10 Pro-Gun Carry Myths, Shot Down
My liberal readers regularly get upset with some of my posts. I think it is only fair to make my gun-toting NRA-brainwashed friends upset every once in a while.
The facts are simple. Gun carrying a in a public place is a really bad idea. I will defend your Constitutional right to be stupid and have a gun in your house (where you are 4 times more likely to hurt/kill a friend or family member than stop a criminal entering your house). I refuse to support your supposed right to carry a gun into a public place. I think that crosses the line of Constitutional rights and multiple studies have shown that this is a danger to society.
The Constitution guarantees your right to carry arms to form a militia not to carry arms to TGI Fridays, McDonalds, the grocery store, or to watch a movie.
It is a fair conclusion that the right to have a militia includes the right to have guns in your home to prevent intruders from coming in (although it is a dangerous practice, it is still your right). However, when you go into a public setting, you are now affecting my right to be safe from idiots carrying guns. Please leave it under your pillow.
Concealed carry laws (like https://gunlawsuits.org/gun-laws/delaware/concealed-carry/) which require you to get training and a license are a step in the right direction. It often means you’re more likely to be a responsible gun owner and know when is the right time to take it out. If it were up to me I would be a lot stricter with laws like these, such as places you absolutely cannot take a gun to.
We average about 80K injuries a year and 30K deaths per year due to firearms. If you have ever gone to the hospital, you know how significant the costs are for standard injuries but the injuries due GSW cost approximately 500K per episode. That is $55B in our healthcare costs.
I fully realize that the NRA likes to downplay these studies. That is too bad since facts are not on their side.
Check out this article and read all of the details. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
World’s Worst Tax Collectors
Is Harry Reid as bad as Turkey’s ban of Twitter?
One of the major items in the news right now is that Turkey has tried to ban Twitter. The Turkish government ban on Twitter has provoked widespread fury in Turkey, and condemnation around the world, with the country’s own president taking to the social media website to condemn the country’s actions. Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who blames social media for fueling anti-government rhetoric, threatened to “eradicate” Twitter at a campaign rally in the city of Bursa.
By any measure, this offends the sensibilities of Americans. We may agree or not agree on an issue but we will defend the right to hear both sides of an issue. At least that is what we are supposed to believe.
But is it true?
Senator Harry Reid is currently trying to muzzle the Koch brothers. Koch Industries, Inc. is an American multinational corporation based in Wichita, Kansas, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch also owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals and Matador Cattle Company. Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments. The firm employs 50,000 people in the United States and another 20,000 in 59 other countries.
In 2013, Forbes called Koch Industries the second largest privately held company in the United States, with an annual revenue of $115 billion. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2013, it would have ranked 17 in the Fortune 500. Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer, and David H. Koch, executive vice president, are principal owners of the company each owning 42% of Koch Industries.
So why is Harry Reid so adamant about silencing these two brothers that are such excellent industrialists? Simply because they believe things that Harry Reid does not believe. They have an honest difference of opinion on several major issues. The Koch brothers are quite wealthy so they have given a large sum of money to convince others of their position.
Arguing is good, right? Above, I just pointed out how bad it was that the Turkish government was trying to stop other opinions from spreading. Surely, Harry Reid wouldn’t go that far. Or would he?
From The Hill:
“These are the same brothers whose company, according to a Bloomberg investigation, paid bribes and kickbacks to win contracts in Africa, India and the Middle East,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “These are the same brothers who, according to the same report, used foreign subsidiaries to sell millions of dollars of equipment to Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism.”
Wow! Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the US Senate is saying that these two gentlemen are breaking the law. That is strong. Basically, he is telling the Department of Justice to go after these two evil men and prosecute them. If the allegations are true (which the Koch brothers state via their lawyer, are not) then they should be punished. If the allegations are true, then throw the bums in jail.
But then, Harry Reid does a very unusual thing. He says that to argue against his positions is un-American.
From The Washington Post:
“It’s too bad that they’re trying to buy America, and it’s time that the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty of these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone I can imagine,” Harry Reid said on the Senate floor.
So now I am confused (sarcasm). It is bad when the Prime Minister of Turkey fights opposing opinions but it is “un-American” when private businessmen fight with the Majority Leader.
