THE PARADOX OF GUN CONTROL

The commonwealth’s gun control regulations are themselves a paradox, creating an undue burden for the disadvantaged on one hand and unintended, sometimes deadly results on the other. Obeying the law, we rarely think about the consequences of owning a firearm. It has been stated that there are more gun owners in Berkshire County than either registered Democrats or Republicans. There is a proposal in the legislature to further tighten access to firearms in our state. Local residents have a vested interest in current and future restrictions and regulations imposed on their right to posses firearms.

We have heard, “If gun control worked, Chicago would be like Mayberry. Guns are like parachutes, we may only need one once and if we do not have it we will never need it again.” Massachusetts licensing procurement is one of the most stringent in the United States. License application is sought at our local police station where we are scrutinized and profiled as to what we deserve a license for. Without criminal or mental history we qualify to be trained and carry a firearm. We pay for a training certificate and a one hundred-dollar license fee. If refused, we can request a hearing before the local court for judicial determination. Imagine, if we did this for 100mph vehicle operation or receiving habit-forming prescription narcotics?  The latter two, drugs and cars kill thousands every year. 

There are costs, often quite expensive for firearms, ammunition and licensing. The costs are discriminatory and unaffordable for many, only accessible to those having several hundred dollars.  The expense punishes the poor, yet in this instance it is deemed acceptable. The irony is poor people are more subject to crime because of the environment they live in.  When the costs of gun ownership rise that segment of society is very limited in their decisions. We are upset when they remain unlicensed and buy cheap illegal guns. Another social consequence of being poor, the government will never subsidize firearm ownership.

Is a firearm necessary?  So many profess it is not.  The epitome of safety is standing beside a police officer because he has a gun and is trained. There is not a more noble profession. The limitation of police is that they cannot be everywhere all the time and most of the time they are completely reactionary to events. They arrive in time to summon an ambulance, photograph the crime scene, or conduct the investigation.  The proactive side of police work is ever changing; whatever criminal opportunity exists, the unsavory will seek to take advantage. It can be devastating to be a victim and deprived of governmental protection, or any protection.  A firearm is not necessary for everyone but vital for many.

                                                                               

Society discourages firearm exposure for our children, while at the same time we increase the exposure to Marijuana, a gateway drug to further drug abuse.  Marijuana possession was one reason for restricting firearms’ licenses. By decriminalizing it, previously denied firearm ownership applicants could now be eligible. Will the people so restricted be applying for gun licenses? What a collateral effect, as we decriminalize drugs we make more drug-using citizens eligible for gun rights they were denied.

         

Mental health disclosure is a portion of firearms’ safety.  Liberalizing mental health disorder restrictions, not recognizing the danger to society has been disastrous. Labeling a disorder was not politically correct but it was a lot safer, a social consequence.

The left’s amnesty push for illegal aliens may ultimately backfire. The National Rifle Association is expecting a huge membership increase. More people granted citizenship and the "right to bear arms." Having been deprived of personal protection in their previous country, they will welcome their new constitutional right to bear arms. Adamant new gun owners may change the vote in ways we can only imagine.

Peter Risatti

THE PARADOX OF FREEDOM

The paradox of freedom, from the right. Have you read or heard the statement, “Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured, but not everyone must prove they are citizens?” Our government has forced many of its citizens to exchange their health care, for a version of health care alleged to help the people that were uninsured. For compliance in Massachusetts our penalties or fines are levied on people filing income tax. We need to file income taxes in order to be fined for not having health care, as I understand it.

If we are working “Under-the-table” without tax consequences what difference does this make? It doesn’t. Without visible income we are considered indigent and entitled to all benefits afforded that classification. The taxpayer will fund their health expense. If the levied fine for uninsured is equal to, or less than the insurance premium is it functional? No. I’m healthy, but if I get sick I cannot be refused insurance for preexisting conditions. If I am young and healthy this certainly discourages me from getting insurance before I am sick. If private insurance companies cannot insure us normally then the coverage gained will have loaded deductibles. It will be handled under a pool of significant illnesses that go beyond simple disorders. There will be millions of healthy people that must insure to compensate for catastrophic conditions to balance what probably cannot be balanced.

It is improbable the government mandate of Affordable Health Care (AHC) can be delivered. Small businesses may have to discriminate in hiring based on health needs. Mandated insurance provided for everyone, including preexisting conditions, created a dilemma. Without a balance of premiums charged and patient needs compensated the insurance companies cannot prosper. There is little reason to be in business without profit. The previous health system in place was in need of restructuring. The results of the new AHC our freedom of choice is compromised . We assign government to pick up where insurance companies fail, subsidizing premiums. We place government in a precarious position. Is this why we have a Congress that is upside down, trying to deliver what it cannot? We provide an insurance to the majority that is marginal with sky rocketing co-payments and diminishing benefits for the people that pay premiums.

