Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


At long last, MSNBC gives us some real news that we can all use! 

I happened, per chance, to be flipping through the channels last night when I came upon MSNBC’s Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell. This final bit of the program had to do with the fact that, according to O’Donnell, the “assault weapons” ban that was dropped in the Senate earlier this week  is not really dead yet and there is still hope for the ban to be included in a future Senate bill!

According to O’Donnell, the plan to introduce this legislative ban is a simple one: simply add it as an Amendment and have the Senate vote on it. The interesting thing about this is that THIS IS EXACTLY what Feinstein did in 1993 with the original assault weapons ban! 

According to O’Donnell:

“…The question is always the same: what happens to a bill if a certain controversial provision is in it from the start and what happens if it’s left out? And, leaving it out does not mean the controversial provision won’t end up in the bill through the amendment process, which is exactly how Dianne Feinstein’s original assault weapons ban ended up in the Crime Bill in 1993…Senator Dianne Feinstein offered it as an amendment on the Senate floor and argued her case and, in on November 16th 1993, there was a roll call on the Senate floor and Dianne Feinstein’s amendment #1152 to the Crime Bill and the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban passed with 56 votes…”

In other words, to pass a ban on firearms, the democrats in the Senate will add it as an amendment to - more than likely - a popular bill and, as soon as the GOP members refuse to vote on said popular bill, the democrat’s will scream: “See! We told you so! Their simply obstructionist! They refuse to vote on this bill that the American people want!” The MSM will, naturally, follow suit in portraying the importance of this popular bill and portraying the GOP as insensitive and uncaring in order to shift public sentiment towards the democrats, heck, I’m sure we’ll see Obama on TV stumping for it as well as stating that the Senate minority has to “listen to the American people” or, that the Senate GOP “has to get their priorities straight.”  

Shortly thereafter, several GOP Senators will start caving in since they have - more than likely - attached riders to the popular bill that they want passed for their constituents back home. At which point, Harry Reid & Co. will legislatively sweeten the deal for the GOP Senators who may be on the fence as to whether or not they should vote for the bill with Feinstein’s weapons ban. 

How do I know? That’s exactly what happened in 1993! Several of the GOP Senators that voted for the bill stated that they supported it because it would expire in 10 years, at which point, they could reevaluate the situation. Feinstein’s new ban NEVER expires, it becomes law if passed and the freedom of law-abiding citizens to purchase what ever gun they so wish to buy for their protection/hobby/collection/investment comes under governmental scrutiny. 

Make sure that you know your Senator’s office number so that you can flood it with calls the moment the Senate Leftists try to take away our right to own and posses firearms.

I just puked all over myself. 

Dianne Feinstein is the worst thing ever. WORST. 

(via anarcho-americana)


How the market is disarming government

Gun manufacturers are refusing to sell or service government agencies who support the disarming of citizens. 

Opponents argue that gun control, by disarming potential victims, makes it more difficult for them to protect themselves. Supporters reply that since criminals are more experienced in violence than victims, the odds in an armed confrontation are with the criminal. This is probably true but almost entirely irrelevant to the argument.

Suppose one little old lady in ten carries a gun. Suppose that one in ten of those, if attacked by a mugger, succeeds in killing the mugger instead of being killed by him—or shooting herself in the foot. On average the mugger is more likely to win the encounter than the little old lady. But—also on average—every hundred muggings produces one dead mugger. At those odds, mugging is an unprofitable business—not many little old ladies carry enough money to justify one chance in a hundred of being killed getting it. The number of muggers declines drastically, not because they have all been killed but because they have, rationally, sought safer professions.

David Friedman, Hidden Order: The Economics of Everyday Life (via utilitymaximiser)

Freakonomics tackles the “Gun” issue. 

Yes, there is a gun issue, although it is diminishing, there are still issues that we need to discuss. Guns aren’t safe, they aren’t meant to be, but a lot of other everyday things are less safe than guns, like swimming pools. 

As always, Freakonomics does a good job catering to both arguments (for and against guns). Levitt’s final conclusion? Guns aren’t going anywhere and laws don’t do much to deter illegal use, especially by mentally unstable individuals. He believes that we’d have more success in reducing crime if we figured out why people want to kill and fix that instead of trying to ban a specific tool that’s used to kill with. 

