Tag: Your Government Doesn’t Love You

UK’s Gun Ban in Action

Ah yes the UK’s gun ban the single reason that the island is a perfect utopia where nobody is ever murdered or violently attacked. I wish I lived in the UK where there are no shooting.

Wait I hear reality calling, give me a second here.

You won’t believe this reality just called to inform me that the UK’s gun ban isn’t work. In fact a shooter just murdered four people using and offed himself with a gun. I just don’t get how this could happen though; guns are illegal there! Also the government will protect you!

I Know Mayor Daley is Dumb But… Wow

So an 80 year-old man banished a demon back to Hell with a firearm. Of course most of us cheer the fact that the elderly man was able to have a mechanism of self defense at hand and thus preserve his life. Unfortunately this happened in Chicago and a handgun was used thus making what the elderly man did illegal. Apparently Sir Sodomy isn’t saying if the 80 year-old man will be charged but chances are he will.

But one of the quotes made by Sir Sodomy really stuck up at fucking stupid:

“I think everybody understands the frustration that people have in regards to guns, and that’s an instance, and I think we understand that,” Daley said. “But again, the access to guns in America, the access today is higher today than at any period of time in America.”

Wow. Access to guns is higher today than any period of our history? Really? Access generally means your ability to obtain something. You have access to a car if you are able to get a car to drive. Access in America today is not at it’s highest in our history.

In the past Americans could purchase any firearm they wanted. During the Civil War many people owned private cannons which were the artillery pieces of the day (for those morons who claim the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks). Before the passing of the National Firearms Act any American could legally go into a store and purchase a machine gun, short barreled rifle, or short barreled shotgun without paying any BATFE transfer tax. Now thanks to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act we can’t legally transfer any machine gun made after May 19, 1986. In order to purchase a firearm you need to go through an instant background check. No ammunition considered by the BATFE to be “armor piercing” can be imported into the country. Hell no gun not approved by the BATFE can be imported into the country. So tell me again how access to firearms in this country is at an all time high.

Man Chicago really needs a new mayor. Their current one is a complete dumb ass.

New BATFE Abuse of Power

The BATFE sure likes their power to change the meaning behind laws at a whim. Uncle reports they’re doing it again by mucking about with the mechanism businesses ship firearms:

Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF today posted a ruling declaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, etc.) for a bona fide business purpose to be a “transfer” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. As a consequence, legitimate business-related shipments will now require the recipient to complete a Form 4473 and undergo a Brady criminal background check. In many instances, these requirements will force shipments to a third party, thereby lengthening the process and the time that the firearm is in transit.

Man I wish I had the power to change the rules whenever I felt it convenient. So why are they doing this? Obviously isn’t because many gun transferred for bona fide business purposes have been turning up in crimes. Oh wait:

ATF is unable to identify a single instance during the past 40 years where a single firearm shipped in reliance upon ATF’s rulings was used in a crime.

So the real reason is simply, “Because we can.” And people seem to think government agencies are benevolent and good.

We’re Not Happy Until Everybody is Watched

As it sits right now if you want a cellular phone without having to be on a list (the phone company’s subscriber list in this case) the only way to go is pre-paid. In this case you walk into a store, grab a pre-paid cell phone, and pay for it using cash (it’s that funny green colored paper for those of you who only know how to pay for things using plastic cards). A couple of senators have decided that any means of avoiding the government knowing what you’re doing is a bad thing.

Senators Charles Schumer and John Cornyn have introduced legislation that would require people buying pre-paid cell phones to show identification and be recorded. For a quote from the stupid:

“This proposal is overdue because for years, terrorists, drug kingpins and gang members have stayed one step ahead of the law by using prepaid phones that are hard to trace,” Schumer said.

So now what? They’ll have to go back to either using phone booths or stolen cell phones? Face it this law won’t change anything, criminals are always one step ahead of the authorities. Oh but best of all:

Faisal Shahzad, the 30-year-old suspect in the Times Square plot, allegedly used a prepaid cellphone to arrange the purchase of a Nissan Pathfinder that he attempted to turn into a car bomb, the senators noted.

