Chronicling the depravities of the State.
In another story dealing with New York the nanny state…
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/05/14/new-york-bill-would-add-fat-tax-video-games-dvds-junk-food
It appears New York is trying to pass a law that would put a tax on anything that “makes kids fat.” In other words they are low on money and the way to make more money is to tax popular things like video games and DVDs.
Yet more news of the European Union trying to screw everybody else…
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/european-union-wants-cut-internet
This time they want some control over the Internet. This is an oversimplification but right now there is an organization called ICANN which acts as a central authority for Internet. Since 1998 they have been working under mandate of the U.S. Department of Commerce. This agreement is up for termination in September of 2009.
The European Union things once this agreement is terminated they should get a piece of the action. Never mind the fact that the U.S. funded and developed most of the technology that makes the Internet your are using right now possible. Never mind that many of the U.S. laws are the reason the Internet has remained on open source of information anybody can use. Nope that doesn’t matter.
Being the Internet is an international entity now it might seem logical to have other countries help in its oversight. The problem I have with this is many European countries are, or soon will, filter content obtained online. China currently is hold the record as the most famous attempt to filter Internet access (which they are failing at since there is no way to filter so much data). But China has no influence over the regulating body known as ICANN so they can’t force filtering for other countries.
If another group such as the European Union gained power over ICANN they could conceivably set into motion a list of items that would no longer be permissible to place online. Remember much of the Eurozone isn’t too big into the whole freedom of speech idea. And the Internet would not be useful if it wasn’t for the freedom of speech. I could see the E.U. wanting to place a ban on all pro-gun sites out there. After all we know how much the E.U. loves the right to bear arms.
You know I hate the idea of the European Union a little more every day…
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39649689,00.htm
They have another idea that should not be. They want to hold companies and, in the case of open source applications, programmers liable for defects in their code.
To somebody outside of the software industry this may sound like a good idea. Who hasn’t been bitten by a software bug and wanted to unleash their wrath upon the coders? But as a coder myself I can tell you this, programming is hard.
More specifically parts of programming are hard. Getting an application up and running and then getting it to do basic tasks is pretty simple. The problem comes when you want to make those basic tasks reliable.
The damnedest things can cause a bug in an application. Forgetting to terminate a string in a null character in C for instance can lead to worlds of hurt. Sometimes when your application calls on outside code that outside code will cause an unforeseen but in your own code. The bottom line is trying to foresee all possible bugs and mishaps is impossible. This desire of the European Union would create a liability for software companies in that part of the world and probably cause them to move elsewhere. Maybe somewhere that isn’t trying to make life as hard as possible for businesses.
I got an NRA-ILA alert for Minnesotans…
http://www.NRAILA.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4857
Pretty much Paymar has a strong desire to make legal gun ownership more difficult here in Minnesota. He’s trying to put through his pet piece of legislation yet again. What it amounts to is he wants to require all private sales to require background checks. Federally licensed dealers are required to do this via the NICS system which, the last I heard, it’s open to non-licensed individuals.
I really dislike that man.
For those of you in the know you remember the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit againt the Bush administration because of their enacting of warrentless wire tapping.
This lawsuit started in October of 2008. The then administration asked to delay any response until April of 2009. The EFF decided this would be good for their case since there would be an administartion change.
We have that new administration now. They ran on a platform promising government transparency and change. No longer would American citizens have to live under such unconstitutional laws as warrantless wire tapping.
Well at least that’s what they promised. They down right lied. Here is a good article with the bew administration’s response on the case along with a detailed analysis…
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html
Notice anything familiar? The response sounds exactly like the justification the previous administartion gave for enacting the act.
All of this is done to fight terrorists and national security would be at risk is they devildged what exactly was being recorded. Civil rights be damned.
So much for change huh?
Although I know the majority of people on my friends list will probably want me hanged for the title alone take a good look at this…
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet
A new piece of legislation dubbed The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 is trying to establish control over the Internet for Obama. In a very Bush era bill this proposal would allow the president “to declare a cyber security emergency” at which point he could order the shutdown or restriction of any “critical” information network such as the Internet.
And of course just as Bush this bill is being proposed in the name of “national security.” So somebody explain to me how this is “change” from the last administration.
As the astute man of observation I am (almost) I’ve been noticing that there is an ever increasing number of protests going on. People are protesting everything, the war in Iraq, the banks, abortion clinics, churches, and anything else they can get their hands on. And what do these accomplish? Jack shit.
But why is that? Well from what I can see it’s two fold. The first being there are just too many of them. If you want to make a statement about something you need to reserve the method of doing it. When people see hundreds of protests in a year they just begin to ignore them. It’s like any other event you see a hundred times a year. Seriously how many people even pay attention for more then three seconds when they see a cop pulling somebody over? Almost never because you see it all the time. How many people pay attention when a police officer arrests somebody at gun point? Almost everybody in the area because it’s not something you see every day.
The other problem with protests is how they are done. You have a group of angry people yelling through a bull horn and holding signs with phrases they think are catchy. This really accomplishes nothing. Seriously nobody even cares what the signs say. There is a lack of symbolism there. Instead of saying this is a group of united people against a cause it’s saying we are a group of people with signs and bull horns that like to yell loudly at people passing by.
Now protests should accomplish something. This is why two things need to be done. First of all let’s save them for things that actually matter. Nothing is going to change the fact that the banks fucked a lot of people over. Protests won’t help here isn’t the damage is done.
