President Obama's Executive Order... Unveiled.

www.davegranlund.com

I have been eagerly waiting for the gun control new laws that were to be unveiled today by President Obama, after all, they promised it was going to be “the most aggressive and expansive national gun-control agenda in generations."

I was moved by Vice President Joe Biden’s speech, it was very touching. I was also extremely excited to hear the President mention putting a limit of 10 bullets per magazine and banning assault weapons. I was excited to hear that there will be universal background checks and he did mention health somewhere in the equation.

Then I waited and waited to hear all the 23 points that I knew he was signing today… nothing.

I went searching at the White House website and again, nothing. It was on Facebook that someone shared with me the 23 points as published on TPM and my heart sank to the basement. These are the 23 points contained in the Executive Order, you can click Observation to read my opinion:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. Observation

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. Observation

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.  Observation

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.  Observation

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.  Observation

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.  Observation

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.  Observation

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).  Observation

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.  Observation

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.  Observation

11. Nominate an ATF director.  Observation

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.  Observation

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.  Observation

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.  Observation

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.  Observation

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.  Observation

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.  Observation

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.  Observation

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.  Observation

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.  Observation

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.  Observation

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.  Observation

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.  Observation

My question is… Why the need of an Executive Order and the fanfare for the majority of these points? As I see it, most didn’t need an EO. There is no mention about what should be removed from the market; there is no mention about banning, limiting, insurance or testing. Testing should be a must, even police officers must take a psychological test, why not an individual, untrained and armed not be required to pass a psychological test? And why not make mandatory to have liability insurance when car owners are forced to have one?

President Obama is leaving the legalities to Congress which means that nothing will be done. There is no way Republicans in Congress will ban any guns or set a limit on the number of bullets a magazine can hold or dare to do anything that will upset the NRA.

So stay tuned, don’t miss the next massacre coming to a town near you!

The Basement Militant

Such is the text of the Second Amendment, adopted in the Bill of Rights back on December 15th, 1791.

During the War of Independence, George Washington lead what was known as the Continental Army, created on June 14, 1775. Men who had served in the British army and the colonial militia composed this army.

We won our independence on July 2, 1776 and signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. After the war, the Continental Army was dismantled, and it was up to the State's militia to defend the new nation. The sovereignty of the country depended on the brave men that after the war were tending to the lands given to them by the new Republic as payment for their valor. At that time, the settlers were still battling the Natives and their priority was to defend their families and homestead so in 1791 Congress created the Legion of the United States to protect the settlers from the Natives and to protect the country, but that lasted for only 5 years, and it was disbanded in 1796.

The United States Army was created on June 3, 1784. The entire population of the United States back in those days according to the first Census was 3,893,635. That figure included women, slaves, children, men and "other free people" which I am assuming were free people from other races such as Asians. Only 807,094 were free men over the age of 16, but it is not specified up to what age so we can safely assume that seniors are included in that figure nor was it specified that these males were all in good health or if some of them were physically impaired due to the recent independence war. Regardless, during the Revolutionary war, according to Wikipedia, our forces at the height of the war consisted of 35,000 men in the Continental army, 44,500 in the militia and 5,000 in the Continental Navy. We had the support of 12,000 French that fought with us in America and approximately 60,000 French and Spanish that were helping us in Europe. The total able bodies we had during the prime of the war was a total of 96,500. The British empire, on the other hand, had 56,000 in the army, 171,000 sailors, and their allies were fighting alongside with them like Germany with 30,000 men, the Loyalists (traitors of the revolution) 50,000 and Natives with 13,000 totaling 320,000 men. The British navy alone had more men that the entire forces of the Revolutionary army!

I am mentioning all of the above to emphasize the importance the militia had back in those days and why the second amendment was redacted. The country didn't have enough men to sustain a strong enough army to defend this country from an invasion. Every able man would have been called to serve in case of an invasion, and they had to be ready to defend the country, every single one of them, or they would have faced severe penalties.

