If I were Temporary Supreme Dictator of America.
John Hawkins is doing a Q&A Thursday, which really is a fantastic idea because I am severely bereft of any ideas and am in fact feeling burned out with work/blog/dogs/jacked-up-jaw/blah blah. Anyway, one of the questions today is:
Suppose you were elected Temporary Supreme Dictator of America.
What are 10 laws you would pass/repeal or government programs you would create/tear down? (Assume that you are in office for however long it would take to do these things and that any changes you make will remain in place after you leave office.)
Excellent. It should be a meme, that one. The questioner and Hawkins both offer good, solid programs such as Fair Tax and conceal-carry amendments and term limits and balanced budgets. Well that fancy stuff is for brainy people.
Here’s what Dictator Lukis would do:
1. Banish Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, and anyone else who needs it to the Isle of Cuba. Permanently.
2. Turn half of all golf courses into free-range dog shelters.
3. Implement the No Babies for You Program, which involves mandatory sterilization of every citizen at puberty, only to be surgically reversed upon reaching the age of 25, having $10,000 or more in a cash account (in addition to paying for the surgical reversal out-of-pocket), holding full health coverage, being married, and passing an IQ test with a result of over 100. At least. Within 10-20 years, this will automatically eliminate the vast majority of abortions, welfare, gangbangers, and so on.
4. Legalize, regulate, and tax the living SHIT out of marijuana. Use the profits to eliminate the federal deficit. I’m almost not kidding; it’s probably possible. People like to smoke dope.
5. Require every voter to pass a political science test before voting. If you don’t know what communism did to the world in the 20th century or what socialism is doing to it in the 21st century, no vote for you. Go home and start reading books.
6. Quadruple the pay of all military personnel. Also impose a salary cap on the amount “entertainers” are allowed to be paid for being nothing more than performance monkeys.
7. Capture every illegal immigrant and make them build an actual physical wall the entire length of all our borders. When they’re done, put them on the other side of it.
8. Eliminate criminal liability for people who realize the only way they’re going to get through that aisle at Target is to ram the oblivious asshole blocking it with your cart.
9. Free tacos for all citizens every third Tuesday.
10. Forget that “temporary” shit. Make self Dictator for Life.
Awesome.
But I wanna pay less taxes and be able to carry anywhere, O Supreme Dictator.
I really like the idea of free tacos, though.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:05 am8. Eliminate criminal liability for people who realize the only way they’re going to get through that aisle at Target is to ram the oblivious asshole blocking it with your cart.
PRICELESS!!
This list along with your rant about taxes are the best things you’ve ever written. No wonder I keep coming back everyday for my Rachel fix.
No comment on last night’s AI?? We’re waiting.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:08 amSweet. Not only did John Hawkins answer my question (yes, it was mine) Rachl Lukis did too.
I am the Awesomest Person Ever.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:09 amI heard this in the Soup Nazi voice.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:11 amDude. Please do this.
Michael Moore has a summer home in my town. He has also brought an annual Film Festival here-which isn’t such a bad thing, but now he thinks he is the King of Traverse City.
He got all up in my husband’s shit one day because my husband’s hotel booked the ballroom to Michael’s biggest protester who held her own Freedom Film Fest at the same time as his. Idiot. Big fat idiot.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:13 amthe problem that I have with #4 is that we already have enough of a problem with drunk drivers. I really don’t want to share roads with stoners as well.
Can we include, under entertainers, all sports “stars” as well?
And with all due respect to Rupert and anyone else in harness … we’d have to take a serious look at the pensions and benefits. I don’t make 4 times what my stepson, who will be retiring in December from the Navy. And when I retire, I will not get any of the benefits he will have starting at age 42 … when he can start a whole new career to supplement his pension.
Those quibbles aside, I can get behind the rest, oh glorious leader …
BTW, my first act as King for a Day would be to immediately eliminate every government department duplicating what state departments are responsible for … which would take care of education, EPA, welfare, medicine and all those other things NOT enumerated in the Constitution. We wouldn’t need the Fair Tax … there’d be no need. outside the military, for taxation.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:14 amre:#8– I’ve found that a terrifically enjoyable way to get aisle-blockers out of your way, is to just join in their “private” conversation. For some strange reason, this seems to upset most of them; and they depart in a huff (or snit. It’s hard to tell.) It really hastens the process if you ask whether the new baby they’re discussing - at great length - is legitimate. Or if the “uncle fubar” they just saw last week is the one arrested for child molestation. The asshats seem to discover urgent business on the other side of the store. Can’t fathom why.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am4. Legalize, regulate, and tax the living SHIT out of marijuana. Use the profits to eliminate the federal deficit. I’m almost not kidding; it’s probably possible. People like to smoke dope.
My wife would absolutly LOVE this one. Me, I kinda go for Taco Tuesday.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:20 amI love, love, love 5-8. As always, you humble me.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:24 am#8 is awesome. I have so wished I could do that.
My 85-year old grandfather, towards the end of his shopping days, used to do that all the time and figured that people would just assume he didn’t see them or that they’d never get mad at the old guy.
#8 doesn’t go far enough - I’d extend it to bowling over oblivious cell-phone talkers who block busy pedestrian walkways when they slow waaaaayyyyy down. [Maybe also oblivious drivers who do 40 in the left lane of the freeway when their cell-phone calls get too interesting. Just drive an armored car and bump them out of the way...]
May 1st, 2008 at 11:24 amI vote you in for permanent supreme dictator on the basis of number one alone…
May 1st, 2008 at 11:25 amI for one welcome our new Overlord for Life, may it be long.
