Don’t let the spooky title scare you off, this is a comic about high adventures in laundry!
From Jeff Soyer, I learned that gun control advocates are again pushing for another poorly-named and thought up assault weapons ban, and that it was likely to fail. I read the article with some bemusement, and immediately honed in on one particular point of irony and ignorance:
The bill was named in honor of 18-year-old Aaron Sullivan, who was shot and killed by a SKS 7.62-caliber rifle in Seattle in July. The legislation focuses on “military-style” assault weapons, which can fire rapidly and carry large magazines of ammunition.
Sponsors said the bill is similar to the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. It would cover an array of different pistols, shotguns and rifles, including semiautomatic rifles with large ammunition magazines and pistol-grip stocks.
This is an SKS:
- The SKS is an actual military rifle, not a “military-style” weapon.
- The federal assault weapon ban did not ban SKS rifles.
- The federal ban banned rifles based on features, such as pistol grip stocks. It defined what those rifles look like, and declared those features to be the legal definition of a new class of gun called “assault weapon.” Those firearms are otherwise just regular old semi-automatic firearms, just like all the other semi-automatic firearms that aren’t “assault weapons.” It’s like declaring any Camaro or Mustang painted with flames or with a skull shifter knob and fuzzy dice to be a “hot rod” and banning them, whereas Camaros and Mustangs with striped paint jobs, no fuzzy dice, and 8-Ball shifter knobs aren’t banned, even though they perform the same as “hot rods.” Gun manufacturers took the banned features off their rifles and kept selling the same guns during the entire duration of the “ban,” in full legal compliance with the spirit of the law Those guns were no longer “assault weapons” because they didn’t have those features.
- The SKS does not have “large ammunition magazines and pistol-grip stocks,” and has not been banned as an “assault weapon.” The article indirectly admits this by calling it a “7.62-caliber rifle” instead of an “assault weapon.”
- So, the gun control people named their “assault weapon” bill after a kid who was murdered by someone who wasn’t using an “assault weapon,” and their bill apparently wouldn’t ban the weapon that was used.
Do the gun banners ever really think this stuff through?
Similarly, last year an Illinois legislator introduced a new federal gun control ban (that didn’t go anywhere because the Democrats are too scared to pass new gun control after losing so many seats for passing the 1994 “assault weapons” ban) named after a teenager who was murdered in Chicago. His bill was patterned after Chicago’s gun control laws: Permits to own firearms, minimum age to possess firearms, controls over buying/selling firearms, and a few other restrictions.
And it turned out, with all those controls already in place in Chicago, a teenager was able to break every single one of those laws in addition to ignoring the law against murder, and Chicago continues to be one of the most gun-violence prone municipalities in the nation. And they want to expand that nationwide?
Why do they use such examples of the failures of gun control to attempt to justify expanding gun control?
So, the big surprise for me upon switching to this new site was to see some stats:
Number of posts: 504
Number of comments: 776
Oldest post: Sept 7, 2005
Wow! Five years of blogging under my belt, and about 100 posts per year! Who knew?
Interviews like this are funny, because there’s close to a 5-second lag between any of the 3 people hearing what the other 2 people are saying, and only the CNN guy can see the other two.
The irony about the media and voters pitching the election of Scott Brown as a vote against Obamacare or government-run healthcare, is Scott Brown’s stance on the issue, as described on his campaign site:
I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance. In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.
Massachusetts has the disastrous government run plan put in place during Mitt Romney’s reign. It was enacted in 2006, and in just four short years, it’s exceeded every cost estimate, and is bankrupting Massachusetts, which is why he grudgingly acknowledges that “the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.”
The way the state controls costs is by rationing care, or drastically increasing taxes, or both. Brown says he supports “strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs” yet it is impossible for the government to force prices down. The laws of supply and demand (and all of history) show that when the government implements price controls to push down prices, demand goes up. This results in scarcity and rationing, when more people want what’s for sale at artificially low prices than is available.
So, Scott Brown isn’t the conservative Republican anti-healthcare marvel some have made him out to be.
Here’s Senator Brown admitting the government should give everybody healthcare.
You would think that being caught red-handed in a numbers shell game would influence team Obama to correct their mistakes. Instead, they change the rules so that it is now permissible to fudge the numbers. In other words, an original complaint that job counts were flawed because the administration was counting pay raises as jobs saved was corrected by – allowing pay raises to be counted as jobs saved?!
Says Tom Gavin, spokesman for the White House's Office of Management and Budget, “The new rules are intended to streamline the process.”
Using the handy pocket version of the White House to English Dictionary, this phrase translates to, “We’ve just decided it would be easier to blatantly lie to the American people.”
That sums up the article nicely. The administration initially bragged about saving several hundred thousand jobs, and when the numbers were looked into, it turned out that a good number of those “jobs saved” were jobs for non-existent people in non-existent congressional districts, or people using the government money to pay employees instead of using company profits to pay them, or simply using the taxpayer funds to give each other bonuses and pay raises.