In the aftermath of each mass shooting in the U.S. the debate about gun control always heats up. Some people want more restrictions on who can buy, what they can buy and how many they can buy.

Laws don't stop criminals or those with criminal intent. How many burglars are deterred from burglarizing homes and businesses by laws that are already on our books? Would more laws deter them? Based on evidence that we have thousands of burglars in our jails and prisons and on thousands and thousands of police reports of burglary, we have to conclude that laws against burglary do not deter burglars.

When we look at where these mass shootings take place, we see them happening in places where weapons, guns in particular, are not allowed by policy set forth by the business owner(s) or by laws. The Omaha mall restricts the carrying of guns but that didn't stop Robert Hawkins from killing 9 people. Schools are gun free zones but that didn't stop Klebold and Harris from killing 15 people including themselves. Virgina Tech banned the possession of firearms but that didn't stop Seung-Hui Cho from killing 33 people with guns. The Aurora, Colorado movie theater that was shot up by James Holmes is owned by the company Cinemark, company policy bans weapons from all of their theaters.

Clearly, gun free zones do not stop those with criminal intent from killing, on the contrary, gun free zones simply announce to would be mass killers where their victims are least likely to be armed.

I believe the answer lies in Concealed Carry for law abiding citizens. When Florida passed its CCW law in 1987 alarmists said there would be shootouts on the streets and freeways, that Florida would become the new Wild, Wild, West. These same predictions occurred each time another State liberalized it's CCW laws. None of these dire predictions have come true.

In fact, CCW permit holders are statistically the most law abiding group of citizens. Permits are revoked on occasion but the number of revoked permits is typically very small and the grounds for revocation in most states (other than an expired permit that is not renewed) is either a gross misdemeanor or a felony.

A 3-year study of Texas crime statistics immediately following passage of CCW legislation found that the most common crime committed by CCW holders that would be grounds for revocation was actually DUI, followed by unlawful carry and then aggravated assault. The same study concluded that Texas CCW holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.

In Florida the first person to use their concealed weapon in self defense was a cab driver who shot his passenger after the passenger attempted to shoot him but forgot to take the safety of on his weapon. The passenger died from his wounds. It was also discovered that the passenger was a convicted felon that had been out of prison less than 8 hours before attempting to commit robbery. Fortunately the cabbie was unhurt and there will be no recidivism from the convicted felon this time.

If concealed carry was allowed in all of these places, could a citizen have stopped the crimes in progress? In Omaha a CCW permit holder left his weapon in his car when he entered the mall in accordance with the Westroads Mall policy of no firearms allowed. He said later in an interview that if he had been carrying he could have taken out the shooter because at one point he had a clear line of fire to the shooter while the shooter was firing in another direction. In at least this case, a CCW permit holder could have lessened the carnage. How many other places could this have happened if concealed carry of firearms by law abiding citizens is allowed?

When was the last time we heard about a mass shooting at a firing range? Or inside a police department? Or at a gun store? We don't hear about mass shootings at these types of places because would be killers know their chances of success are greatly diminished (if not eliminated entirely) when their potential victims can shoot back.

Remember, when seconds truly count when the lead starts flying, the police are just minutes away. It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones. In a perfect world this would not be necessary. In reality, we live in a world that is far from perfect and law abiding citizens must protect themselves.

Gun control, Yea or Nay?

Every time there is a mass shooting in the U.S. the cries for more gun control from the media and politicians rises to a feverish pitch. Last night there was a mass shooting at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado, 12 confirmed dead and over 50 injured by a madman that opened fire as soon as Batman appeared on the screen. This individual was reportedly dressed as the villain from the movie.

Matthew Chapman from The Huffington Post has his own views on last nights violence. He thinks the 2^nd Amendment is anachronistic, poorly written, unclear, and insanely stupid. I’m not sure where he is from, but he says wherever that is, guns are more or less banned and people don’t live in fear. I was born here, I own guns and I’ve never lived in fear regardless of whether or not I had a gun with me.

The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that firearms are used as many as 1.5 million times each year to foil crimes in the U.S. many times without a shot being fired. (I personally foiled a break and enter attempt in my apartment with a revolver years ago.) Yes, there are far to many multiple shootings in the U.S. and I don’t have an answer for how to eliminate those without trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens. Is it fair to take guns away from law abiding citizens just because a few disturbed and evil people use them to commit crimes? Ben Franklin once said "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Mr. Chapman likes to point to other countries to show how well they deal with the issue of crime and firearms. I’m betting he isn’t thinking about Switzerland where every able bodied male of conscription age is required to have a military assault rifle and a certain amount of ammunition in their homes. Crime is very low in Switzerland including gun crime. I’m not saying the U.S. should do the same because here we have the option to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Each person can decide for themselves which option is best for them and that is exactly as it should be.

Mr. Chapman specifically pointed to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil as an example of how a government should deal with firearms. Rio de Janeiro is ranked as the 8th most dangerous city in the world just ahead of Mogadishu, Somalia which is still embroiled in a decades old civil war. How is disarming the citizens working our for the poor folks in crime ridden Rio de Janeiro?

The shooting in Aurora, Colorado is certainly senseless and tragic but I believe that even without access to guns that this sick individual would have found a way to commit his ghastly crime. The intricate booby trap in his apartment is evidence of this.

What I have to say to Mr. Chapman and those like him, if how things are done in your country of origin suit you, then maybe you should return home. If all you want to do is make this country like your country of origin, then maybe you should return home and let us resolve our own issues.

I say a resounding Nay to more gun control.

Make the rich pay!

That's the hue and cry from the Democrats and has been for several years now. Let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich because they aren't paying their fair share. Really? They aren't paying their fair share? If the rich aren't paying enough now, then what exactly is their fair share? Let's take a look at some statistics from the IRS shall we?

From 2009:

Top 1% of taxpayers paid 36.73% of all income tax.

Top 5% paid 58.66% of all income tax.

Top 10% paid 70.47% of all income tax.

If this isn't their fair share then just how much is their fair share? 70% of Americans pay just 30% of all the income taxes and the bottom 50% pay just 2.25% of the income tax burden. I agree that those at/below the poverty level shouldn't be paying any taxes, they have a hard enough time already without throwing a tax burden on top of things. But should the top 10% of wage earners really be made to pay even more than they do now?

Why does Obama and the Democratic leadership demonize the rich when most of them are rich as well? Do they really want to pay higher taxes? Or is this just a battle cry to get more votes? I think if they wanted to pay more in taxes that they would cut checks to the IRS for the amount they think they should be paying. We don't see that happening though do we? This whole demonize the rich charade is just that, a charade to garner more votes.

Enumerated Powers

The U.S. Constitution enumerates (or defines) specific powers for each of the three branches of our government. Congress has the exclusive power to pass legislation which then must be signed into law (or allowed to sit for 10 business days while Congress is in session to automatically become law) by the President. (Of course, the President has the option to veto.)

The Supreme Court (or lower courts) is the only branch that has the power to void laws and this must only be done based on the constitutionality of the law in question.

Temporary Assistance For Needy Families is a law that went into effect on July 1, 1997. This is a welfare reform law that put emphasis on putting people back to work. People were required to work 20 - 30 hours per week or participate in preparing to go back to work in order to receive financial aid. This program was very successful in promoting greater self reliance. It moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs so that they were providing for themselves. Child poverty fell, and single-parent employment rose.

Congress deliberately shielded or exempted nearly all of TANF from waiver authority. Obama through an executive order, has now essentially rewritten TANF by removing the waiver  restriction that those receiving financial aid must work or prepare to return to work.

No where in the Constitution is the President given the power to rewrite or void existing law. Those powers are exclusive to Congress and the Supreme Court respectively. If we are a nation governed by the rule of law, then why isn't Obama adhering to the law instead of rewriting it as he sees fit? Is there anything more dangerous than a government that doesn't abide by its own laws?

Out of Touch Part 2

In my previous post I discussed some things Amy Davidson talked about in her article. Today I will address her misconception about the constitutionality of a certain precedent she alluded to.

The precedent she alluded to is Wickard vsFilburn and all subsequent court rulings that have used this case as precedent. In Wickard vs Filburn the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the authority to regulate not only commerce that crossed state lines but also anything that had the potential to affect interstate commerce. The Founders intended for the Commerce clause to preclude the kind of discriminatory legislation by the States that was permitted under the Articles of Confederation.

The Commerce Clause has been used by Congress to justify a very wide range of laws but is that authority being abused? Under the Articles of Confederation the States were implementing protectionist economic policies and the Commerce Clause was intended to prevent that from happening again by establishing free trade across State lines and nationalizing trade tariffs. This article describes the history of the Commerce Clause from its beginning through it's history in the Courts in a non political way.

The Commerce Clause had become the the single greatest source of government power until Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Congress can no longer regulate everything simply because it has the potential to affect interstate Commerce. In one bold stroke The Supreme Court has gone back to a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause and has vastly reduced the power of the Federal government.

I believe this is a good thing since I believe the government has had far to much power. However, how this will all play out remains to be seen.

Out of touch? Part 1

The Republicans passed a bill in the House of Representatives to repeal Obamacare. Of course it will never make it to a vote in the Senate. In this article Amy Davidson has the gall to call this obstructionism on the part of the Republicans while completely ignoring the fact that 60% of Americans want it repealed. Doesn't Congress exist to serve the people who sent them there? If so, (and I believe they are supposed to serve the People) then Obamacare should be repealed. There is nothing obstructionist about complying with the will of your constituents.

Miss Davidson delegates an entire paragraph to complain about the various names Republicans have given different bills to repeal Obamacare. I think some of the names are kinda silly but aren't there more important things to complain about? Like maybe...a $17 trillion national debt? Or the most sluggish economy we've seen in decades?

Miss Davidson also claims that 50 million Americans will lose out on health insurance if Obamacare is repealed. Fact is that of all those without health insurance in this country an estimated 13 million of them are illegal aliens.Millions more are young people in good health who can afford health insurance that opt out of insurance. (That is something I did when I was younger and in good health to save money.) There are  millions who are to poor to buy health insurance and there are millions more that are unemployed.

For those who are to poor to afford it themselves, they still have access to health care through Medicaid. For those here illegally, I say get the hell out because I don't want to give you a free ride for your health benefits. For the unemployed, we need to fix the economy so they can once again find jobs.

Jobs, what the government and media don't tell you.

Politicians like to talk about creating jobs, and it sounds like a noble goal. Many times the reality is far different.

For those of us old enough to remember, in the 80's the US steel industry was crying foul because other countries were producing steel and importing it into the US at cheaper prices. The steel industry said they couldn't compete with  cheap foreign labor. So the lobbyists went to work and succeeded in getting Congress to restrict steel imports. The import restrictions saved 5000 jobs in the US steel industry.

The other side to that story is, because US steel had less competition, it became even more expensive and  manufacturers had to use the more expensive steel to make their products, other foreign products became cheaper for the US consumer and as a result 26,000 workers in other manufacturing industries lost their jobs.

Was it worth it to save 5000 steel workers jobs?

In another example, the restrictions on the importation of sugar is estimated to have cost 3 times as many jobs as it saved in the US sugar industry since many confection manufacturers took their operations to Mexico and Canada where sugar was cheaper.

For both the sugar and steel industries it would have been far better for those two industries to use some good old American ingenuity to come up with innovative ways to reduce labor costs and increase productivity, both of which would have lowered the costs of those two commodities. Far more people would have kept their jobs and it is likely that jobs would have been created by the private sector in the process. And the US would have stayed competitive in the world markets in both of these industries.

Sometimes the government should just mind their own business.