The only time in modern history when the United States called upon its citizens to fight in a war, not voluntarily, was during the Vietnam War. That created an uproar among the citizens who did not want to serve and most were against the war and refused to serve. Among those that refused was Cassius Clay or as he is called today Muhammad Ali. Those were difficult times that led to massive manifestations in every city of this country and to an unwritten promise from the government that the hateful draft will not be implemented again. So there the militia and part of the second amendment went... except for the part of holding on to their precious guns at all cost!

Now, the argument of gun control is on the table once again. Again we hear the typical outcries that "over my dead body will the government take away my guns," or "it is my Constitutional right to bear arms" etc. Most of these gun owners, men and women alike, have not volunteered to fight in any of the current wars being fought - and they have had plenty of time to do so; we've been fighting these wars for 12 long years - but most haven't even thought of putting their life on the line. No, they couldn't care less about the militia part of the Second Amendment, all they care for is their right to bear arms but, for what purpose and intent?

According to them, it's to defend themselves and to defend the country against the tyranny of the government. To defend yourself, you don't need an unlimited number of guns since you only have two hands and, to defend the country I am sorry to say that those guns - including assault weapons - will render themselves useless if faced with a real army, especially our army with unlimited funds and with every thinkable and unthinkable weapon at their disposal so that argument it's a pitiful one.

Another argument it has been repeated to no end is the one "now is not the time" to discuss gun control. When is the "right time" to talk about bringing sense back to the American people?

On July 27th, 2008 Jim David Adkisson fired a shotgun at a congregation at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church with the intent to kill liberals and Democrats. Mr. Adkisson decided to do his deed during a performance of a musical presentation by youngsters in the Church, killing two people and injuring seven. That event was swept under the carpet because "it wasn't the right time" to discuss gun control.

We had Congresswoman Gaby Giffords January 8, 2011 shot during a public meeting where eighteen people where shot and out of the eighteen, eight died. We let that horrible occurrence slide because it "wasn't the time."

Then, on October 24, 2012 Floyd Palmer shot and killed Gregory McDowell who was leading a prayer inside the World Changers Church International in Georgia. It barely made the news, "it wasn't the right time" to discuss gun control after all the suspect killed only one man. Again we must wait for the elusive "right time" to discuss the issue.

Barely a month later, in California, on November 4, 2012 Andres Ordonez was shot and killed as he was coming out of the Principe de Paz Church. Another man shot, no big deal... It is still "not the right time" to engage in any conversation about gun control.

December was a terrible month. On December 14th, 2012 in Connecticut, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the worst carnage we have seen occurred. On that fateful day, twenty young children ranging from 5 to 6 years of age and five adults were shot several times by Adam Lanza for no apparent reason. The country was in shock, the majority of sensible and responsible adults, including some gun owners demanded a reform to our gun laws.

A week to the day later, on December 21st, Jeffrey Lee Michael killed 4 people in Pennsylvania. One of the victims, Kimberly A. Scott (58 years old), was killed inside the church while she was putting up the Christmas Decorations.

After these two last shootings, the NRA and gun fanatics are still claiming "this is not the right time" to talk about gun control. If the killing of 20 young, innocent children inside an elementary school is not a strong enough argument to initiate a conversation to reach some changes we can agree with... what will it take and when will the right time be?

I hate guns, however, I accept them. I accept that there will always be those that in order to feel secure must have their guns. I accept one or two guns and perhaps a rifle to hunt, even when I despise hunting, I must not impose my views on others. My questions to the gun fanatics that defend their rights above else are: What about my rights? Why are my rights not as weighty as yours? Why, if I am capable of accepting your ballistic attitude but you are not capable of accepting my peaceful one? Can we find a middle ground where we can respect our individual rights or is it that because you have a gun and I don't, your rights are more valuable than mine?

