http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/879318.html
"inclusive in this must be...that we ask the president and the congress to renew the assault weapons ban that expired under president bush. it must be a national ban, it must now, and it must be the cry of the civil rights community all over this country." - rev. sharpton
"no community is safe. as long as an ak or assault rifle is in our community." - rev. starling
i absolutely agree with what starling said. i believe that there should be an assault weapons ban in all inner cities. it's apparent that crime in inner cities is uncontrollable. it's apparent that people in the inner cities don't care about the rampant crimes caused perpetuated by the "i aint a snitcher" ideology of inner city residents.
however, it is insulting and idiotic to group the rest of the law-abiding and peaceful, responsible gun owners across the nation with the criminals of inner cities. what happens in inner cities should never be referred to or tied to the rest of the country.
before you even begin talking about the rest of the nation, you should first have control of your inner cities.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Monday, November 24, 2008
just how significant are guns today when we talk about crime?
The gun debate is an issue that creates so many heated arguments with both sides making compelling arguments that go nowhere as far as the opposition is concerned. In the end people that don’t want guns, or don’t like guns simply want to pass judgment and ridicule on gun owners. Gun owners have to defend their right and privilege in gun ownership.
There are 2 truths here that must be accepted by all -
1. the second amendment exists; our forefathers wanted individual arms rights even though some spoke against it.
Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. See Vt. Const., ch. 1, §15, in 6 id., at 3741
But once again the State’s highest court thought otherwise. Writing forthe court in an 1825 libel case, Chief Justice Parker wrote:
“The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction.”
Common-wealth v. Blanding, 20 Mass. 304, 313–314. The analogy makes no sense if firearms could not be used for any indi-vidual purpose at all.
Other States did not include rights to bear arms in their pre-1789 constitutions—although in Virginia a Second Amendment analogue was proposed (unsuccessfully) by Thomas Jefferson.
(It read:
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”
1 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 344 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)).
Between 1789 and 1820, nine States adopted Second Amendment analogues. Four of them—Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri—referred to the right of the people to “bear arms in defence of themselves and the State.” See n. 8, supra. Another three States—Mississippi, Connecticut, and Alabama—used the even more individualistic
phrasing that each citizen has the “right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.” See ibid. Finally, two
States—Tennessee and Maine—used the “common defence” language of Massachusetts.
In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:
“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .
“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
Rawle 121–122.
A Treatise on the Unconstitutionality of American Slavery 117–118 (1849); see also L. Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 116 (1845) (right enables “personal defence”). In his famous Senate speech about the 1856 “Bleeding Kansas” conflict, Charles Sumner proclaimed:
“The rifle has ever been the companion of the pioneer and, under God, his tutelary protector against the red man and the beast of the forest. Never was this efficient weapon more needed in just self-defence, than now in Kansas, and at least one article in our National Constitution must be blotted out, before the complete right to it can in any way be impeached. And yet such is the madness of the hour, that, in defiance of the solemn guarantee, embodied in the Amendments to the Constitution, that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the people of Kansas have been arraigned for keeping and bearing them, and the Senator from South Carolina has had the face to say openly, on this floor, that they should be disarmed—of course, that the fanatics of Slavery, his allies and constituents, may meet no impediment.”
The Crime Against Kansas, May 19–20, 1856, in American Speeches: Political Oratory from the Revolution to the Civil War 553, 606–607 (2006).
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
2. criminals kill with guns.
over the years that criminals have been changing the landscape of policies, laws, and our rights. A criminals kills someone and people cry out for less guns. A criminal kills people and the law-abiding American is to blame because they value the 2nd amendment. a criminal kills and the gun opposing side wants their voice and their way to matter more than the rights and the voice of the Americans protected by the constitution.
Well I assure you that violence and crimes has absolutely nothing to do with guns. We are so blind and ignorant that we don’t even see that fact. Guns are not the problem. The problem is ancient, and thousands of centuries old. Or don’t we see that? I guess we don’t. instead of debating the gun issue I’m going to give you 3 scenarios that may help you see our problem in a different light. And to be sure, they are all dark, bleak, and eternally embedded in the destruction of humandesign.
I will be extreme, because we as a people seem to only respond to extremities.
