Elitest Hypocrites Demanding Gun Control

I was hoping to make it to the new year without doing this…I did kind of promise the wife I would spend less time on the computer during the holidays.  But since she left for a half day of work, the kids are still asleep, and I am already up…I can do this and not feel like I am being a bad guy about it.  Yay.

So here we are the 31st of December on the verge of the fiscal cliff.  Do we go over it, do we not, who knows.  While we are teetering on the edge of sequestration and some belt-tightening, we are still reeling from the mass shootings and mass murders this year, all 14 of them.  Of course, the Newtown shooting is still fresh in our mind, but apparently it is so fresh and touching in the minds of our Hollywood elite they had to make a black and white video showing a bunch of violence that occurs everyday in America and around the world and beg all of us to go to our government and “demand a plan” for ending gun violence and gun ownership and the use of guns by pretty much everyone.

Wow…um, the Hollywood elite telling us once again how we should feel about their politics.  Fabulous.  Well one internetian (I don’t know what to call these people) went out and created his own video, spicing in with the tinsel town fools crying for some kind of social, anti-gun action all the images of these exact people shooting their way across the silver screen, murdering person after person.  I loaded the clean version on here for your enjoyment.

Now some of you will say, but gun kill people.  Hollywood actors are just giving the Americans what they want, movies and video games don’t make you kill, blah, blah, blah, etc.  You know, that may be right, stupid but arguably right, but does this level of violence not desensitize people in the long run.

I had a friend once tell me about a movie he saw in the theater, American Psycho, where in the killer was busy murdering a homeless person and the audience did nothing, but when the killer murdered the homeless man’s dog, the audience got vocal with shock and disappointment.  So the imaginary death of a dog is worth more than the imaginary death of a man….and Hollywood, an industry built on sex, violence, and lies wants us to listen to them when it comes time to act holier than thou?  Well ef them.  They are all elitist hypocrites, the kind of people who travel with armed body guards to keep them safe from the little, unclean people they look down on. I suppose what they want is gun control for the masses, not the few at the top, not the 1% of themselves as it were.

You only come out and make a video after a national tragedy, you are only engaging in a publicity stunt and that makes me sick. There were over 500 murders in Chicago this year, in 2012, and no star made a video for that.  Where is the love for Rahm-land.  The latest figures state that in the United States there are 10.2 gun deaths for every 100,000 people.  That is roughly 32,000 people a year.  Where is your video oh Hollywood?  I guess raw numbers don’t evoke the same kind of manipulative emotions you want to tackle.

But wait, you take out the suicides and the unintentional gun deaths and the number drops to 3.7 gun murders in America for every 100,000 people. Yes, there are many countries above that number and many countries below that number, you could argue that the UK with its stringent gun control has fewer gun crimes but you could offset that with the fact that Switzerland, where every male is required to serve in the military and then keep an automatic weapon in his home with ammunition also has a very low rate of gun murders. Weird. This is not about guns, it is about education about access, about equilibrium.

Guns are part of the unique culture of America, spend some time learning about them, becoming comfortable with them and having them everywhere and given to everyone.  There is your solution, flood the country with guns, make sure everyone has a gun.  When everyone has one, people will be a little more thoughtful about taking one out, waving it around, and trying to kill people with it. Then America wins.

Oh, and Happy New Year to all of you.

Gun Owners = Racists, says Yale Professor

My very first question, even before I get into the meat of this thing, is how in the hell do these people earn doctorates.  I mean, you’d think these people too small-minded and ignorant of the way things actually work to be able to function to the point they can earn a degree.  But I guess when the diploma mills are all staffed by the same narrow-minded and ignorant morons writing this same stuff and brainwashing their students into the ideas of social justice, arms control, and anti-Americanism, you just shake your head and say of course, it makes sense, monkey see, monkey doo. Literally.

