Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Will Health Care Reform Regulate Guns?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Will Health Care Reform Regulate Guns?



    Received through email 12/13/09
    By Ken Hanson, Esq.




    Another reason to dislike the "Health Care Reform Bill"?


    Will Health Care Reform Regulate Guns?



    Buckeye Firearms Association is a single issue, non-partisan PAC concerned with gun rights. As such, the debate on health care reform occurring across the U.S. is not something that would be within our normal sphere of coverage. However, my good friend Chad Baus posted a story a few days ago highlighting how the Centers for Disease Control has begun researching gun violence and the impact of gun violence on health care costs. This immediately set off alarm bells in my head as the pieces fell into place. Why, you ask?

    Health care reform is a brilliant way to regulate guns without violating the Second Amendment.

    As an attorney, part of my job is risk management – sit around and think big thoughts on how things could go wrong, and then plan accordingly. (Some of my less charitable friends describe it as "being paid to think of ways to screw things up.")

    Health care reform, which seems completely innocuous to gun rights at first blush, is a Trojan Horse. Of that, there can be no doubt. The only real question is whether our enemies will choose to use it as such. Given the string of court and legislative defeats the anti-gun groups have suffered, is there any doubt whether the Brady Bunch will pass up an opportunity to regulate guns in this oblique manner?

    Chad's article pointed to a Washington Times editorial taking the CDC to task for circumventing congressional orders to abstain from gun control "research." The original reasoning behind this "research" ban was that the CDC would be using tax dollars to advance a gun control agenda, and the taxpayers rightly put an end to these shenanigans. Now, under President Obama, the CDC is defying this ban by researching "health care costs" and how guns impact health insurance and health care services. If any reader is in doubt as to what the results of this "research" will be, you might as well stop reading now.

    So, sometime in the near future, a tax-payer funded study will show that gunshot wounds take up a tremendous amount of medical resources, almost all of which goes unreimbursed, because the victims are uninsured. The study, of course, will fail to mention that the majority of this care goes to criminal/gang elements injured during illegal activities. I will readily concede that the Crips, Bloods, Triad, Mongols and the Mexican Mafia have woefully deficient employee benefit plans (no 401K, dental, paid vacation etc) but is that really a basis for national health insurance policy?

    Why should gun owners care that this "research result" will show such an impact on health care costs?

    Underwriting.

    Insurance premiums are calculated, in part, based upon your risk group. If you smoke, your premiums are higher and/or it is harder to get coverage. Why? Cigarette smoking demonstrably increases your health care costs over the long term. Have diabetes? Ditto. High blood pressure and cholesterol? Get out your wallet.

    So now, armed with a "study" showing that the presence of a gun greatly increases health care costs, gun owners are now considered a high risk group and the insurance companies have Science! to back up that claim. "Owning a gun is no different than having cancer..." "No sir, we aren't violating your civil rights. You may still own whatever guns you wish, you just are going to pay at-risk rates rather than preferred rates."

    I assure the reader that this scenario is not far-fetched or fanciful, the mechanism is already in place and is capable of operating exactly as I have outlined. The only question is whether the antis will have the political will to use it in such a manner, and to what extent. (i.e would they try to divide us by "finding" that ownership of a $5,000.00 trap gun has no impact on healthcare costs, but ownership of a handgun does and ownership of an ugly black rifle drives the costs right through the roof.)

    Here is a preview of the new health insurance application forms:

    Name, address, age, gender, height, weight, prior medical conditions, do you smoke, do you own guns, if so how many and what kind....

    Then there is the whole issue of de facto gun registration, since this information will now be on your wonderful, portable healthcare chart that is all residing on a computer someplace. Don't forget the new taxes on guns and ammo to help provide insurance for those poor Crips, Bloods, Triad, Mongols and Mexican Mafia members who find themselves suffering from uninsured gunshot wounds incurred during a drug deal gone wrong . The anti-gun possibilities are limited only by the imagination.

    Please don't delude yourself into thinking that this would only be part of any "public option" insurance plan. The private insurance companies are going to be in direct competition with any of the pre-existing or new government insurance plans, so if the public plans get an "upcharge" for gun ownership you know the private ones are going to demand this extra money, too. After all, they have Science! to provide the justification for the higher premiums.

    These are not paranoid delusions or ramblings, just possibilities that are there for the taking should the political muscle be flexed to do so.

    So what do gun owners need to do? We need to be calling our "Congress Critters" and demand, at a minimum, two things. (If you are just outright opposed to any of the health care reform going on, simply add the above objections to the pile of objections you already have when you call in, and skip over making these demands.)

    First, any health care reform bill must be absolutely, affirmatively firearm neutral. The law must explicitly state that no insurer, public or private, may use ownership or use of guns as a basis for underwriting or benefit decisions.

