In 1994 Congress passed the assault ban, it was a set of political wish making that could only get through congress with a ten year sunset provision added. We said then that it wouldn't have any effect on crime, but according to the press and the liberals, it would end crime as we knew it. Once again, we were right and they were wrong. Almost predictable isn't it?
In the days of the 103rd congress, the political landscape was similar and different from today. In 1994, we had a liberal charismatic first term president that had gun control and health care as his big agenda items. In 2013, we have a charismatic liberal second term president that had gun control and health care as his big ticket items.
103rd congress was Democratically controlled in the senate by a ratio of 57/43 and the house 258/176. The bill still took quite some time to get passed, and was signed into law with much fanfare in the liberal ranks. However, the president was in trouble, after using up his political capital the mid-term elections turned that around, and the senate was Republican 53/47 and the house 230/204. He even referred to his mis-calculation that allowed the Republicans to control congress in his State of the Union speech the following year.
Clinton focused on gun control first, figuring that he would have time to get both through congress. He used up his political capital in this fight, and lost control of both houses of congress, and in many ways the American people. Sure he won reelection, but only after turning hard to the right, which solidified the hold of Republicans on congress which lasted for many years, until at some point the electorate couldn't tell the difference between the two parties.
This time, the current president put his emphasis on Health Care reform, and managed to get it (barely) through a congress that his party controlled completely. The genius of the difference is that the American people see that he gave them something. They still don't understand the cost of the program, what it means to their lives, or the cost it will have on themselves or their children. The press hasn't done their job to investigate the bill and continues to hide the costs. Even so, Obama mentioned the shellacking his party took in the first midterms.
I don't think that the House will pass such a bill, the Republicans might not have any spine, they might not have any self respect, and for gods sake they don't act conservative, but one thing they do understand is self interest. If they don't know anything else, they know that passing a new awb will result in one thing. The death of the modern Republican party. If they manage to pass the ban, people like me will not only bolt the party, we will form another party (Libertarian or other) that will be a direct threat to the Republicans maintaining any federal office.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
High Tech Weapons
So I had a discussion where "High Tech Killing" machines was brought up. Let me recap what I did say, and what I should have said.
The AR15 isn't a high tech killing machine. The AR15 is America's rifle. It was first designed in the late 1950's and bought by Colt in 1959, the same year as the Edsel's appearance on the market. Turns out I was wrong, the Edsel appeared on the market in '57. Still neither are high tech. Original rifles came out with 20rd magazines, and that was the way they were officially issued in Vietnam in 1963. In 1974 the military went to 30rd Magazines. I was born in '69, my sister in '73, neither of us are high tech either. (As I mentioned before, 10 round magazines are crippled magazines, 20 and 30 rounds are standard, not high capacity).
There have been nearly 8 million of the rifles manufactured worldwide, and President Obama is apparently responsible for selling another 1 millon of them over the last couple of year. In fact I guessed that the AR pattern rifle had sold 1 million units a year for the last year. The ATF numbers are here. Unfortunately I guessed higher than what my quick analysis of ATF's numbers reveal. I am sure I am missing some manufacturers.
Bushmaster 38,075
Colt 16,419
Stag Arms 34,211
Noveske 1,437
Daniel Def 6.911
Wilson 315
Patriot ord 783
Armalite 12, 253
Lewis MT 4,998
Rock River 33,871
doublestar 1,620
Smith & Wes. 156,705
DPMS 38,411
Sig Arms 31,025
PSA 18,163
Aero Precis 39,565
Total 423,762
Total RIFLES produced 2011 2,318,088
or roughly 4/23 (17%), I guessed 25%
So ~17% of the total produced were AR-15 type rifles (according to my quick search through the data) and they are hardly cheap weapons.
Important note: Rumor is that Magpul is 1,000,000 units back ordered.
Important note: There is little or no 223 ammo to be found.
Reasonable inference: People aren't about to give up their rifles?
So what do you think about a ban or confiscation? I don't think a confiscation will happen, a ban can't get through congress. That leaves executive orders, and even if he has the balls, he doesn't have the laws to make that stick.
I have been writing this on and off for awhile. It was on another site previously and I had about given up writing. Can you throw me some love? Leave me a note, tell me what you think.
The AR15 isn't a high tech killing machine. The AR15 is America's rifle. It was first designed in the late 1950's and bought by Colt in 1959, the same year as the Edsel's appearance on the market. Turns out I was wrong, the Edsel appeared on the market in '57. Still neither are high tech. Original rifles came out with 20rd magazines, and that was the way they were officially issued in Vietnam in 1963. In 1974 the military went to 30rd Magazines. I was born in '69, my sister in '73, neither of us are high tech either. (As I mentioned before, 10 round magazines are crippled magazines, 20 and 30 rounds are standard, not high capacity).
There have been nearly 8 million of the rifles manufactured worldwide, and President Obama is apparently responsible for selling another 1 millon of them over the last couple of year. In fact I guessed that the AR pattern rifle had sold 1 million units a year for the last year. The ATF numbers are here. Unfortunately I guessed higher than what my quick analysis of ATF's numbers reveal. I am sure I am missing some manufacturers.
