Editorial:
Putting my conspiracy theorist hat on, I do not think the Government really cares if criminals have firearms. I think they are concerned or maybe afraid of good law abiding citizens having firearms. I also do not think government cares about small arms such as handguns.
Using the past tragedies of Columbine to the DC Navy Yard shootings, the Government has been really pushing for more gun control. Even though Columbine High school. Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, the Aurora Theater, Sandy Hook Elementary and not the DC Navy Yard were all "gun free" zones, the Government is trying to push for more gun control. Even though in all cases, except for the Aurora Theater, these were done with handguns and shotguns. But, the Government has had a huge push on "assault" weapons. Making out right lies saying that all these were done with AR-15's and the media for some reason has followed the Government script like a lost puppy. Even after it was proven that a "assault" weapons was not used, they keep stating that they were.
Now, going back to my main point. I do not think the Government cares if criminals has handguns. If you look at areas like Chicago and DC, they have some of the highest gun crime rates, while having some of if not the strictest gun laws in the country. Even those most of these crimes the guns were acquired illegally and they for the most part are not any type of long gun or "assault" weapon, they still bang the horn louder then ever on taking away "assault" weapons". They have almost no interest in hanguns, to which the vast majority of gun crimes are used with. Leaving out the fact that less then one percent of the those crimes were done with legally acquired handguns.
Now, here is where my conspiracy hat comes into play on why I do not think the Government cares about criminals with weapons or hand guns in that matter. Actually, I do not even think they care about shot guns. I think that even though I do not think there are any plans in the works for this, the Government is asking themselves this question: "If we have to take control of the population, what would we rather go against? A small contingent of criminals who are really only looking out for themselves and are going to carry and use firearms without any regard to the law? Or the vast majority of gun owners, over 200 million in fact, who have weapons that rival the Military"?
I believe if the United States Government ever decided to take control of the populace, they would really like the population who is relatively unarmed then a population that is armed and able to fight against them. If you recall, there are other notorious Governments who disarmed their populations in the name of "safety".
Its like the old saying goes, "The worst enemy to tyranny is a well armed populace"
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Why Hilary Clinton will probabaly win the 2016 Presidential Election
Former United States Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the wife of former United States President President William Clinton, is probably going to be running for President in 2016. And you know what? If she runs for President, I think she will probaly win. She will probabaly win for reasons that have nothing to do with her "abilities". And I am someone who does not like Hilary Clinton for a multiple of reasons, but have to deal with the harsh realities of the world we live in today.
Reason #1: She is the wife of former President Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton, who cant seem to stay out of the spot light is still considered a still living popular President. He has even been called the "first black President" that is before President Burak Obama became the President that is.
Reason #2: She is a woman. Sad to say, but the simple fact that she is female will be a huge reason why people will vote for her. Mostly from the female voter population. They will akin this completing their struggles from the Woman's suffrage movement from the early 1900's. She will get the female vote, just like a lot of people voted for Burak Obama because is black. Now, do I think Obama would still have won the 2008 election without that? Yes I do. Heck I voted for the man in that election, but for reasons that turned out to never come to fruition.
The sad fact even though people say they do not vote for someone because of race or gender is somewhat BS. People will vote for people who they "identify" with. I would hope the majority people would identify with what someones beliefs on how they believe the country should go, but as we learned in to 2008 election, that wasn't so.
Now, the only I think way someone from the "Republicans" will win is if they find a candidate that just blows it out of the park on every single issue and shreds everything she says to pieces. Even then, with people voting because she is female and the association with Bill Clinton, it will still be a close election.
What are your thoughts? Leave your comments below and join this discussion.
Reason #1: She is the wife of former President Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton, who cant seem to stay out of the spot light is still considered a still living popular President. He has even been called the "first black President" that is before President Burak Obama became the President that is.
Reason #2: She is a woman. Sad to say, but the simple fact that she is female will be a huge reason why people will vote for her. Mostly from the female voter population. They will akin this completing their struggles from the Woman's suffrage movement from the early 1900's. She will get the female vote, just like a lot of people voted for Burak Obama because is black. Now, do I think Obama would still have won the 2008 election without that? Yes I do. Heck I voted for the man in that election, but for reasons that turned out to never come to fruition.
The sad fact even though people say they do not vote for someone because of race or gender is somewhat BS. People will vote for people who they "identify" with. I would hope the majority people would identify with what someones beliefs on how they believe the country should go, but as we learned in to 2008 election, that wasn't so.
Now, the only I think way someone from the "Republicans" will win is if they find a candidate that just blows it out of the park on every single issue and shreds everything she says to pieces. Even then, with people voting because she is female and the association with Bill Clinton, it will still be a close election.
What are your thoughts? Leave your comments below and join this discussion.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Dont Speak Out against Syria, thats racist
Its a sad state of affairs when you speak out against an issue that has nothing to due with race and you are still called a racist. Only because the person who is pushing the issue happens to be black.
In an recent Hollywood Reporter article with Ed Ashner, talk about that the reason why "Hollywood" type people like Matt Damon, Mike Farrell, Tim Robbins, ect that were very anti-war during Bush Jr. do not speak out against President Obama about Syria. The reason you might ask? They do not want to look "anti-black". You also have people in the Congressional Black Caucasus telling its members to "hold their tongue" if they disagree with President Obama about Syria.
So, now that I am clear. We should not speak out about being against helping Syrian rebels, who have a large contingent of Al-Qaeda members because President Obama happens to be black.
Has the United States gone bat shit politically correctly insane? How is it racist to be against a war we have nothing do with? How is it racist or anti-black for being not wanting people who have said they will kill every Christian and every non Muslim? I actually think it shows a lot of racism that you are told not speak about this because the person who happens to be advocating is black.
With all that said, I have a question for those Hollywood types who do not want to be labeled "Anti-Black". Would you be so silent if Herman Cain was the President doing this?
In an recent Hollywood Reporter article with Ed Ashner, talk about that the reason why "Hollywood" type people like Matt Damon, Mike Farrell, Tim Robbins, ect that were very anti-war during Bush Jr. do not speak out against President Obama about Syria. The reason you might ask? They do not want to look "anti-black". You also have people in the Congressional Black Caucasus telling its members to "hold their tongue" if they disagree with President Obama about Syria.
So, now that I am clear. We should not speak out about being against helping Syrian rebels, who have a large contingent of Al-Qaeda members because President Obama happens to be black.
Has the United States gone bat shit politically correctly insane? How is it racist to be against a war we have nothing do with? How is it racist or anti-black for being not wanting people who have said they will kill every Christian and every non Muslim? I actually think it shows a lot of racism that you are told not speak about this because the person who happens to be advocating is black.
With all that said, I have a question for those Hollywood types who do not want to be labeled "Anti-Black". Would you be so silent if Herman Cain was the President doing this?
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Software choice is turning into a religious war
In a previous blog post "I have the freedom to use proprietary software", I talked about having the right to choose whether to use FLOSS/Open Source software or or proprietary software.
In a comment thread on Google Plus, I was trying to make the argument that I should be able to use what ever software best suites my needs. I was trying to explain the reasons why I would choose to use Open source/FLOSS or proprietary software in a cordial manner. I was thinking I could have a civil conversation on the matter, since I was probably talking to adults. Well, I was wrong. Not only did they go to insulting me personally, they compared using proprietary software to supporting the Holocaust.
When I read this, I thought he was joking, since the person making the comment was new to the conversation on the thread.Unfortunately he wasnt joking and continued his, what can only be described as a religious stance on using FLOSS [Free Libre Open Source Software]. Not necessarily free as in no cost, but free in the source code being open and letting anyone change it to suit their needs.
As someone who has been a Open Source supporter for a few years, I was offended on how he was trying to evangelize this. Even going as far as saying my opinion did not matter since I was not a developer.
This attitude has to stop. This is the same way some religions preach "peace" and "understanding" as long as it falls in the guidelines of their beliefs.
