Mike Shedlock is one of the best bloggers out there. He is a libertarian and big supporter of Ron Paul and Rand Paul. He makes some excellent points in his article about gun control. But, I have to disagree with him on a few points. Using Barry Ritholtz as an example of someone who is reasonable on this subject is a joke. Barry is a liberal douchebag that is afraid of guns. He thinks libertarians are crazy nutjobs. Here is a guy that is worth millions and he didn’t even have a gas generator in his house. He lives on Long Island and had to live with relatives for two weeks after Sandy because he didn’t make the most basic preparations. I’m sure he doesn’t own a gun. He thinks the police will protect his fat ass. When I scorched his anti-gun arguments with facts, I was banned from his site. Referencing him in an article doesn’t help your case.
Mish thinks that re-instituting the assault weapons ban, banning armor piercing bullets and banning magazines with over 10 rounds should be done. He thinks it is just common sense. He is making the same mistake many have made. They trust their government. They can’t comprehend the possibility that the Federal government could become the enemy. The argument many make about the 2nd Amendment is that the Founding Fathers never conceived of semi-automatic weapons. No they did not. They did know that the government had muskets at their disposal, so the people should also have muskets at their disposal. They wanted the citizens to have equal firepower with the government as a check against tyranny.
Today, the Federal, State and Local governments have tremendous firepower. They have automatic weapons, tanks, predator drones, artillary, and missiles. The citizens should be able to have semi-automatic weapons, armor piercing ammo and magazines with more than 10 rounds. The government is dangerous. The government is out of control. The government is stripping us of our freedom and liberties. There is no middle ground on gun control. The 2nd Amendment is clear. We need to be armed because a showdown is likely to happen within the next 15 years.
Don’t Trust Your Government
Gallup Poll on Obama’s Proposals to Address Gun Violence; Republicans and Democrats Agree on 7 of 9 Items; Is Now the Time?
Of course I am talking about the population in general, not the extremists on both sides of the aisle in Congress.
Poll questions were specifically worded by Gallup to follow President Obama’s “Now is the Time” gun control agenda.
The results are in: Americans Back Obama’s Proposals to Address Gun Violence.
Most Proposals Have Bipartisan Support
Although Democrats show more support than Republicans for each proposal, majorities of both partisan groups favor seven of the nine proposals. That includes nearly universal support among Republicans and Democrats for requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales. A majority of Republicans also favor a ban on armor-piercing bullets and increasing penalties for straw purchasers, as well as the various school security, police funding, and mental health funding proposals tested.
The two proposals favored by majorities of Democrats, but not Republicans, relate to enacting bans on the sale of guns or ammunition.
Support for Proposals by Political Affiliation
Discussion
My personal check list is sure to disappoint some Republicans, some Democrats, some Independents, and some Libertarians. So be it.
- Requiring criminal background checks for all guns is a seemingly reasonable thing to do. Overall, 92% of the people favor such an action. Checks will not stop a desperate criminal, but it may stop others. Nonetheless, I have reservations as explained below.
- The proposal to increase mental health programs for youth will not be affordable. What would likely start out as a modest program will end up costing tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars down the road once bureaucrats get behind it. Ask taxpayers if they support increasing taxes to pay for the program and I bet the answer is different. The same applies to other funding questions.
- Similarly, we do not need funding to increase training. Police departments have ample money already. Money is wasted in union graft, overpaid officers, and untenable pension programs. There is nothing wrong with increased training. However, there is everything wrong with assuming extra funds are needed.
- Increasing penalties for straw purchasers may not help a lot. However, it cannot hurt either. In conjunction with item 1, there may be a modest benefit. If not, at least item 4 will not cost anything.
- Funding 15,000 extra police is of course ridiculous. Having an extra officers may not be. The solution is getting rid of collective bargaining of public unions to drive down costs, not to throw more money at the problem.
- By now you should be tuned into my line of thinking. Funding school emergency response plans is also ridiculous. This is not to say I oppose having a plan. Rather, I simply oppose spending additional taxpayer money on the idea. Schools ought to be doing this already. All it takes is for schools to schedule time with police departments to go over some common sense ideas. Do this for one school and it will apply to thousands. Throw money at it, and every school will seek 1000 times more money than they need.