There is no need for a 100-bullet magazine unless we're fighting a war. We are mature adults, and part of that maturity is the capability to understand that we don't live in an ideal world; we can't have everything our hearts' desire or do whatever we want. There must be boundaries because the obsession of gun owners interferes with the obsession of pacifists. I can't understand why I must sacrifice my rights in order for the gun lovers to have as many and different weapons as they wish. If it were for me, all guns would be banned, but I do realize it is an impossible dream. If I accept for people to have guns, why are gun owners reluctant to give an inch and accept that there are certain weapons that do not belong in the hands of the public? Why are pacifists the ones that must accept the wishes of those who seem to be more immature and aggressive? Is it the guns they possess that give them that power? Is it because they can shut us up with a bullet? I refuse to give in to their manipulation. If they have rights, I do too. Either we meet in the middle, or we are going to demand a reform to the second amendment. For starters if you are part of a "well regulated militia" then go and fight in the war; those that have remained here during these long twelve years should pay a hefty fine after all, our economy is in desperate need of funds and what this country has in excess are basement militants.

For The Love of Guns

The NRA’s membership is composed of barely 2% of the entire population of the United States, however their power grip in Washington is well known and all politicians, regardless of Party affiliation, fear them. One has to wonder why this is and perhaps try to dissect what might be transpiring in the background. Other associations have much more members than the NRA, but none of them have the power to manipulate Congress as they do.

Today I am scrutinizing Mr. Wayne LaPierre’s* speech given last Friday, December 21st and which you can watch here if you have the stomach for it. I’m also including a link to the transcript. I am outraged and thought I needed to do this.

 

 To read the transcript, click here 

“…Until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment.”

The whole facts are not known yet but this didn’t stop the NRA from giving a press conference and of course, commenting. What they did was to abstain from making a comment until they could think of a way to remove the blame from their beloved firearms and place it on the rest of the nation. They dared to accuse others of exploiting the tragedy in Connecticut for political gain, when that is the single most important reason why they not only commenting but including the current administration in their comments.   

“No one – nobody – has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now?”

Where has Mr. LaPierre been? How can he say that with a straight face? That is the question that has been on everyone’s lips, from the citizens, to the media and all the way to the President. However, unlike Mr. LaPierre, those of us that care for our loved ones do not think the solution is more arms, and for the NRA not thinking that the solution is more firearms equals to not caring for our loved ones. Sickening! 

“We care about our money.”

This is the single, most truthful statement Mr. LaPierre has made up to date. He had to add in the phrase about the armed guards to “protect our banks” so we wouldn’t know that what they really care about is money. I do my banking transactions at two different banks and I have yet to see “an armed guard” in any of them. I can’t remember when I saw an actual armed guard inside a bank other than in one of those old gangster movies. I’ve worked for many years at large corporations with their offices at, you guessed it, “office buildings” and not once have I seen an armed guard, the most I’ve seen is a bored to death unarmed “guard” that is there to help you in case you don’t know where you are going and need directions.

“We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.”

Yes, the President of the United States and of every other country is protected by the Secret Service. But, if those highly trained officers that are the crème de la crème in their field couldn’t protect President Ronald Reagan when he was shot… What makes him think that a mediocre armed guard is going to perform any better at protecting our children while in school?

“The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them.”

Yes, there are many “genuine monsters” in America and I am sure, the world. But the United States is the only country that dispenses guns easier than it is to acquire Celebrex for arthritis. If you don’t believe me, go to a gun show and see what it’s required for you to walk out with a gun and try to buy Celebrex without a prescription at your pharmacy.  I bet you'll get the gun but not the drug.

Anyone can get their hands on firearms; there are so many guns in America that it is virtually impossible to know the real number of firearms in this country – legal and illegal. The data for registered firearms it’s staggering: 300 million firearms so far. The estimated number of adults in the United States is 247,518,325, which means that there are 1.2 guns for each adult. There are 2,000,000 house robberies a year and among the things stolen are guns that end up in the hands of criminals.

“And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.”

Another unexpected blunt truth stated by Mr. LaPierre. We know that there is “a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people”: It’s called the National Rifle Association.

Mr. LaPierre also placed the blame on violent video games and movies. He mentioned among the games Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto. These games are violent, but the United States is not the only country were these games are played. Japan has no bans against any video games and it’s the main producer of them. The number of homicides by firearms in Japan during the year 2008 (latest data) was 11 and the number of homicides (by any means, including firearms) during the same year was 582. The United States during 2008 had 9,484 homicides by firearms and the total of homicides, including firearms was 16,272.

