) cavorting about on MTV. The media daily exert a direct, pernicious influence on the comportment of millions of gullible youngsters. Our common culture, mores, and manners (in short, our future ability to live together, peacefully) have all been systematically wrecked -- sold out for money -- by the media elite.
"Do we need better gun laws? Sure."
"Do we need better cybersecurity laws? You bet."
But that's not because we will solve all our problems by increasingly restricting our law abiding populace, it's because we need better laws, period. And, by "better," I don't mean more intrusive. I mean better thought out, better coded, better debugged."
"Our legal system has been subject to the same sort of feature creep that our operating systems struggle under. The code of laws we live under is a spaghetti code of unmanageability and special interests.
If we, as a nation, are to take serious adult action about our serious adult problems, we're going to have to first have to address one of our more serious issues: how we govern and whether we can afford to continue to tolerate the childish behavior of our leaders.
Isn't it about time our politicians grew up and put American interests before Democratic interests or Republican interests, or the interests of the nearest lobbyist with an open checkbook?"
See the article....Guns, the First Amendment, and the Bill of Rights:
There is no doubt that both these situations -- gun violence and cyber violence -- require some legislative attention. The world is changing and our laws need to change along with it.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
I have written about NEWT before......
but despite the sudden and disasterous results of his 2012 campaign,
he remains active in the political scene......WHY??
We all can admit that he is certainly the most EXPERIENCED, KNOWLEDGEABLE, AND ARTICULATE potential candidate out there....
and he even "looks Presidential" !!
(even his opponents agree to that.)
A number of FACTS and QUESTIONS arise....
FIRST, the FACTS:
1. A majority of the vote-eligible public still does not vote.
2. A majority of the vote-eligible public considers themselves dis-enfranchised from the political process.
3. A majority of the vote-eligible public has stated their preference to be "independent" and not aligned with either party.
4. A majority of the vote-eligible public has shown an increasing tendency to be fiscally conservative and socially tolerant on most issues.
5. A majority of the vote-eligible public favors a smaller and Constitutionally bound government.
So, NOW the QUESTIONS:
1. Why is NEWT still active in politics???
Does he plan to run again.....despite his age and the ever-present, age-old baggage he carries??
Will he manage to find a way to carry the moderate, libertarian-minded segment of the voting and non-voting public??
2. Is he simply trying to resurrect his dear-old party...the GOP, despite its reputation of overwhelming distrust and corruption??.....or help establish some New party??
3. Is he just trying to give direction and leadership advice to any new inspiring political candidates??....or just help educate the public??
I probably don't agree with every one of NEWT's positions (never have)....
BUT, he is the most open-minded, forward thinker I know of... that would have the ability to merge this diverse society we have found ourselves in !
I truly hope that he can find it in him to accomplish such a task and lead this nation back on a moral and fiscally sound path!!
If not......the year is young and I still can dream!!!
You can keep track closer by watching his efforts via http://www.gingrichproductions.com/
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Long answer: watch the video above, which lists 8 reasons why your vote for president doesn't matter.
Keep in mind, we are talking about "Presidential Elections"; the situation is somewhat different for local/regional & many statewide elections where individual votes are often tabulated & tallied differently.
Especially when specific propositions are available to vote on in the local ballots.
Here's more analysis:
Subject: WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE
IF YOU CAN'T FIX IT WITH A HAMMER, YOU'VE GOT AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM"
Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best. This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011
"Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job. Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.." Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job."
Monday, August 27, 2012
THE DEATH of the AMERICAN TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.....
Coming to a precinct or theater near you.....
After the first real election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams the two-party system was created. This was during the 1790's .... the two parties were the Federalists and the Democratic–Republican.
By 1796 both parties had a national network of newspapers that attacked each other. Many in congress were hard to classify in the first two years however as time went on this was not true.
After the civil war, and until now, the two parties have been the Republicans and the Democrats.
It used to be a more stable form of government.....until money & corruption (greed & need for re-election) destroyed the core of the two parties !!!
There is no incentive to form a party that consistently gets votes but cannot win an election. As a result, the two political parties usually dominate plurality electoral systems to the disadvantage of smaller third parties.
First, there is the lack of choice. If there are only two parties, then they must reach towards the majority of the country. Therefore, they need to NOT have extreme views, so they both are VERY SIMILAR because their options are limited.
Second, by only having two parties, it limits the potential for change. New ideas that don't follow the norm will most likely be thrown out than be adopted by the two major parties. The policies and the government change very little over time due to the two parties being so closely related.
Third, the two party system does not always provide the best leaders. Each party wants to win, so they will pick the person who has the best chance of winning. That being said, these people they choose may not always be the best leader.