- There is absolutely no need for anyone to have an assault weapon to protect themselves. Nor do citizens need hand grenades, nuclear missiles, or any other such devices. It is beyond idiotic to ascertain assault weapons are constitutionally protected.
- A ban on armor-piercing bullets is of course a no-brainer. There is no legitimate use of armor-piercing bullets for private citizens.
- A ban on magazines with over 10 rounds is also a common-sense proposal. No one can possibly need more than 10 rounds in a clip to defend themselves in public or in their homes.
Cost Effective Analysis
From a cost-effective standpoint, the items that would likely do the most good, at the least cost, were the items that had the least support. Items 7, 8, 9, and 4 would not cost a dime. I solidly support all four.
I support preparing emergency plans (item 6), but that should not cost a dime either. As worded, I have to vote no.
I am fearful that the most supported idea (item 1) will end up costing too much in relation to the benefit. I voted yes, for now, but I need to see details of the plan as well as realistic measures of the cost.
As it stands, I am solidly in favor of 4 things that will not cost a dime. Those 4 items will not trudge on any conceivable rights either. I support an additional item, with reservations.
Once again, if Gallup asked taxpayers if they support increasing taxes to pay for these program, I bet the answers would be different and the order of priorities would be different.
How Helpful Are Concealed Weapons?
Inquiring minds may be interested in a post by Barry Ritholtz How Helpful Are Concealed Weapons?
Click on the link to see a couple of interesting videos.
Note that Barry took a lot of flak for his post. Read the comments and see for yourself. I side with Barry.
The most sensible comments came from Disinfectant and GreenTom.
Disinfectant says …
It is amazing, but not at all surprising, that so many watch these videos and utterly fail to understand the message. The point is simple and should be uncontroversial – unless you are well trained, defending yourself with a gun in a live scenario is very difficult; your body and mind are not prepared for this. It doesn’t matter how often you go to the gun range or how heroic you imagine yourself to be. Going through the motions of protecting yourself, getting the gun out, then firing at the target (and ONLY at the target) does not happen naturally.
To the critics: nowhere does it imply that a gun will never be useful in defense. Obviously, if you are not in the immediate line of fire and can take cover, you will have more time to prepare yourself. But if the shooter is standing right in front of you, your odds are likely much lower than you think. And as far as anecdotal evidence goes, I’m sure 0% of you can actually say that you have been in such a situation and performed as flawlessly as your imagination would have you believe.
GreenTom says …
I’d agree this is kind of staged, but more rigorous studies show the same thing. Study below reports that people carrying weapons are about 5 times more likely to be shot than those who don’t carry. It’s funny, I predict a lot of negative reactions to this comment, but does anyone really claim that escalating a robbery to a gunfight isn’t a risky move?
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
Here is the study cited by GreenTom: Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
…Individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45.
Among a long list of issues facing the American public, guns are third only to gay marriage and abortion in terms of people who report that they are “not willing to listen to the other side.” In concert with this cultural rift, scholarly discussion over guns has been similarly contentious.1 Although scholars and the public agree that the roughly 100 000 shootings each year in the United States are a clear threat to health, uncertainty remains as to whether civilians armed with guns are, on average, protecting or endangering themselves from such shootings.
I commend Barry for taking a controversial stand on a controversial topic. Most bloggers stay away from controversial subjects, generally out of fear of offending readership. As my readers know full well, I will not shy away from controversial topics either.
By the way, gun control may not seem like an economic topic but it is. Many of Obama’s proposals will require significant expenses to implement down the road (even if hidden initially).
Reflections on Libertarianism
I am certain to be charged by some of violating Libertarian beliefs.
However, libertarianism is not anarchy. Rules exist to protect property. Reasonable legislation will prevent some of these incidents, and no amount of legislation will stop all of them.
Moreover, common sense says that encouraging average citizens or teachers to walk around with assault weapons or concealed guns (the actual remedy proposed by some gun advocates) would cause a lot of needless deaths and property damage as a result would-be John Wayne types trying to be heroes, but accidentally killing innocent bystenders.