Lets say we all support a leader that claims will get rid of crime, particularly gun crimes, by the harshest means necessary. Starting from the petty thief that steals a candy bar to the criminal that would stalk, kidnap, torture, rape and kill either a child or the elderly by whatever method suits them - this is the most extreme crime I can image there.
Now we have outlined the full spectrum of crimes, and it doesn’t matter that a kid or and old person commits them, they are criminals and will be dealt the harshest punishment of life in prison or death for those crimes that result in death or are committed with a gun.
We start prosecuting and those found guilty with gun crimes will be systematically dismembered, beheaded and having their heads impaled on a post as a warning for criminals and the world to see how we deal with crime.
However long this takes it will be done. Do you think that would have any impact on crimes? Do you think the harshness of the punishment will stop crimes? The answer is no and there is a reason for that. Out of this policy we will see 5 types of criminals that I can think of, correct me if I’m wrong.
those criminals that fell fed up one day, because life isn’t fair and they want to get even so they will mug someone or hold up a store for money, or simply try and steal something for cash or because they feel like it. steal property of all kinds, and they are fearful of dying or going to jail – it’s safe to say a majority if not all of these people will think 10 to 50 times before committing a crime leading to life in jail much less having their heads impaled on a post for doing with a gun.
those criminals that act under stress, rage, fits, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs – there may be some that this punishment will permeate in their minds and may cause them to question and think about the consequences even under such circumstances. See I believe it is one thing to not worry about going to jail or getting caught when we have the knowledge that lawyers can get you acquitted, less jail time, or by any means necessary free with no threat of death. Death will make any person think twice. (Any reasonable, normal functioning person.) but some will commit crimes because their passions are stronger than their will. There will be a few of these crimes happening.
those criminals that despite whatever consequence to crime is will simply commit crimes because they defy and rebel against authority and peace, and they may not want to die but if caught may or may not fight back – these criminals might think about the consequence of crime but in the end most of them will commit crime with a “catch me if you can” attitude and will run for as long as they can be free.
those criminals that despite the consequences will commit crime because they plan on suicide, so it doesn’t really matter what the punishment is – we will NEVER stop this kind of crime. And we will NEVER be able to predict this type of crime.
those criminals that are completely and irreversibly insane, which no question to moral and conscience, no right or wrong, no idea of consequence – we will NEVER stop these criminals, and likewise we will NEVER be able to predict this criminal.
Step back and think about that. Will getting rid of guns really stop crimes? Keep in mind that most of these people commit crimes with sharp objects and with their hands, despite the availability of guns, because they prefer it. Are guns really the problem?
The second scenario is not likely to happen but it illustrates the concept of humandesign.
Lets say humanity makes a pact to slowly get rid of any and all idea of violence, murder and destruction. Slowly we destroy all media, music, art, and even rewrite our history to present life as peaceful and never leave a trace of violence.
We do this for the sake of all the children growing up. And also we begin to kill the older generations with this knowledge, until we ultimately kill all but our children. We leave them with the peaceful and right ideas of how to live among each other, how to govern with peace and equality, but not justice, because there will be no need for the idea of justice. (If there is need for justice, that means there are the unjust) The right ways of being part of society, the right ways of dealing with each other, greedless, selfless, all loving, all caring, all understanding. They grow up in what the true utopia is, all peace, all honor, all respect. No weapons, no violence, no jealousy, no evil.
How long before one of our children or perhaps their children begin to think differently, begin to question, begin to want something else. When that idea is brought into light, there is no turning back. There is no forgetting. There is no peace anymore. They will have evolved into what we have evolved into today. That is humandesign. It is our existence. It is our instinct. What is the probability that one day someone will rebel against the common perception?
To rebel leads to war, war leads to the innovations of destruction and killing, killing will lead to injustice and fear, and injustice will inevitably lead to crime.
We cannot escape humandesign.
My final scenario is the only one that will stop crime, ultimately, irrefutably, 100%
The destruction of all mankind on earth.
Now, just how significant are guns today when we talk about crime?
There are 2 truths here that must be accepted by all -
1. the second amendment exists; our forefathers wanted individual arms rights even though some spoke against it.
Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. See Vt. Const., ch. 1, §15, in 6 id., at 3741
But once again the State’s highest court thought otherwise. Writing forthe court in an 1825 libel case, Chief Justice Parker wrote:
“The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction.”
