What Could Be Better Than Harry Reid?
5 Comments Published May 26th, 2009 in National and International Issues, Southern Utah People, Southern Utah Talking Points and Questions.No Harry Reid, that’s what.
Obama is heading to Las Vegas to raise money for Harry Reid in the first overtly political outing of his new administration. To be effective in his job, that’s what Obama has to do. But that doesn’t make Harry Reid the right man.
So why don’t I like Harry Reid? Because he’s a Republican with a Democrat label pinned on him.
Even after the biggest political victory in recent memory, Democrats are not representing the values that we elected them for. On balance, my values would be better served if Harry Reid was replaced by some unknown graduate of Liberty University.
- Harry Reid is in favor of lethal weapons in every home, car, and now even national parks. He even voted in favor of legislation to prohibit civil liability actions against gun manufacturers. It’s hard to be any other way in ’shoot ‘em up’ Nevada, but it’s still a rotten value that is a big part of what’s wrong with America.
- Harry Reid is leading the charge (and breaking his promise to the ranchers of White Pine County, Nevada) for the Las Vegas water grab — soon to be the greatest environmental disaster since the depression dust bowl. That, in turn, will boost the ability of the Washington County Water Pipe Dictators to build the Lake Powell Catastrophe.
- Harry Reid consistently votes against empowering women to make their own reproduction choices and for the conservative anti-choice bible thumpers.
- Harry Reid votes against giving gays equal marriage rights.
- Harry Reid strongly supports use of the death penalty. He’s voted in favor of limiting death penalties appeals and executing criminals who were minors when they committed their crime.
- Harry Reid voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2003 and in favor of Bush’s “Patriot Act” in 2006.
This is a Democrat?
Obama will be helping Harry Reid because he has a national agenda that he needs to be passed. Obama is a practical man and I can see why he’s doing it. But from my point of view, if Harry Reid wasn’t the most powerful man in Senate, then maybe some other Democrat who actually supports my values would get the job. If a Republican replaced him, he’s get stuck on the Senate Committee for Underwater Matriculation (SCUM) and he wouldn’t be such a huge boost to the anti-people positions that Reid supports.
Besides, I have long believed that anyone who has made the soul-destroying choices to get elected over and over and over again is guaranteed to have lost sight of any values except the ones necessary to get elected over and over and over again. Our own Senators Hatch and Bennett are also great examples of people with no human values left.
Republicans are scared silly of the prospect of ‘their base’ simply not coming out, working, and voting when the battle is joined. They believe they can’t win unless they get a lot of creationist, anti-communist Joe-the-plumber types out there pounding the pavement on election day. I’ve got news for Harry Reid. Obama was elected by passionate believers getting out and working for their candidate too. According to the New York Times, “In a survey last week, Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that just 35 percent of respondents would definitely vote for [Reid].”
Democrats have a ‘base’ with values too. And when our values are ignored, we can sit on our hands during the election.
Why are you against people owning guns??
Do you think that by prohibiting law abiding citizens the right to own weapons and be able to defend themselves that you will reduce violance?
It is a proven fact that where guns are banned crime with weapons goes up.
You use the term ’shoot ‘em up’ Nevada. Why?? Are there gunfights in the streets? Does the average citizen solve all their problems with guns?
“Why are you against people owning guns?”
Because “people don’t kill people, guns do.”
First, let me introduce Robert as a friend (I hope you’re still a friend, Robert!) from my “other” life as a Visual Basic programmer. Robert is an ardent advocate of gun ownership. I’m an ardent opponent. It’s my hope that we can disagree on issues like this and still do some good programming together. (And, since this was your first post here Robert, I had to approve it before it appeared on the site. Hope the delay wasn’t a problem.)
Anyway … back to the subject.
Let me repeat my statistic from my original blog:
(http://colorcomments.com/2009/04/04/guns/)
“One statistic just to make the point clear: Japan has a population of 128 million people and fewer than 400,000 legally owned guns. They had a total of 22 gun murders in 2007. The US has a population of 306 million, 280 million guns and over 12,000 gun homicides each year. The US has 24,000 percent more gun deaths per capita than Japan.”
24,000 PERCENT more gun deaths per capita!!!
Now, Japan isn’t the US and, if guns all disappeared tomorrow, we still wouldn’t be able to duplicate those results. But still …. Do you REALLY think that more people would die without the ready availability of lethal weapons throughout our population?
The whole history of mankind demonstrates that our security lies NOT in rugged individuals defending themselves, but rather in societies building better civilizations so people don’t have to face each other down in the street with deadly force. In fact, EVEN in the very unlikely situation where you’re facing a bad guy with a gun, you’re better off without one. If you have one, he’s a lot more likely to shoot you.
You might feel better with that blaster in your boot, but you’re really not better off. And it’s killing us as a civilization.
————–
Re: Your point about, “where guns are banned crime with weapons goes up.”
This very frequently quoted NRA talking point is a good example of missing the forest because you’re looking too hard at the trees.
