Senator Durbin,
You have missed my point entirely. I hold that it is not the place of the Federal Government, or ANY government for that matter, to regulate how a private company disposes of its monies. How a private individual, company, or corporation manages their assets is entirely up to them and NOT the government. If you implement laws and regulations that direct private entities how to dispose of their income you have essentially declared property rights null and void and proclaimed that the Federal Government is the supreme authority with regards to property. This runs counter to the Constitution of these United States which clearly declares that private individuals or entities have supreme authority with regards to their own property. Please confine your activities and legislation to that which falls within your purview as a Senator. Leave private business to private entities and focus on your primary responsibility which is the defense of this nation's people and their Constitution. Good intentions are wonderful, however good intentions do not excuse one from following principle. The principle you took an oath to uphold is the principle of personal liberty and limited government as set forth in the Constitution.
Thank you,
Veritas Curator
Original Message:
Dear Mr. ________:
Thank for contacting me to share your concerns about efforts to restrict executive compensation. I appreciate hearing from you.
In recent months, public anger has grown as troubled financial institutions continue to provide large compensation packages to executive employees - particularly in companies receiving government assistance.
Supporters of limiting executive compensation note that the difference between worker pay and executive compensation has grown exponentially. In 1965, the CEOs of major U.S. companies earned an average of 24 times the compensation of the typical worker. By 2007 the difference in compensation had grown to the point where CEOs earned an astonishing 275 times the typical worker's pay. Even in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and as people are losing their jobs, their homes, and their savings, executives have continued to award themselves lavish bonus packages.
Opponents of government limitation of executive pay argue that this form of regulation could prompt valued executives to leave troubled financial institutions when their talents are most needed.
I believe that we must address this ever-widening gap between employee and executive compensation. I have introduced legislation that would continue to allow companies to provide large packages but require shareholder approval before a company allows executives to receive more than one hundred times the average pay of the rest of the company's workforce. This approval would respond to taxpayers' legitimate concerns about bonuses paid by companies receiving taxpayer assistance, while leaving the ultimate decisions about bonuses in the hands of the shareholders, where it belongs.
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
RJD/ms
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
My First Oath
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
And with those words I entered the military. I enlisted in the Army National Guard when I was 19. In the six years I spent in that “reserve force” (about 2 years on active duty) I had quite a lot of time to contemplate that first oath I swore. The first thing I noticed about the oath was that it is a lifetime commitment. There is no time horizon specified, therefore even at termination of service it is still binding. This is critical for all servicemen to understand, duty does not end with discharge papers! If you have ever served in the armed forces you have taken a lifetime commitment to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”.
The next thing that struck me is the order of precedence of duty. First and foremost I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies. Second I swore to be true to the principles espoused in the Constitution. Lastly I swore to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of officers appointed over me in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The final clause is the only clause that is conditional. The UCMJ goes into great detail defining what lawful orders are. In the end it boils down to this: If an order is given that violates either the first or second clause of The Oath, then that order is not lawful and it is the soldier’s duty to DISOBEY the unlawful order.
So why bring this up? Why should this be a topic for discussion specifically among soldiers, sailors, marines and veterans and more generally the population at large? I chose to discuss this because much of the legislation and policies enacted recently appear to run counter to the Constitution as I understand it. Since I have sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, this raises a serious dilemma. Defending the Constitution in these circumstances puts soldiers, sailors, marines, and veterans on a crash course with the Federal Government. So what are we to do? Fortunately we have provisions in place to facilitate peaceful revolutions, otherwise known as elections. The first step for anyone defending the Constitution is to lobby their elected officials at ALL LEVELS and tell them to reject further assaults on the United States Constitution and to reverse standing laws that are in conflict with it. If that fails to effect change, then it is our DUTY to vote those traitors to the Constitution out of office.
I end with a word of caution to our elected officials. The Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Veterans of these United States have all sworn an oath to defend the Constitution regardless of personal cost. For many of us, it was the first oath we swore, and as such it is our first duty. End your assaults on the Constitution of these United States or you will find yourself without employment when you are voted out of office for subverting the principles that you are supposed to defend.
And with those words I entered the military. I enlisted in the Army National Guard when I was 19. In the six years I spent in that “reserve force” (about 2 years on active duty) I had quite a lot of time to contemplate that first oath I swore. The first thing I noticed about the oath was that it is a lifetime commitment. There is no time horizon specified, therefore even at termination of service it is still binding. This is critical for all servicemen to understand, duty does not end with discharge papers! If you have ever served in the armed forces you have taken a lifetime commitment to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”.
