I smell a rat. In fact, I smell a few rats.
Rat #1: The administration supposedly spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Obamacare website and they had 3 years to prepare for it. First of all, that's an inordinate amount of money for a website, plenty of time to work out kinks, and yet, this costly website is not working. Why? This doesn't make sense. Now they say they're bringing in tech savvy people to fix it? Well, who the heck was putting this website together if not tech savvy people? What's really going on? Was this supposed to not work smoothly? I must raise this question, since this administration, by design, tends to do the opposite of what one would expect. So, my question is, what's the reason for the launch problems?
Rat #2: Anyone who does manage to access the website must first input much personal information before even finding out what their options are and what they cost. If then, the person chooses not to enroll, the personal information remains and cannot get deleted. So, my question is, why can't a person shop around for the health care options before registering their personal data?
Rat #3: At this point, millions of people are getting letters from their insurance companies that their coverage is getting cancelled or their premiums are getting raised, sometimes doubled or tripled. Sometimes, the premiums are decreasing, but the deductible amount is skyrocketing. This, of course, contradicts the you-can-keep-your-insurance-if-you-like-it and it-will-save-you-money mantra. They are finding out that their doctors will not necessarily be in their network...not you-can-keep-your-doctor-period. These are just a few of the points Obama emphatically and unequivocally made many, many times over when he spent a year trying to sell this plan to the country. So, my question is, how does this man so blatantly and easily lie to the American people? And if he lies this boldly, what else is he lying about?
Monday, October 28, 2013
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 1
"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day 2008
The progressive agenda, incrementally moving forward for the past hundred years, and now led by Barack Obama, the most far left president in this nation's history, is now quickly coming to fruition. Since Obama's reign we have watched the federal government takeover of our health care system, education, and student loans. We watch still as our country is deliberately being divided in so many ways - by class, by race, by gender, by political party. We watch as our freedoms are diminishing - religious expression, speech, privacy. We watch as our economy has been suffering and continues to suffer with insurmountable debt and high unemployment. We watch as our standing in the world is weaker and smaller. The one promise this president is keeping is his fundamental transformation of America.
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM - The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, as a government-centric law, is a major move towards a single payer system, or socialized medicine. Obama and the left could call it what they want, but the control over the country's health care system is nothing less than that; once the government controls health care, it controls everything. It is a system which is controlling businesses and how they manage employees via mandates, insurance coverage, workers' hours, number of employees, etc. It is controlling individuals and their families via premiums, doctor choices, hospital choices, and rationing of care. It comprises 1/6 of the country's economy and is raising the debt even further than the unsustainable figure it is at now. No small item is the collection of private health information which will also be shared with the IRS. "Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state"....Vladimir Lenin.
EDUCATION - Common Core, originally offered to states in exchange for needed financial assistance, is the nationalizing of education standards for K-12 students. It is a government-led curriculum which is now viewed by critics as lowering expectations for academic excellence and not at all rigorous (despite claims of raising the bar). Maybe because the purpose is not to create excellence, but to manage education. And, while the curriculum is defined by the federal government, rather than the state and the local school boards, the data mining on every student will be ongoing. For along with the new standards, comes frequent academic assessments. Personal information gathering about each student and their families will also be done, as well as physiological testing, taking into account behavior, attitudes, persistence, etc. via the use of technological devices such as scans and sensors. Eventually, the government will have very personal information on every student in the country. It appears now that Common Core will be reaching private schools and home schoolers as well; again, taking away the choice from parents as to how best to educate their own children.
Joy Pullman, Education Research Fellow at the Heartland Institute stated, “The real goal is social engineering,” Pullmann said, echoing widespread concerns among Common Core critics across the political spectrum. “I don't like to use explosive sorts of things like that, but this is very obvious — the goal is to create a workforce that responds to the needs of the 21st century, as determined by the central planners.” http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16647-expert-explores-link-between-federal-data-mining-and-common-core
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-a-scheme-to-rewrite-education
"Government-controlled schooling is essential to achieving the goals of socialism"...Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto
IMMIGRATION - The President has been talking lately about tackling immigration reform. Already, the Obama administration has chosen not to enforce certain immigration laws already on the books, by directing that ICE not take custody of illegal immigrants arrested by local police, except for the most violent criminals. The president has also unilaterally implemented portions of the amnesty Dream Act, which Congress had rejected 18 months prior to that. Despite the prohibition against the employment of illegal immigrants, Obama decided that as many as 2 million illegals can stay indefinitely and be given authorization to work here. As he begins to push for comprehensive immigration reform, the impact will be transformational if passed. First of all, legalizing millions of new residents will create pressure on the economy, as government entitlements and social services will be stretched even more. Illegal immigrants tend to be on the low end of the skill spectrum. Having to absorb millions more into the system threatens to weaken this economy further. This could lead to even higher taxes for individuals and businesses. And, we can expect more competition for available jobs for the citizens who are already struggling to find work.
