Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Do Gun Bans Curb Violent Crime? (Part 2 of 3 on Reducing Violent Crime in the US)

 Do Gun Bans Curb Violent Crime? (Part 2 of 3 on Reducing Violent Crime in the US)

Who isn't sickened by the moral decay and heinous acts of violence across our country? My heart and prayers continue to go out to victims everywhere.

But do gun bans -- such as the one proposed this past week by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., which would outlaw 120 specific firearms -- curb violent crime?

Not according to a recent Fox News investigation titled "Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease, data shows." The report concluded, "Data published earlier this year showed that while the (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which was signed by President Bill Clinton) was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period."

Examiner.com elaborated: "Crime statistics compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show that in the 10 years before the Clinton gun ban, there were 173 mass shootings with 766 victims. But during the 10 years of the ban ... there were 182 mass shootings with 820 victims."

If one wants to see the ineffectiveness of countrywide gun bans and increased firearm regulations, one doesn't have to look any further than Mexico.

More @ Townhall

Reid declines to endorse Feinstein's assault-weapons ban

 2010_harry-reid_getty-thumb

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday declined to voice support for Democratic legislation that would ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

Reid said he would bring gun-violence legislation to the floor and open it to a lengthy amendment process. But he declined to endorse the assault weapons ban introduced last week by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which has the support of the 2nd- and 3rd-ranking Senate Democratic leaders.

“She’s talked to me about her assault weapons. The new one. She believes in it fervently and I admire her for that. I’ll take a look at that,” he said in response to a reporter's question. “We’re going to have votes on all kinds of issues dealing with guns, and I think everyone would be well advised to read the legislation before they determine how they’re going to vote [on] it.”

More @ The Hill

NRA chief to call for ‘immediate blanket’ of armed school security

 nra

The National Rifle Association (NRA) will amplify its calls for armed guards in every school when it testifies at a Senate hearing Wednesday on gun violence.

According to his scheduled testimony, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre will tell lawmakers that lax enforcement of existing laws combined with holes in the mental health system — not lenient gun laws — have led to the rash of mass shootings that have plagued the country in recent years.

“It’s time to throw an immediate blanket of security around our children,” LaPierre will tell lawmakers Wednesday as he promotes a new NRA program — dubbed the School Shield Program — designed to train armed guards at every school in the country. The group has tapped former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.) to lead the initiative.

More @ The Hill

Texas senator reaches out to big banks, gun-makers pressured by Rahm Emanuel

 

Feeling bullied by Rahm Emanuel? Bring your business down to Texas.

That's the message Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is sending big banks and firearms companies, after the Chicago mayor urged those banks to stop lending to the gun manufacturers.

The freshman senator sent a letter Tuesday to the CEOs of Bank of America and TD Bank Group offering up the Lone Star State as a place where they could do business without hassle from the government. He said he understands that, since they do "considerable business" with Chicago, they might be worried about the "risks" of not complying with Emanuel's request.

 "In light of the reception you have received in the Windy City, please know that Texas would certainly welcome more of your business and the jobs you create," Cruz wrote in his Jan. 29 letter. "Texans value jobs and value freedom, and over 1,000 people a day are moving to Texas (often from cities like Chicago), because Texas is where the jobs are."

More @ Fox

Here's to you Mr. Jefferson

Via Charlie

Amnesty Gang Throws Law-Abiders Under the Bus

Via Angry Mike

 

12 years and my wife's brother and sister still aren't here.

President Obama and the bipartisan Gang of Eight in Washington who want to create a "pathway to citizenship" for millions of illegal aliens have sent a message loud and clear to those who follow the rules: You're chumps!

Have you patiently waited for months and years for the State Department and Department of Homeland Security to slog through your application? You're chumps!

Have you paid thousands of dollars in travel, legal and medical fees to abide by the thicket of entry, employment, health and processing regulations? You're chumps!

Have you studied for your naturalization test, taken the oath of allegiance to heart, embraced our time-tested principle of the rule of law, and demonstrated that you will be a financially independent, productive citizen? You're chumps!

Unrepentant amnesty peddlers on both sides of the aisle admit their plan is all about votes and power. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain continues his futile chase for the Hispanic bloc. Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez is openly salivating at the prospect of millions of new illegal aliens -- future Democratic Party dependents of the Nanny State -- who could be eligible for Obamacare and a plethora of other government benefits despite clear prohibitions against them.

