Energion Direct

Tag: Joel Watts

  • Joel Watts – Question 6 – Answer 1 (Profit)

    Joel Watts – Question 6 – Answer 1 (Profit)

    http://www.dreamstime.com/-image29189594Links:

    Question 6
    Elgin’s Answer
    Joel’s Answer
    Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 – Reply 1 (Profit)

    Content:

    (Note: Content corrected an updated 7/30/13, because the editor posted the wrong content.)
    1) You say profits must be kept low. But terms like “low” and “high” are relative terms, and frankly very subjective. What is low or high is very likely to vary widely from person to person, and particularly between buyer and seller. What will be the basis for such determinations?
    I think high profit would be something along the lines of what the former Exxon executive received as a retirement package. I must turn again to Aquinas. Money is consumable, unlike land and other means of production. To have more money than is consumable by the individual is against natural law (as Aquinas would state). To have consumable money making money consumable money, neither of which will ever be consumed, this is against natural law. If profit is consumed to provide for the poorest, it is a virtue. If profit is wasted (as in left only to consume itself), then it is sinful.
    2) You say “But, to keep them low, one must employ external forces, such as government regulations.” How is government going to perform this role, and what gives you any confidence that they have the ability to fulfill this role?
    “They” is not a term I thought we would rightfully use in a Republic. I would prefer the term “we.” The anti-trust/monopoly acts worked well until they were balkanized to the point of non-existence. Further, taxes based on high profit (profit unconsumed either in the means of production or in the means of comfort, but profit consumed only in the production of more profit) would likely yield a comfortable natural force, as was evident before the concept of low taxes means a better economy was the trend in the 1960’s.
    3) You say you have different expectations for the profit and non-profit. What are these expectations, particularly when it comes to for profit and government?
    I thought we were talking about profit and non-profit, not profit and government. I fully expect a profit organization to seek to make profit for the betterment of its members. A non-profit should seek to raise money for the betterment of others.
     
     

  • Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 – Reply 1 (Profit)

    Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 – Reply 1 (Profit)

    http://www.dreamstime.com/-image29189594Links:

    Question 6
    Elgin’s Answer
    Joel’s Answer
    Joel Watts – Question 6 – Reply 1 (Profit)

    Content:

    1.) You quote Scripture regarding pay. Are profit and the pay the same thing?
     Well, there are clearly some differences; otherwise we would not have separate words. But at their core they are basically the same in that they are the compensation for services rendered.
    Where they differ is in how they are paid. Wages are paid for a particular unit of time. But, if we look at a store owner selling a can of soup, it would be very difficult to if not impossible to determine the hours worked to get a can of soup on the self so it could be purchased.  As such the store owner is paid for his or her work by the difference between the cost of the can of soup and the amount paid for the can of soup.
    This difference also results in another key difference that is often overlooked.  Most people see profit only in terms of gain. But there is no guarantee that anyone will purchase the can of soup.   If someone works for a wage, they are virtually guaranteed to receive payment for services rendered; as such there is little, if any, risk.  With profit, there is rarely any guaranteed and normally there is significant risk.
    I have worked both ways. When I worked for a wage I have always been paid for the work I did. When I worked for profit there have been many times where I have not.  If my costs ended up higher than I had expected, then my compensation was reduced.  In fact, there were many times when I wrote checks for my employees’ wages, and did not have enough money to even pay all my bills, much less myself.
    So at their core, they are both compensation, but they vary in how they are paid and the risk involved.
    2.) Do you see only one “profit?” In other words, you speak about profit motive, yet we have seen in recent economic epochs the increasing split level of meaning applied to profit. Do you believe in different profits or is there only one profit, with just different avenues to get there?
    Similar to the previous question they are all compensation, but there are two things that distinguish among the various types of profit. One is in what the compensation is in exchange for, is it in exchange for a good or a service?   There is at times some confusion about this because at times the service being provided is not clear, and at times not understood by many people.
    The other is in the number of people being compensated, is it the single owner of a small store, or thousands of stockholders of a corporations?
    3.) You write: “You pay a store in exchange for goods and services received.” I would contest that while this is philosophically the case, this is not always true. There are profit centers in business where profit is earned at a greater rate than with other products. Your statement seems to indicate you believe in a fair exchange. Economic practices no longer pretend this is true. Would you regulate fair exchanges? What if the exchange wasn’t fair?
    At a minimum I would want to add a lot of qualifiers to these statements, but I would accept the general concept of a fair exchange as a goal, the main problem being how one defines “fair.”  But if we ignore that issue for now, I do think there is a need for some regulation.  To me the issue is not the existence of regulation, but the purpose or goal of regulation.
    Regulation that aims at encouraging choice and competition is good. Because of the nature of regulation, regulation aimed at encouraging choice and competition is limited in nature, as too much regulation creates barriers to entry that stifle competition.  On the other hand, regulation that seeks to impose some concept of fairness is doomed to not only to fail, but will ultimately make things worse.
    Here is a case in point.  A few years back Florida was hit by a hurricane and there were charges of price gouging by gas stations.  In response, the Florida Attorney general made a very public point of saying that the states anti-gouging law would be strictly enforced.  As chance had it, a few weeks later, another part of Florida was hit by another hurricane.  Sure enough this time there was virtually no gouging – because there was no gas.
    It is easy to understand, and in fact is simply the law of supply and demand in action. When stations were “gouging” with the first hurricane they were effectively rationing it and people purchased just what they need. After the second hurricane, they simply filled up “just in case” and stations quickly ran out.  In addition, with the first hurricane station owners were encouraged to take extra efforts, perhaps purchasing a generator and getting an electrician to wire it up knowing they could recoup their costs.  If they did that in the second case, they could easily be charge with “gouging” and end up in court and even fined. So why take the risk?
    As for what to do if the exchange is not fair, the first question is who determines what is and is not fair? For me the best solution is to ensure consumers have choice. This will encourage business owners to provide the best value to customers.  Again a case in point:  There is a lot of competition among restaurants, and prices vary widely.  Some places charge more for a lunch than others. But who is to say that one place is unfair and the other is fair?  If I have a problem with one restaurant, I can very easily go someplace else.
    The bottom line is that given all the factors that are involved in a transaction, so many of which are subjective, it is simply impossible for the government to regulate this in any effective manner and history is pretty clear that the more they try, the worst they make things.    Thus government should instead focus on making sure there is choice and competition for consumers and then let consumers decide for themselves which of the many suppliers provide them with the best value.
     

