Quick Hits for the Night

I am left with little time to write this evening. I am ecstatic to have my son here for the summer. That is a normal thing for me. What is not normal is that this is a teenager who actually wants to spend time with and hang out with his dad. So I am taking advantage of it by doing just that. It will mean that some nights I don’t get to write as extensively as I would like to do, but I will endeavor to still post an article whenever possible. I appreciate everyone’s understanding. Priorities have to be kept in order. And he is at the top of the list. I initially wanted to give my thoughts on the Obama press conference tonight, but that will take more time than I am left with. So I decided on hitting a topic quickly and letting us discuss it. My quick hit topic for this evening is the Senate proposal that failed yesterday, that would have allowed concealed weapon permits to work from state to state…

I found the article on CNN and I was surprised because I hadn’t heard anything about this proposed legislation. The article from CNN stated the following:

The Senate on Wednesday narrowly rejected a controversial measure to allow people to carry concealed weapons from state to state.

The measure would have required each of the 48 states that currently allow concealed firearms to honor permits issued in other states.

The vote was 58-39 in favor. The amendment needed 60 votes to pass.

The vote split the Democrats, with 20 supporting the measure and 35 opposing it. Two of the Senate’s 40 Republicans — Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio — and both independents, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont, voted against it.

Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, all Democrats, did not vote.

A coalition of mayors that fought the law welcomed its defeat.

“Our bipartisan coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns fought this amendment tooth-and-nail, because we recognize that the laws of one state may not be best for another,” Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston, Massachusetts, said in a statement.

“We will continue to work with our members to support common-sense policies and oppose dangerous ones, like the Thune Amendment that was defeated today,” he said, referring to Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, who sponsored the proposal.

It was the first significant defeat this year for advocates of gun rights, after gun control advocates faced an unexpected setback in May.

Gun rights advocates attached a measure allowing people to carry guns in national parks to credit card legislation. President Obama signed the package into law.

The interstate concealed-weapons proposal was an amendment to a larger defense appropriations bill.

Supporters of the measure argued it would help deter criminals; opponents claimed it would, in effect, force most of the country to conform to regulations in states with the loosest gun-ownership standards.

Opponents of the amendment mounted a huge campaign to stop it.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns — which says it represent more than 450 mayors in 40 states — took out an ad in USA Today opposing the measure.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a campaign co-chairman, opposed the law on a number of grounds, arguing both that it tramples on states’ rights and that guns are dangerous.

“There’s no evidence that if you have a gun, you’re safer,” he said on CNN’s “American Morning” Wednesday. “Quite the contrary. If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed. …

“We have to protect our policemen, protect our citizens. We can’t have all these guns, and it’s reasonable to have each state make their own laws,” he said.

“Wyoming shouldn’t be subject to New York state laws, and we’re going in that direction,” he said. “What’s right for the people of Wyoming isn’t necessarily right for the people of New York and vice versa.”

Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who was a co-sponsor of the amendment, had argued that gun licenses should apply across state lines, like driver’s licenses.

“People travel,” he said on “American Morning.”

“We have truck drivers on our roads, people traveling for vacation in their vehicles, and if you have a license … you should be able to use that license in other states. It should apply like a driver’s license,” he said.

He argued that concealed weapons deter crime.

“Carrying a concealed weapon is a sign of self-defense, self-protection, and I think it lowers crime,” he said.

And he said people carrying guns would still have to obey laws wherever they are.

“The law of the state where that person happens to be at the time are the laws that apply in terms of if you’re allowed to carry a gun into a bar or restaurant. … State rights continue to apply there.”

This is the third time the Senate has considered gun rights this year.

In addition to the national parks measure, Senate gun-rights advocates in the spring attached a measure loosening the District of Columbia’s tight gun control laws to a bill giving full voting rights to Washington’s representative in Congress. That amendment was approved 62-36.

House Democratic leaders, unwilling to loosen the restrictions on gun ownership in the District of Columbia, have let the bill languish.

I have to say that I would have been in favor of such legislation. I often lament the fact that I am not retired. If I were, I would sit around and watch C-SPAN all day so that I could see the debates being waged in Congress. In this case I would have been really interested in hearing the reasoning from those who voted no to this legislation.

So what do you guys think? Is there any valid reason why someone having a concealed weapon permit in North Carolina should not have that permit be honored in Virginia? It seems to me that this would be a fairly easy one. Yet even this was unable to get through Congress. I won’t even get into the fact that there is no reason the government needs to be involved in anything to do with guns anyway. I have always been pretty clear with my stance on gun control like this. But I will let all of you begin to weigh and in and I will then weigh in with further thoughts.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Cyndi P says:

    I think if someone is authorized to conceal carry in one state, they should be able to to carry in another state. I’ve noticed the law abiding gun owners aren’t the ones committing the gun crimes. Its the criminals, you know, the ones without the permits that are responsible for gun crime.

    Don’t the politicians have more pressing things to do than take away our Second Ammendment right? I could give them some ideas on that one……

    I saw this on a T-shirt once:
    Blaming guns for violence is like blaming pencils for misspelled words.

  2. Vinnster says:

    This is a position the Left has taken for decades and for the life of my I can not understand why. According to the Left’s logic, the more guns in a given population, the more gun crime. But that is simply just not true. If there was a single piece of data that reinforced their position, you would hear it quoted ad nauseam. The fact is as soon as gun control is reduced and citizens are allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon, violent crime against women drops considerably.

    The rural areas in America have the highest concentration of guns per capita, then suburban, then cities. According to the Left’s logic there should be more gun crime in that order. More in the rural areas, then less in the suburban areas and the lowest in the cities, yet the exact opposite is true.

    The simple fact is the more guns you have in the hands of law abiding citizens the lower the gun crime per capita. It is common knowledge among the criminal types, (I have a little experience here) the more the criminal thinks you may be armed the more likely they will pass you up and move to an easier target.

    Unfortunately for the city folk and fortunately for the country folk the above facts have a net affect of attracting criminal types to the cities to commit their crimes. Criminals follow the course of least resistance. As the saying goes, the criminals have “a target rich environment” of unarmed and generally wimpy liberal men in the cities to prey on.

    Since the facts do not in any way support the Left’s position, you have to wonder why they want to restrict everyones’ right to carry a concealed weapon.

    • LadyNess33 says:

      I agree with what your saying 100%. I have said the same thing many of time when this discussion came up. However I think the important part of this legislation was that it was another attack on State rights. Even though the government has chosen to ignore States rights on several occasions I think that it is important for us to keep the States in control over their legislation. I have stood by the States right to legislate on every topic and will not be bias on this one even though I like Guns…

      • Dis-agree, with respect. I like states rights, but my thought is the bill of rights applies to all states, or else, any state can outlaw freedom of speech.

        • LadyNess33 says:

          I agree that the Bill of Rights needs to be applied to all states. The legislation regarding how someone gets a gun license is up to the State so each State should be respected for their own way of doing it. Since the license is issued from the states and not the Federal Government. Unless a uniformed set of guidelines are set in place for a nation wide license that the States agree is fair ultimately the states will have different rules for having one. For this reason I think that it is fair to say that someone cannot carry a gun in a state that they have not received a license from.

          • Would you argue that the same situation should apply to driver’s licenses? So I am not allowed to drive in any other state without first obtaining a separate license in that state? There’s no nation-wide license or standards, and you still have to obey local traffic laws, so it’s effectively the same situation.

            • Black Flag says:

              DKII,

              That is not a good example (ie: driver’s license).

              It is by an international treaty signed by all nations 1949 that made any person or vehicle registered in a signatory jurisdiction is valid in all signatory jurisdiction.

              This allows you to drive you Montana car (with fewer pollution controls) in California or Canada or Mexico, etc. without having to get licensed there.

    • Hey Vinnster,

      You said: you have to wonder why they want to restrict everyones’ right to carry a concealed weapon.

      I have a theory on that! Anyone want to hear it?

      🙂

      • Vinnster says:

        Hi Cynci P,

        Let’s hear it!

        • Okay, here goes….

          I believe it was BF who pointed out that all power comes from the barrel of a gun. So, if you want absolute power, then you require absolute power over the guns, right?

          Obama & Co. appear to be rather authoritarian in nature. I believe most Americans won’t tolerate an authoritarian government. So the only way for Obama & Co to control American citizens is ensure they are unable to mount an effective defense against an the government. The government gets the guns, and the people get sticks and stones, like in Iran.

          When the people are disarmed and weak, they will be much easier to control.

          • Vinnster says:

            That is interesting and it may very well come true 🙂

          • I don’t care what guns you have or how many you own, but if you think that the firepower you have is anything in comparison to the machine guns, artillery, tanks, and fighter jets available to the military you are sorely mistaken. Your guns might protect you from robbers, rapists and ganbangers, but they’ll do you no good against a modern military. Red Dawn was just a movie.

            • Black Flag says:

              Of course, Earl!

              But I guess the Iraqi and Taliban can’t hear you.

              They seem to be doing rather well against the most powerful military might the world has ever known.

              Your response is typical of most Statists – that is, the destruction of the State equals defeat for the People.

              But it doesn’t.

              Vietnamese taught America that lesson but Americans forgot.

              • I figured somebody would bring up Viet Nam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Did you forget that all of your examples were or are being supplied with real military hardware. They didn’t pick up a few .30-06’s at Gander Mtn. or Cabella’s.

                ‘Statist?’ Get a grip.

              • Black Flag says:

                Yeah, like 1912 rifles used by some of the Taliban.

                Statist – you are! It’s obvious that the State destruction does not defeat the People.

                You forgot that.

                As far as home defense, as Yamamoto said – “A rifle behind every blade of grass…”

                There is no way or means to defeat the USA mainland – short of nuclear annihilation – which would never occur.

                Why wouldn’t it? There would be no offensive threat from the USA. Any invasion by others would be political not genocidal in nature. (That is, replacing the government of the USA).

                That would be an impossible task.

              • Ever read Catch-22? You remind me of the old man in the brothel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bjBAez9cm4

              • The Iraqi’s are more interested in getting us out of there so they can fight each other without any meddling from us. The biggest problem is that there isn’t one group of good guys and another group of insurgents. There are at least two groups (Shiites and Sunnis) who are vying for control. When we toppled Saddam’s regime we just poured gas on a civil war that had been smoldering during Saddam’s reign.

                The Taliban might never have taken over if we hadn’t abandoned the Afghanis after the Soviet withdrawal.

                We knew from the very beginning Viet Nam was un-winnable. Read ‘Secrets’ by Daniel Ellsberg.

              • Black Flag says:

                Iraq:

                Whether or not the factions want to fight each other, the fact that they’ve fought the USA to a stalemate is the point.

                Afghan:

                The Taliban were the saviors of Afghanistan after the Russian withdrawal.

                The warlords began their terror, and it was the Taliban – which means “Student” – who decided that the people had enough. They were a broadly popular and well supported.

                No insurgency can be defeated by military means. The goals are different.

                The military are trying to achieve victory and create a legitimate State. The insurgents are trying to de-legitimatize the State.

                The only way to defeat them is by genocide (USA vs Philippines insurgency; Russia vs Chechens) or by counter-insurgent, small unit tactics.

              • Chris Devine says:

                We fought ourselves to a stalemate. By disbanding the Iraqi police and trying to start from scratch we left a huge power vacuum just waiting to be filled by whoever could scrounge up enough arms. Perhaps if the invasion of Iraq was well-planned and not rushed into we might have averted most of this mess. But Dick and Donald wanted to have their war, so they concocted whatever stories they needed to in order to get enough public support for this ill-conceived operation.

                The “legitimate state” you refer to is nothing but a regime friendly to U.S. corporate interests. As long as Halliburton, Blackwater, and Bechtel get to make billion$ off of our involvement there, we will continue to send our men and women off to be slaughtered.

                “War is a racket.” Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

              • Black Flag says:

                I can do nothing but agree with you on this matter, Chris.

    • Vinnster,
      Do you have any sources or references to back up your statements and ‘facts’?

      • Vinnster says:

        Hi Todd,

        Spend some time over at the DoJ statistics section under gun control. Drill into the crime by demographic data. But be warned if you are a liberal…real life data can be shocking when it does not fit your belief system.

        If you are a conservative/libertarian then you will know what the data shows before you read it.

        • Vinnster,
          It’s not my job to find facts for you – that’s your job. If you don’t back up your statements, don’t expect to be taken seriously.

          Here’s a quote from Kathy saying Ray & I don’t do our own homework. Seems like this should be changed to “Vinnster”:

          I also have done my own homework, however, will not do others homework, another frequent comeback when, especially Ray and Todd disagree with something.