Politically, the GOP stance on low taxes and small government will not attract too many of the millions of new dependents. It is expected there will be 4 million additional voters by 2024 and 17 million by 2036. If this new voting bloc needs or desires more government services, then the Democrat Party will always have that advantage; the last election was determined by about 4 million votes. Enough said.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/immigration_race_and_social_conflict.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2013/01/03/believe-president-obama-on-immigration-he-will-not-enforce-most-laws-even-after-an-amnesty-n1477877/page/full
Yes, Barack Obama is fundamentally transforming the United States of America. In Part 2 we will explore more ways in which he is fulfilling this promise.
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day 2008
The progressive agenda, incrementally moving forward for the past hundred years, and now led by Barack Obama, the most far left president in this nation's history, is now quickly coming to fruition. Since Obama's reign we have watched the federal government takeover of our health care system, education, and student loans. We watch still as our country is deliberately being divided in so many ways - by class, by race, by gender, by political party. We watch as our freedoms are diminishing - religious expression, speech, privacy. We watch as our economy has been suffering and continues to suffer with insurmountable debt and high unemployment. We watch as our standing in the world is weaker and smaller. The one promise this president is keeping is his fundamental transformation of America.
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM - The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, as a government-centric law, is a major move towards a single payer system, or socialized medicine. Obama and the left could call it what they want, but the control over the country's health care system is nothing less than that; once the government controls health care, it controls everything. It is a system which is controlling businesses and how they manage employees via mandates, insurance coverage, workers' hours, number of employees, etc. It is controlling individuals and their families via premiums, doctor choices, hospital choices, and rationing of care. It comprises 1/6 of the country's economy and is raising the debt even further than the unsustainable figure it is at now. No small item is the collection of private health information which will also be shared with the IRS. "Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state"....Vladimir Lenin.
EDUCATION - Common Core, originally offered to states in exchange for needed financial assistance, is the nationalizing of education standards for K-12 students. It is a government-led curriculum which is now viewed by critics as lowering expectations for academic excellence and not at all rigorous (despite claims of raising the bar). Maybe because the purpose is not to create excellence, but to manage education. And, while the curriculum is defined by the federal government, rather than the state and the local school boards, the data mining on every student will be ongoing. For along with the new standards, comes frequent academic assessments. Personal information gathering about each student and their families will also be done, as well as physiological testing, taking into account behavior, attitudes, persistence, etc. via the use of technological devices such as scans and sensors. Eventually, the government will have very personal information on every student in the country. It appears now that Common Core will be reaching private schools and home schoolers as well; again, taking away the choice from parents as to how best to educate their own children.
Joy Pullman, Education Research Fellow at the Heartland Institute stated, “The real goal is social engineering,” Pullmann said, echoing widespread concerns among Common Core critics across the political spectrum. “I don't like to use explosive sorts of things like that, but this is very obvious — the goal is to create a workforce that responds to the needs of the 21st century, as determined by the central planners.” http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16647-expert-explores-link-between-federal-data-mining-and-common-core
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-a-scheme-to-rewrite-education
"Government-controlled schooling is essential to achieving the goals of socialism"...Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto
IMMIGRATION - The President has been talking lately about tackling immigration reform. Already, the Obama administration has chosen not to enforce certain immigration laws already on the books, by directing that ICE not take custody of illegal immigrants arrested by local police, except for the most violent criminals. The president has also unilaterally implemented portions of the amnesty Dream Act, which Congress had rejected 18 months prior to that. Despite the prohibition against the employment of illegal immigrants, Obama decided that as many as 2 million illegals can stay indefinitely and be given authorization to work here. As he begins to push for comprehensive immigration reform, the impact will be transformational if passed. First of all, legalizing millions of new residents will create pressure on the economy, as government entitlements and social services will be stretched even more. Illegal immigrants tend to be on the low end of the skill spectrum. Having to absorb millions more into the system threatens to weaken this economy further. This could lead to even higher taxes for individuals and businesses. And, we can expect more competition for available jobs for the citizens who are already struggling to find work.
Politically, the GOP stance on low taxes and small government will not attract too many of the millions of new dependents. It is expected there will be 4 million additional voters by 2024 and 17 million by 2036. If this new voting bloc needs or desires more government services, then the Democrat Party will always have that advantage; the last election was determined by about 4 million votes. Enough said.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/immigration_race_and_social_conflict.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2013/01/03/believe-president-obama-on-immigration-he-will-not-enforce-most-laws-even-after-an-amnesty-n1477877/page/full
Yes, Barack Obama is fundamentally transforming the United States of America. In Part 2 we will explore more ways in which he is fulfilling this promise.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Heroes No, Illegals Yes
Coincidence?