Japan’s population in 2008 was of 127,700,000. Japan’s territory is 145,883 square miles, which means that there are 875 people per square mile.

On the other hand, the population in the United States during 2008 was 304,500,000. The United States’ territory is 3,717,792 square miles, which means that there are 82 people per square mile.

By the above we can deduce that in Japan, where there is no ban for any computer game regardless the violent content, where people are cramped beyond our wildest imagination and yet homicides by guns, compared to us are virtually non-existent. Why is this? The reason is because they have strict gun control laws. In Japan all handguns are banned, only police officer are allowed to possess one and only while on duty. Rifles are also banned, only those who owned one before 1971 can own one. You can still own a firearm for hunting in Japan (shotgun or air rifle), but in order to get a permit for that you must go through a few mandatory requirements: You must attend a full day class and pass a written test; you must have taken and passed a shooting range class; you must pass a mental and drug test taken at a hospital; after you have accomplished all of the previous requirements you must then go to the police and file your petition to own a gun, the police will then conduct an extreme background check. If you are approved, you must tell the police where the weapon and the ammunition will be stored in your house. And that’s not all; you must submit your weapon to the police for inspection once a year and undergo all the tests (no exceptions) every three years (to read more about gun control in Japan, click here). That is why there are basically no deaths by firearms in Japan, and there is not even one case of a death for accidental shooting. This means, strict gun control laws can make a difference, regardless of how many violent video games people play or what movies they watch. No weapon no problem.

Mr. LaPierre mentioned in his speech the movies Natural Born Killers, released on August 26, 1994 and American Psycho released on April 14, 2000.

From 1992 to 1993, prior to Natural Born Killers’ release, there was an average of 15,872 homicides by firearms a year, after the release of the movie, from 1994 – 1999 the annual average was of 11,883 homicides by firearm a year, an actual decrease of approximately 798 murders a year. In 1999 there were 8,228 homicides by firearms and 8,542 in 2000, the year American Psycho was released and while it is true that for the following three years there was an average annual increase of homicides by firearms of 356 one has to wonder why the same did not happen with NBK and what made in 2004 a sudden drop of homicides by firearm; in 2004 there were 275 less homicides by firearm than on the previous year. What happened on 2001 that may have caused an increase of homicides by firearms? The main event that happened at that time and that I can think of is nine-eleven.

“…the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers…”

Mr. LaPierre mocked the media for not knowing which is the most powerful bullet. I don’t care if a bullet is a .223 or .950 caliber, let’s face it… they both kill, all bullets have that particularity, when someone pulls the trigger the expelled bullet has the capacity to kill you regardless of the caliber.

“They [the media] perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban – or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people – will protect us where 20,000 others have failed!”

I wonder what 20,000 laws is he referring to. There have been many attempts to control the insatiable desire for guns that is an epidemic in this country, but the NRA has blocked or influenced to water down any attempt in Congress, just like they are doing now. A proper and strict gun control such as the one implemented in Japan will prevent atrocities such as the one at Sandy Hook Elementary from ever happening in this country again, but the NRA will never allow it and our Congressmen and women are too scared to go against the monster the NRA truly is.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

I truly believe Mr. LaPierre watches too many old westerns, where the “bad guys” wore black clothing and the “good guys” where in white making them easily identifiable. To begin with, there was an arm guard at Columbine that wasn’t capable to stop the massacre that occurred there. Mr. LaPierre fails to mention that an assailant has an advantage over the guard(s). An assailant has the element of surprise and while the guards are usually armed with a gun(s), the prospect killer is usually better armed than the guards. I suppose Mr. LaPierre will want for every teacher, janitor, and cafeteria personnel to be armed. Has he stopped to think that until a person goes “postal” they are usually functioning members of society? If one of these armed adults that are there to supposedly protect the schools “looses” his/her mind they will be inside a school, armed and the children will be at their mercy. Next, the children will need to carry arms to protect themselves from the teachers!

“…since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?”

Since they were invented Mr. LaPierre, since they were invented. Guns were created to kill… I don’t think anyone buys a gun with the intention to use it as paperweight.

