Death by a thousands cuts

Before "the rant", let me say that I used to be one of those guys who got into "comment wars" on various news and opinion sites. Years back, I thought if I presented my points clearly enough, I could convince a fleeb to change their minds or at least accept a differing opinion.
I have since stopped this foolishness because reason caught up to me and had its dirty way with me and I realized that A) Progressives don't accept differing opinions. You will follow the flock or you'll be attacked by the dogs. B) These chodes live for this crap. They want to get into a comment war so they can try and flex their "intellectual muscle" and show you how stupid you are. Their arguments are often circular, they usually resort to emotional retorts, their understanding of history is Statist driven at best, they have absolutely NO concept of economics beyond "It's hard and boring", and when you narrow down their arguments to everything, it's "More Government", never less.

Talked about this a little in previous posts, but the idea of cuts to the federal governments' spending is, well... flawed. Let me explain.
Progressives (of both parties) keep talking about spending cuts. King Barry I talked over and over again about his $2.5 trillion in cuts he's planning. New budgets being discussed in the cesspool known as Congress are going so far as to talk about $4.6 trillion in cuts. Along with all of this, they talk about the need to "raise revenue" in conjunction with these cuts. Cuts sound great, until you get into the meat of it, then it's like that chicken dish they serve at banquets and weddings. They call it Chicken Cordon Bleu, but when you get into it, you can't tell what the meat is on the outside, what that rolled meat in the inside is and there's some sort of Cheese Whiz leaking out of it that makes you think someone jizzed in this before they plated it. Sorry, that's a disgusting image, but the point is the same.

A) All of these cuts they talk about: These are all "over 10 years". So, break out your calculator, kids, and lets do math if you can't do it in your head (nowadays, it's a toss-up who can and can't). Divide 4.6 trillion by 10. Answer? 460 billion. Very good.
If you didn't get this number, leave. You're too fucking stupid and I've reached my end of dealing with stupid people.
So, their cuts are $460 billion a year. The federal government is overspending by $1.4 trillion ANNUALLY. Let's round things out and say it's $1.46 trillion. Subtract 460 billion from 1.46 trillion and you get... 1 trillion. Good for you. Get yourself a donut.
The federal government is overspending $1 trillion dollars EVERY FUCKING YEAR! So these cuts don't solve anything. It's like taking a cadaver out of the freezer and trying to give it a shot of adrenaline and use a defibrillator to get the heart started again. It's fucking dead!
First, the government assumes that tax receipts will increase because the economy will increase. Last year, didn't happen. So that assumption if out the window.
Second, these cuts are 99.9% of the time to proposed spending. What does that mean? Let's say King Barry I wants to spend $100 million on breath mints for dogs. Members of Congress who are dog owners, or who have manufacturers of breath mints in their states, think this is a marvelous idea. However, they want to be seen as "fiscally conservative", so they put it in a bill as $50 million. They will then come out and say "We cut $50 million dollars from the budget King Barry I put forth." King Barry I cries out about the draconian cuts to his budget. The rank and file in both parties defend their assclowns and the bill for breath mints for dogs goes through at $75 million. Republicans say they saved us $25 million. That shell game is a little tough to follow, but that's D.C. and guess what it all means? We spent $75 million dollars more than we did last year on a program that the federal government has no authority to operate! But hey, they cut $25 million, right?
No, no cuts are made.

B) If by some miracle, an actual cut is made, it's designed to be the most painful possible. We've seen this with "The Sequester".

King Barry I stood out there in front of "police and firefighters" and decried how these "cuts" would effect our safety, education, food safety, and blah blah blah... I won't even touch the fact that the federal government has no businesses funding these services, as they're all local matters. The fucking states have no businesses being involved in funding these (beyond food safety maybe). Even if you look at the one thing that they talk about cutting that the federal government has a Constitutional mandate to fund, that being the military, if we can't cut our funding for that, what the fuck have we become? Instead of closing bases around the world, the Progressives demand that we close bases here. Make it hurt!
But at the same time they're crying about making these cuts of people, they're fucking hiring more people! Out the front door, in the back door. Holy fuck in a bucket... this is insane!

C) Raising revenue=tax increases. And make no mistake, these are all aimed at "The Rich". Today, "The Rich" means anyone who makes over $150,000 a year. That may seem like a lot, but it all depends on where you are. If you're in the Northeast or West Coast, it's middle-class at best. If you're in Appalachia, yup, you're rich.
Iowahawk, via a great presentation by Bill Whittle, does a fabulous job detailing how "getting the rich to pay their fair share" is complete bullshit.