For a week now, the WWII and other war memorials in Washington, D.C. have been closed due to the government shutdown. We've seen the veterans, who came from all parts of the country, barricaded from these memorials. To make matters worse, families of fallen soldiers have now been told they would have to foot the bill for transportation and funerals for these soldiers, and that benefits would be temporarily withheld, due to the shutdown.
But today, the national mall in D.C., the very same place which has been closed to the veterans, was wide open to thousands of illegal aliens who held a rally for immigration reform.
So, why shut the park for veterans, but open it for illegal aliens? This move would only outrage a lot of people. So why, then? Why would those in government responsible for who gets in and who stays out of the D.C. mall, poke Americans in the eye like this?
For a week now, the WWII and other war memorials in Washington, D.C. have been closed due to the government shutdown. We've seen the veterans, who came from all parts of the country, barricaded from these memorials. To make matters worse, families of fallen soldiers have now been told they would have to foot the bill for transportation and funerals for these soldiers, and that benefits would be temporarily withheld, due to the shutdown.
But today, the national mall in D.C., the very same place which has been closed to the veterans, was wide open to thousands of illegal aliens who held a rally for immigration reform.
So, why shut the park for veterans, but open it for illegal aliens? This move would only outrage a lot of people. So why, then? Why would those in government responsible for who gets in and who stays out of the D.C. mall, poke Americans in the eye like this?
Monday, October 7, 2013
Who And What Is The Tea Party?
They've been called anarchists, arsonists, racists and terrorists by the Democrats. They've been maligned by establishment Republicans. The American media has portrayed them as dangerous. Even Homeland Security put them on a terror watch list.
A Rasmussen poll of a couple of months ago, revealed that 26% of those who approve of Obama's performance see the Tea Party as the biggest terror threat to the U.S. And, among those who approve, just 29% see radical Muslims as a bigger threat. For those who strongly approve of Obama's performance, the Tea Party is more feared than radical Muslims. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/26_of_obama_supporters_view_tea_party_as_nation_s_top_terror_threat
The birth of the Tea Party movement occurred shortly after President Obama took office. It was early 2009, when it became apparent that the president had no intention of curbing his spending of our money. (At the rate he was spending, he increased the national debt as much as all of the presidents from Washington to Bush, combined, in his first term.) Americans then started rallying and protesting for the government to be fiscally responsible, to adhere to the principles of free markets, and to respect and follow our Constitution.
So, who is the Tea Party? These Americans are you and me; we are not extremists or radicals. We came together from all socioeconomic levels, all ages, all races, united in our desire to scale down a government that had simply become too big. The reach into our wallets became too deep, the intrusion into our lives too great. "Don't Tread on Me" became the motto.
This is what the Tea Party movement is all about. It is not a political party. There is no leader. But it has grown into a vast network of 'small government'-minded patriots who want to restore the best that is America. It is not a violent or a racist group, yet the marginalizing of the Tea Party continues to occur. And working to elect Tea Party candidates, means supporting those who truly believe in upholding the Constitution. For some reason, this is threatening to people. How sad. How ironic. And, how far we have come, when the people who believe in restoring America to the founding principles which made this country great, are viewed so contemptuously.
A Rasmussen poll of a couple of months ago, revealed that 26% of those who approve of Obama's performance see the Tea Party as the biggest terror threat to the U.S. And, among those who approve, just 29% see radical Muslims as a bigger threat. For those who strongly approve of Obama's performance, the Tea Party is more feared than radical Muslims. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/26_of_obama_supporters_view_tea_party_as_nation_s_top_terror_threat
The birth of the Tea Party movement occurred shortly after President Obama took office. It was early 2009, when it became apparent that the president had no intention of curbing his spending of our money. (At the rate he was spending, he increased the national debt as much as all of the presidents from Washington to Bush, combined, in his first term.) Americans then started rallying and protesting for the government to be fiscally responsible, to adhere to the principles of free markets, and to respect and follow our Constitution.
So, who is the Tea Party? These Americans are you and me; we are not extremists or radicals. We came together from all socioeconomic levels, all ages, all races, united in our desire to scale down a government that had simply become too big. The reach into our wallets became too deep, the intrusion into our lives too great. "Don't Tread on Me" became the motto.