Hail Rachel, Dread Empress of North America ( I’m assuming you’ll make an early order of business to bring civilization and good government to Canada.)
Now about the whole succession thing…
May 1st, 2008 at 11:33 amFirst of all, I’ve been advocating #3 for years only I suggested little girl babies’ tubes be tied in a bow until about age 28 at which time if they could pass a conservative IQ test, they could have them untied. Your idea is better on all fronts. I humbly suggest you tweak #5 to include; voters must be taxpayers (and I don’t mean you get it all back in form of a refund/EIC I mean you actually contribute to the gov’t coffers). I’m a long time lurker….first time poster, lead here by IMAO.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:35 amI’m still for Michael Williamson http://www.madmikein08.com/
May 1st, 2008 at 11:45 ambut I’ll take you as a close second.
Regarding #3 - urm, you know, rich assholes don’t make better parents. A tubal ligation reversal is $14,000 (average cost). Let’s not confuse society-sucking welfare momma’s with those parents with fewer means (less than $24,000 cash in pocket) yet are able to provide for their families, thankyouverymuch, with less.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:49 amI’d make it very damn clear that the Second Amendment means what it says…that “shall not be infringed,” means “shall not be infringed” period.
I’d also separate school and sports—IOW, towns could still have high-school-age football and basketball teams, but they’d have no more to do with the school system(s) than the Scouts do now.
I’d abolish all foreign aid to everybody, forever. And make it extremely clear that for Americans, being fervently patriotic to a foreign country is right straight out. No matter who you are.
I’d legalize marijuana, but not tax it too much; it’s a lot less harmful than alcohol (I ought to know; both my parents died from the effects of alcoholism). I’d also pardon all prisoners who’re in on drug charges, at least of the drug charges. And bring the people responsible for trampling the Constitution in the name of the Drug War up on charges of treason—in a court where “the verdict is always guilty and the sentence is always death.”
I’d also legalize prostitution, or at least, call-girl agencies, massage parlors, and other non-street-based versions. Let the cops earn their pay going after real, dangerous criminals.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:54 amIf I could suggest 1 change…in law #1 forget Cuba its too nice (weather wise) somewhere close to the Aluetian Islands (maybe their Russian counterparts??)
The weather sucks and Michael’s added girth will finally have a real purpose.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:57 amCan you start next Monday?
May 1st, 2008 at 11:57 amI guess I don’t agree with #3 because it’s not having lots of money that makes good parents. There are some very “poor” (by US definitions) parents out there raising clean, smart, well behaved children. They just live on a strict budget. I do agree about the married thing though.
Oh and no more welfare for those who can walk, talk, and otherwise work. Moochers of the world beware.
And I’m surprised you didn’t make it law to pass a conceal/carry test and require all citizens to pack heat at all times.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:58 amI think you’re going to find a huge spike in marijuana tax revenues on Free Taco Tuesday.
As for the entertainers, I’d leave them alone. I don’t want anyone telling me how much I should make. Same goes for them. Capitalism and all. On the other hand, I’d be firing a hell of a lot of government employees and using much of that money to pay our soldiers a competitive wage.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:59 amYou may have eliminated a lot of the consumers in #4 with the restrictions in #3.
Just sayin’.
Make me Supreme Supreme Dictator Consultant-Type Person?
May 1st, 2008 at 12:02 pmYou did well. The only thing I would add is:
#5 - in addition to political science, voters need to demonstrate a basic understanding of free market economics - if you don’t understand “supply and demand”, you are too stupid to be selecting the leader of our country.
#6 - include sports figures in the salary cap. Or better yet, take a portion of their salary and put it in a fund to pay for new stadiums or arenas or whatever else the franchise owners demand of the host cities in attempts at blackmail for new facilities. The taxpayer does not pay for my place of employment, I don’t see why I have to pay for the facilities for someone whose sole skill is bouncing a ball or carrying an odd shaped ball ten feet until someone else knocks them down.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pmNah, don’t put a salary cap on entertainers, just tax the jebus out of them. After all, they’re all for high taxes and social programs, right? So tax them, the ones that make over, say $500,000 a year, at 75%. Part of their taxes go for Free Taco Thursdays. Win-win for everyone!
May 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pmmightysamurai - I have to say I liked your list better than John’s.
As far as Rachel’s goes, I’d want #3 changed to be sterilization of every welfare-grubbing freeloader who already has two kids or more. After showing that they can get and keep a job for at least 2 years, then apply test and decide on reversal. Then again, I’m a softy.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:14 pmI can agree to 9 of 10 of those wholeheartedly (I’m not telling you which I don’t agree to, but it isn’t #10.) which is enough for me.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pmtax the living SHIT out of marijuana.
Wouldn’t work. Who would buy it? It grows like a weed, you know. Hence the name.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pmRachel, I know this is all tongue-in-cheek and hyperbolic, but I worry that you have a genuine deficiency in your understanding of, and love for, freedom.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:35 pmIt’s like you are reading my mind. I have had it up to my headset with stupid people. And they are the ones who reproduce the most, and vote when celebraties tell them too.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pmI’m in agreement with Jimmie above regarding salaries of entertainers/atheletes. Supply and demand dictates that if there are very few people capable of doing a job at the level demanded by the consumer, then the pay grade should be a lot higher. It always bothers me when people compare teacher salaries to athlete salaries. There are a lot more people qualified to be a high-school/elementary teacher than there are atheletes who can perform at the levels demanded by sports consumers. Therefore, the pay is going to be different.