    Second, any health care reform bill needs to explicitly deny insurance benefit payments for care provided to anyone who is harmed during the commission of a violent felony, and allow hospitals/doctors to choose to refuse treatment to these same people if they feel they can ethically do so. They may ethically feel they have to treat these people, but you and I should not be subsidizing medical care to Johnny Crackhead when he finds himself shot during a robbery, nor should we be subsidizing someone's ethics. It is time these criminals start bearing the consequence of their actions and allow natural selection to work its magic.



    Ken Hanson is a gun rights attorney in Ohio who serves as the Legislative Chair for Buckeye Firearms Association. He is the attorney of record for Buckeye Firearms Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in the Heller case. In 2008, the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) awarded him with its Defender of Justice Award. He is the author of The Ohio Guide to Firearm Laws, a certified firearms instructor and holds a Type 01 Federal Firearms License.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Will Health Care Reform Regulate Guns?



    Received through email 12/13/09
    By Ken Hanson, Esq.




    Another reason to dislike the "Health Care Reform Bill"?


    Will Health Care Reform Regulate Guns?



    Buckeye Firearms Association is a single issue, non-partisan PAC concerned with gun rights. As such, the debate on health care reform occurring across the U.S. is not something that would be within our normal sphere of coverage. However, my good friend Chad Baus posted a story a few days ago highlighting how the Centers for Disease Control has begun researching gun violence and the impact of gun violence on health care costs. This immediately set off alarm bells in my head as the pieces fell into place. Why, you ask?

    Health care reform is a brilliant way to regulate guns without violating the Second Amendment.

    As an attorney, part of my job is risk management – sit around and think big thoughts on how things could go wrong, and then plan accordingly. (Some of my less charitable friends describe it as "being paid to think of ways to screw things up.")

    Health care reform, which seems completely innocuous to gun rights at first blush, is a Trojan Horse. Of that, there can be no doubt. The only real question is whether our enemies will choose to use it as such. Given the string of court and legislative defeats the anti-gun groups have suffered, is there any doubt whether the Brady Bunch will pass up an opportunity to regulate guns in this oblique manner?

    Chad's article pointed to a Washington Times editorial taking the CDC to task for circumventing congressional orders to abstain from gun control "research." The original reasoning behind this "research" ban was that the CDC would be using tax dollars to advance a gun control agenda, and the taxpayers rightly put an end to these shenanigans. Now, under President Obama, the CDC is defying this ban by researching "health care costs" and how guns impact health insurance and health care services. If any reader is in doubt as to what the results of this "research" will be, you might as well stop reading now.

    So, sometime in the near future, a tax-payer funded study will show that gunshot wounds take up a tremendous amount of medical resources, almost all of which goes unreimbursed, because the victims are uninsured. The study, of course, will fail to mention that the majority of this care goes to criminal/gang elements injured during illegal activities. I will readily concede that the Crips, Bloods, Triad, Mongols and the Mexican Mafia have woefully deficient employee benefit plans (no 401K, dental, paid vacation etc) but is that really a basis for national health insurance policy?

    Why should gun owners care that this "research result" will show such an impact on health care costs?

    Underwriting.

    Insurance premiums are calculated, in part, based upon your risk group. If you smoke, your premiums are higher and/or it is harder to get coverage. Why? Cigarette smoking demonstrably increases your health care costs over the long term. Have diabetes? Ditto. High blood pressure and cholesterol? Get out your wallet.

    So now, armed with a "study" showing that the presence of a gun greatly increases health care costs, gun owners are now considered a high risk group and the insurance companies have Science! to back up that claim. "Owning a gun is no different than having cancer..." "No sir, we aren't violating your civil rights. You may still own whatever guns you wish, you just are going to pay at-risk rates rather than preferred rates."

    I assure the reader that this scenario is not far-fetched or fanciful, the mechanism is already in place and is capable of operating exactly as I have outlined. The only question is whether the antis will have the political will to use it in such a manner, and to what extent. (i.e would they try to divide us by "finding" that ownership of a $5,000.00 trap gun has no impact on healthcare costs, but ownership of a handgun does and ownership of an ugly black rifle drives the costs right through the roof.)

    Here is a preview of the new health insurance application forms:

    Name, address, age, gender, height, weight, prior medical conditions, do you smoke, do you own guns, if so how many and what kind....

    Then there is the whole issue of de facto gun registration, since this information will now be on your wonderful, portable healthcare chart that is all residing on a computer someplace. Don't forget the new taxes on guns and ammo to help provide insurance for those poor Crips, Bloods, Triad, Mongols and Mexican Mafia members who find themselves suffering from uninsured gunshot wounds incurred during a drug deal gone wrong . The anti-gun possibilities are limited only by the imagination.

