Jump to content
What do you see as the positive benefits of guns in the hands of law abiding Americans? I am under the impression, for example, that England seems to get along without guns and there is less violence.
No one is trying to take away cars or guns except for assault weapons. I guess one could make the comparison that cars are to guns as tanks are to assault weapons. In other words, there might be useful limits at some point. You wouldn't want people driving tanks down the street any more than you'd want to see an assault weapon in the hunting fields.
There are plenty of vehicle laws and licenses. Maybe there should be a few more for guns. Keep at me. I may get enlightened yet.
It would be easy to lose one's appetite if you read too much about our food sources. My boyfriend hunts and fishes so that is what we eat. I keep telling myself that it has to be healthier than meat you buy in the store but I might be kidding myself. I buy organic or free range chicken occasionally. I'm not convinced it is any better than regular chicken. due to imprecise labeling. Vegetables--mostly out of our garden but my neighbor tells me that she wouldn't eat one thing out of our garden because our dogs pee all everything. Pleasant thought.
We'll talk about healthcare in another LTE's comments. I see things a bit differently than you do so appreciate the discussion.
As for the gun discussion, I've never heard or read that either Feinstein, who until recently was my California senator, or Obama having ever said anything about taking guns away from law abiding citizens except for assault weapons. I'm open for correction.
I'm not sure I follow you with your first paragraph. I'm not even sure what question to ask to get some clarity but suspect you made a good point. We have a cache of guns around here but I don't use them so am quite ignorant as is probably very apparent.
Time to go vegetarian, namvet :).
No one is asking for either knives and guns to be eliminated so watch your red meat intake since yesterday it was announced that it causes the bacteria in the gut to make TMAO which increases the risk of heart attacks.
Thanks, namvet. I suspect you are right that with background checks, magazine size probably isn't as critical although something in me thinks that limiting magazine size is still a good idea. If Lansa, for example, had taken the smaller magazines to the school instead of the bigger ones, there might have been fewer deaths. Do we really need big magazines? I am really going to get myself into trouble with every male's fantasy for fast cars, but high capacity gun magazines remind me of wanting a high horse powered car. There really isn't a safe place to test the horsepower but that is no deterrent wanting one or to those who can afford them. Remember that 1.1 million $ Ferrari Enzo that crashed around 2008. It happened in the neighborhood where we moved up from. Dumb place to be speeding even with no traffic. The guy was going about 160 mph. Speed limits make some sense. Can magazine size make some sense as well? What purpose do high capacity magazines serve?
I'm not sure I can see your argument that limiting freedom necessarily means price inflation. For example, if monopolies aren't regulated (limiting freedom) we see huge price increases. I tend to think that the EPA has less to do with the increase of gas prices than the OPEC cartel (monopoly) and the demand by developing countries like China and India.
The British have Churchill to thank for establishing their National Health Service and Maggie Thatcher took great pride in it as well.
She wrote in her book, “I believed that the NHS was a service of which we could genuinely be proud.It delivered a high quality of care — especially when it came to acute illnesses — and at a reasonably modest unit cost, at least compared with some insurance-based systems.”
Pearl Y, Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014 so what you are seeing is your insurance company gouging you until then . We could see a reduction in premiums when the exchanges start up and there is more competition.
Before Obama, insurance rates were going up dramatically. You might recall, given it hit the news across the U.S., Blue Cross of California boosted its rates 39% around 2008. I was living in Los Angeles at the time and had Blue Cross. Every year I dreaded getting a letter from Blue Cross announcing its yearly premium hike which were always double digit hikes, 39% being the most egregious. Furthermore, I had a pre-existing condition which meant that if I wanted to stay insured, I had to stay in California with my existing Blue Cross policy. I had no freedom to move out of state until I reached Medicare age. We may not like Obamacare but it has eliminated some abuses and there is a good chance that it will be fine tuned well enough to take care of others like runaway hospital costs.
Federal govt employees are covered by FERS since 1984 but federal elected officials, including Congress, pay into Social Security and Medicare just like much of the rest of the nation: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/hfaq.html .
Who is talking about disarming law-abiding citizens?No one, including Obama. Background checks and magazine limits would not take away guns away. They would slow down the acquisition and would probably keep them out of the hands of the mentally disturbed.
There are no stats about states hiring armed security. In a Google search there were a few examples of a county here or there but not many. It appears that about 12 states initiated vs. implemented legislation right after Sandy Hook but the reality is that most states can't afford armed security let alone public education. Maybe you can do a better job than I have done.
Last login: Sunday, August 10, 2014
2014 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.