Common-wealth v. Blanding, 20 Mass. 304, 313–314. The analogy makes no sense if firearms could not be used for any indi-vidual purpose at all.
Other States did not include rights to bear arms in their pre-1789 constitutions—although in Virginia a Second Amendment analogue was proposed (unsuccessfully) by Thomas Jefferson.
(It read:
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”
1 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 344 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)).
Between 1789 and 1820, nine States adopted Second Amendment analogues. Four of them—Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri—referred to the right of the people to “bear arms in defence of themselves and the State.” See n. 8, supra. Another three States—Mississippi, Connecticut, and Alabama—used the even more individualistic
phrasing that each citizen has the “right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.” See ibid. Finally, two
States—Tennessee and Maine—used the “common defence” language of Massachusetts.
In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:
“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .
“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
Rawle 121–122.
A Treatise on the Unconstitutionality of American Slavery 117–118 (1849); see also L. Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 116 (1845) (right enables “personal defence”). In his famous Senate speech about the 1856 “Bleeding Kansas” conflict, Charles Sumner proclaimed:
“The rifle has ever been the companion of the pioneer and, under God, his tutelary protector against the red man and the beast of the forest. Never was this efficient weapon more needed in just self-defence, than now in Kansas, and at least one article in our National Constitution must be blotted out, before the complete right to it can in any way be impeached. And yet such is the madness of the hour, that, in defiance of the solemn guarantee, embodied in the Amendments to the Constitution, that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the people of Kansas have been arraigned for keeping and bearing them, and the Senator from South Carolina has had the face to say openly, on this floor, that they should be disarmed—of course, that the fanatics of Slavery, his allies and constituents, may meet no impediment.”
The Crime Against Kansas, May 19–20, 1856, in American Speeches: Political Oratory from the Revolution to the Civil War 553, 606–607 (2006).
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
2. criminals kill with guns.
over the years that criminals have been changing the landscape of policies, laws, and our rights. A criminals kills someone and people cry out for less guns. A criminal kills people and the law-abiding American is to blame because they value the 2nd amendment. a criminal kills and the gun opposing side wants their voice and their way to matter more than the rights and the voice of the Americans protected by the constitution.
Well I assure you that violence and crimes has absolutely nothing to do with guns. We are so blind and ignorant that we don’t even see that fact. Guns are not the problem. The problem is ancient, and thousands of centuries old. Or don’t we see that? I guess we don’t. instead of debating the gun issue I’m going to give you 3 scenarios that may help you see our problem in a different light. And to be sure, they are all dark, bleak, and eternally embedded in the destruction of humandesign.
I will be extreme, because we as a people seem to only respond to extremities.
Lets say we all support a leader that claims will get rid of crime, particularly gun crimes, by the harshest means necessary. Starting from the petty thief that steals a candy bar to the criminal that would stalk, kidnap, torture, rape and kill either a child or the elderly by whatever method suits them - this is the most extreme crime I can image there.
Now we have outlined the full spectrum of crimes, and it doesn’t matter that a kid or and old person commits them, they are criminals and will be dealt the harshest punishment of life in prison or death for those crimes that result in death or are committed with a gun.
We start prosecuting and those found guilty with gun crimes will be systematically dismembered, beheaded and having their heads impaled on a post as a warning for criminals and the world to see how we deal with crime.
However long this takes it will be done. Do you think that would have any impact on crimes? Do you think the harshness of the punishment will stop crimes? The answer is no and there is a reason for that. Out of this policy we will see 5 types of criminals that I can think of, correct me if I’m wrong.
those criminals that fell fed up one day, because life isn’t fair and they want to get even so they will mug someone or hold up a store for money, or simply try and steal something for cash or because they feel like it. steal property of all kinds, and they are fearful of dying or going to jail – it’s safe to say a majority if not all of these people will think 10 to 50 times before committing a crime leading to life in jail much less having their heads impaled on a post for doing with a gun.