Jim Sleeper this lecturer in political science at Yale goes on through the first few paragraphs writing about the tragedy in Newtown.  We can all agree on that, it was horrifying, it made me sick to my stomach.  I literally couldn’t believe it and I knew the rest of the country was in about the same boat I found myself in at that moment.  However, instead of asking why this f’ed up young man would stoop to something so low, they went ahead and said, guns did this, the gun culture is responsible for this, and Americans need to give these guns up for a safer society.  Not one mention of the insane level of disturbed this kid was. Sleeper goes on to say that people who believe in the right and freedom to bear arms are no different from segregationists in the 1950’s in the south.  What?

Yup, gun owners are deluded racists.  I fail to see the connection here.  Segregationists were trying to keep an entire race of people down.  They wanted the whole separate but equal mentality, which was neither.  They were about classism, racism, having power over another person.  Is this really how the left sees gun owners?  Ask any gun owner who should have guns…the answer will almost always be everyone except for children, criminals, and the mentally unstable.  The first only applies because they have not been instructed in the proper use of a firearm and lack the ability to think things through, the second two because they cannot be trusted to use a firearm responsibly.  They don’t want to keep firearms out of the hands of the masses for themselves, they would like to see every American who can be armed, armed.  That is real equality.

But again, Sleeper shows his ineptitude in this paragraph:

“As we try to free the Second Amendment of interpretations and statutory encrustations as destructive as the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions, we’ll also have to free First Amendment of jurisprudence that equates the speech of citizens with disembodied corporate marketing’s algorithmically driven desperation to glue our kids’ eyeballs and rewire their guts as it inundates them not with artists’ art, political actors’ appeals, or real reporters’ findings but with endless, empty titillation and intimidation for profit.”

One you don’t understand the original intent of the second amendment.  I could look up a number of SCOTUS cases that have spelled it out for you, it seems that interpretation is pretty pot on.  Second, do you even know what you are talking about citing Dred Scott? One of the reasons the Dred Scott decision was made as it was, was because, according to the court giving citizenship to negros would enable…”the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

Yes, part of that decision was to keep firearms out of the hands of black men. Yeah. I guess you shot yourself in the foot over that one Sleeper, haha.  Maybe you should have done a bit more freaking research, but like most close minded individuals you just twisted the things to your own agenda, telling the story you wanted.

Secondly, what do you mean freeing the First Amendment…free speech applies to ALL, every single one…every single man, woman, child, company, organization, etc.  It is free speech, how much more simpler can it be. I guess when you want people censored so you can push your own agenda the freedoms the Constitution guarantees become more open to your interpretations.  Whatever.

Gun owners are not racists, they are not monsters, and blaming the evils of individuals on inanimate objects is just asinine.  But, no one accused these libtards of having the common sense God gave a fly.  I guess we will just have to go on breaking their arguments and listening to them devolve into screaming racist.  It is really their only defense when they can’t win an argument with facts.  Like I just did.  So Jim Sleeper and the Huffonitpost can suck it!

Source Here.

Media largely covering up the truth about Clackamas mall shooting

Nick Meli, the hero you won’t hear about from the mainstream media.

It seems that gun violence is out of control.  The media has reported thousands of stories about gun violence and mass shootings this year.  Maybe because there were fourteen such incidents in twelve months (list below). Spree shootings, mass shootings, mass murderers abounded this year.  Every time we turned around it seems that some f’ing whack job was shooting up a gun free area; a mall, school, workplace, government building, etc. The media was there to tell us about the tragedy and then remind us how evil guns are…not people whom use them to kill others but the guns themselves.

The media revels in the violence and carnage, why shouldn’t they, it is what they are there for, shock value and headlines, teasers and drama.  These are not legitimate news agencies any more, they are just waiting for the next big thing, like the Don Henly song, they want dirty laundry. Besides that, they can push their own political agenda, whether it be for or against something since they have a massive presence they can push whatever they want into the throats of the masses and expect it to get swallowed.  Let’s face it, a lot, LOT, of people are stupid, bumbling, morons, and whatever they see or read from their favorite news source is the gospel according to yellow journalism and most people don’t even know what yellow journalism is either.

These news companies are for entertainment only.  What they report and how they report it should be taken as fiction.  No, I am not talking about one particular news station, or newspaper, or cable channel.  I am talking about them all.  They craft their own narratives irrespective of the facts and lead you down the dramatic story they want to tell you.  What me be blaring on the front page or web page one day, may have a quiet retraction or correction buried in a four sentence blurb on page 27 or at the bottom of the page.

Take for instance one Nick Meli at the Clackamas Mall in Oregon.  What do you know about him? hmm?  Yes, there were heroes, many of them in Clackamas that day, but what of Mr. Meli.  The twenty-two year old man with a concealed permit and packing a gun, who confronted the shooter with his weapon.  I did a Google news search…22,600+ results for Clackamas shooting, less than 100 for Nick Meli.

This man confronted the shooter with his weapon, and the shooter took his own life rather than be captured or detained.  Nick Meli was single-handedly responsible for stopping the shooter’s rampage and it has less than 100 news articles.  Most news stories credit the arrival of the police at the mall with the stop of the shooting, but really it was Meli.
“I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, ‘are you serious?,'” Meli said. He positioned himself behind a pillar while his friend with her baby sought cover.”He was working on his rifle,” said Meli. “He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.” Meli was able to pull his gun and level it on the shooter.”As I was going down to pull [the trigger], I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.”I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him. I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

Meli saved the lives of who knows how  many people, but because guns are bad you’re not going to read about this. The media doesn’t want this story told, they can’t have a news story where a gun saves lives.  They won’t stand for this and they won’t report it. What does that tell you about the media.  One sided, yellow, hypocritical, a$$hats, who shouldn’t be trusted with objective reporting.

List of Mass shootings, murders in the United States in 2012:

1. February 22, 2012  Su Jung Health Sauna, Norcross, Ga.*
2. February 27, 2012 Chardon High School, Chardon, Ohio
3. March 8, 2012 University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
4. April 2, 2012 Oikos University , Oakland, Calif.*
5. May 30, 2012 Cafe Racer, Seattle, Wash.*
6. June 9, 2012 Auburn University pool party, Auburn, Ala.
7. July 17, 2012 Copper Top bar, Tuscaloosa, Ala.
8. July 20, 2012 Century 16 movie theater, Aurora, Colo.*
9. August 5, 2012 Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, Oak Creek, Wis.*
10. August 31, 2012 Pathmark Super Mart, Old Bridge, N.J.
11. September 27, 2012 Accent Signage Systems office, Minneapolis, Minn.
12. October 21, 2012 Azana Day Spa, Brookfield., Wis.
13. December 11, 2012 Clackamas Town Center, Clackamas, Ore.
14. December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Conn.*
*FBI crime classification reports identify those who kill more than four people in a single incident, not to include themselves, as a mass murderer opposed to serial killer or spree killer, and almost always done at a single location.

Source Here.

Not the Debate We Should Be Having

We watched in horror last week as the news unfolded for us what may have been one of the most shocking and unbelievable mass shootings in modern history here in America.  If you were like me, you raged on the inside, thinking about the loss of those innocents.  You became ill either physically or in your soul.  You could not fathom or understand the depths of depravity and monsterousness of the perpetrator of this crime.  It was nearly unbelievable that some mentally unstable cuckoo would murder his own mother to get to a supply of weapons so he could go on to kill children in a school. Then those mother#$%^&%$# libtards got their hands on it and started politicizing this tragedy before we could even finish processing what happened; even before we had all of the facts.

It started on twitter and the leftist media, talking heads calling for the banning of guns, the limits of the second amendment, etc.  It moved to brain-dead politicians and movie stars, morning talk show hosts, and a number of unqualified, uneducated, and unsympathetic people. What was that line Rahm was so fond of, “Never waste a crisis.”  Well here were these people out there calling for more gun control.  Guess what, you’re all #$%^& morons, every single one of you who think more gun laws will stop things like this. I’ll break your argument right now.

Did Lanza get the guns he used legally?  No? Okay, that makes him a criminal who broke gun laws to commit a crime.  Your argument is broken.  Wait?  If there were tougher gun laws he wouldn’t have been able to get them because his mother wouldn’t have had them?  Really, a man who showed no trepidation in murdering his mother to get a firearm would show a much greater restraint if the person who had the gun was a stranger?  Again, no, your argument is broken.  I honestly believe the more weapons you have in a society the safer it is.

In fact, most mass shootings happen in your gun free zones, where “crazy” people know there is a much smaller chance of encountering an armed citizen, 12 incidents in the last 30 years have happened at schools, 19 were workplace shootings at 31 happened in shopping malls, restaurants, government buildings, and military bases.  Where are your gun free zones, oh wait, schools, workplaces, malls, restaurants, government buildings.  Wow, enlightening huh? But none of this is the debate we should be having; we should be looking at why we don’t lock up people who are a danger to themselves and others.

It used to be that there were state-run institutions where people ill enough to pose a threat to themselves or others were kept for observation and treatment to ensure they didn’t hurt anyone. However, starting in the 1950s in California, the ACLU successfully filed lawsuits to take the mentally ill out of hospitals, known as “deinstitutionalization.” By the 1980s, most state-run mental health hospitals had closed.  Where were all the crazy people going?  They weren’t any less disturbed. Oh sure, they had meds, but all they had to do was not take them, no one was going to make sure they stayed on their meds and stayed sane.

In the past 30 years there have been 63 incidents of mass or spree shootings in the United States. The massacres that have occurred all had one thing in common: From Columbine, Xerox, Westroads Mall, Trolley Square,  Aurora and this most recent in Connecticut nearly every single attacker gave warning signs of his mental instability long before the act occurred. Yet no one acted on the information, no one seems to remember this recurring fact and no one has tried to do anything about it, probably because it does not make exciting news.  It isn’t flashy.  If these psychos were locked up, they wouldn’t have been able to kill people.

Blaming guns is not the answer, blame instead those who have successfully kept the mentally unstable out of institutions where they can be cared for.  Blame all those tree hugging, granola eating liberals too worried about whether institutionalization is wrong and not about the repercussions of letting these people roam the streets freely.

You lock up the crazies, the nutjobs, and the criminally insane, give the rest of the citizens guns and have them carry them all the time and not only will violent crime drop, but non violent crime will too.  As the famous American author, Robert Heinlein once wrote, “An armed society is a polite society.”

 

 

A Tenth Amendment Battle Over Marijuana?

In these leaves a battle could be brewing between the states and the government.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is very simple and yet succinct at the same time.  It says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Really, it boils down to a truism.  If the government has not been granted the power, then the power must lay with the state, simple as that.  But what happens when the federal government makes up a bunch of laws that aren’t specifically laid out for it in the Constitution.  Well?

The answer is usually nothing.  If the states decide to go along with the laws or are coerced into going along with the laws.  Take for instance when the national drinking age was established by the federal government at 21 years of age and any state could pick whatever age they wanted, but states that picked 21 were going to get their federal highway monies, states that did not, were not.  Was it strange that all the states went for 21 except for Louisiana and I think even they have bowed to that pressure.

So the Tenth Amendment is mostly a place holder in the Constitution historically, as it was stated in United States V. Darby (1941)  “There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.”

