My wife is constantly telling me "You're Mr. Negative!" She is partially right in that I do tend to dwell on negative news.
Stock markets have been melting up (and then jitter worse than a June-bug lately with all the turmoil in recent days) only to meltdown. Gas prices are surging. The Maryland legislature has been pushing more anti-gun legislation along with backward thinking gas and liquor tax hikes. Obama is still our President and Congress can't do anything but bicker about cutting the largest deficit in a single year known to man. So on and so forth, you get the idea that right now there is just not a whole lot of good to look at in the world.
With that having been said, I have not had the motivation to write lately.
Circling back to the thread title I have to ask, how do we measure the outlook upon the country and the world in terms associated with geopolitical and economical stresses and uncertainties? The headlines that have been amassed by the riots of last month in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Bahrain, along with the Bolshevik style protests in Wisconsin over public sector unions, and the budget discussions in Washington are not the things that paint pretty mosaic pictures. Quite the contrary; they flat out suck! If we as individuals who follow worldly events and pay homage to individual freedom contemplate the events themselves and not necessarily the meanings behind them, what conclusions should we draw?
Protesters in foreign lands fighting their oppressors is very important and while it is not negative in nature per sé, it certainly speaks to a realm of potential death, destruction, and economic upheaval. In Wisconsin, we see the same thing as the entrenched political machine is tooth and nail to prevent a systemic change that will start an unraveling in the status quo. Of course, Washington is no different as the House pushes to cut some 100 billion spending (which is still less than 1% of the total Federal budget, yikes).
So where does all of this leave us? Where does it leave our psyche? Should we all dwell on SHTF or should we prep to the world's end? Or perhaps we need to just say F'it, let's Quit Our Jobs and Move to Key West. (While I don't advocate directly for the last one in that option string, I would certainly prefer it). But, I digress, and in my long winded nature I have yet to make any points.
Thanks to FerFAL, he pretty much achieved what took me 3 months to finally pen out. He discusses the practical need to be prepared for our worlds to be turned upside down but we can't completely forget that life is just that, life, and as such it always goes on. Sometimes life moves with us, sometimes without us, and the best we can hope for is to be in it.
Often when asked by coworkers or friends "how are you?" I respond with "alive." I think that it is important for us to remind ourselves sometimes that we are in deed, alive. Considering that the alternative of death doesn't really affect positive changes upon the world, this is a good state of physiological normal. While it would be nice to meet my maker of a natural phenomena (NO suicidal thoughts here as it goes against my spiritual beliefes), I am not ready to leave behind the things that I have in this world. There are too many things to accomplish and too many people to protect (meaning, my wife and my family). This means that while reviewing the news of the world, it is important to remain grounded.
As a libertarian and someone who believes in individual freedom, it is important that I (and my fellow libertarians) not loose sight of today's reality. While we may not agree with the politics or religions of those in Egypt and other Middle East countries that have been perusing regime change, we should certainly admire them for the boldness of their initiatives, and their resolve. It says a lot when impoverished citizens who have been enslaved by corrupt governments make strides to effect real change for their overall freedom. I wish I could say the same for my country which has seen a cut and run strategy that has denied the citizen class the opportunity of a functional republican form of government.
Before rambling off into my return to blogging, I am going to leave this post written as a sort of mind teaser. While I have certainly switched my feelings about our country on a day to day basis since first broaching the post title last November, my long term outlook has been of a downward trend. Unfortunately, as semi-outlined above, that trend seems to agree with reality. So dear reader, is being negative synonymous with being a realist?
I would love to be proved wrong of course, but something tells me this summer is going to be hotter than the 60s and 70s combined.
04 March 2011
17 February 2011
I'm Still Alive; Work Just Owns Me
Sorry for the extended absence, but forgive me while this accountant has tax returns to prepare, monthly reconciliations to prepare, and an audit about to commence.
Factor in family birthdays and other commitments, I've got a stack of stuff to get to as the world unhinges itself. Look for some items late today, but probably tomorrow and this weekend are more likely.
Factor in family birthdays and other commitments, I've got a stack of stuff to get to as the world unhinges itself. Look for some items late today, but probably tomorrow and this weekend are more likely.
