Letter From Barack Obama

Well, it appears Barack Obama (yeah, right…I mean his secretary) finally decided to get back to me regarding the letter I wrote to him on gun control. This is what he said:

Dear XXXXXX:

Thank you for taking the time to write. I have heard from many Americans regarding firearms policy and gun violence in our Nation, and I appreciate your perspective. From Aurora to Newtown to the streets of Chicago, we have seen the devastating effects gun violence has on our American family. I join countless others in grieving for all those whose lives have been taken too soon by gun violence.

Like the majority of Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that has been handed down from generation to generation. Hunting and sport shooting are part of our national heritage. Yet, even as we acknowledge that almost all gun owners in America are responsible, when we look at the devastation caused by gun violence—whether in high-profile tragedies or the daily heartbreak that plagues our cities—we must ask ourselves whether we are doing enough.

While reducing gun violence is a complicated challenge, protecting our children from harm should not be a divisive one. Most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. Most also agree that if we took commonsense steps to curtail gun violence, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown. We will not be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing we can do to reduce gun violence—if even one life can be saved—then we have an obligation to try.

That is why I asked Vice President Joe Biden to identify concrete steps we can take to keep our children safe, help prevent mass shootings, and reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country. He met with over 200 groups representing a broad cross-section of Americans and heard their best ideas. I have put forward a specific set of proposals based off of his efforts, and in the days ahead, I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality.

My plan gives law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, and the public health community some of the tools they need to help reduce gun violence. These tools include strengthening the background check system, helping schools hire more resource officers and counselors and develop emergency preparedness plans, and ensuring mental health professionals know their options for reporting threats of violence. And I directed the Centers for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence—because it is critical that we understand the science behind this public health crisis.

As important as these steps are, they are not a substitute for action from Congress. To make a real and lasting difference, members of Congress must also act. As part of my comprehensive plan, I have called on them to pass some specific proposals right away. First, it is time to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. Second, Congress should renew the 10-round limit on magazines and reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban. We should get tougher on those who buy guns with the purpose of selling them to criminals, and we should impose serious punishments on anyone who helps them do this.

These are reasonable, commonsense measures that have the support of the majority of the American people. But change will not come unless the American people demand it from their lawmakers. Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities, and the country we love. We owe the victims of heartbreaking national tragedies and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best effort—to seek consensus in order to save lives and ensure a brighter future for our children.

Thank you, again, for writing. I encourage you to visit http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime to learn more about my Administration’s approach.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

OK, so if this doesn’t spell it out, what will? Let’s look at each part of his proposal piece by piece. First of all, nobody disagrees that gun violence is not an epidemic in this country – we have more gun violence than pretty much any civilized country. That is a problem, and yes, we must find a solution for it. But the solutions he proposes are more than ridiculous, as not a single one addresses the actual problem.

First, he mentions universal background checks, even for private transfers. Real swift, President Dumbass, and just how do you plan to enforce it? If I want to give my own son a gun as a gift, I have to perform a background check on him? How am I supposed to do that? Oh, that’s right, as an non-FFL I have a database in my ass. Are you kidding me? My point is, there is NO way to enforce this without a gun registration system – so that will conveniently have to be implemented as well! Now the government knows who has guns, so they’ll be able to take them away. They said it wouldn’t happen in England, Australia, etc. and look…yeah. Not to mention a ridiculously small percentage (like 1%) of crimes are committed with a gun bought from a “gun show” or similar places – most firearms used in crimes are stolen (the vast majority), and the others bought illegally on the street by somebody who is already currently ineligible to buy them with our existing laws. Speaking of our existing laws, in the last year 76,000 cases were reported to the Federal Government where somebody tried to buy a gun that legally couldn’t. How many were prosecuted by Obama? 44. Yes, 44 out of 76,000 cases were prosecuted…and we wonder why there is a problem! And this doesn’t even include operation Fast and Furious, where the Obama administration let known straw purchasers (people buying guns for criminals) proceed with the purchase, and then lost track of them when they crossed into Mexico. How many people died as a result of this effort to frame the US gun stores as a supplier of all the guns in Mexico? Yeah…

Secondly, Obama talks of a 10 round limit on gun magazines. Ha! Ha ha ha! That is absolutely hilarious, because with all the magazines out there already, do you think that 10 round magazines will honestly make any difference? If you look at history, the assault weapons ban did absolutely NOTHING – seriously, limiting magazines to 10 rounds did nothing at all. All it did was aggravate shooters and hunters. Bottom line, 1 bullet in the hands of a felon is too many, and 10 in the hands of a law abiding citizen is not enough. Do we honestly think criminals will abide by this 10 round limit? Just like they abide by the fact they shouldn’t have guns in the first place, right? Maybe if we enforced existing laws, we would get somewhere. Even the shooter in Colorado was only stopped BECAUSE he had a huge magazine and it jammed. If he had 10 10-round mags, a lot more people might be dead right now. But one thing is for sure – the same result would’ve happened.