Yet now Washington State and Colorado have legalized marijuana for recreational use.  Federal law currently prohibits the same, and there are several entities looking at a couple of lawsuits over it.  They have stated they may start by going after some recreational users and taking them to court and use their argument, well my state says it is legal to mount a federal lawsuit against the laws in those states.  At the same time, the states have an excellent Tenth Amendment case on their hand, covering their sovereignty to enact their own rule of law and govern themselves without burden to the government. As Jefferson once wrote, “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  So why care, unless absolute rule and adherence to your laws is what is driving this.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of marijuana I think, and medical science backs me up, that it does a lot of short and long-term damage to your brain.  It turns you into a slacker lay about.  Now again, if you’re using marijuana to dull the pain of a terminal illness, more power to you, I’m sure you’re not interested in the negative effects when something else is killing you.  But for all the recreational users, you’re turning into slugs.  I am still fine with that.  Why?  Less competition.  Yup, every person who removes themselves from the levels of intellect, fine motor skills, critical thinking, etc., from the gene pool means less competition against me for everything.  I am not against that, which is why I am fine with WA and CO taking their drug laws into the legal.  But they may have to fight really hard to keep them in the federal government decides to take the my way or the highway attitude.

The federal US Attorney’s Office in Seattle said that, effectively, nothing had changed. It said: “The department’s responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged. Neither states nor the executive branch can nullify a statute passed by Congress.” Unless that statute is deemed unconstitutional and the tenth amendment may be the statute they can argue it under and win.

 

Quitting West Point Because of Religion…Sure.

A senior cadet by the name of Blake Page has quit the military  academy at West Point this month, just six months short of graduation citing that he could no longer be part of a military engaged in the unconstitutional pandering of religion, promoting prayers and religious activities.  What he fails to mention in his own blog post for some left-wing blogger is that it was apparently determined he could not become an officer for bouts of clinical depression. Well, that changes his protest a bit.

The military has found you unfit to wear the uniform of an officer or lead men and women of that service and suddenly you now have a problem with the religious aspects of the military. Oh Gasp, you’ve hit a gusher there Bob Woodward, or you would if you weren’t hip deep in your own hypocrisy. But that doesn’t stop him from railing against the apparent establishment of religion in the military, in fact he goes on to write, “countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution. These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice”

REALLY?  I’m guessing that constitutional law and Christianity aren’t taught at West Point at this time otherwise he would have read in the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” right there in the first amendment.  The Establishment clause being the first half of that statement.  But yet, no where in the document would you find the words separation of Church and State, why because it doesn’t exist.  Well sure it appeared in the 1802 letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, but that is a private letter explaining the Government would not interfere with how they exercised their religion.  In fact, it would only be cited by the SCOTUS in 1947, Everson v. Board of Education when Hugo Black wrote  -“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

Seems clear-cut enough, but wait, we haven’t got to the military, where people voluntarily serve and then request access to religion.  How does the state deal with that. hmmm. Well there are only really two cases that deal with that, Marsh v. Chambers (1983) that held federal funding for chaplains is consitutional because of the unique heritage of the United States, and  Katcoff v. Marsh (1985). Now that second case is not a SCOTUS case but was decided by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In Katcoff, the 2nd Circuit upheld the U.S. Army’s chaplaincy on the ground that service members have a constitutional right under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to engage in religious worship, a right that the Army would unduly burden if it did not provide chaplains.

So under the “separation of church and state” no one can be punished for professing religious beliefs and no one in the military can be denied access to religion because it would hinder the constitutional rights of those seeking the comfort of religion. So I forget, what is this ass hat whining about.  Oh, yeah, he is bitter he isn’t fit to lead, then went out a proved it with a tirade against the religious aspects of the military.  A tirade so dense that even his fellow secular humanist classmates (he was president of the group) disagree with his portrayal of the military. “I think it’s true that the majority of West Point cadets are of a very conservative, Christian orientation,” said senior cadet Andrew Houchin. “I don’t think that’s unique to West Point. But more broadly, I’ve never had that even be a problem with those of us who are secular.”

So really, he isn’t quitting West Point over religion, it is just the smoke screen he is using as a secular humanist to cover his own failings and inadequacies when it comes to military service, which not everyone is cut out for.  Maybe with some time to look back and reflect he will understand that without all the trumped-up indignation.

 

Source Here.

Time to Drive Off the Fiscal Cliff

Okay, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that it is time to drive off the fiscal cliff.  I don’t like it totally, but I don’t see another option that works.  I’ll tell you why going off the cliff is the best worst option.

The Obama Administration has flat-out said that there will be no deal on the fiscal cliff unless they agree to raise the rates on the wealthiest 2% of Americans.  You know the same people who pay the lions share of the taxes to begin with. They want those rates back to 40% of their income up from the 35% they currently pay, and they say it is a matter of math.  Well here is some math for you, you could take all the gathered wealth from the top 10% of the country and it wouldn’t make a dent in the debt, it wouldn’t run the country for a month, how are you going to generate that kind of income by raising taxes a smidge. Not to mention the administration does not want to cut any entitlement program despite their bloated budgets driving this bus off the cliff, oh and they want more stimulus spending.

Well, guess what, we have a stalemate.  If I were the RNC I would recommend going off the cliff.  One spending cuts will be automatic, there won’t be any dodging it. Cuts totaling $110 billion per year will be applied from 2013 to 2022, split evenly ($55 billion each) between defense and non-defense discretionary spending. For scale, discretionary funding for 2011 totaled $1,277 billion: budget authority of $712 billion for defense and funding totaling $566 billion for non-defense activities.  Here is the deal, the defense industry will be hit hard, but the military will make do with what they have, they always manage, it may not be easy.

Who is going to be hurt, well, all those defense contractors are going to have to lay off people.  A lot of those contractors are in the blue blue portions of Virginia and Maryland, I guess some will end up on Welfare once they lose their jobs.  We’ll face a double dip recession and probably post a negative growth rate, and estimated negative one half percent, and the unemployment rate might go up as high as 9.1 percent. But the republicans could easily block the extension of unemployment benefits, saving yet more money from being poured down the drain.

The up side is that the administration would get their tax increases on the rich just like they want if they go off the cliff, they’ll also get tax increases on everyone else, which lets face it, is only fair, and isn’t that we as a country are about, fairness and social justice…well you get those things when you tax everyone.

The only major problem with this is that the media and the administration would blame the republicans or Bush for the recession, tax rates, unemployment rates, etc.  and the media would be down with it.  They are already the lap dog of the Democratic party, and like a good little animal won’t bite the hand feeding them all the juicy tidbits of the administration.  So the counter is for the RNC to buy ad time and start throwing the administration under the bus.  It works if you do it often enough.

I say, cut the nonsense and go off the cliff, or cut all the useless spending, and by useless I mean all the entitlement programs.

Idiots Politicizing the Belcher Tragedy

“If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Cassandra Perkins would both be alive today.” These words were written in a column by sports writer Jason Whitlock and parrotted by the not usually obtuse and asinine Bob Costas. More idiotic words I have not heard during a football game, and I’ve listened to John Madden obfuscate. The fact that Costas went ahead and barfed these words into the national conversation during the half time show of a nationally televised football game during God Bless America was nothing more than a political stunt. A leftist, liberty hating ploy to drum up the narrative for gun control yet again. It was the, See guns do kill people moment. Never mind that in Chicago alone 450 people have been murdered this year, how is that any different from this one murder-suicide. Are we so desensitized to violence we only notice it when it is someone famous? I would hope not.

Here is the thing. If Jovan Belcher wanted to kill and commit suicide he did not need a gun to commit the crime.  Here was a gigantic 25-year-old man.  He could have bludgeoned, stabbed, choked, beat, etc. her and then taken his own life.  A gun was not responsible for this crime, a man was.

In fact, a gun has never killed anyone.  If I were to walk into a room and put a loaded gun onto the table, would anyone run in fear that the gun might take it upon itself to start murdering people?  No, it would take the outside influence of a person to pick up that gun and use it in a manner wholly despicable to society.  The gun is an inanimate object.  In the whole history of man a gun has never decided to maliciously take a life without an outside force acting on it.  But wait, you say the gun makes murder more convenient.  Well certainly, but does not a car make travel more convenient?  How many people are killed each year because of irresponsible drivers and people who fail to use the car in the fashion it was designed for?  Yeah, a freaking lot.  Despite this, there is no serious campaign to ban the automobile and it isn’t even a Constitutionally protected right.

Inanimate objects do not kill people, these things are merely the vessels by which individuals kill people.  Fire, the most animate of inanimate objects has been used to permanently solve more domestic issues than guns have over the years, and yet no one rips on matches and gasoline despite the fact that arson is a favorite tool of murderers.  Then again, it is only the gun that are evil and not other objects, guns after all apparently kill people.  I suppose if objects did kill people then O.J. could have used the, it wasn’t me, it was the knife defense in the trial over the death of his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend.  Oh, everyone wants to forget that football murder all of a sudden don’t they.  It doesn’t jive with the national narrative being thrown out by the main stream liberal media does it?

Jovan Belcher F$%^ed up.  He decided to end someone’s life and then end his own.  Over what, we don’t know right now and may never know.  Maybe he could have gotten some help, maybe had he confided his fears or pain with someone they would both be alive today.  There are a thousand maybes about this, but turning it into a national spectacle to be taken advantage by a political lobby should not have been the end goal of this tragedy.  Rahm Emanuel once said, “Never waste a crisis.”  Which is the perfect explanation of all liberal thought for the last several decades.

The slavering dogs that they are, they don’t mind using the tragedy of others to advance their narrative.  Last Sunday night, Whitlock and Costas were the mouthpiece for their agenda.  Shame on both of them, and shame on the NFL to boot for having the game after such an event.  There are people here who need serious counseling, but revenue comes first I guess.  That and finding an inanimate object to blame for the death of a young woman and her football player boyfriend.

Congress Killing the Dollar Bill?

This is only a mock up from a graphic design company, don’t lose your mind, jut a smidge of subterfuge on my part. Your bills are still green with good of GW on them.

So there is a report out there that Congress is again looking at getting rid of the dollar bill in favor of the dollar coin that we have so many of yet not a single person will admit to using them.  This is really because the average lifespan of a dollar bill, a one dollar bill is only about eighteen months, where as the dollar coin has a lifespan of twenty to thirty years, depending on frequency of usage.

In contrast, the next most used bill, the twenty, lasts approximately 25 months in circulation, or just over two years, but I have also come across series 1969, 1974, and 1990 twenties in the last year, meaning they can go quite a bit longer.  I haven’t seen anything newer than a 1995 one dollar bill in the last year. Oh, by the way, the average lifespan of a hundred-dollar bill, about twenty-one and a half years.  They wear down only as fast as you use them, and unless you’re dealing in kilos of powder chances are ones and twenties go through your wallet fairly quickly.

The government wants to save some scratch so they go towards the dollar coin, which costs an estimated ten cents to make, six of which are in the metal of the coin.  Here is the thing, Congress has met about abolishing the dollar bill almost every year since the dollar coin was re-introduced in 1999.  Yes, in 1999, not 2000.  The Susan B. Anthony dollar, one of the ugliest coins ever was minted last in 1999, then the Sacagawea dollar, a testament to lack of artistic merit and political correctness was shoved out the door the next year.  People hated them both, no one wanted to use them so they didn’t and the Congress decided to tack on a Presidential commemorative series to the coins, making so many of them we ran out of places to store the damn things no one wants.

Guess what, Canadians were resistant to the abolishment of their dollar and two dollar bills in favor of the loonie and the, yes really, toonie, but they have no problems with them now.  The difference is that this is ‘Merica and we won’t put up with that crap, we’d apparently give up most of our essential freedoms and drive off the fiscal cliff, but attempt to take our bills and we’ll freak out.  Additionally, there are one tenth the people in Canada than are in the U.S.

Add to that the fact that Congress hasn’t done anything, I mean anything in the last five-six years and you have a recipe for a stalemate over this dollar coin thing.  They’ll show up and pontificate and lash each other with words and then sit down and pat their fat bellies as they wallow in their own crapulence. Despite the reports, your dollar bill is safe, this is just posturing to make the vending machine lobby happy.

Source Here.