Placing armed people in schools is a crazy idea. It was crazy five years ago when Mr. LaPierre first proposed it, it is crazy today and it will be a crazy idea twenty years from now. The solution is not more arms and more violence; the solution is fewer arms and more restrictions.

“Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?”

The above question is not only offensive, but also repulsive. Mr. LaPierre is trying to coerce the people, without thinking of those parents that lost their child barely a week ago, to support the armament in our schools because if they don’t then we can assume that they rather see their children dead than accepting the NRA’s solution. This is despicable and conceivable only by a group without any moral values or decency such as the National Rifle Association.

Mr. LaPierre is unwilling to accept any responsibility for their actions, present and past that he feels the need to include the American gun owner in his statement about how Washington hates the NRA. Washington doesn’t hate the American gun owners, I don’t even think it hates the NRA, but Washington does “hate” the fact that the NRA doesn’t allow them to legislate and place restrictions on any gun. If the NRA could have it their way, machine guns would be a household item, just like a toaster.

At the beginning of his offensive speech, Mr. LaPierre pointed the finger at everyone accusing them of trying to “politicize” last week’s sinister event. However, he doesn’t miss the opportunity to politicize it. Ever since President Obama was elected, the NRA has campaigned on the false pretense that the President was going to go after the weapons of every law abiding citizen, even when the President didn’t. For the 2012 elections, the NRA donated large sums of money to the Republican candidate with the hopes of getting rid of President Obama, even when the President didn’t ask Congress, not even once, to pass any bills making any changes in the law regarding guns. That didn’t matter. Now, he is once more blaming President Obama because the “Secure Our Schools” was scrapped from the budget. Where has he been? Doesn’t he recall the fiasco the debt ceiling was in 2011? Isn’t he following what is happening in Congress with the Financial Cliff? Doesn’t he know that is the GOP and the Tea Party, the politicians that the NRA supports, are the ones that want a government that can fit in a bathtub?

Politicians might not have the authority to deny anyone the right to own guns, but the government surely can. The government (a very young government and for reasons that do not apply today) gave the people the right to bear arms and the government can take that right away. Article V of the Constitution allows government to do precisely that. Nothing on earth is a given right that lasts an eternity. Back in the 1700s, people were able to own not only guns but also human beings, who they could buy and sell without a problem. Women were not considered full citizens and had no rights whatsoever. Lynchings were common, people were burned at the stake accused of witchcraft and Native Americans were savages that anyone could kill. All of it, through the passage of time became crimes under the law because we evolved… in almost everything except those damn firearms that are untouchable!

The NRA is calling for retired police officers, retired military personnel, security personnel, firefighters (since when firefighters come to rescue us with a gun?) and CITIZENS to patrol the schools, then he wants the “brave men and women of America’s police force” to make our schools safer and he wants that now. While he acknowledges that the budget of the police departments are strained, the NRA wants them to be full time at our schools; hasn’t he heard that the GOP and Tea Party asked for a reduction of government and that among those were policemen and women, teachers, firefighters, etc.?

There are 132,656 public schools in the United States, assuming that we place only one police officer in each and every school and assuming the police officer makes the minimum wage of $40,000 a year, we will need to add to our debt at a minimum another $5,306,240,000 every year and that is not counting equipment.

It seems obvious to me that Mr. LaPierre doesn’t watch much news since he is calling for Congress to approve his plan and implementing it before children are back to school after the holidays, he doesn’t seem to know that Congress will be on vacation during that time, making good use of the tax payers money as they have done for the last 4 years… where they have been on vacation, vacation and more vacations.

“Every school will have a different solution based on its own unique situation.”

According to his logic, every school will know what they will need to secure their pupils. Each school will know if they are targets beforehand, how they will be “attacked” and what will they need to prevent this from happening.  I guess that is why they will get protection "according to their own unique situation." Really? So it will be security a la carte? Since when schools are experts at this and if they are, why has there been any mass murders in our schools if the schools knows so much about security?