  • Joel Watts – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer

    Joel Watts – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer

    http://www.dreamstime.com/-image29189594

    Links:

    Question 6
    Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer
    For we do not aim to be rich merely for our own sakes, but for the sake of our children, our neighbors, friends and most of all, for our community. For the private fortunes of individuals are the wealth of the state. (Cicero, De Officiis)
    St. Thomas Aquinas cites Augustine in saying “The businessman who is eager for profit blasphemes at his losses, and he lies and swears falsely over the price of his goods. These, however, are the vices of the businessman himself, not of business in general, which can be conducted without these vices” (Summa Theologica II-II, 77, 4)
    For more of what could be considered my philosophical starting point, see here.
    1.) What is the value of profit as a motive for action in the marketplace and competition as a regulating force?
    The theology of the scientific theory of evolution is one benefiting us here, I believe. “Life will find a way” is a statement common in movies about dinosaurs resurrected for our benefit and the creators’ profits. But, in this Hollywood statement are tenets of great philosophical struggles. Life will find a way.
    Why must life find a way? Because the forces of non-life are always present and are the primary substance of the universe. As of yet, we have found life only on one planet, in one solar system, in one small part of the growing universe. Non-life is the constant of the universe. Yet, we have life.
    “Find.” Find implies motive. We must find a way because it is natural. Competition and push-back are those things that drive us in our need to find a way to survive.
    The same thing occurs with profit. Without the desire to live by what we make, we do not flourish as humans, but languish as natural beasts of the field. I believe in the concept of human flourishing, that of finding out who we are meant to be. I believe humans are naturally competitors. We compete against our siblings, against our schoolmates, and against one other in the pursuit of jobs, fame, and fortune. Profit and not material gain such as land, goats, and children is the modern goal of that pursuit. To deny, then, the pursuit of profit as a human need is to suggest we have somehow “become as the angels” have thus have need of nothing, not even love. The pursuit of profit is part of human flourishing.
    At small levels, competition does present a regulating force; however, when profits are too large and thus power too easily bought, competition is easily snuffed out. Even Adam Smith knew this. When profits are kept low, competition is naturally occurring because more people are able to invest in order to achieve profits. Further, when profits are kept low, this means consumers have more money to spend. But, to keep them low, one must employ external forces, such as government regulations.
    2.) Do you trust profit making organizations more than non-profit? Under what circumstances?
    This is a rather difficult question to ask, given the wide range of organizations under those banners. Even non-profits must make money in order to say afloat.
    I would venture to guess that the reasons many non-profits form as such are the tax laws. If we were to rectify them first, we might see the end of this dubious separation.
    As far as a matter of trust, I do not think I can fully apply that term to a non-human entity. Corporations are not persons, my friend. I do, however, have different expectations for the two groups.

  • Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer

    Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer

    http://www.dreamstime.com/-image29189594

    Links:

    Question 6
    Joel Watts – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer
    What is the value of profit as a motive for action in the marketplace and competition as a regulating force? Do you trust profit making organizations more than non-profit? Under what circumstances?
    While profit and the profit motive are often maligned they are the driving force in most of that we do, nor should this be seen as a problem. As 1 Timothy 5:18 says “For the Scripture says, ‘You must not muzzle an ox while it is treading out grain,’ and, ‘A worker deserves his pay.’”  For some, the concept of wages and profit may seem like apples and oranges.  But they are really the same thing, the compensation we get for our work.
    Like many things, the profit motive can be both overdone and underdone. More importantly, it needs to operate within a system that allows it to be productively channeled, and that system is the free market system driven by choice for consumers and competition among suppliers. If businesses do not provide good value, customers can go elsewhere. Even most not-for-profit organizations must provide value in order to receive donations.
    Government has no such driving force.  This also explains why government is so wasteful.  It has nothing to do with the people, but with the incentives, and the system in which they operate.  Government has no competition, and can just demand money in the form of taxes. In fact, to be innovative and save money, for much of government is counter-productive. Administrators who do this would be “rewarded” by having their next years’ budget cut, whereas wasteful administrators are likely to have their budgets increased even more.
    When it operates within a system of choice and competition, the profit motive has some very positive outcomes. The first is a desire to improve.  Whether this is an individual who goes to school so as to get a higher paying job, or a business that wants to attract more customers, the profit motive drives improvement.  The second is that the desire to improve, when combined with competition, pushes people to search for new and better ways to do things; in short it results in innovations.
    This is something that most not for profits simply cannot do. Not-for-profits can consume and distribute wealth but they do not create it.  To be sure they can adapt to innovations, though they often have trouble doing even that, but rarely do they ever drive innovation. This is particularly true for Government because rather than innovation, government regulates, which by definition hinders innovation. Regulation looks back and seeks to standardize past practices, rather than looking forward to create new ones.
    The side effect of all this is a tremendous amount of good for humanity.  This is seen both in the increase in the standard of living, and in the tremendous array of products and services that make our lives better, nearly all of which we have because of the profit motive.
    In addition, because most resources are limited, the profit motive, when combined with choice and completion drives a more efficient use of these limited resources. The more efficient you are the lower your costs and the higher the profit.    Before Rockefeller got into the oil business, most of the oil produced was simply wasted.  It was wasted because no one knew what to do with it so it was just thrown away, or wasted because of leaks and losses during transportation, but it was wasted.
    Rockefeller sought to improve all aspects of the process, from funding the development of some 300 new uses for the “gunk” that used to be thrown away, to better delivery systems that reduced loss.  As a result the cost of the oil used at the time for light dropped from what was for most an unaffordable 58 cents per gallon to an affordable 8 cents, allowing them to have light at night. In the process he created a vast amount of wealth, a vast number of jobs and increased the standard of living for millions.
    The profit motive not only benefits the society at large, it benefits the individual as well. There is, of course, the desire for self-improvement it instills, but it goes deeper.  At the heart of a system governed by choice and competition is the exchange of value.  The employer pays you in exchange for a certain amount of work.  You pay a store in exchange for goods and services received.
    While the ultimate goal of a business is to earn a profit, if a business makes profit their primary goal, they are sure to fail.  This “paradox of business” is simple to understand: who wants to deal with such a business?  To attract customers, a business must provide value in exchange for the money they receive.  To grow a business must provide a better value than their competition.
    To do this one cannot just focus on what they want, they must be concerned with the needs and wishes of others.  This is why most companies provide far better customer service than government does.  For profit companies are driven by the profit motive which forces them to be concerned with the wishes and desires of their customers.
    This also goes a long way towards explaining why those who support free market solutions driven by the profit motive tend to give more to charity than those who support government solutions.  The profit motive operating in systems governed by choice and competition reduces poverty, increases the standard of living, make society better, and makes the individual better. What’s not to like?
     

