BornLib's Blog

Life, Liberty, and the Firearms that protect them both

Archive for July 2012

Amusing result from trying out Twitter

leave a comment »

I finally joined Twitter so I can not Tweet while I not blog.

The “You might also want to follow:” feature is hilarious.

I follow Glenn Reynolds @instapundit, Twitter says, “You might also want to follow: Eric Martin ‏ @EricMartin24 Senior Editor of The Progressive Realist”

No, I think not.

I follow Adam Baldwin @adamsbaldwin, Twitter says, “You might also want to follow: The Fix ‏ @TheFix WaPo’s Chris Cillizza”

Seriously?

I follow Monty @AoSHQDOOM, Twitter says, “You might also want to follow: NBCOlympics ‏ @NBCOlympics NBCOlympics.com is the exclusive US home to 2012 London Olympics coverage and the only place to watch LIVE video.Come and explore London 2012 with us.”

I guess Twitter has similar reservations about the Olympics as Romney.

I follow James Pethokoukis @JimPethokoukis, Twitter says, “You might also want to follow: Kevin Hart ‏  @KevinHart4real”

Other than them both being men who use Twitter, what do they have in common?  Okay, Twitter suggested Kevin Hart again after I followed Walter Olson.  What am I missing here?

Written by BornLib

July 31, 2012 at 8:10 am

Posted in Humor

New legislation to be proposed to regulate the sale of ammunition

leave a comment »

Bitter and Sebastian have pointed out another push being made by certain Democrats to interfere with American’s ability to provision our arms. 

From NJToday:

U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY4) and advocates from the gun safety community announced new legislation being introduced this week that would restrict the sale of ammunition over the internet.

Much like a car with no gas in it, a gun with no bullets certainly would be safer.  It would also be useless, which is of course the point.  Don’t live near one of these as yet undefined licensed ammunition dealers?  Well too bad.

Like I said before, if you like your guns you can keep your guns, so long as you don’t put any bullets in them.

The bill, called the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, aims to keep Americans safe by limiting the ability to anonymously purchase unlimited quantities of ammunition through the internet or other mail-order means. It would also require that ammunition dealers report bulk sales of ammunition to law enforcement.

Anonymously?  Not only do these people know nothing about liberty or firearms, they apparently don’t know jack about the internet either.  Or do they seriously think you buy ammo online without giving your identity?  Do they have some fantasy that I transfer the funds from a secret Cayman Islands bank account and the company leaves a crate of Black Talons under a bridge for me to pick up under cover of darkness?

Apparently, yes.

“The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act pulls ammunition sales out of the shadows and into the light, where criminals can’t hide and responsible dealers can act as a line of defense against the planning and stockpiling of a potential mass killer,” McCarthy said.

Of course as Bitter pointed out these new restrictions won’t actually do any of that.  So let us say this becomes law.  When this fails to prevent the next mass shooting, they’ll come back and tell us the law didn’t go far enough, and of course any “reasonable” person can see that the government must be allowed to curtail our rights.  They’ll do this over and over until we have nothing left.  This is how the left does things in America.

The man accused of killing 12 and injuring 58 in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater this month had purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the internet shortly before the shooting spree, according to law enforcement officials.

Of course, as The Duck reminds us, he had been planning this attack for 10 weeks, so he had more than enough time to ration his ammunition purchases.

As for the volume of ammo, it’s math time!  Assuming they were all the lighter .223 cartridges (they weren’t), that would be something on the order of 180 pounds of ammo.  Needless to say, he didn’t walk into that theater with 180 pounds of ammo on him.  They are trying to flaunt a big scary number in the hopes that nobody will actually look at how it translates to reality.

Like everything else the gun-grabbers want this proposal is all emotion and no logic.  Do not indulge them by allowing this.

Written by BornLib

July 30, 2012 at 7:48 pm

Nate Smoove: “The Bro Gotta Go”

leave a comment »

Via Ace:

This has apparently been out for a few weeks now, but this is too good not to post.

Written by BornLib

July 30, 2012 at 6:42 pm

Posted in Video

Liberals propose arbitrary capacity magazine ban in Senate

with one comment

Via Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned:

The Hill: Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

This is of course in response to the Auoroa, Colorado shooter’s actions.  I’m sure a ban on a randomly chosen size of magazines would have be heeded by a man who, last I heard, made his own tear gas and explosives.

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.

Each side giving some? Okay Senator, which of my civil rights are you going to give me back in exchange for infringing on this one?  What’s that?  “None,” you say?  That’s what I thought, you petty tyrant.

We aren’t going to give you a damn thing.