those criminals that act under stress, rage, fits, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs – there may be some that this punishment will permeate in their minds and may cause them to question and think about the consequences even under such circumstances. See I believe it is one thing to not worry about going to jail or getting caught when we have the knowledge that lawyers can get you acquitted, less jail time, or by any means necessary free with no threat of death. Death will make any person think twice. (Any reasonable, normal functioning person.) but some will commit crimes because their passions are stronger than their will. There will be a few of these crimes happening.
those criminals that despite whatever consequence to crime is will simply commit crimes because they defy and rebel against authority and peace, and they may not want to die but if caught may or may not fight back – these criminals might think about the consequence of crime but in the end most of them will commit crime with a “catch me if you can” attitude and will run for as long as they can be free.
those criminals that despite the consequences will commit crime because they plan on suicide, so it doesn’t really matter what the punishment is – we will NEVER stop this kind of crime. And we will NEVER be able to predict this type of crime.
those criminals that are completely and irreversibly insane, which no question to moral and conscience, no right or wrong, no idea of consequence – we will NEVER stop these criminals, and likewise we will NEVER be able to predict this criminal.
Step back and think about that. Will getting rid of guns really stop crimes? Keep in mind that most of these people commit crimes with sharp objects and with their hands, despite the availability of guns, because they prefer it. Are guns really the problem?
The second scenario is not likely to happen but it illustrates the concept of humandesign.
Lets say humanity makes a pact to slowly get rid of any and all idea of violence, murder and destruction. Slowly we destroy all media, music, art, and even rewrite our history to present life as peaceful and never leave a trace of violence.
We do this for the sake of all the children growing up. And also we begin to kill the older generations with this knowledge, until we ultimately kill all but our children. We leave them with the peaceful and right ideas of how to live among each other, how to govern with peace and equality, but not justice, because there will be no need for the idea of justice. (If there is need for justice, that means there are the unjust) The right ways of being part of society, the right ways of dealing with each other, greedless, selfless, all loving, all caring, all understanding. They grow up in what the true utopia is, all peace, all honor, all respect. No weapons, no violence, no jealousy, no evil.
How long before one of our children or perhaps their children begin to think differently, begin to question, begin to want something else. When that idea is brought into light, there is no turning back. There is no forgetting. There is no peace anymore. They will have evolved into what we have evolved into today. That is humandesign. It is our existence. It is our instinct. What is the probability that one day someone will rebel against the common perception?
To rebel leads to war, war leads to the innovations of destruction and killing, killing will lead to injustice and fear, and injustice will inevitably lead to crime.
We cannot escape humandesign.
My final scenario is the only one that will stop crime, ultimately, irrefutably, 100%
The destruction of all mankind on earth.
Now, just how significant are guns today when we talk about crime?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Obesity...
Obesity Gene No Longer Wholly Responsible for Overweight People
By Alice Carver 13:52, September 11th 2008
Many researchers now believe that the genetic mutation called the fat mass and obesity associated (FTO) gene is no longer wholly responsible for weight problems. A person’s level of exercise can influence the impact of the genetic predisposition to being overweight, a new study from the University of Maryland suggests.
An active lifestyle may help people combat obesity, the study found. For the study, researchers measured the amount of physical activity volunteers carried out with a device called “accelerometer” and found that being genetically predisposed to obesity “had no effect on those with above average physical activity scores.” Researchers concluded that the gene variants which have been linked to obesity are associated with a 20 percent risk of obesity.
“Our results strongly suggest that the increased risk of obesity due to genetic susceptibility can be blunted through physical activity,” Dr Soren Snitker, who led the research, said. But in people with low levels of physical activity, the association between the gene and increased body mass index was significant, according to the study. Another study found that half of all Europeans carry either one or two copies of this gene.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease and Prevention, 25.6% of Americans are obese.
The results of this study emphasize the important role played by regular physical activity in public health efforts to combat obesity, the authors added in the study published in the September 8 issue of the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.
© 2007 - 2008 - eFluxMedia
This is from efluxMedia's health section. So interestingly enough several articles are coming up about this "Obese Gene" that makes it so difficult for overweight people to loose fat even if they exercise as many have claimed.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/09/08/vigorous-exercise-aids-those-with-obesity-related.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/09/lessons-from-th.html
So, WOW, physical exercise is the key, hmmmmm. i guess we didn't know this bit of information before. There must of been some other type of exercise these people where talking about. go figure...
