THIS IS MY BLOG!
Micro-stamping the firing pins in our firearms, do YOU know what that means?
Micro-stamping the firing pins in our firearms, do YOU know what that means?
Here’s the answer boys and girls:
The push for micro-stamping is really a push for national gun registration…
Like a storm that returns stronger each time, efforts to push micro-stamping regulations onto gun-owning Americas are here again. And this time around, The New York Times is pushing it, Time magazine is pushing it and other outlets of the same political persuasion are doing their level best to show us how micro-stamping the firing pins in our firearms could reduce crime by miraculous levels overnight.
Of course, they don’t mention the gun registration, the new powers of gun taxation or the all-out gun bans associated with the scheme. Nor are they bothered with another major sticking point — micro-stamping doesn’t really work.
Micro-stamping is a way of imbedding a specific mark on the end of a firing pin so that when it strikes the primer of a bullet casing, it leaves a micro-stamp that allows police to trace spent shells back to the guns that fired them. In theory, it’s literally like putting a fingerprint on each shell casing fired. Yet ours is not a theoretical world, but a real one. And in the real world there are serious problems with this proposition.
Number one, the passage of micro-stamping legislation would require us not only to have a government-issued firing pin for each gun we own, but would also force us to list every gun we own with the government so bureaucrats can keep a list of which firing pin is in which weapon. Enter gun registration.
Number two, upon sending our weapons in or even taking them to a special, government-certified gunsmith for the micro-stamped firing pin to be added, we’d have to pay a per-gun fee. With a straight face, Time magazine contributor Adam Cohen predicts the cost for this would be between 50¢ and $6 a gun, while The New York Times pegs the cost at $12 a gun. But what both of these outlets fail to recognize is that a new “fee” to the government, regardless of how small, is nothing more than a new tax placed upon the people. Thus micro-stamping will lead to yet one more tax that gun owners must pay in order to exercise the right that “shall not be infringed.”
By the way, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has compiled data to show the cost for retrofitting a micro-stamped firing pin would be $200-plus for each gun. (Nothing is ever cheap when the government is involved.)
And what are we to do about revolvers which don’t leave shell casings behind to begin with? For instance, if someone commits a crime with a .38 Special revolver, how is a micro-stamp on the firing pin or hammer of the gun going to contribute to solving a crime?
Answer — it’s not.
So, to those who dreamed up micro-stamping to begin with, it will probably make sense to ban guns that can’t be traced via an imbedded mark on the firing pin or hammer. Seen in this light, micro-stamping opens the door for myriad guns bans and limitations.
###
The 25 Funniest Internet Reactions To SCOTUS Upholding Obamacare
10 Things You Get Now That Obamacare Survived
Vaguely Boozy: Coke and Pepsi, according to a new study
###
Maybe Kate Upton Will Take Your Mind Off The Scotus Crap?
###
As everybody knows by now, the Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare. Bush appointee John Roberts cast the deciding vote, allowing the “individual mandate” to proceed as a “tax” – even though the Obama administration argued that it wasn’t.
Welcome to socialized medicine in the U.S.A.
At this point, conservatives need to ask themselves some very hard questions:
1. Roberts is the latest in a long line of supposedly “conservative” Republican Supreme Court appointees to vastly expand government power. Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, Sandra O’Connor, and David Souter all advanced left-wing policies to make them part of mainstream constitutional law. As Dwight Eisenhower said, he made two mistakes as president — and they were both on the Supreme Court.
Obviously, hitching conservative fortunes to Republican judicial appointees, and the Republican Party generally, has been a failure. Is it time for a conservative third party?
2. The United Sates is not “becoming” socialist. It is already socialist. The Federal government spends approximately 25% of GDP, and when you add in state and local taxes, the average government take is closer to 40% of GDP – and higher for some income brackets. And frankly, a lot of people like it that way. The American public loves socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which consume some 40% of the annual budget.
The SCOTUS simply made America more socialist than it already was. How are conservatives going to convince large segments of the public to give up their socialism? Is it even possible to do so?
3. Even before the SCOTUS decision, wise legal analysts realized that even if the “individual mandate” were ruled unconstitutional, Medicare and Medicaid have already set precedents enabling the government to create a tax-funded single payer system if it wanted to. This is true. The problem from a conservative perspective it that it is almost impossible to talk about “limited government” and “enumerated powers” as long as the 16th Amendment, which created the income tax, is in place. Money is power, and the 16th Amendment created a vast pool of money for the Federal government to spend in policy areas that the Founders would have objected to.
Are you willing to support a constitutional amendment limiting federal revenue to a specific percentage of GDP in order to curb Federal power?
