Are you kidding?
This is Amerika. "We don' need no stinking knowledge!"
Check it out. It came out yesterday afternoon. First this:
After tragedy, Arizona lawmakers eye more gun rights
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona has become a national leader in the gun rights movement in recent years as the state enacted law after law to protect the people's right to bear arms nearly anywhere, at anytime.
The shooting rampage that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a former legislative colleague, has done nothing to slow down the Legislature.
Gun rights bills were introduced in the days after the shootings last week, and more proposals are to come.
Giddy-up.
"Ain't nuthin' wrong with our God-fearin' country that more guns kayn't fix..."
And then, surprisingly, as though that weren't enough, a few hours later, this came out:
Wisconsin expected to expand gun owner right: paper
MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - Wisconsin, one of two states in the nation that prohibits citizens from carrying a concealed weapon, is expected to reverse this law during the upcoming state legislative session, according to a local newspaper.
Only Illinois and Wisconsin forbid carrying concealed weapons. A Republican was elected governor and Republicans won majorities in both houses of the Wisconsin legislature in November, bringing many more supporters of gun rights to the state government.
So saddle up, buckaroos... The big solutions to all of America's problems are right around the corner. If Ronnie the Ray-gun thought we had enough guns when he were preseedent, he ain't seed nuttin'. We'z about to git a hole-lot more.
Ain't that jist tee-riffick?
Yee-haw!! Let the shootin' kommence!
This kuntry's gittin' better and better!
Links: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/17/after-tragedy-arizona-lawmakers-eye-more-gun-right/; http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110117/us_nm/us_wisconsin_guns
Posts
9 comments:
There is at least a rational argument that overall restrictions could keep bad people from getting guns--We haven't tried it here on a national basis, so we don't know--despite evidence that local versions don't work.
Even the most anti-gun statistics on licensed concealed carry says that it neither increases nor decreases crime and violence--most other statistics show a slight decrease. Wisconsin isn't doing this 'in the wake of the Arizona shooting'--they have passed concealed carry at least once, only to have the governor veto the bill. There's a new governor, so they are going to try again.
Ohio is likely to do the same thing--we barely missed passing an 'expansion' of concealed carry that would let us carry in Applebee's just like at McDonalds, as long as we didn't drink alcohol in either place. A similar bill is likely to be one of the first ones in the new session--but the plans for that were in the works long before Arizona.
I understand you don't like freedom as much as I do--but if a freedom has been shown to not result in more crime and violence in 48 states, why not allow it in the 49th?
I neither said nor suggested that Wisconsin is "doing this in the wake of the Arizona shooting" as though one created the other. If anything, they are merely doing it in spite of the shooting. One doesn't have anything to do with the other and that's my point. These Arizonans seem to learn nothing--a common trait in America. For example, learning nothing from our Vietnam experience, etc., etc.
I "don't like freedom as much as" you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Really, you crack me up. And I'm not laughing at you but that one really got me. Thanks for that.
The thing is, you equate guns with freedom and I obviously don't, that's all. That you did and would and then assumed it amused me greatly.
We have vastly different ideas of freedom. You want lots of government control--health care and energy use, for examples not involving guns, rather than leaving us free to make our own decisions.
Indeed, we have vastly different ideas of freedom.
But you're wrong--hugely wrong. I do not, patently, want "lots of government control." Far from it. It's "lots" by your standards, apparently. I'd like less guns--that's lots of government to you. I'd like a "public option" for health care, as Republicans used to push (I can get you that data) so insurance companies have competition so we get and keep our insurance premiums down--but you don't. I absolutely do not want government control regarding health care and fortunately no one has proposed that, in spite of your and the Right Wing's vastly mistaken opinion.
I'd be all for leaving everyone "free to make their own choices" completely, totally and utterly but that's what has gotten us senseless, tragic shootings and killings, in the subject of guns and the most expensive but least effective health care system in the world, literally and bar none. If our system worked, I'd be all for total, utter freedom.
Our systems aren't working, however.
Your 'less guns' is to be enforced by the government.
Public option requires me to involuntarily support other people's health care choices. Right or wrong, it is involuntary.
Our health care system is not a mess because it is unregulated, it is a mess because it is regulated in stupid ways, neither free nor socalized. I'd rather a good socialized system than the current system--but best of all would be a far less regulated system, where the primary role of government was to make sure that providers and insurance companies weren't deceiving their customers.
I'm for near total freedom, at least until what I do begins to harm you. Far as I can tell, you want the amount of regulation that will bring maximum comfort. Not an evil goal, but not the same as freedom.
Yes, "my" 'less guns' is to be enforced by the government, since "the government" is the police. Yes, I'm good with that. What choice do we have?
The public option does not require you to "support other people's health care choices" in any way, let me be clear. A "public option" would make it that there would be competition for the health insurance companies so they would keep our costs--the premiums--down and not demand 6 to 8 percent increases for themselves, year after year, to your and my detriment and expense. Why you wouldn't be for keeping you costs down defies logic and eludes me, except that you seem pro-corporations and unbridled, destructive Capitalism, again, to your own detriment.
No, again I agree, our health care system is not a mess because it is unregulated--it is a mess because the corporations involved and completely, totally and absolutely unfettered in their ability to raise our costs, to our own loss but you either don't see or just blatantly deny that. They've choked off our ability to afford our own health care and our own health care system.
You keep going back to a mistaken idea that I love regulation when what I really want is just a system that both works--since ours doesn't--and that is affordable--which ours patently is not.
Our current employer provided health care system is largely the result of government intervention. The biggest factor was government-imposed wage freezes during WWII, so businesses who wanted to retain workers had to do it with benefits instead. This is compounded by making employer paid health care pre-tax, while individual coverage is after tax. (information based on a NPR story) Insurers are required to cover certain illnesses, including some where the risk factors could be mitigated by the patient.
The result is a system where individuals have little freedom to control costs. I rarely go to the doctor, probably less than I should even on strictly economic grounds. I still pay the same rates as someone who goes for every cold and splinter.
You say you don't love regulation-but the places you think it is necessary are quite a bit more than I do. Regulation is not freedom.
Ultimate, utter freedom leaves people getting cheated, at least, stolen from, physically--and otherwise--hurt and harmed and even, as has been shown time and again, killed. It's the only reasons we need regulations. If these things didn't happen, then we could have unfettered freedom. As it is, we don't live in such a world.
Post a Comment