Finally, he never once talks about enforcing existing laws. He never touches on why Atty General Holder is not in jail for his Operation Fast and Furious, nor why they only prosecuted 44 of the 76,000 attempted illegal sales last year. He also never talks about why Chicago and Washington, D.C. are the murder capitals despite having the strictest gun laws in the country. Chicago flat out banned pistols for 40 years, and yet it doesn’t seem to have made a difference…hmm. Maybe we could learn something from that! No, wait, let’s just try to legislate a solution – because that clearly works.

And that, sadly, is the truth about politics.

So proud to be an American today…

As many of you may know, today Byron, Maine votes on a measure that would require every household to own a gun, except those who cannot legally possess one and who don’t believe in firearm ownership. I think this is an amazing law, and more towns need to pass similar measures like this. If the measure passes today, they would join the towns of Kennesaw, GA, Spring City, UT, and Greenleaf, ID who all have similar laws on the books. Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21747561

The whole point of this is personal responsibility and support of the 2nd Amendment. They also cite crime as one of the influences, since criminals are far less likely to break into a house when they know the owner of that house is armed (duh!). So they not only expect crime to decrease, but hope to give the 2nd Amendment some much needed support along the way in face of all the gun-ban activists thanks to the Newton, CT massacre.

Speaking of that, there is another new hot topic in gun control – teachers with guns! See: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/03/south-dakota-teachers-guns-post-newtown/62905/

Basically, this law would allow teachers to carry guns in schools, effectively stopping mass murderers from killing kids. In the Aurora, CO shooting – the perpetrator could’ve chosen any one of several other theaters closer to his home, but instead chose the one he did specifically because it was a “gun free zone.” That meant nobody would be armed, and he’d get to kill the most people. When a mass murderer goes on a rampage, no laws are going to stop him or her – only a good guy with a gun will, and in fact, that’s how almost all of these mass shootings end – either suicide or shootout with the police or a good guy. So why don’t we learn, and start to arm our teachers? They are the first line of defense in protecting our children, unless we want to stand armed guards at every single school which gets really expensive, really quick. So why not try out the NRA’s solution and let teachers carry guns, since many states cannot afford to hire armed guards for the schools? As it is now, some psycho pulls a gun, many people get shot as everyone runs. With armed teachers, a psycho pulls a gun and the teacher pulls theirs, maybe 1-2 deaths max! Seriously, why have we not implemented this sooner?

Going forward, I can’t wait to see what happens as anti-gunners are shitting their pants and stomping and kicking like babies. But when their child’s life is on the line, bet you $1000 they’ll want their kids teacher to be armed. After all, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

And that’s the truth about politics.

Great Gun Article Excerpt

Readers, I highly, highly suggest you read this, exceprted from The Manila Times on December 27th, 2012, after the Newton, Connecticut massacre:

Guns for more guns

Meanwhile, in a survey Dec. 18 following the Dec. 14 Newtown, Connecticut shooting in which 20 school children, aged 6 to 7, were massacred by a single gunman, Gallup found that the most effective way to prevent mass shootings at schools is to have people with guns – namely, the police – at school premises.

Increasing police presence at schools was found effective by 53 percent of respondents. Increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment was mentioned as effective by 50 percent of respondents. Third most effective was decreasing the depiction of gun violence on TV, in movies, and in video games –47 percent.

Banning the sale of assault and semi-automatic guns was found effective by only 34 percent of respondents. It was the No. 4 answer.

THIS is exactly what I have been talking about! Gallup found that THE most effective way to prevent mass shootings at schools is the have people with guns – namely, the police – at school premises! This is EXACTLY what the NRA has been suggesting! Combine that with increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment, and we have a workable solution!

Meanwhile, banning the sale of assault and semi-automatic guns was found effective by only 34% of respondents. That’s 3/5 of the effectiveness of the other two solutions, yet that is what the gun banners want.

WHEN WILL OUR GOVERNMENT START THINKING WITH ITS HEAD, AND NOT RELY ON EMOTIONS?!

And that’s the truth about politics.

“That Government Is Best That Governs Least” – Thoreau

OK, so I have been recently doing a lot of debating regarding our form of government lately, and I’m come across some ideas that I feel I need to write/vent about. The main question I’ve been debating is, “what kind of government would be best?” In addition to that, “what is/are the government’s responsibilities?” “What should be its purpose?”