Bushmaster 38,075
Colt 16,419
Stag Arms 34,211
Noveske 1,437
Daniel Def 6.911
Wilson 315
Patriot ord 783
Armalite 12, 253
Lewis MT 4,998
Rock River 33,871
doublestar 1,620
Smith & Wes. 156,705
DPMS 38,411
Sig Arms 31,025
PSA 18,163
Aero Precis 39,565
Total 423,762
Total RIFLES produced 2011 2,318,088
or roughly 4/23 (17%), I guessed 25%
So ~17% of the total produced were AR-15 type rifles (according to my quick search through the data) and they are hardly cheap weapons.
Important note: Rumor is that Magpul is 1,000,000 units back ordered.
Important note: There is little or no 223 ammo to be found.
Reasonable inference: People aren't about to give up their rifles?
So what do you think about a ban or confiscation? I don't think a confiscation will happen, a ban can't get through congress. That leaves executive orders, and even if he has the balls, he doesn't have the laws to make that stick.
I have been writing this on and off for awhile. It was on another site previously and I had about given up writing. Can you throw me some love? Leave me a note, tell me what you think.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Shot Heard Round the World.
If you read the same places I do, we are all hearing about the pending "Death of the Republic", that the President will work around congress, and will exercise his will through executive orders, that he can't get through congress.
I do think that if the House Republicans allow a gun ban to come to a vote in the house without first ensuring there is no way it will pass, they deserve to be abandoned and a new party formed without their presence being tolerated.
1) He will misuse the 14th Amendment and sign Executive Orders to "do something" about the Debt Limit Crisis of 2013. The democrats are all talking about how a phrase in the 14th Amendment gives the President the "duty" to do what he wants to do anyway, raise the debt limit. A reading of the amendment does mean that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned." But I guess they never looked at the final section of the amendment. SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Oh snap Mr Obama!!
2) He will sign Executive Orders that will outlaw certain firearms, and require the American People to turn in their now illegal firearms.
You know, I could see the president misusing his powers in this way, but I also think that the Supremes would certainly take a dim view of this and would very quickly do something to stop this abuse of power. Certainly confiscation would be prevented by the 5th amendment, considering the current cost of an AR-15, the compensation of those weapons would probably cause a new debt crisis pretty damn quickly.
Sipsey Street is reminding us all what happens to tyrants and to their willing accomplices. Please remember that the real meaning of the second amendment is to prevent tyranny from get a firm hold on this nation. Unlike any other nation on earth, we have a duty, and responsibility here. Personally I would urge calm and letting the process work its way. The last thing we need is for a new revolution spark to kindle into a fire. No one will win such an explosion, and if you think that the people won't stand up. I think you fail to understand.
One more thing, today we learned that David Gregory won't be charged for possession of a high capacity magazine in a city where they are banned. If this was you or I, we would have been taken to jail. So much for Justice being blind in Washington DC!
I do think that if the House Republicans allow a gun ban to come to a vote in the house without first ensuring there is no way it will pass, they deserve to be abandoned and a new party formed without their presence being tolerated.
1) He will misuse the 14th Amendment and sign Executive Orders to "do something" about the Debt Limit Crisis of 2013. The democrats are all talking about how a phrase in the 14th Amendment gives the President the "duty" to do what he wants to do anyway, raise the debt limit. A reading of the amendment does mean that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned." But I guess they never looked at the final section of the amendment. SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Oh snap Mr Obama!!
2) He will sign Executive Orders that will outlaw certain firearms, and require the American People to turn in their now illegal firearms.
You know, I could see the president misusing his powers in this way, but I also think that the Supremes would certainly take a dim view of this and would very quickly do something to stop this abuse of power. Certainly confiscation would be prevented by the 5th amendment, considering the current cost of an AR-15, the compensation of those weapons would probably cause a new debt crisis pretty damn quickly.
Sipsey Street is reminding us all what happens to tyrants and to their willing accomplices. Please remember that the real meaning of the second amendment is to prevent tyranny from get a firm hold on this nation. Unlike any other nation on earth, we have a duty, and responsibility here. Personally I would urge calm and letting the process work its way. The last thing we need is for a new revolution spark to kindle into a fire. No one will win such an explosion, and if you think that the people won't stand up. I think you fail to understand.
One more thing, today we learned that David Gregory won't be charged for possession of a high capacity magazine in a city where they are banned. If this was you or I, we would have been taken to jail. So much for Justice being blind in Washington DC!
Friday, January 4, 2013
The Fiscal Cliff, Starting the New Year the Liberal Way.
It doesn't only happen when liberals win, but when the democrats lose or come to a draw the liberals still treat it as a win for the democrats.
Lets look at the fiscal cliff deal.