10 February 2011
Thoughts on Apple iARs
If you're a follower of gun blogs, no doubt you've seen this and this, and perhaps this.
As others are saying with the whole "Uses proprietary ammo. Shuts off when shooting unapproved targets," those thoughts aren't completely unfounded. In the gun community, should we be concerned that this is a wolf in sheep's clothing?
Let us considering this; Steve Job's campaign contributions over various election cycles for the past 20 years. It ain't pretty. From Fox:
Obviously, being a free market guy, I have no problem with Jobs and company trying to make a buck. Admittedly, my wife is an iPhone geek and a Mac user, and perhaps I'm becoming a convert, but what merrying of computer and guns will we see from Apple? Should we have to worry about a push of technology for "smart guns." With Jobs' billions and seemingly political clout, what new front does this acquisition of Saber Defense present to the gun rights movement?
Obviously, this announcement should be treated with a bit of skepticism at first, but perhaps we will see innovative products that will permeate through out our armed forces, and thus, into the hands of the civilian market. Until we see any changes from the Saber Defense portion of Apple's portfolio, we should proceed with caution, and hopeful optimism. However, let us put Jobs on notice that pushing products that are contrary to the protected and functional meaning of the 2A, and then further using his clout and the legislative process to game the economic system to his advantage, will absolutely not be tolerated.
As others are saying with the whole "Uses proprietary ammo. Shuts off when shooting unapproved targets," those thoughts aren't completely unfounded. In the gun community, should we be concerned that this is a wolf in sheep's clothing?
Let us considering this; Steve Job's campaign contributions over various election cycles for the past 20 years. It ain't pretty. From Fox:
“Steve Jobs is Democratic-leaning based on who he gives money to and what he says. And Jobs has never let it be known how he votes, but he supports Democratic causes and has contributed about $225,000 to Democrats since the 1980s,” McDonald told FoxNews.com. While Jobs may appear Democratic, Apple's policies are simpler, he said: "They promote what's going to make them the most money.”
And for what it's worth, former Vice President Al Gore is also on the Apple board of directors.Obviously, the list has some pretty unfriendly names upon it, including good old Dead Fish very prominently at the top. So what is the end game here?
Obviously, being a free market guy, I have no problem with Jobs and company trying to make a buck. Admittedly, my wife is an iPhone geek and a Mac user, and perhaps I'm becoming a convert, but what merrying of computer and guns will we see from Apple? Should we have to worry about a push of technology for "smart guns." With Jobs' billions and seemingly political clout, what new front does this acquisition of Saber Defense present to the gun rights movement?
Obviously, this announcement should be treated with a bit of skepticism at first, but perhaps we will see innovative products that will permeate through out our armed forces, and thus, into the hands of the civilian market. Until we see any changes from the Saber Defense portion of Apple's portfolio, we should proceed with caution, and hopeful optimism. However, let us put Jobs on notice that pushing products that are contrary to the protected and functional meaning of the 2A, and then further using his clout and the legislative process to game the economic system to his advantage, will absolutely not be tolerated.
MD Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Bill on Mag Limits Today
I just sent off this letter to the members of the Maryland Senate Judiciary Committee that will be debating and hearing testimony on a magazine capacity limit (limiting to 10 rounds down from the current State's law of 20 rounds).
Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee:
I am writing this letter in very strong opposition to Senate Bill 162, Firearms - Detachable Magazines - Maximum Capacity for Ammunition.
While I understand that this bill is primarily a reaction to the abhorrent tragedy that occurred last month in Arizona, it is my firm believe that this bill erroneously and incorrectly limits freedoms enjoyed by law abiding citizen. I wish to make it clear that the efforts of this state to protect its citizens and legislators should be focused on the actual acts of violence and the perpetrators thereof, instead of focusing on the tools used to commit such acts. Considering that the tool in question here (guns and their detachable magazines) are used for lawful purposes by those whom follow the law, I must question whether this bill will have any impact in effecting a decrease in criminal activity, specifically mass public homicides.
As you convene your committee hearing this day, please consider the following views of this constituent.