The next thing that struck me is the order of precedence of duty. First and foremost I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies. Second I swore to be true to the principles espoused in the Constitution. Lastly I swore to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of officers appointed over me in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The final clause is the only clause that is conditional. The UCMJ goes into great detail defining what lawful orders are. In the end it boils down to this: If an order is given that violates either the first or second clause of The Oath, then that order is not lawful and it is the soldier’s duty to DISOBEY the unlawful order.
So why bring this up? Why should this be a topic for discussion specifically among soldiers, sailors, marines and veterans and more generally the population at large? I chose to discuss this because much of the legislation and policies enacted recently appear to run counter to the Constitution as I understand it. Since I have sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, this raises a serious dilemma. Defending the Constitution in these circumstances puts soldiers, sailors, marines, and veterans on a crash course with the Federal Government. So what are we to do? Fortunately we have provisions in place to facilitate peaceful revolutions, otherwise known as elections. The first step for anyone defending the Constitution is to lobby their elected officials at ALL LEVELS and tell them to reject further assaults on the United States Constitution and to reverse standing laws that are in conflict with it. If that fails to effect change, then it is our DUTY to vote those traitors to the Constitution out of office.
I end with a word of caution to our elected officials. The Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Veterans of these United States have all sworn an oath to defend the Constitution regardless of personal cost. For many of us, it was the first oath we swore, and as such it is our first duty. End your assaults on the Constitution of these United States or you will find yourself without employment when you are voted out of office for subverting the principles that you are supposed to defend.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
When Something Goes Bump in the Night
THE TIME HAS COME!!! (Followed by gleeful, if somewhat maniacal, laughter.) I have written about politics, policy, and my worldview thus far, but this time I’m going to write a post just for fun. I am going to write about one of my favorite topics of discussion – firearms (more gleeful laughter)! Specifically I’m going to write about home defense firearms.
There are about as many different views on this topic as there are lobbyists in Washington. What type of firearm? What caliber? How many rounds should the weapon hold? Where should the firearm be kept? Who will be the primary user? All of these are valid questions, but unfortunately there are a host of different answers depending on whom you ask. I will attempt to address these questions in this post and give my two cents on the best home defense firearm at the end of this diatribe.
What type of firearm should I use for home defense? First, the answer to that question depends on where you live. Do you live in an apartment in the city, a house in the suburbs, or on a homestead out in the middle of nowhere? (I am going to assume that there are no statutes precluding ownership of certain types of firearms where you live, sorry California and certain major cities). If you live in a densely populated environment, such as an apartment complex, you have to be very concerned about over penetration of errant projectiles. That effectively rules out all rifles shooting reasonably priced, reliable ammunition and leaves you with handguns and shotguns. While both handguns and shotguns still run the risk of penetrating walls and ventilating innocent neighbors, ammunition is readily available for both that drastically reduces this possibility. This same line of reasoning also holds true for houses in the suburbs, while individuals living on a homestead in the country can safely choose rifles without very much fear of endangering their neighbors.
So back to what type of firearm should I use? I would strongly discourage anyone from using a rifle of any type for home defense, regardless of living arrangement. Rifles capable of routinely stopping a human have a significant amount of recoil. Engaging a target effectively in a lethal force situation with a rifle requires a level of training rarely seen outside of the military. So unless you want to invest in a significant amount of range time with a close quarters battle (CQB) instructor I would steer clear of rifles as home defense weapons. That brings us back to handguns and shotguns. Handguns have some clear advantages over shotguns. They are compact. They are easy to store in the nightstand. There are a myriad of calibers in various models and it’s usually easy to find a range to practice. Their compact size makes them easy to maneuver in the close environment of the home. If you use a double action revolver, a handgun is dead reliable. The drawbacks to a handgun are inherent inaccuracy when compared to their longer barreled cousins and the amount of training necessary to effectively neutralize a lethal threat in the low-light, adrenaline charged event of a home invasion.
The shotgun has its advantages and disadvantages as well. The biggest advantage of a shotgun is that it shoots a pattern as opposed to a single bullet. This makes precise aiming a bit less critical. Pump action shotguns also have the benefit of being extremely reliable and there is a wide range of shotgun ammunition available for various applications including home defense. The major disadvantage to the shotgun is size. Its longer overall length can make it difficult to maneuver in the tight confines of the home. It also is at a disadvantage compared to the pistol in the number of rounds it can hold. Most stock shotguns have a magazine capacity of 4 shells in the magazine plus one in the chamber while a handgun may hold anywhere from 6 to 15 rounds.
With all that said my weapon of choice to defend my castle is a Remington 870 shotgun loaded with #3 buckshot. I keep the shotgun close at hand because having been in a few lethal force encounters I appreciate the negative impact of adrenaline, darkness, and surprise on the ability to precisely aim a weapon. The barrel on my 870 is 18” long with a modified choke so at the limited ranges within my four walls it is a truly devastating weapon. The limited magazine capacity doesn’t really bother me because a solid hit with that weapon will drop a man in his tracks and in all likelihood keep him down. My Remington is a 20ga although I’ll likely upgrade it to a 12ga in the near future. Additionally, the added length and weight of the weapon isn’t really a detriment to navigating about my house in the dead of night while seeing what went “bump”.