Before we can discuss that, though, we must make 3 assumptions that I personally know to be true: 1) there will always be crime/rape/murder etc. – you can never 100% stop it from occurring, it is part of human nature 2) there will always be rich people and poor people no matter what and 3) there will always be boom and bust market cycles, with the corresponding boom economies and depressions.

Now, given these 3 assumptions, what kind of government would be best? I would argue that the best government would be one that gives you the most individual and corporate freedoms, and I think any intelligent person would agree with me given the above assumptions. So my question is, why on Earth are we still trying so hard to fight against the above assumptions/truths? Don’t get me wrong, I still think there should be police and all – after all, crime can never be fully prevented (see assumption #1). I just think that laws that restrict our freedoms in an effort to prevent crime and uninformed and pointless. Why should citizens not be allowed to own any firearm they wish? The bad guys will always have them anyways!

So on to my next question – what is/are the government’s responsibilities? I would argue the government has two, and only two responsibilities: 1) provide for the national defense and 2) allow people to pursue happiness/be free. Beyond that, the government should not interfere. If I was the President of our nation right now, the first thing I would do would be to begin repealing laws. Repeal a bunch of regulation on commerce, and it would generate an instant business boom. Sure, it’d be followed by a depression eventually, but that happens in any normal economy and we must deal with it. I’d also repeal the Patriot Act and a bunch of other foolish laws infringing on our rights as an American citizen, and I’d make damn well sure our right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Lastly, I’d repeal all these entitlement programs, freeing up 50% of the American budget. Sure, lots of people would be pissed, but I think they’d be a lot LESS pissed when I lower their taxes big time. I’d keep Social Security and Medicare for those over 50, and cut it for everyone under 50 on the day the law is passed – that means it would phase out within 50 years or so. Medicaid and Welfare and Unemployment – all that crap – would be cut 100% immediately. Hospitals and doctors would love me! Sure, there would still be the obligation to help those with life threatening conditions, but they already have that now and they write off the expenses. Everything else would not be covered unless you have a job, COBRA, or your own medical insurance. I’d also make some law that anybody could apply for health insurance on their 18th birthday, but if you don’t elect it then, and later you need it, too bad.

Lastly, as to what our government’s purpose should be, its primary purpose (national defense aside) should always be to allow its people to pursue happiness. Notice I didn’t say “provide for the people” or “make its people happy.” Big difference there – allowing your people to pursue happiness means everyone has the right to try to be happy, but it does not mean that they’ll succeed. It doesn’t mean people should expect or rely on handouts from the government, or for the government to provide for them in their times of need. But back to my assumptions above, there will always be rich people and poor people. It’s inevitable. Every man and woman is NOT, contrary to our beliefs, equal. Yes, they should be equal in law and how they’re treated, but some people are smarter than others, some are harder working than others, and some are just evil. Some will succeed in life whereas others will fail – some will do good while others will do evil. The sooner we admit these truths to ourselves, the better off we’ll be! We need to STOP trying to redistribute the wealth and end poverty – it will ALWAYS exist. Always! And sometimes it’s better to let some people fail. Likewise, crime will always occur (although we should try to lower it as much as we can), and the economy will always have boom and bust cycles. If we as a people would just stop whining, and stop letting our fear override so that we pass ridiculous laws (i.e. Patriot Act) in times of uncertainty, I think we will get along a lot better. We’d definitely have a lot more freedom and the ability to be happy. Meanwhile, we could fight evil/poverty/crime on a more individual level, as we’d have more individual responsibility. I think we’d be much happier as a nation, if only we’d have the balls to be.

And that’s the truth about politics.

47% of Americans Pay No Income Tax

It’s completely true – 47% of Americans pay no income tax. See this link:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney/romney-says-47-percent-americans-pay-no-income-tax/

Yet we constantly wonder why we have such a large federal deficit? And yet still people are yelling for the rich to “pay their fair share?” ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! How can anyone possibly ask for the rich to pay for their fair share, when you are paying NOTHING, and more than likely, receiving governmental help?! How can we possibly fund all our entitlement programs on the backs of 53% of the work force?!

To me, this is the biggest reason why we are in so much trouble as a country today, and why we need to take action – now! As long as people who pay ZERO in federal taxes can vote, this is going to happen. I mean why would 47% (almost a majority) of people vote to pay taxes? Why would this block of voters ever vote for anything that would cause THEM to contribute? Hell, why not vote to raise the taxes on other people, i.e. the wealthy, so that they can keep enjoying their free ride?!

With this mentality, soon only the top 1% of Americans will have to pay taxes – and who are those people? Why, the business owners of the country and the hardest workers and innovators, no doubt. I mean the rich that just sit at home all day that people always think of certainly aren’t making any new money, so those people aren’t paying taxes! Instead, only the rich who are making money pay taxes, meaning the ones who are still working hard to keep their company going! And since Americans are greedy as hell and dumber than a rock, most Americans see nothing wrong with taxing the crap out of the highest earners in order to fund their own unearned extravagance. Does anyone besides me see something wrong with this picture?! Why are 47% of Americans paying no taxes?! How does anyone think we can possibly continue this spending and these unfunded entitlements without bankrupting our country?!

Bottom line, free healthcare and medical care are great, but not at the expense of the hardest workers. It’s simply not fair for 47% of Americans to ask the remaining 53% to foot the bill for everything. And this only counts the people that file taxes, meaning most of the lazy people on welfare aren’t even included. If you figure them in, it’s like 51% of the adult population, which is strangely close to the percentage that voted for Obama again…

I wonder if those 47% still think it’s fair that 53% of Americans pay for not only them but also those that don’t file taxes. I wonder if they think it’s fair that their vote should count as much as someone who is actually paying taxes, or if it’s fair for them to get a vote at all. And I definitely want to know how they can ask the rich to “pay their fair share” (the rich already pay over a third of their income) when they are paying NOTHING. Anyone who doesn’t pay taxes needs to shut up about what’s fair – how would they know anyways?

And that’s the truth about politics.

Repeal the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution!

So lately I’ve been thinking a lot about taxes as April 15th draws ever nearer. And then it dawned on me: almost all of our issues as a country can be traced to spending and entitlements! So then I started thinking: where is the money and funding coming from that supports ridiculous programs like Welfare and Medicaid? And what about the underfunded and unsustainable Social Security and Medicare programs, that were once good ideas but are now huge, unsustainable burdens? And what about all the ridiculous power our federal government has taken for itself in the past 100 years? What about Obama’s ridiculous, out-of-control, unsustainable entitlement programs and growing of the US National Debt?

Well, there is no easier way to stop these out of control politicians than to repeal the 16th Amendment – the one amendment that gives the federal government the right to lay and collect income taxes without apportionment. Now, I’m sure right now some of you are incredulous that this would work, and view it as an extreme solution. Extreme, perhaps, but easy – 38 states just have to call a Constitutional Convention and then 38 states must vote to ratify this “28th Amendment” to repeal the 16th. And the US government still has the power to tax states based upon capitation (population) and lay and collect taxes on property, etc. – it’s in the Constitution already (Article I, Section 8). This would just remove the power to collect taxes based upon income, without regard to population. Overnight, the amount of money our government has would drop by easily 90% or more in my estimate. The federal government would HAVE to cut – there is no way they could possibly fund all the entitlement programs we have on borrowing alone – hell, we can’t fund them WITH income taxes right now! And if they tried to just borrow money to continue them, the country would be bankrupt within a year or two, and these programs would again be unfunded and fold. Even if the government then laid income taxes with respect to population, it would only be applicable to several sources of income and would have to be apportioned – so briefly, it would be much less effective at raising funds 🙂

So if the 16th amendment were repealed, think of what this would do to the economy! If all of a sudden people didn’t have to pay federal income taxes, our take home pay would skyrocket! Corporations profits would be off the charts, and those who won’t support themselves would be in for hard times, as they should be!!! Private charities would support the truly worthy poor people, and the rest would struggle as they should! States would be responsible for their own poor, and could enact laws as they see fit! That way, honest, hardworking Americans who don’t want a welfare state could live in a state without it, and those that want it, could raise their own state income taxes to support a state-wide welfare.

I’m extremely surprised this idea hasn’t gotten more media attention, as I’m sure I’m not the first one who has thought of this. Repeal the 16th amendment, and take away the federal government’s power. Restore it to the states and the people, where it SHOULD BE. Stop ridiculous spending, and relegate the federal government to its only original purposes: national defense, and inter-state mediation. The federal government has no business in the average citizen’s life.

And that’s the truth about politics.

Newly Proposed Senate Gun Laws = Useless

OK, so the other day I read this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324761004578282203882922738.html

This, of course, infuriated me. Rather than use common sense and say, ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS, especially where and when it concerns the mentally ill, US senators are instead proposing new laws to limit gun magazine capacity. Seriously? Are you kidding me? What on Earth is reduced magazine capacity going to POSSIBLY do, when any idiot can change out magazines in 2 seconds or less? If people think that the tragedies in Colorado or Connecticut could’ve been prevented as a result of these laws, they are sorely mistaken. In fact, the only reason the Aurora, Colorado killer was stopped was because he was using one of these high-capacity magazines that has a high probability of jamming. If he had used regular, 10 round magazines (legal under the newly proposed laws) and just switched them every 10 rounds, I think he would’ve killed a lot more people!

More important, however, is the effect on civilians. With the new NY law limiting magazines to 7 rounds, is a single mother who is protecting her toddler safe from a group of 4 gangbangers who barge into her home looking for money? Is 7 bullets enough for 4 grown men? Is 10 bullets? The point is, if you have a large magazine on your gun and are using it for self defense, no amount of bullets is enough. You are likely very scared, full of adrenaline, and not aiming properly – if you fire all of your bullets and miss, you are worse off than if you acquiesced to the killer’s demands immediately, because now he or she is likely angry.

This law also fails to take into account the infirm, elderly, and disabled. Is your 90-year-old grandma going to be able to reload her .22 semiautomatic pistol fast enough when confronted by a rapist, and she misses the initial few shots? Is some handicapped person with one arm going to be able to reload at all when he’s attacked at night for his prescription meds and he misses his initial few shots? These are the people that most need the large capacity magazines, because they are not accurate shooters to begin with and reloading for them may take a long, long time.

Lastly, and most important, is the fact that these new laws will have ZERO effect on those that it targets – the mentally ill, serial killers, and gangbangers etc. Do people honestly think they will give up these high capacity magazines? Ha! Instead, law-abiding citizens will be at a huge disadvantage when facing these evil people. No 12 round magazine for me or you, instead we will have to tell the bad guys to stop and wait while we reload and they continue to fire!

Can we please stop electing morons to the Senate? And that’s what the media didn’t tell you today…of course, it’s the honest truth about politics.

Senator Dick “Dumbass” Durbin:

So, I wrote to a few senators recently regarding gun control, and Senator Dick “Dumbass” Durbin (D-IL) wrote me back:

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me about gun violence prevention in light of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you.

I share with all Americans a profound sense of sorrow at the senseless act of violence committed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The nation mourns this event and many Americans wonder what can be done to prevent this type of tragedy in the future.

I am an original cosponsor of the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act which would reinstate a ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The ban on multi-round magazines expired along with the federal assault weapons ban in 2004. I am a cosponsor of a bill that would reinstate the ban on assault weapons and would expand the definition of assault weapons to close loopholes that allow gun manufacturers to work around the previous ban.

I support universal gun background checks, which prevent the transfer of firearms without a background check by non-licensed gun sellers. I am a cosponsor of “terror gap” legislation that would give the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny gun sales to individuals who are known or appropriately suspected to be engaged in terrorism.

The majority of Americans and the majority of thoughtful gun owners and hunters agree that there must be reasonable limits on gun ownership and weapons. We must institute common-sense limits, such as barring those with a history of mental instability, those with a history of violent crime or who are subject to restraining orders, and those whose names have been placed on a terrorist watch list from owning weapons. Straw purchasers and gun dealers should face firm penalties. There should be limits on how many firearms may be purchased in one month. Those who own firearms that are within the reach of children should have protective locks on their weapons.

The United States Supreme Court has raised questions about the Second Amendment and the protections and responsibilities under this Constitutional amendment. I plan to hold a Senate Judiciary Hearing in the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights Subcommittee to address this Constitutional question and how to forward on gun control.

My heart and prayers go out to the victims and their families in Newtown, Connecticut, as we remember the children and teachers who lost their lives.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

RJD/jv

OK, let’s attack this random drivel piece by piece, despite the fact he completely ignored my letter and didn’t respond to a single point I made.

1) Starting with the 3rd paragraph, Dumbass Durbin is correct in saying that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004) banned “high-capacity” magazines – any magazine with more than 10 rounds was considered “high-capacity.”  But since it has expired, yes, “high-capacity” magazines are once again legal.  But here’s the thing that people don’t tell you – while “high-capacity” magazines look cool and sound cool, they malfunction/jam constantly.  In fact, the Aurora theater killer in Colorado was stopped because of just such a jam in his 100-round magazine!  If he had used regular, 10-round magazines that would be legal under this law, he could’ve killed a ton more people since he wouldn’t have had any malfunctions or gun jams.  A good magazine reloader can switch magazines and reload in less than 1 second.  So what difference does it make if high capacity magazines are banned or not?  The only people this will affect are the elderly and the disabled, who can’t reload as fast (or perhaps at all) and will be at a huge disadvantage.  Everyone else is just inconvenienced.  Not to mention that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did absolutely NOTHING to reduce crime.  As in, it had absolutely zero effect on reducing crime other than pissing gun owners off.  See point #2 below, or Google the statistics yourself.

2) Re-instating the assault weapons ban will do nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  (See: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/28/opinion/oe-lott28)  In fact, if that article is correct, gun violence will go UP with a renewed ban.  Why?  An armed population is a strong population – if you’re a criminal, are you going to go after someone with a gun or someone who is defenseless?  Armed civilians stop crime EVERY DAY.  Read “Armed Citizen” at America’s 1st Freedom online.  This is perhaps why the cities/states with the most restrictive gun laws (Chicago, Washington, D.C., etc.) have the most gun crime per capita!  And the cities/states with the most liberal gun laws (Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont etc.) have the least gun crime per capita.  Mind you, this is PER CAPITA – not total crime – so population differences are irrelevant.

3) Closing loopholes that work around the previous ban…are you kidding me?  Manufacturers (which are almost all in America, employing Americans, mind you) are simply providing what the population wants.  If you ban X, people will make something as similar to X as possible while still being legal, it’s basic economics.  And since the ban had ZERO positive effect, closing this “loophole” is ridiculous and unnecessary.  “That government is best, that governs least.” – Thoreau

4) On to the 4th paragraph – now this paragraph is pretty standard – except there are already universal background checks when you buy from a store.  What Dumbass Durbin is talking about is private firearms sales, i.e. I want to sell a gun to my father/son/friend etc.  Are you actually expecting people to conduct a background check before such transfer?!  I mean people aren’t stupid, they know if their father/son/friend is a criminal or not and if they are allowed to possess guns or not.  Mandating transfers will do nothing, because you know why?  Nobody will do them that should be doing them!  And in the meantime, millions of gun owners will be inconvenienced!  People don’t realize that less than 1% of all gun crimes are committed with guns bought through this “loophole.”  So this likely won’t have any positive effect.  And as for denying constitutional rights to “suspected” terrorists – are you kidding me?!  This is taking someone’s constitutional right to bear arms away simply because they are a SUSPECTED terrorist – what happened to innocent until proven guilty?!

5) The 5th paragraph I am in complete agreement with, EXCEPT the limits on gun purchases – why should our constitutional right to bear arms be limited?  But first of all, according to our current gun laws, the mentally ill, felons and ex-felons, and terrorists should not have guns.  No sensible person disagrees with that.  Also, we should also not allow straw purchases – everyone also agrees on this!  So the question then is why has the Obama administration pulled funding from the BATFE for enforcing these laws and why has Attorney General Holder not prosecuted more violators of these laws?  Oh wait…that’s because he wants to let guns “walk over the border” to Mexico (Google Operation “Fast and Furious”) so that when they show up in cartels’ hands, he can use the media attention to pass more draconian gun bans!  Interestingly, Holder was found in contempt by Congress, but Obama used “Executive Privilege” just like Nixon to prevent turning over information.  But back to gun purchasing restrictions – if I can legally own a firearm, why should the amount I can buy be limited?  If the government thinks I’m responsible enough to own one gun, I should be able to own a thousand.  You’re either responsible or you’re not, right?  And when in the course of history has preventing an individual from buying multiple guns (that wasn’t a straw purchaser, which is already illegal) stop ANY crime, ever?  Where are the statistics and studies showing this would make even the SLIGHTEST difference (except for straw purchases, which are already illegal).  The fact is this would do nothing other than inconvenience gun owners.

6) Lastly, yes, the Supreme Court did rule in Heller and McDonald that Americans have a 2nd Amendment right that can not be taken away – but Dumbass Durbin wants to hold a meeting to figure out how to “get around” the ruling!  Isn’t that exactly what he was complaining about – loopholes?  Yet he know wants to figure out how to best reinstate this assault weapons ban despite the Supreme Court’s rulings!

Anyways, that’s more of what the mainstream media didn’t tell you, and that’s the truth about politics.

America’s “Gun Problem”

So I was looking at CNN today, when I came across this:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/us/handguns-and-federal-legislation/index.html

Now is it just me, or is this article absolutely ridiculous?  I mean the author does make one valid point – theses newly proposed “assault weapons ban” laws definitely do not address America’s gun problem!  But more accurately, people need to define what that problem is.  Democrats and liberals seem to think that the problem is simply that guns exist, and that too many Americans possess them.  If that’s the case, well an assault weapons ban would definitely help solve that problem!  But if the problem is that too many criminals / gang members / murderers have guns, this law wouldn’t do a Goddamn thing, just like all of the other proposed gun laws!  Are anti-gun politicians really so stupid as to think ANY law they pass will affect criminals in the least?!  With 300 million mostly unregistered guns already out there in the United States, even if you completely banned all guns today, criminals would have them for several hundred years to come, easily.  Almost all criminals (something like 80-90%) get their guns illegally as it is now – just look at Britain and other “gun-ban” countries.

So that brings me to my next point – if criminals are always going to have guns regardless of the laws, what are we to do?  For starters, how about we start enforcing our existing laws, rather than cut all the funding for them?  Many people don’t know this, but Obama cut funding for many of the gun safety as well as gun enforcement laws upon becoming President.  Now why would he do that?  Well, when existing gun laws go unenforced, gun crime goes up, and then Obama and his supporters have more backing to pass his anti-gun laws.  Never heard THAT in the mainstream media, huh?  Or what about operation “Fast and Furious” – where Attorney General Holder allowed guns to “walk over the border” into Mexico, in violation of both US and Mexican law, just so that when they were used in a crime or murder in Mexico, they could be traced back to the US and used as evidence for passing stricter gun laws here?  Sadly, most people haven’t heard of that, either.  But more important than enforcing laws, is enforcing the mental health requirement of owning a firearm.  States and local governments have cut to the bone funding for mentally ill people, so they are left with nowhere to turn, and with nobody to help them.  Our jails and prisons aren’ t built for them, but that’s where they wind up.  If we put the money we are wasting on gun control into helping the mentally ill, I guarantee you our murder rate would go down faster than you can imagine.

But OK, so if criminals are always going to have guns, other than enforcing existing laws, what else can we do?  How about we arm the law abiding citizens!  Wow, there’s a shocking idea – unfortunately, all the mass-murders and school killings are getting all the attention these days – but most people never hear of the instances where only 1 or 2 people were killed because as soon as the killer started their rampage, they were stopped by an armed citizen.  This happens far more frequently than people realize…and if those average, law abiding citizens hadn’t had a gun, there would be far more mass killings and mass shootings taking place.  People seem to think that if we were to repeal the 2nd Amendment, that magically all gun and gun violence would disappear completely!  Ha!  The fact is, first of all, there will always be evil human beings, who only seek to harm other people.  Secondly, criminals will always have access to arms – no matter what!  Just look at all the stabbings and murders in prisons, for instance, where they are searched daily.  Anyway, the whole point of my argument is that law abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves and feel secure in their person and in their home.  Just think, if you KNEW a criminal was going to break into your house/apartment/condo tomorrow, would you want a gun, or would you rather sit their unarmed, and wait the 5 minutes for the police to arrive?  Just think about that for a minute…unfortunately irrationality usually wins out and some people “feel” safer knowing guns are illegal, despite criminals still possessing the same type/amount of guns either way…

Also of note, that article shows a graph of gun violence by weapon type.  You’ll notice in the majority of cases, a handgun is used.  Yet the new laws we are considering passing don’t address handguns at all!  Also, nowhere near that pie chart is it stated that 83% of all gun homicides are actually suicides!  Yes, that is correct – 83% of all gun homicides are suicides.  Makes those statistics a little shaky, no?

The article also goes on to talk about how difficult it is to track weapons because of no central registration database.  This is absolutely ridiculous – the idea that we need to track who owns guns is absolutely insane!  The first step to banning anything is ALWAYS to force people to register that item first.  Look back to Nazi Germany – first all the Jews had to register as Jews, then wear certain clothes/armbands, and finally they were rounded up and shipped off.  Same thing with guns – once they are registered, now the government will know where they are, and that is not good for us, because then the government can take them away.  Besides, registering firearms has ZERO benefit – California requires registration, and is it working for them?  Does LA have less gun violence?  Of course not!

Speaking of, isn’t it odd that all the cities/states with the strictest gun laws have the MOST gun deaths?  Look at Chicago, or Washington D.C. – the only two places with handgun bans for 30 years+, yet they remain the two cities with the highest handgun violence.  Why?  Because if the law abiding citizen can’t defend himself, then you become a really easy target for criminals.  Meanwhile, other states with far looser gun laws and comparable big cities have far less gun violence.  It’s all over the place.  And nationwide, in the last 40 years, firearm ownership has gone way, way up – while firearms violence per capita has gone way, way down.  Google it, and you’ll see the statistics yourself.

So, to summarize – any gun bans won’t work, because the criminals will always have guns.  An assault weapons ban won’t work either, as assault weapons are not the problem (and even if they were, banning them would just allow criminals to have them while taking them away from law abiding citizens).  On top of that, 83% of gun “homicides” are actually suicides, and firearms registration doesn’t work at all and will only serve to help the government take away guns down the road.  So what is the solution?  I would say the solution is twofold: 1) arming the population, and 2) enforcing existing gun laws / providing better mental health care.  If more people took gun safety courses and were trained in firearms, and more people carried them concealed, there would be far less massacres taking place, since the minute some psycho pulled his gun he’d be shot dead.  And with proper mental health care and enforcement of existing laws, that psycho would’ve either been committed, or treated and turned into a productive member of society.