Arms in common use: Currently, Maryland law restricts the capacity of any ammunition feeding device to an arbitrary 20 round limit. While this law does not currently limit most arms that honest citizens can acquire and use for sporting and, more importantly, Constitutionally protected self defense, a decrease to ten rounds would almost assuredly cause a decrease in the supply of firearms within the state of Maryland. While some members of the committee might think limiting access to arms is a noble goal, it does nothing to address the potential for criminal homicides, regardless of the weapon used.
Further, with many law enforcement agencies in the state choosing to use handguns that often carry in excess of 10 rounds of ammunition, please note that even our government agencies agree that more rounds equals more opportunities to win in a self defense battle. Please recall that last year this committee enacted legislation to exempt homeowners from liability suits brought by the criminally negligent. Why do we want to regress in terms of defense of family and self by arbitrarily limiting the amount of ammunition one can use in any firearm at any time?
Economics: While we do not economic means test enumerated civil rights, it is hard to ignore the impact to small and local business that sell detachable magazines and the arms that operate with them. Considering the current economic climate, we should foster every opportunity to promote and encourage sales growth, cost savings, and business opportunities, as well as tax receipts to the state. At present, limited capacity magazines are both expense, produced in small numbers, and not widely available on the shelves of Maryland gun dealers. When cash flow for a small business can mean the difference between keeping the doors open or going out of business, we can ill-afford to upset this delicate balance as we force dealers to liquidate their products on hand, and replace them with something that may not even sell.
Looking to other "model" states as a product of such bans (California and Massachusetts), one sees that such magazine capacity restrictions impact the consumer as well. Manufactures of magazines are forced to produce a product they would not otherwise produce, thus limiting supplies and increasing the cost of both the magazine and the arms that use them. I would hope that you note that this will disproportionately affect the classes of people whom need them most to level the playing field against stronger criminals. Elderly, poor and economically stressed persons, as well as those living in under-privileged, crime ridden neighborhoods would effectively be priced out of the market place here in our state. Even if you don't agree with the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the Second Amendment and its Incorporation, shouldn't we all strive to increase exercise of freedom afforded by all civil rights?
Impact Upon Crime: In the days after the Arizona tragedy, critics of firearms were quick to point out that these types of magazines were banned under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Unfortunately, what the firearms critics failed to point out was that even the FBI was never able to correlate a reduction in crime statistics for those ten years to the reduction in "assault arms" and their accessories. If it is the attempt of this committee to decrease mass public shootings, I suggest we focus on mental health and criminal intent by better data-basing of crime reports and mentally deficient adjudication records before enacting legislation which only a law abiding citizen will follow.
As this legislation is discussed, the four surrounding neighbor states of Maryland should serve as an example to the ineffectiveness of this legislation. All four states currently do not impose arbitrary capacity restrictions limiting detachable magazines to 20 round, and all four states have lower crime rates than that of Maryland. Let us be realistic in this assessment however and not fail to realize that the culture and demographics of our neighbors is different from that of Maryland's, but from a straight forward correlation of more magazine capacity related to criminal shootings, it is nearly impossible to make such a connection.
In summary, I strongly urge the committee to discard this bill and withhold it from the full Senate. As outlined above, it is easy to see an increase to the arbitrary magazine capacity limit will do nothing to prevent crime, nothing to deter crime, and will only act to put further restrictions upon a civil right that is enjoyed by many Marylanders.
Thank you for considering the input from this concerned citizen as you hear today's testimony.
Sincerely,
FightinBluHen51
Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee:
I am writing this letter in very strong opposition to Senate Bill 162, Firearms - Detachable Magazines - Maximum Capacity for Ammunition.
While I understand that this bill is primarily a reaction to the abhorrent tragedy that occurred last month in Arizona, it is my firm believe that this bill erroneously and incorrectly limits freedoms enjoyed by law abiding citizen. I wish to make it clear that the efforts of this state to protect its citizens and legislators should be focused on the actual acts of violence and the perpetrators thereof, instead of focusing on the tools used to commit such acts. Considering that the tool in question here (guns and their detachable magazines) are used for lawful purposes by those whom follow the law, I must question whether this bill will have any impact in effecting a decrease in criminal activity, specifically mass public homicides.
As you convene your committee hearing this day, please consider the following views of this constituent.
