Need A Gun?

Go get ten of them in an hour just like this guy did:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=7297745&page=

Only in America.

"Legally". No questions asked. Ridiculous. But hey, it's our "right" to bear arms as Americans...right? It seems to me it's being treated more like a privilege than a right. What if that guy was a criminal? Mentally insane?

People argue all the time that, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Ok, true statement. But, there's no doubt that a gun lets the average person become deadly easier than any other method. So sure, the actual gun didn't pull it's own trigger and kill someone. But there's no denying it made it much easier for them to kill that same someone.

Also, I would argue that guns make it easier to kill because there is a disconnect between the shooter and the victim. The shooter never has to come into physical contact with the victim, which gives them less of a reason to think twice about pulling the trigger. There's nothing personal about pulling a trigger standing 25 feet away from someone.

Let's just imagine for a minute a world without guns. How often do you think we would see mass, random killings like we've seen too often in the news? I would think just about never. I mean think about it; if these shooters had to actually confront and physically fight people, there is practically no way that they could kill ten people before being stopped. Ok, yeah, maybe people would start making homemade bombs. Bombs are even less personal than shooting someone. But considering it's much harder, not to mention more dangerous, to make a bomb than it is to shoot a gun, I would argue those two reasons would deter most people from even trying.

Another thing...background checks are NOT an invasion of privacy. When you are being given a deadly weapon, a background check is a very reasonable request. Remember, owning a gun is a right, not a privilege.

The way I look at it, if you're legit, you've got nothing to be worried about anyways. So what's the big deal? The only people scared of background checks are hiding something. (I know, that's a pretty bold statement.)

If you want a gun, fine. But these "trade shows" where you don't have to get a background check, or even produce an I.D., need to be shut down. If you're not a criminal, and you're not mentally crazy, go right ahead; go to a legitimate store and buy a gun legally.

Did You Know?

My friend put this up on her blog, so I'm stealing the link :)
If the estimations are true, it's pretty amazing. Bare minimum it'll make you think, which is good. You should watch it.

The Government Can Not Save Us

I realize the election is old news by now, but I've come across a couple of good links to articles that pretty much sum up exactly why I don't like politics for the most part.

In general, I've never understood how people get so worked up over politics.  Or in their words, why they are passionate about politics.  Call it what you want, but it's never made much sense to me.  I mean sure, I have my opinions, and I vote, but I think you all know what I'm talking about. The people you can't even mention a topic without it turing into a political debate. Just look at those talking heads you always see on the news channels.  Everything, to them, is done for a political reason.

It drives me crazy sometimes how people talk about one candidate or another.  Or about how this candidate will make the USA good again and save us all; or how that same candidate will be a disgrace to everyone.  As if the government or democrats or republicans can change us all for the better? That'll be the day.

As a Christian, I've always found it hard to "endorse" any candidate. For me I always seem to pick the lesser of two evils.  Until Jesus decides to run for president, I don't think I could ever truly endorse anyone.

Anyways...here are the articles. They're both pretty short.  You should read them.

In God We Do Not Trust

Religious Right R.I.P

eharmony.com

I was having lunch today and saw on the news another ridiculous abuse of the American legal system.

A couple of years ago some guy decided to sue eharmony.com, a couples matching website, because they didn't cater to gays and lesbians. You could only get matches for people of the opposite sex, and according to the lawsuit this was "discrimination".

Fast forward to today...

To make a long story short, eharmony finally settled with the New Jersey attorney general's civil rights division, by establishing a gay and lesbian site. Not only that, but they have to pay $50,000 in court fees, and $5,000 to the guy that sued them!

Ridiculous.

eharmony is a private business/website. They have the choice to cater to whatever demographic they want to, and whatever demographic they feel will be the most profitable. Forcing them to cater to gays and lesbians would be like forcing a vegetarian restaurant to cater to meat eaters, by making them serve steaks and burgers. The most ridiculous part is that eharmony established a separate website to handle their gay and lesbian customers, called "Compatible Partners".

Unbelievable.

If you're suing for equal rights, shouldn't it be part of the existing website and not separate?

I Googled "gay dating", and on the first page I had no less then eight gay and lesbian dating websites.  Why is this guy wasting his time forcing eharmony to cater to gays?  If this guy wants to date other gay people online then he should take his business to someone else!  That's the best part of being an American consumer; if I don't like what a business offers, I am free to take my money to the next business that offers what I am looking for.

I have no idea how the judge and court system even let this go through. I'm going to start suing every one of those gay specific websites because they don't cater to my heterosexual desires. (Sounds absurd, doesn't it?)

Here's a link to the story:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2335035,00.asp

High & Low

The highest point anywhere the United States is Mount McKinley, Alaska, measuring in at 20,320 feet (6,194 meters).

The highest point in the lower 48 states is Mount Whitney, California, which comes in at 14,505 feet (4,421 meters).

I found a cool map from Geology.com that shows the highest point for each state. Click HERE to see it.

Coincedentally, not only is California home to the highest point in the lower 48 states, it is also home to the lowest point in North America, 282 ft. below sea level, which is located in Death Valley.  A mere 75 miles (as the crow flies) separates the highest and lowest point in the lower 48 states.

High Speed Rail

What's the deal with the U.S. and it's lack of high speed rail? (I guess really you could throw in public transit all together.) Sure, the U.S. is much larger than areas in Europe and East Asia where high speed rail is more available, but that doesn't explain the Northeast and the West Coast. There's no reason the D.C.-NYC-Boston corridor and the San Diego-LA-San Fran-Sacramento corridor shouldn't have service. Imagine if major routes like those (and others) had the option of high speed rail...even the slower high speed rail trains go about 120 mph. You could go from NYC to Boston in less than two hours compared to 4+ hours by car. Or LA to San Fransisco in three hours compared to 6+ driving.

I'm no transportation expert, but from my small research and knowledge, it seems like rail is cheaper and just as fast (if not faster) to use than planes, on trips involving a couple of hundred miles or less. No showing up 1 - 2 hours before your flight. Minimal/no security delays. Bigger and more comfy seats. Smoother and more quiet ride. Using electric instead of petrol for the fuel. What more can you want?

Or forget about city to city transit, that's an easy one. What about big city light rail? If there was actually practical rail transit available think how much traffic you could get rid of? Or how much time you could save not waiting in that traffic? Oh wait, that's right, if we did that my 45 minute commute from Suburbia to work wouldn't let me get in my Hummer by myself (I get 12 mpg @ $3+ per gallon. But I go grocery shopping once a week with my wife and two kids, so it's justified), go through the drive-thru at Starbucks, hurry up and make my way to the parking lot we like to call "Freeways" and creep along at 30 mph, then finally get to work and barely squeeze into the parking space (Hey, if I'm "on the line, I'm in", right? It doesn't matter if it's BOTH of the lines does it?). Oh yeah, I almost forgot, this commute time lets me catch up on all the phone calls and emails I've been meaning to get back to on my PDA.

I'm sure it's politics, it always is in the U.S. I'm not sure how happy the auto makers and the airlines would be if the government allowed potentially cheaper and more practical rail to be put into place. Oh, you bet there's some good ol' American culture in there messing things up too. We like our big cars and trucks. They make us feel "safe", they help our ego and they validate our status in culture. I know I just opened another credit card to help pay for the lease on an H3 that I use to pull my boat to lake once a month. I already use my H2 for commuting and I don't want to put any more wear-and-tear on it.