    Please don't delude yourself into thinking that this would only be part of any "public option" insurance plan. The private insurance companies are going to be in direct competition with any of the pre-existing or new government insurance plans, so if the public plans get an "upcharge" for gun ownership you know the private ones are going to demand this extra money, too. After all, they have Science! to provide the justification for the higher premiums.

    These are not paranoid delusions or ramblings, just possibilities that are there for the taking should the political muscle be flexed to do so.

    So what do gun owners need to do? We need to be calling our "Congress Critters" and demand, at a minimum, two things. (If you are just outright opposed to any of the health care reform going on, simply add the above objections to the pile of objections you already have when you call in, and skip over making these demands.)

    First, any health care reform bill must be absolutely, affirmatively firearm neutral. The law must explicitly state that no insurer, public or private, may use ownership or use of guns as a basis for underwriting or benefit decisions.

    Second, any health care reform bill needs to explicitly deny insurance benefit payments for care provided to anyone who is harmed during the commission of a violent felony, and allow hospitals/doctors to choose to refuse treatment to these same people if they feel they can ethically do so. They may ethically feel they have to treat these people, but you and I should not be subsidizing medical care to Johnny Crackhead when he finds himself shot during a robbery, nor should we be subsidizing someone's ethics. It is time these criminals start bearing the consequence of their actions and allow natural selection to work its magic.



    Ken Hanson is a gun rights attorney in Ohio who serves as the Legislative Chair for Buckeye Firearms Association. He is the attorney of record for Buckeye Firearms Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in the Heller case. In 2008, the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) awarded him with its Defender of Justice Award. He is the author of The Ohio Guide to Firearm Laws, a certified firearms instructor and holds a Type 01 Federal Firearms License.
    It would not surprise me one bit, anything could easily be hidden in that thousand page bill. Politicians are as dirty and sneaky as a streetside hooker. While they have you looking one way they are taking more money out of your wallet and then tieing your hands so you cant stop them from taking all your rights away.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Yes, sure, maybe, but the CDC researches lots of things that kill people that have nothing to do with diseases. Everything from babies falling, fireworks, and motor vehicle accidents, to school violence, traumatic brain injuries, and suicide.

    In fact, the CDC has done research specific to firearms. So any more research is nothing new. The key factor is that the CDC is perhaps one of the most well equipped and well trained organizations in the entire United States arsenal of intelligence gathering organizations to research and provide conclusions on just about ANYTHING, especially when it involves injuries or death. It is what they do well. Natural choice. The Obama administration will be doing nothing more with the CDC than it already has in the past and I highly doubt any real Health Care bill is going to effect your rights as a gun owner. Of course, we'll see when it all comes officially into the light.

    All of this has been going on for years. Check out their site.

    http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/index.html/
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Any lawyer that uses the title of "esquire" on his stationery should not be trusted.

    Words are VERY powerful, and their use should be examined deeply. Underlying meanings and motivations behind certain word usages are often much more than just quaint coincidence.

    "Esquire" is a title of nobility, one step below Knight. It was adopted by English lawyers shortly after the English adopted a mandatory education requirement to practice law, and many formally educated lawyers in England were automatically granted the title "Esquire" upon admission to the Bar, because "commoners" were not (and some would argue, are STILL not) allowed, under English Law to participate in the judgement of Peers.

    The use of "Esquire" by lawyers in countries not under the protectorate of the British Crown is either a sign of pretension, or a sign that their loyalties are, shall we say, less than Colonial.

    Either way, I wouldn't trust a lawyer that used this "title".

    Titles of Nobility have no place in the USA. Their use is symbolic of a mindset of formalized class structure, and should not be tolerated in a society where "all men are created equal"...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  5. #5
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    Any lawyer that uses the title of "esquire" on his stationery should not be trusted.

    Words are VERY powerful, and their use should be examined deeply. Underlying meanings and motivations behind certain word usages are often much more than just quaint coincidence.

    "Esquire" is a title of nobility, one step below Knight. It was adopted by English lawyers shortly after the English adopted a mandatory education requirement to practice law, and many formally educated lawyers in England were automatically granted the title "Esquire" upon admission to the Bar, because "commoners" were not (and some would argue, are STILL not) allowed, under English Law to participate in the judgement of Peers.

    The use of "Esquire" by lawyers in countries not under the protectorate of the British Crown is either a sign of pretension, or a sign that their loyalties are, shall we say, less than Colonial.

    Either way, I wouldn't trust a lawyer that used this "title".

    Titles of Nobility have no place in the USA. Their use is symbolic of a mindset of formalized class structure, and should not be tolerated in a society where "all men are created equal"...
    yeah, that's what I took away from the article:quirky

    Look guys.... they've been sneaking backdoor crap into these bills now for quite some time... each small piece alone is seemingly harmless, but add it up with all the other pieces and you have your bomb.