It can't be done people. European countries are devolving into riots because of cuts to Statist programs like government pensions, government healthcare, government education, government assistance, and so on. What happens when it comes to Americas shores? Which it will.
We're so fucking broke and no one wants to face it because it means pain. We live our lives trying to avoid pain at all costs. But the only way this country recovers is through pain. Pain of collapse and subsequent rebuilding or pain of revolution and a new path forward. And on the opposite side of these actions, is uncertainty, because whomever is left "in control" will determine the outcome.

Every morning and every night, I pray to HaShem (G-d to the non-Hebrews out there). In the morning, I pray that with His help, I'll make it through the day. That I won't cause harm to others who haven't harmed me. That I'll help those that I can. That I'll defend those who need me to in whatever way I can. Everything else, it's on me and He can judge me at another date and time for what I did. At night, I give thanks for those who've helped me. I ask that I see the morning. I ask that tomorrow, HaShem will give wisdom to those in our government so that they'll see how badly they're fucking things up. I then apologize to HaShem for swearing at Him and tell Him I understand that it's like that rock He made that He can't lift. He agrees with a laugh and I go to bed.

If your politicians suck, look in the mirror

Carlin had moments when he was just a miserable prick, but a fair amount of the time, he was right on. For the first half of this rant, he was. I'll address the second half in my second half.

I am amazed more and more about the idiocy of those in political office. With every story I read, I'm facepalming so much there's an indent on my forehead and where my fingers fall on the sides. What fascinates me is that this person was elected to office by people who liked them. Well... maybe not necessarily liked, but "Anybody but a Democrat/Republican/Old White Guy/Black Guy/Woman/Mexican/Asian/That Guy". Those people make me giggle like a school girl. And if you've never seen a fat guy with a beard giggle like a school girl, good for you.
You are presented with two bowls of shit to eat. One is liquid, one is solid. The "Anybody but..." Syndrome says "I have to chose between these two, I'll chose this one". So you don't want the liquid shit, you'll take the solid one. A removed observer would say "Are you fucking high?" because the right answer to the dilemma is neither.
Andrew Wilkow, on his radio show, has addressed this in regards to dealing with Progressives. In short, their answer to you when you say you're for smaller government or you want to cut spending or whatever is "So you want people to die/be stupid/go hungry/etc..."; their choices being Statism or Nihilism. If you can think logically, as in the two bowls of shit scenario I laid out for you, you'll know that the true answer is found elsewhere. To me, this was what the 2012 Presidential Election was all about.
My preferences from the start were Cain, Johnson, Paul, Bachmann. I wasn't going to vote for anyone else. And Bachmann was going to be a stretch vote for me, as she's a little not right in the head, but she's at least not full retard like the rest of the pack was. But with those candidates, I at least felt some level of trust and could agree with most of what they stood for. So on the final ticket, it was King Barry I (I'd rather live through a century of Wile E. Coyote prat falls than vote for him), Mittens (same scenario, but as Daffy Duck) or Gary Johnson. I voted for Johnson. Now, the rank and file were quick to scream "A vote for Johnson was a vote for Obama!". No, a vote for Johnson was a vote for Johnson. If Willard wanted my vote, he needed to earn it. Just by being "The Other Guy" doesn't earn my vote. And this is the problem with politicians now.
The overwhelming majority of these fucktards are, as Carlin said, a representation of the general public. I don't care what party they're affiliated with, stop and look at those who are most in the spotlight and you'll see the average schmoe in all of them. They live their lives on the backs of others; getting away with doing the least amount of work possible, while still holding up the facade that they're doing something. They pay lip service to helping others, but if it doesn't benefit them in the short AND long run, they won't touch it. They are quick to tell others how to live their lives...

Don't do drugs

Guns are bad

Marriage is sacred

Save the environment

Money is evil

Help small businesses

...but if it affects them, fuck you, they'll do what they like because they're "smarter than other people". They will rack up debt on top of debt on top of debt, but when the bill comes do, they're suddenly surprised and demand help paying it. Please, tell me this isn't a cross-section of the average person in this country.

THIS IS OUR PROBLEM!