          If you know what the data shows before you read it, then you are obviously not interested in facts.

          If you are a conservative/libertarian then you will know what the data shows before you read it.

          • Vinnster says:

            Sorry I do not spoon feed public data. If you feel my comment was in error, please feel free to cite study or data that shows there is more gun related crime in the country where there is far more guns per capita and much less gun crime per capita in the cities like Chicago or DC where they have most restrictive guns laws.

            If you take the position that I must prove to you what is common knowledge, I will decline wasting my time and let you declare victory.

            If you really want to embarrass me go find data that proves me wrong.

            • Vinnster says:

              Thirty second search (I could not resist, it was so easy)
              http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htius.pdf

              Large city Small city Suburban Rural
              Weapon
              Gun homicide 59.3% 10.6% 19.8% 10.4%

              • Vinnster,
                I know what the gun and crime stats are. It’s the assumptions you make based on that information that I question:

                The rural areas in America have the highest concentration of guns per capita, then suburban, then cities. According to the Left’s logic there should be more gun crime in that order. More in the rural areas, then less in the suburban areas and the lowest in the cities, yet the exact opposite is true.

                This is so vague it means nothing. What about rifles/shotguns vs handguns?

                The simple fact is the more guns you have in the hands of law abiding citizens the lower the gun crime per capita. It is common knowledge among the criminal types, (I have a little experience here) the more the criminal thinks you may be armed the more likely they will pass you up and move to an easier target.

                So, are you a criminal?

                Unfortunately for the city folk and fortunately for the country folk the above facts have a net affect of attracting criminal types to the cities to commit their crimes.

                This is my favorite! Are you implying that people born/raised in the country become criminals and then go to the city because it’s easier to commit crimes?? LOL!

                You can’t be serious? Cities don’t attract criminals, and criminals don’t naturally flow to cities. Congestion and poverty in cities leads to confrontation which leads to violence.

                Criminals follow the course of least resistance. As the saying goes, the criminals have “a target rich environment” of unarmed and generally wimpy liberal men in the cities to prey on.

                So you think inter-city men are “unarmed and generally wimpy liberal men in the cities to prey on”?
                And victims of violent crime are “unarmed and generally wimpy liberal men in the cities to prey on”?

                Your generalizations are quite amazing.

              • Vinnster says:

                Poor little Liberal 

                Now that the data clearly shows there is no correlation to gun concentration and crime the Liberal tries to change the subject with hyperbole. So I ask again, please provide a single shred of evidence gun crime is reduced by gun control. The problem is you can not because it simply is not true.

                Now for fun I will address your distractions.

                “This is so vague it means nothing.”

                I am sorry I can not address your comprehension problems. But as a side note country folk love handguns just as much as long rifles. You might want to get out of the city a bit more.

                “So, are you a criminal?”

                In the Liberals eyes I am. I love America, believe it is an individuals responsibility to take care of themselves, I know a person can become wealthy the old fashioned way by working hard over a longer period of time and living below their means, and I consider income tax a slavery tax. So yes to a Liberal I am a criminal.

                “This is my favorite! Are you implying that people born/raised in the country become criminals and then go to the city because it’s easier to commit crimes?? LOL!
                You can’t be serious? Cities don’t attract criminals, and criminals don’t naturally flow to cities. Congestion and poverty in cities leads to confrontation which leads to violence.
                This one is my favorites too! It tells us so much about how Liberals have such a poor understand of human behavior.

                Yes indeed there are criminal types that are born in the country. They learn quickly they have a few choices. Stay in the country and end up in jail for a long time or dead. You see country folk are not hug-a-thuggers. We do not tolerate it. The other choice is to move to the city and they do. Not to mention the Liberal culture that teaches, it is always someone else’s fault and you never have to take responsibility for your actions, disproportionately creates more criminals. Look no further that the African American Community that has been under the thumb of Liberal culture since the 1960s.

                But my best laugh came from the last line. No, congestion and poverty does not cause crime. It is the culture of the people that live in those conditions. There are many places in the world that have much higher congestion (Japan,) or poverty ( many countries have more poverty, but less crime) and do not have the crime we have in our cities. You must have skipped Sociology?

                “So you think inter-city men are “unarmed and generally wimpy liberal men in the cities to prey on”?
                And victims of violent crime are “unarmed and generally wimpy liberal men in the cities to prey on”?

                As a group, yes. Liberal men are as a rule, physically wimps and sissies. There are exceptions to the rule, but the in general it is true.

                Now that we have addressed your distractions…for the last time I might add.

                Now will you please address my original statement and provide any data to dispute there is no relationship to more gun control and lower crime. The fact is, it is just the opposite.
                Until you address that issue I will ignore any future posts knowing the great Liberal Intellectual Elitists could not rise to the occasion and prove the country bumpkin was wrong and could only continue to post with distractions.

                Thanks for the laughs!!

              • Vinnster,
                Why are you asking me to show evidence that gun crime is reduced by gun control? Did I say that’s true? Have I advocated for gun control? Or are you just making another assumption that all liberals want to outlaw all guns?

                That’s the problem when you lump everyone who doesn’t agree with you into one big bad enemy. You get it wrong most of the time.

                I do believe the proliferation of illegal hand guns in the cities is a problem. Stopping that is not an easy problem to solve, and ‘gun control’ in general will not have any affect. In general, I think we need more enforcement of existing laws to get the hand guns off the street, but I don’t have a specific solution to that problem.

                I’d love to have a rationally discussion about that, but most people just jump on the “no gun control” band wagon whenever the topic comes up.

                So, are you a criminal?

                This was a joke. I was expecting you to explain that you’re involved in/with law enforcement in some way, but you choose not to explain. How about now?

                So yes to a Liberal I am a criminal.

                This does not fit my definition of a criminal. Once again you are making assumptions and applying them incorrectly.

                Congestion and poverty in cities leads to confrontation which leads to violence.

                This was just a general reference. I thought we were talking about the USA, where our multi-cultural heritage can lead to problems in cities. I guess my bad assumption.

                I’m sure there are some criminals born in the county that then move to the city, but I think that’s a very small minority of the criminals in the cities. Just my opinion – no facts to back that up…

                You must have skipped Sociology?

                Actually, I didn’t skip sociology. I quite enjoyed it. I’ve been running a sociology experiment (mostly by accident!) on this blog and it’s working quite well…

                As a group, yes. Liberal men are as a rule, physically wimps and sissies. There are exceptions to the rule, but the in general it is true.

                I don’t know how to respond to this. Does this assumption make you feel big and tough? Do you think putting down others makes you a bigger man? I now people of many political beliefs, and they don’t fit in any physical stereotypes.

                You might want to get out of the city a bit more.

                I was thinking about this this morning while sitting on our dock. I was watching two adult bald eagles teach their young to fly and try to catch fish. The young had just started flying a few weeks ago, and it was a windy morning and the young haven’t learned to play the air currents smoothly yet. It was quite entertaining, especially when one of the adults caught a fish, and the two young chased after the adult trying to get the fish.

                You see, I live in northern Wisconsin, in the woods, in between two lakes (the eagle’s nest is on the lake behind our house, just a 1/4 mile away), on a small stream, at the end of a 1/2 mile private road, at the end of a 1/2 mile private road, 15 miles from the nearest town (pop 976).

                But, I still try to take your advise everyday – the less time I spend in any city the better!

    • Murphy's Law says:

      Vinnster said- “This is a position the Left has taken for decades and for the life of me I can not understand why”………..”Since the facts do not in any way support the Left’s position, you have to wonder why they want to restrict everyones’ right to carry a concealed weapon.”

      Since when have the facts about the relationship between gun ownership and crime ever stopped the Left from wanting to take our guns away? Anyone who is hellbent on an agenda (on the right or the left) will not care about facts.

      And I don’t wonder why they want to restrict our rights to own and carry- it is just as Cyndi said in her post, though it started waaaaaay before Obama. They can control us if they can take our guns away.

      I agree with your position on guns, V, but I have to disagree with you when you said you “don’t spoon feed public data”. That was a cop-out answer and a condescending one at that. All Todd asked of you was to back up your facts. If I remember correctly, the website D13 is setting up will require every blogger to back up his/her position with not only facts but the source of those facts. One of the biggest problems of the MSM and the net (just to name a couple of examples) is that statements are made as though factual when they have NO basis in fact……when their stats are actually researched it turns out it was Koolaid…….but too late, the public just drank it down without thinking. And they know that, so they continue to do it……..they can get away with it and influence people. So if you don’t want to be like the Libs…….back up your facts.

  3. From my understand of what the politicians have been saying, it’s about different levels of training and competence. So instead of just falling into a non-constructive rant, how about seeking a solution? I’m an electrician here in Canada, and my licence is applicable only to where I earned my licence. But if I wish to work or live in another province, I have to be certified in that province. But there is a higher-level of licencing, and it is earned by demonstrating an increased level of proficiency (take a test) in my craft. If I have earned this “Inter-provincial” licence, it is good for all of Canada.
    So here’s my proposal, maybe pass it along to the NRA to impliment. Just set up a high quality concealed gun standard and training program that is acceptable to all states, sell the concept to the politicians, and it should be easily passed into law.
    The NRA should take a lead in this. It would suit their agenda, promote a higher level of competence and training, and break down barriers to universal gun ownership.

    • Naten53 says:

      Dave you bring up a good point one that I did not consider yet. I was going to say that drivers licenses are issued at different degrees of requirements in each state, yet are honored in every state, such as age, junior license, how often you have to renew, violation enforcement, etc.

      But with the realization of knowing about professional trade licenses, there are few things that are automatically recognized state to state. Some might be easily transferable by applying and sending the other state a check, some states might make you take their license exam.

      It was also my impression that states set their own regulations on firearm restrictions, look at open carry for example, or weapons that are banned in others. To me I think it is a states rights issue unless there is a standard.

      Can anyone name any other licenses that automatically transfer into another state other than drivers? Off hand I can’t think of any.

      • Naten53 says:

        I should have also stated that I support concealed carry nationwide, I don’t think this amendment was good, or the way to do it.

      • Marriage

        Pilot?

        • Naten53 says:

          Good point on marriage, I asked a co worker about pilot’s because he has been looking into getting a licesne and he said that he is pretty sure it is a FAA licesne, and another co worker who’s dad is a pilot and he agrees, so it is a federal and not a state thing.

          • Correct. Funny thing about pilot’s license, if you fly a plane without one, the FFA cannot do anything to you. There are limits, but it is legal to fly a plane without a license, I think its up to 4000′.

            • 1500 AGL in controlled airspace. 4K in uncontrolled airspace. Used to have a license but fuel prices killed that hobby.

              • I think there are type limitations as well. You can’t joyride in a 757 as long as you stay below 4,000 ft, regardless of where you are.

              • Black Flag says:

                Correct, Earl.

                The law allows Ultralight flying with no license.

                For smaller planes, you need a Sport Pilot license.

                For everything else, you need full Pilot license.

                “In the United States no license or training is required by law for ultralights, but training is highly advisable. For light-sport aircraft a sport pilot certificate is required, which is similar in requirements to other countries’ ultralight license.”

                However – here’s a point.

                If you have a pilot license, you can fly any airplane – including 757 as long as there are no passengers.

                To fly with passengers, you need to be certified on that plane.

                Other rules of restricted airspace still apply of course.

              • I think you need to be type certified even if you don’t have an ATP. Plus the ratings you need before you can fly a 757 are substantial. Just ask John Travolta.

              • Black Flag says:

                No.

                The rules are very clear.

                John wants to fly with passengers.

                Thus, he has a lot of work to do.

                If you don’t want to fly with passengers, then you simply need to buy the plane.

                I’m not sure where you could land it – all large airports are controlled.

                But if you had your own landing strip…..

        • Hi JAC….clever.

          • Thanks.

            My biggest heartburn over this was that the opponents LIED and got away with it. I heard Bloomberg on radio yesterday going on and on about how “Criminals” would be able to carry guns into bars and restaraunts because of this law.

            Nobody challenged this accusation in any of the interviews I read or heard.

            Top O’ the Mornin Colonel
            JAC

            • Yeah, I know. Saw that. Well, you know the adage….if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. What actually galls the insides is where people think that gun control will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Makes ya wanna spit nails.

        • JAC,

          Not all marriage…

      • Naten,

        DL’s are not a “right”. Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc, are supposedly not granted by the government, but by the creator. They are recognized
        by the constitution & bill of rights.

        Another point to ponder, if a state requires you to store your firearm in a locked container(trunk), how can you “bear” your firearm if attacked? Spitfire said, “prior to getting to Maryland, I must stop my vehicle, unload both of my kitty-cats and store them in such a way that I cannot easily get to them (i.e. in the trunk of the vehicle, etc.”