Feel free to disagree…
May 1st, 2008 at 12:37 pmracheal, who would make all of those wonderful free tacos if all the illegal immigrants were on the other side of the fence?
i’m a little confused about your strong take on immigration considering your generally libertarian views on most other issues. I challenge anyone with your view to read this:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/11/immigration_ind.html
and come up with an equally convincing counter argument. i’d really like to hear it.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:38 pmhum, 1,3,4,5,and 7 scare me. I haven’t been reading your blog for long. didn’t realize you were so right-winged! yikes. you really want people to carry concealed weapons? terrifying. agree with other posters that money doesn’t equal good parenting–columbine anyone?
#6, I agree with a previous poster on the amazing retirement and being able to have an entirely new career for 20-30 years to supplement said awesome retirement income. I certainly agree our soldiers are underpaid and under-provided for when they come back from combat. very sad. so many families hurt.
#2–that just made me laugh.
I guess I will keep reading just so I can look into the mind of a conservative.
Great question though. not sure what mine would be…have to think on it more.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:52 pmYou seem to think that there are people who currently refrain from smoking marijuana only because it is illegal. Can you offer any evidence to support this belief? (For bonus points, show me some evidence that there was less drunk driving during Prohibition than there is now.)
Don’t be silly. First, so does tobacco. How many people grow their own instead of going to the store for smokes? Second, people are already buying marijuana. It’s a hugely profitable industry.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:54 pmI’m not too crazy about #2. I like dogs (hence the name), but I also like golf. (I’m a white guy in my late 30’s. I have to like golf. It’s in the rulebook.) How about turning half of all NASCAR racetracks into free-range dog shelters instead?
On the plus side of the list: Free tacos! It’s good that you would have already sent Michael Moore to Cuba; otherwise this program would be prohibitively expensive.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:54 pmYou got my vote!
(ok, you would if dictators were voted in! ;))
May 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pmCan we still tar & feather the trial lawyers?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:12 pmTo prohibit sitting US Senators or Representatives from running for President of the US.
If they want to run for President — fine. Resign your seat.
Why? Because Senators and Representative were elected (and are paid) to do their jobs.
NOT to campaign full time. And if you don’t think that campaigning for President is a full time job — then you haven’t been paying attention
_________
In addition to making it easier for citizens to register and carry concealed weapons EVERYWHERE (no such thing as a Gun Free Zone), I’d legalize the shooting of anybody caught texting while driving. Summary executions would put a stop to that shit.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:13 pmTerrifying? Really?
Many US states allow concealed carry. Very few see any huge, wild west-style shootouts (and funnily enough, the ones that do often turn out to be the same ones that practice gun control).
What are you afraid of?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:13 pmSo you’d make sure people knew how bad socialism was, and then enact it as you see fit (#6, second part)?
Salary caps are anti-market; if someone can earn eighty-seven kajillion dollars selling their entertainment services, the State has no business saying “screw that, we’re taking everything over one kajillion because you don’t need it“.
Mouthy: Lawful concealed weapons carriers don’t cause problems.
(Since you mentioned it in the same paragraph, I’ll assume that it’s related to “weapons”, even though you also and quite validly mention money != good parenting.)
“Columbine” is not an argument against legal possession of weapons - let alone concealed ones - since the murderers there… weren’t.
(It is, in fact, an argument for arming [or allowing-to-be-armed] school security guards and/or teachers. Works in Israel, where teachers armed with submachine guns oddly don’t shoot up their students or vice versa.)
Pat: Some people do grow their own tobacco - and a lot more would if it cost $250 an ounce. To remove a black market in marijuana even if legalized, taxes would have to be low enough to ensure that it was always cheaper to buy taxed pot. (Look at cigarette smuggling in the US and to Canada!)
May 1st, 2008 at 1:18 pmhey Bryan … as a LEGAL immigrant let me take a stab at a counter augument for you … without even wasting my time reading the article.
Does the word CRIMINAL have any meaning to you?
I don’t give a shit what work they’ll do “that Americans won’t do” … and I don’t give a flying fig what the “experts” think it’ll do to the economy. They’re CRIMINALS who cost this country more than any value that could ever be placed on their performance of menial tasks.
And, finally, they’re CRIMINALS.
And mounthybroad (fits your comments, LOL … always a good nom d’guerre for a liberal) … I’ll (as usual) agree with ‘ms’ … all of the available data shows that states where the criminals do not have the upper hand — in other words, those who allow citizens to practice the Second Amendment — have seen dramatic decreases in gun violence. I know it’s confusing to liberals, but criminals not only doen’t obey laws (which is why we call them criinals and not “run-of-the-mill-liberals”), but they prey on the weak and defenceless. They’re much less likely to play their games if they know someone could blow their ass away. From the mind of an ultraconservative
May 1st, 2008 at 1:19 pmUm, how about common sense?
The whole point of a law is to compel or prevent someone from doing something. That’s why there are laws against running red lights, speeding, firing guns randomly into the air, and calling in fake bomb threats. Because otherwise people would do those things.
Maybe we could train the dogs to retrieve balls from the water hazards.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pmYou forgot free costumes for all dogs paid for by a checkbox for a dollar on all Fed Tax forms. Such amount constituting the total Federal Tax paid.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pmmouthybroad…she isn’t right wing or conservative. Just because she advocates gun rights? You find THAT terrifying? I find that view scary.
Trust me, as a conservative myself, when I say that Rachel is very much libertarian (if forced to put a word to her).
May 1st, 2008 at 1:22 pmAlso, I really hope Bryan is kidding, because that is about the lamest defense of illegal immigration I have ever heard.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:22 pmThe second amendment will be rewritten;
added just to clear up any further confusion.