The people voting for the politicians are what needs to change and this should scare the ever loving shit out of you. Why? There's over 500 politicians in Washington. A pittance in comparison to the population of the US. You can change the ideas of these people or just get them out of the way. That's simple. Over 220 million people CAN vote in the US. Now obviously, the variety of their political and social views mean there's no single consensus of ideas, but that's where it starts to get real fucking frightening.
130 million people voted in the Presidential election in 2012. 10 million less than in 2008. So roughly half of the population didn't vote in that election. In the "off years" (every other year - elections are held annually, if not more often), it's usually pathetically less.
Statistically speaking and it's important to say it that way because we are dealing with real numbers, but if you were talking statistics, the election was a 50/50 split. Reagan had a mandate. Obama - barely won. So 1/4 of the eligible voting public voted for Obama, 1/4 voted for Romney. So if 3/5 of the people WHO didn't vote last year actually made a choice for someone else, we'd have someone else as president. This is why the line "A third party can't win" is complete horseshit. They could win, but only if people got off their fucking asses.
That's what's scary about it all - The majority of people in this country don't care. They tend to call themselves "moderates" and when someone is either too left or too right for them, they cry "Why doesn't anybody compromise?!?!" and they don't find another candidate to vote for, they just don't vote. A moderate is someone who doesn't want to live with the consequences of making a decision by themselves. This is why they're "middle of the road".

Pot's okay, but all other drugs should be illegal

No one says you need to drive a Yugo, but let's be reasonable

The government shouldn't tell people what to eat, but some people are just too fat and we need to help them

I'm all for free speech, but hate speech shouldn't be allowed

Now, I'm sure some bright soul is saying "Wait a minute. A lot of those people who didn't vote for Mittens of King Barry I believe in freedom and liberty! They just didn't like the choices and didn't vote." You had a third choice on the national ballot: Gary Johnson. And let me be clear here, this isn't a plug for Gary Johnson. He had his flaws, but his entire platform was the free people ought to be allowed to make their own choices, as long as those choices didn't directly take away the rights of others. What's not to like about that? 

And there's another voice out there falling back to the "Anybody but that guy" argument: "King Barry I was so bad that we had to get him out of there and that meant I had to vote for Mittens!" So you were willing to trade one statist for another? Make no mistake, Romney was a statist. He just wanted to "manage" it better. Was he as bad Gingrich? No, but that's like saying "Was Mussolini as bad as Hitler?" Again, back to my two bowls of shit analogy.

Reps who call themselves bi-partisan. Calls for compromise. People who say "everyone can give a little in this debate, right?". All of these people are fuckers. Now some would say I'm giving the same "It's either A or B" options. And at some level, you're right. But my choices are freedom, with all the pleasure and pain that comes with it, or some level of government control, with it's sliding scale from creepy intrusion to tyranny and despotism. You can have a free society with government; we did for a long time in this country. But that means not putting up with the 500 elitists in D.C. who believe they know better than you. It means having the balls to vote OUT someone who's acting like a nanny, even when they're in "your party", and voting IN someone who is willing to fight for your right to be left alone.

If you continue to vote for "the lesser of two evils" you're still voting for evil and when government continues to stay shitty, pick up your chosen bowl, grab your spoon, and start investing in Callard & Bowser-Suchard, the company who makes Altoids (owned by Wrigley), because your breath is going to stink.

Progressives: Your safety is their... fifth concern

During my morning browsing of news and information sites, I came across this article on The Blaze:
This Colorado Democrat Thinks Women Shouldn’t Have Guns on College Campuses — The Reason Why Is Causing a Stir
The list I refer to is further down the page where the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs put forth a list on what to do if you're attacked. Oh it's rich...

1.    Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
2.    Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead!  It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
3.    Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
4.    Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
5.    If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
6.    Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
7.    Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
8.    Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
9.    Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
10.    Remember, every emergency situation is different.  Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