  • Political Debate – Question #6

    Political Debate – Question #6

    http://www.dreamstime.com/-image29189594What is the value of profit as a motive for action in the marketplace and competition as a regulating force? Do you trust profit making organizations more than non-profit? Under what circumstances?

  • Question 5 – Second Reply Set – The Justice System

    Question 5 – Second Reply Set – The Justice System

    Combining Replies from both Elgin Hushbeck, and Joel Watts.

    Question #5
    Reply by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.
    Reply by Joel Watts
    Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. Response #1
    Joel Watts Response #1

    [6/24/13 – I inadvertently posted the wrong content for Joel Watts’ reply. The corrected text is below. – HN]

    Response #2 by Joel Watts:

    1.) The question you propose – justice or rules – is not a difficult to answer. We live in a Republic of laws, thus the laws must be followed. This is a major issue with democracies —justice is based only on the whims of the majority. This is why our Founders hated democracy and instead placed us within a Republic. While the guilty may go free and the innocent be imprisoned, if the laws are followed, then the Republic is upheld. Perhaps this is what shades your view of the present system, you believe it is a democracy.
    Unfortunately, “scandal” is a word attached to easily. The IRS did its job and should be commended. Congress, on the other hand, did not. This goes back to the law bit. We have ingrained in law certain procedures, such as the 30 day request. If these aren’t followed, then other actions are, by law, implemented. Given the rapid change in laws around the 501(c) entities, and the cutting of funds to this particular IRS department, the IRS will have to make sure.
    As far as your poor caricature of the lung transport girl, I am unsure as to where to begin to straighten out your views. Sarah Palin is a liar. The rule is no more a death panel than the reverse of not having rules. Again, we live in a Republic with rules and laws, and yet you would deem them broken at every whim. If you cannot properly address the issue, I have to wonder what is the point?
    2.) You support the death. Could you give me Scripture to that regard? Or is this purely a decision based on current philosophical thought?

    Response #2 by Elgin Hushbeck:

    On a jury of peers, I agree that prejudices could be a problem, and one that cuts both ways. Some would be more likely to convict, some would be more likely to acquit.
    As for citizen suits, I don’t see how these can be allowed, and still retain the rule of law or avoid a return to vigilantism. As for your example, that is just historically wrong. Segregation was correctly and properly challenged on a number of fronts, including suits by those who were harmed by it. Such suits are not the type of suits I am referring to. Normally to bring a suit one must be directly harmed. The suits I am referring to are those which until recently, would have been dismissed because there was no standing. In fact this is still the case in many areas of law, however in a few areas, particularly environmental law, special exceptions have been made and enforcement powers granted to individuals.
    I would agree that “Justice is not retribution” but beyond that we have vastly different definitions for justice. Mine is a pretty traditional understanding that involves equity and righting wrongs. It is distinguished from revenge in pretty much the same way that Aristotle did, as a rational process that seeks equity, as opposed to an irrational response grounded in inflicting pain. Justice is rooted outside of ourselves, ultimately in God, and on earth through the state, which is why vigilantism is to be avoided. Revenge is rooted within ourselves and in our desires, rather than our reason. But this is a distinction that is often overlooked.

  • Watts: Topic 2 Reply 1 (The Budget)