Sounds like the logical solution to me. 

How dangerous are assault rifles that 40 trained men armed with them couldn’t hit a 270 lb, 6’ guy?? Instead they had to burn down the house. — From my facebook

The future of America: I present to you the United Kingdom’s Police State. 

Kids are being arrested in the UK for taking and posting pictures with knives on the internet. Yes, I shit you not. Their sole offense is taking and posting pictures. 

Congress Can Go Ahead And Ban All Guns

If you haven’t heard, Feinstein introduced the 11th step to fascism new Gun Ban Bill to Congress today. Her stated purpose of the bill, and as I’ve mentioned many times before, is to “dry up the supply of these weapons over time, therefore, there is no sunset on this bill”. 

Congress can go ahead and ban whatever they want, the people will find legal ways around it. Just like they did with the bullet button and other innovations, Congress can only build temporary walls because the possibilities of innovation far exceed the ability to limit things. Congress does not have the knowledge or the foresight to ban all things that exist today and that can possibly exist in the future, so it’s only a matter of time until new methods of production are discovered and guns of the same capability and perhaps even greater ability once again, legally, find their way back into the hands of the people.

Heck, this weapons ban might even push for innovations that go beyond physical rounds and traditional guns. Perhaps this will finally bring about the invention of laser guns or powerful air guns or maybe even some other technology that we haven’t even conceived of yet. 

Congress is only quasi-capable of legislation but the people are masters of innovation. Like they’ve done before, they will once again legally innovate their way around silly laws that exist through a very narrow and backwards thinking lens. 

So I say to Congress, go ahead and ban what you want and watch the people peacefully destroy your position on guns while efficiently bettering their own. 

- Sha

Whoever the artist of this garbage is, needs to have their college, high school, and jr high diplomas revoked. 
By far the most clueless and brainless political cartoon I have ever seen. 

Whoever the artist of this garbage is, needs to have their college, high school, and jr high diplomas revoked. 

By far the most clueless and brainless political cartoon I have ever seen. 

(via anarcho-americana)

Gun ‘Control’? Control is a myth. What we really need is gun safety and that doesn’t come through legislation. If you truly want gun safety, teach your kids how to properly handle and respect a gun at a young age. Go to the range, practice and, most importantly, always respect the power of the gun.

If you don’t care for actual gun safety, bypass Congress like a dictator, create a bunch of laws to suppress lawful ownership of guns all while working with the DOJ, CIA and groups that you yourself deem as “terrorists” in illegally trafficking “military style” guns all around the world.

If you’ve done the former, you are an upstanding citizen and a responsible member of society. Do the latter and you are the President of the United States of America.

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. — Thomas Paine, The Writings of Thomas Paine, Vol. I, XII.: Thoughts On Defensive War.1 (1774-1779)
The argument is that an armed individual is dangerous for society. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that we find this to be true. Following that logic, one must also conclude that a group of such individuals, armed with exponentially larger weapons is exponentially more dangerous for society. An armed government is therefore the most dangerous to society, for it is the largest collective of such individuals who bear arms. Therefore, before we disarm the individual, let us first disarm the collective. Or do neither. Sha
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Joseph Story, United States Supreme Court Justice 1811-1845, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833]

What the honorable Joseph Story is explaining here is that it is the sole duty of the people to keep themselves both armed and educated on those arms. By educated I mean both in the ability to use such arms and the understand of their importance. However, Story both sees and fears that the ‘burthens’ of those rights (burthens as in burdens) is starting to shift the vigilance and willingness of the people to remain armed. 

Joseph Story, in 1833, successfully predicted that the laziness of the people to both stay armed and to keep their own government at bay will soon lead from indifference on gun ownership to disgust and that disgust will become contempt. That contempt will soon remove the protection that the 2nd Amendment provides for all of us, individually and as a nation. 

If we haven’t arrived at our final destination yet, we are certainly standing at it’s doorstep with our finger on the doorbell. 

- Sha 

To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defense of themselves and their country.

Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and New York, 1823

As I’ve said before, America doesn’t have a gun problem, it has a morality problem. We’ve failed to remain vigilant and educated on both the utility and usage of guns.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. — James Madison - Federalist Papers #46 - The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, New York Packet. January 29, 1788