 I think 1 and 10 are pretty good. Everything else is laughable, if it weren't that these people are weapons grade stupid.  Obviously, these are directed at women on a college campus and being that colleges demand that you be a defenseless sheep, these are painfully the only things you can do. If someone means to do you harm, they're going to do it unless you can physically stop them; either through action or intimidation.
What I found funny was watching a video on YouTube pro concealed carry, someone commented that "I'm 6 foot 2, 250 pounds. A loud yell and a menacing look is all I need." By which the 5 foot, 120 pound 14 year old gang banger with an illegal 1911 pops him in the head and steals his wallet. Or the 6 foot 3 inch, 300 pound thief hits him in the head with a brick, steals his wallet, watch, and rings, and shoves a pipe up his ass just for the fun of it. OR... what about does the 5 foot 10, 170 pound 70 year old do when they're being harassed, threatened, or intimidated? "I'm gonna call the cops on you!" he/she shouts before they're assaulted by the thugs. Or what does my 5 foot 9, 140 pound daughter (she's older) do? Some people are as dumb as a bowl of wet mice.
"I'm a man! I don't need a gun!" You're an asshole and a 9 year old with a .22 will make you cry like a baby with diaper rash. Or the 'wimp' you step up to with your "menacing" look may be carrying a knife or pepperspray and when you yell at him, he's gonna fuck you up.

Obviously, people deserve to walk the streets without being harassed or harmed. But we live in a violent world. The human animal is a pretty shitty creature when left without a conscience or care about anyone but Itself. We (the greater) need to accept that fact that some people are scum and we need to protect ourselves from them. The young girl  who follows all the steps laid out above could still find herself raped, beaten, and possibly even dead, because she believed in The System and the defensive powers of The State. And the young girl who brings a firearm into the situation, with the training behind it? She too could still wind up raped, beaten, or dead, but she at least leveled the odds and said, "I will not comply."

Judge Napolitano In the 5 Minute Speech That Probably Got Him Fired

Thanks to Eric Peters for finding my way to the original. The YouTube version was pulled.

The Coronation

Did you watch?
Were you glued to your television to get a glimpse of The One.
When He spoke, did you quiver? Did you weep for joy? Did you cry out "Yes, yes we can!!!"
Did you gush to your friends during your Inaug... Coronation Party, about how beautiful Her Highness was?

Or were you like me and did the turd you left in the hopper leave you more emotional.

Collectivist hyperbole. I heard clips of the speech and holy fuck in a bucket was it full of shit. Over and over, the premise you get from it was "No one will get ahead alone. We won't allow it. It's only when directed by The State will The Herd succeed."

He's now unrestrained from the burden of reelection so there is nothing that will hold him back. He's already said it. And the Congress is basically the same one we've had for the last 2 years. The same one during which the debt shot past $16 trillion. The same one who KEPT FUCKING SPENDING MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE. People like head lice more than Congress. Yet, the sheep keep voting for their guy because "Well, he's at least trying. It's the other guy who's the problem."
No, you fuckwad, they're all worthless twats. I like Dr. Ron Paul. I voted for him in 2 primaries. But even with all his positives, when it came to Congress he was a cunt. When bills would come to the House, he would add thing to the bill that benefited his district in Texas. Pork. When the bill came for vote, he'd vote against it. The excuse was "Well, my district sent me to Congress to do things for them. So that's why I added that to the bill. But I voted against it because I don't believe in government spending on things that are unconstitutional." He was playing the odds. He had a better than 2-1 odds that the bill was going to be passed because it was loaded with enough pork for enough districts so even hacks would vote for it.

So, with all that laid out, do you really think there's anything that's going to stop King Barry I from pushing through the bullshit? Congress is already showing signs that it won't lay out anything that's too over the top on "gun control" because they actually have to fight for reelection, so do you think that'll stop Obama? He'll happily use the EPA, HHS, ATF, etc... to impose regulation, that people will take as the strength of law, that will attempt to restrict us even more and Congress will stomp and cry, but do abso-fucking-lutely nothing to stop them!!
The Messiah has finally come. Let us all bow down before him and kiss his feet.

 

guns, Guns, GUNS!

That get your attention?

A lot of points have been made or brought up recently and I'd like to condense a few of them that I heard that I agree with.

"Why do I need an AR-15 or AK-47?"
I dunno, why do you need the car you're driving or the shoes you're wearing or the hamburger you're eating or the computer you're viewing this on? Why is that question never asked? It's a choice, isn't it, and a free person has the G-d given right to make the choices they see fit, as long as those choices don't interfere with the rights and choices of others. At least not intentionally. My guns, unless I am threatened, will never be used against another human being. In their current state, they are not a threat to anyone. Unless I pick it up, load it, and aim it at you, it doesn't affect your life.
In a free society, a central aspect of that freedom is the right to chose what we want, regardless of need, as long as we have the means to acquire said item and we're not attempting to steal it, whatever it is. Whether it is the charm to acquire a partner we like or the money to acquire a new smartphone, be it an Android, iOS, or Windows. When government interferes, through the demands of the public, and attempts to determine what choices we can and cannot make, we have left a free society and entered something else. It starts as democracy and ends in totalitarianism. They're not that far away from each other; mob rule to the mob deciding on a ruler.
Ban my AR or AK and you best start banning Corvette's and Ferarri's, Jimmy Choo shoes and Dolce & Gabana bags, Starbucks and McDonalds, Home Depot and Target. Your choices should only come from government; they know what's best.