    The Question
    My first concern with my friend Elgin is that he is too filled with Conservative media’s information that he is unable to see the better times for the dour, an unfounded picture of what is actually taking place. If we do not have a basis of fact I our discussion, how will we proceed?
    While I do not seek to undermine the tough times faced by those seeking to work, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that all of the right numbers are in place. Layoffs are decreasing, job numbers are increasing, and even Wall Street is reaching record highs.
    Let me also contend with his rather bold statement that passing a budget is a matter of law. I would doubt such an issue based, once more, on facts. Further, let us consider that such a budget from the Senate would not be welcomed in the House which has, thus far, acted only a temper-tantrum throwing toddler. Somehow, my friend Elgin seems to imply that this is the President’s fault and as such, the President could somehow force the Senate to create a budget. This is not only well outside the realm of likelihood, but so too the Constitution.
    But, to my friend’s suggestions.
    I believe we would both agree on ruling out Government induced hyperinflation.
    However, I do not think his reaction and discarding of taxes is altogether sound. One does not simply quote one economist, but must rely on a preponderance of data. Further, my friend falsely attributes (following the lead of the Conservative media) to Christina Romer a conclusion she does not support. What do we actually know? That those to whom much is given, much is required. While I do not support retreating to the tax rates under President Eisenhower, a Republican, I do support higher tax rates on those who can afford it.
    Unfortunately, instead of a balanced view, my partner in these discussions, suggests cutting spending. In the same study he uses to suggest, wrongly, that more taxes hurt, Romer suggests spending cuts hurt. And she continues this theme as well with her follow-up article. While he quotes a conservative icon, Gilder, he again simply chooses to remain with only source, rather than numerous sources, such as Romer, who state with proof that spending cuts will not help an economy.
    I am unsure how these things aid in the discussion of the budget. I would hasten my friend back to the conversation. The budget must be set with priorities given education and the good of the people, requiring those with much to given more than those who have little. As the Senator from Massachusetts said, no one in the United States stands where they are without someone else.
    If Mr Hushbeck means to explore austerity, this is a train-wreck waiting to happen. If he means to suggest that lowering taxes and cutting spending is the best possible way forward, this is a fantasy that leads to fateful junctures in history. No, a budget relying on austerity will not rescue us from our current economic troubles.
    A budget that raises revenue by closing loopholes, raising taxes, cutting defense spending and other government spending, while increasing spending on social progress programs.

  • Elgin: Topic 2 Reply 1 (The Budget)

    The Question
    While Watts and I both seem dissatisfied with the current budget process, I found his suggestions at best unrealistic. He suggests that budgets be done “several years in advance.”  Of course one of the current problems is that the Democrats in the Senate have, in violation of the law, refused to even do a budget in nearly 4 years. The President submits budgets that are late and so unrealistic that some have not gotten a single vote even from members of his own party.
    Currently budgets are done for 10 years. This actually is one of the problems for it allows all kinds of games to be played. While taxes, either cuts or increases, seem to start in the current budget year, “cuts” are almost always in “the out years.” As such these cuts can function as offsets to balance out other changes over the 10 year budget cycle.  The problems is that while this may all looks good on  paper, the cuts often never happen, because the current Congress cannot bind future Congresses.
    For example, On Jan 1 this year both the House and the Senate passed a law preventing a 26% cut in the payments for Medicare, and a 2% cut in Medicare payments to doctors.  Why such bi-partisan action?  Because there is no way politicians in either party are going to let such cuts happen. But if this is true, why were these cuts in the law to begin with so that they needed to be overridden?
    The answer is that these “cuts” were part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. They were supposed to cap spending to a “Sustainable Growth Rate” each year. But each year when the caps are about to take place, Congress votes to override them.  But note that Congress does not vote to overturn the law, just that year’s cuts.  This is because they need the “cuts” in the out years, or the budget would seem even more out of balance then all the games they play make it appear.  This is part of the issue with the unfunded liabilities mentioned in my initial answer and why the games they are playing cannot go on too much longer.
    But this is not the only problem.  Another problem is that because of baseline budgeting these projections in future years are taken as the starting place. Thus if a program is projected to get a 10% increase in a future year, but when that year come it only gets a 5% increase, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth over the “massive cuts.”   It is because of games such as these that even after the sequester, with all of its massive “cuts,” ultimately the Federal government will still be spending $15 billion more than last year.
    About the only place this is not true is with defense spending, for the defense department seems to be the only branch of the federal branch that actually has any cuts as opposed to reductions in the rate of increase.  According to the President’s budget, over the last several years the Defense department’s small increases have not kept up with inflation, and starting this year will see real reductions.  Even before the sequester, defense spending will go from $716B in 2012 to $701B in 2013 and down to $587B in 2017. When adjusted for inflation (using 2005 as the base) this becomes $610B in 2012 to $587B in 2013 and down to $460B in 2017.
    Now one could argue that this will be like the Medicare “cuts” and be repealed every year.  However, history, both long and short term, argues against this. When adjusted for inflation, defense spending peaked in 2010, and has been decreasing since. In addition the 1990s were a period of decline which saw defense spending go from $303B in 1989 down to $268B ten years later ($481B  to $346B in Constant dollars).
    What makes this worse is that the Defense department is not like a doctor. If for some reason Congress did not rescind the cuts, a doctor could just stop seeing Medicare patients when that happened. The defense department, however, must and does plan over many years.  For example, building a new fighter or a carriers is a many year process. If the money is not in the budget, it cannot be done.
    Consider the Navy for example, The Quadrennial Defense Review said that we should have 346 ships to do the mission the nation has given the Navy. The Navy, realizing the situation, said they could get by with 313, which has recently been reduced yet again to 300. Yet we only have about 287 and we look headed to 250. As Robert Kaplan put it, “There is a big difference between a 346-ship US navy and a 250-ship navy – the difference between one kind of world order and another.”
    To make matters even worse, because of recent cut backs the Navy does not even have enough money to run the ships that it has.  Thus, for example, it is keeping the USS Harry S. Truman in dock instead of sending it to the Persian Gulf.  All branches are cutting back on training and one thing is clear from history, less training means more lives lost when the military is needed.  So while I agree with Watts that “First, [the budget] must focus on defense” that is hardly what the Democrats do, and sadly a growing number of Republicans as well.
    Watts suggestion that tax rates be “set at relatively high levels” so that “Congress will have to act.”  But it is far from clear why they would have to act, other than that this would kill the economy.  Like an addict needing their next fix, Congress desperately needs money for they are addicted to spending. If given the promise of new monies from increased taxes, they will simply spend it. Then when the taxes depress the economy even further and the revenues do not come in, we will be in even a worse hole.
    Finally, Watts argues that “welfare of the people must be included in the budget.”  I would argue that the best thing for the welfare of the people is to have a strong and vibrant economy so that the people can take care of their own welfare. As for those who cannot take care of themselves, private charity, state and local government can best take care of them.
     