        Maryland has denied her the right to bear arms, as she cannot reasonably reach them in an emergency, such as car jacking.

      • The problem with drawing parrallels to driving or being a licensed electrician and gun ownership, is that gun ownership is a basic RIGHT, enshrined in our constitution as something that our governemtn, at any level can’t restrict in any way shape or form. Driving and professional licesnses are PRIVILEGES, which the government, at the apprpriate level should regulate. If a politican tried to come up with a bill to license and regulate voters, or reporters, or ministers, the left would howl and you wouldn’t hear the end of it. Those are all things that are enumerated rights in the Constitution, but won’t see Mayor Bloomberg trying to restrict those.

        • Are you saying that if its not listed in the Constitution then our rights become privileges to be handed out by the govt?

          • USWeapon says:

            Excellent question JAC…. I was thinking the same thing. I am interested in the answer.

            • Kristian Stout says:

              I’m just guessing here, but it seems to me that since motorized vehicles weren’t even a thought at the time the Constitution was drafted that driving is indeed a “right”. Without the right to drive we can’t work or do the things that we need to do to function in life. So, just because that isn’t spelled out in the Constitution doesn’t mean that it isn’t a right.

        • I agree that your Constitution does allow the ownership of guns. But the reality of the situation is that despite your personal feelings and wishes, gun control is in effect. Just the concept of requiring a concealed weapon permit flies in the face of the Second Amendment. But face the harsh reality, gun control is in effect, is practiced, and get over it.
          I’m talking about this specific issue, about carrying concealed guns across state lines.
          Find a solution to THIS problem, and I believe it is possible. Because you can’t roll back all the legislation each state has concerning carrying concealed weapons. If you wish, that is another battle that has to be waged on a large scale, and at the time most opportune.

        • Black Flag says:

          Driving is not a privilege, it is a right!

          You DO NOT NEED A LICENSE to drive a car

          If there is one thing that gets people all confused, this is probably the big one.

          You need a license to drive on a public road – but if you drive on your own property, you DO NOT NEED A LICENSE.

          The traffic laws DO NOT APPLY to private property (if it did, car racing would be illegal).

          • You might as well point out that you don’t need a license to perform open-heart surgery on yourself. What good is driving a car if you can’t go anywhere?

            • Black Flag says:

              I doubt you can operate on yourself.

              —-

              I dunna know – I guess it depends on how big your property is….

              …but NASCAR track owners seem to do well enough having cars drive in big circles.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi Dave,

      I understand your point and they do make logical sense. However, these words take precedence:

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      ******************

      Nowhere in that sentence do I see any words that places a “limit” on a person’s right to keep and bear Arms based upon ability and/or location.

      I am an advocate for Firearm Safety, not Firearm Control.

      Best Regards,
      RS

      “Average Response Time to a 911 Call – Over 4 Minutes”
      “Average Response Time to a .357 – 1400 FPS”

      • Thank you for your reply Spitfire, and I wish a good morning to you.
        I do understand and sympathise with you on wishing to preserve your rights as defined in the Constitution. But instead of wadding this into a big ball and attempting to fight it as a complete package, I perceive it as two distinct issues. There is the right to bear arms, and that right is to be fought in other battles. But this cross-state concealed issue can be sidestepped by adopting something similar to what I propose.
        But the immediate issue is carrying concealed weapons across state lines. So find a solution to the problem.
        Look, gun control is in place right now, accept this harsh truth. In some states, you are required to take a course, and demonstrate responsibility and proficiency before you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Be a realist, right now that isn’t going to go away. And this is part of the big picture, how you define your rights, and how the states define them. That is part of the big picture, and that battle is to be fought at a different time and place as in this specific cross-border concealed issue.
        So just find a workable solution to this one issue, it will not dilute or diminish your argument about gun control.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi again Dave,

          As I mentioned to you, I am a Firearm Safety Advocate which makes me a realist in understanding that firearms can be very dangerous in the hands of a person who is not familiar with their features and use.

          The current laws surrounding firearms — some are good, some are bad. As a responsible citizen who was interested in obtaining a concealed weapon permit, I acquired the appropriate training, followed the appropriate process and paid the inappropriate fees. Every 5 years, I will follow the same process to renew my permit. Other than the fees, I really don’t mind because, you see, during those 5 years, I could break bad and become a felon or have gone completely off the deep-end (crazy)…this is a check and balance to ensure that I can still legally own a gun and meet legal criteria to conceal-carry.

          I would like to advocate mandatory Firearm Safety Training in our public schools…like it or not, with the 2nd Amendment, it is apart of our Constitution, History and Heritage.

          Dave, I “personally” think that your ideas have merit.

          Best Regards,
          RS

          “Average Response Time to a 911 Call – Over 4 Minutes”
          “Average Response Time to a .357 – 1400 FPS”

          • LadyNess33 says:

            Good afternoon Spitfire,

            Your idea for a mandatory Firearms Safety Training in our public schools is a interesting one. Obviously many people would be against this idea. The most argumentative problem with this would be that if children are taught how to use firearms they will be more likely to commit crime. Children are known to be naive and to make mistakes, wouldn’t making them more comfortable with guns cause more deaths and violence?

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Hello LadyNess,

              I am not advocating the teaching of actual firearm use, truly, that would go over like a stinker in Church.

              I am advocating Firearm Safety (theory/textbook).

              Everytime I hear about a child finding a loaded weapon and accidently shooting him/herself or another child, I get really upset — specifically at the stupid gun owner that allowed that to happen by not taking the proper safety measures.

              Public schools have curriculum on all sorts of dangerous weapons; they recognize this and have built-in curriculum on the safe use of those said weapons.

              Best Regards,
              RS

              • check out NRA’s Eddie Eagle gun safety program. California outlawed it, could not find a replacement, and had to bring it back.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                LOI…

                Thank you for the heads-up. I checked out the program last night and will be ordering a sample of it from the NRA to provide the training to my children.

                When I was growing up, I had very early hands-on training with my father on handguns/rifles that was VERY HEAVY on safety…this is why:

                While stationed in Miami, my father, a Marine and his friend, a Miami Police officer were staging a mock judo dismarming tactic to an armed assailant. Dad was the “victim”. The officer was bringing the handgun up and Dad was going to chop it down. When the “attack” started, and Dad “chopped down” the “UNLOADED” service revolver discharged into my father’s abdomen and blew a huge hole out of his back. He almost died from this…Had he, then I wouldn’t be here.

                I have a living example of what guns can do to show my children and we look at his belly often 🙂 to discuss safety.

                Every person who owns a gun should have a HEAVY respect for the potential damage and take ALL precautions and use the common sense that God gave them…i.e. DO NOT POINT A GUN UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED FOR IT TO DISCHARGE AT WHAT YOU ARE POINTING AT!!!!!!

                Thank you again for the link. I also read the volunteer opportunities at NRA on Eddie Eagle and I may be interested in giving some of my time on this!

                Best Regards,
                RS

              • How would you feel about the teaching of contraceptive use?

    • Good morning, Dave. I have to disagree ONLY in one concept. (see post #5). It is and should be a State right and never a federal mandate. The States can handle it, but once out of the State control….never to return to State control. Texas will fight a Federal Mandate but will support individual States Rights and the same idea you suggested. We are actually putting forth an amendment to our State Constitutional right to carry that requires other permit holders in other states to meet the minimum requirements in our state. They can do this on line and the practical exam can be set up in any large city and only takes $25.00 and one hour of time.

      • D13;

        Texas is a great state, but Alaska is better relative to gun laws. Their law states that if you can legally own a handgun you do not need a permit to carry, and they honor all other states.

        Now that is how it should be.

        Good Morning to you

        CM

    • Dave E,

      Some politicians are opposed to any legal gun ownership. Their intent is to outlaw all guns. So the statement, “the politicians have been saying, it’s about different levels of training and competence”, while that true for some, others will use it as a way to make sure no one is competent.

      Here an example of the effect of today’s gun laws.

      Washington Post says police and lawyers are unsure about what is legal and what is illegal–at least with respect to members of Congress and their staff. The DC police say Senators may have guns in their offices, but it would be a crime for the members to carry or transport a handgun from their residence to their office. To get around that bizarre reading of the law, one lawyer suggests that Senators have a DC police cruiser transport their weapons to and from their offices.

      http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/03/29/dc-gun-laws/

    • USWeapon says:

      DaveE.

      “So instead of just falling into a non-constructive rant, how about seeking a solution?”

      I wasn’t aware that I had ranted in any way. In fact I wrote very little, and offered almost nothing in the way of a “rant”. If you thought this was a rant, I shudder to think of what you think of my regular articles.

      • Sir, I did not mean you when I made that post. I respect your opinion and what you post. But during my short time here, I have witnessed on a very regular basis where the topic wanders, and almost usually it evolves into an examination of how this relates to the Constitution, or related subjects. All too often I do not see anyone proposing workable solutions.
        You have military experience, and your training teaches you to deal with the problem, not deal with what caused the problem. For example, in an imaginary scenario you are in a combat situation, in harm’s way. You chamber a round in your M16, it misfires. So what do you do? You clear that round, get another round ready, and then you are back in business. What you do not do is realize that the supply chain was supposed to guarantee reliable rounds, that the manufacturer and supply network let you down, and complain. There are more important things going on at the moment, and the time to complain will come later. In other words, you deal with the problem, which at the moment, is your butt.
        I know enough about the Second Amendment to realize that in many people’s eyes, it is not being applied as intended. Fair enough, but this issue about carrying concealed guns across state lines can find a realistic solution. Isn’t what this is about, or are we just going to sit around all day and whine about how the liberals screwed up the Second Amendment?

  4. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Good Article USW and one that is dear to me…

    Currently, some states have Reciprocity and Recognition agreements with other states for conceal carry.

    Reciprocity Example: Virginia has Recprocity agreements with AK/FL/KY/MS/NC/OH/PA/SC/SD/TN/TX/WV. This means that a written, formal agreement exists between VA and the other State. All prudent gun owners should read the agreement prior to bringing a gun into the other state to ensure that he/she complies with that state’s laws governing guns. I have concealed carry to NC while on vacation and had no issues.

    Recognition Example: Virginia has informally agreed with AZ/AK/DE/LA/NM/MI/MS/MT/OK/UT to honor permits issued by the other. Again, all prudent gun owners should review the gun laws prior to bringing a gun into the other state to ensure compliance with that state’s laws.

    An example of where the Federal Law would have been beneficial:

    I am traveling to PA from VA and have a conceal-carry permit. I happen to have my beloved Cougar at my side with my Bobcat in my glove compartment. Both are loaded and ready for use should they be needed. Oops…I can’t get to PA unless I go through Maryland. So, prior to getting to Maryland, I must stop my vehicle, unload both of my kitty-cats and store them in such a way that I cannot easily get to them (i.e. in the trunk of the vehicle, etc.). Of course, since I am a law-abiding citizen and a responsible gun owner, I will do this…the last thing that I want to do is get into any type of “trouble”. Upon driving through Maryland and reaching PA, I am able to carry again. This is just one example of how this Federal Law would have benefitted me from a convenience standpoint. Of course, I wouldn’t EVEN consider going into DC with a handgun even if the handgun were in the trunk locked in a safe and I had mailed the safe keys to my destination — they are that anti-gun radical there; more than likely, I (as a responsible and law-abiding gun owner) would be treated worse than a criminal who robbed/mugged an innocent at gunpoint.

    Best wishes to all,
    RS

    “Average Response Time to a 911 Call – Over 4 Minutes”
    “Average Response Time to a .357 – 1400 FPS”

    • Naten53 says:

      Do you know of a place to find the Reciprocity and Recognition agreements and the language of them? I would like to take a look and see.

      I agree that concealed carry should be allowed nationwide. But the amendment here did not set any type of standard for a licesne, which in my reply to DaveE in post #3 I say this is a states right issue until there is a standard.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi Naten,

        In Virginia, a person is able to view this information at the State Police Website. I imagine that you could google “Reciprocity, ” and find the agreements that your state has with other states.

        Best Regards and happy hunting,
        RS

        “Average Response Time to a 911 Call – Over 4 Minutes”
        “Average Response Time to a .357 – 1400 FPS”

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Naten…

          In your search, include your state name…ex: Reciprocity, Virginia.

          RS

          “Average Response Time to a 911 Call – Over 4 Minutes”
          “Average Response Time to a .357 – 1400 FPS”

        • Wow, Richmond…pretty hefty load for .357…

          you might consider adding to your quote: “Attention trespassers! I do NOT call 911.”