"Who needs a 30 round magazine? 10 rounds should be more than enough."
Who came up with 10? Why not 15? Why not 12? Why not 22 1/3? Anyone who's ever been in a situation where they've had to either draw or fire a gun has never uttered the words "I'm sure glad I only have 10 rounds. I don't need more than this."
Why? Beyond the choice item that's already been discussed:

1. People are sucky shots. In tense situations, studies have been done and shown that even the best soldiers and police officers have about a 50% hit rate. So with a 10 round magazine, they're hitting 5 times. Now that sounds like MORE than enough, but again, studies have shown that someone high on some sort of drug may not feel that unless you shoot them in the head. Good luck at that. If someone who trains regularly (FACT: Most cops don't. They train a little before their qualification tests and that's it. They don't regularly practice. There are certainly some who are gun enthusiasts or departments that train all the time, but the norm is they shoot to qualify and that's it) is going to miss every other shot at best, what are an untrained persons chances? About 20%. So 2 out of 10. Drugs aside, that sounds like enough, right? Until...
2. Multiple attackers. Everyone imagines the one-on-one in the street showdown at high noon when you say "gun fight". Reality: Break-ins often happen with multiple people. Gangs are prevalent on many streets. I want enough to stop as many people as I have to and if I get to 10 and it goes click, are you going to take care of my family when I'm killed by the rest of the people who are attacking me? Didn't think so.
3. Market saturation. There are hundreds of millions of large capacity magazines on the market.  A ban can't be retroactive; you'd make millions into overnight criminals. Even if you said "People have a time to turn them in", people will keep them or sell them to someone less than ethical. So a ban will do nothing. PLUS, even if by some stroke of magic, you took them off the civilian market, they are still being made. Rebels, military's, and other sorts around the globe have them. The criminal market WILL get them and the ban will do nothing.

An oldie but goodie that I brought up before: "The Founders never imagined 'assault rifles'!"
Sure they did. To them, the muskets they had in their homes or the militias or armies carried into battle, those were the 'assault rifles' of the day.
The term itself is bullshit. It was made up by anti-gun organizations to sound scary. A rifle is a rifle. Some have black plastic and metal accoutrements, others have wood. All guns are made for 'assault' because that's what you do with a gun. All guns are 'military style' as that was where the need for them arose.
And the Founders were men who knew technology changes. They demanded that the PEOPLE, not the government, have their natural rights of protection defended from the people who would attempt to take them. What people? THE GOVERNMENT. 
 The fact that an Uzi could be used to keep a criminal or two out of your home is secondary. The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Constitution, is so the citizenry can resist the forces of government. It's what the founders did and it's what we were supposed to do. But no one has the stomach for it.
If you insist on this argument then my retort is your freedom of speech or privacy does not apply to your computer, smartphone, television, radio, modern magazine, newspaper, billboard. The government can, without a warrant, search your car, your computer, your phone conversations, as well as search you at an airport, stop you on a train and search you, or while you convey on any manner of transport not conceived during the 18th century. Stupid argument begets stupid response.

The 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the "Hughes Amendment", the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" and all manner of federal laws and regulations having to do with guns, firearms, et al, are unconstitutional. Period. End of discussion. The Second Amendment is a prohibition against the federal government from enacting any sort of law that attempts to prevent people from keeping or bearing arms. Now, this doesn't mean your state cannot enact laws, if your state constitution allows for it. Most state constitutions have a provision that protects the peoples rights to arms and to protect themselves from the state government. However, if your state constitution so allows, your legislature could enact restrictions on what it chooses to. The U.S. Constitution is not an incorporated document. Meaning; the roles for government and the restrictions contained therein ONLY apply at the federal level. This applies to all provisions and restrictions. Meaning, unless restricted by your state constitution, your natural right to speak or worship freely could be curtailed. As I said, it's unnatural and any state that attempts to restrict it should be held in contempt by its citizens.
Even if you were attempting to argue that the federal constitution IS incorporated then you simply need to turn to the 14th Amendment which guarantees that all citizens of the US are entitled to all rights and privileges of the United States of America and thus the NFA, the GCA, 'Hughes", etc... are once again unconstitutional AS WELL AS all state restrictions on ownership of guns. Either way, your argument is invalid.

