I'm getting really tired of all the reactions to mass shootings in this country, aren't you? I know a lot of pro-second amendment people will cringe at this idea and probably lash out at me, but here goes:
Let's give the cry babies what most of them are demanding, even though it will likely do them no good; that is, ban assault rifles. Yes, I know, that is an arbitrary classification of firearms, all of which can be used for assault (among other things). Let's let them come up with a definition that doesn't mean giving up all semi-automatic firearms, something (admit it) we don't really need for normal self-defense in our homes, something we don't need to bring down a deer or a rabbit or squirrel or any other game animal. I suppose there are some engaged in stopping the wild boar from destroying crops and live stock and game animals who could benefit from a semi-automatic rifle like an AR15, but perhaps we could put caveat on any legislation allowing their use for this or other similar, legal, uses where nothing else really fills the bill.
Personally, I don't own an AR15 or anything like it, unless you count any semi-auto firearm as being similar. Therefore, I have nothing to lose in this proposal. I get that, but hear me out. I would not expect anyone to simply hand over their "assault rifles" without compensation. I would demand that if a law banning them were passed, and confiscation was a part of it, that the owners of said guns be reimbursed the full value of them. In my opinion, simply banning ownership of them would do little, if any, good. I know I wouldn't just give up something that cost me hundreds or even thousands of dollars just because someone else thought it was bad for society. I, and likely most others, would find a market for them, legal or not, or they would simply keep them and hope they don't get caught. If these guns are still out there, and available through the black market, it will do no good to ban them. Confiscation is the only way this could positively affect the use of them for mass shootings.
We are already prohibited (for all practical purposes) from having fully automatic firearms, so this is just another thing we'd have to accept. Sure, it would be cool to have your own 50 cal machine gun and be able to use it, so would having your own howitzer or A-bomb, but let's be realistic; that's not something that will ever be legal for private citizens.
My proposition is this: let the leftists get a small piece of the pie, assault rifle ban, with the stipulation that part of the law prevents any further restrictions on our right to bear arms. We could even put in a stipulation that if mass murders do not decrease significantly within a few years, the law is rescinded. If it doesn't do any good for society, then it is not worth restricting people's Constitutional rights.
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Saturday, January 26, 2019
I know it's been a while, but nobody reads this anyway. I just feel the need to express some thoughts that I think many, many people will find compatible with their own feelings.
The main point of this is my amazement at the number of products that are designed or packaged in such a way that they are more trouble than they are worth. Does any manufacturer even test the products they put out, or check to see if people are happy with them?
One of the biggest gripes I have is packaging that makes it nearly impossible to get to the product inside without damaging it or injuring yourself. Hard plastic encases so many things these days. You buy a pair of scissors, and the package shows that to open it you have to have a pair of scissors. Or a knife that requires a knife to open the package.
We now have "easy open" containers of all types that are anything but easy. In the old days, you could get milk in a cardboard carton and any child could open it and pour their own milk and reclose it with ease. Now, the glue is too strong or something, and you're lucky if you can even get to the milk let alone have a nice spout to pour from, and God knows you're not going to be able to close it back up again.
Chip bags are now designed with a zip-lock opening, which is a nice idea, except that the opening is so small the chips won't come out and you can't even get your hand through it to grab them and pull them out.
How many times have you gotten a package that says, "Tear here" and when you tried, it would tear everywhere except where it was supposed to?
Then we come to sets of tools, like drill bits, screw driver bits, and such. You play Hell getting the box out of the packaging in the first place, only to find that when you open the box, you need some kind of tool to pry the tools out in order to use them.
One of the most frustrating things designed apparently by people with shit for brains are toilet paper dispensers. They have a wide range of styles, but most commercial versions are insane. First, they mount them so near the floor that you practically have to stand on your head to even find the end of the roll. The paper is so thin you're lucky if you can get more than one 4" square at a time. They mostly have multiple rolls so when one runs out another drops down, but it always drops down on top of the first roll, so you're lucky if you can get any paper out at all because now you're trying to turn two rolls of paper at once by pulling on a piece that is only a few atoms thick. Then, of course, they have to put a lock on the box so you can't open it to get to your prize. Except, they forgot about people like me who simply grab the goddamn cover and rip it open, take out a whole roll of paper, stick it on my thumb, and pull off about a mile of paper with my other hand.
