Tag: Your Government Doesn’t Love You

McCarthy Going for Full Gun Ban

I’m a little late with this news but Sebastian over at Snowflakes in Hell has posted information regarding McCarthy’s draft bill to ban ammunition feeding devices above an arbitrary size.

The transfer, importation, and manufacture of any ammunition feeding device (not just magazines it seems) would become illegal under this bill. I don’t know how they could enforce who I transfer magazines to as they usually don’t even have serial numbers to identify them and thus can’t really be tracked.

Likewise many firearms would also become illegal to transfer, import, or manufacture under this law. What firearms you ask? Basically any firearm that has a fixed magazine that can store more than 10 cartridges. Spare parts for standard capacity magazines also become verboten under the law.

What is funny though is police, active or retired, are exempt from this because they obviously need to kill as many people as possible (in McCarthy’s words describing standard capacity magazines). This makes sense because when you’re the government’s enforcement body you get special privileges over the peasantry.

Better Than Us

Our “representatives” have been positively frothing at the mouth with gun control legislation ideas. A New York “representative” appropriately named King is going to introduce legislation that makes it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official.

Of course the crazy ass Arizona shooter wouldn’t have shot Gabrielle Giffords if this law was in effect because it would be illegal to carry said gun that close to her. You know they really should just it illegal to shoot somebody as that would be kind of a catch all for these types of situations… wait it already is. I guess we just have to find that one magical law that will make murdering psychopaths reconsider their desires because that makes sense.

The other interesting thing to wonder is what will be the definition of federal official. The federal government employs a great number of people and chances are you have be closer than 1,000 feet to one without even realizing it. How will we know who are federal officials and thus who we have to keep an arbitrary distance from when carrying? Will federal officials be forced to wear some kind of indicator, maybe a “I ban guns within an arbitrary distance of me” sign, as they walk around? I doubt dip shit King put any such thought into these questions as they are concerns only of the peasants of which he rules over.

Interesting Charges in the Arizona Case

Mr. Arizona Shooter appeared today in court and I found the list of charges interesting:

Mr Loughner was charged with five crimes – the attempted assassination of a member of Congress, the first degree murder of two federal employees and the attempted murder of two federal employees.

Why do all these charges involve attempted or successful murders of government officials? Because they’re like you and me only better. You get a much tougher punishment usually if you commit a crime against a government official as opposed to a little peasant such as you or me. It’s rather telling what our government thinks about us when they decide not to treat all murders with the same punishment (we’re just not that important I guess).

Also the blame game is still going on as everybody is trying to show out the shooter’s politics mirror the politics of those they disagree with. It doesn’t matter if the shooter was a liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, communist, or anything else because the simple fact is he killed people. Once you kill somebody your political beliefs are irrelevant as there are far more non-violent people who hold any political belief than there are violent ones. Stop trying to demonize everybody you don’t like because of the actions of one fucked up individual.

A Bunch of Vultures

No sooner does the news of the Arizona shooting break does New York “Representative” Carolyn McCarthy talke about introducing new gun control regulations:

Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.

Hold the bus. At least when you talk about magazines with an arbitrarily sized capacity you can claim it has some kind of relevance to the shooting maybe. But talking about stockpiles of ammunition? Really? How much ammunition did the man have on him? Sure he may have owned 100,000 rounds of ammunition but that doesn’t mean shit if he’s only to carry a small percentage of that. In case that dumb bitch McCarthy didn’t realize ammunition has weight and size meaning you can only carry a finite amount. So how does having a stockpile change anything? The answer is it does and McCarthy is just a fucking tool. Oh and she isn’t the only dipshit:

Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.

Wait isn’t threatening violence against a federal official already illegal? Yes, yes it is. Don’t believe me? Well you could always try it and see where it lands you (here’s a hint, in prison). I do love how they law will only involved federal officials and not threats against lowly little peasants like you and me. After all they’re not our representatives but our rulers. We also have a fuck face from Illinois:

Another vocal supporter for gun control, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, told POLITICO that he hopes “something good” can come from the Arizona tragedy – perhaps discussion on a new assault weapon ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures.

Yes because banning arbitrarily sized magazines helped reduce violence last time it was in effect… wait no it didn’t. We also have this golden quote:

“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,” said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home. That’s what you use to hunt people.”

What the fuck do hunters have to do with the second amendment? Exactly nothing, the second amendment wasn’t put into place to allow hunting it was put into place to allow the citizenry to overthrow a tyrannical government. We also have a quote from another gun control nutcase:

“I’ve seen no evidence that he falls into those categories. It’s the same thing as this guy at Virginia Tech,” said Horwitz. “We can do a much better job checking people’s mental health background.”

No we really can’t “do better.” Crazy often doesn’t manifest until the person decides to, well, be crazy. No expansion of background checks will allow for every person with bad intentions to be caught. You can’t detect evil plain and simple.

You have to be appalled at these people who waste not time to swoop in on a tragedy and use the death of six people to forward their political campaign by pretending they’re looking out for your safety when in fact they’re doing the exact opposite.

Immigration

The subject of immigration seems to keep coming up. Many people want stricter laws in place for immigration while others want looser laws. Those clamoring for stricter laws claim immigrants are coming into the country and taking jobs from resident Americans while people on the other end of the spectrum point out the fact that the only people in this country who aren’t immigrants are the Indians.