Arms in common use: Currently, Maryland law restricts the capacity of any ammunition feeding device to an arbitrary 20 round limit. While this law does not currently limit most arms that honest citizens can acquire and use for sporting and, more importantly, Constitutionally protected self defense, a decrease to ten rounds would almost assuredly cause a decrease in the supply of firearms within the state of Maryland. While some members of the committee might think limiting access to arms is a noble goal, it does nothing to address the potential for criminal homicides, regardless of the weapon used.
Further, with many law enforcement agencies in the state choosing to use handguns that often carry in excess of 10 rounds of ammunition, please note that even our government agencies agree that more rounds equals more opportunities to win in a self defense battle. Please recall that last year this committee enacted legislation to exempt homeowners from liability suits brought by the criminally negligent. Why do we want to regress in terms of defense of family and self by arbitrarily limiting the amount of ammunition one can use in any firearm at any time?
Economics: While we do not economic means test enumerated civil rights, it is hard to ignore the impact to small and local business that sell detachable magazines and the arms that operate with them. Considering the current economic climate, we should foster every opportunity to promote and encourage sales growth, cost savings, and business opportunities, as well as tax receipts to the state. At present, limited capacity magazines are both expense, produced in small numbers, and not widely available on the shelves of Maryland gun dealers. When cash flow for a small business can mean the difference between keeping the doors open or going out of business, we can ill-afford to upset this delicate balance as we force dealers to liquidate their products on hand, and replace them with something that may not even sell.
Looking to other "model" states as a product of such bans (California and Massachusetts), one sees that such magazine capacity restrictions impact the consumer as well. Manufactures of magazines are forced to produce a product they would not otherwise produce, thus limiting supplies and increasing the cost of both the magazine and the arms that use them. I would hope that you note that this will disproportionately affect the classes of people whom need them most to level the playing field against stronger criminals. Elderly, poor and economically stressed persons, as well as those living in under-privileged, crime ridden neighborhoods would effectively be priced out of the market place here in our state. Even if you don't agree with the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the Second Amendment and its Incorporation, shouldn't we all strive to increase exercise of freedom afforded by all civil rights?
Impact Upon Crime: In the days after the Arizona tragedy, critics of firearms were quick to point out that these types of magazines were banned under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Unfortunately, what the firearms critics failed to point out was that even the FBI was never able to correlate a reduction in crime statistics for those ten years to the reduction in "assault arms" and their accessories. If it is the attempt of this committee to decrease mass public shootings, I suggest we focus on mental health and criminal intent by better data-basing of crime reports and mentally deficient adjudication records before enacting legislation which only a law abiding citizen will follow.
As this legislation is discussed, the four surrounding neighbor states of Maryland should serve as an example to the ineffectiveness of this legislation. All four states currently do not impose arbitrary capacity restrictions limiting detachable magazines to 20 round, and all four states have lower crime rates than that of Maryland. Let us be realistic in this assessment however and not fail to realize that the culture and demographics of our neighbors is different from that of Maryland's, but from a straight forward correlation of more magazine capacity related to criminal shootings, it is nearly impossible to make such a connection.
In summary, I strongly urge the committee to discard this bill and withhold it from the full Senate. As outlined above, it is easy to see an increase to the arbitrary magazine capacity limit will do nothing to prevent crime, nothing to deter crime, and will only act to put further restrictions upon a civil right that is enjoyed by many Marylanders.
Thank you for considering the input from this concerned citizen as you hear today's testimony.
Sincerely,
FightinBluHen51
06 February 2011
Happy Birthday Gipper!
Goodness grief, it's the Gipper's birthday and I've never dedicated a single post to him? What am I thinking!
Born in the land of Lincoln, we were given a man that captured the hearts, and more importantly, the minds of men and the world, Ronald Reagan would have turned 100 years old this day. I would say that it is not a coincidence that less than 1 month ago we celebrated 1911 day; meaning good things truly do come in bunches.
Without further ado, I give you two of Reagan's finest speeches that helped to shape America's history. Enjoy.
Born in the land of Lincoln, we were given a man that captured the hearts, and more importantly, the minds of men and the world, Ronald Reagan would have turned 100 years old this day. I would say that it is not a coincidence that less than 1 month ago we celebrated 1911 day; meaning good things truly do come in bunches.
Without further ado, I give you two of Reagan's finest speeches that helped to shape America's history. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)