I fully expect the Obama administration and many Democrats to try and "do something". The question is: Do the Republicans and Democrats in Congress , who believe in freedom, have the stones to stop them? AND... If Obama doesn't get his way and attempts to do this through regulation (he has no authority to do so, but that hasn't stopped him yet), will those same people hold him in contempt of his office and impeach him? My guess is no and no, but we'll have to wait and see.

UPDATE: I'd like to add another here, brought up by a friend who's a closet progressive. He'll deny it until St. Swivens Day, but he is one.
"All guns should be registered and all sales tracked. Everyone who wants one should be licensed and have to go through proficiency training. Like driving."
 What's ironic is he makes this analogy to driving when it comes to guns but when I argue that more people are killed driving than are killed with guns in this country, he retorts that cars weren't built to kill people, guns were. On top of that, he's the first to decry the government stomping on the rights of privacy and speech.
Throughout history, every time all gun sales have been registered and tracked, it's lead to confiscation. Most recently in England and Australia; when the government knows who has guns, they will use those records to confiscate them or jail the people who attempt to resist that confiscation. Now, thanks to forms authorized by the Gun Control Act of '68, all commercial sales of guns HAVE to go through a Federal Firearms License dealer. You can't purchase a gun online from a business. PERIOD. The forms used to record these sales HAVE to be kept for 20 years. The ATF, at ANY time (don't fool yourself into thinking that they can only do it when investigating a crime) can request to see these records. So, from the manufacturer, to a dealer, to the first sale, there's a record of who has it.
Now, for some states, there is no requirement for a record of this to happen for a private sale. A sale between two citizens with no record of transfer. BUT, at least with those guns manufactured after 1968, there is a record of first sale and if I go and sell that gun I just bought to someone unscrupulous, if that gun is used in a crime, it'll come right back to me and I could be held liable for that crime, depending. Sure, the criminal can file off the serial number, but why should they? They're committing a crime as it is; they really don't give a shit what happens to me.
As for proficiency training: Do you need training for free speech? Do you have to show proficiency to create a life? Wouldn't that be a hoot: "Folks, I'm sorry. According to federal form 11391.23, you are not engaging in procreation appropriately and we'll have to deny you your license to spawn. You need to seek additional training from a licensed facility before you can lawfully engage in unprotected coitus."
I don't have a problem with background checks. Yes, there is a "slippery slope" argument that can be made here, but I think if you've been convicted of a felony, you have lost some natural rights through due process. Now I think we need to fix a fuckload of laws in this country so that someone whose sole crime is getting themselves high or helping others get high ISN'T considered a felony, but that's for another time. If you've been reported for 'domestic abuse': sorry, but you weren't convicted of a crime so to deny someone a right because they were accused of something is completely unjust. I understand it, I really do, but then convict the abusive motherfucker and cut his nuts off. But if you've only been accused, then the burden of proof is not on the state and to deny you your rights is bullshit.
On proficiency itself - Ugh... I can see it. There's some logic to it. BUT, to what end? Over half of the gun deaths in this country are suicides. No issue with proficiency there, eh? Sorry, that was uncalled for. But, in a serious note, there's roughly 600 fatal gun accidents a year. It's rough because people can't pinpoint whether some are accidents or murders. These are tragedies, but to force millions of others to conform to a proficiency standard when the problem is with about 600 people... really? I mean... really?

As I said earlier on here: Gun laws are state matters, if their state constitution allows for it. If your state wants to be restrictive, find another state or embrace it, depending on which way you sway. If they're very permissive, enjoy it or find another state. Problem solved.

Yeah... more Boner

This is why I'm not a Republican. Holy hell they suck.
These dipshits just re-elected John "Douchebag" Boehner as Speaker Of The House. A man who has bent over EVERY SINGLE TIME Obama barked at him and showed his leather cheerio. Obama got exactly what he wanted and the slobbering masses are all clapping like circus seals, even though they just got fisted.