28th- Texting while driving or operating an automobile under the influence of drugs or alcohol while will result in immediate death by a very large caliber, high velocity lead injection to the head.
Requiring a minimum competency exam for all High Skool graduates while simultaneously eliminating every gubmint hand out program will take care of 3 and 5.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pmRachel Lucas you are my hero! I understand Michael Moore, Babs and anyone else banished to Cuba, but couldn’t you find a special, evil place for Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn and George Clooney?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:35 pm11. It will be legal, and required, that all line jumpers be immediately shot.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:44 pmN. O’Brain,
What’s a line jumper?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pmRachel is no conservative.
She’s a Rachelite.
Technically shes a pantheistic multiple-personality solipsist.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:49 pmSomeone who jumps ahead of you in line. Like at the grocery store or the movie ticket queue.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pmOne thing I’d add: Representatives and Senators on committees have to pass a skills test on the subject they are overseeing.
Example: Science & Technology Committee members actually have to pass a test on Science & Technology.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:51 pmpete,
you should have read the article first, then your stab wouldnt have missed entirely. the point is not justifying illegal acts, its just a philosophical argument for why our laws should be corrected.
samurai, im disappointed, just going to call it lame with out any justification, i thought you were better then that!
May 1st, 2008 at 1:54 pm“I think you’re going to find a huge spike in marijuana tax revenues on Free Taco Tuesday.”
Actually what you should do is make mary jane tax free on Tuesday and on that day alone tax the crap out of Tacos. You’d get more revenue.
The problem is that given a windfall from a stoner tax the gov’t would find a way to spend it and wouldn’t return any of it to the taxpayers.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:55 pm-Taxing marijuana too high would result in smokers not paying the tax, and thus no increase in revenue.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm-Why not eliminate all income tax, a tax on the productive, and cut spending to meet the reduced income.
-A salary cap on one industry may become a slippery slope to salary caps on other industries. An alternative could be to give a voluntary option to donate to the government. A celebrity may say, “I have more income than I need; so we should raise the income tax.” With the voluntary option I may then ask, “Since you have so much surplus income; how much did you voluntarily give?”
Oh, so you want me to open up a can of whupass on you? Okey-doke. Here goes:
Strawman. No reasonable person is opposed to immigration. The debate concerns illegal immigration.
Only partly true.
Some rights (such as free speech, the right to bear arms, life/liberty/property) are endowed on us by our Creator, but others are not. Voting rights, or example, are obviously bestowed on us by the government, because if we had no government we would have nothing to vote for.
Yes, they should. Not all of them of course, but several of them.
Colossal fallacy.
Lars does not and should not have an absolute right to come here, work here, and reside here. To say that Lars or any other “foreign resident” (love the new pro-illegal euphemism, BTW) has an absolute right to come here, work here, and live here, is to imply that the concept of “national sovereignty” does not exist.
No duh, because the Constitution specifically designated anybody living in the USA at the time of its founding as a US citizen.
There should, and there is. A person who crosses the border illegally is a criminal, and the only duty the US government has to that person is to send him back where he came from. He does not have the right, nor does he deserve, to live or work in the United States.
Hardly. Immigration is booming along quite nicely, thank you very much. You know you have no problem attracting immigrants when people are considering building a wall to keep them out.
Nonsense. We were more open to immigration back then because we NEEDED more immigrants to expand the country and maintain our industrial base. Industry needs labor most of all, and immigrants provided it. Since then we have outgrown our need for immigrant labor (and our status as a purely industrial nation).
So the government “coerces” you into voting? The government “forces” you to vote against your free will? I say again, nonsense.
Thank you for demonstrating precisely why your short-sighted approach to immigration will not ever work.
Geez, what did that poor strawman ever do to you?
Here’s this guy’s brilliant plan to solve the immigration debate:
I thought we should be “perfectly open” to immigration? Why is it suddenly okay to restrict one group of people and not another?
And when have they NOT done this? Where is your evidence of all this supposed quashing of the rights of non-citizens?
In that case I hope you’ll be happy when our unemployment shoots through the roof because *gasp!* *shock!* there simply aren’t enough jobs for all these immigrants.
Immigrants only pay income taxes when they earn their income above the table. Under the table their income is non-taxed.
How convenient.
So the government has no duty to defend its borders…except when it does?
You’re never going to convince anyone when you refer to protecting our nation as “semi-fascist actions”.
Bullshit of the highest order.
The Berlin Wall was created to keep the residents of East Berlin from getting out, not to stop the people of West Berlin from getting in.
What is the fundamental difference between them? Golly, let me count the ways:
1. The intent of the wall. The wall along the Mexican border is intended to stop ILLEGAL immigration. The Berlin Wall was intended to stop immigration, period.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:13 pm2. There is nothing preventing anyone from LEGALLY crossing the border between Arizona and Mexico, no matter which direction they are going. The prevention is for ILLEGAL border crossing.
I’ll raise my hand as anecdotal evidence that some of us never did much experimenting because it was illegal. There’s no doubt in my mid that if marijuana, cocaine, etc were legal I’d have done lots more recreational use than the little I did. I don’t know how many of us there are - but there are some.
If ONLY! Since that makes some sense you know it doesn’t stand a chance in hell.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:32 pmmightysamurai, I salute you. I know Fisking has become rather passe, but once in a while it’s just necessary to pull it back out of the old bag-o-tricks.
Well done, sir.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pmJust to carry mighty’s comments to bryan a little further … I’ll (probably not) listen to morons who spout off about open borders and what the government “owes” these criminals when said commenter:
- owns a house
- is not allowed to lock the doors or keep anyone out
- is required to provide food, drink and entertainment to anyone who chooses to walk into his house
- is responsible for the cost of education and medical care for anyone who cares to walk into his house
- is required to transfer partial ownership in the house to any child born to any casual visitor to his house
When I see all that happening, with no cost to myself, I’ll be quite willing to listen to said commenter.
Until then, as someone who went through the whole painful legal immigrant process, and has obeyed the laws of this country including (unlike ILLEGAL (criminal) aliens) refraining from voting - even when the matters were dear to my heart and wallet … FUCK criminal illegal aliens AND the coyotes they rode in on! I cannot think of a SINGLE thing more important to the government and security of this country than rounding up and deporting every single damned illegal alien … and severely punishing anyone of them that recrosses the border after they are evicted. I’m cool with paying for some ammunition to help in that adventure.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:51 pmAlong with open season on the CCOA’s at Target, can we please do something about the base-thumping morons? I propose that if your base is at pants crapping levels I get one free shot at you with my gun.
Also, Daylight Savings Time- for or against? Can’t we just draw up the time zones and be done with it?
Slow drivers who roll along oblivious in the fast lane should be shipped to Cuba along with Tubby Riefenstahl, a punishment worse than death.
Any company that uses the internet dial-up noise to advertise their website has their right to advertise taken from them.
And lastly, can we stop pretending that animated characters are real, esp. at things like award shows? Oh look, it’s Shrek, and he’s here to present the oscar for best America bashing screenplay(short film)!
May 1st, 2008 at 3:04 pmHi again! To clarify–I am pretty much against all gun ownership. Ok, you can hunt or whatever, but handguns? I just don’t see the need. automatic wepaons? yikes. I am afraid of being shot! there you have it–my fear! I realize criminals are not all about getting guns through the proper channels. Is there proof that if you carry your concealed weapon around that you won’t be shot by someone else? I am familiar with the whole take guns away from the people and then you can control them (how Hitler did it). Doesn’t make me want to own a gun though.
Europe lives gun free pretty darn successfully. For the longest time even their police were without guns. I am more into their model. From what I have heard on talk radio we have a long history of gun ownership and it is in our constitution and we are just set up differently than Europe as it relates to this issue. I can dream of no guns, can’t I?
I do think the gun control argument is a bit too deep and complex to be decided in these comments by us though!
To clarify the Columbine comment–that was in relation to parenting, not guns. They were from a very affluent suburb. Parents with money does not equal good parents.
You probably won’t change your mind and I probably won’t change mine. Oh, we can all still be friends, right?
oh, sorry to rachel lucas–if you are not conservative, ok. wasn’t trying to label per se.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pmWell done, samurai. Some people need teachin’.
Mouthybroad, you’ll be cowering behind people like Rachel, and me, and most of the other regulars on this site if you’re ever near a crime. I’m a law-abiding 36 year old mother of three with a concealed carry weapon and the brains and will to use it…ooh, sooper terrifyin’, right?
#7 was my FAVE, Rachel. Do it.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pmsamurai,
May 1st, 2008 at 3:10 pmyou are arguing against things that he does not say. I am not, and i don’t think that the authors intent was to defend illegal acts. It is just an argument outlining why our current policy is ineffective and unfair and it clearly is, based on the number people that are obliged to operate outside of the rules.
you are also misrepresenting his argument, he clearly delineated between “basic human rights and non-rights rights” and allowed for that, you are pretending that he didn’t.
you then proceed to jump all over statements taken out of context.
The point is, how can you justify that it is ok for the government to decide where people can live and work when our constitution specifically states that our rights (to live and work) precede the gov’t and that the governments sole purpose is to defend those rights?
Defending our border from invaders is hardly the same as defending inflated wages for low skill jobs. The point of a wall, no matter which way it is faced, is to force someone to remain where they don’t want to be, and that is certainly not a positive thing.
Encouraging people to break the law just because they were born on the wrong side of a political line and want a job is not a just policy, nor is it good economic policy.
Supply and demand will always prevail, just like with marijuana, obviously there is a demand here for cheap labor, and obviously there is a supply south of the boarder. A wall is going to change that as much as prohibition stopped drinking.
By people who are licensed to carry a weapon legally??? This is a totally irrational fear. People with concealed carry licenses are the most law-abiding citizens around - that is a statistical FACT. Look it up.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:11 pmpete, you really should read the article, he covers all that. i appreciate that you followed the rules and went through the proper processes, but you more then anyone should know that it is unnecessarily complicated, and a lot of people don’t have the resources, knowledge, luck to do so.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:16 pmIm not cheering on illegal behavior, just suggesting the rules be changed to create more opportunity and less of those illegal “criminals”.
I wouldn’t mind a law against pants worn BELOW the asscrack. My (least) favorite is when they wear their belt so it squeezes their buttchecks. BLECH.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:17 pm*sigh* I can’t help myself. Mouthybroad, I’ll help get ya started with some nice, short, easy-read FACTS:
May 1st, 2008 at 3:26 pmSunny requests more pork projects in her district.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:29 pmmouthybroad
You may be interested in reading this though I really doubt it will change your mind.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:29 pmPlease, Mouthybroad, I implore you to educate yourself. So, here’s more…because I’m a giver:
CONCEALED CARRY
Facts & Statistics
Today, there are only 5 states that do not have a right-to-carry system.
States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen’s right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports)
Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in “More Guns, Less Crime”, John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation’s 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott’s research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott’s findings:
• While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime…. non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.