    The gun grabbers know that anti-gun legislation is a loser... so they're getting crafty... and just taxing guns and ammo for taxation sake won't fly either... but charging all gun owners a 500% increase in healthcare premiums will get around the 2A without actually banning guns, most gun owners won't be able to afford the extra cost, and because its not attached to the gun itself, they can say they're not banning gun ownership.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    This is a load.

    Nothing would -- or will -- stop a private insurer from asking questions about gun ownership on an insurance application irrespective of the health care reform act.

    There is nothing in the bills -- insofar as is known -- that would affect this one way or the other.

    Congress passes bills that are over 1000 pages long all the time. Nobody is going to "sneak something in" on guns without alarm bells going off.



  7. #7
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    This is a load.

    Nothing would -- or will -- stop a private insurer from asking questions about gun ownership on an insurance application irrespective of the health care reform act.

    There is nothing in the bills -- insofar as is known -- that would affect this one way or the other.

    Congress passes bills that are over 1000 pages long all the time. Nobody is going to "sneak something in" on guns without alarm bells going off.

    spoken like a true puppet/slave.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    This is a load.

    Nothing would -- or will -- stop a private insurer from asking questions about gun ownership on an insurance application irrespective of the health care reform act.

    There is nothing in the bills -- insofar as is known -- that would affect this one way or the other.

    Congress passes bills that are over 1000 pages long all the time. Nobody is going to "sneak something in" on guns without alarm bells going off.

    spoken like a true puppet/slave.
    Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

    -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest



  9. #9
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    This is a load.

    Nothing would -- or will -- stop a private insurer from asking questions about gun ownership on an insurance application irrespective of the health care reform act.

    There is nothing in the bills -- insofar as is known -- that would affect this one way or the other.

    Congress passes bills that are over 1000 pages long all the time. Nobody is going to "sneak something in" on guns without alarm bells going off.

    spoken like a true puppet/slave.
    Il Donk posted a comment on my blog and I tracked it to a site called "Blue Commonwealth" (Yeah, sure).

    From my reading there, the "Blue Commonwealthers" are absolutely creaming their jeans over the prospect of the nebulous "NO_FLY" list being used to deny firearms rights.

    This confirms the suspicions I have long held about Donk, AND I have to shake my head at the fact that this "No-Fly" list comes from the very USA-PATRIOT act that they so despise (except when they can find a way to use it for their ends rather than Republican ends).



    OH YES> "Blue Commonwealth" refers to the Commonwealth of Virginia supposedly going "Blue" (DemonRat). -KOFF FOFF- Um, that didn't happen in the last State election, now did it?

    McDonnell/Palin 2012!!

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    This is a load.

    Nothing would -- or will -- stop a private insurer from asking questions about gun ownership on an insurance application irrespective of the health care reform act.

    There is nothing in the bills -- insofar as is known -- that would affect this one way or the other.

    Congress passes bills that are over 1000 pages long all the time. Nobody is going to "sneak something in" on guns without alarm bells going off.

    spoken like a true puppet/slave.
    Il Donk posted a comment on my blog and I tracked it to a site called "Blue Commonwealth" (Yeah, sure).

    From my reading there, the "Blue Commonwealthers" are absolutely creaming their jeans over the prospect of the nebulous "NO_FLY" list being used to deny firearms rights.

    This confirms the suspicions I have long held about Donk, AND I have to shake my head at the fact that this "No-Fly" list comes from the very USA-PATRIOT act that they so despise (except when they can find a way to use it for their ends rather than Republican ends).



    OH YES> "Blue Commonwealth" refers to the Commonwealth of Virginia supposedly going "Blue" (DemonRat). -KOFF FOFF- Um, that didn't happen in the last State election, now did it?

    McDonnell/Palin 2012!!

    Blue Commonwealth is a site -- like this one -- where anyone can post. Generally those that do -- like I do -- support democrats. But we disagree onmany other things.

    One of those areas where we disagree is firearms. There aresome -- like me -- who generally support an expansive notion of the second amendment, and some, like teacherken, who do not. We have lively debates on these and other issues.

    Feel free to visit and stir things up a bit!


  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Alexcabbie wrote:

    OH YES> "Blue Commonwealth" refers to the Commonwealth of Virginia supposedly going "Blue" (DemonRat). -KOFF FOFF- Um, that didn't happen in the last State election, now did it?

    McDonnell/Palinin 2012!!!
    Cool idea for a Republican ticket, but I think we'll getcha next time!

  12. #12
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    Alexcabbie wrote:

    OH YES> "Blue Commonwealth" refers to the Commonwealth of Virginia supposedly going "Blue" (DemonRat). -KOFF FOFF- Um, that didn't happen in the last State election, now did it?

    McDonnell/Palinin 2012!!!
    Cool idea for a Republican ticket, but I think we'll getcha next time!
    Keep creaming... I mean dreaming....
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    This is a load.