I just bought a bottle of whiskey that had a plastic seal around the top. You couldn't just screw the lid off until you got rid of the plastic, which took several minutes of trying to peel away enough to get a hold of with my fingers, then digging out my pocket knife, which I had to have another pocket knife in order to get it out of the package, cutting myself several times, and finally just breaking to top off the bottle.
I know I'm getting old, and I don't have the hand strength and coordination I once had, but who do the producers of most medicines think are their customers? At 68 years old, I don't need child-proof containers for my meds. Even the non-child-proof containers are a struggle for me.
Okay, I have many more things I could bring up, but I'm getting drunk on that whiskey I opened a while ago, and I've lost a lot of blood. The message here is: don't put up with it! Every time you find a problem that was a result of poor design, write the manufacturer and tell them.
The main point of this is my amazement at the number of products that are designed or packaged in such a way that they are more trouble than they are worth. Does any manufacturer even test the products they put out, or check to see if people are happy with them?
One of the biggest gripes I have is packaging that makes it nearly impossible to get to the product inside without damaging it or injuring yourself. Hard plastic encases so many things these days. You buy a pair of scissors, and the package shows that to open it you have to have a pair of scissors. Or a knife that requires a knife to open the package.
We now have "easy open" containers of all types that are anything but easy. In the old days, you could get milk in a cardboard carton and any child could open it and pour their own milk and reclose it with ease. Now, the glue is too strong or something, and you're lucky if you can even get to the milk let alone have a nice spout to pour from, and God knows you're not going to be able to close it back up again.
Chip bags are now designed with a zip-lock opening, which is a nice idea, except that the opening is so small the chips won't come out and you can't even get your hand through it to grab them and pull them out.
How many times have you gotten a package that says, "Tear here" and when you tried, it would tear everywhere except where it was supposed to?
Then we come to sets of tools, like drill bits, screw driver bits, and such. You play Hell getting the box out of the packaging in the first place, only to find that when you open the box, you need some kind of tool to pry the tools out in order to use them.
One of the most frustrating things designed apparently by people with shit for brains are toilet paper dispensers. They have a wide range of styles, but most commercial versions are insane. First, they mount them so near the floor that you practically have to stand on your head to even find the end of the roll. The paper is so thin you're lucky if you can get more than one 4" square at a time. They mostly have multiple rolls so when one runs out another drops down, but it always drops down on top of the first roll, so you're lucky if you can get any paper out at all because now you're trying to turn two rolls of paper at once by pulling on a piece that is only a few atoms thick. Then, of course, they have to put a lock on the box so you can't open it to get to your prize. Except, they forgot about people like me who simply grab the goddamn cover and rip it open, take out a whole roll of paper, stick it on my thumb, and pull off about a mile of paper with my other hand.
I just bought a bottle of whiskey that had a plastic seal around the top. You couldn't just screw the lid off until you got rid of the plastic, which took several minutes of trying to peel away enough to get a hold of with my fingers, then digging out my pocket knife, which I had to have another pocket knife in order to get it out of the package, cutting myself several times, and finally just breaking to top off the bottle.
I know I'm getting old, and I don't have the hand strength and coordination I once had, but who do the producers of most medicines think are their customers? At 68 years old, I don't need child-proof containers for my meds. Even the non-child-proof containers are a struggle for me.
Okay, I have many more things I could bring up, but I'm getting drunk on that whiskey I opened a while ago, and I've lost a lot of blood. The message here is: don't put up with it! Every time you find a problem that was a result of poor design, write the manufacturer and tell them.
Sunday, March 11, 2018
SICK AND TIRED
I can't think of any other way to put it. I am not racist, homophobic, misogynistic, a white supremacist, a bigot, a rich person, a gun nut, or any of the other things commonly claimed of an older white male in this country. I am white, and I am getting old, but I have nothing against any person due to race, color, creed, sex, gender, religion, ethnicity, age, or anything else. I do judge people based on what they do and what they say, but not on the basis of any of the characteristics that are, by law in most cases, considered illegal discrimination.
I believe in the idea that all men (and women) are created equal. I believe that we all have the same rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and all that. In the United States, at least, we all have the same rights and freedoms. In terms of the law, that is a fact, not a dream or a wish.