The false pretenses of the NRA are so obvious that I don’t know why I haven’t heard anyone in the news mentioning this. The fact that the NRA dares to claim that they will visit or study all 132,656 public schools (not counting private schools, who can be subjected to these crimes as well), create a plan of action uniquely designed for the “needs” of each and every school and implementing such plans in two weeks it’s outrageous. All they care about is securing that Congress doesn’t try to restrict or control firearms.

“If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained – armed – good guy.”

Once more Mr. LaPierre uses the tactic of emotional blackmail to coerce people to agree with him. He makes sure that we don’t forget that the trained personnel must be armed and if armed, then he or she is “a good guy”… if we don’t agree, then it must be because we don’t care or cherish our children. This man is an abomination.

“We can't lose precious time debating legislation that won't work.” 

The legislation will work if the NRA is kept out of it.  We must not allow the NRA to interfere or bribe the politicians to go against gun control. The solution is not more weapons; the opposite is the solution.

“Join us in the National School Shield Program and protect our children with the only line of positive defense that’s tested and proven to work.”

Where has this been tested and proven? Columbine proved that having an armed security in school didn't deter the murderer, the Secret Service were not able to protect President Ronald Reagan when he was shot. Hundreds of police officers die every year in gun confrontations, and they were armed and trained. So, Mr. LaPierre I have a question for you... where has this "wonderful” program been tested?

* Used instead of SOB.



Sources:

http://www.fbi.gov
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population.html
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population.html
http://www.theworld.org/2012/07/gun-violence-virtually-a-thing-of-the-past-in-japan/
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31172010.pdf
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Police-Officer.html

To Bite The Bullet

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is perhaps the most controversial and most revered of all amendments. I have never seen such relevance, borderline cult, the American people profess for gun ownership. The minute someone suggests any control, we can hear the outcries – from the right, center and left – about their constitutional rights and the same rhetoric that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

Well, we have a choice in our nation… either we kill all the people or we restrict guns. It’s a choice and since “guns don’t kill people” then I must assume this means we must eliminate that which is lethal, since guns aren’t: people. I am sure you think this is nonsense and I agree, but either guns kill people and we eliminate them or people do, it's one or the other... we can't have both.

The Bill of Rights as ratified on March 4th, 1791, second amendment to the Constitution says:

“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.”

From the above and considering the times this was written we could deduct that the right to bear arms was more than a luxury, it was a necessity. Let’s think about this for a minute. We as a nation had fought and won against the British Empire, we were a very young nation with a very young army composed mainly of civilians that had fought for their independence. I am sure that the fear that England would retaliate was in everyone’s mind. The country had to ensure that every able body was ready to defend this young nation at a moments notice, and to do that people had to be armed, the nation had to have “a well regulated Militia…. The right of the people to keep and bear arms…”

Add to that the conflict with the Native Americans. It doesn’t matter which side of history you stand with, for the subject matter it’s irrelevant. The fact was that settlers were in constant conflict with natives, each side defending what they considered “their land” they could not be unarmed.

The founding fathers were aware that times change and what was necessary and beneficial then, could be obsolete for future generations. That is why they redacted a “Live” Constitution, capable of changing depending on the circumstances and the necessities of the times. They thought of this and made sure to include it as part of the Constitution so future generations could make changes (amendments) to it according to their needs. Article IV of the Constitution reads:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

The above is one of the reasons why the Tea Party has no validity whenever they claim that the Constitution should be as written by the founding fathers. What the Tea Party wants goes against what those that wrote it had in mind.

Article V, is exactly the article that gives us the right to amend the Second Amendment. If the most sacred document in our nation is open for changes, why not the Amendments, why not the Bill of Rights?

I am not proposing banning guns in this country, I am well aware that men in this country (and some women too) are addicted to these weapons. Some say it’s for safety (even though statistics show that more crimes are committed with guns than crimes prevented by them and more people are killed with their own guns than by any other means), others say they hunt and therefore they need guns – apparently the majority of gun owners are hunters, even when they have never gone hunting. Fine, for the sake of argument I’ll accept their excuses but is there any reason to own a semi-automatic or full automatic weapon? Where is the reasoning for owning a sub-machine gun with a 30+ round magazine? Or a AK-47? There is a company in Pennsylvania that will sell them to you, including sniper rifles. I’m sorry, but no one will ever convince me that a machine gun is purchased for defense, hunting or as a collector’s item when it’s fully functional and comes with a fully loaded magazine! These weapons serve one single purpose: killing/murdering.