This is what the Tea Party movement is all about. It is not a political party. There is no leader. But it has grown into a vast network of 'small government'-minded patriots who want to restore the best that is America. It is not a violent or a racist group, yet the marginalizing of the Tea Party continues to occur. And working to elect Tea Party candidates, means supporting those who truly believe in upholding the Constitution. For some reason, this is threatening to people. How sad. How ironic. And, how far we have come, when the people who believe in restoring America to the founding principles which made this country great, are viewed so contemptuously.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Punished
WWII vets prohibited from visiting open-air war memorials in D.C.
National parks closed.
Scenic routes barricaded.
Private businesses on park lands told to shut down.
Mount Vernon parking lot blocked.
Florida Bay closed (?) to fishermen.
Etc, etc...
These are just some of the signs of the government shutdown for all to see.
Warren Meyer, president and owner of Recreation Resource Management, employs about 400-500 camp workers and managers across a dozen states. Meyer has been ordered to close all of his parks due to the government shutdown. In a letter he wrote to Sen. McCain and Sen. Fluke of AZ, he said, "The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation." In this case, not only are these parks not costing the Federal government any money to stay open, the government makes money when they're open. And to add insult to injury, the government is making him and other park management companies buy the barricades to shut their parks. As Meyer put it: "We are like prisoners of war who have to pay for our prison." http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/10/02/shutdown-white-house-ordering-privately-run-privately-funded-parks-to-close/
What's really happening here? What's happening is this administration's attempt to inflict pain and inconvenience in a visible way on the American people. (What good would it be if the government shutdown was invisible?) Our president is punishing us. Why? So that we will blame Republicans, even though Republicans have consistently stated they want to fund everything except Obamacare. Now, why present it that way? Because Obamacare is an untenable law that will hurt this country in many ways. And, because the Republicans are finally listening to their constituents who have elected them to do what they can to repeal or defund the monstrosity. However, having said that, the Republicans are willing to compromise to stop the shutdown by delaying Obamacare for a year and repealing the medical device tax.
However, this President, who will negotiate with major sponsors of terrorism, Iran and Syria, refuses to negotiate with Republicans. Never mind that he, himself, has imposed amendments and delays on this law such as exemptions for Congress, big business, etc., delayed the employer mandate, and signed off on many other reforms. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/11/study-obamacare-has-been-amended-delayed-19-times/
Although there have been many government shutdowns in the past, never has a president so openly revealed such a vengeful streak as this president does. He has no interest in negotiating or compromising with people whom he perceives as the real enemy, aka Republicans.
While an open handshake is extended to terrorist nations, the Republicans are offered a closed fist.
National parks closed.
Scenic routes barricaded.
Private businesses on park lands told to shut down.
Mount Vernon parking lot blocked.
Florida Bay closed (?) to fishermen.
Etc, etc...
These are just some of the signs of the government shutdown for all to see.
Warren Meyer, president and owner of Recreation Resource Management, employs about 400-500 camp workers and managers across a dozen states. Meyer has been ordered to close all of his parks due to the government shutdown. In a letter he wrote to Sen. McCain and Sen. Fluke of AZ, he said, "The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation." In this case, not only are these parks not costing the Federal government any money to stay open, the government makes money when they're open. And to add insult to injury, the government is making him and other park management companies buy the barricades to shut their parks. As Meyer put it: "We are like prisoners of war who have to pay for our prison." http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/10/02/shutdown-white-house-ordering-privately-run-privately-funded-parks-to-close/
What's really happening here? What's happening is this administration's attempt to inflict pain and inconvenience in a visible way on the American people. (What good would it be if the government shutdown was invisible?) Our president is punishing us. Why? So that we will blame Republicans, even though Republicans have consistently stated they want to fund everything except Obamacare. Now, why present it that way? Because Obamacare is an untenable law that will hurt this country in many ways. And, because the Republicans are finally listening to their constituents who have elected them to do what they can to repeal or defund the monstrosity. However, having said that, the Republicans are willing to compromise to stop the shutdown by delaying Obamacare for a year and repealing the medical device tax.
However, this President, who will negotiate with major sponsors of terrorism, Iran and Syria, refuses to negotiate with Republicans. Never mind that he, himself, has imposed amendments and delays on this law such as exemptions for Congress, big business, etc., delayed the employer mandate, and signed off on many other reforms. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/11/study-obamacare-has-been-amended-delayed-19-times/
Although there have been many government shutdowns in the past, never has a president so openly revealed such a vengeful streak as this president does. He has no interest in negotiating or compromising with people whom he perceives as the real enemy, aka Republicans.
While an open handshake is extended to terrorist nations, the Republicans are offered a closed fist.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Fight For Us!
In My Opinion
We want them to fight. We need them to fight. They must fight.