That being the case, why do we still have demonstrations and marches and rallies and headlines about various groups demanding equal rights? Why do we need Black History Month? We don't have a White History Month. Why do we need groups like the NAACP? Why do we have a Black Lawyers Associtation, but not a White Lawyers Association? Why do we have hundreds of groups to support or advance women? Why do we have photos and articles from public organizations like schools that focus almost entirely on minorities, even in communities that are 98% white?
My home town is still probably in the neighborhood of 90% white folks. Yet, in nearly every photo, or story in the newspapers or on school websites, you are led to believe there are more minorities in this town than white people. Everything is about the first black, or other minority to do this or that, the first woman to do this or that, how great our immigrants from other countries are (whether they came here legally or not), and this despite the fact that percentage-wise, minorities make up the bulk of our incarcerated population. If they are such great people, why is that?
Just today, the lead story is about a gay couple who run a business in a small town. What even makes that a story? Because they are gay? If sexuality is not supposed to matter, if all people are created equal, why is it important to include that information in the story? Is the story of the business they run not worthy of interest without some sort of prurient interest aspect? Isn't that a bit like a story decrying the objectification of women running next to an ad for Victoria Secret featuring a barely clad, voluptuous vixen?
I take everyone as an individual, but that doesn't mean there isn't some truth to the fact that many of our minorities appear to be much more likely to be involved in illegal activity, or be recipients of our generosity in terms of welfare programs.
Yes, a hundred and fifty years ago, blacks and women were treated much differently, not only personally, but by law. Today, that is not true. Not everyone treats everyone else with the respect and dignity and fairness they might deserve, but there are laws in place to insure that things like employment, housing, transportation, and other essentials are fairly available to all.
The only way to stop the ill effects of racism and sexism and religious discrimination and other forms of "I'm better than you" mentality is to stop promoting it. If women, or blacks, or dreamers, or Muslims, or any other minority is truly equal to everyone else, why is it that they get all the headlines? Not only do they get the headlines, but the media openly tells us the reason they got the headlines is not because of what they've done, but because of who they are (racially, sexually, religiously, ethnically, etc.).
I believe in the idea that all men (and women) are created equal. I believe that we all have the same rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and all that. In the United States, at least, we all have the same rights and freedoms. In terms of the law, that is a fact, not a dream or a wish.
That being the case, why do we still have demonstrations and marches and rallies and headlines about various groups demanding equal rights? Why do we need Black History Month? We don't have a White History Month. Why do we need groups like the NAACP? Why do we have a Black Lawyers Associtation, but not a White Lawyers Association? Why do we have hundreds of groups to support or advance women? Why do we have photos and articles from public organizations like schools that focus almost entirely on minorities, even in communities that are 98% white?
My home town is still probably in the neighborhood of 90% white folks. Yet, in nearly every photo, or story in the newspapers or on school websites, you are led to believe there are more minorities in this town than white people. Everything is about the first black, or other minority to do this or that, the first woman to do this or that, how great our immigrants from other countries are (whether they came here legally or not), and this despite the fact that percentage-wise, minorities make up the bulk of our incarcerated population. If they are such great people, why is that?
Just today, the lead story is about a gay couple who run a business in a small town. What even makes that a story? Because they are gay? If sexuality is not supposed to matter, if all people are created equal, why is it important to include that information in the story? Is the story of the business they run not worthy of interest without some sort of prurient interest aspect? Isn't that a bit like a story decrying the objectification of women running next to an ad for Victoria Secret featuring a barely clad, voluptuous vixen?
I take everyone as an individual, but that doesn't mean there isn't some truth to the fact that many of our minorities appear to be much more likely to be involved in illegal activity, or be recipients of our generosity in terms of welfare programs.
Yes, a hundred and fifty years ago, blacks and women were treated much differently, not only personally, but by law. Today, that is not true. Not everyone treats everyone else with the respect and dignity and fairness they might deserve, but there are laws in place to insure that things like employment, housing, transportation, and other essentials are fairly available to all.
