Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
But this time, it’s different!
Posted by: Jon Henke on Sunday, August 13, 2006

Jennifer, guest-posting at High Clearing, makes a bold claim...
if you do a survey of people who support strict gun-control measures, over 90 percent of them will tell you they can’t stand the Bush/Cheney administration. Don’t trust it one bit. Deplore what our current leaders have done to America both domestically and in the eyes of the world.

So with minimal skill in the Socratic method you can ask certain questions and eventually get your prey to utter the following statement: “Bush and Cheney are turning this country into a fascist dictatorship! That said, agents of the government should decide who gets to own a weapon and who doesn’t.”
...and I believe she's probably right.

It's remarkable how quickly people become inured to the innate weaknesses of government. Many, who think the Republicans oppose welfare programs and will work endlessly for the benefit of Big Business, are positively eager to hand a multi-trillion dollar/year industry over to a government which has a 50/50 chance of being run by Republicans at any given time. Others, who think the relentless federal social engineering endorsed by the Democratic Party is counter-productive and has terrible unanticipated consequences, are positively eager to re-organize entire societies.

That's not to say that one cannot simultaneously be skeptical of government and believe it should move at times. One can. But it's worth retaining that sense of skepticism about the utility of government when you believe it is needed — and perhaps even cranking it up a few notches.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Jennifer could just have easily led her prey down this path: if you are pro-choice and also in favor of a nationalized healthcare system, where do you think women would get abortions if the government was the only medical provider and Republicans prevented the government-run heathcare system from offering abortions?
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
But Aldo, even those who support socialized medicine don’t generally say that ALL healthcare must be provided solely through government gatekeepers. Whereas those who support gun control do, in fact, insist that the government—and only the government—should say who does and does not get to own a means of self-defense.
 
Written By: Jennifer
URL: http://feralgenius.blogspot.com
even those who support socialized medicine don’t generally say that ALL healthcare must be provided solely through government gatekeepers

Is that true? I’ve seen the argument more than once that allowing any private arrangements is tantamount to creating a two-tier (or multi-tier) health care system which will inevitably lead to the neglect of the publicly-financed part, and so such arrangements should be banned. But maybe that was just from the fringe egalitarian-extremists.
 
Written By: kenB
URL: http://
Good post.

but, to sidetrack an otherwise stagnet post I’ll quibble over this ...
Others, who think the relentless federal social engineering endorsed by the Democratic Party is counter-productive and has terrible unanticipated consequences
Democrats don’t believe in social engineering. They believe in cost-benefit analysis. It’s not that we don’t want you to ride your motorcycle without a helmet, we just don’t want to have to pay the costs associated with scraping you up. You crack up, our premiums go up. When you don’t give them preventative checkups, we pay for the catastrophic illness. When you pollute, we pay to clean it up. When you don’t educate them, we pay for the jails.

Much of republican theology revolves around personal accrual of benefits and public accrual of costs. This applies to environmentalism, gun control, health care, corporate welfare and more. The democrats have not verbalized their complaints well but the republicans would get a lot less flack if they didn’t expect American to clean up after them.
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
They believe in cost-benefit analysis. It’s not that we don’t want you to ride your motorcycle without a helmet, we just don’t want to have to pay the costs associated with scraping you up
Why should the question of me paying for someone’s medical injuries even come up in a libertarian discussion?
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
A lot of those people who want strict gun control have dead children from shootings and contrary to popular belief in this world most of them are not gansters.
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
Why should the question of me paying for someone’s medical injuries even come up in a libertarian discussion?
If you hit them and it is your fault (if you have a traffic accident). If motorcyclist is wearing a bandana and suffers permanent brain damage all attributal bills are the responsibility of you and your insurer. If motorcyclist is wearing lid and bounces you are liable for cost of new helmet.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
When someone trots out the "I don’t want to have to pay for your injury" line I get nervous. If you decide that every type of conduct can be regulated solely on the basis of an insurance company maybe having to pay a claim, we’re screwed. Say goodbye to tools that can hurt someone, cars, motorcycles, scuba, and so on. It’s one thing to say a kid should wear a helmet; another to say nobody has a choice in the matter because ’it might cost somebody something’.

VRB, the places with the strictest gun control laws have the worst number of shootings. But pointing this out means nothing to those people because either it’s easier to blame an object than say "Throw the crooks in jail and keep them there", or they actually believe the object is to blame for the conduct.
 
Written By: Firehand
URL: http://elmtreeforge.blogspot.com
Cindyb said:
It’s not that we don’t want you to ride your motorcycle without a helmet, we just don’t want to have to pay the costs associated with scraping you up. You crack up, our premiums go up.
So basically, you’re for freedom unless it costs a little money? Nice. If you don’t wan’t to pay for some idiot who rode a motorcycle without a helmet, buy health insurance that doesn’t cover such idiots (it exists). Don’t have enough choice about who your health insurance provider is to do this? Now that’s a problem!

The freedom to be a self-destructive idiot is fundamental. The "freedom" to do only what others judge to be the right thing is pretty much the opposite of freedom.
 
Written By: Skorj
URL: http://
Firehand,
This post started with a psuedo statistic about those who support gun control. I get pissed off because I see people in my city who are desperate for solutions, they are not taking on some kind of political pose. You see, you still don’t understand the emotion, it is as if statistics are everything. That is one reason why your point of view will not ever get across to me, because you are not willing to understand and you talk as if crime will disapear when there are no gun laws and you have your right to carry. I get the image, that for every gun you own there are tags of children hanging on them. You are willing to sacrifice them for your point of view. Some places you speak of, jail is already a destination. Many times the crime is the murder itself, its not always in the commission of another crime.
I know you think I am probably for strict gun control, I don’t think that is an answer, but I think some arguments that oppose gun control are extremely callous ones toward society. Most of us live with other human beings.
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
????
??????
??
????
???
????
??????
??????
??????
?????
????
????
?????
????
????
????
????
????
??
????
????
??????
??????
??????
?????
????
????
??????
??????
??????
?????
????
????
????
??????
??????
????
????
??????
??????
?????
????
??
??????
????
????
??????
????
????
?????
????
????
????
??????
??????
????
??????
???
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
??????
?????
?????
?????
??????
??????
??????
??????
??????
?????
??
????
??
???
?????
???
??
????
????
????
????
????
???
????
????
????
????
??????
????
????
??????
mp3????
??????
????
??????
mp3????
??????
????
??????
????
 
Written By: OOOYY
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider