Email letters, February 13, 2013
Gun regulations go way back in American history
My gun totin’ relatives are about to disown me, thinking I want to take away their guns, but that’s not true. Indeed, I’ve enjoyed eating my share of wild game and have even plucked, skinned and butchered wild critters.
Guns are fine. Crazy is not. And crazy travels far and wide. Tuesday morning’s newspaper, for example, reported that John Justman used this quote, “Those who turn their weapons into plowshares will be plowing for those who didn’t.” Justman apparently has a gun, so by those words he is the tyrant.
I sure wish folks would read a bit more history —- perhaps actually read what the founders said or even try reading gun historian Clayton Cramer, one of their own.
Our founders registered and confiscated guns at will and ordered all kinds of gun regulations. The South had the most stringent, besides denying guns to ex-slaves. Of course, we could go back to George Washington’s rules for militia weapons or Boston’s rules for gunpowder, if following the founders’ thinking is so vital. That would reduce gun-involved murder.
Our new commissioners have a constituency that speaks of “armed revolution,” fear of our government and the United Nations abolishing our Constitution.
Members of this constituency have such tight blinders the only things blocking their great vision are their noses. They must think the American public would give a yawn at this. I have far more faith in our people than that without having an armed revolution.
So, give some thought to this. When your armed revolution succeeds, you will be the police state. What are you going to do with it?
Let’s start appreciating value of multinational corporations
What amazes me is the contempt that many of my liberal acquaintances have for corporations. They cry, corporations shouldn’t be given the rights of people. Corporate profits are obscene, and they want to be able to control them. This seems so uninformed to me.
The stock market is now at record highs, and yet most people feel the country as a whole is not doing very well. Why are big corporations doing so well, while the overall economy is just bumping along? The simple answer is corporations are efficient with their capital and government isn’t with its investments, also known as spending.
The biggest corporations are more international in scope today than they have ever been. A prosperous manufacturing company in Mesa County is Littner-Poma of America (Poma ski lifts), a subsidiary of Pomagalski, a French company. American success stories, such as Caterpillar, do more business overseas than they do here. Many foreign corporations such as Poma and Toyota provide many good jobs for workers in this country.
The advancements in technology, transportation and communications that we have seen in the past 30 years have freed many big corporations from any one country’s control. Liberals can think we can tax and regulate without consequence, but there are limits, and we see that today in slow growth.
The pressure will remain on us to appreciate the value of these international corporations. This really isn’t an option if we want to grow again.
Possible solutions to overabundance of methane proposed
Global warming, if true, would be a natural phenomenon. As I understand it, methane gas is a large, if not the largest, contributor to the problem. Methane is a natural ingredient in our atmosphere. Its source is worldwide. Now, with that little tidbit of information, let’s look at what I believe could be the some of the best cures for this problem.
To fix a problem, you first must know the sources of the ingredients causing the problem. As stated, methane is natural and the sources are: geological from the earth such as gas, oil, coal deposits, etc.; all animal flatulence and this includes aquatic creatures; human. The last probably should have been included in the generic animal sub-category. Human activities include various manufacturing processes, energy production/consumption, landfills and a variety of others.
Now that we have identified the major sources of causes, let’s look at some possible solutions.
1. Geological: I do not know of anything we can do there other than tap it for an energy source.
2. Animal flatulence: Now this is a big one. Where do we start? We can cease all domestic animal (including dogs, cats, birds, goldfish) husbandry and rely on nature to provide the animal products we need. Of course, the “Where’s the beef” group would have to take up hunting and that opens up whole different cans of worms. (PETA, guns, etc) But then hunting would result in a return of domestication, as it would be a whole bunch easier to pen up the wildlife so they would be easier to catch/hunt.
3. Human flatulence: Again, this is a natural process. I can think of only two remedies here. First, have a very strict mandatory birth control, allowing only a one-for-one replacement. Second, cut back on the number of politicians. Keep only those that would realistically work for solutions instead of spending our taxes for non-essential items. These would not stop the natural processes, but there sure would be a lot less “hot air,” especially from the government.
4. Human activities: A huge variety of solutions can be and has been thought of. Probably the biggest issue here is landfills. If any of you have been to the landfill lately, you will see what a wasteful society we have become. Since 2009, landfills have produced 17+percent of all methane produced worldwide (source: U.S. EPA). We need to start a worldwide realistic recycling program. There are several programs here: clean burning for energy; reuse for same product; refine for new products; perfectly good items donated to needy programs, etc.
I know I have not offered an entire list of corrections for the enumerated issues, but I think it is a start. I will be glad to entertain realistic responses. I am sure the editor will allow the use of this media for the perusal of responses.
LARRY M. HEAD