I saw this and was awestruck at the totally awesome awesomeness of it. I may squee.
I want one of those. And I wouldn't mind a lightsaber either.
10.02.2010
9.26.2010
Dirty, but Satisfying.
For those of you that've been hiding out under a rock since 2003, Mike Rowe is the host and star of the Emmy Nominated Discovery channel show Dirty Jobs. Over the course of an episode Mike apprentices at a particularly difficult or unpleasant job such as; house mover, septic tank technician or as we learn n the video lamb castrator.
This video was taken a one of the TED talk conferences, which were established to "disseminate ideas worth spreading".
Food for thought.
This video was taken a one of the TED talk conferences, which were established to "disseminate ideas worth spreading".
Food for thought.
Twenty Questions or ...You'll Find Someone Packing it Full of Nonsense.
The blog Common Gunsense authored by one Joan Peterson (aka japete) has put up 20 questions in her blogpost entitled Where there is an open mind... that she wants to ask gunners. So here's my answers.
1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?
This question is redundant and loaded. Domestic abuse is a crime therefore those convicted of it are criminals. That being said, I am only in favor of restricting the access of violent felons to weapons. Besides, anyone too dangerous to be allowed access to a weapon should not be allowed to intermingle with society at large anyways.
2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?
Refer please, to the post of 7.14.10 entitled What I Believe: Crime and Punishment.
3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?
Yes, yes I do.
4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
I must assume that to be true, since any reduction of our essential liberties can be used as a foothold by any tyrant who wished to eliminate them in their entirety. Whatever your intent, the end result is the same. Besides, as Christians are wont to say "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
I imagine it would take the form of lobbying, a bill would be introduced, Congress (not looking further ahead than the next poll) would approve, as would the senate (also a myopic group). The President would throw his John Hancock on it, then the whole thing becomes law. Was I the only one that watched Schoolhouse Rock as a kid.
6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?
This question is both misleading and possibly libelous. Sharron Angle did not "propose" anything, but rather expressed hope that her election would help to reduce the perceived tyranny felt by many of her constituents.
As to what "Second Amendment Remedies" are? I must assume that what is meant is the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government, but to be certain you'd have to ask her.
7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?
As Sharron Angle said, the second amendment is there to allow us (as in "we the people") to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. To use violence or threat of violence as a means to restrict another's freedom would make me as much a tyrant as any Caesar.
As a secondary function, being well armed allows the casual human to indulge in that most basic of freedoms "the freedom to survive". So I suppose if someone were doing something violent and threatening, I believe it would be an acceptable notion to shoot them. Twice. Three times if you've be practicing your Mozambique drills.
8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?
If what they are saying does not (or cannot) coincide with reality and there is sufficient reason to believe that they are aware of this fact? Then yes I find it acceptable to call someone a liar. It is generally considered immature and poor form to actually call names, however.
9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?
Oh yeah. To say it otherwise would be cowardly.
10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?
Of course. What part of "...shall not be infringed." was unclear.
11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.
I believe they exist, if that's what you're asking. If you mean to ask "Do I feel that the current gun laws are effective at their overt purpose?", then no, I do not. I am sure they are being enforced (sometimes, as it pleases the DA's office and the local, state or federal constabulary).
12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
This is a loaded question since it is possible to be a "law-abiding citizen" who is careful with their guns, and still shoot someone. Remember, "True gun control is having both hands on your weapon.".
I know that most people are safe with their firearms. I also know that most people are never going to be in a position that would require them to shoot someone for any reason, legitimate (defense of self, others or property) or otherwise.
13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?
No, I do not. While suicides do tend to employ specific methodologies based on gender, suicide is not a really a criminal act (at least not in civilized places).
14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?
It depends very much on what purpose the gun statistics are being used for.If the statistics are being use for actual, rigorous, scientific inquiry, then it depends on whether accidental gun deaths were germane to the inquiry at hand.
If the statistics are being gathered for a pseudo-scientific, ideologically driven, attempts to frighten people into giving up their essential liberties, then I do not think any statistics should be recorded.
15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?
The design of modern firearms prevents such accidental discharges from occurring.
16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?
That depends entirely on who died and who killed them, why they died and where. Without that context such a question is meaningless.
17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?
Well, I've not had to shoot anyone this year, does that count? Ooh, I know! I could pledge not to shoot anyone that deserves it in the next calender year. I'll use my axe instead. Does that count?
How about "I will follow Cooper's rules and obey my Federal, State and Municipal laws concerning firearm use."
18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?
I do not believe you are making up the shootings you write about but, human interest stories are a form of sensationalist journalism. and do not deal so much with the facts of the case as the spin put on the terms in which the facts are couched.
Rather than simply reporting that "A Smallville woman was allegedly kidnapped and held against her will until a local man rescued her from her alleged captor." You write "Today the lovely Lois Lane was held Hostage by the evil (if roguishly handsome)criminal mastermind Lex Luthor. She was held by the terrifying madman until our hero, Superman rescued her is a show of bravery." While transmitting the same information, one imparts certain emotional cues that distort perceptions of what occurred. Why do you think juries are not supposed to read the papers or watch news reports relating to the case they are trying?
19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).
Me personally? No. I think that the BATFE is barely cognizant of me as an individual. They have however, on multiple occasions indicated a willingness to ignore reason, law and general good judgment in the pursuit of and enforcement of firearms regulations. I must conclude that the BATFE end goal is that no-one but agents of the government should have access to firearms.
20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
I will continue to discuss this matter reasonably until such time as the government makes it illegal to do so. Once discussion and demonstration are no longer viable methods of change, I will be forced to resort to those "Second Amendment Remedies" of which you seem so disdainful.
1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?
This question is redundant and loaded. Domestic abuse is a crime therefore those convicted of it are criminals. That being said, I am only in favor of restricting the access of violent felons to weapons. Besides, anyone too dangerous to be allowed access to a weapon should not be allowed to intermingle with society at large anyways.
2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?
Refer please, to the post of 7.14.10 entitled What I Believe: Crime and Punishment.
3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?
Yes, yes I do.
4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
I must assume that to be true, since any reduction of our essential liberties can be used as a foothold by any tyrant who wished to eliminate them in their entirety. Whatever your intent, the end result is the same. Besides, as Christians are wont to say "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
I imagine it would take the form of lobbying, a bill would be introduced, Congress (not looking further ahead than the next poll) would approve, as would the senate (also a myopic group). The President would throw his John Hancock on it, then the whole thing becomes law. Was I the only one that watched Schoolhouse Rock as a kid.
6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?
This question is both misleading and possibly libelous. Sharron Angle did not "propose" anything, but rather expressed hope that her election would help to reduce the perceived tyranny felt by many of her constituents.
As to what "Second Amendment Remedies" are? I must assume that what is meant is the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government, but to be certain you'd have to ask her.
7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?
As Sharron Angle said, the second amendment is there to allow us (as in "we the people") to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. To use violence or threat of violence as a means to restrict another's freedom would make me as much a tyrant as any Caesar.
As a secondary function, being well armed allows the casual human to indulge in that most basic of freedoms "the freedom to survive". So I suppose if someone were doing something violent and threatening, I believe it would be an acceptable notion to shoot them. Twice. Three times if you've be practicing your Mozambique drills.
8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?
If what they are saying does not (or cannot) coincide with reality and there is sufficient reason to believe that they are aware of this fact? Then yes I find it acceptable to call someone a liar. It is generally considered immature and poor form to actually call names, however.
9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?
Oh yeah. To say it otherwise would be cowardly.
10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?
Of course. What part of "...shall not be infringed." was unclear.
11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.
I believe they exist, if that's what you're asking. If you mean to ask "Do I feel that the current gun laws are effective at their overt purpose?", then no, I do not. I am sure they are being enforced (sometimes, as it pleases the DA's office and the local, state or federal constabulary).
12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
This is a loaded question since it is possible to be a "law-abiding citizen" who is careful with their guns, and still shoot someone. Remember, "True gun control is having both hands on your weapon.".
I know that most people are safe with their firearms. I also know that most people are never going to be in a position that would require them to shoot someone for any reason, legitimate (defense of self, others or property) or otherwise.
13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?
No, I do not. While suicides do tend to employ specific methodologies based on gender, suicide is not a really a criminal act (at least not in civilized places).
14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?
It depends very much on what purpose the gun statistics are being used for.If the statistics are being use for actual, rigorous, scientific inquiry, then it depends on whether accidental gun deaths were germane to the inquiry at hand.
If the statistics are being gathered for a pseudo-scientific, ideologically driven, attempts to frighten people into giving up their essential liberties, then I do not think any statistics should be recorded.
15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?
The design of modern firearms prevents such accidental discharges from occurring.
16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?
That depends entirely on who died and who killed them, why they died and where. Without that context such a question is meaningless.
17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?
Well, I've not had to shoot anyone this year, does that count? Ooh, I know! I could pledge not to shoot anyone that deserves it in the next calender year. I'll use my axe instead. Does that count?
How about "I will follow Cooper's rules and obey my Federal, State and Municipal laws concerning firearm use."
18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?
I do not believe you are making up the shootings you write about but, human interest stories are a form of sensationalist journalism. and do not deal so much with the facts of the case as the spin put on the terms in which the facts are couched.
Rather than simply reporting that "A Smallville woman was allegedly kidnapped and held against her will until a local man rescued her from her alleged captor." You write "Today the lovely Lois Lane was held Hostage by the evil (if roguishly handsome)criminal mastermind Lex Luthor. She was held by the terrifying madman until our hero, Superman rescued her is a show of bravery." While transmitting the same information, one imparts certain emotional cues that distort perceptions of what occurred. Why do you think juries are not supposed to read the papers or watch news reports relating to the case they are trying?
19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).
Me personally? No. I think that the BATFE is barely cognizant of me as an individual. They have however, on multiple occasions indicated a willingness to ignore reason, law and general good judgment in the pursuit of and enforcement of firearms regulations. I must conclude that the BATFE end goal is that no-one but agents of the government should have access to firearms.
20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
I will continue to discuss this matter reasonably until such time as the government makes it illegal to do so. Once discussion and demonstration are no longer viable methods of change, I will be forced to resort to those "Second Amendment Remedies" of which you seem so disdainful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)