He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.

“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”

If you like your guns you can keep your guns, so long as you don’t put any bullets in them.

He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.

Need does not enter into it.

Written by BornLib

July 27, 2012 at 5:30 pm

Don’t go there Australia

leave a comment »

At Vox Day’s blog: Mailvox: Aussie logic

Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10” list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

I might be more willing to treat gun control as a serious policy position if it were not for the fact that there is no demonstrated benefit to banning guns.  Such pro-ban positions are based entirely upon misinformation and emotion.

Written by BornLib

July 24, 2012 at 8:13 am

Quote of the Day: Gun Free Zones

leave a comment »

Written by BornLib

July 21, 2012 at 11:39 pm

Obama campaign: “That’s not what he said”

leave a comment »

Who are you going to believe: the Democrats, or your own lying ears and eyes?

Edited to add:

The Context Was Worse Than The Quote.

Edited again to add:

Morning Examiner: Obama says he didn’t say what he said

Edited yet again to add this example of a liberal tying himself into knots:

Stunningly Stupid Thought Of The Day…Obama’s “You Didn’t Build That” Resonates Because, He Was Speaking In, “A Black Dialect”

And from Keith Hennessey’s blog: The Policy Consequences of “You Didn’t Build That.”

Written by BornLib

July 19, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Posted in Liberalism, Video

Quote of the Day: Transparancy

leave a comment »

Written by BornLib

July 17, 2012 at 1:46 pm

Obama administration ends welfare reform by fiat

leave a comment »

Washington Examiner: Romney hits Obama move gutting welfare reform

While the Obama campaign goes all out attacking Mitt Romney’s business history, the Romney campaign is looking carefully at a new Obama administration policy that could become a significant part of Romney’s case against the president.  In a quiet move Thursday — barely noted beyond the conservative press — the Obama administration “released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996,” according to Robert Rector, a welfare policy expert at the Heritage Foundation.

They keep using that word, “progressive.”  I don’t think it means what they think it means.

The directive — which some Romney aides found stunning — allows the Department of Health and Human Services to waive the work requirement at the heart of welfare reform.  That reform, originally vetoed but later signed into law by President Bill Clinton, is widely viewed as the most successful policy initiative in a generation.  Under it, the growth in welfare rolls was reversed and millions of people moved from welfare to work.

People working? Less government spending?  This shall not stand!

Despite its success, however, many liberals remain opposed to reform.  For example, in the years immediately after passage of the law, Barack Obama himself pledged to do all he could to undo it.  Now, he has.

This move perfectly encapsulates this administration.

Ignores the law and does what he wants?  Check!

Spends more?  Check!

Expands dependence on government?  Check!

So here is what we’ve got:

Romney: ”You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something. If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy. That’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about.”

Obama: Yeah!  What he said!

Edited to add for further reading:

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post: Obama to Clinton welfare reform: Drop dead

President Obama is the chief executive, obligated by the Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama, however, seems to have — by executive order — altered that to read “take Care that the Laws [which he likes or wished Congress had passed] be faithfully executed. The list of laws he won’t enforce or is unilaterally amending is getting long: Defense of Marriage Actimmigration laws,voting laws, and anti-terror laws. He won’t even enforce all the provisions of his signature legislation as we’ve seen in the bushels-full of Obamacare waivers. The latest and most inexplicable gambit is his decision to undo bipartisan welfare reform.

Second update:

And just when I thought I could not be more disgusted…

From Mickey Kaus at The Daily Caller: Make Ignoring Work Pay

The Obama Department of Agriculture has pulled the radio”novelas” that urged Spanish-speakers to wise up and get on the dole. (“In one of these, an individual tries to convince a friend to enroll in food stamps even though that friend declares: ‘I don’t need anyone’s help. My husband earns enough to take care of us,” says GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, describing the novelas. “The first individual replies back: ‘When are you going to learn?’”)

Written by BornLib

July 13, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Posted in Economics, Liberalism

The destruction wrought on blacks by liberalism part one

leave a comment »

Since this came up at work today, I thought I’d take the time to compose a non-exhaustive list of the various aspects of the liberal agenda that have devastated the American black community.

