Saturday, August 22, 2009

Still in the news

Health care is still in the news. I hear that AARP is losing members because they support health care changes. Somebody should tell them there isn't much chance the administration can save millions of dollars in medicare money without making some serious changes. I think most people who have medicare are satisfied with how it is now. That same mind set is there for those who like their health care just as it is. You go to the family doctor, who decides what you need to do. I'm not sure I want a doctor who answer to the government deciding what I can do.

Of course I'm not using my medicare so my premiums are going to help with the deficit in medicare. Someday I will need it I'm sure. I hate to think that it will be different then.

Oh well at least they stopped calling me un-american for questioning the plan. This particular un american served his country in time of war for them. He also paid his taxes and held a job for all those years. I wasn't unamerican until I stopped agreeing with the government. What a load of horse manure.

We condemned Iran for squashing decent but it's okay for these guys to do it. I just don't know where their heads are.

I also do not feel the moral imperative to provide government sponsored health care for every American. There are lots of people who could afford health care today but choose not to buy it. There were times in my life when I didn't carry health care. I knew the it was risky but I preferred to spend my money on wine women and song. So they are going to make us all cover people who don't feel they need to be covered. Well at least their taxes will go up as well. Oh they probably don't pay taxes so will be exempt. Well maybe we won't have to pay them to take the insurance. Then again who knows.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

healthcare in the news

I find it rather sad that if your opinion is not the administration's opinion then you must be crazy. NO matter what they say now, they began by trying to stifle descent just as the government did in Iran. Well they didn't use the army, they just tried to bully anyone who disagreed. I find that sad and dangerous. I know every president.

For a while the scripts from the two governments were interchangeable. No wonder the president was so slow to condemn Iran. He knew what he was going to do about his own critics.

Oh well at least someone woke him up. Now they are saying disagreements are good. Seems you can't bully Americans anymore than they could bully Iranians.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Time for some reason here
I come from a family of conservatives. We all own guns. My dad was a bird hunter and made sure we each has a shotgun when he passed away. Actually there were more than one gun each in the estate. I had two rifles and a shotgun plus a shotgun I had purchased myself.

So I do have an interest of gun control issues. First of all let me say there is enough bull manure on the issue to grow most of the corn in Iowa. Let me start with my side's argument that is bogus.

The 2nd amendment and the militia thing. The idea was that if the new government tried to walk on the rights of the people, the people would take their muskets and change the government. At the time nobody knew if this democracy thing would work. Well in the two hundred plus years since, we have not needed to have a popular uprising. Well maybe the civil war would be an uprising of that nature.

But today I would hate to think of me going up against a trained soldier with an m16 and me with a duck gun. There is just no way a civilian army with shotguns is going to defeat the government. So both sides need to just get past that argument.

Now the other side argues that criminals won't have guns to kill you with, if they can't buy them. If they stopped making guns today, there would be enough existing guns in this country to arm every criminal (who is not going to pay a bit of attention to your control laws) for at least a thousand years. Let's be honest here. I gave you the militia thing now give me that you can't disarm criminals. If you want to pass a law that criminals committing crimes with firearms will be shot on sight, I doubt that the nra will object.

Civilians carrying concealed weapons is a jump ball in my opinion. I would suggest to you that gun crimes are very unlikely by people who go to all the trouble and jump through all the hoops to get a carry permit. I just wouldn't worry about them. It's just a logical thing. Then again I don't want some untrained yahoo with marginal control of his emotions in a crowded restaurant with a gun on his hip either. Maybe make it very hard to get one (I think it is already) and shoot the offenders on sight.

Assault weapons is another problem for me. I don't mind that my neighbor has the Chinese version of the AK17. I would mind if some of the guys who lived in the hood around me did though. So that one I'm ambivalent on. You want to ban assault weapons I won't fight you that much. However know that we see it as the first step on total banning of guns and I will fight you on that one.

Permits to buy hand guns. I have no problem with that at all. The only thing I would ever use a gun for these days is to protect my family from home invasion. For that I have a shotgun (not one of my dads) that has a barrel cut to trench length. Trench gun length is 1/4 longer than the shortest legal limit. It is my opinion, at night in a dark house, even an experienced marksman can't hit a thug with a pistol. Give me #4 duck shot in a short barreled shotgun and I'll show you mass destruction. If you try to ban guns for home protection you will see a riot at the ballot box.

Now for the gun accident garbage. There are a thousand times more people killed accidentally by cars but nobody wants to ban cars. There are even more people killed by poison accidentally than by guns. I haven't heard anyone suggesting we ban Draino.

Come on folks be honest, why do they really want to ban guns. It isn't to enslave the population, **** we already are enslaved. I think it is a more about attitude than anything else. If the state is going to own everything, the individual's right to protect what is his has to be eliminated. The state wants to decide the value of your life, IE the punishment for the man who breaks into your house and kills you. As it is now, I get to decide his punishment. I still have that small bit of basic control. Some people want to tell me I don't have the right to defend myself because I might go too far. Only the cop who arrives ten minutes after I'm dead, and the jury of his peers can give him real justice. I'm sorry but I don't see it that way. So that is the real argument. Who has the right to decide your fate. Does your life have value as an individual or not, that to me is the basic argument.

For me see it's a personal/practical thing. I don't much care for this grandiose BS. Let's just cut to the chase. Now some liberal needs to tell me his version just so we know.

Just so you know I do not consider this about politics.....