    Nothing would -- or will -- stop a private insurer from asking questions about gun ownership on an insurance application irrespective of the health care reform act.

    There is nothing in the bills -- insofar as is known -- that would affect this one way or the other.

    Congress passes bills that are over 1000 pages long all the time. Nobody is going to "sneak something in" on guns without alarm bells going off.

    Sort of agree with the dink here, I haven't heard anything credible about this. Not that I would put it past those fascist parasites though.

    The bottom line is, I don't trust gov't getting involved in healthcare. They screw up everything they touch.

    BTW donk, you've yet to point out a singlemajor service the gov't at any level provides that meets it's designated purpose, with even the most remote level of efficiency, or has even solved the problems for which it was designed.


    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    PrayingForWar wrote:
    BTW donk, you've yet to point out a single*major service the gov't at any level provides that meets it's designated purpose, with even the most remote level of efficiency, or has even solved the problems for which it was designed.
    This applies to statists of every stripe, including the majority of this forum.

    Most Americans think government is capable of providing all kinds of services, so long as it's the services they want, implemented by the politicians they elect.

    The end result is the same, of course.

    Consider: immigration control, the prison/"justice" system, the War on a Few Drugs, interventionist overseas adventures, and just about every other pet program of "the right".

    To be honest, the incrementalist statism of "the left" is kind of boring when compared to the ultra-aggressive statism of the neo"conservative" "right".

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    PrayingForWar wrote:
    BTW donk, you've yet to point out a singlemajor service the gov't at any level provides that meets it's designated purpose, with even the most remote level of efficiency, or has even solved the problems for which it was designed.
    This applies to statists of every stripe, including the majority of this forum.

    Most Americans think government is capable of providing all kinds of services, so long as it's the services they want, implemented by the politicians they elect.

    The end result is the same, of course.

    Consider: immigration control, the prison/"justice" system, the War on a Few Drugs, interventionist overseas adventures, and just about every other pet program of "the right".

    To be honest, the incrementalist statism of "the left" is kind of boring when compared to the ultra-aggressive statism of the neo"conservative" "right".
    I've seen and engaged you in too many ******* contests, and I' not really interested in another. Yet I'm compelled to once again school you on semantics as you're attempting to not just blur the lines between right and left, but right and wrong.

    Immigration control only makes sense, we have to know who's coming in, and have standards regarding what they can contribute, or at least not become a burden. It's not a right/left issue, or at least it shouldn't be.

    The "justice" system is screwed up, won't argue there. It's screwed up by the interests of both sides right/left, and by everyone's perception of right/wrong. It's not a "righhtwing" pet issue either.

    The "war on drugs" is retarded too, but the left has no solution either. No one with any brains thinks unrestricted access to whatever poison makes someone temporarily feel good is a solution, though neither is throwing everyone in jail for mere possession. The right usesthe "war on drugs"for some convoluted moral superiority, the left uses it for control,to destabilize communitiesand to promote the police state "solution", with help from the right. Neither side has a monopoly on right or wrong on this issue.

    Not going to get into the war here. I proudly served in OIF and OEF, these endeavors were neccesary for the position we were put in this world generations ago, and in the interests of national security and western civilization. The Balkans is/was a waste.

    If it were up to me, not one US military person would be stationed outside US territory. It's not up to me, and we really shouldn't have such a hard time convincing our people, yet we can't.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  16. #16
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Consider: immigration control,... ... and just about every other pet program of "the right".

    To be honest, the incrementalist statism of "the left" is kind of boring when compared to the ultra-aggressive statism of the neo"conservative" "right".

    Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

    "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

    The definition of invasion also allows for illegal immigration to be considered an invasion. We could also justify it by the LaRaza groups as they are most CERTAINLY invading this country.

    Other than that one part, you're right about the Statists... except for the fact you are still stuck on the right left paradigm. Both are either Communist or Fascist, but both are scum. We've argued this before, however it seems an appropriate place to at least restate that the scale that should be used is a very simple scale of 100% government on the Left, and 0% on the Right. What those in our government are seeking, whether secular moralist, or religious moralist, is total control... meaning, they both seek to control the same thing, just from a different morality.

    What the founders knew was that we need some government, probably one of 1-5% in size, but we're already fighting a government which is now over 30% in size and growing.

    Crap.... hijacked my own thread.... Healthcarein the control of governmentIS A PRODUCT OF PEOPLE WANTING 100% CONTROL OVER OTHER PEOPLE!!!

    Sorry for the caps... its just this whole thing really pisses me off... and you KNOW they're going to try and tax gun ownership by saying that it increases health risks so you must pay more.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Well maybe the commonpractices of GEICO Insurance will open your eyes a little.