But no – instead let’s pass some asinine gun laws to limit what law abiding citizens can own.  That way we can take away their rights more easily in the future, and as for now – well these laws will sure help out the criminals, because there’s no easier target than an unarmed citizen.

And that’s the truth about gun politics.

In Debt, and Digging Deeper

OK, so the other day I read this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/science/in-debt-and-digging-deeper-to-find-relief.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Upon reading it, I was really upset that the comments were closed, as this article infuriated me and I wanted to vent.  I was so angry after reading this, I could barely think.  Why?

Well let’s see.  First, Ms. Tuggle bought a house in her mid-twenties, with 0% down AND help from a public mortgage assistance program.  First of all, nobody has any business buying a house with 0% down, especially if you need help from a public mortgage assistance program just to buy it!  I mean at the time, she was single, and had little to no savings – what 26-year-old does?  So, she buys the house, and then after some trying times, she loses her full time job.  Amazingly, she is offered a part-time position, but Ms. Tuggle declines because she’s holding out for a better position.  Instead, she then uses her empty bank account to obtain a payday loan at an insane interest rate.  After living off of her $500 credit card and other public assistance a while, she enrolls in some bogus college only for the loans/grant money.  As if that wasn’t bad enough, she then gets pregnant – outside of marriage, mind you – and is simply astonished when the father gets up and leaves.  Of course she drops out of college since she already obtained the loans and is now a soon-to-be single mother, making her unemployed and living off of public assistance with a baby on the way and no father present.

Now, even the absolute dumbest of those of us out there can see where this is going, but oh no, not Ms. Tuggle!  She was astonished when an eviction notice was posted on her door giving her one week to vacate, despite being $20,000 behind in her mortgage payments!  And then – this is even better – she declare bankrupty to get back on her feet.  This is where I absolutely lost it – this newspaper is actually trying to portray this complete MORON as a victim here!!!  Are you kidding me?!  Who in their right mind would feel sorry for this worthless human being?  And if that wasn’t enough, the author closes with this quote from Ms. Tuggle:

“Until I hit it big as a singer, I’m still stretching, even now,” she said.

So let me get this straight – you are broke, on virtually every manner of public assistance available, refusing legitimate work, declaring bankruptcy, and your only hope to get back on track is to “hit it big as a singer” at age 33?!  AHHHHHHHHHH!  (at this point I get so angry I can barely think)

Anyways, THIS is the perfect example of why our public assistance programs need to be terminated immediately.  To hell with them all – it doesn’t matter that there are people that truly need it, because the people gaming the systems like Ms. Tuggle FAR outnumber those who actually need it in my opinion.  If there are good people that need assistance, churches and charities will take them in – family will also help.  The ones that game the system like Ms. Tuggle – well she can starve to death for all I care, and have her baby put up for adoption.  People like this make me sick!

The truth about politics here is that all public assistance needs to go.  Welfare, Medicaid, etc.  With our national debt skyrocketing, we cannot afford to provide public assistance anymore – and even if we could, we shouldn’t!  People have been relying on the government to do everything for them for far too long, and as a result, far fewer people are willing to work for their money.  Only 53% of Americans are paying taxes anymore – 53%!  That 53% is propping up the other 47%!  Is that fair?  Hell no it’s not, so let’s take out the safety net – survival of the fittest!   Who cares if Ms. Tuggle is starving to death?  She made her own decisions, let her live with the consequences!  I think Americans would be FAR better off with no safety net (which is only being abused these days anyways) – perhaps she wouldn’t have bought that house, or had that baby, etc.  In any case, I wouldn’t be paying taxes up the ass for people like her to refuse employment.  Seriously, if we cut all welfare and Medicaid, we’d save trillions.  We’d probably balance the national debt!  And take out Social Security and Medicare, too, and we’d be doing great!  I mean I don’t get it – we know as a nation we can’t continue to support these programs, which make up almost 50% of our yearly spending as a nation – yet we keep them going!  Nobody is willing to buckle down and cut the fat, cause people are too busy living large at the expense of the nation’s hard workers.

My taxes rose 2% this year thanks to Congress.  That’s a LOT of money, $1,000 if you make $50,000 a year – gone.  And when it’s going to people like Ms. Tuggle who doesn’t deserve a Goddamn thing, well…it makes me furious, and it should make you furious, too.  And that’s the truth about politics.