So President Obama was on Jay Leno last night. I didn’t watch, mostly because I rarely watch late night talk shows… heck, I rarely watch late night anything (I tend to go to bed early and get up early). I will say that it’s interesting he went on the show… gotta keep up his hip rock-star image I guess.
Reading that CNN article, President Obama was quoted as saying:
Obama said earlier this week that he’ll “take responsibility” for AIG executives receiving those controversial bonuses — roughly $165 million — while the company took $173 billion in government bailouts. Congress is looking for ways to recoup all or some of that money.
“The larger problem is we’ve got to get back to an attitude where people know enough is enough, and people have a sense of responsibility and they understand that their actions are going to have an impact on everybody,” he said. “If we can get back to those values that built America, then I think we’re going to be OK.”
First, if he’s willing to accept responsibility, I hope he’s willing to accept what comes with responsibility. Time will tell. Based upon his past actions I’m certainly skeptical, but I’ll give him a chance and would love to proven wrong.
Second, I do think he’s right about the latter part: that we need to get back to a point where people have a sense of responsibility and understand their choices can have greater impacts. Yes, I do agree if we get back to these values we will be OK. But again, I’m skeptical of Mr. Obama. Behaviors and policies enacted so far rob people of the ability to be responsible. You can argue if bailouts rewarded bad behavior, but certainly they did not punish the bad behavior. When you feed at the government teet, when consequences of misbehavior don’t directly affect you, when you aren’t directly invested in the results of performance, then you have far less motivation to be responsible.
And let’s not forget the growing Nanny State…. that does nothing for taking us back to responsibility.
So President Obama, as always you speak a good game. But talk is cheap, and you’re in a great position to lead by example. Let’s see if you can live those words you spoke last night.
Whenever people talk about “gun control” (in a manner other than “use both hands”), far too often what you hear from them is emotional arguments (see here and here and here). If you hear any data or facts, it’s usually vague and incorrect, or just a flat out lie (tho usually well-intended, but that’s what paves the road to Hell). While I can’t fault people for going with their emotions, legislating and regulating a citizenry because of how you feel usually doesn’t make for sound policy. Facts, hard data, and research make for a more solid foundation upon which to build. So if you want such things regarding guns, Gary Kleck is the man to turn to. For those that will offhand dismiss him as being an NRA shill, he’s not. Read the article.
It’s an interesting thought no doubt. Every year at “back to school” time there’s a tax free weekend here in Texas allowing families to purchase clothing and other necessities for kids going back to school and all tax free. What isn’t taxed is very limited (e.g. basic clothing, school-type backpacks; no accessories, no sporting goods, etc.), but many stores know how big a shopping weekend it is so they’ll have their own promotions that basically eliminate the tax… technically yes you’re still paying tax, but they’ll adjust the price so in the end it totals up to the regular price sans sales tax, or other sales promotional gimmick. Either way, the weekend is always big business.
So to provide such a weekend for hunters to obtain the things they need, there’s merit to the idea.
I did find this a choice quote in the article:
“It is not because we don’t believe in people’s right to bear arms,” [Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston] said. “It’s because we don’t think we ought to subsidize an industry, which is what this bill would, subsidize the gun industry.”
Note, Rep. Coleman has an “F” rating from the NRA. So please excuse me if I doubt the sincerity of the first part of his statement. And I guess then it’s OK to subsidize the clothing industry? Oh I forgot… that’s thinking of the children, right?
While I can understand the open carry folks being upset about this, I think it’s reasonable. There’s a lot of other related legislation working its way through, and there is a high risk of confusion and misunderstanding which could lead to more things failing than succeeding. Long term, we want success, and if it takes a little more time to get there, I think patience is a good thing. Let’s take the wins we can get, one step at a time. Meantime, if you want to see open carry in Texas, continue to work positively, lobby, write your State Representative and Senator, and build momentum and understanding throughout the community and State. Don’t be a sore loser, that will only hurt your cause.
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it.
The Wall Street Journal has an article on new calls for the “assault-gun ban.” And they seem to get a few things right, but much of it is the same old misconceptions. But you know, I can understand this. Recall, I used to be in the camp of the ignorant so I can understand where all this comes from.
…assault weapons, or guns that can fire rounds more quickly than standard weapons
Oh, so that is what an assault weapon is. So pray tell me, what exactly is a standard weapon? I’d go out on a limb and guess they’d say revolvers would be such a thing, but then you get guys like Jerry Miculik:
So I guess revolvers would be “assault weapons” too. Maybe a standard weapon is your arm throwing a rock?
In November [2008], a record 1,529,635 background checks were performed on firearms sales, up 42% from the same period a year earlier, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A 24% year-over-year increase followed in December [2008], with similar increases so far this year [2009].
Background checks are considered a measure of sales because they are required during any sale of a new weapon from a federally licensed retailer, or if a weapon is sold or reclaimed from a pawn shop.