     
     

  • Joel Watts: First Answer

    Link to the Question

    What are the three most important actions that should be taken in this country to deal with violent crime in public places?
    The issue of violent crime is a social issue, so it must be handled in a communal fashion. One of the largest factors in promoting inaction in response to violent crime is the neurosis of individuality. I do not propose this as an action or step; however, we must recognize the role our focus on individuality against community have in our reactions to these events. How often do we hear, after the fact, a community react by saying they had suspected something was going on; yet, no one says anything, or much of anything, because they tend to shy away from seeing all lives in a community dependent upon one another.
    One action we can take is first is to look at the way we speak about and address mental health concerns in this country. There is still a stigma attached to various conditions we know are treatable with medication and non-dangerous. Worse yet are the stigmas attached to even seeking mental help. Nationally, we have seen ads run opposing domestic abuse, drunk driving, and a host of other issues that seek to inform public opinion or to destigmatize the reporting of various issues. It would be worthwhile to have a national campaign to destigmatize mental illness, ranging from depression to far deeper issues. Likewise, an increase in funding to mental health facilities is needed. Free screenings could be a part of a national health care plan as well as a mandatory part of employee health care plans. Granted, many plans already include some sort of mental health care, but likewise, these plans must assure the employees of their confidentiality.
    A second path forward is one that seeks to prevent the ability to carry out  mass violence. Magazines should have their capacities limited. The higher the capacity for damage the lower the capacity of bullets. For example, the AR-15 would be limited to, say three rounds. The .22 pistol will have whatever magazine can fit in the handle without exceeding the handle. Further, all weapons with magazines will need to have added features so that reloading is an involved process. In other words, the magazine cannot be reloaded with a single hand, but must involve both. Also, I would limit the number of weapons a person can own, either by weapon count or magazine capacity count. Perhaps one can own 15 round magazines. A bolt-action rifle with one round magazine will enable a person to own fifteen. Along these same lines, we must close the holes around gun shows and private sellers. Also, I would include a mandatory license for gun owners that one can get only with training. This license will have to provide an option young hunters, however.
    There must be a concerted effort to remove all illegal guns from the American populace.  Chicago, at the moment, has the highest gun murder rate in the country. I would support the Illinois National Guard (that well-regulated militia provided for by the Constitution) as deputized members of local law enforcement going door to door in the most crime ridden neighborhoods of Chicago and confiscating illegal weapons. It would be beneficial to have a designated day or two to allow all illegal weapons to find their way into the hands of local authorities without penalty or questions asked. This could be replicated on a State-by-State basis so that illegal weapons would be off the streets. These guns would be destroyed within one day of confiscation so as to prevent re-dissemination. Further, the owners of the guns, if they can be identified, will pay a fine unless they could prove that the guns were sold (privately) or stolen and reported to the police. If pawn shops or private gun dealers were found to have sold stolen weapons or allowed stolen weapons to go unreported, they would be fined and their business licenses forfeited.

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.