By Alice Carver 13:52, September 11th 2008
Many researchers now believe that the genetic mutation called the fat mass and obesity associated (FTO) gene is no longer wholly responsible for weight problems. A person’s level of exercise can influence the impact of the genetic predisposition to being overweight, a new study from the University of Maryland suggests.
An active lifestyle may help people combat obesity, the study found. For the study, researchers measured the amount of physical activity volunteers carried out with a device called “accelerometer” and found that being genetically predisposed to obesity “had no effect on those with above average physical activity scores.” Researchers concluded that the gene variants which have been linked to obesity are associated with a 20 percent risk of obesity.
“Our results strongly suggest that the increased risk of obesity due to genetic susceptibility can be blunted through physical activity,” Dr Soren Snitker, who led the research, said. But in people with low levels of physical activity, the association between the gene and increased body mass index was significant, according to the study. Another study found that half of all Europeans carry either one or two copies of this gene.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease and Prevention, 25.6% of Americans are obese.
The results of this study emphasize the important role played by regular physical activity in public health efforts to combat obesity, the authors added in the study published in the September 8 issue of the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.
© 2007 - 2008 - eFluxMedia
This is from efluxMedia's health section. So interestingly enough several articles are coming up about this "Obese Gene" that makes it so difficult for overweight people to loose fat even if they exercise as many have claimed.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/09/08/vigorous-exercise-aids-those-with-obesity-related.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/09/lessons-from-th.html
So, WOW, physical exercise is the key, hmmmmm. i guess we didn't know this bit of information before. There must of been some other type of exercise these people where talking about. go figure...
Friday, June 27, 2008
Second Amendment Ruling
it's absurd that after all this time they have finally made a clear ruling as to what the 2nd Amendment has always said. and it's particularly appalling to hear people say, "we should have the right to protect ourselves and carry a weapon." The 2nd Amendment had secured that for all Americans when it was ratified.
now the news reporters and the anti-gun agenda are claiming that this ruling opens the door to a great number of problems like and I quote from NPR NEWS “laws that prevent felons and the mentally imbalanced from owning guns will still stand despite this ruling” as though that was ever the intention of law abiding gun owners to actually allow criminals to legally own guns… they say it in such a way as to paint a picture that all pro gun Americans want their guns at all cost even allowing felons and crazy people to go out and buy guns. if these people are making such ridiculous moronic claims, i would be very careful to listen to anything they say in the future and any respect they may have had in the past should be striped. such idiocy is astounding.
gun ownership is a right and an honor in this country. only those that stand behind the country and play positive roles in society are the ones that benefit from this amendment. the 2nd amendment is for Americans, and to be an American means you are law-abiding, honest, compassionate, understanding, virtuous, positive, unselfish, open, and respectful.
it’s apparent that criminals are none of these things. and it’s apparent that the anti-gun agenda isn’t either.
now the news reporters and the anti-gun agenda are claiming that this ruling opens the door to a great number of problems like and I quote from NPR NEWS “laws that prevent felons and the mentally imbalanced from owning guns will still stand despite this ruling” as though that was ever the intention of law abiding gun owners to actually allow criminals to legally own guns… they say it in such a way as to paint a picture that all pro gun Americans want their guns at all cost even allowing felons and crazy people to go out and buy guns. if these people are making such ridiculous moronic claims, i would be very careful to listen to anything they say in the future and any respect they may have had in the past should be striped. such idiocy is astounding.
gun ownership is a right and an honor in this country. only those that stand behind the country and play positive roles in society are the ones that benefit from this amendment. the 2nd amendment is for Americans, and to be an American means you are law-abiding, honest, compassionate, understanding, virtuous, positive, unselfish, open, and respectful.
it’s apparent that criminals are none of these things. and it’s apparent that the anti-gun agenda isn’t either.
Friday, April 18, 2008
there are so many things going on that it's really hard to get a clear thought out.
we are in trouble with american standards today. there are none. the american people are losing out. i've been reading and seeing the damage wal-mart has been doing to all of us; and most of us don't even realize it. there is no consequences for big corporations like this one and others like it.
the most we can do is stop shopping there. i said before we the people have the power to destroy any corporation with our spending habits.
but aside from that there needs to be policies set in place. the leaders of this country should keep the people 1st in their minds. i was talking to a friend who asked me if i would support a luxury tax on companies making record profits of over 1 billion dollars. i didn't agree at first, but after thinking about it and reading about these fascist corporations. i do see an indispensable need to control them.