I admit I don’t know how it works in other states (tho I reason it’s the same since the 4473 is a Federal form), but I know here in Texas if you have a concealed handgun license you can just show your license and they skip the background check. Why? Because if you have a valid concealed handgun license you’ve been background checked far more extensively and thoroughly than the “insta-check” does, and that you still have the license means you’re still in good standing. So I would reason while the above numbers are certainly a good indicator, I wouldn’t use them as absolutes because with the millions of concealed handgun license holders in this country, I’m sure a few of them bought at least one firearm in the past few months so the real numbers are likely higher.
“Democrats have finally gotten it,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “The message they’ve gotten is if they become gun-control advocates, they are going to suffer at the polls.”
Uh huh. Note that while people love to paint gun-owners as knuckle-dragging Republicans, there are a lot of Democrats that own guns too. Whether their knuckles drag or not remains in question.
When AG Eric Holder stuck his foot in his mouth earlier about bringing back the “assault weapons” ban other top Democrats, like Pelosi and Reid were quick to distance themselves from him. They know they’ll be looking for a new job if they breech the matter. The whole matter of giving Washington D.C. a vote and how that bill has gun rights squarely as an issue within it… the Democrats know how they proceed on this matter will greatly affect their future re-election efforts because how they proceed in it will tell exactly how they feel on the matter. It’s wonderful to watch them squirm. I mean, they love to scream about “rights” and now when something comes along that improves rights that they don’t necessarily care for… oh, how amusing it is.
The weapons used in the Alabama shootings “are military-bred firearms developed for the specific purpose of killing human beings quickly and efficiently,” wrote a coalition of groups, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in a joint release on Wednesday. “Today we call on the U.S. Congress to pass a federal assault weapons ban.”
Of course… the Brady’s. They seem to love to dance on the still-warm graves when they can use it to further their agenda.
But still, tell me… how will banning any sort of gun serve to stop people from going crazy? Look at the UK. Guns are more or less banned; people still go crazy and commit horrible acts. Banning objects does not stop people from going crazy and doing stupid and/or terrible things.
And let’s also ignore something else. Consider the millions of “assault weapons” owned in this country by private citizens. Have we gone crazy? Have we all instantly turned into blood-thirsty maniacs hell-bent on destruction? How many people today didn’t go on a killing spree? We tend to focus on the one that did bad and ignore the millions that do good. Consider this yourself when you’re driving around town. There are hundreds or thousands of other cars on the road all around you. You pay them no mind because they are going about their own business and never tread on you. But then there’s that one asshole that cuts you off and nearly runs you off the road, and that’s the asshole that you focus on and ruins your whole day. Thus because that asshole was driving one of those evil SUV’s (probably painted black at that), we must call for a ban on all SUV’s because of that one asshole that ruins it for the rest of us, right? Is that a logical train of thought?
Under current federal law, anyone over 18 years old can buy a semiautomatic assault rifle from a licensed gun dealer as long as the buyer passes a background check verifying that he or she isn’t a convicted felon or mentally ill, among other things. Unlicensed dealers, such as those at gun shows, may sell semiautomatic assault rifles to anyone of any age without conducting a background check.
So are you saying there’s a problem with current federal law? If you don’t like where the line is drawn, pray tell me where do you want the line to be drawn? Well, we already know that answer… you don’t want a line at all because if there are no guns there’s no line to draw in the first place, right? So if we have no guns, then that means no guns period. Not even for the police, not even for the military. No wait you say? Those people should have guns! Ah, so you see some merit in people having guns. So what sets those particular people apart from the rest of us citizens? A uniform? That the State grants them authoritiy? Ah, a dangerous road we’re heading down.
And those unlicensed dealers? They’re private citizens performing private transactions. If they don’t do it at gun shows, they’ll do it in their homes or at other locations. It doesn’t matter. So you say, ban this too… any/all private sales. So, a father can’t sell or transfer a gun to his son now? But note… no matter what laws you wish to institute, it’s only going to stop the Good Guys, the law-abiding. Once again we must remember that a criminal — by definition — doesn’t obey they law. They will still sell, or more likely steal, whatever guns they want. The laws we have don’t stop criminals from doing bad things, so more laws won’t stop them. You say it’ll make it harder for them to get at things, but anyone with enough determination in this world can get and/or do whatever they want to. You only truly make it harder on the Good Guys. Why would you want to do that?
Hrm… this went on longer than I expected. But it’s the same old things. Folks, it is terrible when someone does a horrible thing like a mass killing. If they chose to use a car and rammed it through a crowded farmers market killing many people, we wouldn’t be calling for a ban on cars. When someone used airplanes and flew them into buildings killing thousands, we didn’t call for a ban on airplanes. But when someone uses a gun, we call for a ban on guns. Why? In any of these cases the object the crazy person used didn’t cause the destruction, it was the crazy person.
Perpetuating lies and misconceptions about firearms does little good. Like any lie, eventually it will be exposed and the credibility of the liar will be damaged, and then your cause will be hurt even more. If you don’t like guns that’s fine, but learn the truth about them. Truth will only serve you better in the long run.
Yeah, I remember those days too, much the same way she does.
You see, that wonderful little “first amendment” mention of “free speech” is there precisely to protect unpopular speech. We don’t need to protect the speech everyone is ok with, we need to protect the speech that some folks might have trouble with.
As I’ve said before, “Freedom is something we must give to others if we wish it for ourselves.” So if you want “free speech”, you have to let others have free speech, even if it’s speech you don’t want to hear.
Let’s examine the word they’re using to define the issue: “credit.” The word “credit” is one side of the coin. The flip side is the word “debt.” You can’t have one side of the coin without the other.
“All credit is debt,” wrote Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson. “Proposals for an increased volume of credit, therefore, are merely another name for proposals for an increased burden of debt. When they say the way to economic salvation is to increase credit, it is just as if they said the way to economic salvation is to increase debt: these are different names for the same thing seen from opposite sides.”
So why are the analysts and commentators only talking about “credit”?
Why aren’t beating the drum for “debt”?
They could claim: “To make corporations solvent, we must put them deeper in debt.”
Or: “Borrowing and debt are the lifeblood of American business.”
Or: “We have a debt crisis: the only remedy is to let business get further and further into debt.”
Or: “Unless major corporations can dramatically increase their financial liabilities, they can’t start turning a profit.”
Or: “Wall Street’s biggest problem is a lack of access to greater borrowing, more liabilities, and increased financial burdens.”
Or: “Major corporations are failing because they do not owe enough money, because they cannot run up a bigger debt.”
Or: “Businesses are failing because of a shortage of debt.”
Turn over the word coin. Take their sentences, their words, and replace the word “credit” with the word “debt.” Ask them whether they still believe it. Ask their listeners and readers whether they still want it.
Thank you for contacting me about federal firearms laws. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.
It is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen’s constitutional right to own and use firearms designed for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-protection. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.
As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens’ Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must respect the rights of law-abiding citizens and focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. I believe that strictly enforcing the law and meting out longer sentences for career criminals and those who use firearms when committing crimes will reduce crime more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856 http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
Greil then called Public Safety at 11:24 p.m. and spoke with them for 13 minutes, according to her phone records.
Within one minute of Greil’s call, Public Safety had contacted Borough Police, Cliatt said. Minutes later, Public Safety and Borough Police officers were canvassing the area. The officers had already begun their patrol at 11:29 p.m. when Public Safety received a second call with a similar report.
So basically, call goes in and it takes about 5 minutes before formalized law enforcement shows up on scene to start working. If we look at the Virginia Tech data, every minute Cho killed at least 3 people and shot a total of 4. So in 5 minutes of response time, a little math shows us that 20 people would be shot, at least 15 killed. Now, it took 80 minutes before the campus alert system notified the students. Go ahead, do some math.
The article continues:
At 12:40 a.m., when the threat was found to be credible, the University sent out the first warning messages via the Princeton Telephone and E-mail Notification System (PTENS). Students told the ‘Prince’ that they received the message between 12:45 and 12:48 a.m.
So it took 76 minutes for them to determine the threat was credible. Then it took an additional 5-8 minutes before students received word. Go ahead, do the math.
The article continues:
Executive Vice President Mark Burstein said he was “extremely satisfied” with the emergency response. “Both our Public Safety department and the Borough Police reacted quickly. The speed with which they responded was very reassuring,” Burstein said in an interview at around 2:30 a.m. Saturday. “Our notification systems worked well.”
Well, I guess the system functioned correctly, but even then 5-8 minutes is a very long time. Again, do the math.
The article continues:
Cliatt also praised the University’s response, adding that she did not believe the 80-minute gap between the first report and the notification of the campus community was unnecessarily long.
“The things that took place in that time period obviously took 80 minutes,” she said, noting that all “action steps” taken during this period were necessary. “Canvassing the area, getting access to prox information to see if various dorms had been accessed, convening the task force, putting together the alert message, all those things take time,” she explained.
All those things take time. Killing at least 3 people and shooting a total of 4 every minute… that takes time too.
The article continues:
Cliatt also emphasized that the University considers the fear and anxiety caused by emergency alerts when deciding whether a threat is sufficiently credible to merit issuing an alert. “The safety of our community is our top priority, and that includes both the physical and the emotional safety of our campus,” she said.
Ah, the emotional scarring of our children. Because fear and anxiety of the sheeple is more concerning and emotionally scarring than seeing your friend die in your arms, or a parent dealing with the loss of their child.
Thankfully in this situation it was just someone exercising poor judgement and I hope they are dealt with accordingly. But it still demonstrates failure of these systems to truly keep people safe.
Stuff From Hsoi 