Posts Tagged ‘Politicians’

So the Politicians Want Our Guns?

Tuesday, January 1st, 2013

Forced to Choose?

In the aftermath of the horrifying school shooting in Newtown, it was inevitable that leftists would use the opportunity to agitate for further limitations on the right to keep and bear arms.  Before the day was over, the Marxist-in-Chief appeared to make a statement to the press, a man who is himself perpetually surrounded by a legion of armed guards, and his basic premise was laid out: This has to stop and he’s going after guns to do it.  This is the typical reaction to these sorts of events, just as the last “Assault Weapons Ban” was passed in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, in which exactly zero assault weapons were used by the bombers.  This is a fraudulent approach to a problem, because it has nothing in fact to do with the issue at hand.  Timothy McVeigh didn’t need assault weapons to murder Americans en masse, because the real problem is with individuals, but not with the implements.   Knowing this, I have a serious question or two for politicians before they decide to infringe upon our rights.  I want them to know what’s at stake, because taking such steps could do mortal damage to the country.

I’d like politicians to place themselves in law-abiding gun-owners’ shoes.  Many are like me.  I’m an Army veteran, and since returning to civilian life, I have never raised any of the weapons I own in the direction of another living soul.  I maintain a number of firearms for defense of my home, my family, and my farm, against both human and non-human predators.  Some of these would undoubtedly be classified “assault weapons” given the bizarre criteria of the last iteration of the legislation, but that hardly matters.  I’m a law-abiding citizen, and I cannot imagine a scenario in which I would employ my guns for reckless, wanton purposes.  That notion is with respect to the laws as currently written, however, new laws would leave us with a new problem should the politicians in Washington DC decide they must enact a ban on any of the weapons we already lawfully own, because if they believe that Americans are going to hand them over, they’re in for a bit of a disappointment. Why do politicians believe that law-abiding citizens should be punished for crimes they have not committed, and would never commit?

Many Americans will not yield their weapons. Will not.  Got that?  So, here’s the trouble: If by enacting a new law, people are made criminal by possession of weapons that had been perfectly legal, folks in Washington DC will be making a grave error in judgment.  You see, I am a big believer in what I like to call “Mark’s nothing-left-to-lose” theory, which states that if you make a criminal of a person by legislative or regulatory fiat, a person who has really committed no crime and no tort, that person really has no further reason to obey any laws.  Not gun laws.  Not traffic laws.  Not tax laws.  Not drug laws.  Not any law.  I think there’s something tragic about the sort of thinking driving this gun-grabbing mentality in Washington DC, but I also believe it is intended to garner the worst possible result, and there are those who will cheer at the carnage that will be wrought.  You see, they will claim the political shield of their alleged “good intentions,” but the truth is that they have none.  They intend to wreck this Republic, and if we yield so much as an inch on this, they will have made another step in that direction.

I am certain there are those advocating such legislation who believe they’ll simply send out federal agents to collect all the guns and thereby enforce the laws, and if they have a few shoot-outs with those who may be unwilling to surrender their arms, so much the better to strengthen the propaganda case. After all, it won’t be the necks of the politicians that are on the lines, but federal agents who have been directed to enforce an immoral and reckless law.  I pity them, because I know some number of them will doubtless be injured or worse, but also because I know some of them will disagree vehemently with this law, and away from work, they’ll be forced to live under it just like every other American. The rational thinkers among them might well refuse to carry such a law into execution, but sadly, the soft coercion of a paycheck is a mighty motivator.

There is also the social pressure, and it comes in the form of celebrities, media personalities and politicians making ridiculous comments about America and “its gun laws.”  Take Piers Morgan, who has “threatened” self-deportation if America doesn’t change its gun laws. Apart from leftist dolts, I cannot imagine the mindset of anybody who thinks this is an effective tactic. Will anybody miss Piers Morgan?  To me, this looks like an inducement to repeal some of the archaic restrictions on firearms ownership already on the books.  Note to Mr. Morgan:  If you’re going to “threaten” us, be sure the threatened action is something that we’d like to avoid.  As it is, and as his ratings demonstrate, I think Mr. Morgan had better start packing his bags now.

I think the politicians aren’t quite seeing the whole picture in such a short-sighted view of how things under a ban-and-seizure procedure might go.  It’s their operating assumption that the one-hundred million Americans who legally and safely own firearms will either hand in their guns at the appointed place and time, or if they resist, simply hunker down to await the aforementioned federal agents to show up for the obligatory stand-off and eventual surrender or massacre.  The problem with this view is that I don’t think the bulk of that one-hundred million Americans who own guns are nearly so stupid or short-sighted as politicians seem to believe.  The real question is whether politicians are so universally craven, and if they’re willing to convert millions of law-abiding Americans into criminals by post facto writ of law.  Do they understand that for some number of Americans, this will truly amount to an act of war?  Do they believe all armed citizens will simply go along quietly?

