Book Club Time!

I'm kidding. Sort of.

I travel frequently and unlike my younger self, who used to scorn books, I've become a reader. Whether on the plane or at the hotel (I've done enough damage to my liver - don't even have a gall bladder anymore - that nights out on the road don't interest me), I break out my tablet and read.
Being a political junkie and the fact that a lot of modern fiction is tripe, I read a lot of political and societal stuff. I figured I'd share some that I think have shaped my view of things.

Bourbon for Breakfast - Jeffrey Tucker
For the most part, Tucker is an anarcho-capitalist. What is that, you may ask?
When most people think of anarchy, once they get past the violent imagery often associated with it (which is actually more like nihilism), that sort of anarchy believes in no government, but a shared society. Nothing is personally owned. People work for a common good. Socialism without the government and its stormtroopers. The other end of the spectrum, anarcho-capitalism, is also a lack of government, but everything of value is personally owned and free markets rule. Both types ignore the fact that at its core, Man is a greedy, selfish, pig of an animal that will fuck its own mother to get ahead. However, I find the ideas of the A-C crowd more appealing because of the simple tenant that you are responsible for your own progress or downfall. I can deal with that.
Anyways, this book by Tucker, as most of his others, is a collection of essays he's written and published on a website: The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The obvious question "Why would you pay for something when you can get it for free" is discussed in an essay he did on intellectual property. The short - It's a choice. I like the work he does and for that, I attach a value to it. Along with the ease of having all these essays in one place and format. So because of that, I feel it's worth the money he's asking.
Again anyways... some topics covered are why it takes forever to get anything from yourself to your dishes clean. How not to dress like a schmoe. Why a little bourbon added to your coffee once in a while isn't a bad thing.
He has a couple others, but this one got me into a lot of the authors at the Mises Institute.

The Law - Fredrick Bastiat
If you read nothing else, read this. In it's day, it was considered a pamphlet. You can find it for free online or pay a buck for an eReader copy.
I would fathom a guess that 90% of most modern political and economic writers who believe in free markets (I.E. Capitalists - Slight aside. The term Capitalist was originally derogatory. Marx came up with it as a way to describe those who believe in the power of the market and money to positively change peoples lives. I now wear it as a badge of honor) got their original thoughts from Bastiat. Written after the socialist sweep of the French revolution, he lays out the ideas and policies of what should drive a free society.

Economics In One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt
Taking some ideas from Bastiat, Hazlitt breaks down economic theories that affect our daily lives and makes them easy to understand. It's the original "Economics For Dummies" book, written first in the late 40's. A must.

Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
If you haven't heard of this book by now, you're either skipping lazily though life (this blog is DEFINITELY not for you) or you're a self-righteous cunt who believes in their own superiority. I guess that sounds a little harsh, but really, this book has been all over the place for the last few years.
This is Rand's seminal epic (it's huge if you've never seen the actual book before), but it has to be read by anyone who believes in a free society. Written in the 50's, it was like she could see the future and know exactly where we were headed. We're pretty much there.

Defending the Undefendable - Walter Block
Another writer from the Mises Institute, block makes the case for blackmailers, child labor, prostitutes, and other people and things that most people find reprehensible. You don't have to agree with what he says, but I encourage you to read his position. If you think logically, you can understand his positions.

For a general one - Anything by Thomas Sowell
G-d DAMN this man is good. I've read 5 of his books and I had to finish them once I started reading. He takes on economic as well as societal issues and he's spot on 95% of the time. For me anyways.

Another general recommendation - Anything by Andrew Napolitano
Like Sowell, I've read a lot of his books and he lays it out pretty clearly. Coming at it from a Libertarian angle, Napolitano will skewer anyone, Left or Right, who is violating the Constitution and trying to take away personal liberties.

Now for some I-now-need-to-drink-heavy books,
After America: Get Ready for Armageddon - Mark Steyn
A modern version of the book to follow, Steyn is a total downer. The future is black for America and Steyn describes why that is and how we got here.

Ex America: 50th Anniversary of The People's Pottage - Garet Garret
This is actually a collection of 3 essays Garret did in the time of and right after FDR. He describes why Roosevelt was such a fucktard and how the end, as laid out by Steyn, all started to come together thanks to the president in a wheelchair.






Pick one by both Sowell and Napolitano, then read the rest of these. If you don't come out the other side as a proponent of liberty and a truly free society, then you're a lost cause.
And I'm by no means suggesting you have to agree with any of these writers. But if they don't turn you on to the value of personal freedom and a life lived outside of more and more government control, line up to suck Obama's or Boehner's cock (or the next Progressive either party elects) because that's about all you're good for.

HA HA HA HA HA

From The Blaze: There’s a Slight Problem With NY’s Hastily-Made New Gun Laws: They Forgot to Exempt Cops!

This is rich! Oh I chuckled endlessly when I heard that one. Because the nanny's in New York had to do something, they not only fucked over their own every day mere mortals, they fucked over their sanctimonious supermen known as the NYPD. What's more hilarious is where Sen. Eric Adams says “You can’t give more ammo to the criminals.” Wait, wait, wait... let me make sure I understand you, Senator. By definition, a criminal is someone who breaks the law. So you assmonkey's in New York are passing another law, this one attempting to restrict how much ammo they can carry in a gun. If they didn't follow the first one (whatever it is), they're now magically going to follow the second? What?!

As far as the cops go: fuck'em. As the Social Distortion song says, "That's the way that it goes when you're down here with the rest of us." Try living by the same rules us mere mortals have to for a change.

I've always had a sort of frothing contempt for cops, even though I've had and have friends who are them. But my friends have always been on the "peace officer" side of the cop slider, not the "law enforcement" side.

A peace officer is just that. They know the laws and while they're bound to uphold them, they know when to leave something alone because it'll do no good. You're outside at night, drinking, having fun with friends, playing some music. A peace officer is the one who roles up, depending on where you are, maybe even stays in the car. They call you over and say, "Looks like you're having a good time. Do me a favor? Turn down the music a bit. A couple folks called and I don't wanna be an ass, but I could hear it up the street. Just turn it down some, alright? Thanks." and then leaves.

Law enforcement? They're the assholes. They will pull up with 2 cars. The cops will get out and come right up to where you're standing. "This party ends now!" will say the cock-in-costume who's probably even wearing sunglasses, even though it's 1:00am. If you try and 'reason' with said prick, he'll stand right up to you, maybe even poke your chest and say, "You wanna spend the night in the hole?" I'll even be 'fair' and say they're not cock biting fucktards. They're not rude, but for any infraction, they're writing a ticket, or pulling out the cuffs, or otherwise ruining your day and they're excuse is "That's the law". So was sending Jews, gypsy's, and gays to the gas chamber, but hey, why split hairs.

Thinking back to 'peace officers' for a moment: I understand they can have a rough job. Walking through Sandy Hook, trying to piece together what happened? That shit has to stay with you for a long time. You're dealing with people when they're often being assholes. Occasionally, you risk being shot at. I get it, it sucks. But more and more, you see Office "G.I. Joe" with his buzz cut, barking orders like he owns you, is more than happy to break out a taser or pepperspray because you're being "uncooperative", happily slings his M4 because it makes him think he has a big dick, and he looks down on you because you're a civilian. Supper-nanny Bloomberg sent city cops out of the fucking state to not only 'go undercover' at gun shows in Arizona, but to spy on 'potential terrorists' in New Jersey. Didn't hear about that one, did you? Go look it up. What 'peace officer' looks at these cases and says "That's within the authority and trust the people put in me"? No, no it isn't.

Oh well. Just obey and it'll all be fine.

Where is that exactly?

23 Executive Orders trying to "curb gun violence". Beyond the simple ignorance that they won't do jack shit except turn more citizens into government snitches...

Okay, aside here. By "ordering" doctors and mental health workers to report to the government (I.E. be a snitch) any violent thoughts a patient may be having or if there are guns in the home, what will be the outcome of that? Will more or less people talk to their doctors about how their feeling? If I know that a doctor will call a government official and tell them I own guns or am feeling depressed or say something like "I'm just under so much stress right now, I feel like going postal" when I really have no intention of harming anyone, am I going to talk to my doctor about anything??? Fuck that! Back to the post.

... define for me where Barry has the legal authority to issue "Executive Orders". Where is that privilege detailed and approved by the other two EQUAL branches of government as well as the people who actually authorize government actions, The People? Eat my sweaty asshole about "Well, Bush did it!!" I don't fucking care who did it before. They all violated the restrictions placed on them and they're all cocks.

Below is the limit of his authority. Stop, read slowly, and then we'll come back:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Where is the "Executive Orders" clause?

Oh, nowhere? Really? Wow, shocking isn't it?
We have become Rome. We applaud violence and the debasement of society. We pay to watch bloody sports and we laugh and cheer when someone gets hurt. Americas Funniest Home Videos - the parts that got the most attention were where people were kicked in the nuts, beaned in the head with a blunt object, fall off a roof, etc... The "Senate" (Congress) is simply a voicebox; they have given up their true power and have allowed the Emperor to rule as they please (This goes back for YEARS). As long as the people are given panem et circenses (bread and circuses), they will happily vote away their own rights, as well as those of others, denounce those who attempt to exercise their Natural rights, and follow blindly into submission because "It's for the greater good."

Baaaahhhh... Baaaahhhh...

What's in a name

Short one.
Some people may come by and sneer. "He doesn't even use his real name and he's covering his face in his picture! He's a coward."

First: Eat a dick.
Second: I do this to protect my family and the company I work for.
I love my job. I do something I love and don't want to put that company in a compromising situation. My company is apolitical and I appreciate and respect that.
As for my family. My wife and daughter are my life. If anything I did ever came back to hurt them, I wouldn't know how to live with myself. In a time when everything you say or do on the Internet is retained indefinitely and can and will be used against you in a court of law, I'd like to keep them out of it.

And Gabe, or Gabriel, is one of my real names. It's my Hebrew name.

The right to shut the f#ck up!

There's a title for ya.

So, on the book of Face, a friend posted an article titled "What journalists need to know about guns and gun control". I'm not going to link it because I'm not going to give them credence. If you want to read it yourself, have at it. Search the phrase and you'll find it.

In there, the chode who wrote the article (yes, I'm being insulting. They're an asshat and I really don't care if you think my insulting someone is childish or 'lets me lose the argument'. Blow me) says "...the Constitution gave the people the right to bear arms..." That was all I needed to know about this writers position on the topics of guns and government. The whole thing is littered with other signals, but that was the kicker for me. I could dive into many other things that are wrong or skewed, but that one is a critically important issue that everyone needs to understand.

I brought it up in my level setting posts, but there seems to be a lot of confusion in this country, if not the world, on what is a "right". How you see them and explain them to people says a lot about who you are and your position on the roles of the citizen and the government.

What is a right?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Beautiful words. When I watched the HBO series "John Adams" and listened to these words being read, I welled up.
A "right" is natural. It comes from our Creator; G-d if you will. If you're an atheist, then just as we see G-d as being the Creator of nature, you would see nature itself as being the originator of rights. Because you exist, these belong to you. If you remove the boundaries of government or even modern civilization, these rights do not go away.
You have a right to speak, in whatever way you choose. If you're around others, you may say things that they don't like. That's fine. They can leave. But for them to attempt to force you to be quiet would violate the natural right of free speech AND your right to be free from harm from others to whom you've done nothing more than offend.
On that, many believe they have a right to be free from anything they find offensive. How does that work? Many people find dogs fucking to be offensive. Yet a dog is simply doing what is natural. Where do you get off telling them they can't? Now, this would obviously lead to "So people can walk down the street naked?!" You're now injecting society into a discussion about rights. When you move into a social setting, things can change because of something called decorum. We may get there.

Okay, logic may dictate (who follows logic anymore, but...) that if you've come this far and are at least understanding what I'm saying, then you'll be up for more.Your rights, all of them, being Natural, mean you only have to answer to their provider for any action you take with these rights. This is what is critically important. If you only have to answer to G-d or Nature for your right to speak, be secure in your person and property, and any other Natural right, then as long as you don't violate anyone else' rights in the process, you're all good. So while my speech may offend you, while you may not approve of my "hording" of food, water, guns, ammunition, while I may have committed a crime and you WANT me to come out and tell everything I did, etc... you have no legitimate right to prevent me from doing so because it doesn't affect you! If you feel you are affected, walk away. Problem solved.

So now we come to the fun portion of our program and tackle specifics.
Heathcare:
Is the ubiquitous term "heathcare" a right? Follow logic and you know the answer. No. Why is it no? In order for you to have a "right" to healthcare, that would mean you have a G-d given right to the goods and services of others. You can demand of them these items and they have to give it to you. It's a right, isn't it? If that were the case, why don't you have a right to an iPod? If this were the case, clinicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical makers, device manufacturers, et al would be no more than slaves. But they're not. These people have chosen to perform a service and if they choose to allow you to purchase them, that is up to them. The second you demand these goods and services, you are attempting to make them slaves, even if you plan on paying for them. Many slaves received a "wage". It's just it was so miniscule that the slave could never get out of bondage.
Speech:
Is it a right? Yes. "But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater!", shouts a friend of mine while discussing these things. Actually, you can. If there is a fire, you bet your ass you can. However, what the common phrase is suggesting is that it has been determined, by society, that it is illegal to attempt to incite public unrest, I.E. a riot. Think of the rights that you hold dear and those protected by the US Constitution and ask how these rights somehow violate another's right to exist.
Guns:
You believe you have me, because based on the layout and the example given, I don't have a right to a gun because that would mean enslaving a firearms manufacturer into making me guns. Ooo... my very own gun shop. Hmm, you progressives may be onto something here. Kidding.
Our natural right is to defend ourselves from those who wish to violate our rights, even if they are our government. The 'arms' protected by our Second Amendment could be anything from a sharpened stick to a firearm. It just so happens that the best way to repel an oppressor is with the same tools they have or better. "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Now, the minute a government attempts to violate Natural rights, they are becoming oppressive. This doesn't mean that everyone should rush for their muskets, but it is what it is. As a society, we have chosen to come together and live within and around each other. Because of this, there are some things that we have decided, as a majority, that just shouldn't be done. This doesn't mean that the rights of the minority should be violated, but we have allowed some restrictions to "keep the peace". BUT, this "slope" is a tricky one and there is a fine line between peace and tyranny. The more government violates our rights and the slower they do it, the easier it is for us to lose everything. In truth, we are not a free people, as we have allowed The State to violate our rights and restrict our liberties to the point that if you live an average life, every day you are breaking the law. Try as you might, you will violate some rule, statute, ordinance, regulation, or law and could find yourself in jail.

As a whole, we need to return to an understanding of what rights are, and more importantly, are not, and begin pushing back The State. If we don't (either because of fear, indifference, or because we support The State when it does things we like) then we will end up like a China, Venezuela, or worse. And YES, it can happen here and is already happening slowly. PATRIOT Act and NDAA mean anything to you?

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.