Wait a minutes doesn’t a car require tax, title, and license? That generally means you have to register it with the state. So how exactly would having a law preventing people from buying pre-paid cell phones without identification help? Oh that’s right it wouldn’t.

Let’s hear some concerns from the people who actually think things through:

Civil liberties advocates have concerns about the proposal, saying there must be a role for anonymous communications in a free society. “They remain important for whistleblowers, battered spouses, reporters’ sources,” said James X. Dempsey, policy director for the Center for Democracy and Technology. And yet, he said, the space for such anonymous or pseudonymous communications has been narrowed. Pay phones, for example, have largely disappeared.

Pre-paid cell phones obtained with cash are also useful to those who want to keep the government out of their business.

Thankfully there currently is no similar bill in the House. But I’m sure that will change in about two days since this is needed to “fight the terrorists” (terrorists being anybody who doesn’t step into line with the government).

Yet Another TSA List

We have the selectee list, the no-fly list, and now Dvorak Uncensored reports we have the uncooperative serf list:

Airline passengers who get frustrated and kick a wall, throw a suitcase or make a pithy comment to a screener could find themselves in a little-known Homeland Security database.

The Transportation Security Administration says it is keeping records of people who make its screeners feel threatened as part of an effort to prevent workplace violence.

Now I can understand wanting to deal with customers kicking walls and throwing suitcases (for instance removing them from the airport) but making comments? Seriously? Are the poor wittle TSA agents getting hurt feewings? On a more serious note this list could be used as a sort of “revenge” list:

Privacy advocates fear the database could feed government watch lists and subject innocent people to extra airport screening.

Once again I’ll state that customers who are acting outwardly violent by damaging equipment should be removed from the airport like the tantrum throwing child they are. They still shouldn’t be put on a list that opens them up to additional screening as a form of revenge by untouchable government agents. This goes double for people making rude remarks. But here’s the funniest part:

The database was created in late 2007 as the TSA launched a program to prevent the nation’s 50,000 airport screeners from being attacked or threatened, agency spokeswoman Kristin Lee said. At the time, TSA officials voiced concern about passengers disrespecting screeners, and they began issuing new uniforms with police-style badges pinned to shirts.

Lee said attacks and threats against screeners are “rare” and the database has records from about 240 incidents. Most are screeners in conflict with other screeners. About 30 incidents involve people such as passengers or airport workers attacking or threatening screeners, Lee said.

I don’t know why they put the word rare in quotation marks. Considering the number of people who fly every year having only 30 passenger names in it since 2007 means it’s pretty fucking rare. I do find it funny how 210 of the recorded incidents involved screeners in conflict with their colleague. It shows what happens when you give two morons a little bit of authority, they can’t use it responsibly.

More Bad Ideas from New York

Seriously that state is fast becoming the bad idea capital of the Union. Tam found another bad idea brewing the in the state mostly run by a single city. Meet the “minimum force” bill:

Under present NYPD training, cops are taught to shoot at the center of their target and fire their weapon until the threat has been stopped.

Which is how it should be done. You aim for the largest target that also house organs which the human body stops without. It’s pretty much a win-win area to target. Well that makes too much sense so:

This legislation would require officers to literally shoot the gun out of someone’s hand or shoot to wound them in the leg or arm.

So this legislation would require the police to do the impossible (shoot a gun out of the criminal’s hands) or aim for very small targets that, when hit, won’t incapacitate the criminal in most cases. I’m all for restricting police powers and limiting the use of deadly force to when it’s needed. With that said the gun generally comes out when deadly force is needed and when it’s needed it’s needed. If a criminal is endangering the life of another the quickest way to stop the situation should be taken which is almost always shooting the punk until he stops. A punk will stop a whole lot faster if bullets enter critical areas like the head or chest as opposed to limbs which the human body can very well survive without.