The only way to stop the ill effects of racism and sexism and religious discrimination and other forms of "I'm better than you" mentality is to stop promoting it. If women, or blacks, or dreamers, or Muslims, or any other minority is truly equal to everyone else, why is it that they get all the headlines? Not only do they get the headlines, but the media openly tells us the reason they got the headlines is not because of what they've done, but because of who they are (racially, sexually, religiously, ethnically, etc.).
Sunday, March 5, 2017
FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH
My goal at the outset of this blog was to attract readers, whichever side of an issue they might be on, who would engage in debate or otherwise add to the discussion. With few exceptions, that has not happened. What has happened is that I have found an outlet to air my displeasure with certain things I've encounterd over the years. The fact that few, if any, read most of my posts has served to some degree as a damper on my level of enthusiasm in my writing. Knowing no one might even read my post causes me to look deeper into my thoughts and attitudes toward things, and hopefully resulted in a clearer presentation with fewer emotional outbursts; not that emotional outbursts are all bad.
We all hear what we want to hear, to some degree, and two people listening to the same speech can come away with totally different views on what was actually said (or written). Certainly, the tone and choice of words in a speech can give clues to the speechmaker's true feelings on an issue, but care has to be taken to not to put feelings into the speakers words that were not really there, but rather what our own feelings lead us to believe were there.
I think a great deal of the criticism of Trump is based on the message perceived by those criticizing him rather than the message he actually delivered. He says he want to remove illegal aliens from the country, and many hear, "I hate Mexicans". He says some woman is fat, or ugly, and they hear, "I hate women." He says he wants to repeal Obamacare, and they hear, "I don't care about the healthcare of poor people."
This is not only untrue, but it is unfair, and fairness is often the rallying cry of the left. They say it's not fair that rich people are taxed the same as the rest of us. They say it's not fair that a higher percentage of minorities are in jail than of whites. They say it's not fair that some people can afford health insurance and others can't.
When they say those things, I don't respond by saying they hate rich people, or they hate white people. I realize they have a different philosophy. As long as they confine their arguments to philosophical and logical ideas, I have no problem if they disagee with me. When they start the name calling, and projecting their own words and feelings on those with whom they disagree, and twisting the words and facts to their advantage, they are not being fair.
With that realization on my part, I have taken on a goal to avoid falling into that kind of behavior (as best I can), and I will no longer take part in their tit for tat insult competitions. I will simply cease to recognize them, period.
The one place I do have readers, is on the LincolnJournalStar web page when I make comments about their ariticles, editorials, or letters to the editor. That is where I am beginning to implement my refusal to battle with name calling, emotional, people who refuse to debate anything in a civil and logical manner. If it appears I am ducking their comments or replies, it is because I have blocked them and have no knowledge of what they had to say (and I no longer care).
We all hear what we want to hear, to some degree, and two people listening to the same speech can come away with totally different views on what was actually said (or written). Certainly, the tone and choice of words in a speech can give clues to the speechmaker's true feelings on an issue, but care has to be taken to not to put feelings into the speakers words that were not really there, but rather what our own feelings lead us to believe were there.
I think a great deal of the criticism of Trump is based on the message perceived by those criticizing him rather than the message he actually delivered. He says he want to remove illegal aliens from the country, and many hear, "I hate Mexicans". He says some woman is fat, or ugly, and they hear, "I hate women." He says he wants to repeal Obamacare, and they hear, "I don't care about the healthcare of poor people."
This is not only untrue, but it is unfair, and fairness is often the rallying cry of the left. They say it's not fair that rich people are taxed the same as the rest of us. They say it's not fair that a higher percentage of minorities are in jail than of whites. They say it's not fair that some people can afford health insurance and others can't.
When they say those things, I don't respond by saying they hate rich people, or they hate white people. I realize they have a different philosophy. As long as they confine their arguments to philosophical and logical ideas, I have no problem if they disagee with me. When they start the name calling, and projecting their own words and feelings on those with whom they disagree, and twisting the words and facts to their advantage, they are not being fair.
With that realization on my part, I have taken on a goal to avoid falling into that kind of behavior (as best I can), and I will no longer take part in their tit for tat insult competitions. I will simply cease to recognize them, period.
The one place I do have readers, is on the LincolnJournalStar web page when I make comments about their ariticles, editorials, or letters to the editor. That is where I am beginning to implement my refusal to battle with name calling, emotional, people who refuse to debate anything in a civil and logical manner. If it appears I am ducking their comments or replies, it is because I have blocked them and have no knowledge of what they had to say (and I no longer care).