In a gun-culture where the only way we can eliminate any guns is to do it on a very micro basis (for example, Washington D.C. where Virginia is just a bridge away), this will be the result every time. Japan achieves their gun-violence free status because they, as a whole culture, have eliminated guns. Back in the 90’s, there was a chance that we might have been able to at least move in that direction and start enjoying some of the benefits of a lack of gun violence. But, alas, it wasn’t to be.
The “forest” that you’re missing is the overall level of gun-violence in the US. By any standard, we die like lemmings here at the barrel of a gun. Do you think that happens by accident? And THAT is, has been, and (<sigh!>) probably will continue to increase.
And, yes, people shoot each other in Nevada quite a bit.
First, your statement, “people don’t kill people, guns do”, is absurd. Explain to the world how an inanimate object can kill anyone without a “person” to pull the trigger.
People kill people. They do it with guns, knives, baseball bats, poison, cars, and a variety of other devices. You take away one device and they will pick up another. The device is not the culprit. People are. And we are ALL to blame that the numbers are so high.
Why are we ALL guilty? Because we don’t insist that our laws be upheld and that people who break them are punished appropriately. Instead we allow the bleeding heart liberals to tell us that poor defendant had a bad childhood, was disadvantaged, and a hundred other excuses why we should not punish him. Our criminal justice system is a joke.
You used Japan as an example, but you obviously don’t know very much about Japanese culture.
You stated, “Japan achieves their gun-violence free status because they, as a whole culture, have eliminated guns.”
The Japanese people, for all of their recorded history, have NEVER been allowed to own weapons. Only the elite and their armies were allowed to be armed. And because of this the Japanese people were held under the thumb of the ruling class.
Japan is a very poor example. The Japanese culture is as different from ours as night is to day.
I have always hated statistics. Numbers can be made to ‘prove’ anything. Especially if stated out of context to the facts. Of the 24,000 homicides you state we have each year, how many were crime related? No doubt in my mind the majority were. How many of those could have been prevented through gun control? Very few. How many of those deaths were due to an armed citizen protecting himself from the criminal element? Many more than you realize.
There is a definite bias against guns in the main-stream media. If ‘Joe Citizen’ kills someone because their parking space was taken it will be all over the front page nation-wide. Killings by the criminal element are fleetingly mentioned. ‘Joe Citizen’ defending himself with a gun and possibly saving his life or that of a family member gets no mention at all.
Let a criminal kill someone and the gun control people have hardly anything to say. But let average ‘Joe Citizen’ kill someone and the Media has a field day.
But let us look at ‘Gun Control’. You outlaw the ownership of guns. The law abiding citizen turns in their weapons. Admittedly, gun related deaths by the average ‘Joe Citizen’ will go down. But how many of those that would have used a gun to solve their issues will pick up a different weapon and kill anyway.
Because of your gun control the law abiding citizen is unarmed. Has the criminal element turned in their weapons?? Of course not. They are criminals.
So what you have is an unarmed populace, an armed criminal element, and way too few police officers. What’s the logical conclusion? Crime will go up as it has in all countries that have imposed gun control. And yes, the NRA frequently quotes that because it is true. Besides the NRA, the FBI statistics support this as well. Again, thanks to the main-stream media that fact is given back page coverage if it is covered at all.
So please, when giving statistics, give us all of them.
Of your 24,000 deaths by gun per year,
how many were committed in the commission of a crime???,
how many were from ‘Joe Citizen’ shooting someone for no good reason???,
how many were accidental???,
and
how many were from ‘Joe Citizen’ defending himself from a life-threatening situation???
Don’t just spout statistics that seem to support your views. Be honest and look at all of the facts and above all ‘Don’t Believe Anything Just Because the Main-stream Media Says It Is So.” Use your brain, do a little research and a majority of the time you will find they are not telling you the entire truth.
And Yes, we are still friends.
Yep. Numbers, indeed, can be made to ‘prove’ anything. I’ve quoted my dad a lot in this space, “Figures don’t lie but liars will figure.”
Unfortunately, numbers are still a whole lot better than just someone’s opinion.
The reason I turned the NRA sound bite on it’s head, (“guns kill people”) is that the numbers still show that, without guns, people just wouldn’t have the ability to kill each other or themselves in such volume. They would have to look around for a less convenient form of violence. And that might not be such a bad thing. For example, a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
(Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.” NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)
Gun lovers make a big point of the “defensive” use of guns and you are right that a tense standoff has started to descend on America as deadly weapons are starting to invade more and more homes. In the neighborhood I used to live in (In solidly conservative and religious Salt Lake City, Utah!), there was never any doubt about whether my neighbor had a gun and an itchy trigger finger. They all did! And there were two meth house drug busts on the same street I lived on while I lived there.
But my vision is an America where violence is not the solution to every problem and where people work together to build a better society. Your post most clearly reveals that our fundamental disagreement is not on numbers; it’s on values. You value your freedom to own and use deadly weapons. I value a society where deadly weapons aren’t used by anyone.
We do, however, agree on one point: “Our criminal justice system is a joke.” But it’s not because we’re not throwing enough people in jail. For that, check out my latest blog, “Innocent Hostages to Ideology”.