    • Virginia is an odd place. Guns are cool but radar detectors aren’t.

  5. Actually USW, it is not much of a defeat. I think that you will see another bill pretty quickly. Most states already have a reciprocal law on their books anyway. I have a CHL from Texas and I can go into any state that I wish to go so far. Example, I can go to New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Arkansas right now and have no problem. Although, there are some local municipalities that are beginning to have local ordinances against same. I am not sure about Louisiana right now, but I did preface that by saying any state I wish to go to so far….Louisiana is not one of those states.

    What the bill was trying to do was force all states into reciprocal rights and that should be left to the State and be no federal mandate. In talking with several gun owners from other states, I think most of the issue is the level of training. Admittedly, there are some states that simply do not have the same training levels and I think I will have to agree with this part of it. But, leave it to the States. I know that Texas has reciprocal measures but there is support out there among gun owners to have our state change the reciprocal agreement that to carry a concealed handgun in Texas, that there are certain requirements on use and safety that must be met. If the State you come from does not measure to those requirements, then don’t carry it here. However, we are looking at a short course (6 hours) that can be completed in one day that familiarizes a person with the Texas Laws concerning same. I can support this.

    However, there are no laws on the books in Texas concerning long guns (rifles/shotguns). You can carry any long gun anywhere in Texas you wish unless there is a business or local municipality that does not wish it. Texas has no registration process for long guns nor handguns. There are no files that show who bought a gun or ammunition. Once a person passes the background check, he is given his weapon and the files are thrown away. So, no government entity can come in and see a registration record of who owns what in the form of ammunition or firearms.

    Last but not least, in Texas you can own and carry any type of weapon you wish. There are no laws on the books regarding “assault rifles” or bazookas, or stinger missiles. You have the right to have any weapon you wish with no restraint or registration unless there are local or state laws regarding such. Now, as a practical matter, I do not know why anyone would want an assault rifle by the very definition. I do not have one except an AK 47 (w/bayonet) that is a registered war trophy that I took off an enemy soldier that tried to stick me with it. I earned that one. But I do not fire it. Who the hell needs an assault rifle? I have 6 rifles, 4 shotguns, 3 black powder long guns, 3 sets of black powder dueling pistols, and 4 handguns, ammunition for all, loading equipment, powder, shot and lead. Do not wish to deny the right to own an assault type rifle..but as a gun owner, I do not understand why anyone would want one as a normal weapon. The rifles that I have can out shoot any assault rifle in accuracy…just can’t put out a clip of ammo in 6 seconds. That is the only difference. I don;t know but one person that uses a .223 AR15 for hunting.

    Both my children, 1 male and 1 female, could shoot at the age of 6 and owned their own weapon at age 10. (4-10 shotgun for bird hunting only). They knew and understood the use of a weapon at that age and even playing cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers…they NEVER pointed even a toy gun at each other, especially one that had toy projectiles. Because of their teachings, they did not even point and shoot rubber band guns at each other nor anyone else. They were taught the seriousness of gun ownership early and the proper use of one.

    The purpose of this long diatribe to a short question is to show that, as a gun owner, there are responsible people and most gun owners are.

    D13

    • Texas Establishes Concealed Handgun License Agreements With Other States:

      Reciprocal States

      * Alabama (PDF) (08-08-2006)
      * Alabama Recognition (PDF)
      o See note below (08-08-2006)
      * Alaska (PDF) (09-26-2005)
      * Arizona (09-15-1999)
      * Arkansas (02-19-1998)
      * Colorado-Original Agreement (PDF) (12-29-2004)
      * Colorado ** (PDF) (06-20-2007)
      o Updated Agreement Information
      * Delaware (PDF) (11-01-2005)
      * Florida (08-28-2000)
      * Georgia (PDF) (11-22-2004)
      * Idaho (PDF) (08-09-2004)
      * Indiana (PDF) (11-02-2005)
      * Kansas * (PDF) (01-30-2007)
      o See note below
      * Kentucky (08-30-2000)
      * Louisiana (08-31-1998)
      * Michigan * (PDF) (09-01-2005)
      o See note below
      * Mississippi (PDF) (09-07-2004)
      * Missouri (PDF) (09-06-2005)
      o See note below
      * Montana (PDF) (11-29-2004)
      * New Mexico (PDF) (11-30-2005)
      o See note below
      * North Carolina (04-19-2004)
      * North Dakota (PDF) (02-04-2005)
      * Oklahoma (07-24-1998)
      * Pennsylvania (PDF) (02-28-2005)
      * South Carolina (PDF) (02-25-2005)
      * South Dakota (PDF) (09-06-2005)
      o See note below
      * Tennessee (08-30-2000)
      * Utah (PDF) (09-03-2004)
      * Wyoming (07-25-2002)

      Unilateral States:

      * California (PDF) (11-18-2005)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * Connecticut (PDF) (05-04-2005)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * Hawaii (PDF) (01-13-2006)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * Iowa (PDF) (04-14-2005)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * Maryland (PDF) (11-18-2005)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * Massachusetts (PDF) (11-18-2005)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * Nebraska (PDF) (02-16-2007)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * Nevada (PDF) (03-24-2005)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * New Jersey (PDF) (11-18-2005)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * New York (PDF) (01-13-2006)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * Rhode Island (PDF) (01-13-2006)
      o Unilateral Proclamation
      * Washington (PDF) (11-18-2005)
      o Unilateral Proclamation

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi D13,

        Your posting here brought up an issue for me. I don’t see Virginia listed, but at the Virginia State Police website, we have TX listed as having a Reprocity Agreement. I clicked the TX link at the Virginia site and the TX Dept of Public Safety site appears where I do not see a Reprocity Agreement with Virginia.

        I will be contacting our State Police to report this to them.

        Thank you!

        Best Regards,
        RS

        “Average Response Time to a 911 Call – Over 4 Minutes”
        “Average Response Time to a .357 – 1400 FPS”

        • AHH, Richmond. This was just copied and posted. I do not know if it it properly updated yet. But great point. Will check also.

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Hi D13,

            I have sent an email to the Virginia State Police regarding this, I have also copied Phillip Van Cleave on the email. Phillip is a gun advocate here in Virginia and runs the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League (VCDL); which advocates 2nd Admendment Rights. He is a bulldog and won’t rest until the Virginia State Police correct this issue.

            Best Regards to you,
            RS

            “Average Response Time to a 911 Call – Over 4 Minutes”
            “Average Response Time to a .357 – 1400 FPS”

            — I just don’t have the time to dial 911

        • Richmond…..I just caught the State off guard ( I really liked doing that ) Texas DOES recognize Va, It is just not properly posted. They were quite literally shocked…as the person I talked to said, and I quote: “You would think we would be on top of that. This is gun country…Guns, marriage, horses, food, and water…..in that order.” I am still laughing over that one….but Texas does recognize Va.

    • And what exactly do you hold against the state of Louisiana? After all, we are your neighbors!

      • LOL…nothing at all Terry. My experience in Louisiana is Fort Polk and the swamps…and dealing with the Parish police force when driving through. Do love the Cajun food around Opelousas (sp)….and Baton Rouge and New Iberia.

      • I like the state and people, but have had bad experience with the courts there. Our lawyer told us we could not win, being from out-of-state. Right or wrong didn’t matter, just how much did we want to throw away?

        • Government/Law Enforcement/Courts are crooked as a dogs hind leg. I try to stay away from all as much as possible…

  6. All;

    This is one very close to my heart and my hip, which is where I carry one of many handguns. My favorite is Glock model 22. My wife carries the Walther PPK .380.

    Yes we should have a standard that allows all law abiding citizens to carry since it is a Constitutional right. And since it is a Constitutional right any and all laws regulating or limiting that right is un-Constitutional.

    BTW: Here in Michigan any citizens that owns a handgun can ‘open carry’ as long as the weapon is registered and the citizen is not a felon. A local individual has organized a rally inviting all interested individuals to attend this coming August 2nd. Kind of a party. Of course no one is required to bring a weapon, just come and attend and learn.

    Now on the flip side: I am a strong advocate for training and ensuring that any and all individuals that apply for a CCW first attend a DETAILED course on both the legalities and use of a handgun. And I am not referrencing a few hours in the classroom and an hour on the range. Handgun defense is no different than Martial Arts training. It takes time and hours of practice. Those that try and use their unpracticed skills are more likely to get hurt in a critical situation than deter a violent act.

    I realize that there are a number of folks out there that would disagree with me, but inability and improper training can and does cause accidents.

    I strongly feel that those who do acquire a CCW be required to demonstrate their abilities on a regular basis, and the only way to maintain those abilities is continued training.

    There are many organizations and institutions that offer advanced courses and it should be encouraged.

    Now I know that I am being hypocritical saying that the government has no right to impeed my right to ‘bear arms’ and then saying that individuals should be required to take training courses, but there is a difference between training and tyranny.

    Skills are learned and perfected through practice and continued training

    CM

    • Good Moooorniing….CM. I KNEW there was hope for you. 🙂 Just kidding, of course. Good post but have to stay with State’s rights on my side here. How are you today?

      • D13

        In keeping with this sites overall stand on Liberty and Freedom I agree whole heartedly that it should be the state that mandates gun laws, as long as those laws do not violate the 2nd ammendment.

        I would still support the idea that each gun owner be trained and required to pass a safety and use course.

        Like you my kids were taught at an early age, as was I, how to use a gun, and never was there an issue from either.

        I think safety and proper use are things that require practice and training, and should be monitored and managed.

        The course that is required in MI is NOT one that ensures an owner is proficent and too many gun owners out there stop practicing or training once they get their CCW. Those individuals, in my eyes, are dangerous.

        As a military man I am sure you would agree…proficency is achieved through practice and proper training.

        CM

        • You get absolutely no argument from me on proper training and continued training. None whatsoever. Gun safety, no matter the type is paramount and should be.

    • Ahh. “but there is a difference between training and tyranny. ”

      But death by drowning starts with the first “drop” of water.

      Our hearts are pure but our minds may still contain a little fog.

      • JAC

        This is a tough one to explain. I have hunted my entire life (since I was 9) and I am 53. I have never had an accident and I have never used my weapon in self defense.

        I have hunted and target shot with many friends, although I choose not to do either with some of those friends as a result of poor training and/or lack of practice. I have had individuals hand me a weapon asking me to clean it after a morning pheasant hunt. I always ask if the weapon has been checked and emptied. Even if they say yes, I check. If they are wrong I empty the weapon, clean it and return it to the owner with a smile and this comment: Your weapon is clean and empty, it was neither when you gave it too me. You and I will NEVER hunt or shoot together again.” If someone accidently discharges a weapon, I leave the field or course, or ask them to do so. Individuals who ask to hunt or shoot with me and my trusted friends are required first to demonstrate their abilities, no exeptions.

        This is a rule that was taught to me by my father who was taught by his father and one I will never stray from.

        Firearm safety is an issue that should be inforced in some manner, because people are lazy in general and stupid. Innocent people should not suffer as a result.

        I trust those I hunt and shoot with and I won’t hunt or shoot with anyone that does not first prove likewise.

        How we mandate that legally is a tough discussion.

        CM

        • And you have just explained how it “should be” regulated.

          By sane and responsible individuals, without government interfearance.

          In order to Live Free we must Be Free
          JAC

          • JAC;

            Maybe, but how do we ensure that only law abiding citizens purchase and own firearms?

            The Constitution does not say I must be lawfull to ‘bear’ arms, just that I have a right too.

            I am sure that you agree that felons should not own firearms.

            A firearm is a tool just like a car and a plane, all of which can negatively effect innocent people when used improperly.

            All this warrants additional thought.

            CM

            • Morning CM

              I don’t know about anywhere else, but here in Reno, they do an extensive background check even before you can buy an gun, and if you pass the background check, you’re able to purchase one.

              • Judy;

                Every state requires a detailed background check which includes finger prints sent to the FBI for any and all handgun purchases.

                Depending on the state once you are issues a CCW that process is no longer done.

                You cannot legally purchase a handgun without a background check. If you have a felony you cannot legally purchase any firearm, except blackpowder.

              • CM, false.

                “which includes finger prints sent to the FBI for any and all handgun purchases. ”

                The national instant background check system does not require any fingerprints. Your DL & info is called in, if no felonies or other issue is found, you are approved. The records of this are then(in theory) destroyed.

                My state required FBI & fingerprinting for CCP, but not to purchase a handgun.

            • CM

              “I am sure that you agree that felons should not own firearms.”

              Actually I don’t have any problem with some felons owning firearms once they have served their time.