I doubt that all one-hundred million Americans are likely to be so docile, or so flat-footed. I suspect that if politicians enact such laws, or actually attempt to confiscate guns from Americans, there could be a rather different reaction based upon “Mark’s nothing-left-to-lose” hypothesis.  You see, I could well imagine any number of gun owners who would look at their guns, the impending seizures, their shrinking liberties, and simply conclude that “today is the day for the second bloody revolution.”  I suspect they would not be so slothful as to wait, huddling in their homes for hordes of better-armed and vastly more numerous federal agents to appear at their door.  No, I believe that if such a thing were to be enacted, the bright line between liberty and tyranny will have been crossed, and at such a point, it may well become an open season, not on poor federal agents who are being directed to such idiocy, but on politicians, media, and other public persons who support such nonsense, breaching the peace with legislation, prompting American gun-owners to oppose such tyrannical actions, and to show up at their doors with notions other than peaceful discourse in mind.

Naturally, there are those leftists who actually hope such a scenario would arise, because it would permit their shill to declare martial law, and so on, but the problem comes in for all those supporters of such policies who do not have and will not have a legion of armed guards to protect them on the day Americans finally become pissed-off, or otherwise decide they have nothing left to lose.  There exists a substantial number of Americans who simply will not yield to such a law.  This is not Australia, and contrary to the thinking of those who may have been led to believe the same sort of approach could work in the US, whereby the government would ban guns and conducted a mass confiscation through a buyback program, most going along quietly, there are still far too many Americans who realize the simple truth that a government that would seize the weapons of law-abiding citizens is a tyrannical master, and no longer an obedient servant.

One imbecile suggesting total confiscation is the governor of New York, whose only actual claim to fame is that his father had been governor of that state, that Bill Clinton hired him for a cabinet post as a favor to his father, and he used his father’s name and connections to elevate him into high office.  Andrew Cuomo called for confiscation, and here, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin discuss the matter on FoxNews:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZcUoKaN_PM]

This is a dangerous time in which we live, made all the more dangerous by the imbecilic sloganeering of politicians bent upon an agenda of destruction.  Guns really aren’t the problem, and they have never been the cause or source of violence.  Instead, this is a problem of mostly insane individuals who do evil deeds.  It’s a problem of people who are only loosely tied to reality or morality getting their hands on guns, or bombs, or airplanes.  There isn’t enough banning and seizing to be done to combat all the evil actors on the planet, which is the reason that we must retain our rights to keep and bear arms.  Some of those evil actors rise to power in governments, and occasionally, they too must be confronted with arms.  It would be an awful lesson to repeat, if politicians foolishly insist on replaying it here, now, in the country that had been the world’s most free and prosperous.  Taking away the right to keep and bear arms in any fashion isn’t an acceptable answer for a free people, and I pray a majority of our politicians know it.  It’s not a lesson a free people should be compelled to re-teach.

 

Living Inside the Box

Saturday, November 10th, 2012

Crowded in Here

I just wanted to take a moment to talk about something I think we conservatives overlook too frequently.  You see, most of us are direct people, meaning that our motives are fairly easy to discern based on our words and actions.  For this reason, we tend to project this directness onto the behavior of others.  That’s a problem.  You see, politicians don’t think this way most of the time, and we tend to think that they do.  Indeed, the whole purpose of “humanizing” a politician is to trick us into believing they’re just ordinary people, direct and honest in their motives and intentions.  It’s not true.  Most successful politicians are people who think three or four layers deep in every action. To attempt to describe this, I offered the following scenario to my wife. She looked at me as though I’d dumped ice water over her head.  She’s a very direct person, no pretenses at all, and this helped her to understand my argument about politicians.  I earnestly hope it will help some of my fellow Americans:

Imagine you’re in line at the check-out at the grocery store.  You’re waiting patiently in line behind an elderly lady who is waiting for the cashier to finish scanning everything.  When the cashier finishes, the lady opens her purse, pulls out a billfold, and begins to count out the cash, but in the process, she drops two twenties onto the floor at her feet, but nobody notices but you.

For most of us, particularly we conservatives, the reaction will be to say: “Excuse me ma’am, you dropped some money,” and even bend over and pick it up to hand it to her.  This is a direct line of thinking that includes a stimulus and a reaction along a very straight path.  It’s uncomplicated, requires no thought, and is simply the right thing to do. I asked my wife what she thought a politician would do in this situation.

She proposed that a politician would stand there quietly, and wait for the elderly woman to leave, then step up and cover the bills with his shoe, until he can bend over to “tie his shoe” in order to conceal picking up the bills to be placed in his own pocket.  In short, my wife suspected the politician would simply be a thief.  I explained to her that only idiots would take this course.  Well, idiots, or liberals. It’s still a direct form of thinking, even if it is dishonest as the day is long.  No, a true politician takes a different approach.

First, the politician would wait for the elderly lady to walk off, pushing her cartload of groceries, and then he would step forward, look down at his feet, making an astonished face, announcing to every one but no one in particular: “I think that poor lady dropped her money.”  With that, he bends over and scoops up the bills, and rushes off to catch the departing woman. He says in breathless words,”Ma’am, I think you dropped this back there at the check-out” as he hands her one bill while stealthily pocketing the other.

