Gun Bans and their moral and logical inconsistency

In order to remain logically consistent, anybody favoring banning so-called “assault weapons,” or guns in general, must also support banning alcohol with equal passion.

Ostensibly, gun banners hold their position based on a desire to protect lives and prevent tragedies. Obama alluded to this in a statement made in the wake of the horrible mass shooting inside Sandy Hook Elementary.

“As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it is an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics,” he said.

A few days later, the president pledged concrete action.

“But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing.  The fact that we can’t prevent every act of violence doesn’t mean we can’t steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence,” he said during a press conference on Dec. 19. “The good news is there’s already a growing consensus for us to build from.  A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.  A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips.”

So presumably, the majority of Americans also support banning alcohol. Because the havoc wrecked on American society by booze at least equals, and in reality far exceeds, the horrors brought about by gun violence.

Details

Keep it Simple Stupid

There I sat in front of the tube with three remotes, 202 buttons, one frazzled brain and no sound. Regardless of the buttons I pressed, it appeared I would watch the evening news and not hear it. My wife saw my dilemma, turned the TV off and then back on, and voila!

I said, “thanks.”

She said, “Keep It Simple Stupid.”

The news was reporting the Washington State smoke-in at the Space Needle. I was thinking the second hand smoke might result in a massive run on Twinkies. The residents of Washington State that took part weren’t just blowing smoke, they were asserting their new-found right to use marijuana freely without fear of arrest.

But what about their uncle in D.C. , who has thumbed his nose at state marijuana laws? The Federal Department of Justice issued the following statement: “Regardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on Dec. 6 in Washington State, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law. ”

So, it comes down to state law vs. federal law. That raises a simple question: why did it take the 18th amendment to prohibit the use of alcohol?

Details

Federalization of State Militias: Another Attack on the Second Amendment

Since the soul-shaking murder of 20 children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, one week ago, thousands of articles have been written calling for increased federal control over the right of an individual to own a gun. Such proposals are perhaps an expected though ineffectual and unconstitutional reaction to an event so horrific and inexplicable.

Of course, the right to “bear arms” is explicitly protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution and should not be subject to arbitrary and knee-jerk abridgment by those who wrongly believe that limiting access to weapons would effect a proportional decrease in violent crime.

There are many who insist that safety at school, specifically, and at home, generally, would increase were we to impose tighter restrictions on the ability to obtain firearms.

For example, in his statement following the rampage in Newtown, President Obama hinted that such stricter proposals will be forthcoming:

Details

State’s Rights Chrestomathy & Entropy of federal programs

The propensity of federal over-reach programs to die on the vine, to fail due to bureaucratic entropy over time is the newest BIG SECRET. Yes, federal programs sometimes seem to rise like the Phoenix, again and again, but in today’s climate of falling budgets, and an economy elongated downturn, things are different.

Matt Ehling, in his article entitled, “REAL ID, No Child Left Behind, and the future of the Affordable Care Act,” is a review of some classic and well known federal programs that have suffered the realities of time and distance from their source, the federal gang in DC. Discussing the reality behind big ticket programs and their status today among the states provides sound strategies and tactics for use in nullifying other government over-reach programs, including ACA or Obama Care, says Mr. Ehling.

‘Approved’ by the President does not mean accepted, implementable or fund-able at the State level, not by a long shot, as shown by Ehling in his article. Using the ACA program, he points out how confused and misunderstood it is, and suggests that it too, will suffer at the hands of systemic, bureaucratic and harsh reality of funding issues in economically trying times. (Here is a short quiz allowing you to see if you do understand the ACA or Obama Care)

Details