Saturday, February 18, 2017
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER TRUMP BASHING
As I've previously stated, I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump. I do support many of the things he said he would do for America if elected, and now he has been. I understand around half of the voters in the country did not support him, and that's okay. It's been the case with most presidential elections to be within a few percent, or closer. However, in my 66 years on this Earth, I've never seen the degree of resentment that has and is being expressed toward Mr. Trump in any other election, including that of the first black president, which one my expect to be highly controversial given the racial tensions present in our country.
The left has taken it to a whole new level. Yes, they have the right to demonstrate and speak their minds. That's not what concerns me. What does concern me is the violence associated with some of their demonstrations, their insistance that Trump is not their president, and their support by the mainsteam media in these efforts.
Violence is never justified as a means of protest, unless you mean to take it all the way, meaning a revolution. I'm fairly sure the left does not have the balls or the power to go that route. For one thing, the left is generally the anti-gun crowd, while the right is pro-gun. Who's going to win that war?
Defying the president, and the government in general is nothing short of treason. Anyone who refuses to obey the law because they don't like the person or persons in power who have been legally elected should be jailed as traitors.
The media is understandably pissed off because Trump has branded them as biased, liars. But, they brought it upon themselves by unashamedly and obviously ridiculing and picking on Trump in a way they have never done with any other candidate, and this began long before the election. I can't count the number of mainstream "newscasters" who openly laughed and made fun of the whole idea that Trump could even win the nomination, let alone the election. Now, with the egg still all over their faces, they refuse to admit they were wrong, and instead, have decided to aid the onslaught of the whining losers by making Trump their nightly headline and trying to shame him into changing his ways.
They are helped in their endeavor by the left's other major media support, Hollywood. It's long been known that the majority of movie, music, and TV celebrities are liberally oriented, and they've never been averse to using their celebrity status to promote their views, which amounts to free publicity for all things liberal. The degree to which this has escalated in unprecedented.
I'm going to laugh my ass off when some of these smug sons of bitches piss off the wrong people and lose parts and contracts and sponsorships as quickly as Democrats lost votes with Hillary as their candidate. I'm going to applaud like I never have when the minority celebs who lean to the right finally get the nerve (hopefully bolstered by Trump's win) to speak out and give the right some of that free air time to the shock and dismay of their pansy-assed peers.
The left has taken it to a whole new level. Yes, they have the right to demonstrate and speak their minds. That's not what concerns me. What does concern me is the violence associated with some of their demonstrations, their insistance that Trump is not their president, and their support by the mainsteam media in these efforts.
Violence is never justified as a means of protest, unless you mean to take it all the way, meaning a revolution. I'm fairly sure the left does not have the balls or the power to go that route. For one thing, the left is generally the anti-gun crowd, while the right is pro-gun. Who's going to win that war?
Defying the president, and the government in general is nothing short of treason. Anyone who refuses to obey the law because they don't like the person or persons in power who have been legally elected should be jailed as traitors.
The media is understandably pissed off because Trump has branded them as biased, liars. But, they brought it upon themselves by unashamedly and obviously ridiculing and picking on Trump in a way they have never done with any other candidate, and this began long before the election. I can't count the number of mainstream "newscasters" who openly laughed and made fun of the whole idea that Trump could even win the nomination, let alone the election. Now, with the egg still all over their faces, they refuse to admit they were wrong, and instead, have decided to aid the onslaught of the whining losers by making Trump their nightly headline and trying to shame him into changing his ways.
They are helped in their endeavor by the left's other major media support, Hollywood. It's long been known that the majority of movie, music, and TV celebrities are liberally oriented, and they've never been averse to using their celebrity status to promote their views, which amounts to free publicity for all things liberal. The degree to which this has escalated in unprecedented.
I'm going to laugh my ass off when some of these smug sons of bitches piss off the wrong people and lose parts and contracts and sponsorships as quickly as Democrats lost votes with Hillary as their candidate. I'm going to applaud like I never have when the minority celebs who lean to the right finally get the nerve (hopefully bolstered by Trump's win) to speak out and give the right some of that free air time to the shock and dismay of their pansy-assed peers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)