Though I am not a developer, I do help in ways I know how to. I have donated to projects that I like and use when I can and I submit bug reports. I also promote open source software to other people, as long as it suits their needs.
We have to get past this religious stance on using proprietary [closed source] verses open source software. And more often then not, its the people who use open source who are the loudest in their software beliefs and belittle people who do not use primarily open source software. Trying to make themselves look higher then thou since they apparently have "evolved" to not being put in chains of using proprietary software.
I have news for you folks, some times using a closed source solution is the best solution for the job.
Now, lets talk about gaming. I normally use Steam for my gaming needs. By no means is this open source. Its heavy on DRM and not really "FOSS" friendly. But, it works best for me. I have invested a lot of money in Steam and just because I advocate open source and non DRM [digital rights management], does not mean I do not live in the real world. Some of the games I have have almost if not just as a big as budget as some blockbuster movies. You really think a company who invests millions of dollars into a game is just going to reveal the code after its released and hope people will buy it and not just compile it for themselves? Hmmm. 20-60 bucks and its runs just fine, or spend a little bit a time to compile it and its free. With a little Google foo, I think you can configure out what the answer to that question would be.
Now lets flip it around and talk about web browsers. When I used to run Windows full time, I normally used Firefox or Chromium. Not because I had disdain for Internet Explorer. Not because of some unfounded hatred for Microsoft, but they worked better for me. And since I am invested in the Google ecosystem, I normally use Chrome. It was the vest tool for the job. Just like Steam is the best tool for my gaming needs.
We have to get past this fundamentalist like beliefs of what kind of software we should use. If you are huge gamer, would I recommend going to an open source operating system like Linux or BSD as their only operating system? Absolutely not. Maybe have talk to them about dual booting and using Linux or BSD as their main OS and boot into Windows for gaming. But most people do not want to deal with dual booting and trying to figure out what alternative operating system works them. They just want to boot up their computer and use it.
Now if you are not a gamer and only use your computer for web browsing, email and writing documents here and there? Sure, I would recommend a Linux distribution someone like that if they do not like Windows anymore.
Now, would I ever tell someone they have to use one system or the other? No, absolutely not. If Windows works for you and suits your needs, then by all means use it. If you do not want to use Windows and want to use Linux, BSD or even going hardcore with E-Macs, I say go for it. You have the freedom to choose what you want to use.
In a comment thread on Google Plus, I was trying to make the argument that I should be able to use what ever software best suites my needs. I was trying to explain the reasons why I would choose to use Open source/FLOSS or proprietary software in a cordial manner. I was thinking I could have a civil conversation on the matter, since I was probably talking to adults. Well, I was wrong. Not only did they go to insulting me personally, they compared using proprietary software to supporting the Holocaust.
When I read this, I thought he was joking, since the person making the comment was new to the conversation on the thread.Unfortunately he wasnt joking and continued his, what can only be described as a religious stance on using FLOSS [Free Libre Open Source Software]. Not necessarily free as in no cost, but free in the source code being open and letting anyone change it to suit their needs.
As someone who has been a Open Source supporter for a few years, I was offended on how he was trying to evangelize this. Even going as far as saying my opinion did not matter since I was not a developer.
This attitude has to stop. This is the same way some religions preach "peace" and "understanding" as long as it falls in the guidelines of their beliefs.
Though I am not a developer, I do help in ways I know how to. I have donated to projects that I like and use when I can and I submit bug reports. I also promote open source software to other people, as long as it suits their needs.
We have to get past this religious stance on using proprietary [closed source] verses open source software. And more often then not, its the people who use open source who are the loudest in their software beliefs and belittle people who do not use primarily open source software. Trying to make themselves look higher then thou since they apparently have "evolved" to not being put in chains of using proprietary software.
I have news for you folks, some times using a closed source solution is the best solution for the job.