Is Harry Reid’s treatment of the Koch brothers as bad as Turkey’s ban of Twitter?
Poor reporting on Obamacare insurance
I have been reading a lot of articles lately (and a lot of TV news shows) about Obamacare insurance problems.
I think it is quite sad that so many people are getting cancellation letters from their insurance companies. Even if they may get a slightly better insurance deal in the future, the frustration of having to change insurance providers is something that elected politicians don’t seem to empathize with enough.
I do condemn the “made up” controversies though. It is shocking the number of people that are getting interviewed on TV about their own horror that are not fairly reported. Too many times, I read an article where a print reporter followed up on a TV interview only to find the person didn’t adequately confirm their exact coverage or costs. The TV interview shows really need to get their act together and if you watch TV for your news, you probably are being misinformed in one way or another.
I am frustrated with reports of great deals that people get (once they live through the pain of the website). Every great deal that I have seen has been made into a great deal by subsidies. These subsidies come from the Federal Government. The government is paying for the subsidies from a bank account that is empty. That emptiness is currently being filled with loans from others. Those loans are going to be paid off by my children and grandchildren (if I am blessed to have grandchildren in the future).
So your great deal in health insurance is going to be paid by my offspring. Please understand if I don’t think that is a good idea. I love my children more than I love you, so I am not real excited about them paying for your great insurance deal.
I did want to point out this particular review of a television interview. This is terrible. Since when does “basic health insurance coverage” include mental care insurance? While I fully empathize with anyone that needs mental health assistance, I honestly do not think it is on the same level as making sure that their broken arm gets set or babies getting proper immunization. Shouldn’t we work on getting that insurance coverage first for those that have NO coverage before we start offering expanded coverage at a discount with subsidies?
Also, I don’t know what world the reporter, Nancy Metcalf, lives in where $100 a month is an immaterial expense.
CR’s Metcalf examined Barrette’s Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette’s $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she’s on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services — and then only if her treatment is for “complications of pregnancy.” Nothing for outpatient services.
“She’s paying $650 a year to be uninsured,” said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, “she would have lost the house she’s sitting in.”
As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she’ll be eligible for “real insurance that covers all essential health benefits” for as little as $165 a month — a higher premium than she’s paying now, sure, but one that won’t cost her her home.
The insurance coverage described in the article seems fairly decent. A pretty decent reimbursement for preventative care. While I would suggest the individual get some catastrophic coverage to help with a major illness, this basic coverage hardly seems to be predatory. When the “nanny state” starts to tell us what product is best for us and not good for us, I start to get a bit squeamish. I will make my own decisions on what is best for me, thank you very much.
The interviews regarding Obamacare insurance failings need to be fair, but then so do the rebuttals of those interviews.
Image courtesy of digitalart at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
I think I could like Ayatollah Hossein Kazemeyni Boroujerdi
I think I could like Ayatollah Hossein Kazemeyni Boroujerdi. I will likely never meet him as he is in prison in Iran and being tortured and relatives fear he is close to death.
Mr. Boroujerdi supports the traditional Shiite view that religious leaders should stay out of politics and preach their messages to the faithful in mosques (maybe a few Christian preachers in the US could learn that lesson). In his words, protesting in 2006, “the regime is adamant that either people adhere to political Islam or be jailed, exiled or killed. Its behavior is no different from that of Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar.”
Mr. Boroujerdi has also preached tolerance of all religious beliefs, including atheism, on the grounds that faith must be freely chosen. Perhaps nothing bothers the Iranian regime more than religious pluralism: In recent years, the country has been swept by the arrests and executions of members of minority groups like the Bahais and Sufi dervishes.
In 2010, a message from Mr. Boroujerdi was smuggled out of Evin prison, delivering a message to the world’s Jews in celebration of Hanukkah. “Any religious belief that brings us closer to (God) is the truth,” he wrote. “This force will lead humanity towards enlightenment. On this great day, we celebrate the unity among the believers of God’s light.”
Yes, I think I could learn from this man. Too bad Iran will make sure he is dead soon.
Article from the Wall Street Journal talking about Mr. Boroujerdi.