If you want to protect yourself, buy a revolver or better, buy a taser gun. You want to hunt? Buy a rifle, a simple two-bullet rifle. But no, gun lovers see themselves as tough, modern-day cowboys that need to have the best weapons money can buy. We are all shocked, we all mourn and shake our heads every time that a massacre occurs, which are more frequent each time, but not one of these gun freaks want the second amendment touched because “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Bullshit! Following that mentality then we can say that the A-bomb didn’t kill people in Hiroshima; Paul Tibbets did, he single handedly killed all 66,000 of them!

Since we can’t reason with these people and take their guns away, I suggest another way to tackle this problem. Let the American people acquire all the guns they want, let them have an arsenal, as many weapons as they want… Now, bullets should be restricted and controlled. How? Simple, if you purchase a gun the gun should come with a maximum of 3 bullets.  The government should dispense, control and ration bullets for the public.  Bullets should be sold for $1,000 a bullet (magazines should hold a maximum of 10 rounds, and the price for a magazine should be $10,000 per magazine); the maximum allowance of bullets should not exceed 10 bullets a year per gun owner not per weapon, if you need to buy more, you must justify where and how you spent those bullets and bring back the empty shells.  You cannot buy more bullets unless you have a valid reason for it and only once a year.  Rubber bullets should be more accessible for target practice with some restrictions since they can be lethal but only if shot at close range.

Now, it will be different for hunters. Hunters should not be allowed to buy rifle bullets to keep at home. Instead, there should be stores or kiosks in or near the hunting areas where they can purchase bullets. At the end of the hunting session, they must return any unused bullets for a refund or they will be reported to the authorities. The store should hold their driver’s license until they return the unused bullets or give a written statement that all bullets were used. Hunters will only be allowed to purchase 10 bullets a day at a cost of $100 per bullet.

These prices will not go to the ammunition manufacturers or the gun shop owners or the NRA, any difference between current prices and the ones described above will go directly to increase funds for Medicare and/or to help reduce the deficit.  Ammunition manufacturers will not be allowed to sell to the public.

I think something like this will end the gun problems this nation is facing, after all bullets are not protected by the Second Amendment, they used gunpowder back then. We should not accept and take as a bi-product the massacres that are taking place as the price to pay for having that "right." We should never accept or become accustomed to it, if you can’t remove the weapon or the people, then make it so expensive that it will be almost impossible to obtain.

We need to mature as a nation and accept responsibility for our obsessions. We can't have everything we want and we must re-evaluate what is happening and do something about it. We cannot continue to indulge in our desires, regardless of the consequences.  If we don't, those that are defending the second amendment regardless of what is happening and that are refusing to accept any restrictions are as guilty of these massacres as those that pulled the trigger.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, not at the expense of innocent lives.

Flop, Flop, Flip, Flip… Oh What A Big Twit He Is!

Mitt Romney is the most inconsistent person that has ever ran for any governmental position during my lifetime, certainly a man with little or no convictions, who is willing to do and say anything in order to get what he wants, on this occasion getting elected.

Following is just a few of the issues where Mitt disagrees with himself:

Flip: 1994. Agriculture. When he was running for Senator of Massachusetts Romney said he wanted to eliminate the Department of Agriculture and called for reducing farm subsidiaries.

Flop: 2007. When he was trying to be the GOP contender for the Presidency, he changed his tune. In 2007 he loved agriculture and firmly believed that agriculture was “key to the economy and the American people.” By 2012, I guess agriculture is no longer the “key to the economy or the American people” since the subject is not even mentioned on his website.

Flip: 2003. Environment. While Governor of Massachusetts he was a big supporter of regulating coal power plants and implementing tough emissions standards. He believed in global warming, in the greenhouse effects and he went as far as issuing a 72-point Climate Protection Plan. Surprisingly and unusual coming from him, he maintained his position for eight years and on June 2011 during an interview he said that he believed in global warming and also that humans contributed to it. 