Freedom is a state of security for citizens to pursue happiness. This is not a difficult concept, we call it human rights, “Commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.” Happiness should not be gained at the expense of another citizen’s physical pain or submission of property that is taken from them. In this case the pain is enduring loss of adequate healthcare removed by a government.

They started with thirty million residents not having health insurance. There were no estimates as to the number of non citizens. The health care provided was by way of hospital emergency room visits. The reasons for previously uninsured were unaffordable premiums, preexisting conditions, or plainly, insurance was not wanted. With recent subscriptions to affordable health care the emergency room visits by uninsured have not declined. Is anyone asking why?

We are asked to sacrifice a great deal so that process corruption can prosper. What part do our law makers play in this compliance? A great deal, if they collude with partisan groups that border on absurdity. They compromise the freedoms of the people that work and pay.

Somehow, our compassion for the needy has become a means for anyone of a needy mind set to exploit the system. If the government wants to expand coverage to non citizens and non taxpayers they need to establish and fund a clinical system to rival the hospital emergency room. Maybe a solution is in the original idea of clinics, the same as the Peace Corps does in foreign countries. They could actually help more foreigners right here in the United States? We would at least know how the money is spent. Now, we do not. Now, there is a thought for today!

Peter Risatti

I DON'T COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS BUT IT HAS MERIT

The title is in response to the Patriot Post Blog.  It is suggestions as to how the Republican party can regain their footing of leadership.  Mark Alexander is a good man and I respect his opinion.  I have a few of my own.

I wish I could just say "play nice."  It is not that simple and Moderate Republicans that wanted all the pork that the Democrats had gotten, got us into this spot.  We will see, but if the conservatives loose badly it will formulate a much different party than we all expect.  There won't be any Republicans, moderate or conservative holding office in any large number.

If the conservative GOP win and win big it could mean even more behavior in the future that nobody will live with for long I would imagine.  The nice part will be it will keep the Rhinos at bay and make them very wary. We will still need moderate Republicans to temper the decisions made by the victors.   I don't like Peter King, Chris Chisty, John McCain, or Lindsey Graham. they are a waste of GOP money.

I wonder if they really believe losing the house and senate in 2006 was due to conservatism?  It was due to spending and foolish behavior and forgetting what conservatism is.  They were  still lining the pockets of Democrats to get their vote when it was not needed, like they and their constituents were going to miraculously migrate to the Republican Party.  Everyone loved the bi-partisanship so much they voted Democrat.  Scott Brown got a first hand lesson.  Keep Republicans voting for you, and entice moderate and conservative independents to join the quest.  Liberal Democrats will always vote Democrat because that is their makeup at the low end of gene pool, followed closely by liberal independents that are the reason for tubal ligation. 

If a Republican does not understand that they really need to be reminded that conservatives are nauseated to vote for the the default choice of the GOP, so much in fact they do not come out of their houses to vote.  Look at voter turn out!  My point exactly.  The percentage that votes and the percentage that does not and why.  They don't like the candidate that the GOP puts forth and it really cannot be because they are "too" conservative as we have not seen one.  On the same side, the last presidential primary,  Santorum, was too conservative for the moderate Republicans.  I'll bet they would take him now.  I have the reservations I had for the candidates, and why, locked in my head, with the turning point of each election when the candidate decided to woo the the liberal left and lost their base.

Romney, Brown, Baker, Gomez the list goes on, the conservatives would still not take them.  The GOP does not listen but it will, if it survives.

If they want to play in the game it has to be more than dressing in the same uniform, it has to be core values.  If they do not have any of their own, they can only kiss up to Democrats and steal theirs.  Imagine a ball game where both sides wore the same colors?  That is what Washington looks like right now with a slight minority with a different uniform.  The moderate Republicans have a choice and what side do they pick,  the Democratic side, what a strategy for defeat.   Lest we give up the party and just become liberal and conservative Democrats, I think we could beat them then.  Too much is in a name anyway.

 peteR

The Old and the New

Our posts are few and far between.  My internet connection never increases in speed it is always one speed "Slow."  We have been promised high speed internet  and I will be amazed when we get it.  In the meantime I will try to entertain from time to time.  The following article is just that.  I had just got through reading about how we need new blood in our organization and was thinking about it when I read this.  I'm sharing and I hope you like it.

"Did you ever wonder why people are far more likely to become conservative in their views and values as they get older? When this rather devastating question is posed to liberals, leftists, progressives, Democrats -- you choose the label or group -- they answer that people get more selfish as they get older. ... People get worse as they get older? If you were walking in a dark alley at midnight, which would you fear more -- a group of teenagers or twenty-somethings or a group of senior citizens? Do older people or younger people give more of their time to charitable institutions? Are our prisons filled with young people or old people? The fact is that not only do people get more wise and more conservative as they get older, they get more kind and more generous, too. ... If anything, we older people yearn for a peaceful world even more than young people do. We are the ones who lost friends or relatives in some war. We are the ones who have lived a lifetime of seeing and reading about human suffering. And, we, not you, have children and grandchildren whom we ache to see alive and healthy. ... What the term 'more idealistic' really means when applied to young people is that young people are more naive, not more idealistic, than older people. ... We are seduced by policies based on the awesome American value of individual initiative combined with liberty to create and retain wealth. It's now called conservatism." --radio talk-show host 1. Dennis Prager

“My Cup Runneth Over”

Most of the time I am grateful for all the positives in my life. I have an abundance of positives and gratefulness just watching the sun come up. We do have to watch out for trip wires though they work in good and bad weather. Here we are, and Spring is upon us again, maybe it is for real this time. Not to bore you, but my home in Orange was broken into and all the copper plumbing stripped from the basement. Unless you have flushed a toilet with a bucket of water lately it is really hard to appreciate what it is like. Well, we will chalk it up for things to do this year. I did not relish a lot of free time anyway.
This is a short note, I have heard that Marines are at war and America is at the Mall several times. I do not like to repeat it as it fills me with disgust. Can you believe the news highlights of the last month and the deceit that is expended on social issues concerning a very small portion of our population but impact us all? Taking our eyes off the ball, I hope this does not mean there will be a lot of swings and misses. Focusing on what needs to be done in the coming election is most important.
This article was sent to me some time ago by a conservative lady we admire, Kathy, who we fondly call "Ma." So, for Mother’s Day, God Bless all the mothers. We love our Mom’s both here and departed, in our hearts they can never die. Most GI’s do what they do because of the experiences they have had as Americans and those of us that have had a great mother know where our motivation derives from.
peterR

Concerning a problem we face with so few in the Service and at a time we are increasingly surrounded by enemies.

Written by a USMA grad, but the same applies to all the others: enlisted and officer.

Thank you to the 0.45%

I remember the day I found out I got into West Point.

My mom actually showed up in the hallway of my high school and waited for me to get out of class. She was bawling her eyes out and apologizing that she had opened up my admission letter. She wasn't crying because it had been her dream for me to go there. She was crying because she knew how hard I'd worked to get in, how much I wanted to attend, and how much I wanted to be an infantry officer. I was going to get that opportunity.

That same day two of my teachers took me aside and essentially told me the following: Nick, you're a smart guy. You don't have to join the military. You should go to college, instead.

I could easily write a tome defending West Point and the military as I did that day, explaining that USMA is an elite institution, that separate from that it is actually statistically much harder to enlist in the military than it is to get admitted to college, that serving the nation is a challenge that all able-bodied men should at least consider for a host of reasons, but I won't.

What I will say is that when a 16 year-old kid is being told that attending West Point is going to be bad for his future then there is a dangerous disconnect in America, and entirely too many Americans have no idea what kind of burdens our military is bearing.

In World War II, 11.2% of the nation served in four years.

In Vietnam, 4.3% served in 12 years.

Since 2001, only 0.45% of our population has served in the Global War on Terror.

These are unbelievable statistics.

Over time, fewer and fewer people have shouldered more and more of the burden and it is only getting worse. Our troops were sent to war in Iraq by a Congress consisting of 10% veterans with only one person having a child in the military.

Taxes did not increase to pay for the war. War bonds were not sold. Gas was not regulated. In fact, the average citizen was asked to sacrifice nothing, and has sacrificed nothing unless they have chosen to out of the goodness of their hearts.

The only people who have sacrificed are the veterans and their families. The volunteers. The people who swore an oath to defend this nation. You.

You stand there, deployment after deployment and fight on. You've lost relationships, spent years of your lives in extreme conditions, years apart from kids you'll never get back, and beaten your body in a way that even professional athletes don't understand.

Then you come home to a nation that doesn't understand.
They don't understand suffering.
They don't understand sacrifice.
They don't understand that bad people exist.

They look at you like you're a machine – like something is wrong with you. *
*You are the misguided one – not them.

When you get out, you sit in the college classrooms with political science teachers that discount your opinions on Iraq and Afghanistan because YOU WERE THERE and can't understand the macro issues they gathered from books, with your bias.

You watch TV shows where every vet has PTSD and the violent strain at that. Your Congress is debating your benefits, your retirement, and your pay, while they ask you to do more.
But the amazing thing about you is that you all know this. You know your country will never pay back what you've given up.

You know that the populace at large will never truly understand or appreciate what you have done for them.

Hell, you know that in some circles, you will be thought as less than normal for having worn the uniform. But you do it anyway. You do what the greatest men and women of this country have done since 1775 – YOU SERVED. Just that decision alone makes you part of an elite group.

Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.*

*AMEN!*

REPUBLICAN REVIEWS, IN MY MIND, MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS?

REPUBLICAN REVIEWS, IN MY MIND, MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS?
A short time ago at a meeting with a dozen Republicans an interesting topic emerged. The topic was how much interest is there in social issues. What is a Republican’s stance in Massachusetts on any social topic, whatever it is, here or nationwide? How should we address it? On one issue I even heard, "Let’s ignore it and maybe it will go away." "It is a third rail, Independents will distrust us." It started my thinking process of self worth, are we that unique?

My feelings are not shared by all my Republican peers. First, Shakespeare’s, "To thyself, be true." To me, means if it goes against my grain, why am I doing it? Second, I keep hearing about ‘reaching across the aisle’ and I take that to mean bi-partisanship. Third, where is it written that if I say I do not agree with the Democratic proposal I am stone walling government, I am mean and selfish and depriving someone of something. When I am really advocating not spending money we do not have, or just not condoning socialism.

Maybe it is time we took account of ourselves and what we stand for. Do we know? Do we understand that Republican principles are Limited Government, Lower Taxes and Local Control. Of course, what each segment means to us? Let’s explore that.

Massachusetts, by nature has been controlled by a Democratic Legislature for at least sixty years of my life. Does anyone remember when Democrats reached across the aisle? I don’t. They’ve always proposed whatever they damn well pleased and thrown the crumbs to the Republicans. In doing so they have dumped on tax payers. Many of us have cowered in the corner and just said, "Thank you," or replied, "We will try to meet you in the middle, good friends." It is almost like saying "Beat me up some more. I like it." We know their idea of ‘middle’ is somewhere around nine o’clock their time. Some Republicans, when in a position to make a difference have failed miserably. They find out how to play ball? Republican mediocracy? That makes me ill.

Past Republicans leaders, good people, if they were doing so well why didn’t the people support the party? Why did they leave? Was it for the freebies the Democrats throw out with the threat that if they are voted out the mean spirited Republicans will stop them? Or, is it they are both the same so I do not want to be part of either one? Is it because the unions and the government regard every job as a partisan job? Republicans need not apply, or just waste your time? Don’t bite the hand that enables you? Was there ever a time in Massachusetts that the Republicans were really conservative? I don’t ever remember it.

In Massachusetts, if I am a candidate running for office, I must court the Independent vote. Republicans are a minority, somewhere around 13%. Winning without the Independent vote is unlikely. I wonder, is it more attractive for a candidate to appear close to the issues that the state’s Democratic agenda feeds us? Should we contrive to be our own party and not Democrat Lite? If I was an Independent making the choice of two candidates both close to the ‘middle.’ One candidate pledges jobs and legislature congeniality, my vote could be swayed I think. Especially, if there is not a significant difference between the candidates except maybe hair style. Is anyone else feeling despair when they see the number of Republicans that turn out to vote? Could it be the middle ground our candidates dance on? Isn’t there a need for some criteria that says who we are?

What about complete contrast to the Democratic agenda? A platform that says previous representation no matter how good it was did not come without cost. Costs, that are only affordable off the backs of the taxpayer. A discernible message that is clear. That every social agenda has gone the way of the Democrats. It usually means higher taxes and higher user fees on every aspect of our lives and the result is failing government. So much for the Lower Taxes of our Republican agenda. They always flip us ‘It was a bipartisan bill with a ninety/ten bipartisan decision. What about, "I will veto every spending bill unless it does not have new tax funding and is funded?" What about, stressing the similarities to Greece and California and the recklessness of run away spending.

In the last 40 years the size of our government in Massachusetts has gone from approximately forty thousand state employees up over approximately eighty thousand, 100%. Our legal citizenry has gone from six million to approximately seven million a 16% increase. This will not take into account the expansion of federal or municipal employed workers in Massachusetts, I will leave that to other researchers. I would think with new technology we are using every state administrative office would be smaller? I guess that diminishes both Limited Government and Lower tax?

How many are following the Housatonic River cleanup debacle? I just threw that in the discussion for local control. Or, has anyone attempted to start a business lately or build anything that requires state permits? I called the DEA once to complain about toxins being thrown in Goose Pond and was threatened that I was a trouble maker by some pencil necked paper-pusher. How can it be, a communications company can dictate how co-axial cable is installed in communities? What citizen did we help with that brain storm? Is it the company, or the union control? Or, is it Corning that makes the fiber-optic cable? Take your pick. They all have their hand in our pocket.

Maybe this negotiation across the aisle should be a little more firm footed so the voters know what the Republican agenda should be. Just maybe, what attracts people that have left the party or insist on being Independent is a ‘broader decision?’ I don’t think they want to be neutral, I think they do not like either party. Maybe people are sick of living in a corrupt society where the legislature wraps everything in bacon just before they are indicted. Do we even think of this dilemma when we know the deplorable status of state and community budgeting? Oh, I know, we are doing really well, then I think of the eighteen billion in unfunded state pensions that are not quite up to snuff. Just raise the taxes and services we’ll still vote for you, until you are indicted.

Just my thoughts and I welcome comment.
Semper fi ...... peterR

I'M IN FROM THE COLD!

Excuses, are like friends, everyone should have one. Mine? I've had more internet problems then the law should allow. First, the computer internet and then stabilizing new accounts. Computers are a blessing and they can be a nightmare. I would like to blame it all on a conspiracy and of course that would explain some of the bizarre events. Too long to get into.

The good side is, we are up and running. We have used the last few weeks to help restore the Berkshire County Republican Association to greatness. Our paid membership had depleted, there were problems very much like the national problems of more money going out than coming in. I believe we have a handle on that now. We are after all Republicans. If you are reading this and have visited our new website of: http://www.berkshiregop.org/ you will be surprised.

I am sure if you are a member or have been a previous member you have received several emails inviting you to participate? Please do. We have been beating the brush for a Few Good Republicans. We'll keep a light on for you.

We are back on board just in time. So, let's start, I was reminded today that “We have to stand for something or we’ll fall for anything.”

The last few days have been very intriguing. Rush Limbaugh the alleged indigenous leader of the Republican Party was terminated from our local station WBEC. WBEC was one of two (the other was located in Hawaii) nationwide that changed their programming to get rid of Rush. Rush's plight was a controversial statement that he has since apologized for.

At first glance Rush is on shaky grounds for being a foul mouth when attempting to defend the religious assault on the U.S. Constitution. His stance, the same as many, was that to provide paid health care with funds provided by individuals that had a conscious religious objection was not right. It violated the first amendment of the Constitution. If we did not provide for well being of the Co-ed’s sex life it would be the demise of Roe vs. Wade. Well, I guess it is silly? Thinking it is not is almost as dumb as trying to pass off the story the Insurance Company will pay for hundreds of employees to have their sex life financed for free. We would like this to be a female issue but I have not heard that they would pay for vasectomies so maybe it is a gender bias issue? Not one word on that?

Anyhow, WBEC saw fit to terminate Rush. I have been a Republican for the last four years. Rush’s name has come up four times, total. Somebody besides some dumb Democrat should have told me he is my leader. Rush has some brilliant theories and delivers them to a vast audience of people that are intrigued with his talent and research. WBEC is a privately owned company so they are not obligated to anyone as to programming. There are many people that listened to Rush and I doubt the verbiage Rush mis-spoke was the worst that the administrators of WBEC had ever heard. I wonder if the people that demanded Rush’s removal will now listen to the replacement program? I doubt it. I do believe the sponsors of that time slot will now get 50 percent of the listeners or potential customers from their advertising. Good business move by WBEC, I wonder if they are passing the savings onto the sponsors?

I do not remember them denouncing the vulgar slurs offered against Sara Palin or Michelle Bachman. I am glad that WBEC got their Puritan Morals in line with the times. I am just pleased that their concern for the community took this drastic step to protect me and defend the offended. Who in their right mind really took it to heart that was a fan of Rush? Silently? Exactly, nobody, it is a non-issue, people that are not fans are saying they will not listen anymore. Well, we did not expect them to. If the truths are known probably there are thousands agreeing, of course as our political correctness commands the way we act in society today few will admit to it. Am I protecting women? I certainly am, in remembrance of my mom, boy, what she would have said. Rush would blush.

I am so disgusted, maybe I’ll go to NYC and camp out in the park and crap on a few police cars. How silly, the Tea Party does not do that, it is the other side.

Semper fi,
peterR