              I in fact am opposed to this whole concept of restricting the rights of those who have served their time in jail. That was supposed to be their punishment. Once done isn’t it our goal to get them to act as responsible “citizens”? To do that we treat them like something less for the rest of their lives.

              Remember, the number of offenses qualifying as “felony” are increasing everyday. Many are non violent offenses.

              As for enforcement, just think of ways we would get anyone to act in a responsible manner, without the govt being involved.

              Seems to me that civil action is one possibility.

              • Hi JAC

                About those felons who served time, and should given the right to have fire arms when released for serving their time.

                The problem I see with that is, a lot of them go back to that life style, and end up back in prison again, but next time, could be for a longer period, for even a worse crime they might have committed.

                Make sense to you or not?

                Judy

              • There is a difference between a felon and a violent felon. I could see a former rapist or armed robber being restricted for an extensive (10 yr) parole period.

              • LOI

                Okay, I can go with that, but how many felons, rapists, armed robbers, or what ever, have honestly gone straight after being released? I know there are those who actually have changed their lives around after serving time, but then, there are those that don’t quite seem to comprehend that.I guess what I’m trying to say is, that it doesn’t matter how many times a person serves a prison term, that once they get released, they don’t seem to want to turn their lives around, that they keep doing what they’ve been doing.

                I guess you call that a habitual criminal, right.

                Judy

              • Judy,

                I am on the fence on violent criminals. I am trying to place my thoughts here on the principal of the matter.
                Damn JAC, making me think!

              • Oh! that darn JAC anyway.
                LOL.

            • CM, Judy, LOI

              If “society” has established a penalty for crime, and if penalty is paid, story is over.

              Each crime should be viewed as a separte decision. Magnitude of imposition on others must be considered in the penalty. Murder or rape is not the same as stealing or fraud.

              Past behavior shouldn’t be relevant except in the case of habitual violent offenders. This indicates psychological problems. Meaning they shouldn’t have been let loose the first time.

              You can tell I am not a big fan of automatic 3 strikes laws. Putting some guy away in prison for stealing cigarettes just makes no sense to me.

              If these people are dangerous, then why are they let out? If they can be let out, then they should be given back their rights.

              Perhaps some of those reoffenders might not if they felt like they were being given back some responsibility.

              Bottom line: Not all Felonies involve violence against others. So why should they lose their rights once time is served?

              • JAC,

                I am OK with a repeat rapist being returned their full rights, as long as their nuts are in a jar somewhere. OK, I didn’t mean that.
                OK, I did mean that, I am a hateful bastard, but I’m good at it.

              • Judy S. says:

                Forget the jar, castrate him like a horse.

              • Judy S. says:

                Hi JAC

                I agree with your 4th paragraph, that does’t make any sense.

                But I remember reading and hearing a while back, the reason for some of these people getting released is because of the lack of room in some of these prisons, talking about over crowding. They were thinking of closing the prison in Carson City, but I haven’t heard anything else on that, so I can’t tell you anymore about that story.

                I’m sure a lot of these guys were given a second chance JAC, but then maybe something might have happened to get them started back up again.

                Did you ever see the program years ago called Scared Straight? They had a group of teenagers go this prison and hear stories from the prisoners themselves. I think the name of the prison was called Raw Way or something like that. Anyway, some of these prisoners said, if they ever got released, that they would most likely go back and do what they were doing again. Some said, they have learned, and that they want to have that chance and be able to start over with their lives again.

                So, JAC, I think it depends on the person and if they’re willing to be and get rehabilitated whether or not they get that chance to able to acquire fire arms, or have them in their possession. But then, that;s my opinion.

                Judy

    • CM, D13,

      “we are looking at a short course (6 hours) that can be completed in one day that familiarizes a person with the Texas Laws concerning same. I can support this.” I am not against this, but this is a joke. Four hours of class time that was taught in a lazy hour. Actual shooting for an hour? My class of about 12 had some who were not very familiar with their firearm.

      “I strongly feel that those who do acquire a CCW be required to demonstrate their abilities on a regular basis, and the only way to maintain those abilities is continued training.” You want some entertainment, go watch you local police dept. do their yearly qualifications. Personally, I outshoot 3/4 of my locals, who are provided free ammo to practice with. Some barely pass.

      I agree with you guys on personal responsibility, but you cannot do that with laws.

      When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

      • You misunderstood, LOI….the 6 hour course is just to make sure you are conversant with State laws if you ALREADY possess license or permit from another State. Not 6 hours to obtain one. My post was in conjunction with reciprocity, not licensing.

        • Sorry, was grouping a little. My thought here is the CCW course, at least the one I took, does very little. We spent hours BSing to meet the required class time. It would have been time better spent for some to have been given training on their personal firearms. Some struggled to load them.

  7. All;

    There is an independently owned site http://www.handgunlaw.us that details state reciprocity laws by state. It details which states honor other states and which states don’t, or limit reciprocity. It also explains each states laws for licensing and concealed carry.

    WI and IL are the only two that do not honor anyone.

    My buds and I do an annual fishing trip to the White River in AK every May and we all carry from Michigan. We don’t go through IL, we head south through IN.

    Even though the law was not passed we still have a pretty free reign for carrying state to state.

    • Yes, it is “recognized” and I have not had trouble with any state. I will do my homework before traveling, however.

  8. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    JAC,

    This has nothing to do with today’s posting (so I apologize to everyone else that this is completely off-topic), but I posted some info for you about Great Lakes fishing charters as a reply to one of your posts yesterday, and I do not know if you leave the “notify me of follow-up comments by email” box checked or not (I personally do not…lol) and I wanted to make sure you go back and check out what I wrote.

    Sorry to interrupt everyone else there 🙂 Go back to talkin’ ’bout guns and whatever… 🙂

  9. Bama dad says:

    On a lighter side.

    On a no trespassing sign in rural Alabama:

    Trespasser will be shot
    Survivors will be shot again.

    “Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston, Massachusetts, said in a statement.
    “We will continue to work with our members to support common-sense policies and oppose dangerous ones,”

    Common sense policies by a politician? Pleezzze give me a break, never happen.

    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said:
    “If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed. …” Duh yeah the criminal.

  10. I will not claim this is un-biased, but has good info.

    Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

    * Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

    * Of the 2.5 million self-defense cases, as many as 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.3

    * Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).4 And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The “error rate” for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”5

    * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.6

    * Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.7 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as “Saturday Night Specials.”

    http://gunowners.org/fs9901.htm

  11. Off topic, hope US will forgive.

    Every year, thousands of upstanding, responsible Americans run afoul of some incomprehensible federal law or regulation and end up serving time in federal prison.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/heritage-house-law/

  12. Good Morning All

    First off. USW, you’re right, your son is top priority, and you spend as much time with him as you can, and enjoy every minute with him.

    I would like to say, that my husband and his brother both have concealed weapons permit here in Reno. They took the safety and shooting test a few months ago, and now have the permit to carry. They had it a couple years ago, but neglected to renew their permits. The class was a 4 hour indoor class one day, and the next day was a 4 hour qualification shooting test on the range to see if you were ready to carry. They both passed. My husband carries his every where he goes, because you just never know.

    I think, once you take your test and pass, no matter what state you live in, you should be able to carry in other states. I agree that it should be like your drivers license, good in all states. What good does it do to keep your fire arm locked in a box in your the trunk or your car, especially if your are carjacked or something? At least this way, you can at protect yourself or others who might be in the car with you. What are you going to say if you are being robbed, Oh!, excuse me Mr. robber, let me get my gun out of the trunk of my car, and unlock my box, so I can shoot you. The same thing with having them in your home. You better believe, if someone tried to break in our house, they will be met with a barrel in their face.

    When my husband and his brother took the test, even the officer that was there told the people, if someone breaks into your house, and you shoot them, you better make sure that they remain in your home and not try and get away, otherwise you could be charged with a felony. Makes no sense there to me, but that’s what they were told.

    Hope all is having a good day so far.

    Judy

  13. All;

    Here is a test:

    A bad guy breaks into your house to rob you, and the robber is armed. You defend yourself and stop the threat.

    What do you say to the police when asked “What happened?”

    “My life was threatened, I stopped the threat. I want to speak to my lawyer”.

    This is the one and only thing you say until you have spoken to your lawyer.

    CM

    • Black Flag says:

      I would suggest maybe just “I want to speak to my lawyer”.

      Do not admit a darn thing about anything to cops.

      Do not believe anything a cops says – he is allowed to lie to you to get you to admit your crime and they can use what you say in court.

      Everyone must see this video

      Part One

      • Black Flag says:

        Part Two

        • BF;

          Again you make perfect sense. From this point forward I shall change my statement. Besides it’s a lot easier to remember.

          CM

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi Black Flag,

        Excellent videos…

        I was taught in my training to say what Common Man states above. After viewing these two videos, the only words out of my mouth should the worse-case scenario ever happen (God forbid) will be, “I want to speak to my lawyer.” I would just hope in a worse-case scenario that I would be able to keep my mouth shut long enough to talk with my lawyer…I’m one of those ones who hates silence.

        My husband and I watch alot of the Reality Cop Shows (The First 48, Crime 360) and we are always amazed that the suspects during the “interviews” (aka interrogations) don’t clam up and ask for their lawyers.

        Best Regards and thank you again,
        RS

  14. Does anyone know the origins to restricting the carrying of weapons and how they evovled into the concealed carry and open carry laws today?

    Example, in the old west they had towns that wanted you to check your guns when you entered, I think in an attempt to curb drunken cowboys and to keep the peace.

    • Naten

      Open carry used to be the law of the land. After the civil war, local laws
      started to pop up as a means to prevent blacks from being armed and therefore, able to defend themselves. They were never repealed, which has led to concealed carry laws. Even today, your state may allow open carry, but any town you pass thru may restrict it, and will arrest you.

  15. USWeapon says:

    Good afternoon Everyone.

    I wanted to bring up two things here and let us discuss them as it pertains to this particular subject.

    I like the discussion thus far, but I do think we are all falling short of finding a workable solution. It is easy to say “state’s rights”, but how does that work in practicality? A state trooper in Maryland should be able to enforce the laws of his state without having to have a full understanding of the laws in every state. Think about the time and cost of having to learn every law from every state. If we say states have the right to whatever and have it apply across states lines in this case, are we then saying that this should be true in all cases? What about a gay marriage in California? Should that be honored in all states? What about a law in Virginia that says I have the right to kick my dog? Can I visit Ohio, kick my dog, and then point to the fact that I am a resident of Virginia, as is my dog, so I am legally allowed to do so? Some silly examples I know, but the point is that if we say all states have to honor other state’s laws on concealed weapons, are we opening the door to other things.

    Hypothetically, let’s assume that I personally believe the state gets to treat its state like a home. If you come to visit my home, I am well within my rights to tell you that you cannot bring a concealed weapon into it. Shouldn’t a state be able to say the same thing?

    The second part of this is the national safety course idea. Would it be hypocritical to say that the federal government should force all states to conform to their version of a gun safety course, but that the federal government doesn’t have the right to legislate laws for the states in other areas? I guess the idea floating in my head is that I want to make sure that gun advocates aren’t supporting federal power in this case because it favors them but not supporting it in other cases because it doesn’t. Consistency in principle is the key.

    • JayDickB says:

      USW – I also am a strong believer in gun rights, including the right to carry. But, I also believe in states rights, so I think your comments are right on the money.

      Probably the most workable solution is the system of reciprocity voluntarily entered by many states. However, each state should be able to have and enforce its own rules.

      If we don’t respect states’ rights, why have them?

      Honor the 10th amendment!

    • One problem is the two extremes on what is require to get a permit. Alaska and a couple others require you to be a law abiding citizen. No photo I.D. or anything. Even the moderate states have a problem with that.

      The other extreme, like D.C., where in the rare cases they allow you to own a gun, they make it illegal to transfer it to home/office or anywhere. And illegal to have in a condition where it can be fired. You could shoot an armed intruder legally, but would be charged for the firearm violation.

      My opinion, 2nd overrides the states ability to deny me the ability to bear arms, meaning at least, loaded in my vehicle, and home or motel room, and transfer between those points.

      If they did not allow me to carry in public, I would just try very hard to not need to be in those states, which is different than having to drive thru them.

  16. Black Flag says:

    Once a criminal gang “wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of kingdom, which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renouncing of aggression but by the attainment of impunity,” wrote St. Augustine

    Just found this ….from St. Augustine, in his book “The City of God”.

    I find it so interesting that throughout history, so many great minds of humanity have fully understood the essence of government. St. Augustine himself offers precisely the difference between a moral society and immoral government – the difference between renouncing aggression vs. aggression with impunity.