1. The welfare state’s destruction of the black family and precipitous rise in illegitimacy:

From Dr. Walter E. Williams, “Politics and Blacks“:

 Most of the major problems that many black people face are not amendable to political solutions and government anti-poverty programs. Let’s look at some. In 1940, 86 percent of black children were born inside marriage, and the illegitimacy rate among blacks was about 15 percent. Today, only 35 percent of black children are born inside marriage, and the illegitimacy rate hovers around 70 percent. Today’s breakdown of the black family is unprecedented. It began in the 1960s with the War on Poverty and the harebrained ideas of the welfare state. In the mid-1960s, Daniel Moynihan sounded the alarm about the breakdown in the black family in his book “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” At that time black illegitimacy was 26 percent. Moynihan said, “(A)t the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of the Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family.” He added, “The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States.” Moynihan’s observations were greeted with charges of racism and blaming the victim. By the way, the welfare state is an equal opportunity family destroyer. Today’s illegitimacy rate among whites, at nearly 30 percent, is higher than it was among blacks in the 1960s when Moynihan sounded the alarm. In Sweden, the mother of the welfare state, illegitimacy is 54 percent.

See also: Dr. Walter E. Williams, “Ammunition for Poverty Pimps

See also: Dr. Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, p. 34, 51-52

See also: Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thernstrom, America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible

2. High unemployment among young blacks caused by minimum wage laws:

From Dr. Walter E. WIlliams, “Minimum Wage’s Discriminatory Effects

During the peak of what has been dubbed the Great Recession, the unemployment rate for young adults (16 to 24 years of age) as a whole rose to above 27 percent. The unemployment rate for black young adults was almost 50 percent, but for young black males, it was 55 percent.

            Even and Macpherson say that it would be easy to say this tragedy is an unfortunate byproduct of the recession, but if you said so, you’d be wrong. Their study demonstrates that increases in the minimum wage at both the state and federal level are partially to blame for the crisis in employment for minority young adults.

            Their study focuses on 16-to-24-year-old male high school dropouts, understandably a relatively inexperienced group of labor market participants. Since minimum wage laws discriminate against the employment of the least-skilled worker, it shouldn’t be surprising to find 16-to-24-year-old male high school dropouts its primary victims.

            Among the white males, the authors find that “each 10 percent increase in a state or federal minimum wage has decreased employment by 2.5 percent; for Hispanic males, the figure is 1.2 percent.

            “But among black males in this group, each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage decreased employment by 6.5 percent.”

            The authors go on to say, “The effect is similar for hours worked: each 10 percent increase reduces hours worked by 3 percent among white males, 1.7 percent for Hispanic males, and 6.6 percent for black males.”

            Even and Macpherson compare the job loss caused by higher minimum wages with that caused by the recession and find between 2007 and 2010, employment for 16-to-24-year-old black males fell by approximately 34,300 as a result of the recession; over the same time period, approximately 26,400 lost their jobs as a result of increases in the minimum wage across the 50 states and at the federal level.

            Why do young black males suffer unequal harm from minimum wage increases? Even and Macpherson say that they’re more likely to be employed in low-skilled jobs in eating and drinking establishments. These are businesses with narrow profit margins and are more adversely affected by increases in minimum wage increases. For 16-to-24-year-old men without a high school diploma, 25 percent of whites and 31 percent of blacks work at an eating and drinking establishment. Compounding the discriminatory burden of minimum wages, not discussed by the authors, are the significant educational achievement differences between blacks and whites.

See also Even and Macpherson, “Unequal Harm: Racial Disparities in the Employment Consequences of Minimum Wage Increases”

See also: Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage

See also Dr. Walter E. WIlliams, “Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly

See also Dr. Walter E. WIlliams, “Making the Underclass Permanent

3. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931:

From The Wall Street Journal’s Jason L. Riley, “The State Against Blacks

Mr. Williams distinguished himself in the mid-1970s through his research on the effects of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931—which got the government involved in setting wage levels—and on the impact of minimum-wage law on youth and minority unemployment. He concluded that minimum wages caused high rates of teenage unemployment, particularly among minority teenagers. His research also showed that Davis-Bacon, which requires high prevailing (read: union) wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, was the product of lawmakers with explicitly racist motivations.

One of Congress’s goals at the time was to stop black laborers from displacing whites by working for less money. Missouri Rep. John Cochran said that he had “received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics.” And Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood fretted about contractors with “cheap colored labor . . . of the sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.”

Today just 17% of construction workers are unionized, but Democratic politicians, in deference to the AFL-CIO, have kept Davis-Bacon in place to protect them. Because most black construction workers aren’t union members, however, the law has the effect of freezing them out of jobs. It also serves to significantly increase the costs of government projects, since there are fewer contractors to bid on them than there would be without Davis-Bacon.

See also Dr. Walter E. Willaims, “Congress’s Insidious Discrimination

See also Dr. Walter E. Willaims, “Race and Economics

In part two I plan to look at education policies.

Written by BornLib

July 12, 2012 at 9:33 pm

Posted in Liberalism