We elect our politicians to fight for us. We elect them to represent us. 'We the people' want our voices heard, and we want the politicians to act on our will. So, when Ted Cruz stands up on the Senate floor to fight to defund Obamacare, we like it. We've had enough of elected officials promise one thing and then do another. Every single Republican who was up for election/re-election, promised to fight to defeat Obamacare one way or another. Yet, when push comes to shove, the vast majority of them throw up their hands and call it a fait accompli. At the moment, Cruz is winning the day...as he should. He's doing what he was elected to do. These days that's rare.
We want them to fight. We need them to fight. They must fight.
We elect our politicians to fight for us. We elect them to represent us. 'We the people' want our voices heard, and we want the politicians to act on our will. So, when Ted Cruz stands up on the Senate floor to fight to defund Obamacare, we like it. We've had enough of elected officials promise one thing and then do another. Every single Republican who was up for election/re-election, promised to fight to defeat Obamacare one way or another. Yet, when push comes to shove, the vast majority of them throw up their hands and call it a fait accompli. At the moment, Cruz is winning the day...as he should. He's doing what he was elected to do. These days that's rare.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Armed With the Facts
The topic of gun control elicits intense emotions on both sides. The fact is, gun rights advocates and gun control advocates alike, abhor needless shootings such as the recent Washington Navy Yard massacre or the Newtown nightmare. The following offers some of the facts, in order to reach reasoned, not emotional, conclusions.
Bill of Rights - The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment is not about keeping guns for hunting or sport shooting. This amendment goes to the heart of constitutional principles to preserve the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was written to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It is what stands between 'we the people' and an ever-growing and intrusive government. It is this right that protects our other rights.
An armed civilian population can defend itself against a tyrannical government, as well as individual violations. A look back in history shows that tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and Mao relied on an unarmed population to control them and to seize power. The day after Kristallnacht, Hitler prohibited Jews from acquiring guns or any weapons, and those who possessed guns were ordered to turn them over to the police. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html
"Gun ownership transcends petty partisan politics. The intentional disarmament of the population has irrefutably been shown as a necessary though not sufficient condition to genocide." (Gun Control, Disarmament and the Threat of Genocide, by Dr. Jason J. Campbell) http://www.academia.edu/486853/Gun_Control_Disarmament_and_the_Threat_of_Genocide_Second_Amendment
"The threat to the Second Amendment is also coming internationally as the United Nations has a goal of disarmament. They have actively campaigned for worldwide gun control, and have declared that civilian ownership of guns is a major cause of violence around the world. The reality is that the UN has failed miserably in preventing crimes against humanity, and has further facilitated in the disarming of populations, leaving them defenseless." http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dana_gab_071217_disarming_of_the_pop.htm
In November 2012, the Obama administration voted for a renewed effort to pass the "Small Arms Treaty." Sen. Rand Paul is working to defeat this treaty in the Senate. According to Paul,
"You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/rand-paul-obama-is-working-with-anti-american-globalists-plotting-against-our-constitution/
Gun Crime
Despite public perception, crimes committed with firearms continue a two decade decline, including the number of school type shootings.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/07/gun-control-would-address-declining-crim
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "firearm-related homicides declined 39% and non-fatal firearm crime declined 69% from 1993 to 2011."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/09/stats-gun-crime-plummets-over-last-two-decades-poll-public-totally-clueless-n1591940
There are almost double the number of guns since the early '90's, yet violent gun crime is cut in half.
Strict Gun Control
Strict gun control doesn't mean fewer gun crimes. California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011. That same year California was named the state with the strictest gun laws.
In 1976 Washington D.C. took strong measures. It banned new handguns, it required all guns to be registered and required guns at home to be stored unloaded, disassembled or locked up. And it also topped the list of highest gun murder rates in 2011.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statistics-that-gun-control-advocates-dont-want-to-see/
Another case in point, Chicago, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country and some of the strictest gun control laws. http://www.policymic.com/articles/22622/gun-control-is-why-chicago-murder-rates-are-skyrocketing
"In reality, an extensive 2004 report by the National Academy of Science was not able to identify a single gun control regulation that actually reduces violent crime, suicides or accidents. The NAS panel reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some of its own empirical work on firearms. The shooters in Arizona, Colorado and Newtown were mentally ill persons. They posed a danger to society before they committed their acts of violence." (Control, by Glenn Beck). Navy veteran Aaron Alexis reportedly had mental illness as well.
Self Defense
Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens won't prevent shootings like Newtown, because stricter gun control laws don't keep criminals from acquiring guns. In fact, there are many cases when a gun in the hands of a responsible person kept a situation from escalating. With more gun-free zones, and fewer armed law-abiding citizens, more helpless victims are created. In the case of the Washington Navy Yard, had the military personnel not been prohibited from carrying a firearm on the base (ban was imposed in 1993), it's likely that the casualties would've been limited. Bans simply disarm potential victims. With regard to the mass murders which have occurred in the last few years, what ultimately stopped the 'bad guy' with a gun, was a 'good guy' with a gun. The police cannot protect us from immediate danger, they can only respond to it. And, waiting for the police to come offers more time for the criminal to commit more violence. Individuals must be able to protect themselves from these criminals.
Although the estimates vary widely depending on a number of factors, statistics regarding defensive gun use range from a high estimate of 1-2 million per year, low estimates average between 250,000-370,000 incidents per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
Most defensive gun use incidents rarely get media attention, which is why the public by a majority of 56% believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago.
Assault Weapons
The assault weapon is rarely used by criminals since it is neither concealed nor portable.
The most commonly used weapon is a handgun, not a semi-automatic.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/07/gun-control-would-address-declining-crim
According to the assaultweapon.info website, "In the late 1980s, more than two decades after the AR-15
was first sold to the American public, the anti-gun lobby began a
systematic campaign to conflate it and other "military-style" firearms
with machine guns. The media followed suit, and soon the American public began to think that an assault weapon was, like the assault rifles it resembled, a machine gun.
This strategy came to fruition in 1993, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was introduced in Congress. The AWB would ban the sale of new assault weapons to American civilians.
However, since "assault weapon" was an invented term, it
had no technical meaning. Before assault weapons could be banned,
legislators had to define them.
Because assault rifles were already banned, and because
an outright ban on semi-automatic firearms wasn't considered politically
feasible, the AWB defined assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms
that shared too many cosmetic features with their fully automatic
counterparts."
"According to Senator Feinstein so-called assault weapons
have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about
48 murders per year. But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time."
"Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.
The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing. So-called assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms—the guns most commonly used by millions of law-abiding Americans." (Semi-automatic means it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.)
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Conceal Carry Laws
Some data suggests that states with conceal carry laws have the lowest crime.
"The recent report from ABC News that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down
http://www.firearmsclasses.com/information/concealed-carry-facts/
"What did Sandy Hook Elementary School, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theaters in Colorado have in common? They were all the sites of massacres that ended innocent lives. And they all were gun-free zones."
John Lott, an economist and gun rights advocate who authored the book "More Guns, Less Crime," recently examined mass shootings. He discovered that "not only are gun-free zones ineffective at preventing mass shootings, shootings are actually more likely to occur in gun-free zones because the shooter knows there will be less resistance."
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/mar/23/gun-free-zones-dont-work/
Background Checks
There are already a number of background checks on the books. However, many states do not require a waiting period between the time of purchase and the transfer of the firearm. It may be more effective to impose waiting periods to allow law enforcement to perform the background checks, and it gives the purchaser a 'cooling off' time to prevent impulsive acts.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#background
http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-periods-policy-summary/
The problem is, the criminals don't buy guns legally, and therefore are able to circumvent the system. In the case of the Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza took guns from his mother, and thereby didn't have to go through a background check. This 'private sale' loophole in the law allows anyone who isn't a federally licensed gun dealer to sell a gun without a background check. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "researchers in 2000 reviewed more than a decade of crime data in states with and without background checks. They found no significant difference in murder rates in states that had implemented the checks and states that had not." http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/guns-background-checks-do-they-work-86755_Page3.html
More regulations simply do not apply to those not following the laws in the first place. And law-abiding citizens simply don't need more laws and regulations since they are law-abiding. However, improved checks on mentally unstable people seems to be in need. There was no criminal record for Aaron Alexis, but his mental instability, as evidenced by prior incidents, needed to raise a red flag for gun ownership, as well as for security clearances.
Other Factors
While many look at the guns used in mass shootings, a look at the people committing the mass shootings reveals some common background. As mentioned, several of the shooters had a history of mental illness. If we are to improve mental health reporting, it will likely be more complex than meets the eye; how will it be determined who gets reported? Does it have to entail prior commitment to a mental facility? Would that apply to those involuntarily committed or also to those who voluntarily went in for treatment? Would visiting a psychiatrist get reported? Would certain prescriptions raise a red flag? Besides the potentially inaccurate reporting, collecting that kind of information for a database could violate civil liberties. There are many concerns and questions that arise here.
Another factor that some of the mass shooters had in common was that they were avid gamers. Does playing violent video games increase aggression? According to research presented by APA, when referring to children and adolescents, "there is a consensus amongst the vast majority of violent video game researchers that too much exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviors, leads to desensitization to violence and also leads to decreases in pro-social behaviors and empathy (Anderson et al, 2010; Huesmann 2010)." There are some detractors from this view that believe the methodology is flawed. http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10ASISBSRS.pdf
Summary
The Second Amendment offers citizens the right to self protect.