 

Flop: 2011. A month later, in July during a town hall meeting in Derry, NH he is against regulating coal power plants and now believes that carbon emissions do not harm our bodies. Three months later, in October he completely abandons what he had fought for and believed for so long and publicly states that there is no such thing as global warming. Eloquently he said these words of wisdom: “By the way, they do not call it America warming, they call it global warming it loses jobs for Americans and ultimately it won’t be successful, because industries that are energy intensive will just get up and go somewhere else.”

Flip: 2006. Health Care. As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney created the blueprint on which “Obamacare” was later built. In 2009, Romney publicly suggested to Obama to use tax penalties or credits to induce people to acquire insurance.

Flop: 2007. A year later, in the midst of the Tea Party and the GOP outrage for “Obamacare” Mitt changed his mind and sided with the Right calling Obamacare “an unconstitutional abuse of power.” By 2011 Romney was a full pledge supporter of the Ryan plan “The Path to Prosperity.” Today, Obamacare is one of the thousand things he is going to repeal on “his first day in office.”

Flip: 2002. Campaign Funding. During his Senate Campaign Romney proposed spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PAC). 

Flop: 2007.  In 2007, a few months after leaving the Governorship, Mitt Romney was against the McCain-Feingold Law claiming that it was unconstitutional. Back then, Mitt Romney said “We step into dangerous territory when politicians start eviscerating our fundamental freedoms in the name of amorphous principles, like campaign finance reform.” Today he is more than happy to receive and accept unlimited funds from PAC, Citizen’s United and the Koch Brothers.

Flip: 2008. Auto Industry. When the American Automobile Industry was desperately trying to keep their heads above water and avoiding bankruptcy, Mitt said on national television “Let Detroit go bankrupt.” The modern version of “Let them eat cake.”

Flop: 2012. Romney has the audacity to say that President Obama followed his advice!

Flip: 2009. Stimulus. On January Mitt Romney gave his opinion about the stimulus by saying “I think there is a need for an economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less sending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.”

Flop: 2012. Romney openly criticized Obama saying “[Obama] wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

Flip: 1994. Abortion. Mitt Romney believed that abortion should be legal and during his Senatorial campaign he said: “regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal.” Further, when accused by Ted Kennedy of his position being a “multiple choice” he stressed his position by stating “On the accusation of being 'multiple-choice', I have to respond. I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that, or being multiple-choice, thank you very much.”

Flop: 2005. No longer running for Governor or in office, Mitt Romney changed his believes and erased from his mind that "dear, close family relative" that passed away from an illegal abortion. He said in an interview for the Boston Globe on July “I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." However, Mitt Romney is the only Republican presidential candidate that refused to sign the Pro-Life Pledge sponsored by Susan B. Anthony.

Flip: 2002. Stem Cell. Mitt Romney was an advocate for stem cell research and promised to lobby George W. Bush to accept steam cell research.

Flop: 2008. By this time, Romney advocates banning stem cell research because “it cheapens the sanctity of life.”

Flip: 1994. Gun Control. Romney supported the Brady Bill and some gun regulations. He acknowledged that probably that decision wasn’t going to make him any friends at the NRA. He said back then “That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA. I don't line up with the NRA.”

Flop: 2008. Romney joined the NRA.

Flip: 1994. Gay Rights. Romney supported gay rights and proposed a policy for domestic partnerships. In 2002, he said: “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation." Romney said that domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.

Flop: 2011. Romney opposes gay marriage however; he still supports policies to grant rights to domestic partnerships. It must be said that on the same year, Romney refused to sign a pledge opposing gay marriage but by October he had signed the 2012 Presidential Pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage.

I am sure that the flip-flopping will continue. Mitt Romney can’t help himself, he wants to win and will say whatever is necessary to win... Except going against his sugar daddies, that is when he draws the line after all, the one thing he firmly believes in is that money talks and bullshit walks!

Some information obtained through Wikipedia