    Anyone ever heard of "Kustom Radar Company"? they make radar & laser speed detection units for police to ticket speeders. a few decades back they had some financial difficulty, so GEICO jumped in and helped them out, their financial help led to the first laser speed detection unit known as the LTI 20/20.

    So what does GEICO do with this little pet company of theirs now that they have control over it?
    They donate speed detection equipment to police departments for a huge tax break, It sounds innocent enough at first, but why would they do this?

    They donate the equipment knowing full well that more speeding tickets will be issued, and agood percentage of the recipients that will get tickets will be insured by GEICO, once these people get tickets, GEICO can raise their premiums.

    Anyone here insured by GEICO??? Did they tell you about the little clause in the policy that if you have a radar detector in your vehicle during a crash, they can deny you coverage. Or when you did the paperwork to get them to cover you that they will not cover a person that owns a radar/laser detector?

    GEICO will not cover anyone that uses a radar/laser detection device because it lower their chance of having that driver get a speeding ticket, so they will not be able to raise the premiums.

    There was a lawsuit in MD that forced GEICO to insure people that use radar detectors, and GEICO had a fit about it, they started spewing "its all about safety" instead of the real reason they do not like detectors.

    I once looked at GEICO to see what kind of rates they had to offer me, and at the time I had a roommate, they wanted her driving abstract and wanted to charge me premiums over 5 times higher than I was paying due to some of my roommates driving issues. Now this was just a roommmate, we did not share vehicles, there was no way in hell I would ever let her even near my car, truck, jeep, or corvette. But they didn't care.



    So think about this again, most insurance companies will use any reason they can to raise your rates and I can understand the correlation between firearm ownership and insurance company rates being over the top.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    PrayingForWar wrote:
    I've seen and engaged you in too many ******* contests, and I' not really interested in another. Yet I'm compelled to once again school you on semantics as you're attempting to not just blur the lines between right and left, but right and wrong.

    Immigration control only makes sense, we have to know who's coming in, and have standards regarding what they can contribute, or at least not become a burden. It's not a right/left issue, or at least it shouldn't be.
    Well, I wasn't trying to dispute anything with anyone, I was merely springboarding off your post; but since you disagree, I'll simply point out the same thing does apply to immigration control.

    You may think it's a service government is capable of providing, but it's not. The proof is in the pudding. It's a great idea and all (actually, not really), but it won't, can't ever work.

    How do you think guns get into the island-nation Britain? If the U.K. can't keep guns out, what makes you think our government is capable of keeping Mexicans out (especially in the face of special interest which likes low-cost jobs)?

    It's not about Constitutionality (but if it were the "invasion" rhetoric falls incredibly short).

    Provide to me, if you will, a single piece of evidence that suggests our government ever has been, or ever will be, capable of providing effective "immigration control" of any sort.

    Like I said, most Americans are positive that, as long as it's the services they want provided by the politicians they elect, all of a sudden it's a valid use for stolen money.



    As for the War on Drugs, that's what would happen in a free society: people would have "unrestricted" access to all the self-poisons they want. As if the current system has even the slightest deterrent factor on anyone, ever. :quirky

    In the face of such utter inefficacy, I don't see how allowing freedom could possibly make things worse. And, *allowing* freedom is always, monetarily speaking, free.

    It's the same thing. The *idea* of preventing people from using "poison" sounds great, but how, at what cost, and with whose money?



    Edit: Also, if the problem is just the "unrestricted access" to these poisons, that's yet another reason to legalize. "Unrestricted access" is enabled by prohibition, not somehow prevented by it. Criminal penalties for possession are, like all "justice", reactive rather than proactive.

    Consider: a 10 year old cannot walk into Safeway and buy whiskey (whereas I can). However, a 10 year old can walk up to any crack dealer and buy crack. That the -- reactive -- penalties may be greater for crack does not affect this reality.

    What was that about "unrestricted access"?

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    Consider: immigration control,... ... and just about every other pet program of "the right".

    To be honest, the incrementalist statism of "the left" is kind of boring when compared to the ultra-aggressive statism of the neo"conservative" "right".


    Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

    "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

    The definition of invasion also allows for illegal immigration to be considered an invasion. We could also justify it by the LaRaza groups as they are most CERTAINLY invading this country.

    Other than that one part, you're right about the Statists... except for the fact you are still stuck on the right left paradigm. Both are either Communist or Fascist, but both are scum. We've argued this before, however it seems an appropriate place to at least restate that the scale that should be used is a very simple scale of 100% government on the Left, and 0% on the Right. What those in our government are seeking, whether secular moralist, or religious moralist, is total control... meaning, they both seek to control the same thing, just from a different morality.

    What the founders knew was that we need some government, probably one of 1-5% in size, but we're already fighting a government which is now over 30% in size and growing.

    Crap.... hijacked my own thread.... Healthcarein the control of governmentIS A PRODUCT OF PEOPLE WANTING 100% CONTROL OVER OTHER PEOPLE!!!