You see, he appears to the world and to his victim to have been a hero, doing a good deed, but he got away with being a thief, skimming half for his trouble.  He rationalizes it as a matter of perspective: He could have kept it all, you know.  Notice that the average person thought about what is the right thing to do, while my wife’s proposal of the thief was the simple thought: “How can I benefit?” The politician’s thought process in my example was a little more sophisticated, inasmuch as he was calculating the risks of being seen pocketing the money, versus the chance to get some of the money while scoring a public relations win.  This is an example of the politician looking beyond the obvious answers to see more convoluted “solutions” in the background.

My point to you with all of this is something many of you already know instinctively: Politicians, the effective ones (notice I did not say “good,”)  are all about looking for ways to make every situation into a rationalized win-win.  They may not take the direct course to an objective, giving up some ground along the way, because they see it as low-risk and high-gain in the longer run.  They’re also adept at keeping all the pieces in motion so that you can never build a full picture of what they’re really after, and because of this, politics is a frustrating thing for most Americans to watch.  It’s simply too indirect.  It’s too complex, too distracting, and any observer must keep an eye on every piece on the table, and some that aren’t in plain sight.  Now while this may seem obvious to most or all of my readers, it’s also true that we have a great number of relatively ignorant citizens, who do not pay attention, in part because they don’t like the skulduggery of it all, but it is to them who we must make this more important.  You see, I believe if most Americans knew the whole truth about what’s been done to our political system, or even how our political system was supposed to have worked, they’d become very direct and fix it in a week.

The problem is, most cannot be bothered to think outside the Democrat and Republican boxes into which they’ve been herded, only to discover it’s most frequently only one box, but it simply appears differently depending upon the angle from which one approaches it.  Most politicians aren’t confined to the box, either by intellect or by ethics.  We face many serious challenges to our liberties, and in oder to recognize them all, we’re going to need to learn to think outside the box too, not so we can duplicate their shady and indirect actions, but merely so that we can recognize them as such.  While we’ve been playing checkers, they’re generally playing 3D chess, and yet we wonder why we get snookered.  Ladies and gentlemen, don’t be too quick to pass judgments on the motives of politicians.  They’re seldom as simple and direct as our intuition would perceive.  It’s not that they’re smarter than us, but instead that they’re much more devious.

The Coming Facebook Initial Public Offering – How Many Pols Will Profit?

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012

The Financial Times has put up an article about the coming initial public offering of Facebook stock, and as I read it, I wondered: “How many politicians will get fat[ter] on this IPO when it happens?  Going as far back as the early 1990s, I remember stories of how then Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, managed to get in on an unusually large number of IPOs.  It looked very strange, since getting in on initial offerings of stock is a highly lucrative segment of the market, but it’s harder than you might think, yet somehow, I think politicians must have an edge.

Of course, as Peter Schweizer has described in his book Throw Them All Out, we can easily guess that it has very little to do with luck.  Politicians seem to have an edge in virtually every department, but what we should realize about this is that they’re simply adept at working the system.  The insider information in which they trade enables them to make money in ways you and I cannot, and what’s worse is that if you and I behave as they do, it’s huge fines and jail for us little people.

As you watch Facebook go public someday soon, you might stop and wonder as you click through the pages which politicians are getting richer as you browse through those pages.

Democrats Never Go Quietly

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

It Was a Mistake! I Swear!

In another case of thievery by public officials, a California Assembly member, Mary Hayashi, Democrat of Castro Valley, has been charged with felony theft after heading out the door of a San Francisco Nieman Marcus store with $2500 in clothing for which she had not paid.  She was apprehended by a security officer.   Hayashi is the wife of a Superior Court Judge in San Francisco, reports the Sacramento Bee. The Bee reports that her spokesman, Sam Singer has said that Hayashi is embarrassed, distraught and she apologizes for any misunderstanding, but she has no intention of resigning from office.  No, of course not.  Democrats never yield power until their own party chucks them overboard.  They always try to round up support and simply ride it out.

“Absolutely not,” he said. “She is one of the most respected members of the Assembly – a fine, upstanding citizen and a role model. This is a mistake and nothing more.”

Sure, it’s just a big misunderstanding. I think Weiner said something similar.  It’s just preposterous that these people are so hungry for power and have so much confidence in their connections to somehow get them off the hook.  Most Republicans simply resign in shame as they should, but not Democrats.  No, they fight tooth and nail for every moment they can, until it simply cannot be sustained any longer.

I don’t think much of most politicians, because I know that so many of them are corrupt in one fashion or another, but this is just ridiculous.  $2500 worth of clothes?  I’m not sure that I own $2500 worth of clothes.  She was walking out the door with that much in a single heist, er uh, “misunderstanding.”  I hope they throw the book at her, but it’s California, so I expect not.