What was missing from the "Fiscal Cliff" deal that no one has said dick about?
No, not the tax rate increase on those making over $250k. Believe me, it's still coming. Barry can only pat his head or rub his stomach, he can't do both without looking like a total assclown.
No, not any spending cuts. They were never going to be in there; neither Republicans nor Democrats in Congress want to stop spending. There's a handful of them who do and they're demonized every time they try to bring it up.
No, not any fixes to the abominations called Social Security and Medicare. These Ponzi schemes will continue to hemorrhage money.  But, the answer is close.
It's called the Payroll Tax and it's back in style. You see, back in 2011, the fucktards in government decided to reduce the amount withheld from your paycheck that went into Social Security and Medicare. They wouldn't reduce the payouts, oh heavens no, but they'd take less from you right now. So you saw a little more in your paycheck. Sort of like those government checks Bush sent out in the early 2000's. Supposed to stimulate things by getting the sheeple to buy more shit. And again like Bush, it didn't do jack. Well, nowhere in any of the debates on this shitstorm were there talks about keeping these rates low. So thanks to His Holiness King Barry I, everyone who pays Payroll Taxes just took it in the ass because these rates went up. Again, shining moment for the Republicans to take the stage and expose the hypocrisy, but they cowered in the corner and whimpered. Asswipes.

See, I tried being a Republican. I signed up to the party for 1 year when we first moved to NC. There were some people running for office down here that I believed in and decided to try and show support by joining the party.  Bad idea
First issue: They SPAM the shit out of you. You think you'll just get email on party activities, but they send you the campaign crap for every candidate in the area, passing on your address to these clods.
Second: They back the stupidest people. Okay, I know, Obama, Kerry, and Gore are shining examples of steamed shit on a stick, but Bush, McCain and Romney? Really? Really?!?! Fucking hell. I knew what I signed up for with the Bush and McCain shit, but then I saw Romney coming, the party here backed Richard Burr who talked the talk but once he got back to Washington, he but on his jackass suit and proved he's nothing but a corporatist.
Third: They are so disorganized. I somehow got signed up as a delegate for my county for the state party's convention. I didn't volunteer, I got signed up. Nice, huh? Anyhow, I won't go into the specifics of how the rest of that fiasco played out, because that'd narrow some things down, but this fuck up lead to me leaving the party.

I think I've always been a republican. Small [r] is intentional. I may have had a brief period where I thought the "greater good" was something grand, but I was always thinking small, like my state. I didn't care what people in California did or how they ran their government or their lives; I wanted things in my state to be different and done the way we wanted it. That's what a republic is. If your state wants to allow gay marriage or people to own machine guns or free market school systems or whatever, then as long as your state constitution allows for it, have fun.
Some waste of chromosomes who calls himself a constitution law professor recently said our current problems are all related to our attempt to adhere to this archaic document and if we just gave it up, we could fix it all. I'm obviously paraphrasing, but that was the general take away. FUCK HIM! The reason we're so fucked up is we HAVEN'T adhered to that document for the last 100+ years or more. Some in the Libertarian movement would say it all started with Lincoln and there's some validity to their argument, but if you go back to the beginning of the Progressive movement with Teddy Roosevelt and such, it's when government fell of the tracks and no longer held itself to the Constitution. It felt it was above it and structured itself as such. And because of crisis (WWI, depression, WWII), the People capitulated and complied and when the dust settled, it was too late. The Progressives won. Garet Garret wrote a great series of essays that were put together in a book call "Ex America" describing exactly what happened during the FDR presidency and how it changed the US from a republic to a socialist democracy right under peoples noses and with their consent. Now being that most people today have been brought up in this post-FDR world, we've been taught how wonderful he was and how they, the Progressives, see government and its role. It's not until we break out of the government run institutions of "learning" that we have a choice (and that's key) to know the truth. And the sad fact is, too many people choose not to know. "Two Broke Girls" is on and we can't miss that now, can we?

You wanted the worst and you got the worst. The steamiest pile of shit in the world, BOEHNER! Way to go assholes, way to go.

2013, the year it all begins to fall

Depressing enough title for you?
Truth sucks and no one wants to hear it, but explain to me what is there to be optimistic about.

Congress is going to continue to increase taxes and spend more. I don't have a party affiliation, so you can suck a dick with that bullshit argument. Both of them bite it and want to spend, spend, spend, stealing the money from those who produce and give it away to the moochers and looters. I don't care if it's a corporation like GE, GM, Citibank, or Archer Daniels or the people who've been on unemployment for over a year+, who spit out bastard child after bastard child, or the people who didn't plan for their older years when working wouldn't be as easy as it was when you were younger.
Yes, I'm blaming old people here, too. The federal government STOLE YOUR MONEY! It's gone! The money these people are using for Social Security and Medicare is the money currently being taken from those who are working. YOU'RE A LEECH! Define for me where you're somehow entitled to retire. If you can afford to stop working, because you've put money aside to live without working, have at it. More power to you. But if you haven't, your "retirement" is being paid for by the rest of the country who're working. You're telling them "I'm done, take care of me." I have no obligation to your life, so why do I have pay for it?
"These people have worked all their life. We owe it to them!" WHY?!?! They worked to pay for their life! That's why we all work! Because I provide goods and services to others, they are somehow responsible for me once I get old?!
"You just want old people to die when they get old! You want them to eat dog food!" The argument that it's nihilism or statism and there are no other choices is hilarious. Communities always found a way to take care of those who truly cannot care for themselves. Families used to care for their elders. This was all before the GOVERNMENT stepped in and said, "You people live like the children we see you as. We'll take care of the old, infirmed, and those who need us. Which will eventually be you all. So just give us your money and we'll care for you."
I fully expect to work into my 70's or until I'm dead, whichever comes first. I'm setting aside money to care for myself and my family, but yes, it could all evaporate in a blink. So I'll have to work to provide for myself. If this means I have a coronary on the job, then that's life. 
So, because Congress keeps spending money it doesn't have, jacking up the debt, I say the check will come due this year, as other countries who've loaned us money see the negative return on their "investments", as the fallacy that is the Federal Reserve comes to light, and the economy continues its downward spiral. By about June, we'll have a Greece moment where it all comes apart at the seams.

The same assmonkey's in Washington D.C. will also try and implement 'gun control' and the Republicans will bend over and take a fist in the ass because "We have to do something" and they have no idea how to control their own press. This will blow up in their faces, literally.
In the 3 weeks since Sandy Hook, I would guess that the amount of semi-auto rifles sold will be pretty close to the amount sold since the 'assault weapons ban' expired in 2004. Many manufacturers have said they've sold out of their current and future stock for the next 6 months of production. Magazines? Brownell said they sold out of a 3 years supply in 3 days. Ammo? Sold out or prices are skyrocketing again. So, will all these people capitulate to their federal masters on the proposed legislation/regulation or will someone resist and will blood run? European nations erupted in violence when people were told they will have to pay more for their own retirement or their healthcare or their education. There are enough people in this country who are so dyed in the wool resistors that an act like that would set them off. I wish it wouldn't happen on either side, but I see it. What then? Martial law? More violence?

We're already heading toward a police state. Local police departments are more militarized. More no-knock warrants for minor infractions or drug violations. We have to give ID and have our purchases tracked to get relief from a cold. We subject ourselves to intrusive, unconstitutional searches when we wish to travel by air and it's now coming to those who want to travel by train or bus. Random stops on the road are already springing up in states around the country to check for ID and where people are going. You will comply or you will go to jail!
PLUS... the government can spy on your communications without warrants because "It's for your own safety." They can imprison you without trial because "It's for your own safety." The common good mean obey or be broken. 

With all this starting to fall apart, society itself is falling down. A man took pictures while a person was pushed in front of a subway train. When a fight erupts in a restaurant, people break out their phones to take a picture or video so it can "go viral". History Channel doesn't show history. The Learning Channel is all about learning how emotional women get when choosing a wedding dress or how pedo's leer at children dressed up like high-end hookers or how one of those pint-sized trollops is a loud-mouth, fat little brat. People are going into incredible levels of debt for TV's, iPads, new cars and houses they can't afford, trips all over the world, sports tickets, etc... Hell, our sports "stars" are reacting in a violent manner to being pushed a little too much, or a bad call and we applaud them while those who lead virtuous lives are mocked incessantly. Our 'leaders' are liars and philanderers. Business leaders are corrupt thieves. And we all just shrug or shake our fists in anger, yet we continue to vote for these jackals or buy their products.

I said it in a couple posts back, but I say it again: The future is black. It will all begin to fall apart in 2013. It wouldn't have mattered if Mitt Romney or going back 4 more years, John McCain were elected. Both are useless slugs and wouldn't have stopped this progression of madness. We've become a vulture society, happy to see the pain and suffering of others as long as we get a chuckle or get to feed off their effort. It's coming back at us at full speed and we're too fucking stupid to get out of the way.