    Sorry for the caps... its just this whole thing really pisses me off... and you KNOW they're going to try and tax gun ownership by saying that it increases health risks so you must pay more.
    If there are no objections I'd like to continue the hijack. I agree with you on the right/left scale, and that's precisely the point I'm making. Many of the founders were pious christians and men of strict morals (at least publicly). At the same time they made significant efforts not to regulate morality, or allow any specific religious group to obtain enough political power. There isn't even a constitutional law regarding murder, those powers are delegated to the states, or the people. That's where the religious "right" is most flawed, and annoying. If they want to shut down abortion clinics, and gay bars, they need to do so at the local and state levels.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    We've argued this before, however it seems an appropriate place to at least restate that the scale that should be used is a very simple scale of 100% government on the Left, and 0% on the Right. What those in our government are seeking, whether secular moralist, or religious moralist, is total control... meaning, they both seek to control the same thing, just from a different morality.
    That's why I use quotes with "right" and "left". You and I essentially agree on the nature of statists, but you define "left" as statist and "right" as not.

    While there may be an argument to be made there, it's not a point I'm trying to dispute.

    When I talk about the "right" and the "left", I mean the sides of the false paradigm created by our duocratic "coin of tyranny" political system.

    That is to say, the major party which self-declares itself to represent "the right", and whose members self-decare as belonging to "the right" -- that being the Republican Party -- is massively statist.

    Sure, if you want to define "right" as anti-statist, then the Republican Party is far-left.

    Of course, this is part of the problem with the attempts to lump all political thought into neat categories: it never works, so people begin to redefine whatever category they find themselves lumped into, based their own idiosyncratic beliefs. The end result is that one person's "liberal" is another's "conservative" and vice-versa.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    PrayingForWar wrote:
    I've seen and engaged you in too many ******* contests, and I' not really interested in another. Yet I'm compelled to once again school you on semantics as you're attempting to not just blur the lines between right and left, but right and wrong.

    Immigration control only makes sense, we have to know who's coming in, and have standards regarding what they can contribute, or at least not become a burden. It's not a right/left issue, or at least it shouldn't be.
    Well, I wasn't trying to dispute anything with anyone, I was merely springboarding off your post; but since you disagree, I'll simply point out the same thing does apply to immigration control.

    You may think it's a service government is capable of providing, but it's not. The proof is in the pudding. It's a great idea and all (actually, not really), but it won't, can't ever work.

    How do you think guns get into the island-nation Britain? If the U.K. can't keep guns out, what makes you think our government is capable of keeping Mexicans out (especially in the face of special interest which likes low-cost jobs)?

    It's not about Constitutionality (but if it were the "invasion" rhetoric falls incredibly short).

    Provide to me, if you will, a single piece of evidence that suggests our government ever has been, or ever will be, capable of providing effective "immigration control" of any sort.

    Like I said, most Americans are positive that, as long as it's the services they want provided by the politicians they elect, all of a sudden it's a valid use for stolen money.



    As for the War on Drugs, that's what would happen in a free society: people would have "unrestricted" access to all the self-poisons they want. As if the current system has even the slightest deterrent factor on anyone, ever. :quirky

    In the face of such utter inefficacy, I don't see how allowing freedom could possibly make things worse. And, *allowing* freedom is always, monetarily speaking, free.

    It's the same thing. The *idea* of preventing people from using "poison" sounds great, but how, at what cost, and with whose money?



    Edit: Also, if the problem is just the "unrestricted access" to these poisons, that's yet another reason to legalize. "Unrestricted access" is enabled by prohibition, not somehow prevented by it. Criminal penalties for possession are, like all "justice", reactive rather than proactive.

    Consider: a 10 year old cannot walk into Safeway and buy whiskey (whereas I can). However, a 10 year old can walk up to any crack dealer and buy crack. That the -- reactive -- penalties may be greater for crack does not affect this reality.

    What was that about "unrestricted access"?
    You make a very good points, and I really don't disagree with a lot of them. As far as immigration goes, I don't want keep mexicans out per say. My concern is felons, idiots, oxygen thieves and commies. People who don't want to assimilate, learn english, or appreciate the opportunity the US provides have no business within our borders. It's largely political that the CBP fails in it's job. They're understaffed for one. Secondly, every LEO who finds an "undocumented alien" should detain them, and the municipality should be able to ship them to the border for out processing. It's not a "service people demand" either, it's a constitutional obligation that's been politicized.

    I really wouldn't care if they increased legal immigration, or the temporary worker visa.

    It links to drugs as well. I have little doubt that we could keep drugs/illegals out, and that the UK could keep guns out. If gov't did that effectively, and actually solved these problems, they'd reduce their need for police within the border, and hence reduce their power. I don't have evidence to support it of course, but it seems like common sence.

