Posts Tagged ‘society

15
Jun
17

Lessons Government Officials Should Learn From Charity Baseball Game Shooting

On Wednesday, June 14, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and four others, were shot at a Republican congressional baseball practice, by a gunman who appeared to have targeted Republican members of Congress. The alleged shooter–James Hodgkinson, 66, of Belleville, Illinois, who is reported to have been a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter–died following a shootout with police.

The Capital Police were only there, because a high-ranking official (Scalise) was in the group, practicing. If he hadn’t been there, with the armed detail, the situation could have been even worse.

‘Joe Six-Pack’ can’t afford, and is not allowed, to have an armed security detail follow him everywhere he goes, but these elitist government officials have access to such. That’s just another example of Animal Farm, in my opinion.

But I digress.

One witness said the scene was like being in Iraq without a weapon.

Sen. Rand Paul said it would have been a massacre if the Capital Police (people with firearms) hadn’t been there.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said that if it hadn’t been for the Capital Police (people with firearms), there would have been no one there to stop the gunman.

That’s right, because ridiculous gun control laws–and a court system that seems to love to prosecute people for self-defense–get in the way of people being able to protect themselves!

Wouldn’t it have been awesome if a bunch of peaceful* people, who were carrying concealed firearms, had taken this guy out from the start of his rampage? I have to wonder how many of those five injured people would have gotten out unscathed.

And wouldn’t it have been awesome if the gunman had decided not to risk shooting anyone, in the first place, because he would have known anyone around him could have been “packing” a firearm?

I hate to say it, but this is a case of reaping what you sow.

You want to limit self-defense, Government officials? Well, self-defense was also limited for you, because of it. You paid a high price, because of gun control nonsense.

There is a lesson to be learned, though: Now is a great time to eliminate gun control that gets people shot and killed!

MAKE IT HAPPEN!

 

*I absolutely detest, and completely disagree with, having to get a government-issued Permit (permission) to carry a concealed firearm for protection. Having gotten that off my chest and out of the way, statistics show that concealed carry permit holders cause less crime than even police officers.

Advertisements
14
May
09

Giving Back

A couple of years ago, “giving back” used to be a favorite socialist catch phrase. Today, it’s still often used to guilt-trip people with wealth into spreading it around or be labeled “greedy,” “uncaring,” “evil rich person,” etc.

I was recently reminded of the “giving back” stuff by the TV show, American Idol. While I fully and completely support private charity, I absolutely HATE the name that the show’s producers chose to name their operation: “Idol Gives Back.”

Pushing a person or company into “giving back” to the community seems to imply an inequity, theft or entitlement–and nothing could be further from the truth.

In any free exchange, all parties involved must be agreeable with the exchange and desire something that someone else has more than they want to keep what they currently have.

For instance, Bob wants a microwave oven so he runs down to the local department store to compare prices and models.

Looking through the available items, he finds a model that has a high power rating and energy efficiency. It also has time-saving features, such as one-touch settings for popcorn and soup, and it costs $49.99.

Bob decides that he wants the microwave more than he wants to hang on to $49.99, and the store wants 49 dollars and 49 cents more than it wants to keep a microwave oven on the shelf, so Bob and the store exchange money and goods.

Since both parties entered into the transaction voluntarily, and both decided they wanted what the other had more than what they were currently holding, why is it that the store then gets pressured into “giving back” to the community?

Some socialists say, “If it wasn’t for the people in the community buying things there, the department store wouldn’t be making any money.” To which I say, “If the department stores weren’t around, these people wouldn’t have the opportunity to purchase appliances, cleaning products, furniture, food, books, entertainment items, etc. to enhance and improve their lives.”

As you can see, both parties benefited from the exchange, and both were willing to part with what they had to get what the other had to trade. To say that the business, alone, should now “give something back” is unacceptable.

If there are inequities, or people feel they are owed something from these “greedy, rich corporations,” maybe the people in the community should just hold on to their money, do without or make the things they would normally buy, and then reassess their situation at a later date (yeah, that’ll happen. lol).

The only “greedy” people I see here are those who unjustly feel that they are owed something, especially after they follow through with a completely voluntary exchange.