A tyrannical government will seek to disarm the population.
The UN is actively campaigning to impose strict gun control internationally.
Gun crime has decreased despite the increase of gun sales.
Strict gun control does not translate into less gun crime.
Defensive gun use far outnumbers offensive gun use.
Assault weapons are used 0.06% of the time.
Data suggests that conceal carry laws deter gun crime.
Gun-free zones are ineffective at preventing crime.
Background checks won't find criminals. Criminals get guns illegally.
Many states don't impose waiting periods before taking possession of a firearm.
Private sales of guns represent a loophole in the laws.
Improvements in mental health reporting are needed.
Other factors in violent shootings play a role, e.g. mental illness, violent video games.
The point of controversy for gun control advocates vs. pro gun advocates, is that the former believes that guns are to blame, the latter believes the person is to blame. The lens with which you see this issue will determine how you feel it should be dealt with. However, when deciding where you stand on the Second Amendment, get armed with the facts.
Bill of Rights - The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment is not about keeping guns for hunting or sport shooting. This amendment goes to the heart of constitutional principles to preserve the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was written to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It is what stands between 'we the people' and an ever-growing and intrusive government. It is this right that protects our other rights.
An armed civilian population can defend itself against a tyrannical government, as well as individual violations. A look back in history shows that tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and Mao relied on an unarmed population to control them and to seize power. The day after Kristallnacht, Hitler prohibited Jews from acquiring guns or any weapons, and those who possessed guns were ordered to turn them over to the police. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html
"Gun ownership transcends petty partisan politics. The intentional disarmament of the population has irrefutably been shown as a necessary though not sufficient condition to genocide." (Gun Control, Disarmament and the Threat of Genocide, by Dr. Jason J. Campbell) http://www.academia.edu/486853/Gun_Control_Disarmament_and_the_Threat_of_Genocide_Second_Amendment
"The threat to the Second Amendment is also coming internationally as the United Nations has a goal of disarmament. They have actively campaigned for worldwide gun control, and have declared that civilian ownership of guns is a major cause of violence around the world. The reality is that the UN has failed miserably in preventing crimes against humanity, and has further facilitated in the disarming of populations, leaving them defenseless." http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dana_gab_071217_disarming_of_the_pop.htm
In November 2012, the Obama administration voted for a renewed effort to pass the "Small Arms Treaty." Sen. Rand Paul is working to defeat this treaty in the Senate. According to Paul,
"You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/rand-paul-obama-is-working-with-anti-american-globalists-plotting-against-our-constitution/
Gun Crime
Despite public perception, crimes committed with firearms continue a two decade decline, including the number of school type shootings.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/07/gun-control-would-address-declining-crim
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "firearm-related homicides declined 39% and non-fatal firearm crime declined 69% from 1993 to 2011."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/09/stats-gun-crime-plummets-over-last-two-decades-poll-public-totally-clueless-n1591940
There are almost double the number of guns since the early '90's, yet violent gun crime is cut in half.
Strict Gun Control
Strict gun control doesn't mean fewer gun crimes. California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011. That same year California was named the state with the strictest gun laws.
In 1976 Washington D.C. took strong measures. It banned new handguns, it required all guns to be registered and required guns at home to be stored unloaded, disassembled or locked up. And it also topped the list of highest gun murder rates in 2011.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statistics-that-gun-control-advocates-dont-want-to-see/
Another case in point, Chicago, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country and some of the strictest gun control laws. http://www.policymic.com/articles/22622/gun-control-is-why-chicago-murder-rates-are-skyrocketing
"In reality, an extensive 2004 report by the National Academy of Science was not able to identify a single gun control regulation that actually reduces violent crime, suicides or accidents. The NAS panel reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some of its own empirical work on firearms. The shooters in Arizona, Colorado and Newtown were mentally ill persons. They posed a danger to society before they committed their acts of violence." (Control, by Glenn Beck). Navy veteran Aaron Alexis reportedly had mental illness as well.
Self Defense
Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens won't prevent shootings like Newtown, because stricter gun control laws don't keep criminals from acquiring guns. In fact, there are many cases when a gun in the hands of a responsible person kept a situation from escalating. With more gun-free zones, and fewer armed law-abiding citizens, more helpless victims are created. In the case of the Washington Navy Yard, had the military personnel not been prohibited from carrying a firearm on the base (ban was imposed in 1993), it's likely that the casualties would've been limited. Bans simply disarm potential victims. With regard to the mass murders which have occurred in the last few years, what ultimately stopped the 'bad guy' with a gun, was a 'good guy' with a gun. The police cannot protect us from immediate danger, they can only respond to it. And, waiting for the police to come offers more time for the criminal to commit more violence. Individuals must be able to protect themselves from these criminals.
Although the estimates vary widely depending on a number of factors, statistics regarding defensive gun use range from a high estimate of 1-2 million per year, low estimates average between 250,000-370,000 incidents per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
Most defensive gun use incidents rarely get media attention, which is why the public by a majority of 56% believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago.
Assault Weapons
The assault weapon is rarely used by criminals since it is neither concealed nor portable.
The most commonly used weapon is a handgun, not a semi-automatic.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/07/gun-control-would-address-declining-crim
"Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.
The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing. So-called assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms—the guns most commonly used by millions of law-abiding Americans." (Semi-automatic means it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.)
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Conceal Carry Laws
Some data suggests that states with conceal carry laws have the lowest crime.
"The recent report from ABC News that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down
http://www.firearmsclasses.com/information/concealed-carry-facts/
"What did Sandy Hook Elementary School, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theaters in Colorado have in common? They were all the sites of massacres that ended innocent lives. And they all were gun-free zones."
John Lott, an economist and gun rights advocate who authored the book "More Guns, Less Crime," recently examined mass shootings. He discovered that "not only are gun-free zones ineffective at preventing mass shootings, shootings are actually more likely to occur in gun-free zones because the shooter knows there will be less resistance."
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/mar/23/gun-free-zones-dont-work/
Background Checks
There are already a number of background checks on the books. However, many states do not require a waiting period between the time of purchase and the transfer of the firearm. It may be more effective to impose waiting periods to allow law enforcement to perform the background checks, and it gives the purchaser a 'cooling off' time to prevent impulsive acts.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#background
http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-periods-policy-summary/
The problem is, the criminals don't buy guns legally, and therefore are able to circumvent the system. In the case of the Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza took guns from his mother, and thereby didn't have to go through a background check. This 'private sale' loophole in the law allows anyone who isn't a federally licensed gun dealer to sell a gun without a background check. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "researchers in 2000 reviewed more than a decade of crime data in states with and without background checks. They found no significant difference in murder rates in states that had implemented the checks and states that had not." http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/guns-background-checks-do-they-work-86755_Page3.html
More regulations simply do not apply to those not following the laws in the first place. And law-abiding citizens simply don't need more laws and regulations since they are law-abiding. However, improved checks on mentally unstable people seems to be in need. There was no criminal record for Aaron Alexis, but his mental instability, as evidenced by prior incidents, needed to raise a red flag for gun ownership, as well as for security clearances.
Other Factors
While many look at the guns used in mass shootings, a look at the people committing the mass shootings reveals some common background. As mentioned, several of the shooters had a history of mental illness. If we are to improve mental health reporting, it will likely be more complex than meets the eye; how will it be determined who gets reported? Does it have to entail prior commitment to a mental facility? Would that apply to those involuntarily committed or also to those who voluntarily went in for treatment? Would visiting a psychiatrist get reported? Would certain prescriptions raise a red flag? Besides the potentially inaccurate reporting, collecting that kind of information for a database could violate civil liberties. There are many concerns and questions that arise here.
Another factor that some of the mass shooters had in common was that they were avid gamers. Does playing violent video games increase aggression? According to research presented by APA, when referring to children and adolescents, "there is a consensus amongst the vast majority of violent video game researchers that too much exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviors, leads to desensitization to violence and also leads to decreases in pro-social behaviors and empathy (Anderson et al, 2010; Huesmann 2010)." There are some detractors from this view that believe the methodology is flawed. http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10ASISBSRS.pdf
Summary
The Second Amendment offers citizens the right to self protect.
A tyrannical government will seek to disarm the population.
The UN is actively campaigning to impose strict gun control internationally.
Gun crime has decreased despite the increase of gun sales.
Strict gun control does not translate into less gun crime.
Defensive gun use far outnumbers offensive gun use.
Assault weapons are used 0.06% of the time.
Data suggests that conceal carry laws deter gun crime.
Gun-free zones are ineffective at preventing crime.
Background checks won't find criminals. Criminals get guns illegally.
Many states don't impose waiting periods before taking possession of a firearm.
Private sales of guns represent a loophole in the laws.
Improvements in mental health reporting are needed.
Other factors in violent shootings play a role, e.g. mental illness, violent video games.
The point of controversy for gun control advocates vs. pro gun advocates, is that the former believes that guns are to blame, the latter believes the person is to blame. The lens with which you see this issue will determine how you feel it should be dealt with. However, when deciding where you stand on the Second Amendment, get armed with the facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)