People Not to Ask Advice From

Often times you need to known something so you ask somebody to advice. A lot of the time people ask the wrong person through. For instance if you’re one of the freest countries in the world asking the president of a economically depressed, crime ridden, Hell hole run almost entirely by drug gangs probably isn’t going to net you good advice. Let’s just hope our government doesn’t listen to the President of Mexico’s advice:

On Thursday, Felipe Calderon, the president of Mexico, where prohibitive gun laws prevent good people from having firearms for protection against criminals and governments of dubious legitimacy (historically the norm in Mexico), encouraged Congress to reinstate the federal “assault weapon” ban.

Why the Hell would he care what we do in this country?

Calderon also misinformed Congress, claiming that violence in Mexico rose significantly after the U.S. ban expired in 2004.

Surprisingly enough the president of a corrupt country lied:

In fact, Mexico’s murder rate has been stable since 2003 and remains well below rates recorded previously

Why did we even invite him into the country?

The Dilemma of a Chicago Police Superintendent

Life must be hard for the Police Superintendent of Chicago. You have a gun ban in place to prevent slaves citizens from purchasing handguns and severely restricting the purchase of all other guns. Yet your city has the most shootings. What’s a man to do? Most people would just come out and say the gun ban probably isn’t working so hot and admit they were wrong. But as Every Day, No Days Off points out Police Superintendent Jody Weis has another plan:

He’s creating a new category of “indoor” homicides — and downplaying what police can do about them..

“Those homicides that are outdoors — the ones that I do believe we have a good possibility of preventing — we’re around 98 homicides for Chicago outdoors. That’s as low as it’s ever been, except for 2007, when I believe we had 97 homicides outdoors as of this date,” he said.

98 homicides is considered low? Really? Because according to the FBI Unified Crime Report for 2008 (which Illinois’s statistics are footnoted due to the fact they don’t report in compliance with the FBI Unified Crime Report) Vermont which allows anybody legally capable of owning a gun to carry it around on their person sans any permits only had 17 murders in that year. Hell my home stat of Minnesota only had 106 total for the entire year. Chicago on the other hand has practically passed my state’s yearly total in five months without including the number of shootings that occur indoors!

So even implementing this shitty idea makes Chicago look like a violent Hell hole.

I Don’t Like this One Bit

Joe Huffman brings up a scary decision that just made it’s way out of the Supreme Court. The case that was just decided pretty much gives the government power to incarserate you indefinably. Of course this case involved a sex offender which is why speaking against the ruling will automatically get you hatred from your peers but alas I could care less so here we go:

In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.

Yes that’s right even though you’ve completed your sentence handed down by a judge after conviction by a jury the federal government can chose to extend your punishment after the fact. The very scary part here is the fact the extension of punishment doesn’t even have to pass muster with a jury but only a judge:

The federal law at issue in the case allows the government to continue to detain prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct, suffered from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves. If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by “clear and convincing” evidence — a heightened standard, but short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” — it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or a state assumes responsibility for them.

We all know phrases like “beyond a reasonable double” and “clear and convincing” translate into “whatever the fuck we want” when spoken by the federal government so neither of those two clauses fill me with confidence. Likewise a single judge could very well decide that you stay in jail for life even if you were only sentenced to 10 years.

So now we come to the big problem what to do with people in prison whom are still deemed a potential threat to society? In essence in order to keep such a person in prison we have to give up some of our liberty to the government. I’m a big believer in Benjamin Franklin’s quote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Personally I don’t believe the risk of losing any liberty could possibly outweigh the potential danger of releasing a prisoner even if they are dangerous.

Of course I’m not one to just complain without offering some kind of potential solution so here it is. If a person is charged with a sex offense (a real one not a bullshit one like taking a piss in public) make part of the punishment committing the offender to a mental facility where he or she can receive treatment and can not be let loose until a psychological evaluation has been passed (and by passed I mean judged by a board of psychologists chosen in a similar manner to a jury not a single doctor). Obviously it’s not a perfect solution but it would offer two things: a method of ensuring a dangerous person is not released into society and the said dangerous person can get treatment for their problem which simply imprisoning them doesn’t accomplish.

But simply stating somebody is a possible danger to society and keeping them locked up indefinably even though that goes beyond the handed down punishment is a violation of essential liberties. This type of power is far too dangerous to hand to the federal government, an entity that has proven itself time and time again they don’t give a shit about your rights.