I would recommend that most people use a pump action shotgun with a short barrel for home defense. It is a very simple weapon to learn to handle effectively and ammunition is cheap and easy to come by thus making practice more likely. At close range it has devastating effect and in most homes the reduced range isn’t really a factor. For those reasons I strongly advise anyone who asks to get a shotgun for home defense and it never hurts to have a back up, so go ahead and by that sexy pistol in the glass case too. You’ll be able to afford it because most pump action shotguns have the advantage of being relatively cheap.
There are about as many different views on this topic as there are lobbyists in Washington. What type of firearm? What caliber? How many rounds should the weapon hold? Where should the firearm be kept? Who will be the primary user? All of these are valid questions, but unfortunately there are a host of different answers depending on whom you ask. I will attempt to address these questions in this post and give my two cents on the best home defense firearm at the end of this diatribe.
What type of firearm should I use for home defense? First, the answer to that question depends on where you live. Do you live in an apartment in the city, a house in the suburbs, or on a homestead out in the middle of nowhere? (I am going to assume that there are no statutes precluding ownership of certain types of firearms where you live, sorry California and certain major cities). If you live in a densely populated environment, such as an apartment complex, you have to be very concerned about over penetration of errant projectiles. That effectively rules out all rifles shooting reasonably priced, reliable ammunition and leaves you with handguns and shotguns. While both handguns and shotguns still run the risk of penetrating walls and ventilating innocent neighbors, ammunition is readily available for both that drastically reduces this possibility. This same line of reasoning also holds true for houses in the suburbs, while individuals living on a homestead in the country can safely choose rifles without very much fear of endangering their neighbors.
So back to what type of firearm should I use? I would strongly discourage anyone from using a rifle of any type for home defense, regardless of living arrangement. Rifles capable of routinely stopping a human have a significant amount of recoil. Engaging a target effectively in a lethal force situation with a rifle requires a level of training rarely seen outside of the military. So unless you want to invest in a significant amount of range time with a close quarters battle (CQB) instructor I would steer clear of rifles as home defense weapons. That brings us back to handguns and shotguns. Handguns have some clear advantages over shotguns. They are compact. They are easy to store in the nightstand. There are a myriad of calibers in various models and it’s usually easy to find a range to practice. Their compact size makes them easy to maneuver in the close environment of the home. If you use a double action revolver, a handgun is dead reliable. The drawbacks to a handgun are inherent inaccuracy when compared to their longer barreled cousins and the amount of training necessary to effectively neutralize a lethal threat in the low-light, adrenaline charged event of a home invasion.
The shotgun has its advantages and disadvantages as well. The biggest advantage of a shotgun is that it shoots a pattern as opposed to a single bullet. This makes precise aiming a bit less critical. Pump action shotguns also have the benefit of being extremely reliable and there is a wide range of shotgun ammunition available for various applications including home defense. The major disadvantage to the shotgun is size. Its longer overall length can make it difficult to maneuver in the tight confines of the home. It also is at a disadvantage compared to the pistol in the number of rounds it can hold. Most stock shotguns have a magazine capacity of 4 shells in the magazine plus one in the chamber while a handgun may hold anywhere from 6 to 15 rounds.
With all that said my weapon of choice to defend my castle is a Remington 870 shotgun loaded with #3 buckshot. I keep the shotgun close at hand because having been in a few lethal force encounters I appreciate the negative impact of adrenaline, darkness, and surprise on the ability to precisely aim a weapon. The barrel on my 870 is 18” long with a modified choke so at the limited ranges within my four walls it is a truly devastating weapon. The limited magazine capacity doesn’t really bother me because a solid hit with that weapon will drop a man in his tracks and in all likelihood keep him down. My Remington is a 20ga although I’ll likely upgrade it to a 12ga in the near future. Additionally, the added length and weight of the weapon isn’t really a detriment to navigating about my house in the dead of night while seeing what went “bump”.
I would recommend that most people use a pump action shotgun with a short barrel for home defense. It is a very simple weapon to learn to handle effectively and ammunition is cheap and easy to come by thus making practice more likely. At close range it has devastating effect and in most homes the reduced range isn’t really a factor. For those reasons I strongly advise anyone who asks to get a shotgun for home defense and it never hurts to have a back up, so go ahead and by that sexy pistol in the glass case too. You’ll be able to afford it because most pump action shotguns have the advantage of being relatively cheap.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)