Reflections on the Constitution
As passed by Congress, the Second Amendment reads “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.”
As ratified by the states, the Second Amendment reads “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.”
Notice the dispute over commas. Also note how the concept of a “well regulated militia” is completely dropped by gun advocates.
The Supreme Court did rule the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.
Regardless, the rights to bear arms to protect oneself certainly can and should have limits.
To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said:
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
One does not need bazookas, hand grenades, missiles, assault weapons, armor-piercing bullets, or 10-clip magazines to defend one’s person or one’s house. Those items all need to be outlawed.
Gun advocates argue we need to enforce existing laws, while arguing against every law on the books. Meanwhile, state-to-state variations in laws make enforcement a nightmare, at best.
Now Is The Time
Obama says “now is the time”. I agree but only where costs are low and benefits high. There are four (perhaps five) items out of nine on the president’s agenda that meet that criteria.
My top three ideas are 7, 9, and 8 (pretty much in that order, but possibly 9 ahead of 7 which I will leave to the experts). Unfortunately, Republicans are likely to fight 7 and 9 (if not 7, 8, 9, and 1).
Given the sad state of Congressional compromises, Republicans may even agree to waste taxpayer money on programs simply to appease voters who clearly want something done.
Unfortunately, the end result is highly likely to be a combination of the most money spent for the least benefit.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#jWKq746t6hxTc41B.99
TC says:
Fuck Ritholtz and after reading Mish’s post on gun control, fuck Mish too. How on earth can someone who claims to be libertarian support background checks for all private gun sales? Well, now if the guv tracks all sales, then that’s the same as owner lists. Not to mention not being able to buy/sell your own personal property. Anyone who claims limiting magazines to 10 rounds is a good idea is a fucking moron. Hey, those kids shot up Columbine with 10 round mags back during the 1st assault weapons ban, but by all means lets not let facts get in the way of the hysteria-driven wave to disarm law-abiding citizens. 90% of what Mish does is cut/paste other people’s content anyway. Fuck ‘em both.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
24th January 2013 at 12:52 pm
flash says:
Fuck Mish…libertarian my hairy ass..he can make his own choices for self-defense…but not mine.
Besides , I sincerely doubt the effeminate looking Moosh has ever handled a weapon , beyond his trouser snake.
The lady in Loganville Ga who survived the home invasion several weeks ago had only 6 shots in her revolver and made 5 of them count, but there was only one attacker.What if there had been 3?
Home invasions have involved more than one gang member….6 shots or 30 …make your own choice, but don’t steal my right to make mine.
http://loganville.patch.com/articles/loganville-woman-shoots-burglar-several-times
UPDATE: Loganville Mother Shoots Burglar Several Times
A burglar was shot by a Loganville homeowner Friday morning. She was hiding in an attic space and shot him when he located her.
January 4, 2013
Upload Photos and Videos
LOGANVILLE, GA — UPDATE: According to Walton County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Keith Brooks, the young mother shot the burglar after he broke into her Loganville home Friday morning. Brooks said deputies were called in on a report of a burglary in progress. The home was in the Henderson Ridge subdivision off south Sharon Church Road.
“She was aware he was trying to break into the home and took the children and hid in an attic space with them, but he found her,” Brooks said, adding that was when she shot him.” She then ran to a neighbor with the children and he left in a car.
Brooks said the burglar subsequently wrecked the car in the woods, which is where the deputies found him.
“He was conscious and alert when we got to him,” Brooks said, adding they are withholding the name of the burglar for the moment. The Walton Tribune reported that it was a 32-year-old Loganville man and that he was in a critical condition after being shot five times. WSBTV is reporting his name is Paul Slater, of Atlanta, and that he has a record. He also has been listed as a Snellville resident in previous mug shots.