  17. JayDickB says:

    This is totally off subject, but here is a good explanation of some of the myths upon which the case for health care reform has been built. It’s long, but worthwhile.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/23/health_care_mythology_97552.html

    • Pretty crappy article, the author was clearly biased and did not supply any data. Just opinions. Anyways, you guys can fight about whether or not you get universal health care.
      But I would like to offer some hard data. Average life expectancy in Sweden 80.86, Finland 78.97, France 80.98, Denmark 78.30, and Canada 81.23 years.
      USA … the USA is 78.11 years. Awww, what a shame…

      • JayDickB says:

        How many Americans (or any other nationality) go to Sweden, Finland, etc. for medical care each year?

        How many come to the U.S.?

        Why?

      • And prostate cancer is successfully treated over 90% in the US, and about 52% in the U.K..

      • Judy S. says:

        Hello Dave E.

        Oh, I don’t know about that one.

        My dad passed away in 1998 from brain cancer at the age of 77. BUT, on the other hand, my mother will be 87 in the 16th of next month, just a small case of emphysema, some Dementia going on, smokes like a chimney stack, eats like a horse, especially her rocky road ice cream every night, weighs all of 84 LBS., sleeps good, and still going strong. How do you explain that then if the life span of Americans is only 78.11 years?

        • Judy;

          I have not investigated this, but I am betting those stats are based upon an average against a total population. That being the case we have more drivers, we have more in the military, we eat more, we have more stress, we work harder, we take less vacation, we travel more, we fly more, and there are just more of us.

          All those factors, if included in average death ages lowers the number. So I wouldn’t put to much creadence into a statistic of that nature.

          CM

      • Barberian says:

        Sheep kept in confinement live much longer that Lions in the wild.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi Dave,

        Suicide Rates (from Wiki):

        Sweeden 13.3 per 100,000 (2002 Data)
        Finland 20.1 per 100,000 (2005 Data)
        France 17.6 per 100,000 (2005 Data)
        Denmark 13.7 per 100,000 (2001 Data)
        Canada 11.4 per 100,000 (2004 Data)
        USA 11.1 per 100,000 (2005 Data)

        Not trying to be insensitive, but # of suicides does contribute to overall happiness.

        RS

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          That last sentence came out completely wrong…sorry…

          What I meant to say is the an indicator of “happiness” could be less suicides.

      • Dave E:

        Averages don’t exist without statements of precision and accuracy.

        My first thought is given the nature of the data, every country listed is probably within the Sampling Error of all the others. When you have average “life” numbers that are different by only 2-3 years you do not have a significant variation.

        Especially without additional samples on the US side of the equation. These numbers are classic examples of how liers use statistics.

        Then of course is the econonomic question of how much are those two extra years worth?

        And what are the opportunity costs associated with the increased expenses to get those two years?

        But quite frankly it all doesn’t matter anyway. Any govt involvment in health care is immoral.

        • USWeapon says:

          I was willing to give my life for freedom and liberty at 20, and I am certainly willing to sacrifice two years at the end of it to keep those liberties by keeping government out of health care.

          • Three years, to be more exact.( specifically 3.12 years) And on average, your children and descendants will also die much sooner than their neighbours up north. Next time you see your kids, just tell them you were willing to trade three years of their lives to maintain your political beliefs.

            • USWeapon says:

              I will be 100% at peace telling my children that I worked to give them 78 years of liberty instead of 81 years of slavery.

              • So because I use the NHS I am a slave USW? Think you need to tone down the drama a bit there.
                I hope you are also an advocate of privitising the military, police forces, fire services, highways, public parks etc.

                I visit a few forums and I chat to a fair few Americans, here was one comment about someone unable to get health insurance due to a preexisitng condition and about how liberating the US health system is:

                “as an american with a chronic illness, i cannot express how much i wish i had the feeling. instead, i feel the reverse: trapped, suffocated, and condemned to defining my life by my ability to get the medications I need. it’s horrifying and wrong. and don’t even get me started on the way americans throw around the word freedom.”

                Another one on the same page:

                “I’m 26 years old and I owe doctors over $60k because of diabetes-related expenses that my insurance company refuses to pay since type I diabetes is a “pre-existing condition.” I have to forgo food sometimes, which is loving dangerous, to buy testing supplies. I let my car insurance/inspection lapse because I can’t pay for them and my health’s more important. Insulin’s not an option.

                This has pretty much wrecked my self-esteem and made me feel like a burden on my family. I hate having to ask for money and I feel like the most useless person in the world because I can’t even afford to take care of myself. I know that’s stupid, but years of fighting with doctors and insurance companies has left me feeling like nobody gives a gently caress and that I brought this on myself somehow. So now, on top of feeling sick and horrible because of diabetes, I get panic attacks constantly because I don’t know how to loving pay for it.”

                What was that about liberty?

              • So what is your definition of Liberty Bob?

              • Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.

              • So then why the comment about Liberty relative to your examples of folks who can’t pay for their own medical care?

              • They are placed in a system where they are unable to pay for their medical care so they have to beg for money from their families to live, without that aid they will die. Maybe you are right though, they should probably be left to die.

                I should also add that true liberty does not exist and it probably never will.

              • So they shouldn’t ask for money from family and friend?

                They should be empowered to steal it from me?

                I don’t understand.

              • What would happen to those people who cannot get insured or have family give them money?

              • Black Flag says:

                They suffer a tragedy, Bob.

                The hardest thing for many people is to understand that no amount of evil can absolve a tragedy.

                There is no amount of theft or killing you can do that will end suffering of humanity.

                However, your attempt to harm and kill people to try to end suffering increases the tragedy

              • Black Flag says:

                True liberty does exist and always has, Bob.

                The question is, are you willing to defend yourself against those that wish to enslave you?

                As far as dying – yes, people die everyday – some die better than others, and yes, some die and suffer tragedies.

                BUT NO AMOUNT OF IMMORAL ACTION will absolve a tragedy.

              • Where does this liberty exist Black Flag, the only place I can think of off the top of my head is Somalia.

              • Black Flag says:

                Replace “medical care” with “automobile”.

                As an American with no vehicle, I cannot express how much I wish I had the feeling.

                Instead, I feel the reverse: trapped, suffocated and condemned to defining my life by my ability to have to walk where I need to go.

                It’s horrifying and wrong. And don’t get me started about people with cars throwing the word freedom around…

                You get the idea.

                This isn’t about freedom, Bob – it is about supporting theft – it is about agreeing to using violence to force someone to pay for a service for someone else.

                If you can justify that for ‘health care’ – I can justify it for a car …. and my shoes, and my toothpaste, well — gee — I can justify it for every single service and resource I want.

              • So not having a car is the same as not being able to live? Its about life Black Flag, without the medication they will die, it does not equal the inconvenience of having to walk places.

              • Black Flag says:

                Bob,

                For some it is the same thing.

                And that’s the point.

                I can claim that not having a pencil is life and death. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong.

                Thus, do I then have a right to force you to pay for all my pencils?

                All you are doing, Bob, is justifying evil action for a cause you believe is important.

                The moment you believe you have a right to harm innocent people so to solve a problem of yours – no matter how you may believe it is important – you have give me the right to attack you so to solve a problem I believe is important

              • Black Flag says:

                So what do you say about someone who claims they need a car, because just in case they have an emergency, they need a car to drive to a hospital?

                Do they have a right to take your car?

                What say you, Bob?

              • The same thing!!!!

                NO IT ISNT!

                Not having a pencil and dying are not the same thing. Not having a car and dying is not the same thing. No matter how you try and twist it, it is not the same thing.

                Someone not being able to afford an easily treatable disease and your counter of just let them die shows the society that you want to live in, I take comfort that it will never happen.

              • Chris Devine says:

                This ‘slippery slope’ argument of yours is about the silliest bunch of nonsense I’ve ever seen you put forward. There is a clear comparison between medical care and other public services like police protection, fire departments, etc. This isn’t remotely related to subsidized transportation. Granted, ambulance transportation and EMT care are part of a robust health care system, but that doesn’t even come close to being in the same realm as conceiving personal transportation as an inherent right.

                Bob, don’t pay these guys any attention. They are completely willing to justify any Cato Institute or Reason Magazine nonsense as long as it makes them feel free. They easily forget that freedom is as much about ‘freedom from x’ as it is ‘freedom to do y.’ All they want is less government, consequences be damned. It makes them feel principled and if millions of people must suffer in the meantime—c’est la vie.

                One thing I can tell you for sure, if there are no atheists in foxholes there are certainly no libertarians living under highway overpasses. Libertarianism is a luxury for people who have no trouble living without help or those infected by the Stockholm syndrome who think their corporate masters are shining examples of rugged individualism.

              • AMEN

        • This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. The entry includes total population as well as the male and female components. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.

          This quote and data was provided by the CIA.
          https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

          • My error, thatwas me

          • Since you posted this Dave, care to explain how the avereage is calculated and what the Sampling Error would be?

            The idea that life expectancy has utilitiy in determing return on investment in human capital is the foundation for eugenics, by the way. Despite the fact it is blatantly false.

            The discounted value of any investment extended over 78 or 82 years would be insignificant.

      • Isn’t that difference because the US counts newborn deaths against the lifespan, while the other countries do not?

    • What irks me is statements like this:

      Congressman Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas: “I know enough about Canadian care, and I know this bureaucratic, socialized piece of crap they have up there…”

      Republican Paul Broun of Georgia. Speaking on July 10, Broun said, “Life is precious. Some would say, ‘Well, she’s 85 years of age; we should just let her die.’ And that’s exactly what’s going on in Canada and Great Britain today. They don’t have the appreciation of life as we do in our society, evidently.”

      I have lived in the UK most of my life and lived in Canada and America for a few years. I have experienced health care in all three countries. I know politicians lie and everything but statements like this are completely false and misleading. How do these people get elected?

      • Hey, blame the good people of Texas and Georgia for their stupidity in backing these liars.
        Obviously, for them, they have placed a dollar value on human life. Here in Canada, we are willing to accept a very small hardship to ensure as many people as possible live as long and with a high quality of life.

        • Black Flag says:

          So, DaveE and Bob,

          How much would you spend to save another persons life?

          Would you spend $1,000? $10,000? $1 million? $100 million?

          What happen if they could only live a day? Would that change the amount? A week? A month? A year?

          Let’s hear your criteria and logic – how much is a life worth to you?

          • I think whatever resources that can be expended should be expended. I will reverse the question how much is a life worth to you? Looking at your previous comments it seems to indicate that a poor persons is worth nothing.

            • Black Flag says:

              How much is a life or how much is my life worth to me?

              I hold no claim to any man’s life nor demand his obligation or slavery to mine – his life is his, unconditionally.

              Thus, so is mine.

              He can spend all the money he wishes on his life – I hold no complaint nor comment – it is not my right.

              I will spend all the money I wish on my life – and he has no right or complaint about that either.

              Any attempt to steal my money from me degrades my life and no man has a right to degrade my life by his violent action.

          • Chris Devine says:

            Human life doesn’t have a monetary value. The choice of treating a seriously ill person should be left to a physician after consulting with the patient and his family. Health care is not the place for cost-benefit analysis (at least not as far as revenue is concerned). The question is always “will this course of treatment allow the patient to live a fuller life.” If no amount of treatment can be expected to improve the life of the patient, then it should come down to pain mitigation. Difficult choices will need to be made (cf. Terry Schiavo). Her parents were so convinced that she was cognizant that they were willing to seek whatever legal remedy to keep her ‘alive’ (even though post mortem examination showed that her brain had atrophied to the point where she was likely blind and certainly not conscious in any meaningful sense.

            • Black Flag says:

              Human life doesn’t have a monetary value

              It absolutely has a monetary value – which is why you are paid for working – you are trading your life energy for money so to buy the resources you need to live.

              Health Care is exactly the place for cost-benefit. A person must evaluate, for themselves, the costs of maintaining their live over the benefits the deliver.

              • Chris Devine says:

                You’re confusing life with time. You are paid for your time and expertise (gained through education and experience, which take time). Life, on the other hand, is invaluable. A man’s health, even though it extends the amount of time he spends on earth, is not something you can put a price tag on.

                The ‘choice’ to live or die should not be made based upon a single man’s ability to afford treatment. We all gain from a society that values health. Pretending that we are all just replaceable cogs that should be disposed of if the price doesn’t warrant repair is about as disgusting an idea as I’ve ever heard.

  18. I think this is one of the few cases where the federal government ought to dictate to the states what their laws may be, because this issue is directly mentioned in the Constitution as a right which belongs to all citizens of the United States and should not be dependent on which state you live in.

    Of course the federal government is not interested in keeping and defending the 2nd amendment in general. I’m surprised that so many votes were in favor.

  19. O.K., USW,

    I have to disagree with you again . . . but only on the petty part – 🙂

    This was NOT a defeat for the gun folks. It wasn’t even a setback.

    What this bill proposed was that owners of CCW’s in one state could cross state lines without obtaining a CCW in the other state. This bill did not pass. By not passing, it did not change any laws, it did not deny anyone from getting a CCW in their state, and as a matter of fact it did not change anything at all.

    There is a federal law, and I think (but don’t quote me on this) that has been in effect since the 1920’s or the 1930’s that prohibits the interstate transportation of firearms either for personal use or for sale and also prohibits the interstate transportation of a concealed weapon either for personal use or for sale without a state and federal permit and license. Anyway, I think that is how it goes. The law was designed to give the feds back in the old gangbusters era more teeth to go get the mobsters of that time, I think.

    Contrary to the ultra-liberal whiners statements, this law would not cause the murder rate to go up, all it would have done is maybe give some interstate OTR truckers a little peace of mind during their work. It would have given the owners of CCW’s (who have to go through a background check more than once to get a firearm and to get the CCW) the legal right to carry their weapon into another state that also allowed CCW permits – but not into states that did not allow CCW permits.

    By not getting the 60 votes to pass, all this bill did is deny the Messiah his first VETO.

    • G.A., that’s straight shooting!

    • I agree with GA, it was not a defeat especially since you can pretty much carry in most states provided you plan accordingly. As an example I can leave Michigan and travel all the way to Florida without worry.

      The challenge exists if I want to travel to Maine or NY, but then who wants to go to NY; too crowded, nothing to hunt and politically it’s worse than Michigan.

      CM

  20. The State vs Fed Gov has been covered above. You can’t argue for Fed power on one issue and against it on another, or else that “H” word will come out!!

    I think you’re all missing the point here – and a huge opportunity. You already have reciprocity between a bunch of states. Focus your time and money there. If a state’s law is too tight or too lax, have the NRA lobby that state and fix the law so reciprocity can work with that State. I would think the NRA could push around a few States easier than the Fed’s…

    This process provides another benefit – it shows the States can work together to solve a problem without abdicating their power/responsibility to the Fed’s. If the States can handle Concealed Carry, how about Interstate Hwys next, and then Environmental issues, and then whatever is next.

    If you don’t like a powerful Fed Gov, look for ways to take power away from it, not to feed it…

    If you feel the States should abdicate their power/responsibility to the Fed’s on this one, don’t complain about Federal Gov power in the future…

    And I’m taking notes here… 😉

  21. Just my two pennies here. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is “NOT” a state issue. No state, much less the feds should put any restrictions or requirements on the “Law Abiding Citizens” of this country. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say I am required to “register” my guns, apply for a carry permit, or any other restrictive law that is currently in place, anywhere. Nowhere does it say the government can make me pay a fee of anykind to exercise this right. But, folks, they exist in many places, and every law of that nature violates our 2nd Amendment rights. The only way to make them go away is to argue before the Supreme Court, which has upheld that right recently in D.C.

    With that said, I also agree with safety training, which should be common sense, and learn marksmanship skills (one bullit, one dead bad guy, saves money on bullits). In Ohio, if someone enters your home without your permission, you can shoot and kill that person, no questions asked. It is presumed that that person is a threat. Stats are not out as of yet as to any success of the law, but I’m locked and loaded just in case.

    Shoot straight everyone, and if you have some difficulty with a pistol, a shotgun can help solve that.

    PEACE

    G!

    • I can remember a time in our area where 90% of all pickups had a gun rack with a loaded shotgun in the back glass. Sure was a lot less holdups….kinda scary to walk into a store and know there were 10 armed people standing outside willing to protect the innocent if your intent was armed robbery. Then Walmart came along and if you didn’t want your shot gun stolen you left it at home. Then comes the Game and Fish commission who says it is illegal to carry a loaded gun….considered hunting from the road way.

  22. Judy S. says:

    About health care here, and the governments involvement. I agree that there is no place for government to be involved in the health care business.

    We missed the very beginning of Oabama’s speech last night, and didn’t see the end of it, because we had dinner plans. But what we did hear, we were not happy with what he said.

    For instance: This bit about only getting one test done, instead of getting 3,4, or 5, just to save money, Save money for who? You, the government, Who?

    Suppose you go to the doctor, and he suspects something wrong and has to give you test to find out what it is. OKAY! So, he treats you with what he thought he suspected what it was but is wrong, and it’s not. So, he says he wants to perform another test for something else, then treats you for that, but it’s not doing any good. Soooooooo, he says, maybe you should go to a specialist to see what the problem is, and he too wants to run several tests to be sure what you might have, or maybe have some X-Rays done. But, can’t really quite put his finger on it, so he wants more test done.

    But now, with Obama’s plan, the doctor says, OH! Wait, I can’t run anymore than one test on you because we have to save money. He gives you some medication on the assumption on what it might be, doesn’t work, then what. You get worse, go back to the doctor, he says, sorry, I can’t do anymore tests on you because I went over my limit, then you die because of the lack of tests that might be needed.

    So, now I see more law suits coming because of the lack of care you might possibly get because Obama wants to save money. He wants to force you into health insurance even though you might not be able to afford it even though he says otherwise , but if you don’t get it, then you will be stabbed with a penalty of, if I understand this right, of $1000 or a bill sent to you because you don’t have any health insurance should you have to seek medical help.

    What I see happening is forcing doctors to leave the medical profession because they won’t be able to do the job they went to school for, whether it be a GP, specialist, or surgeon, or what ever field they go into, because the government got involved. When I asked my son why he wants to continue with his medical schooling with Obama’s plan, he said, he’s hoping it doesn’t pass. He really wants to be a doctor more than anything else, and with this plan of BO’s I’m just hoping that he will continue his quest of becoming one.

    So, what I see here in this plan is this. Whether you want it, or need it, or not, you are still paying for health insurance one way or the other whether it be for yourself, family, or someone else.

    What’s going to happen if doctors walk away from their profession, whose going to perform the surgeries for those who need it? Or prescribe the medication you might need? And what’s going to happen to those seniors who have Medicaid and need medication or whatever like my mother?

    The government does not belong in the health insurance business or medical profession. I believe this is going to cause major problems for everyone, young, old or in between.

    Of course, everything I said above is hypothetical, but you just never know, do you?

    Those are my thoughts about government getting involved where they don’t belong.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Well Judy,

      I can guarantee you that if POTUS/VPOTUS/Congresspeeps/Senators needed more than one medical test, you can be damn sure that they will get them.

      Personally, I’m sick and tired of being considered a liability to my country. I am a person that has family and friends that love and care for me as I love and care for them.

      I have a question out there for people who may be more “up” on health insurance than I am…

      My recent Gall Bladder Surgery was done in a hospital here on an out-patient basis. The Hospital’s Bill was $31,000 and some change. The Doctor’s Bill was $7,000 and some change. The anesthesiologist’s bill was $1,200 and some change…bills keep coming in. Anyway, the Insurance Company “contractually” only paid about $7,500 on the Hospital bill (same scenario with the other bills). Other than about $600 that I owe, the Hospital wrote off about $23,000.

      If I were a person who didn’t have insurance, but made too much money, then I would have to pay the $31,000…Right? Why then don’t hospitals simply say, we are going to charge $7,500 for this service no matter if you have insurance or not.

      I’m feeling rather ignorant about this whole thing…I just don’t get it? Are Insurance Companies paying hospitals “protection” money, that allows them preferential treatment to write off 75% of what is owed???? I just don’t get it…Is anyone able to shed any light on this?

      Thanks,
      RS

      • Hi RS

        I don’t know about all what you’re talking about, but I do have a story that happened with our oldest son when he was 18? this happened 9years ago, which he is now 27 next month

        He was in bed one night, when he suddenly had some massive chest pains going on, and he couldn’t breathe. His dad rushed him to the emergency, told them what was going on, but do you know how long it took before a doctor even seen him? 5 hours, 5 freaking hours before they saw him, hell he could have died waiting.

        Even before the doctor saw him, first thing they asked him was, do you have any insurance, he said no. But they saw him anyway, they can’t turn down anybody right. So they ran a series of tests on him, didn’t find anything. Then they ran one of those little tube cameras down his throat, to see if maybe he was having a heart attack or something, found nothing. He was there for 5 more hours getting tested, but they couldn’t find anything wrong, and they were getting a little puzzled, but they forged on. After all those tests, and hours of wondering, the only thing they did find, was that instead of him having 4 heart valves, he has 5. I guess in a way, it’s lucky he was born with an extra one.

        So, anyway, after all that was done, he came home told me what had gone on and stuff. They told him ,since he didn’t have any insurance, don’t worry about it, the state would pick it up. It didn’t. 5 years later, they sent him a bill for $5000, even though they said he didn’t have to pay, and signing all kinds of paper work. So, he had to pay a little at a time to pay off his bill. It took him a couple years to pay, but he finally got it paid off.

        SO, that’s another thing about this great Obama plan. You’re still stuck no matter what.

        Judy

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Well, there is one good thing about my story…from the time it was determined that my GB needed to be removed (just pain, not an emergency) it took only 3 weeks to get my surgery scheduled. If I were in a socialized medicine country, I imagine it would have taken 1.5 years to get me to a surgeon for evaluation and then another 1.5 years to get my surgery scheduled and done.

          I also need to be grateful that I do have the insurance and my portion is only around $1,000 instead of the approximate $36-37,000 for all services.

          Best regards to you,
          RS

          • I can only imagine what is going to happen if this bill passes, then if anybody needs to have anything done, probably be years before you get anywhere. Either, that, or they die waiting. Like I said, government does NOT belong int the health care business.

            You think all these rich people like Bill Gates, can’t even think of any more here. You think they need socialized health care, heck no, all they have to do is flip open their wallets, and pay on the spot.

            Mr. Gates, that will be $800.000 for your surgery, will that be cash, or check? Yea, great for the rich, but what about us who aren’t so lucky to have all the money you need.

            This administration definitely has the brains of a bag of broken rocks. What I would like to know, who is the idiot that thought of this scheme in the first place.

            Have a good night RS

            Judy

      • Richmond Spitfire,
        The insurance companies, because of their large ‘buying power’ with hospitals and doctors, have negotiated lower rates with the hospitals and doctors. So the hospital charges you $31,000, but agrees to accept $7500 from the insurance company as full payment.

        If you don’t have insurance, they bill you the entire $31,000. If you pay, the hospital gets some extra cash. If you really complain they may give you 20% off – aren’t they sweet and caring…

        If you can’t pay, they may go after Federal or State $$ depending on the situation, or they write off the entire $31,000 as a loss. This artificially lowers their profits (they should really only write off $7500), makes it look like they’re writing off more than they really are, etc. All of this allows them to raise their rates to cover all these losses…

        Guess who wins and losses with this system???

        • Black Flag says:

          I’m intrigued.

          What bulk “buying power” exists for a hospital? They essentially sell human time – an hour of a doctor is an hour – he can’t produce any more hours than the clock spins.

          • Black Flag,
            Insurance companies create “networks” of hospitals and doctors. The hospitals and doctors agree to accept reduced rates in return for being “preferred providers” for members in the health plans created by the insurance companies and sold to employers and other groups.

            If you have health insurance thru a large group plan, co-pays and deductibles are lower if you go to “in network” or “preferred provider” hospital or doctor.

            I understand you question about “human time” and can’t necessarily explain that. I didn’t create this system – it’s just the way it is…

  23. Judy S. says:

    Sorry, I also meant to say medicare as well.

    • Judy, I’m preparing a point paper on this for work, based on known potential legislation. As a Union Rep, this is not about Union issues, but about my company and healthcare as a whole! Sometime in the next five days I will have the work done and present it to Administration, not as a negotiator, but as a team member to save all of us. I’ll be updating as things transpire!

      G!

      • Hi there G-Man

        You mean you’ll be updating here or what? I take it then you guys read my post then. Sooooooo, what did you think of it? Like I said, it was basically hypothetical on what I was talking about.

        It just, sorry for this word, I don’t use too often, PISSES me off with this stupid idiotic plan of his, you know. I just can’t imagine where his, and congresses heads are. Never mind I retract that, I know.

        Judy

        • Yes, I will post this, and yes I read your posts. WE, must work together, even if we may not always see things the same way. We will overcome!

          • G-Man

            God, I sure do hope you’re right, and thanks for answering me, I appreciate it.

            Good Night

            Judy

  24. Judy:

    Did you ever figure out what I was talking about yesterday with the old guy who died before he saved the kids on the bus?

    JAC

    • Hey JAC

      You know, I must be out in space somewhere, because , no not really. Please help me.

  25. Black Flag says:

    Reading many posts, one of the biggest frustrations for me is how few really understand what are rights – and constantly confuse them with ‘privileges’.

    Every time I see someone claim something is a ‘privilege” – its like finger nails on a blackboard. Its obvious they don’t have a clue to what they are talking about and are parroting some “Authority’s” rhetoric.

    Let’s be clear a privilege is “…entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group…” also called “private law”.

    It is not a privilege is there is a government law defining the action – privilege is a ‘private law’ – not government law.

    It is a privilege for you to enter my house. The terms of entry are mine – private law – not government law.

    Driving on a highway is not a privilege – it is fully under the law of government how, when, why etc. on how to use that highway. There is ‘no private law’. It is government granted to anyone who follows the law as declared by the government.

    Misunderstanding privilege just screws up so many people.

    • Hey BF

      Then let me ask you this then. Why then when you get your renewal form from the DMV for you new tags, printed on it is what they call a privilege tax? Isn’t that considered a privilege to be able to drive your car?

      • Black Flag says:

        The government calls spending $24 trillions a “Stimulus Package” when actually it will tank the country.

        What they call things often is not correct.

        Frankly I’ve never seen this printed on any tags I’ve seen – but then again I haven’t seen that many tags.

        • Morning BF

          NO, it’s not on the tags themselves, it’s on the form where it has all the extra taxes on it you pay, and one of them is called a privilege tax. Wish I had one handy and I could tell you all it has on it, but we’re all caught up on current tags for our cars.

    • BF, Legally having a drivers license is a privilege. Being able to drive that highway, without that privilege is not a “right”. correct me if I’m wrong.

      • Black Flag says:

        It cannot be both a privilege (-> “immunity from government law”) while being “required by law”. They are exclusive.

        Driving on a public road is a Government Right – if you follow government rules, they cannot stop you.

        Driving on your property is your Right – they cannot demand you have a license.

  26. To All

    I would like thank you for your conversations today, but I must remove myself from this computer for the night. Been very busy lately at work these past few days, and I am bushed.

    I am going to call it a night, and will check in the morning for any more answers or post from you good people.

    Good Night my friends, and will catch you in the morning.

    Take Care everyone.

    Judy

  27. All;

    I will post it on todays topic as well. Just got this from a friend of mine and thought it was interesting.

    Myabe BF and other worldly folks out there can validate it or not.

    http://www.usdebtclock.org

    Make sure to hit the “about” botton at the bottom for more information.

    CM

    • Black Flag says:

      It Understates the unfunded liabilities.

      It is scary enough without them, however.

  28. Black Flag says:
  29. Black Flag says:

    Treasury Bill turnover….

    70 day CMBs, $30 billion (tomorrow)
    13 week Bills, $32 billion (July 27th)
    26 week Bills, $31 billion (July 27th)
    52 week Bills, $27 billion (July 28th)
    2 year Notes, $42 billion (July 28th)
    5 year Notes, $39 billion (July 29th)
    7 year Notes, $28 billion (July 30th)
    19 year, 6 month TIPS (reopened), $6 billion (July 27th)

    That’s two hundred thirty-five billion dollars…. in a week.

    If buyers are not found, the FED will buy. The Government will spend. Inflation will be trapped inside the USA.

  30. Black Flag says:

    Magnetic forces to blame for 9/11 tower collapse

    By Steve Connor

    Wednesday, 10 September 2008

    Scientists can finally explain why the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, despite the temperature of the fires being well below the 1,500C melting point of the steel girders holding up the buildings.

    The discovery that unusual magnetic forces within the girders made them weak at temperatures of about 500C explains away the conspiracy theories that have spread like wildfire since the disaster.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/magnetic-forces-to-blame-for-911-tower-collapse-924509.html

    The effort to explain the towers collapse with the need to avoid the obvious and proven use of explosives continues to create even more bizarre theories.

  31. Cyndi P says:

    Hey Vinster,

    I checked out that obamafile website. HOLY CRAP!!! If Ray sees it, he’ll blow a gasket!

    😉

  32. Black Flag says:

    Bob

    The same thing!!!!

    NO IT ISNT!

    Not having a pencil and dying are not the same thing. Not having a car and dying is not the same thing. No matter how you try and twist it, it is not the same thing.

    It is the same thing, Bob.

    I’ve asked a lot of questions you have not answered.

    1) If not having a car means I can’t get to hospital and will die, do I get to steal your car?

    2) If I don’t have a pencil to fill in a form, and I die – do I get to steal your pencil?

    3) How much money would you spend to save a life? $1,000? $10,000 $1 million $100 million? For them to live how long? A day? A week? A month? A year? 10 years?

    4) If you are so adamant about people dying because they can’t pay for it, can you explain why YOU personally haven’t sold your house/car/possessions and given the money to some one who couldn’t afford treatments? I mean, you want to take my money, so show us your alturistic example!

    • 4) If you are so adamant about people dying because they can’t pay for it, can you explain why YOU personally haven’t sold your house/car/possessions and given the money to some one who couldn’t afford treatments? I mean, you want to take my money, so show us your alturistic example!

      AMEN, BF!

      The same can be said for all those who insist we have to stop global warming NOW. I don’t them going without the modern conviniences.

      Don’t get me started about ‘helping the poor’……

  33. Black Flag says:

    Bob

    Where does this liberty exist Black Flag, the only place I can think of off the top of my head is Somalia.

    Ah, your comment demonstrates much about what I write about.

    You are mired in the concepts of Statism, and your thinking stems from that root. Your paradigm of ‘country’ infects all the thinking. You want a government structure (Country, in the case called Somalia) to define a non-government (ie: freedom) structure.

    Freedom exists in the individual, Bob. It is when you are free that you are free.

  34. Black Flag says:

    Chris

    is a clear comparison between medical care and other public services like police protection, fire departments, etc.

    I agree – all services government tries to provide is perverse and warped in a manner to suck wealth from the people with very limited benefit.

    This isn’t remotely related to subsidized transportation. Granted, ambulance transportation and EMT care are part of a robust health care system, but that doesn’t even come close to being in the same realm as conceiving personal transportation as an inherent right.

    Personal transportation is a right. Are you claiming you have no right to walk, and you need a license?

    They easily forget that freedom is as much about ‘freedom from x’ as it is ‘freedom to do y.’

    Actually, it is you with the memory loss.

    I have stated – Freedom is only ‘freedom from x’ – that is, no imposition by another

    Freedom to do ‘y’ only comes AFTER there is no imposition – it is a consequence not a source of freedom.

    All they want is less government, consequences be damned.

    Ah, Chris – the ol’ government-has-no-consequence fallacy!

    All human action has consequences, Chris

    What we know as humans is that the consequences of organized violence are always far worse than the consequences of freedom.

    It makes them feel principled and if millions of people must suffer in the meantime—c’est la vie.

    Ah, the ol’ beat-up-enough-people-and-suffering-will-end fallacy!

    No amount of government will end suffering, Chris regardless of how much you want to believe.

    You cannot end suffering by stealing from others.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Would you prefer we just let homes and businesses burn down? Do you think the only people who should be granted protection are those who can pay their ‘police bill?’

      Do you honestly think I was referring to walking when I spoke of subsidized personal transportation? Way to dodge the issue.

      I never said government doesn’t have consequences. But the fact remains that government’s role is to provide essential services to the people. I consider health care to be an essential service (much like police and fire departments) and it makes more sense to me for the government to provide these services than to rely on for-profit enterprise.

      Nobody thinks that government or taxes will end suffering. However, responsible public policy and the pooling of resources will certainly reduce suffering (much more so than expecting everybody to pay out of pocket or wait for some wealthy benefactor to voluntarily pick up the tab). Furthermore, standing by and watching people suffer while you pontificate about personal freedom is about as evil as it gets.

      Expecting people to pay their dues (taxes) in return for the benefits of living in a society is not stealing. If you don’t want to pay your taxes, go somewhere else and enjoy your hermit’s life.

  35. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    You’re confusing life with time.

    No, I’m not.

    My life is time – that is all it is. I cannot get back the life energy and my life time while working. I must spend some of my life time to obtain resources to live. It is a trade – my life time for resources – and it is a one-way trade. I cannot trade resources to buy back my life time.

    A man’s health, even though it extends the amount of time he spends on earth, is not something you can put a price tag on.

    Yes, I can. Like in any trade, my price and your willingness to pay does not need to be the same. How you value something is not necessarily the same as I value something.

    No man has a right to value my life, thus, no man has a right to take from my life so to make their life.

    The ‘choice’ to live or die should not be made based upon a single man’s ability to afford treatment.

    If it does not, it will be based on his ability to steal it from my life, harming me.

    We all gain from a society that values health.

    Health is valuable, true.

    Valuing something does not give any man the right to steal for it.

    We value living in a 5-star hotel very highly. It is not therefore a right, however, to steal money to pay for it.

    Pretending that we are all just replaceable cogs that should be disposed of if the price doesn’t warrant repair is about as disgusting an idea as I’ve ever heard.

    And the only person who has inferred that has been you, in the above paragraph. Nice try for a strawman, though.

  36. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    Would you prefer we just let homes and businesses burn down?

    I guess you never heard of volunteer fire departments?

    Do you think the only people who should be granted protection are those who can pay their ‘police bill?’

    The first ‘police’ were volunteers.

    If I build a wall to protect my family, and you come and stay at with me, how much more did you cost me in building my wall?

    Do you honestly think I was referring to walking when I spoke of subsidized personal transportation? Way to dodge the issue.

    No, sir.

    You claimed there was ‘no right’ to transportation. The right of transportation, whether by foot, horse, cart, car …. is exactly the same. The means does not matter.

    I never said government doesn’t have consequences. But the fact remains that government’s role is to provide essential services to the people.

    There exists no service that is ‘essential’ – it is wholly subjective. Everything can be claimed ‘essential’ in one matter or another.

    It is a good/service – and subject to the laws of Economics like all goods/services.

    I consider health care to be an essential service (much like police and fire departments) and it makes more sense to me for the government to provide these services than to rely on for-profit enterprise.

    And like anything delivered by government – it will cost more, provide less and eventually collaspe.

    Nobody thinks that government or taxes will end suffering. However, responsible public policy and the pooling of resources will certainly reduce suffering (much more so than expecting everybody to pay out of pocket or wait for some wealthy benefactor to voluntarily pick up the tab). Furthermore, standing by and watching people suffer while you pontificate about personal freedom is about as evil as it gets.

    So, I take it you sold your house, car and cashed in all your retirement funds and sent it to people who are suffering.

    Or, how come you haven’t done that?

    Standing around and pontificating how other people should be paying for others suffereing while you have all the power to stop it yourself for some one is as evil as it gets.

    Expecting people to pay their dues (taxes) in return for the benefits of living in a society is not stealing. If you don’t want to pay your taxes, go somewhere else and enjoy your hermit’s life.

    Taxes are not dues.

    When I pay a due, it is voluntary and a choice – a choice made in my measure of cost and value.

    Taxation – it is not voluntary, nor a choice, nor my measure of cost and value.

    There is no similarity what so ever.

    Ah, the ol’ If-you-don’t-like-me-stealing-your-couch-you-can-always-abandon-your-house fallacy!

    • Chris Devine says:

      I am quite familiar with volunteer fire departments. I have an uncle and a cousin who have been chiefs at the North 321 VFD in Lincolnton, NC. The only thing that is ‘volunteer’ is the labor. All of the funding, training and equipment comes from tax revenues. When they built an industrial park close by they were given additional equipment to handle HazMat emergencies (which was funded by corporation taxes).

      Keep on living on your dream world where anything you disagree with is inherently fallacious (as opposed to based upon differing principles).

      • Black Flag says:

        Again, your review fails – since you are self-constrained to a futile defense of coercion and violence, and therefore, can only apply your review as far back as government seizure of a service – and no further.

        Volunteer fire departments were funded by volunteers, too, until government seized the task.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Your ‘coercion and violence’ is another man’s cooperation and agreement. Take your toys and go home if you want.

          • Black Flag says:

            Your ‘coercion and violence’ is another man’s cooperation and agreement.

            Only to those that have no understanding of the meaning of those words.

            But such confusion is typical of those that apologize for the State – in fact, it is a requirement to confuse the concepts.

            Once the mystic of the State is exposed to be merely a violent thug, the People will actively resist it.

            It is therefore imperative that the State makes Freedom look like slavery – that cooperation is coercion and agreement is violent.

%d bloggers like this: