Archive

Monthly Archives: April 2013

Diane Fienstein, President Obama, and various other politicians have been giving us their politically driven views on gun control. They have been calling for more restrictions, more control, more power, in order to prevent these crimes. I have sited historic evidence, data, and countless facts to disprove the fundamental concepts behind these well intention, but misguided ideas. Predictably the progressive method of restrict and control, went down in flames in the Senate. President Obama called it a shameful day in America. The progressives did not get what they want, so now they will do nothing more to solve the problem, except blame the GOP and try to use this defeat to ensure that Nancy Pelosi is the next speaker of the house.  However, the problem has not gone away, and politicizing this issue further will not resolve the issue. There still is an issue rotting away out the core of country.

I believe we can agree upon the fact that there is a problem in this nation. But it is not our gun rights. The problem is our culture. A man went on a rampage in Texas with an Exacto knife hurting 14 people before someone was able to stop him. Some monster set off bombs made out of pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon.  We can restrict gun rights, we can restrict access to knives, we can restrict access to pressure cookers, but bad people will still find a way to do bad things.  We must find a way to fix our culture, to actively protect ourselves, rather than hide behind new limitations. We must stop looking at this as an issue of “gun violence” and start looking at it for what it really is, violence. It doesn’t matter if it was done with a gun, it doesn’t matter if it was done with a knife, car, pressure cooker, or baseball bat it is all senseless violence. This violence is not brought about by guns, but by our crumbling society. 

I realize that you have no reason to believe me, I realize that to many out there I am just a conservative blogger who must be destroyed at all costs. I have made my arguments, you have made your counter arguments, and we have all listened to the mindless ramblings of countless progressive politicians trying to convince us to give up our liberty for security. Perhaps now it is time to stop listening to those fed off the silver spoon, to stop arguing among ourselves and to start listening to those who who have to deal with these crimes on a daily bases. Perhaps it is time to listen to those who have to help the victims put the pieces of their lives back together after these atrocities  Perhaps it is time to start listening to what the law enforcement personal of this nation have to say on the issue of gun control. I have just finished reading a PoliceOne’s Gun Policy and Law Enforcement survey and it has some interesting results.  

Back Ground:
The survey was conducted from March 4th to March 13th, 2013. 
15,595 verified Police Professionals responded to the survey

What the Survey Said:

Question 1: Are you either  Current, Former/Retired Law Enforcement?
                 76.2%  responded current
                 18.7%  responded as former/retired 

Question 4: What effect do you think the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have in improving police officer safety?

3% responded Significant

8.6% responded Moderate

24.6% responded Negative

60.6% responded None

3.2% responded Unsure

Question 5: “What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as “assault weapons,” would have on reducing violent crime?

1.6% responded Significant

6.0% responded Moderate

20.5% responded Negative

71% responded None

0.9% responded Unsure

 Question 6: Do you think that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?

2.7% responded Yes

95.7% responded No

1.6% Responded Unsure

Question 7: Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?

11.5% responded Yes

79.7% responded No

8.8% responded Unsure

Question 8: Do you think increasing the severity of punishments for gun trafficking, particularly by unlicensed dealers or “straw purchasers” who buy arms for persons ineligible to own them, would reduce instances of gun crime?

58.8% responded Yes

28.7% responded No

12.5% responded Unsure

Question 10: Would requiring mental health background checks on prospective buyers in all gun sales from federally licensed dealers reduce instances of mass shooting incidents?

                31.3% responded Yes

                44.8% responded No

                23.9% responded Unsure

Question 11: Do you support the concept of a national database tracking all legal gun sales?

                23.0% responded Yes

                70.0% responded No

                7.1% responded Unsure

Question 12: How big a problem do you feel gun crime is in your jurisdiction?

                16.1% responded Significant

                44.1% responded Average

                39.8% responded Small

Question 13: Do you believe that use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should result in stiff, mandatory sentences with no plea bargains?

                91.4% responded Yes

                5.4% responded No

                3.2% responded Unsure

Question 16: do you believe gun buyback or turn-in programs can beor have been effective in reducing the level of gun violence?

                11.2% responded Yes

                81.5% responded No

                7.3% responded Unsure

Question 19: Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?

                91.3% responded Yes, without question and without further restrictions

                4.1% responded No, only law enforcement officers should carry firearms

                4.5% responded Unsure/Neutral

Question 20: On a scale of one to five- one being low and five being high – how important do ou think legally-armed citizens are to reducing crime rates overall:

                4.7% responded 1

                4.9% responded 2

                14.0% responded 3

                21.7% responded 4

                54.7% responded 5

Question 21: What would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public? Choose the selection you feel would have the most impact: (I only listed the top four)

                14.0% responded, Improved background screening to determine mental wellness of gun purchasers

                15.8% responded, More armed guards/pad security personnel

                19.6% responded, More aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons

                28.8% responded More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians

Question 22: Considering the particulars of recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora, what level of impact do you think a legally-armed citizen could have made? Choose the statement that you feel is most accurate:

                6.2% responded Innocent casualties would likely have been avoided altogether

                80% responded Casualties would likely have been reduced

                4.1% responded There would have been no difference in outcome

                5.5% responded An active gunfight might have resulted in greater loss of innocent lives

                4.3% responded Unsure or prefer not to answer

Question 23: Do you support arming teachers and/or school administrators who volunteer to carry at their school? Choose the statement you most agree with:

76.6% responded Yes, if they are vetted trained, and qualified annually

                4.7% responded Yes if they pass a one-time police-level proficiency check

                15.8% responded No, only sworn school resource officers should be armed

                1.5% responded No, our schools should be considered gun free zones

                1.3% responded Unsure/no

Question 24: do you think proposed new legislation setting a limit on magazine capacity would negatively affect you?

                67.6% responded Yes

                27.2% responded No

                5.2% responded Unsure

The police are the people who risk their lives day in and day out defending peace and justice in this country, and should be the first people we turn to when we are trying to learn how to prevent crimes. Politicians live in marble palaces removed from the hardships of the world. Their kids are protected by armed guards; they are escorted by burly men, armed with guns. The police live in the world of filth that has allowed the creation of these monsters.” The police officers of this world wake up every day, strap a gun to their hip, and put a bullet proof vest on.  They hug and kiss their family good bye, knowing full well that it is an all to real chance that they might never come home, that this might be the last time they see their family. The actions that politicians make from their marble palaces directly affect the likely hood of whether or not these brave men and women get to hold their kids again. Two of my uncles are police officers, and have told me of some of the things that they have had to deal with. It is for these reasons that I for one value their input above all others into this mater. The wrong action now directly affects their lives.  They have seen the world that the criminal lives in, who better to ask about how to bring it down, than someone who has lived in it. 

What the police officers have said directly contradicts what President Obama, Diane Fienstein, and countless other progressives have been pushing for sense the first shot rang out in the halls of the Newtown Elementary School.

The progressives call for fewer guns, the Police call for more guns.

The progressives call for limits on magazine sizes, the Police say that it would have no affect on the crime rates.

The progressives call for background checks, The Police say that it would have no affect on mass shootings

The progressives call for restricting the sale of firearms, The Police say that it would have no affect on crime rates

The progressives call for banning scary looking semi-automatic rifles, the Police say that it would have no affect on crime rates

The Police say that arming and training teachers would reduce casualties in mass shootings, the progressives say that such an idea would only lead to massive fire fights and more dead.

The Police say that legally armed citizens reduce violent crime, the progressive paint pictures of wild west shoot outs in the street

The question now comes, do we ignore what the experience of these brave individuals, and pout because the progressives didn’t get what they want? Or do we use their knowledge along with the wisdom of history, and work on finding a way to actually reduce violence in this country? How you respond will say a lot about where you stand.

Warning The Follow Post Had Racial Content

So I was on my way to go bowling tonight when I realized just how far our nation has to come when it comes to racism.

To begin I drive a Red 1995 Ford Bronco, I don’t have any bumper stickers on it (except for an  Ohio centennial Sticker on the vent window, and an American Flag sticker on the other vent window).  I do have dual exhaust, but other than that the truck is stock.  Its not jacked up on a 6 inch lift, it isn’t rolling around on 33 inch mud stompers. Its a clean 1995 Bronco with dual exhaust. I don’t have a thumping stereo, in fact I don’t even have front speaker (they fell apart).  I am a fairly clean cut individual, I have a goatee and a mustache, other than that clean shaven, short hair, I am liberality the generic human being. 

So I am on my way to the bowling alley and I get stopped at the red light. I don’t really have my music up all that loud, it is just sort of back ground noise. This car pulls up next to me, and I hear (warning racist remarks) “Hey Honkey!” I ignored it, then I hear “Hey Honkey in the red truck, can’t you hear me?” 

I turn to see an African American lady in the car next to me, she has a very pissed off look on her face. I simply replied “I hear perfectly fine ma’am, I just don’t listen to racist pieces of trash.”

Now I admit that that was probably not the best  course of action to take, however the response of this woman blew my mind “How many babies have you killed you cracker ass? How many of my brothers have you killed?” she continued on throwing racial slurs until the light changed. She tried to follow me, all I can say is thank God for horsepower. I have no clue what set this lady off. 

Now I don’t post this to incite some race riot, to play the victim, or anything along those lines. I am posting this because it got me thinking, it got me thinking about how hollow the race relations in this country really are. Dr. Martian Luther King once said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” After incidents like the one that happened tonight I am always hurt because the dream that that great man had, seems to have been lost to time. I know that racism exists, and it pisses me off when I see it, I just can’t understand why people like this young woman feel the need fight racism with more racism.

 This ladies comments didn’t really bother me, I am not a racist, I don’t kill babies, and I haven’t killed any of her brothers, but she did get me thinking. 

Any ways, food for thought, what are your guy’s thoughts about racism in this country (no trolling, I’ll just delete it)

A pressure cooker and ball bearings were used to create the bomb used in the Boston Marathon. Three people lost their lives, three lives were cut short by monsters. In order to ensure that this can never happen again, so that no more people have to suffer from a loss like this, I am calling for a ban on pressure cookers and ball bearings. 

This is madness, two  bombs have gone off at the Boston Marathon. 22 people are hurt, and at least 2 are dead. Keep them in your prayers. It is in times like this America can show just how strong we are. 

The GAO has released a report on government waste due to the overlap in federal programs that a massive bureaucracy creates. In the 283 page report there were countless areas of overlap that could be streamlined and save our country countless dollars. Below are some examples:

  • 3 agencies deal with the inspection of Catfish, a streamlining of these agencies could save the Tax Payer up to $14,000,000
  • 679 renewable energy initiatives from 23 different government agencies and their 130 sub-agencies cost the Tax Payers an extra $15,000,000,000
  • 76 programs from 15 different agencies to prevent and treat drug abuse, cost the Tax Payers an extra $4,500,000
  • 159 contracting organizations from 10 different Defense Department components provide defense foreign language support. This duplication costs the tax payers anywhere from $50 to $200 million
  • The Broadcasting Board Governors offers 69 different language services, 23 instances of overlap amongst 43 of these services. This overlap accounts for $149,000,000 tax payers dollars, or roughly 20% of the agency’s budget.

There are many more programs included in this list. Yet whenever we talk about cutting government spending, the progressives say we want dirty air, stupid children, and dead seniors. Just in the programs listed above there are $15,199,000,000 in savings. But why is it that none of these cuts are ever considered when the critical subject of federal over spending? Why is it that when we are talking about the spending cuts that we MUST make, the progressives always jump to cut spending in the military, and claim that conservatives only want stupid kids, dirty water, fowled air, and rich business owners? Simple, politics. The progressives in the GOP, such as John McCain, are just as guilty of the same thing. They act as if there is no waste in the military that could be cut, and I am sure that there is.  Ultimately though the largest barrier to any real spending cuts, are the progressives in the democrat party. Any cut will result in the death of the “recovery”, and the loss of thousands of jobs.  It is easy for them to attack anyone talking about cutting federal spending. The only thing they want to hear are more tax hikes, and that Nancy Pelosi is the new Speaker of the House

14 students were stabbed today on a Texas Community College Campus. 14 individuals were attacked by a lunatic with an exacto knife. Why the silence from the progressives? Where are the calls for a federal ban on fixed blade knives over 5 inches? Where are the calls for background checks on anyone who is trying to buy a butter knife? This is the response from the progressives when a lunatic with a gun goes on a rampage. Typically they try to ban guns and magazines not used in the massacre, then try to make the purchase of any firearm harder.  So why have they not rallied the troops to protect the people of this nation from the horrors of knife violence?  The final shot was still echoing down the halls of the New Town Elementary school and the progressives had already began calling for a scary looking semi-automatic rifle ban. Yet we have heard nothing about banning knives.

I guess there is only cause for alarm when its guns used in rampages. I guess the manufactured out cry for gun control only exists because the progressive can exploit it politically. I would be more likely to take their ideas seriously if they where consistent. If massacres resulted in the same outcry, but they don’t.   

Obamacare is the gift that just keeps on giving. It turns out that Representative Nancy Pelosi was right when she said that they had to pass the bill for us to find out what was in it. We knew it would be bad, I told you all that it would be bad, I just had no clue as to how bad it would be. Rather than go on some long drawn our rant I will let some facts speak for themselves. 

According to the Associated Press under Obamacare insurance companies will have to pay 32% more for medical claims on individual insurance policies. Now for my more radical progressive readers, what this equates to is an increase in the cost of doing business. When the cost of doing business goes up, a company cannot partake in the fantasies that the progressives in our government indulge in. What this means is that the company has to find ways to keep making money, if they don’t make money they cannot grow, and if they do not grow they go bust. This is a problem as  all the people that they insured are put at risk of losing their insurance.  So how does an insurance company make more money. Unfortunatly for us, this increase in the cost of doing business brought on by an ill conceived progressive power grab, will result in we the people paying more for our health insurance.

According to the Society of Actuaries while some states might see the medical claim cost per person decline, the vast majority of us are going to see double digit increases in individual health insurance markets. For those individuals who buy insurance directly from the insurer I am sorry this is your future
           Florida will see a 20% increase in medical costs
           California will see a 62% increase in medical costs
           Maryland will see a 67% increase in medical costs
           Ohio will see a 80% increase in medical costs

Of course the Obama White House says that this report is nothing but hot air. Basically the White House, in a desperate attempt to sell this poorly planned out law, said that the increase in costs is simply because you are getting more. That modern day health insurance isn’t really health insurance at all. Kathleen Sebelius said, “Some of these folks have very high catastrophic plans that don’t pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus. They’re really mortgage protection, not health insurance.”  Ms. Sebelius, like most progressives, haven’t stopped to think about what if I can’t afford the increase in cost? Oh yes they have, they just want me to be dependent upon the government, that way they will be able to protect me from myself.  However the recently retired Medicare Chief Actuary Rick Foster said that the report did “a credible job” estimating the new costs under the law, “without trying to tilt the answers in any particular direction.”

The news dealing with the disastrous fallout from Obamacare gets worse I am afraid. The line that the progressive trinity Obama, Reid, Pelosi rammed down our throat while they where begging members of the Democrat party to vote for this monstrosity, was that the Affordable Care Act would lower costs, and make healthcare more accessible. We have already discussed how Obamacare will not be making health insurance any cheaper, actually the opposite is in fact true. So how about the whole “making healthcare more accessible” claim?

Well I am afraid this part of the sales pitch is nothing more than a crock. The 2013 Delolite Survey of U.S. Physicians, a poll of 600 physicians found that 6 and 10 physicians believe that “said it is likely many of their colleagues will retire earlier than planned in the next one to three years” So if a massive number of physician’s are going to retire, can we really believe that access to healthcare is going to improve? No we can’t, we can only expect shortages… who could have predicted that?

Ultimately what this comes down to is that when the government tries to run industries, all they manage to do is run them into the ground, and thanks to radical progressives like President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid 1/6th of our economy is headed down the drain.