• Non discretionary or “shall-issue” carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can’t tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal’s risk of doing business.
• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. [BAM! take that to the bank, Mouthybroad.] And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.
• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate–as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.
• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.
• Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.
• The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. [That would be YOU, Mouthybroad, gettin' a free ride from your fellow armed citizens. See my firsts comment above.]
• The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this “halo” effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.
• The increased presence of concealed handguns “does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns.”
May 1st, 2008 at 3:33 pmHey! Keep your laws off my NASCAR!
May 1st, 2008 at 3:34 pmMouthybroad,
I understand what you are saying, and in fact don’t have a problem with your view, or fear. From my side of the coin though I look at it differently. Every one of my neighbors probably has at least one handgun and it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Many of us see guns as just another tool and owning one is like owning a chainsaw. Sure a chainsaw can be dangerous if misused, but do you fear it? No.
That’s how many of us look at it. As to concealed carry, 1% of the population of my county have a permit. That means on any given day I have probably run into someone carrying a gun. It’s just not an issue where it’s common.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:34 pmMy IQ dropped 20 points just by reading that.
Walls on prisons, forcing prisoners to stay where there are. A positive thing.
Walls on my house, keeping out that weird neighbor with the strange fish-eye thing going on. A positive thing.
Walls on schools, keeping the little hooligans where they’re supposedly going to get edjumicated. A positive thing.
Walls are dividers. That’s what they do. They make it easy to determine who owns what. This is MY yard on this side of the fence (a wall!!!). That is YOUR yard on that side of the fence. You stay on your side, I stay on mine and we have no problems. See how that works?
May 1st, 2008 at 3:36 pmGood to know. That means I don’t have to respond to you with a reasonable argument and can instead insult you personally for being such a doofus.
I don’t see the “need” for cell phones, cigarettes, alcohol, or motorcycles. I guess we’d better ban those too.
I’m afraid of being hit by a car. Shall we ban cars?
My mother is afraid of spiders. Shall we ban spiders?
What a stupid argument this is.
There’s no proof you won’t be shot if you DON’T carry either.
Well it makes ME want to own a gun. What right do you have to stop me?
I don’t think I’d describe anything Europe does as “successful”.
I’m sure you are.
Europe has less gun crime, to be sure, but they have much, much, MUCH higher crime rates for nearly every other type of crime, often outstripping the United States by a considerable amount.
Of course you don’t care about that, do you? No, as long as those eeeeeeeevil guns are all gone, everything’s just hunky-dory with you, isn’t it?
“From what I have heard on talk radio”?
What are you, twelve?
I learned the very same thing in HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY.
For goodness sake, read a book!
Only if I can dream of no gun-grabbing liberal fascists.
Fair is fair.
Yes, I imagine there are a great many things you find a bit too deep and complex.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pmchary,
May 1st, 2008 at 3:49 pmalright, i’ll confess, that sounds more then a little stupid in retrospect. i assure you however that i am not some ranting hippy “signs signs everywhere the signs!”
I obviously do not have a problem with walls in general, what the article mentioned, and what i was referring too was specifically those built by the gov’t to prevent people from fleeing a lousy country.
and your still only half right, obviously someone benefits from every wall, otherwise it wouldnt have been built, but there is also a negative side to someone, otherwise there would have been no need for it. granted the second someone often deserves it (your prisoner) my point is that in this case it is not so.
samurai,
im certainly not in agreement with mouthybroad, but i have to point out your tendency toward quoting out of context. you quoted her as saying:
“I do think the gun control argument is a bit too deep and complex”
the full context being:
“I do think the gun control argument is a bit too deep and complex to be decided in these comments by us though!”
while i find her argument appalling, i find your tactics even more so. people say enough stupid things with out you having to manufacture more.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pmStrange how quoting his exact words is “arguing against things he does not say”.
Yeah, it really was. Read for understanding.
If his only concern was our legal immigration policy, then why mention the proposed wall on the US/Mexico border? Why mention “stats on illegal border crossings”? Why claim that in the beginning there was no distinction between “citizen” and “someone who dwells within our borders”?
His meaning was patently obvious to everyone except you.
On the contrary, I quoted the very passage where he defined the difference between the two.
Such as what? What “context” did I leave out that would change the meaning of the passages I quoted?
Because, oh simple one, deporting illegal aliens and limiting the number of immigrants let into this country is not “letting the government decide where people can live and work”.
And incidentally, the government decides where you can live and work all the time. Unless you’re an employee of the park service you can’t live or work in a national park. Unless you’re a member of the military you can’t live or work on a military base.
The Constitution gives the government the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and permits Congress to prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states shall think proper to admit after the year one thousand eight hundred and eight (Article 1, Section 9, look it up).
No, it’s not, and no one ever claimed it was.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
By that logic, it should be illegal to lock your door against burglars and home invaders. They just want to be in your house, isn’t that locked door just a way to force them to remain where they don’t want to be?
Oh this guy is priceless.
So enforcing our immigration law is “encouraging” people to break it? Lets run with this logic, shall we?
Enforcing laws against murder just encourages people to murder.
Enforcing laws against theft just encourages people to steal.
Enforcing laws against rape just encourages people to rape.
Shall I go on or do you see how stupid your argument is now?
There is a supply right here, in America. Cheap labor exists wherever warm human bodies exist. The reason those jobs aren’t being done by Americans is because illegals will do it for 5 cents an hour.
Actually drinking DID go down during Prohibition. The problem was that organized crime went through the roof.
He most certainly does not cover “all that”.