Related Topics: Walton County S
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
0
24th January 2013 at 1:03 pm
Administrator says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
0
24th January 2013 at 1:09 pm
Administrator says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
24th January 2013 at 1:11 pm
ecliptix543 says:
Mish sucks Hillary’s balls.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
0
24th January 2013 at 1:40 pm
GRGY says:
I was with you until I got to #7 on your checklist. Need has nothing to do with it. I don’t need a motorcycle than goes 300 KPH (200 MPH) either.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
24th January 2013 at 1:40 pm
GRGY says:
That should read: I was with MISH until he got to #7 on his checklist. Need has nothing to do with it. I don’t need a motorcycle than goes 300 KPH (200 MPH) either.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
24th January 2013 at 1:48 pm
backwardsevolution says:
Admin – you are right. Too many people TRUST their government, even after all the corruption, scandals, etc. A few years back, because of my own indoctrination, I know I struggled with wrapping my mind around the fact that government would ever hurt the people. But the more I read, the more I heard, it slowly became obvious to me that they were not on our side. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Mish does trust the government. He often says, “The government just doesn’t understand,” or “Our leaders don’t know what they’re doing.” It doesn’t seem to enter his mind that they DO in fact understand or that they DO know what they’re doing, and that they rely on people like Mish to think they’re just naive or stupid. That way they get away with murder. If Mish ever wakes up to this fact, he’s going to be a very angry man.
“It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
0
24th January 2013 at 1:55 pm
card802 says:
“Unfortunately, Republicans are likely to fight 7 and 9 (if not 7, 8, 9, and 1).”
Mish should stick with what he knows, I’m not sure what that is though after reading this. There are gun lovers on both sides of the aisle and I’m not so sure democrat gun lovers will bend to the idiocracy of the uber left.
I don’t see a reason to own armor piercing ammo either, but I’m not so naive to think by banning it, it will not be available to those that want it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
24th January 2013 at 1:59 pm
KaD says:
There’s probably alot more banned firepower out there than you think. In Cleveland there was a guy that had an anti-aircraft gun in his attic. You can’t mistake that sound.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
24th January 2013 at 2:05 pm
ragman says:
Of course we need AP and API. Nothing else will stop the tyrants in their DHS provided Armored Personnel Carriers and the rest of the military shit that they are getting. But by God a .50 firing 650 grains of exploding death will get their fucking attention. I’m afraid that’s where we’re heading sportsfans!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
24th January 2013 at 2:09 pm
Pete says:
I have never given my consent to have anyone alienate me from my inalienable rights. My right to self defense is not contingent upon how some jackal chooses to interpret the 2nd Amendment.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
24th January 2013 at 2:14 pm
Administrator says:
Guns and the President
by Andrew P. Napolitano
Here is an uncomfortable pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Adam Lanza or Barack Obama? We’ll hold off on the answer for a few paragraphs while we look at the state of governmental excess – including killing – in America. But you can probably guess the correct answer from the manner in which I have posed the question.
We all know that the sheet anchor of our liberties is the Declaration of Independence. The president himself quoted Thomas Jefferson’s most famous line in his inaugural address earlier this week. He recognized that all men and women are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The president would no doubt like to modify the word “created” to read “shall be maintained,” since his presidency seems dedicated to keeping us equal, not in terms of equality of rights and opportunity but of outcome. He has dedicated himself to using the coercive power of the federal government to take from those who have and give to those who don’t. Under the Constitution, charity is a decision for individuals to make, not the government.
This forced egalitarianism was never the purpose of government in America. When the people in the original 13 states gave up some of their personal liberties to create their state governments so they could perform the services that governments in the West do, and when the states themselves gave up some of their liberties to create the federal government of limited powers to address the issues of nationhood, they never authorized government to impose taxes to transfer wealth to those who lack it or need it.
This may sound harsh, but there is simply no authority in the Constitution for the feds to tax Americans or to borrow money in their names to rebuild private homes in New Orleans or at the Jersey Shore. And there is no moral authority for that, either. If folks want to give money to those whose properties were damaged by natural disasters and lacked adequate insurance coverage, they are free to do so, but nowhere does government have the authority to compel us to do so.
This shows how far we have come from the Constitution the Founders gave us. They “constituted” a government of limited powers, and they did so because they wanted the government to protect our freedoms, since they understood that personal responsibility and freedom – not government handouts – are the soundest routes to prosperity. Hence, they limited the government because they knew the lessons of history. And those lessons informed them that often it is the government itself that is the greatest threat to personal freedom.