Personally I’m all for bringing new productive citizens into this country. Because of this I have a potential solution to the overly complicated immigration system in this country. Should anybody want citizenship in this country who has a job, education, or other valuable skill we will grant it immediately. In order to balance out the system and ensure our population doesn’t explode though we will export one politician to the new citizen’s country of origin.

If a man from India with a Ph.D. wants into the country that’s perfectly OK, we’ll let them on in and send a worthless senator back to India in exchange.

I think this is a good system that will ensure more productive people come into the country while worthless baggage is sent out without any increase in population.

The Oxymoron of Socialized Medicine

Big surprise here but I’m not a fan of socialized medicine. My reasoning is different than a lot of peoples’ though. I’m not against it because it creates longer wait times, causes rationing of medicines, and empowers insurance companies. My problem with socialized medicine is the violence required to implement it.

This is actually a problem with all forms of socialism, not simply socialized medicine. Let’s look at how insurance works. People purchase insurance from an insurance company with the agreement that should something horrible happen the insurance company will be there to foot the expense. In order for this to work there needs to be on key thing, more money being paid into the system than removed.

Socialized medicine is sort of a larger scale of insurance except every person in under the force of law pays into the system in the hopes of generating enough money to pay for those who can’t afford medical care. It sound so nice when you explain it that way but there is one major problem with socialized medicine that never gets brought up, it requires the force of a gun.

In a market based health care system each person pays their own way or gets involved with insurance. It’s not a perfect system obvious as not everybody can afford either of the two options but there are still options for those who can’t pay (charity, pro bono work, family members pitching in, etc.). The main advantage though is the fact that it’s voluntary, you’re not being forced to participate. If you don’t with to receive medical care you don’t have to pay into the system.

There is no such option with socialized medicine, much like social security there isn’t an option to opt out. To ensure everybody participates the government uses their monopoly on use of force to make everybody participate. If you refuse to pay into the socialized medical system you’re usually fined or your wages are garnished. If you refuse to pay the fine the police will come to toss you into prison for the crime of not allowing your money to be stolen, and if you resist arrest physical violence will be brought against you.

Does it seem like an oxymoron to use physical force to steal money from one person in order to pay for the medical care of another? Doesn’t it even seem more of an oxymoron when you realize the threat of physical violence is being used to steal from more people than will be needing medical care? When using socialized medicine you’re actually harming more people (theft if harm in my book and if you refuse to participate you will be physically harmed) than you’re helping.

Yet people tout socialized medicine as a good thing that will help people. So long as you ignore the force required to create and operate such a system I guess you can make a claim it helps some people.

They Were Just Kidding About That Whole Constitution Thing

When the Republicans were running for the House and Senate they made a “promise” to their constituents. The promise was simple, all bills introduced would be accompanied by an explanation of how the bill was constitutional. I didn’t buy it and neither did most people who hold the idea that all politicians are crooks. Our politicians have been doing this for years already but they just keep citing the “general welfare” clause.

Scott Garrett, a representative of New Jersey, put forth an amendment to the whole “constitutionality” requirement. The amendment would prevent law makers from citing the “general welfare” and the “necessary and proper” clauses in the Constitution. Well the amendment failed so it looks like business will continue as usual (did anybody expect anything else?).

Remember all Property Belong to the State

The California Supreme Court ruled today that police may search your cell phone without a warrant:

The California Supreme Court allowed police Monday to search arrestees’ cell phones without a warrant, saying defendants lose their privacy rights for any items they’re carrying when taken into custody.

Yes so upon your arrest all property you have automatically becomes property of the state. I’m not surprised really. What other outcome could you expect? The state is restricted only be the interpretation of law and the state is the one who interprets the law therefore they can do whatever the fuck they want.

Being able to do this is simply the state’s way of bypassing the requirement of needing a warrant to get phone records. If a cop can dig through your phone without a warrant that means they basically have your phone records on hand. Neat little bypass, huh?

Criticize the TSA, Lose Your Gun

The Department of Child Molestation Transportation Security Administration (TSA) are assholes and everybody knows it. Not only do they molest you when you refuse to go through their DNA shredding scanners but they also offer no security.

Yet another pilot decided enough is enough and openly criticized the TSA and pointed out some honest issues with the department’s “security” measures. The pilot is one who actually increases security as he was permitted to carry a firearm in the cockpit of the plane. “Was” is the operative word through:

The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified. He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.

Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff’s deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.

And that’s not all. Not only was his federally issued firearm confiscated but so was his personal carry firearm and CCW license:

At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot’s gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A follow-up letter from the sheriff’s department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation.

Did I mention this happened in Commiefornia? Nope? Well I’m sure you derived that when you read the sheriff put the pilot’s carry permit on hold and demanded the forfeiture of his personal carry weapon. Let that be a lesson to you, when you criticize the benevolence of the government they will take your shit.

Life Sentence Without Charges

Remember Obama’s campaign promise that he would close down Gitmo? I know it’s been so long that it’s hard to remember all his promises but closing Gitmo was going to be a priority. I guess, like the American people, Obama forgot:

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama’s pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.

Meet the new boss… he’s just like the old boss only younger.