Morally retarted... proudly.

Of all the innane things to complain about your tax dollars going to, supporting our military should NOT be one of them. But hey, lemme quote this guy here...

But to answer the question, what I mean when I say I support our troops is that I actually pay for their food, their ammo, their upkeep, transport, everything. I pay for all of it.
And I do that not only because I’m a patriotic American, although I am, but also because they take 35% out of my check every week and if I don’t pay it I will end up in jail.
That is what I mean by ‘I support our troops’. I mean I am involuntarily, under threat of prison, forced to pay for their support. Now do I resent that?
You’re damn right I do. Because it is stupid as hell. Other countries pay taxes, but they get something for it, like health care. What do I get? I get to kill a bunch of Iraqis. Whoopdeedoo.

Let me also inform you that most people in other countries pay more than 50% of their income to taxes. Please do some research before you run your mouth.

Now, as to the title of this post, same blogger:

I resent my support for the killing of Iraqis for which I get not even a memento or trophy. But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country?
No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded.

I can't make this stuff up. Someone actually posted this.

This person actually thinks that our boys (and girls) over in the sand box have no moral compass. The insanity of that statement just leaves me dumbfounded.

The thing that the person making these statements doesn't get is that our troops are trained to be warriors: That training does NOT remove their moral compass. It equips them to deal with the violations of that compass that is required by being a warrior. There's a huge difference between "warrior" and "psychopath" (Google define entry), which is what this guy is describing.

If we lived in an ideal world, warriors would be a dying breed. The thing is that we still have a bunch of people on this planet who hate us for existing.

On a side note, aren't liberals supposed to be known for "compassion". I don't hear compassion in that statement.

If I were Kim DuToit, I'd be heading to the firing range.


Concerning the ownership of firearms

I use StumbleUpon as a time killer on the net, and I stumbled upon a blog post that advocates a worldwide firearm registry. The poster was from the UK, so they have some different views than we do over here in the states, but the poster seems insistent on attacking the gun lobby for not wanting a registry, nor wanting to slow the sales of firearms.

I put some thought into this, and while the following opinion didn't get posted as a reply (I went into left field tangent mode), I thought it'd be good thinking fodder for anyone who happens to read this blog.

The problems that the "evil gun lobby" in the states has with a registry like you propose here is that it violates the spirit of the second amendment.

The second amendment was placed in the constitution for the express purpose of allowing the people of the US to keep their government in check for the inevitable time when it grows far to big and powerful for it's own good. Some posture that this has already happened, but this is beside the point.

A register like you suggest would inevitably lead to abuse and the disarmament of the citizens that the government deems "dangerous". While it sounds like it could be an ideal thing, eventually the entire population would be deemed "dangerous", thus stripping the right to keep our government in check.

Votes are just pieces of paper. When there is no check on power, those pieces of paper can be safely ignored, and thus the US representative republic now becomes some sort of sick dictatorship. It won't happen overnight, but entropy reigns every system, including political systems.

And finally, in a somewhat tangential point, firearms are just tools. Just like your car, the set of kitchen knives you prepare food with every night, the pen you jot down quick notes with, and the air powered nail gun that roofers use to put shingles up. Every single item mentioned can be used to hurt and/or kill someone, as well as it's designed task. The firearm's designed task was to allow a person to hunt for food, and defend their own lives, both of which are noble goals. You mock this in your post, but when the balance of power is no longer in your hands in a situation (say bear attack, or your friendly neighborhood tweaker that's lost his mind with a knife), you look for a way to correct that. When your, or your significant other's, life is endangered. the firearm is the great equalizer. Ask your friendly neighborhood police officer: In the hands of a competent, trained, and practiced person, the firearm is a great tool.

All tools can be used for noble and evil purposes. Please don't assume that all guns and sidearms are evil, or only used for evil purposes.