One hundred years ago, during the Progressive Era, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson turned the concept of limited government on its head. They argued that the Constitution could be disregarded because the federal government possesses unlimited powers to address the people’s needs. Barack Obama is their ideological heir. As their heir, he is not only the head of the executive branch of the federal government, but he is also the head of one of the two dominant political parties.
That political party has dedicated itself to making certain killing legal. The Democrats have continually celebrated the abominable decision of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, issued 40 years ago this week. They have championed abortion for the past 40 years. They have assaulted the greatest and most fundamental of human rights: the right to live. In doing so, they have succeeded in causing the government to permit the killing of more than 50 million American babies in their mothers’ wombs in the past 40 years – for the sake of convenience and sexual activity without consequence, in a manner that is antiseptic and lawful. And no one hears the babies’ cries of pain or anguish.
The president himself has more directly killed about 176 children in Pakistan by the use of CIA drones. These drones have been dispatched by him alone – not pursuant to any congressional declaration of war. At least two of these murdered children were Americans. But since the cameras were kept away, since all of this takes place 10,000 miles from America, and since the survivors are legally and politically helpless, no one here hears the Pakistani children’s cries of pain and anguish.
One of the reasons we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is to enable us to resist a drone sent to the path of our children by shooting it down, no matter who sent it. But you can’t stop a drone with a BB gun. Hence the need for serious firepower in the hands of ordinary Americans – to give tyrants pause and to stop tyrants when they don’t pause. The president wants to use Lanza’s horrific slaughter of 20 babies in a public school in Connecticut with a stolen gun as an excuse to restrict the freedoms of all law-abiding gun-owning Americans, any one of whom would have stopped Lanza in a heartbeat with a lawful gun, before the police could, had they been in that school.
Now back to our pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Lanza or Obama? Does a president with blood on his hands have any moral standing to infringe upon the natural right to self-defense of those whose hands are clean? Would you sacrifice your liberty to defend yourself and your children so that the government can kill whom it pleases?
The answers are obvious.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
24th January 2013 at 2:15 pm
Eddie says:
This whole debate has exposed me to a lot of articles and stats. The one overwhelming take-away from all of them is that handguns are far more likely to end up being used in any type of shooting you can name, than is an assault rifle. The numbers are clear on that. There is no argument.
The other thing I see is that Obama and all those who support his liberal agenda are hell-bent on ignoring that rather glaring factoid. So, I ask myself, why is that?
To me it appears to be because the aim of this gun control initiaiative is not the stated one, but rather the hidden agenda of making us all helpless against the power of authority in all its forms.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
24th January 2013 at 2:22 pm
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
Napolitano for President 2016.
I was not aware that the child death count from Obama’s, really John Brennan’s, Drone Wars was quite that high, OMG.
WHERE ARE THE CODE PINKERS? THE JOHN CUSAK’S?? ALL THE ANTIWAR CROWD NOW???
Fucking hypocrites.
Molon Labe, my friends and stay Frosty. It’s getting real.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
0
24th January 2013 at 2:26 pm
card802 says:
Speaking of Drone Wars, apparently the UN is investigating obama for possible war crimes.
Don’t wait up for results. “What difference does it make at this point!”
“The inquiry will report to the UN general assembly in New York this autumn. Depending on its findings, it may recommend further action. Emmerson has previously suggested some drone attacks – particularly those known as “double tap” strikes where rescuers going to the aid of a first blast have become victims of a follow-up strike – could possibly constitute a “war crime”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
24th January 2013 at 2:32 pm
GreasedUpWillie says:
“There is absolutely no need for anyone to have an assault weapon to protect themselves”. I have been hearing this one a lot. It is fascinating how everyone is an expert on what I do and do not need for my personal protection. They have appearently analyzed all of the potential threats, the defensibility of my property and person, and made the statement on what I do and do not need. I never realised we had such amazing physical security experts in the media and throughout the country.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
24th January 2013 at 2:42 pm
Llpoh says:
The Dems never met a stupid project they wouldn’t fund with someone else’s money.
Another 15,000 police? That is as noticeable, and helpful, as a piss in the ocean. Detroit alone needs more than that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
24th January 2013 at 3:08 pm
Dorkus Maximus says:
How many lives have been lost because people DIDN’T HAVE GUNS?
