2008.11.08
Discuss Saturday's editorials
Short takes
Quick views on some of the week's news.
Forget bottle bills. How about a butt bill?
To cut down on litter and encourage recylcling, some states (Virginia is not one) require shoppers to pay a deposit on beverages in bottles. That way people might think twice about throwing empties on the side of the road. And, if they do, someone else might pick them up to cash in.
Read more.
RSS feed 
Re: Butt Bill
Likely the clever smoker will continue to throw their butts out the window on the way to work, then scoop a handful of butts out of the ashtray in the employee smoking area just before heading out to buy the next pack. Would the money *really* go towards cleanup, though?
Re: Stockpile those guns while you still can
Obama's *true* feeling on guns is fairly transparent, and not in the positive. While the person quoted in the editorial may have embellished a bit, I sincerely doubt that Obama would refuse to sign any restriction or ban on firearms that came to his desk. He won't even have to work very hard...the likes of Pelosi will gleefully pull out her portfolio of bills and ram them through.
Comment by Ed S. — November 8, 2008 @ 9:23 am
As much as I've been for personal freedoms and the right to exercise those freedoms, smoking is one of those things I really despise now after growing up in a household surrounded by smokers. I have permanent damage to my lungs and asthma as a result, and will never be able to have completely healthy lungs. I would love to see continued restrictions on smoking in restaurants and bars because of the impact it has on non-smokers, or for restaurants to have "smoking rooms" like airports where the smoke can be actually confined. As for the butt bill idea, most smokers don't care and just toss 'em out. I've watched smokers dump whole ashtrays in parking lots or roadsides and drive off, rather than dump them in their home trash can. Perhaps adding a refundable fee might reduce that, but I'd just like to see extra taxes on them to continue discouraging people from smoking to begin with, rather than giving them a way to subsidize their filthy habit.
Comment by Other John — November 8, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Ed, that's a good point about the cigarette butts. If there was a refund of 5 cents a butt, you can bet I'd be parked out in front of the Carilion building downtown every day picking up cigarettes. I swear, I think everyone in that building smokes and litters their butts on Jefferson, 1st, and the alleys in between! It's disgusting and those people should be ashamed for dirtying up their city.
Comment by scott — November 8, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Why don't we just outlaw cigarettes?
Comment by Henry — November 8, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Henry,
What you said is not that far fetched. New York City already banned 'trans fat' from privately owned restaurants citywide. Big Brother is telling us what we can and cannot eat. Are Big Macs and Whoppers next? You betcha! Once we get 'free' government controlled health care, watch the regulations from Washington flow.
Comment by Nick — November 8, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
I was out Sportsmans Warehouse today getting a new holster and you should have seen the hordes of people at the firearms counter. If anything Obama's campaign and subsequent win is just convincing more people that they should purchase firearms.
My wife wants me to get her one for Christmas. Never thought I would hear that.
Comment by Jack — November 8, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
I don't see where the fear and paranoia are coming from that's cauing people to think they all of a sudden need a firearm. We elect a black President, and all of a sudden people are filled with so much fear that they go out and buy guns? Sheesh...maybe we haven't eveolved as much as I thought.
Comment by Other John — November 8, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
Scott,
I'm there. The butts would be easily collectable at just about every building. And the small size means you can carry that many more!
Other John,
Probably not that one "needs" a new gun...they're just getting one (maybe certain ones) while they're still available.
Comment by Ed S. — November 8, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
Perhaps so Ed. I've wondered if the Clinton assault weapon ban would be brought back, but I can't see any sort of wide-ranging ban or restriction put in place, there's just no way for it to happen without tossing out the Constitution.
Comment by Other John — November 8, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
I wondered how long it would take someone to try to argue that owning a gun was racist. OJ, we both know that people are not rushing to buy guns because Obama'a black. They are rushing to buy guns because the President-Elect has a history of being staunchly anti-gun. The media just helped him keep it hidden during the campaign. Even if you buy that shallow story about a staffer being the one who answered the questions on that infamous survey, Obama is on the record as wanting to increase the tax on guns an ammo to %500. He also makes no bones about wanting to eliminate lawful concealed carry for citizens.
The first draft of the new crime bill from the Pelosi led house proposes to institute the %500 tax on ammunition, to declare anything with a detachable magazine or that holds more than six rounds an assault weapon, to outlaw firearms dealerships that operate out of homes, etc. So if it passes, a $20 box of hunting ammo would cost $120. That seems to be the new brainstorm. They realize they can't get an outright ban through the current Supreme Court, so instead they just hatch a scheme to make guns and ammo so expensive the average person can't afford one. And Obama can stand behind the podium and say he have no plans to take away people's guns.
People are trying to buy guns while it is still legal and affordable to do so. The concern that new stringent restrictions are on the way is quite legitimate. But to allege racism in this instance is just a disingenuous attempt to make people feel guilty about exercising a Constitutional right.
Comment by C Ramsey — November 8, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Other John,
If that mis-named ban were to come back, it would be further reaching than before, and perhaps permanent.
A wide-ranging ban *may* not pass in the next 4-8 years, but likely some precursor could. Registration..."sporting" clauses...or just free administrative reign for the BATFE.
Nobody would need to toss out the Constitution. It only has power as long as it is being defended. Even then, its all up to how someone wants to (mis)interpret it. Apparently DC felt it was Constitutional to ban guns (they said you could have them...as long as they were registered prior to 1976...and disassembled...).
Show me someone on the "gun side" you think is crazy, and I'll show you someone on the "anti-gun" side frothing as much or more craziness. I don't say that flippantly or condescendingly, though. I've read other posts of yours, and know you're well aware of that.
No, I don't think he could ban them all in 8 years. But I think they could (try to) take some significant steps.
Comment by Ed S. — November 8, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
I haven't been aware of the specifics of what may or may not be passed, and if that is the case, then I could understand some of the panic buying that is going on. I certainly would not appreciate having to pay a tax that exhorbitant on ammunition, and I can see where that would cause extreme hardships for people who hunt, and that the ultimate effect would be many gun owners simply giving up and ceasing to be owners. So from that perspective, I can see why it's happening. However, I've also talked to a few gun owners I know and they made it clear that they were stocking up because of racial fears they had, which is pretty pathetic if you ask me. I was going based on what I knew, but thanks for broadening out why some of this is ocurring. I guess it all comes down to the way laws will be written and how courts and lawyers try to interpret them as to whether or not they'll be successful. My hope would be that the Constitution and legal precedent prevails, but I guess we'll see.
Comment by Other John — November 8, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
I can't wait to read about all the kids that shoot themselves and others with Daddy's new guns. Against whom are all you trigger happy machos intending to use these guns? The US Army? Get real! Your right to bear arms is absolutely meaningless. All you can shoot is deer, burglars and yourself. When Uncle Sam decides he doesn't like what you stand for, all your guns won't buy you a chance.
Comment by CSB — November 8, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
Other John, The fact that fearful republicans rushed out to buy guns does not surprise me in the least.
After all, the modis operandi of the republican party is (was) to perpetuate fear and incite their followers to action by insinuating that their families were in danger. The fact that thousands bought this message does not surprise me.
I prefer to look on the good side that: this increase in the sale of firearms may help this disastrous economy that the republicans created.
Comment by Joe — November 9, 2008 @ 1:43 am
"I can't wait to read about all the kids that shoot themselves and others with Daddy's new guns."
You'll enjoy that, huh?
Sheesh.....
Comment by Henry — November 9, 2008 @ 7:31 am
Joe
Check again. The Democrats control Congress right now and Congress is in charge of the economy. You can't blame the Republicans anymore.
And I'd like to see your breakdown on party affiliation for the gun buyers. We'll wait patiently while you get that together.
Comment by Henry — November 9, 2008 @ 8:20 am
President-elect Barack Obama's private conversation with Poland's president created an international disagreement Saturday, with President Lech Kaczynski saying Mr. Obama promised to continue a missile-defense system and the transition office saying the Democrat made no such commitment.
President Bush's White House declined to weigh in on the Friday phone call between the Polish leader and Mr. Obama, who will take office Jan. 20.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/09/obama-polish-president-at-odds-on-call/
Comment by Henry — November 9, 2008 @ 8:29 am
Other John:
"I've also talked to a few gun owners I know and they made it clear that they were stocking up because of racial fears they had, which is pretty pathetic if you ask me."
Agree, that's pretty bad. I had not heard this. The only thing "racial" I could see coming out of this election would have been if Obama lost and it was later proven that fraud or intimidation caused the loss. For me it would be pretty far-fetched to see some violent racial uprising out of Obama's election.
CSB:
"I can't wait to read about all the kids that shoot themselves and others with Daddy's new guns."
I find your posting pathetic and without any merit whatsoever. To actually want children to be injured or killed just so you can gleefully bask in your opinionated glory. You just placed yourself with murders and child rapists...the only other people I've heard of that want kids to be injured.
Joe:
"Other John, The fact that fearful republicans rushed out to buy guns does not surprise me in the least."
It isn't just Republicans buying guns now.
Comment by Ed S. — November 9, 2008 @ 9:17 am
CSB... Why are you so certain that these people will leave their guns in a place where their children will get hurt with them?
Why are you so certain that people don't teach their children to properly and safely handle and use a firearm?
It's typically people who fail to teach their children how to handle and use a firearm that end up being the victims of this type of tragedy.
Comment by Jack — November 9, 2008 @ 5:24 pm