NPR says that the answer is "yes" the President won and lost the fiscal cliff deal. Frankly, I think he lost most of the deal. Sure he got his rate hike on the highest wage earners, but the republicans managed to keep it above the level the President was asking for, and I think that keeping the rate changes above $400K in income will most likely limit the damage to the small businesses that make this country tick. The republicans also can state that the President's deal raised taxes on the middle class. Frankly I think a cut to Social Security taxes is hari kari, but both parties agreed to that in previous years, trading an increase in payroll taxes against a reduction in SS payroll taxes.
For example the President ran on raising taxes on incomes over $250K, which they believed would raise $800 B in new taxes. What was passed was a bill rising rates on family income over $450k, which they believe would bring in $600 B in new income. So that $200K gap is only planned to reduce planned net income to the government by $200B. please compare those numbers $250K to $800B, and $450K to $600B. Make a couple story problems out of it, maybe play math teacher... Let me know what you think, but I think you will find an interesting relationship between the two income levels and the resulting income to the government.
Lets also correct a language issue. A tax cut doesn't "cost" the government anything. It might reduce income, but that isn't a cost, that is a reduction of income. If you "thought" you were getting a 10% raise this year, but only got 5% the IRS isn't going to let you claim a 5% income loss. Any other way of looking at this is intellectual dishonesty.
It is also basic to the current operating theory that the size of government should grow every year. In the business world we would spend time and money to determine better, cheaper, more efficient way to do the same work.
Then again Fox News also likes to point out that the bill that was actually passed was so full of the kind Pork that would make a butcher jealous. I am proud for the house for not passing the disaster aid for New York until the pork was stripped out.
Now I would really like to see someone hold the administrations (all administrations) feet to the fire on reducing expenditures. We can not continue indefinitely without line up our expenses with our income. I can't do it at my house, my state can't do it, and the federal government can't continue to do it. Sooner or later all bills come due...
I wish I understood why congress wants to be everything to everyone, and even thinks this is sustainable. Sure I know the cynical answer is to buy votes, and that might well be true, but I would like to think that even nut jobs like Alan Grayson could understand the fed gov's spending problems.
The most disappointing thing to me is that we are still seeing the press playing free and lose with their coverage. I remember Cronkite when I was a small child on the news, now I can go back and appreciate his coverage of Vietnam, while I do think its Un-American to not support our troops, at least I can appreciate the will to do it, and then doing it, and don't forget that Johnson was a democrat. Johnson was the author of the "Great Society" that at least I think was the push down the slide to socialism we have been on for some time.
Lets look at the fiscal cliff deal.
NPR says that the answer is "yes" the President won and lost the fiscal cliff deal. Frankly, I think he lost most of the deal. Sure he got his rate hike on the highest wage earners, but the republicans managed to keep it above the level the President was asking for, and I think that keeping the rate changes above $400K in income will most likely limit the damage to the small businesses that make this country tick. The republicans also can state that the President's deal raised taxes on the middle class. Frankly I think a cut to Social Security taxes is hari kari, but both parties agreed to that in previous years, trading an increase in payroll taxes against a reduction in SS payroll taxes.
For example the President ran on raising taxes on incomes over $250K, which they believed would raise $800 B in new taxes. What was passed was a bill rising rates on family income over $450k, which they believe would bring in $600 B in new income. So that $200K gap is only planned to reduce planned net income to the government by $200B. please compare those numbers $250K to $800B, and $450K to $600B. Make a couple story problems out of it, maybe play math teacher... Let me know what you think, but I think you will find an interesting relationship between the two income levels and the resulting income to the government.
Lets also correct a language issue. A tax cut doesn't "cost" the government anything. It might reduce income, but that isn't a cost, that is a reduction of income. If you "thought" you were getting a 10% raise this year, but only got 5% the IRS isn't going to let you claim a 5% income loss. Any other way of looking at this is intellectual dishonesty.
It is also basic to the current operating theory that the size of government should grow every year. In the business world we would spend time and money to determine better, cheaper, more efficient way to do the same work.
Then again Fox News also likes to point out that the bill that was actually passed was so full of the kind Pork that would make a butcher jealous. I am proud for the house for not passing the disaster aid for New York until the pork was stripped out.
Now I would really like to see someone hold the administrations (all administrations) feet to the fire on reducing expenditures. We can not continue indefinitely without line up our expenses with our income. I can't do it at my house, my state can't do it, and the federal government can't continue to do it. Sooner or later all bills come due...
I wish I understood why congress wants to be everything to everyone, and even thinks this is sustainable. Sure I know the cynical answer is to buy votes, and that might well be true, but I would like to think that even nut jobs like Alan Grayson could understand the fed gov's spending problems.
The most disappointing thing to me is that we are still seeing the press playing free and lose with their coverage. I remember Cronkite when I was a small child on the news, now I can go back and appreciate his coverage of Vietnam, while I do think its Un-American to not support our troops, at least I can appreciate the will to do it, and then doing it, and don't forget that Johnson was a democrat. Johnson was the author of the "Great Society" that at least I think was the push down the slide to socialism we have been on for some time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)