If the people of Darfur were armed – would the janjanweed be using them as hunting toys?
If the Armenians were armed would they have been slaughtered by the Turks?
I the Jews were armed against the Nazis?
Also, The number of people killed by privately owned arms is MINISCULE compare to the number of people killed by government owned arms.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
24th January 2013 at 3:23 pm
underfire says:
The powers that be know that economic collapse followed by social chaos and some sort of martial law is a real possibility. That’s no secret to any thinking person.
So the conundrum is how to neutralize the private citizen as much as possible in the face of the 2nd amendment and a strong pro gun faction in America. A seemingly logical and innocent enough ban on semi auto weapons,high capacity magazines, and armor piercing ammo would be a massive step towards reducing the citizens firepower.
A few hunting rifles of various calibers around, some shotguns and pistols is going to be nothing compared to the weaponry the state will be able to bring to bear. A bunch of guys with military designed rifles with big magazines and cans of ammo is a whole different animal.
Example: every war we’ve been in in the last fifty years….we’ve gotten everything we wanted by a bunch of hard heads largely armed with these kind of weapons.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
24th January 2013 at 3:24 pm
TOM PAYNE says:
So you loves da Ubernigger?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
24th January 2013 at 3:33 pm
Davos says:
Heart Mish but he’s totally fucked in the head when it comes to realizing it ain’t going to be deflation.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
24th January 2013 at 4:02 pm
Bostonbob says:
Admin I don’t know if this is the best place to put this. This is a podcast that ties together the current “boom” in oil/energy production. It give and excellent analysis tying together oil, energy, wage arbitration and future energy supplies. I am sure most here have heard this, but Martenson’s guest Gregor Macdonald is quite good and not overly technical.
Thank you,
Bob.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W86SfK0XTH0
It is something our government must know but are clearly avoiding until we have another enormous spike again which will clearly exacerbate the current problems.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
24th January 2013 at 4:49 pm
AWD says:
Obama is the mass-murderer of children. And I agree with Admin, you can’t support the second amendment and also support taking away rifles, magazines, or Ammo.
What do we really need the Federal Government for? The criminals in Washington are completely out of control. We have stood by and let them run up a $16.4 trillion debt that threatens to wipe us out economically. They are more dangerous than 5 million terrorists.
Barry Ritholtz is a fat slob Wall Street mouthpiece. I hope the zombies go after him first and enjoy his liver with a nice Chianti and some favre beans.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
24th January 2013 at 5:35 pm
AWD says:
Below explains how decent people sell their fellow citizens (and themselves) out.:
The “Majority Opinion” Is An Illusion
If there is one concept on Earth that has been the absolute bane of human existence (besides global elitism), it would have to be the concept of the “majority opinion”. The moment men began refusing to develop their own world views without first asking “What does everyone else think?”, they set themselves up for an endless future of failures. Human beings desperately want to belong, but, they also desperately want to understand the environment around them. O
ften, the desire to belong and the desire to know the truth conflict. In some societies, in order to be accepted, one must give up on his search for truth and avoid eliciting the anger of others. The idea of the majority view or the “mainstream”, gives people the sense that they are a part of a group, and at the same time, gives them the illusion of being informed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
24th January 2013 at 6:08 pm
DaveL says:
“card802 says:
Speaking of Drone Wars, apparently the UN is investigating obama for possible war crimes.”
Obama the Nobel Peace Prize guy?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
24th January 2013 at 6:51 pm
JIMSKI says:
I think he is correct in one aspect. The fact that this ass fucking of the constitution will pass. Finally all the right and left wings will be unified in this buzzard we call the American Government.
Do you all get it now? There is no difference. You have had an illusion of choice for a long time now. Time to grow up and decide if you follow the sheep.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
24th January 2013 at 7:16 pm
BUCKHED says:
IT’S CALLED THE BILL OF RIGHTS…..NOT THE BILL OF NEEDS !
John Cusak is a DOUCHE BAG !
From Dianne Feinstein…..
“I have worked on this for a long time,” said Feinstein in an interview with USA Today. “I’m not a newcomer or a novice to guns.