These cynical pols insist that the rest of law-abiding Americans and law-abiding permanent residents must support Washington's push to "do something" because "11 million people are living in the shadows."

To which I say: So? There are 23 million Americans out of work. Why aren't they Washington's top priority anymore? Didn't both parties once pledge that j-o-b-s for unemployed and underemployed Americans was Job No. 1? Why is the very first major legislative push of 2013 another mass amnesty/voter drive/entitlement expansion?

More @ Townhall

Farris to Supreme Court: Protect Marriage and Religious Freedom

 Mike Farris

 HSLDA
VERBATIM

Mike Farris, founder and chairman of Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court this week, defending the right of American citizens to engage in the democratic process for religious reasons.

Several years ago, voters in California passed Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional, and the case (Hollingsworth v. Perry) is now before the Supreme Court.

Writing on behalf of PHC’s Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution, Farris countered arguments made by the American Civil Liberties Union and other anti-marriage groups who have argued that because many supporters of Prop 8 were religious, the amendment itself is an establishment of religion. He defended the right of religious voters to participate in democracy, citing numerous historical examples of such participation.

Farris argued that from the founding of the Republic to modern times, this country has enacted countless laws supported by those who have advanced religious and moral arguments justifying the law. Such enactments include the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. He wrote that the courts are limited by the First Amendment and that as long as the Establishment Clause is not violated, every voter should be able to vote for the position of his or her choice for the reason of his or her choice. This includes the choice to uphold traditional western civilization concepts of marriage and the family, a concept vital to parental rights and freedoms.

The Court will hear oral arguments for Hollingsworth on March 26, 2013.

What if the Fed is short Germany’s gold?

Via Nancy & Bastiat Institute


Why are central banks buying gold, the opposite of their own creation, paper money?

Money is the opposite of gold and silver. Fiat money is based on ordinance and credibility and is not self-limiting (can be printed infinitely) whilst gold and silver is commodity based and physically limited to the amount of physical gold and silver available and mined, you choose either one or the other. One is purely based on credibility hence why notes need to mention the nominal value in order to give the piece of paper value. American paper money is backed by only the size and strength of the American economy. The other money is based on real value, the value of the gold itself. And especially for that reason investors should be warned considering the fact that more and more central banks are buying gold, the opposite of their own creation: paper money. This is so contrarian. It is like the butcher who doesn’t want to eat his own sausages because he knows what is in it. Why would central banks buy gold, which “limits” their creation of credit? The answer is: the fear of lost credibility of paper money, because of the constant undermining, dilution, debasement of their currencies with quantitative easing measures not sorting the desired effect of sustained economic growth because we have passed the tipping point whereby the overwhelming debt levels (Debt/GDP > 77-90%) have started to depress economic growth.

 Central banks have been buying gold since 2008!

In this context it is interesting that the world's central banks have been net buyers of gold since 2008. In 2011, global central banks continued to be net buyers of gold as they attempted to “diversify” from their dollar and euro holdings, rebalance reserves, and protect national wealth. Why, if gold has no monetary function any longer, why buy gold? Why buy the opposite of the US dollar, the anchor of the financial systemden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> Total world production is around 2,700 tonnes, in other words central banks are purchasing about 20% of the world’s gold production!

A growing number of emerging countries have also increased their purchases of gold in recent years to bolster their rapidly growing currency reserves, as sovereign debt crises have weighed on traditional reserve currencies such as the U.S. dollar and the Euro. Nations from Brazil to Iraq to Russia are buying the precious metal to add to official reserves. National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) said in late December it raised the percentage of gold in its reserves in 2012 to 7.72% from 4.36% a year ago. The bank said it is boosting its gold reserves “to avoid the negative impact of the global crisis on the economic development of the country as it works on diversifying the components of international reserves in Ukraine.” Brazil doubled its gold holdings in two months last year, buying 17.2 metric tons in October and 14.7 metric tons in November. According to data released late last month by the International Monetary Fund, Iraq bought gold during August-September, lifting its official precious metals reserves from 5.8 metric tons to 31.07 metric tons. The worldwide stimulus measures and ultra low interest rates will continue to support investor interest in gold in the absence of low-risk investments that can offer acceptable yields. The conclusion is that the central banks have been a major force behind the increase in the gold price. The gold price rose more than threefold between 2007 and late 2011 -- from around $600/oz to a peak of $1,895/oz. The most important question is why all these banks buy gold, the opposite of their own creation: paper money?

The “objective” of the Washington Agreement was “reversed”.

More @ LRC

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Police: 82-year-old Mo. man shoots intruder

Via Cousin John

Charles L. White (Source: Vinelink)

 KFVS
VERBATIM

Police say an 82-year-old Ellsinore man shot a man who reportedly broke into his home Friday night.
It happened shortly after 7:30 p.m. on North Herren Street.

According to Carter County Sheriff Richard Stephens, Charles L. White, 30, of Ellsinore, broke into the residence and assaulted the 82-year-old. White reported fled after being shot.

After the sheriff's office obtained a search warrant, White was found at a home in Ellsinore.
The 82-year-old homeowner was taken to a Poplar Bluff hospital and then by air ambulance to a St. Louis hospital with head injuries.

White was taken to a Poplar Bluff hospital and treated for a gunshot wound to the arm.
An arrest warrant was issued for White for assault first degree and burglary first degree. He was being held in the Butler County Jail under $500,000 bond or cash surety.

Some goodies from Ol' Remus


Poster-top-law-officers-say-get-illegal-guns-off-our-streets.jpg 

"Why does anyone need a 30-round magazine? What use is that, except to commit mayhem?" Translation: You dumb ignorant unwashed cracker, you can't wait to let loose on some harmless crowd of African Americans, can you? Get back to your cabin and jar of corn liquor and relatives with six fingers. You shouldn't be playing any part in the life of the nation, with your crazy religion and your reactionary social ideas.
John Derbyshire at takimag.com 

 Do you think that our government is incapable of doing to American citizens what other governments have done to their citizens across history? Did America not get its start because a few men recognized that tyranny could take root here, and so wrote a document enumerating what powers the federal government could not have?
Michael Kane at thesandpaper.villagesoup.com (Mr. Kane is a long time reader and friend of Woodpile Report) 

Statistics - 95.1 percent of all murder victims and 95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. And 90.2 percent of those arrested for murder and 96.7 percent of those arrested for shooting someone are black and Hispanic.
Jonathan Capehart at voices.washingtonpost.com 


I would be more than happy to believe this, but........
How to arm the unorganized militia at their own expense - Could all our recent gun-buying frenzy be a "poison pill" defense to make any yet-to-come coalition of large and increasingly well-armed Asia countries rethink any plans for confrontation with the USA?
George Ure at urbansurvival.com 


A government that lets the gray areas go is a good thing; a government that treats the gray areas as an opportunity for prosecution is tyranny. And that's where we are.
Mark, comment at jaltcoh.blogspot.com art-link-symbol-tiny-grey-arrow-only-rev01.gif article 

 Every law, every regulation, every tax, every fine, every ban is nothing more than a thinly-veiled threat of violence. Pay and/or obey, or be physically kidnapped and placed in a cage. Resist physically in any way, and if the armed agents cannot manage to otherwise subdue you, you will be killed. All actions of government boils down to this simple, foundational, and undeniable equation. If that kind of barbaric and entirely unnecessary arrangement does not constitute an "enemy," then I am left to wonder precisely who or what does.
Alex Knight at strike-the-root.com 


Take my liberty and give me money - Had we remained vigilant about the enumerated powers of our Constitution, none of the problems that now threaten our nation would exist. We would have fought no undeclared wars, created no welfare state, or have any national debt. Hard to imagine, but true.
Bruce Karlson at westernjournalism.com 

 Really ?
The reason that the Chinese got the neutron bomb is that the design was sold to them by Albert Gore in order to acquire sufficient funds to get Bill Clinton re-elected along with many other classified military secrets back in the 90's. It was possibly the highest level espionage operation ever discovered in the history of the United States.
Texas Arcane at vault-co.blogspot.com 

  We done did it:)
Three members of the National Labor Relations Board were found by a federal court to have been appointed unconstitutionally. In response, the NLRB board, including those three members presumably, said their work was too important to be interrupted by a decision which will surely be overturned, and disregarded it. Defenders of the Second Amendment who are relying on the court to uphold our civil liberties may wish to consider this.
Ol' Remus at woodpilereport.com