    Further, and this actually elevates your arguement, if there wasn't a market for guns in the UK, no one would smuggle them in. Since you can buy a semi auto AK in the states for $500, there's no market for full autos that come with a potential 10 year federal pounded in the a$$ sentence. Besides, drugs are easier to detect by dogs than guns.

    The only reason I can tolerate drug enforcement at all, is because if we simply legalized stuff like meth, coke, or smack, what do we do with the people who use it to the point where they no longer function at all, let alone turn to crime to feed their addiction? Do we just kill them when they commit a crime? Who gets that moral authority? I see what you're saying about "unrestricted access". I can't imagine even a crack dealer selling dope to a 10 y/o, but thenagain I can't understand the mentality anyway.

    So somewhere along the way we need a solution, I realize we won't get it from gov't, but since we're supposed to control the force of government we should be able to use it to enforce the proper solution. Our problem is that we allow gov't to concieve solutions that sound good, but take away the control of gov't from the people.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    This is off-tooic so I'll be brief, and avoid the little details.

    I believe that assimilation is important. I also believe, from my experience with illegal workers (Northern California makes up for its distance from the border with its agriculture and "sanctuary cities"), that assimilation is all about incentives.

    Sure, many people show up with plans to go home at some later, indefinite date. So did I, for example, when I moved to the U.K. briefly after high school. Had I been properly incentivized to stay (much less assimilate), I very well might have. Instead, oppressive government drove me away, a government I could never "assimilate" under, nor would I ever want to.

    Admittedly, the U.K. may be a dumb example, and indeed since I never planned to stay, I use it only for analogy.

    But, by analogy, consider the incentives faced by the illegal immigrants here in the U.S.: already criminals, unable to defend themselves against resident gangs who prey on them, unable to participate in the economy or society above-board due to "illegal" status, forced to take jobs with no contractual or tortious liability on the part of their employers (illegals can't go to court), etc.

    They have little incentive to "assimilate", and every incentive to leave -- once they've earned enough money -- or, even worse, join/create gangs of their own for protection and greater earnings (selling drugs of course).

    Now, if the standard of "illegal immigrant" actually meant something (other than just "migrant worker without a permit"), like for example actual criminals who are here without citizenship, I might begin to see reason.

    For example, Mexico's immigration policies are very lax: as long as you can earn your way (and can prove it), you aren't otherwise a criminal, and you actually go through the immigration process, you're pretty much guaranteed to be allowed in, and if you naturalize, you're able to get citizenship.

    So, there's really no incentive to go around the system, unless you're exactly the kind of person they don't want immigrating (criminal, parasite etc.). Thus, "illegal immigrant" status actually implies some truly undesirable characteristic, i.e. actually means something, and they can oust "illegals" accordingly, in reasonable quantities for good reason.

    As for positive incentives, there's every reason to immigrate legally -- they'll let you, as long as you work (which is what itinerant laborers do) -- and later to assimilate: you're already half way to citizenship, which offers benefits but requires, and only requires, naturalization.

    In contrast, what positive incentives does a Mexican laborer here in the U.S. have to operate within the system when he simply won't be allowed into it, because people are afraid of "cultural dilution"?

    He's going to come here and labor anyway: the money is always enough incentive.

    And no government would ever actually stop such a profitable flow of labor, except maybe a communist one. No, instead of keeping them out, government keeps them essentially rights-less, a self-fullfilled prophecy of an underclass.

    And that's not even a free market: it's one group of people wielding the power of government to literally exploit another group of people, in a way that few citizens are ever exploited. It's the kind of thing that gives leftists fuel in their flamewars against what they believe to be "capitalism", but which is anything but a truly free market.

    In a truly libertarian society, the freedom wouldn't represent a problem, and the supplies and demands of a market would be self-limiting. If cultures really needed government to protect them, the world would already be a single, intermingled culture, seeing as every government in history has been inept.

    So much for keeping my off-topic points to a minimum. Oh well, I hope that wasn't completely wasted typing. :?



    Edit: Oh yeah, I was going to say, with regard to drugs: I agree, it isn't ideal to just let addicts all go until they commit a crime, and then you've got a victim and a criminal on your hands.

    Perhaps vendors of addictive drugs -- including currently-legal ones -- could be taxed (in the absence of a general sales tax, ideally ) to create rehab programs, which addicts could go to voluntarily, or could be sent to upon commission of their first minor offense.

    It may not be perfect, but it makes more sense than stealing money and using it to send addicts to prison, who will later be released to become addicts once again. It would be basically making addicts pay for their own mandatory rehab insurance. Hell, maybe we could even collect victims compensation (the way some states do for uninsured drivers), if the problem remains a serious one following serious reform.

    So much for keeping my off-topic points to a minimum. Oh well, I hope that wasn't completely wasted typing. :?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •