Mihos talks gun laws.

[jhbozington]

Just came across this and thought I'd share. http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/necn.html?catID=83463&clipid=945953&autoStart=true&mute=false&continuous=true. He talks gun laws at about 8:40 into the interview.

 

[greycar]

Later in the conversation (not shown in this clip), Braude
asked Mihos if he carried a gun. Then quickly asked him if
he owned a gun. Mihos said "many". He also said that he
did not carry a gun.

 

[Lugnut]

He's got balls and good ideas.. too bad we're in a world of crappy MA politics with people that think it's ok to F with the 2A yet we don't want to hold damn criminals accountable for anything.

 

[ignium]

I like what I heard. It's about time someone comes up with solutions instead of sticking their head in the sand hoping that everything works out. It amazes me to see that people have a problem with self defense. I will never get use to that mentality.

 

[Thor67]

What was Braude talking about with the Castle Doctrine in Florida. He said it "just passed a couple of days ago." This was a recent interview, right?

Florida passed that last October, right?

I was disappointed that Christy didn't use the opportunity to rip Reilly and Menino and the incredible increase in violent crime despite having what Braude described as; "some of the toughest gun laws in the country."

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thor,

It's actually more productive for someone to say What They Will Do/Believe in . . . than Trash-talking your opposition (even thou this gets more media coverage). Ask John Kerry and the Dems how effective their "position" is that "everything that the Reps do sucks, vote for us"!

 

[senorFrog]

It was aired last night on NECN, so I think it must be current.

Mihos is for public funding of elections? I def do not like that. I thought he handled the 2A qustions well.

Braude is an idiot. He looks like such a weasel in those cheap suits.

 

[squarooticus]

Mihos is for public funding of elections? I def do not like that.

Economic illiteracy seems to be a prerequisite for holding public office in this state.**

A Mihos commercial I heard this morning referred to making school activities "free." I thought, "As in, the school activities fairy will pay for them?" No, you and I will pay for them through income or property taxes.

And quite frankly I'm sick of paying the cost of raising other people's kids. If you want kids, shoulder the entire cost yourself and keep your effing hand out of my wallet!

Despite this, Mihos is still the least of all evils in this race! Democracy: bringing you mediocrity and corruption since 1797.

Cheers,
Kyle

**I'll note that Hoppe pretty well covers why this is so in Democracy: The God That Failed. But since this is way off-topic, I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to learn why.

 

[Thor67]

Len,

I don't see it as being negative at all. I think he should have taken it to them. Reilly is out touting his record on crime and gun control as a success. It clearly is not! This is a valid campaign issue, and presents a very different view. I don't see it as trash talking at all.

Attack them on the issues. Many people in MA equate guns with crime. Mihos just saying that he's "pro castle doctrine" probably won't fly in most quarters in this state. Mihos saying "I'm going to give people back the tools to defend themselves and their families by reducing gun control, which, oh by the way, has been shown to actually reduce crime. Here's why, and here's the real data to back up what I'm saying. AND I'm going to work put cops on the streets, and work on judicial reform to keep the criminals in jail." might actually get some positive attention.

 

[senorFrog]

A Mihos commercial I heard this morning referred to making school activities "free." I thought, "As in, the school activities fairy will pay for them?" No, you and I will pay for them through income or property taxes.

SQR RT - I def agree 100% w/your post. Nothing is free. Many people don't seem to get that. But then again many people think the Bush planned 9/11.

As soon as personal responsibility is removed from something, it immed looses value. The folks providing the free service have a "What do want? It's free!" attitude. The folks consuming no longer demand high standards and good service because after all, it's "free".

Example - At the emergency room an insurance company will pay $200 for a single small dose of tylenol. The tylenol is broken out from all other services rendered. This is to absorb the costs of others getting "free" care.

Look at what "free" health care has done to Calif. Many emergency rooms closing because they can no longer find anyone to pass the costs on to.

 

[squarooticus]

Example - At the emergency room an insurance company will pay $200 for a single small dose of tylenol. The tylenol is broken out from all other services rendered. This is to absorb the costs of others getting "free" care.

Look at what "free" health care has done to Calif. Many emergency rooms closing because they can no longer find anyone to pass the costs on to.

I can't vouch for these examples in particular, but I do recognize that a lot of this goes on. Sadly, though, many people do not.

The fact is that people would not put up with this crap in a true free market, because they'd be used to paying the entire risk-adjusted cost of whatever activity they were engaged in, and would balk at any prices that could not be justified by an actuary somewhere. The only reason people in modern society put up with these seemingly-random prices is that everyone is under the delusion that they're getting more back from "the system" than they put in, which is prima facie false: unlike the creation of wealth, the transfer of money from one productive endeavor to another is a zero-sum game. For an example, just look at how expensive health care in the US is (q.v. your emergency room example), and tell me that We the Productive are not subsidizing all the leeches in the system.

The good and bad news is that this cannot go on forever. At some point, the inflationary practices of central bankers will be recognized by enough people as out-and-out fraud that the entire international monetary market will collapse; or inflation will be engineered to rise so quickly that American standards of living will fall dramatically in just a few short years. Either way, there's some reasonable hope that people will realize how foolish it is to vest so much power in a central bureaucracy, and will decide to free themselves from the chains of government forever.

Until then, we have Christy Mihos. Excuse me if I am not so enthused.

I hate to sound like a crank at the ripe old age of 30 (cue the image of the old man screaming "damn kids!" as he waves his cane in their general direction), but in the months I've been reading this forum I've been appalled at the complete lack of perspective many of you show for the root cause of our troubles. In case it isn't obvious, let me spell it out: the only reason this message board exists is because government has decided to restrict one of your natural rights, that of owning the means for personal self defense. Tell me again why government is a good idea?

Kyle

 

[ArmedMainer]

A Mihos commercial I heard this morning referred to making school activities "free." I thought, "As in, the school activities fairy will pay for them?" No, you and I will pay for them through income or property taxes.

And quite frankly I'm sick of paying the cost of raising other people's kids. If you want kids, shoulder the entire cost yourself and keep your effing hand out of my wallet!

Mihos meant free to the students in case you were serious. Although not everything you read in The Wall Street Journal is true I read an article that stated students who participate in after school activities do better off later in life. This means they are less likely to have their hand out for the contents of your wallet because they're more likely to have finished school and have a better job after they graduate .They are also less likely to have a child out of wedlock. Not sure if these things are true or not but that's what the article said. Up until recent history programs such as sports,music,and drama have always been free to any and all students. I for one would like to see what percentage of a school budget after school programs are. Back when I went to school{70's} they were next to nothing because some of them actually brought in money because of ticket sales of games,plays,and musicals . Something to think about.

 

[squarooticus]

Mihos meant free to the students in case you were serious.

So, he's going to make the parents pay for it then, right? No? Okay, so you entirely missed my point.

And yes, I am serious. People can put their hand out all they want, but it should be my choice whether and in what way to put something into it. The whole notion that people have a right to others' property in any form and by any method---whether wealth redistribution through legalized theft (taxation) or through robbery---is morally repugnant. Yet we have been conditioned to believe that robbery is wrong, but taxation is okay. Why? What is the moral difference between the two? Is taxation somehow less evil because 51% of the voters think I should hand over my property to them? Why is taxation any better than slavery?

And so I ask Christy Mihos how he plans to make afterschool activities "free," when the costs involved need to be paid for by someone. Unfortunately, I already know the answer: the costs won't be borne by the beneficiaries or their families, but by completely unrelated people.

I pay about $3000/year to play hockey. The parents of these students would find a way to do the same for their kids if they weren't able to reach their hands into my wallet every time they came up with some ridiculous long-term argument for why I will somehow benefit from their little Stevie's being able to crush some other kid's head into the boards. Please: if there's truly any economic utility to that, I'll pay for it when I buy the cure for pancreatic cancer the kid develops 20 years later due to the leadership skills he developed on the ice in high school.

Throwing more money at a bunch of kids because it might reduce the crime rate among that group by some small percentage is what I will euphemistically call a "low-return investment," and is bad enough. Using it to try to convince me that legalized theft is somehow good for me only demonstrates the willingness of statists to clutch at any possible justification for the wealth redistribution that drives the machinery of government. I say, damn the machine: every single person on this board net loses because of socialist government, and it's about time you all woke up to this fact.

I'm really not this snarky usually; I'm just in an unusually bad mood because I'm about to go on vacation and have a cold. Still, this stuff frustrates me to no end.

I need a beer.

Kyle

 

[reinbeau]

Kyle, making people pay for extracurricular activities is a fairly new thing, back when we were growing up it came out of the school budget, with fundraisers, etc. picking up the slack. It is part of their education, to help make well-rounded citizens out of them, it doesn't turn them into welfare cases. Bad parenting is what does that. This changed due to greed in other parts of the budget (I could rant on and on about the paper that was circulated over in Norwell, Mass listing four reasons why they needed to put a 54 million dollar addition onto the high school, the first one being to enhance property values - shouldn't the first reason be to enhance the educational experience of the children? But I digress) It isn't simply that you shouldn't pay for Johnnie's hockey. I don't mind at all paying for Johnnie's hockey, provided the education of our kids comes first, and sadly, that isn't the case anymore.

 

[senorFrog]

Bad parenting is what does that.

Bad parenting IMHO is a parent looking for someone else to do their job, which is to raise and support their kids. Their kids are, except in rare cases, are the direct reults of their actions. Therefore, they should accept the consequences of their actions and raise their own kids. Not put that yolk on others who have nothing to with their decisions and the consequences thereof.

 

[reinbeau]

What many seem to forget is they were children once.

Children aren't something hung around the necks of society, they are the next society. I know some choose to be childless, that's their choice, but they live in society, and that has a price.

 

[JellyFish]

I agree that there seem to be some who are anti-child and don't seem to understand that kids are the future. You can't get around that, so each generation has an obligation to a certain extent to help support the new generations. When I was attending public schools I was being supported by the existing base of adults in my community/state. Now that I am an adult, I am obligated to help do the same for this generation of kids.

As far as not having kids goes, some say "child-less" and some say "child-free", it all depends on how you see it. I'm queer so having kids natually probably isn't going to happen unless I suddenly develop an interest in poontang, which probably ain't going to happen.

So I salute you breeders out there who are having kids and I will do my bit to help educate and raise them. As I do understand that I don't exist in a vacuum and that kids need to be educated and cared for and I'm part of the larger society that does that.

What many seem to forget is they were children once.

Children aren't something hung around the necks of society, they are the next society. I know some choose to be childless, that's their choice, but they live in society, and that has a price.

 

[squarooticus]

What many seem to forget is they were children once.

Children aren't something hung around the necks of society, they are the next society.

Cry me a river.

I know some choose to be childless, that's their choice, but they live in society, and that has a price.

This is the most ubiquitous, and absolutely the worst, argument people make in favor of socialism. I pay for "society" when I buy goods and services, because those people in turn pay for other goods and services they want, and so on, until everything worth having is paid for.

Your kids are not a service I want, so why should I pay for them? And since I clearly don't want to pay for them, what gives you the right to steal from me to pay for them? Because that's what you are doing when you require me to pay for your children: stealing from me and from everyone else who would not voluntarily decide to pay for your kids' education.

If you choose to have children, be prepared to bear the entire cost of that. If that means you need to make more money, then do what it takes to do so: but do it without stealing from other people. Even when sanctioned by the government, stealing is always wrong. Always wrong.

Kyle

 

[squarooticus]

I agree that there seem to be some who are anti-child

Who here is anti-child? I think it's great that people have kids. I am anti-stealing: if someone wants kids, he or she can pay for them himself. That is all I am saying.

and don't seem to understand that kids are the future.

Ah. "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" I hear this all the time, and it's no more an argument than it ever was.

each generation has an obligation to a certain extent to help support the new generations.

Speak for yourself. I have a moral obligation to help support my friends and family. I even feel good giving to charity. That said, I do not have an obligation to give up 40% of my income under threat of imprisonment, and I do not feel good about people stealing from me with the backing of the state.

Kyle

 

[JellyFish]

Kyle, I wasn't advocating theft of 40/% of your money. Where did you get that from?

 

[squarooticus]

Kyle, I wasn't advocating theft of 40/% of your money. Where did you get that from?

That's just a wild swag at my tax burden as a percentage of my income. (It's probably higher, actually.) Some of that goes to "[supporting] the new generations" in the form of education. So, you probably only want 4-5% of my income... at least until it's time to collect social security. I think my point is pretty clear, though.

Kyle

 

[JellyFish]

Well I don't like paying income taxes or other taxes either. I'd like the lowest tax burden possible. But I remember that other people paid for me to be educated when I was in school so I do have a responsibility to pay that back by helping to make sure that the kids of today are also educated.

 

[squarooticus]

Well I don't like paying income taxes or other taxes either. I'd like the lowest tax burden possible. But I remember that other people paid for me to be educated when I was in school so I do have a responsibility to pay that back by helping to make sure that the kids of today are also educated.

Two things in response to that:

1. Two wrongs don't make a right. The cycle needs to be broken someplace, and there's no time like the present. If that makes you uncomfortable, then think about it this way: just about everyone is on the dole nowadays, so if you no longer have to pay school taxes, then by the same token you won't receive social security. It won't all balance out, but that's what we get for allowing ourselves to be trapped by such a foolish system to begin with.
   
2. If you really want to make sure that the kids of today are educated, you would be better off taking your school taxes and giving them directly to a family to help them pay for private school instead of having the money wasted on overhead, monopoly inefficiency, socialist/statist brainwashing, teaching methods proven not to work, a seniority-based (rather than performance-based) pay scale, and lousy teachers kept employed through the power of the unions. Public schools are a nightmare. Didn't you see John Stossel's "Stupid in America" on 20/20? If not, here's a link to it on youtube.

Cheers,
Kyle

 

[highlander]

the problem is where is the money going to educate the kids and what type of education their getting. Most of the kids I run into don't know history geography math etc.
My neices needed calculators for math class CALCULATORS?
I thuoght math class was teaching you so you don't need a calculator.
Every once in awhile I catch Jay Leno out on the street asking college kids simple questions like " name the president on mt rushmore" they haven't a clue.
My former tennants kids didn't know what a lever and fulcrum was 'and they went to a private school run by the GREEK church in lynn spending massive amounts of money don't mean a quality education or anything else some times less is more

 

[JellyFish]

Well I'd prefer that the money stay local, as much as is possible. Rather than be sent into a giant bureacracy.

Aaaaah well, do whatever you want. I'm too tired tonight to try make sense of any of this. Thy will be done.

Two things in response to that:

1. Two wrongs don't make a right. The cycle needs to be broken someplace, and there's no time like the present. If that makes you uncomfortable, then think about it this way: just about everyone is on the dole nowadays, so if you no longer have to pay school taxes, then by the same token you won't receive social security. It won't all balance out, but that's what we get for allowing ourselves to be trapped by such a foolish system to begin with.
   
2. If you really want to make sure that the kids of today are educated, you would be better off taking your school taxes and giving them directly to a family to help them pay for private school instead of having the money wasted on overhead, monopoly inefficiency, socialist/statist brainwashing, teaching methods proven not to work, a seniority-based (rather than performance-based) pay scale, and lousy teachers kept employed through the power of the unions. Public schools are a nightmare. Didn't you see John Stossel's "Stupid in America" on 20/20? If not, here's a link to it on youtube.

Cheers,
Kyle

 

[reinbeau]

Kyle, I can't and won't argue the points, you obviously have a huge personal rant against childrearing. I (gladly) bear all of the brunt of raising my children despite what you seem to think and until you've done what I've done to get them to adulthood I will not be judged as lacking.

 

[senorFrog]

I'm dissenting because I'd like the best for kids. Not the broken down socialist system of indoctrination we have now.

I think any public program is destined for failure. Public education is just one example. We got talking about this because Mihos supports public funding of elections. One step away from communism IMO.