Now protesting something like AIG giving their top brass large multi-million dollar salaries would actually be bringing attention to something that’s happening now. Our tax dollars, which was stupidly handed out en masse by our government, is being used to make a few rich people richer instead of keeping a company afloat.
Of course standing outside AIG with bull horns and signs isn’t going to accomplish anything. People don’t give a shit what you yell, especially top brass who here people bitching on a daily basis. So I have a proposal.
Replace those worthless bull horns and signs with pitchforks and torches. These two items together in a mob of people send a symbol, somebody fucked up and justice is demanded. Way back when if somebody really fucked up, was able to get around the law, and everybody knew about it they grabbed the pitchforks and torches and went after the criminals.
Of course they also ended up lynching the person which I think takes thing too far. Killing people is not the answer to anything either so don’t take this as me advocating violence, because I’m not. I’m saying that a group of people together holding pitchforks and torches sends a message. The mob doesn’t even have to yell anything but it helps (just don’t use a bull horn, that destroys the fear factor).
Think about it. Let’s say a group of people was standing outside of your house with bull horns and signs yelling at you. What would you do? Probably not give a shit or call the police. Now replace those people with a different group standing outside of your house with pitchforks and torches yelling at you. What would you do? Probably initially shit your pants and then call the police.
So that’s my proposal on making protests work. Get out of the good old pitchforks and oil soaked rags wrapped around large sticks. Raise the pitchforks high and light the rags on fire and stand outside the place of protest. Send a real message, one that says justice is demanded. It gets a message across and look way cooler to boot.
This just came across the wire from the NRA-ILA…
Friday Minnesota is holding a hearing for HF 0953. This bill would require all transfers of pistols and “military style” rifles to be registered. This includes private citizen to citizen sales.
Let people know and get on the horn with your representatives and make a stink about it.
For thoroughness here is the contents of the e-mail…
“Minnesota Gun Registration Scheme to be Heard Friday!
Please Contact the Members of the House Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division!
On Friday, March 6, House File 953, introduced by State Representative Michael Paymar (DFL-64B), will be voted on by the House Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division Committee.
This bill was designed to not only regulate the sale of firearms at gun shows, but to regulate the sale of firearms between law-abiding persons, all across Minnesota. As a whole, HF 953 will only affect law-abiding gun owners, and in no way keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
A particularly troublesome provision in HF 953 creates a de facto registration system by requiring records of all transfers to be maintained by the state. These records would be made available to all authorities, including for use in “civil” cases, which are often brought by anti-gun government officials and are designed to damage or interfere with lawful commerce in firearms.
HF 953 is a direct attack on Minnesota’s gun rights. It also removes the carry permit holders’ exemption from the purchase permit requirement for all handgun or semi-automatic rifle purchases, not just those completed at gun shows, and increases the waiting period from five to seven days.
Please contact the members of the Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to protect our Second Amendment rights and oppose this bill. Contact information can be found below.
State Representative John Lesch (DFL) Chairman
Phone: 651-296-4224
Email: rep.john.lesch@house.mn
State Representative Ron Shimanski (R) Vice Chair
Phone: 651-296-1534
Email: rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn
State Representative Debra Hilstrom (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-3709
Email: rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn
State Representative Kory Kath (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-5368
Email: rep.kory.kath@house.mn
State Representative Paul Kohls (R)
Phone: 651-296-4282
Email: rep.paul.kohls@house.mn
State Representative Jenifer Loon (R)
Phone: 651-296-7449
Email: rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn
State Representative Dave Olin (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-9635
Email: rep.dave.olin@house.mn
State Representative Michael Paymar (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-4199
Email: rep.michael.paymar@house.mn”
So I came across the video today…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
I know it’s rather old but hey it’s new to me. But it gives a good picture of what happened at Britain when they went ahead and banned hand guns.
Violent crimes have roughly tripled since then. Police are now issued body armor (although I’m surprised they weren’t before… you know since they put themselves in harms way) because of the increase in criminals holding guns.
That’s right you can still get hand guns in Britain, so long as you’re a criminal. The black market is more then willing to provide for your needs. Just like in this country if a law impedes your ability to obtain a firearm, you simply get it through illegal means. Now the police are outgunned and citizens are at the mercy of the criminals. But wasn’t this handgun band suppose to make Britain safer?
Then of course you have people like the one mentioned in the video (Tony Martin). People broke into his household, he defend himself and his property, and now is sitting in jail under the charge of manslaughter. The surviving criminal (out of two, Tony got one) got a slap on the write and a little jail time for attempting the break in. And then he sued Tony for defending himself. That’s right the criminal is suing the person who’s house he was breaking into because the man decided not to stand aside and be a victim.
And now with our new administration who is composed heavily with people who have proven to be anti-gun in the past are coming into office here. We already know the president elect (tomorrow the president) was all for banning handguns in Illinois. Exactly what Britain did. Before they took it off it was clearly stated on change.gov that his administration wanted to put the poorly named assault weapons ban back into place, and make it permanent.
But I digress I don’t want to make this note all about Obama and friends’ track record. I want to make a point, gun control doesn’t work. It never will work. The only thing gun control does is disarm law abiding citizens and make the criminals’ jobs easier.
I think Sammy Gravano, a former big wig in the Gambino crime family said it best, “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”
Just remember Britain whenever a gun control law comes across the old legislature machine and the politicians tell you it’s going to reduce crime and make the United States a safer place. It will make the United States a safer place… for the criminals.