By her own admission that she and her staff looked though gun catalogs to pick out the ones that look scary. That somehow the color or shape of a weapons stock or grip somehow makes in more dangerous is STUPIDITY. Not to mention her bill is rife with technical mistakes like still not being able to comprehend there is a difference between ‘clips’ and ‘magazines’.
“The NRA sort of specialized in trying to denigrate me, but I don’t think there’s anyone around that’s spent 20 years on this subject, plus some,” she added.”
Bitch ..you denigrate yourself, and it takes no special effort for an organization that has way more than “20 year” experience that she claims to have by owning a singe pistol in exposing her legislation for what it is.
This is not a crime reduction measure, this is a fundamental power grab by the far left socialists in our government.
Her legislation as written would treat semi automatic hunting rifles as a greater threat and with more restrictions than the current Fire Arms Act treats fully automatic machine guns that are in civilian hands. Even machine guns can be passed on after death, she wants them to become govt property when the grandfathered owner dies…
THUS ONE GENERATION of second amendment rights ( Assault Style Weapons) will remain but greatly infringed, after that… they will be illegal…
WAKE UP AMERICA……
These weapons that she wants to BAN are involved in less than 1% off all GUN CRIMES… slightly over 2% off ALL gun homicide happens with ANY KIND OF RIFLE.. this includes hunting accidents and justifiable shootings….
Lastly… and the best part, a school district just outside LA just bought a bunch of ‘EVIL RIFLES’ to protect the schools with.
Remember, these weapons only LOOK like their Military counterparts… they ARE NOT THE SAME… they are not select fire machine guns..
Folks CONgress has eviscerated the 4th and 5th amendments….Once they’re done with the 2nd….the 1st will be overturned soon after .
Dianne is DOUCHE Bag…..the reason she has a HARD-ON for guns is because she hasn’t had a HARD-ON stuck in her in years !!!!!!!!!!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
24th January 2013 at 7:26 pm
harry p. says:
Fuck Mish, he is similar to people i know who say they supported Ron Paul’s fiscal policies but couldnt stand his foreign policy. Both come from the same thought process/moral code.
Mish just like the others (Glenn Beck on many issues for example) dont understand where true libertarian principles come from. They come from the non aggression principle. All the things Mish claims that are “common sense” can only be enforced by violating the NGA and acting aggressively to people who havent harm anyone but refuse to comply with guv-thug commands.
I have read his blog occasionally for years ever since i read an article of his on financial sense and i am fairly surprised by his stance.
He falsely believes the govt wont abuse their power “this time”? In my opinion that makes him a shit for brains on this issue.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
24th January 2013 at 7:48 pm
Eddie says:
Been reading about Feinstein’s planned legislation. It’s WAY over the top, much worse than anything I could have imagined. It seems she does want to ban handguns after all.
Funny, I read somewhere that way back when Harvey Milk was shot, Feinstein was not targeted, likely because she herself was packing…that she was one of not too many people in SF to actually have a legal carry permit at the time.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
24th January 2013 at 7:52 pm
ASIG says:
There is a small town in France that very few outside of France have ever heard of. In WWII the German army went in and murdered every man woman and child in the town. The French left the town in the condition that it was found in right after the murders and is today a museum more or less.
I got the impression that the message the French were trying to convey is that the world should not forget how badly the Germans were to the French.
My take-away was very much different. As I walked through those streets, the thought played over and over in my head. “This is what happens when the good people are totally unarmed and at the mercy of a power with all the guns.
If there was ever a lesson of history on the subject of gun control, this would be it. Learn the lesson and find a way to avoid it or ignore it and it WILL happen again.
The town — Oradour Sur Glane
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
24th January 2013 at 11:52 pm
Bostonbob says:
ASIG I pulled up the story of Oradour Sur Glane and will be sending it to my daughter to reinforce our discussions on the 2nd Amendment. If those 191 men had weapons does anyone think the Germens would have been so anxious to exterminate them so freely. Plus if even half of the women were armed do you think they would have let these animals murder there children so systematically. I am afraid Feud may have been right about human nature and we are a bunch of animals.
Thank you,
Bob.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
24th January 2013 at 9:01 am