Maybe YOU should read the article.
No you don’t, or you wouldn’t be working so hard to defend people who broke the law to come here (which is exactly what you’re doing whether you admit it or not).
Tough. Noogies.
I don’t have the resources, knowledge, or luck to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean I’m entitled to those things.
You claim you’re not cheering on illegal behavior, yet you put the word “criminal” in quotation marks.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pmNo, you’re more like the mindless stooge who blindly sides with the first person who seems to agree with his opinion.
Oh good, then you won’t have a problem with the one we’re building on the southern border.
Yes, and as I mentioned, that is, quote, “bullshit of the highest order”.
A wall on the southern border does not prevent anyone from fleeing Mexico. It only prevents them from coming HERE.
And really, it doesn’t even do that either. You see, there is this fascinating process known as “legal immigration” that allows Mexicans to attain US citizenship and cross into this country freely.
QED: No prevention.
So Mexicans “deserve” to live here?
Oh dear, the open-borders advocate thinks my tactics are “appalling”.
Whatever will I do?
May 1st, 2008 at 4:19 pmsamurai,
wow, why don’t you be more condescending? I guess anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t get to be in the special genius club where its cool to be rude and dismiss arguments with witty use of misquotations and gems like “tough noogies”.
I never advocated non-enforcement of laws (although i can’t say it bothers me when the laws are misguided) you keep arguing with yourself.
All the other BS aside is what it really comes down to is whether or not you think being born in a certain place makes you more or less “special”, or whether you think all people share those same inalienable rights. and of course your only response to the injustice of our current policy was the aforementioned “tough noogies”. very smart, keep talking down to me.
you also i see didn’t even bother to defend the obviously dishonest use of quotations you insist upon.
You might be a craftier wordsmith then I, but clearly your econ knowledge aint up to snuff. allow me to attempt to achieve your level of condescension in explaining why this quote is so asinine:
“Cheap labor exists wherever warm human bodies exist. The reason those jobs aren’t being done by Americans is because illegals will do it for 5 cents an hour.”
Uh, if someone will do a job for 5 cents an hour, paying someone $10 an hour for the same work is NOT cheap. See, cheap is a relative term. I don’t know what your point is about warm bodies, shit, there is as much cheap labor in a morgue as there is in a GE board meeting.
I’m going to go ahead and guess you’ve never run a company that required a lot of manual labor?
May 1st, 2008 at 4:51 pmNo one has an inalienable right to enter a nation illegally for any reason. Period. Please look up sovereignty.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:11 pmBryan,
How much do you think it costs when that “cheap laborer” gets in a car crash and we have to pay for 2 weeks in the TBICU? Or when his wife gives premature birth to their child and the infant spends 6 months in the hospital? Just asking cause as a nurse in an SICU in the south, I am seeing a lot more illegal immigrants in my unit who will never pay that bill.
Amaryllis
May 1st, 2008 at 5:12 pmAs for the so-called “cheap labor” fallacy…it is only cheap in the short-term for the sleazy employer who exploits serf (read: illegal) labor. Society is then forced to subsidize their entire existence inside our borders, to include education, health care, infrastructure, welfare, etc. That, for anyone with an inkling of common sense, is nowhere near “cheap”. Instead, it is parasitical - and deadly to a sovereign nation. It will be the death of us.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:37 pmI could so live in that world. Just don’t forget to toss Neil Diamond out with Streisand.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:04 pmredhead, amaryllis,
May 1st, 2008 at 6:06 pmthose are both good points, (except the sovereignty thing) they are also completely beside the point. If you had bothered to read the article in the first place you would know that the author explicitly addressed those concerns.
It is the welfare programs and socialist style services the gov’t provides that are expensive, not the immigrants. Your argument is two wrongs make a right, you want to punish hard working potential americans for the errors of our liberals. I’d rather round up all the wanna be socialists and no good welfare recipients and deport them, let any foreigner who will work hard and earn his keep come and stay as long as he likes.
I have a CPL.
I own a handgun.
I know how to use it.
‘Splain to me what so OOOH SKARY! about that, wouldja?
May 1st, 2008 at 6:40 pmCan do!
Nope. And they don’t get the super-cool secret decoder rings either.
Yes, son, you HAVE argued for that. You are arguing that we open our borders wide open under the dubious premise that Mexicans have a “right” to be here. Deny it all you want but that’s what your argument ultimately boils down to.
That, by definition, is an argument for the non-enforcement of our laws.
No, it comes down to a little something known as NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. An argument which you have so far refused to address, incidentally.
What can I say? I strive for perfection in my condescending insults.
Gosh I love when liberals are so agreeable.
Actually I did, quite clearly, when I asked you to show how I quoted your bestest buddy “out of context” to change the meaning of his words.
The other quote, which apparently went soaring over your head, was one of those “condescending insults” you love so much. Still, lesson learned. The next time I insult someone’s intelligence I’ll be sure to dumb it down a little more so Bryan can understand it.
Thank you for proving my point. Cheap IS a relative term.
You say there is no “cheap” labor in the United States. I say there’s lots of cheap labor, but it’s been superseded by even cheaper labor that also happens to be totally illegal. And it’s nice to see how you jump all the way from 5 cents to $10. As if there were nothing in between.
There is no such thing as “jobs Americans won’t do”. That’s just a piece of propaganda used to justify illegal slave labor (because that’s basically what it is).
I’m going to go ahead and guess you’ve never attended a basic civics class?
Because if you had, you would know there is no inalienable right to enter the United States.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:22 pmMighty Samurai - “Master of Smackdown”..
