Why The Next Four Years Give Me Hope

For once in a long time I think we will have a president who listens to the knowledgeable people. One who, when solving the economic problems, will listen to all economists, not just the vocal few, who, when attempting to improve health care, will listen to insurance companies and doctors who understand the system. He will not listen the way bureaucrats listen, i.e. he will not attempt to assign blame or attempt to cover his ass. He will make the decisions that will work. Barrack Obama is change and we can believe in him.

Barrack Obama strikes me as very similar to another skinny man from Illinois, whom also became a great president. I am speaking of course of Abraham Lincoln. Both men were/are well educated and well spoken. However while Abraham Lincoln was unfortunate enough to experience a dividing affect on America, I think that Obama will unify us as a country. He will be able to stabilize this country and this economy. He will be able to see past all the bullshit people say about the war, health care, and energy and he will be able to make the right decisions. He has the charisma that people need to comfort them and the intelligence required to lead them.

It’s not that John McCain is a bad man or a dumb man. He is just the same man that we’ve had for the past couple presidencies. People change and so must presidents. McCain only appeared to shoot himself in the foot because he couldn’t compete with Obama’s methods. Obama accurately represented the yuppies. He knew how to reach that group better than ever. The young demographic is highly idealistic and highly motivated. The main reason I think most had not voted in the past is because simply no candidate represented them. Obama basically came along and said I hear you, I agree there is a problem and I will do my best to fix it. He reached out to them we saw the importance of the internet he appeared modern and open minded. other politicians try and cover their asses and get a few votes from every demographic. Obama chose a select few demographics and sided with them. Look at the electoral division. Obama got most of the states with major urban centers NY, IL, CA, PA, etc. The only reason he won Colorado is probably because of the Denver-Boulder area.

McCain supporters need to look past all the much that was slung during the campaigns and accept that Obama is not a socialist or a terrorist. His plan for economic reform redistributes wealth. His plans are not socialist he is using taxes to encourage behavior, that is no more socialist than McCain’s plan. Other claim Obama has not been tested. What exactly does that mean? McCain has run for president multiple times and he was found wanting. How much testing had our founding fathers undergone? They were influential people who had never actually run a country before. Others have issue with Obama’s “elitist” nature. Yes Obama grew up in Chicago not some small town but then neither did McCain. Yes Obama is not a simple man; he is not Joe the plumber or Bob the whatever. He is a leader. I don’t want a plumber in the white house I want an extraordinary man; I want the best this country has to offer.

Political Controversy: Gun Control

My opinion: All guns should be allowed. I just don’t think that allowing legal firearms causes enough damage to warrant their ban. If we ban all guns and allow police to carry weapons then only people who will have guns are the police and criminals and if that happens, it won’t belong before the two become indistinguishable. The police will have such a power imbalance compared to normal people that you are bound to get corrupt cops. When corruption gets bad then even the good cops become a little corrupt. In the end pretty much only criminals will have guns.

Even if the cops somehow resist the power the guns has, then any petty crook that has a firearm is almost certain that his victim will be unarmed. If they enter a home and hold the occupants hostage, they know the resistance will be minimal. At this present time that is the most likely way to get shot. Most people (not backed up by statistics) keep their guns in their homes, locked or hidden away. As it is most weapons obtained by career criminals are illegal, so it isn’t that hard to obtain a weapon illegally.

Emil Dechebal Matasareanu and Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr

An assault weapon ban seems reasonable, because they are a bit unnecessary. However if some one needs an assault weapon to commit a crime they aren’t going to purchase it legally it’s too easy to trace. Take the in the famous North Hollywood Shootout, the two perpetrators, Emil Dechebal Matasareanu and Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr bought the firearms illegally from some one who obtained them at a gun show. So it’s not so much that anybody would need assault and automatic weapons, but some people enjoy having them for legitimate reasons e.g. collecting and range shooting. My personal belief is that unless something poses a significant threat to some one else’s life or property it should be allowed and I do not believe that assault weapons in themselves pose a significant threat.

However I do want to say that there should be heavy controls on assault weapons: heavy taxes and waiting periods. The taxes should go to law enforcement and the waiting periods allow for a background check both would be more so than say shotguns and handguns. We have the constitutional right to bare arms so if you are going to restrict that right you better have a damn good reason.

The main thing that you need to understand about this is that I believe that those gun toting redneck militia nuts have a point. The government is run by people they decide who to vote for and ultimately how much power that person has. The majority of people in the US are idiots, racists, and/or, close-minded religious nuts. With in that demographic there is a lot of fear, which leads them to believe politicians who clam they need emergency powers, which then leads to a fascist police state. So not only do I believe that these militias have point but also that restricting guns, in a way, creates a need for those guns. I would like to make it clear that I do not agree with the methods of most of the militias nor their extreme nature, but I do agree with their central belief that the government needs to be held to the standards dictated by the constitution.

Updates: (Last updated 11/09/2008 5:30pm CST)

response to a comment by the lion

Making things harder for criminals is a good thing but my point is that it isn't really making it harder. Career criminals are the main users of assault weapons and they obtain them almost entirely through illegal means. So maintaining a controlled legal method of obtaining them isn't really dangerous.

Given the current state of affairs in the this country if you execute an outright ban of firearms then given a generation plus maybe a few years I believe you will start to see abuse from police (provided police regulation remains the same). This is based on the belief that power corrupts it just takes time.

The problem with predicting the affects of gun crimes is that the statistics behind them are complicated. I think a good allegory to the long term affects of gun bans are the local gun ordinances. In a town near to where I live, they enacted a restrictive gun ordinance in the town and over the next two years crime rates rose. If you ban hand guns then yes for a few years it will be hard to obtain a gun but given time illegal channels will develop and the ease will increase. The affects of gun bans are long term and take time to develop. I'm not saying the what I propose as examples of the bad effects are certainly going to happen but that they can happen.

I would love to see where you are getting your information about these countries with bans by the way. I have had some difficulty finding clear statistics about the nature of crimes in the countries with gun bans. I have heard it three ways for each country: negative affect on crime, positive affect on crime, or no affect/unclear affect on crime. In 2 out of the three ways I have heard, the proper course of action would have been to allow guns.

Actually the Constitution does in fact allow for individuals to have guns the. Constitution only cited the need for militias as the reason, but the exact words were

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

This has consistently been the interpretation of the Supreme Court.