Now, lets talk about gaming. I normally use Steam for my gaming needs. By no means is this open source. Its heavy on DRM and not really "FOSS" friendly. But, it works best for me. I have invested a lot of money in Steam and just because I advocate open source and non DRM [digital rights management], does not mean I do not live in the real world. Some of the games I have have almost if not just as a big as budget as some blockbuster movies. You really think a company who invests millions of dollars into a game is just going to reveal the code after its released and hope people will buy it and not just compile it for themselves? Hmmm. 20-60 bucks and its runs just fine, or spend a little bit a time to compile it and its free. With a little Google foo, I think you can configure out what the answer to that question would be.
Now lets flip it around and talk about web browsers. When I used to run Windows full time, I normally used Firefox or Chromium. Not because I had disdain for Internet Explorer. Not because of some unfounded hatred for Microsoft, but they worked better for me. And since I am invested in the Google ecosystem, I normally use Chrome. It was the vest tool for the job. Just like Steam is the best tool for my gaming needs.
We have to get past this fundamentalist like beliefs of what kind of software we should use. If you are huge gamer, would I recommend going to an open source operating system like Linux or BSD as their only operating system? Absolutely not. Maybe have talk to them about dual booting and using Linux or BSD as their main OS and boot into Windows for gaming. But most people do not want to deal with dual booting and trying to figure out what alternative operating system works them. They just want to boot up their computer and use it.
Now if you are not a gamer and only use your computer for web browsing, email and writing documents here and there? Sure, I would recommend a Linux distribution someone like that if they do not like Windows anymore.
Now, would I ever tell someone they have to use one system or the other? No, absolutely not. If Windows works for you and suits your needs, then by all means use it. If you do not want to use Windows and want to use Linux, BSD or even going hardcore with E-Macs, I say go for it. You have the freedom to choose what you want to use.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Another Year Older
Well, its official, I am now 32. Wow, it seems like just yesterday I was back in my late teen in HS and then working for Disneyland. Funny how the time goes by so fast, yet when it is passing, it doesn't seem to.
Well, even though I have to work through my birthday, I had an awesome weekend. My mom came down from California and I took last weekend off. I got to play tourist and see the sights. Some of which I have not seen yet, though I have lived in Colorado for 5 years.
On Friday, we went to the Denver Aquarium. This time we were able to see the mermaid show, which the girls loved.
After the aquarium, we just relaxed for the rest of the day.
On Saturday morning, we made the trek down to Colorado Springs, where we went to Cave of the Winds and stopped by Garden of the Gods. Cave of the Winds was great to see, but a little underwhelming. But we only went on the shorter 45 minute tour. When me and Leanne are able to get a baby sitter, we are going to go on the Lantern tour, which is about an hour and half and you literally are given lanterns since where you are going there is no electricity.
On Sunday we went to Buffalo Bills Museum/grave and went to the Molly Brown Museum. During the tou of the Molly Brown museum I learned something interesting. deceased loved ones would sometimes spend weeks in the house, since there wasn't really any mortuaries back then. Due to this, the "living room" came to be. For the ones living that is.
We did a lot and had it was great to see my mom. I am trying to see if I can plan a visit sometime next year to Cali.
Well, even though I have to work through my birthday, I had an awesome weekend. My mom came down from California and I took last weekend off. I got to play tourist and see the sights. Some of which I have not seen yet, though I have lived in Colorado for 5 years.
On Friday, we went to the Denver Aquarium. This time we were able to see the mermaid show, which the girls loved.
After the aquarium, we just relaxed for the rest of the day.
On Saturday morning, we made the trek down to Colorado Springs, where we went to Cave of the Winds and stopped by Garden of the Gods. Cave of the Winds was great to see, but a little underwhelming. But we only went on the shorter 45 minute tour. When me and Leanne are able to get a baby sitter, we are going to go on the Lantern tour, which is about an hour and half and you literally are given lanterns since where you are going there is no electricity.
On Sunday we went to Buffalo Bills Museum/grave and went to the Molly Brown Museum. During the tou of the Molly Brown museum I learned something interesting. deceased loved ones would sometimes spend weeks in the house, since there wasn't really any mortuaries back then. Due to this, the "living room" came to be. For the ones living that is.
We did a lot and had it was great to see my mom. I am trying to see if I can plan a visit sometime next year to Cali.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)