Your new title under Rachel’s regime. Heh.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:04 pmRachel,
Even though you say 5% of it is true, almost all of it should be:
1) Agree.
2) Agree, but keep the groundskeepers for, uh, “keeping the fairway clear.”
3) AGREE!!
4) Disagree totally.
5) AGREE!!!
6) Double, but no more.
7) AGREE!! The weak in the herd are culled off, so we are doing Mexico a favor by returning their strongest and most productive.
9) AGREE!!!
10) Fine by me!!
Steve
May 1st, 2008 at 9:12 pmi can handle a lot, but calling me a liberal? wow can you even read? how is it that you can criticize my reading comprehension, and then manage to be so obtuse about everything i say?
May 1st, 2008 at 9:23 pmthe funny thing is that i agree with you on about 95% of the things discussed here, and right now that is the only thing i feel stupid about. I was hoping for some thoughtful civil discussion on the topic, but clearly that is beyond you. You are clearly the sad type who is all full of tough talk when it is anonymous, and care more about showing everyone up with how cleverly you can twist their words then you do about actually trying to persuade them. really big of you!
i clearly showed and explicit example of once such dishonest quotation and you are yet to acknowledge it. If you wont admit your error/deceit when caught red handed, then i guess there is no point to this, most kids outgrow such behavior around 1st grade.
Brilliant. I have been an advocate of this for quite some time. I envision something like the wall around Manhattan in “Escape From New York.” My only caveat is that if anyone manages to make it across…then they’ve shown the kind of tenacity and initiative to become citizens. Anyone who can get across the wall I propose (with armed guards and helicopters and police dogs), would be an instant citizen.
Since you think this should be a meme, and you ARE our Supreme Empress, I have obliged with my list. Enjoy…or not. Cat lovers will not.
http://otcconan.blogspot.com/2008/05/if-i-were-dictator.html
May 1st, 2008 at 9:51 pmRachel, since you think it should be a meme, I went ahead and posted my 10 laws on my blog.
http://otcconan.blogspot.com/2008/05/if-i-were-dictator.html
May 1st, 2008 at 10:11 pmCommon sense tells me that some laws are unenforceable, and are simply ignored by almost everyone.
Yes, the point of banning something is to make it go away. That was the point of banning guns in Washington, DC. It didn’t work. Has the ban on marijuana worked? Appealing to “common sense” cannot answer this question; you need actual evidence to show that the ban has been successful.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:28 pmYes, I call someone who holds liberal positions a liberal.
I guess I’m just old-fashioned that way.
Because I work hard at it.
Yes, you should feel stupid about your open-borders beliefs.
I see no purpose in having a thoughtful discussion with someone so bereft of thought as you.
Your open-borders position is absolutely ridiculous. You’ve apparently latched onto the first vaguely smart-sounding blog post on the subject you could find and swallowed it completely and without question.
You’ll have to show evidence of actual thought if you expect people to engage you thoughtfully.
Ah yes, the old “internet toughguy” comeback.
Well “Bryan” (if that is your real name) I’m afraid this particular insult does not have quite the bite you think it does. Particularly when delivered anonymously over the internet. It’s basically the equivalent of “Oh yeah? Well you’re just as bad as me! So there!”
Actually I did, and this will be the second time.
Once again, for the thinking impaired:
joke, n.
something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act
That “error/deceit” as you call it is more commonly known as a “joke”. One which everyone on this thread got except for you.
And I’ll bet my bottom dollar that you’ll be back to complain about how I “are yet to acknowledge it”.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:54 pmSurely you don’t think drug laws are “simply ignored” by almost everyone?
Ignored by many many people, certainly, but almost everyone? Hardly.
The question you asked was: “You seem to think that there are people who currently refrain from smoking marijuana only because it is illegal. Can you offer any evidence to support this belief?”
The evidence is right there in front of you. OF COURSE there are people who avoided marijuana simply because it’s illegal. Just like there are people who think twice about killing or stealing or speeding or any number of other things, simply because those things are illegal. If people just naturally avoided those things there would be no need for laws against them at all. That’s why there’s no law against shoving road flares up your bumhole. Because people naturally avoid doing it. So by definition there must be at least SOME people who only avoid marijuana because of the laws against it.
Now, if you want to talk about exactly how many people do this, that’s a different story. I don’t know of any evidence supporting either side. On the one hand there are obviously a lot of people who do drugs in flagrant disregard of the law. On the other hand there are a lot of other people who don’t disregard the law. I haven’t the foggiest idea how the numbers break down.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 amAlso, I don’t think comparing gun bans to drug bans is an apt comparison.
A gun represents strength, status, and survival. A joint is just a cheap high.
A gun is of far more use to a criminal than a joint. Hence, there is far more incentive to violate a gun ban than a drug ban.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 amOh, so we get to keep SOME people out now, who aren’t actually terrorists? How wonderful of you.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:31 amI think the main reason I avoid it and any other illegal drug is that life is enough of a high. I can watch Firefly if I need some escape and if I don’t have time (or weather conditions) to jump on a motorcycle and get away.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 amMaybe it’s just the memory of the ’60’s and all the losers that smoked maryjane. Maybe it’s having to suffer through the news when crackheads, cocaine whores and assorted other “celebrity” addicts are paraded by in lieu of real news that make me wonder what the allure is. And maybe it’s just the images of the people you see MARCHING FOR THE RIGHT TO SMOKE DOPE … sorry, I’ve worked hard to make my way in the world … don’t want to become like them, thankyouverymuch.
Bryan, I understand that you really look up to that open bor