4. Conservatives have lost on almost all major issues — from abortion to socialized medicine to affirmative action to illegal immigration to gays in the military. Is it even possible to advance a conservative agenda any more in the United States as presently constituted ?
From: American Thinker
###
Another green company obama wasted our money on!
Abound Solar, a Colorado thin-film photovoltaic panel startup that snagged $400 million in federal loan guarantees to take on industry leader First Solar, is shutting down and filing for bankruptcy, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
The company did not immediately respond to an inquiry seeking comment. Abound’s shut down was first reported Thursday by Greentech Media.
The company made thin-film solar panels that while less efficient than standard crystalline silicon panels were cheaper to manufacture, particularly when silicon prices were high.
But Like Solyndra and other thin-film startups, Abound increasingly found itself squeezed by plummeting prices for standard solar panels as Chinese manufacturers ramped up production and silicon costs fell as well as by the entry into the thin-film market by General Electric, which is building a 400-megawatt factory to produce cadmium-telluride solar panels.
###
Rush: Obamacare “the largest tax increase in the history of the world”
###
From Victor Davis Hanson at NRO:
A sign of an undisciplined mind is serial lapses into self-contradiction, or blurting out a thought only to refute it entirely on a later occasion. For a president to do that is to erode public confidence and eventually render all his public statements irrelevant. That is now unfortunately the case with Barack Obama, who has established a muddled record of confused and contradictory declarations.
Last week, the president invoked executive privilege to prevent the release of administration documents related to the Fast and Furious operation. All presidents on occasion use that tactic, but rarely after they have put themselves on record, as did Senator Obama just five years ago, damning the practice as a de facto admission of wrongdoing. Does President Obama remember his earlier denunciation — or why he thought a special prosecutor was necessary to look into the Scooter Libby case, but not the far greater mess surrounding Eric Holder?
About the same time, President Obama offered de facto amnesty for an estimated 800,000 to 1 million illegal aliens. Aside from his circumvention of Congress and his casual attitude toward his own constitutional duty to enforce the laws as they are written, Obama had on two earlier occasions stated that he not only would not grant such blanket exemptions from the law, but also legally could not. That was then, this is now — the middle of a reelection campaign?
Candidate Obama derided George W. Bush as “unpatriotic” for borrowing $4 trillion over eight years; what term might President Obama use to characterize his own record of borrowing $5 trillion in less than four years? “Extremely unpatriotic”? In his first year in office, Obama announced that he would deserve just a single term if the economy had not improved after his agenda was reified. What then is he to say to that earlier Obama when 8 percent unemployment is now in its 41st consecutive month, GDP growth is flat, and we continue to borrow $1 trillion per year?
As a candidate, Obama promised to play by the rules of public campaign financing, only to renounce that pledge when he was well on his way to raising $1 billion. Obama did not just promise to shut down Guantanamo and cease renditions, preventive detention, and military tribunals; he also denounced them in such venomous terms that his later embrace — or indeed expansion — of all these protocols was not so much hypocritical as surreal.
Do go and read it all HERE.
###
Created for OMG! for America. Join the grassroots there, or just join the fun at the Facebook page here
###
Forget executive privilege, contempt of Congress, “fast and furious,” how many documents the government has produced and who said what to whom on which date.
The Obama administration has almost certainly engaged in the most shockingly vile corruption scandal in the history of the country, not counting the results of Season Eight on “American Idol.”
Administration officials intentionally put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, so that when the guns taken from Mexican crime scenes turned out to be American guns, Democrats would have a reason to crack down on gun sellers in the United States.
Democrats will never stop trying to take our guns away. They see something more lethal than a salad shooter and wet themselves.
But since their party was thrown out of Congress for the first time in nearly half a century as a result of passing the 1994 “assault weapons ban,” even liberals know they were going to need a really good argument to pass any limitation on guns ever again.
So it’s curious that Democrats all started telling the same lie about guns as soon as Obama became president. In March 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced to reporters on a trip to Mexico: “Since we know that the vast majority, 90 percent of that weaponry (used by Mexican drug cartels), comes from our country, we are going to try to stop it from getting there in the first place.”
As she sentimentally elaborated on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren show: “The guns sold in the United States, which are illegal in Mexico, get smuggled and shipped across our border and arm these terrible drug-dealing criminals so that they can outgun these poor police officers along the border and elsewhere in Mexico.”
Suddenly that 90 percent statistic was everywhere. It was like the statistic on women beaten by their husbands on Super Bowl Sunday.
From Ann Coulter:
###
Leave a Reply