I would implement
a luxury tax on corporations like wal-mart; a percentage per billion dollars made in profit – to be used only for social security, health care, and education for americans
establish a higher minimum wage policy for these capable companies.
hold them to strict punishable policies of accountability for cutting jobs to maximize profit, when the employees they layoff are the reason for their profits and damaging the strength of america. corporations need to be more responsible with the lives of their employees.
offer the opportunity to relieve the luxury tax in place of providing adequate health care and benefits to their employees that meet the standards of american living.
then we will see some changes in corporate greed.
we are in trouble with american standards today. there are none. the american people are losing out. i've been reading and seeing the damage wal-mart has been doing to all of us; and most of us don't even realize it. there is no consequences for big corporations like this one and others like it.
the most we can do is stop shopping there. i said before we the people have the power to destroy any corporation with our spending habits.
but aside from that there needs to be policies set in place. the leaders of this country should keep the people 1st in their minds. i was talking to a friend who asked me if i would support a luxury tax on companies making record profits of over 1 billion dollars. i didn't agree at first, but after thinking about it and reading about these fascist corporations. i do see an indispensable need to control them.
I would implement
a luxury tax on corporations like wal-mart; a percentage per billion dollars made in profit – to be used only for social security, health care, and education for americans
establish a higher minimum wage policy for these capable companies.
hold them to strict punishable policies of accountability for cutting jobs to maximize profit, when the employees they layoff are the reason for their profits and damaging the strength of america. corporations need to be more responsible with the lives of their employees.
offer the opportunity to relieve the luxury tax in place of providing adequate health care and benefits to their employees that meet the standards of american living.
then we will see some changes in corporate greed.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
the true power of america
i was watching morning news today, about how it seems like we are helpless against the natural factors of inflation, increase cost of living, gas prices... it's amazing how no one knows what really drives america. you do, we all do. the average non-important, non-high profile, wealthy american. it's our money that keeps businesses running and our unfair taxes taken from us.
we have the power to bring american corporations to their knees.
why don't we stand up for better products and demand fair costs for the goods "they" claim we need? because we don't know we are in power, all we know is "we need to do what they say" "we need to pay what they say we need to pay." it's particularly sad that the older generation, our parents feel and believe this. most of the wasted money on goods are paid out by them. we the younger generation have a little more sense about how things really work and what is really worth our money.
remember that email chain - "for one day lets not buy gas to send a message to the big, greedy, thieves of the oil industry" it was a good idea but no one followed through. imagine what would happen if we did. now imagine if we did that for cable, Internet, clothes, entertainment, bills, taxes, computers, cars, household appliances, ipods, cell phones, accessories, and all the little things we believe we need on a daily basis.
the truth is we are too selfish and ignorant to let go of the things we have and want for the better good of all, and for a better future for all. that is why they will always win over the people and we will always have to give away our money needlessly.
we have the power to bring american corporations to their knees.
why don't we stand up for better products and demand fair costs for the goods "they" claim we need? because we don't know we are in power, all we know is "we need to do what they say" "we need to pay what they say we need to pay." it's particularly sad that the older generation, our parents feel and believe this. most of the wasted money on goods are paid out by them. we the younger generation have a little more sense about how things really work and what is really worth our money.
remember that email chain - "for one day lets not buy gas to send a message to the big, greedy, thieves of the oil industry" it was a good idea but no one followed through. imagine what would happen if we did. now imagine if we did that for cable, Internet, clothes, entertainment, bills, taxes, computers, cars, household appliances, ipods, cell phones, accessories, and all the little things we believe we need on a daily basis.
the truth is we are too selfish and ignorant to let go of the things we have and want for the better good of all, and for a better future for all. that is why they will always win over the people and we will always have to give away our money needlessly.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
school security
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0305asuguns0305.html
i'm am very glad to see this kind of initiative to make schools safer from criminals that will not obey or respect our gun laws.
i'm am very glad to see this kind of initiative to make schools safer from criminals that will not obey or respect our gun laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
