Friday, August 27, 2010
Blowback - Cash For Clunkers
Speaking of the auto industry and the government, the Cash for Clunkers program has had an entirely predictable result -- prices for used cars have jumped 10 percent over last year. When people traded in their used cars on new cars they likely would have bought anyway under the Clunkers program, the government ordered those assets destroyed rather than resold. That contraction of supply has caused price increases for those who can least afford it. As blogger Ed Morrissey put it, "In other words, the White House spent $3 billion to make used cars more expensive for working-class families. Nice work."
Reflecting its typical "we know best" disdain for the peasants
Regulatory Commissars: They Knew Drilling Ban Would Kill Jobs
With unemployment hovering at 9.5 percent -- real total unemployment, called U6, is much higher -- what's another 23,000 jobs lost? Apparently, not much to Barack Obama. Previously unreleased documents show that his administration issued the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling despite knowing the ban would kill thousands of jobs. According to The Wall Street Journal, the documents reveal that Michael Bromwich, the head regulator of offshore oil exploration, told Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar that the temporary ban "would result in 'lost direct employment' affecting approximately 9,450 workers and 'lost jobs from indirect and induced effects' affecting about 13,797 more."
Also, regardless of confirmation from the region of the moratorium's devastating impact, the government says the ban will continue. That's right -- the beatings will continue until morale improves. Reflecting its typical "we know best" disdain for the peasants, the administration has even claimed the impact wasn't as bad as industry experts said. Try telling that to those 23,000 former workers.
In related news, House Republican Leader John Boehner has called on Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Tim "Tax Cheat" Geithner, National Economic Council Head Larry Summers, and the rest of the White House economic team. (Senior Economic Adviser Christina Romer and Budget Director Peter Orszag have already abandoned ship.) Pointing to "job-killing tax hike[s]," skyrocketing spending and a penchant for new regulations, Boehner said, "We've tried 19 months of government-as-community organizer. It hasn't worked." A political chess move to be sure, but we won't argue that government-as-community organizer is getting rather expensive.
With unemployment hovering at 9.5 percent -- real total unemployment, called U6, is much higher -- what's another 23,000 jobs lost? Apparently, not much to Barack Obama. Previously unreleased documents show that his administration issued the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling despite knowing the ban would kill thousands of jobs. According to The Wall Street Journal, the documents reveal that Michael Bromwich, the head regulator of offshore oil exploration, told Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar that the temporary ban "would result in 'lost direct employment' affecting approximately 9,450 workers and 'lost jobs from indirect and induced effects' affecting about 13,797 more."
Also, regardless of confirmation from the region of the moratorium's devastating impact, the government says the ban will continue. That's right -- the beatings will continue until morale improves. Reflecting its typical "we know best" disdain for the peasants, the administration has even claimed the impact wasn't as bad as industry experts said. Try telling that to those 23,000 former workers.
In related news, House Republican Leader John Boehner has called on Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Tim "Tax Cheat" Geithner, National Economic Council Head Larry Summers, and the rest of the White House economic team. (Senior Economic Adviser Christina Romer and Budget Director Peter Orszag have already abandoned ship.) Pointing to "job-killing tax hike[s]," skyrocketing spending and a penchant for new regulations, Boehner said, "We've tried 19 months of government-as-community organizer. It hasn't worked." A political chess move to be sure, but we won't argue that government-as-community organizer is getting rather expensive.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Ground Zero, New York
Take a look at the Ottoman Empire's habit of building a Mosque on the holy ground of the Empires they've conquered. If you ask me, that is the impetus behind the Ground Zero Mosque. Next step: Iran will seize Iraq the 2nd Holiest place in Islam. Step Two: Iram will seize Saudi Arabia, the Holiest place in Islam. They will unite the entire Muslim world under one banner, control 1/2 of the world's oil reserves, cut off all oil to the US and the west. The rest, as they say, is history and so will be the once great nation of America. No Islam-O-phobia at all.
Obama White House revokes your right to privacy
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)
It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism." (Read about one man's efforts to escape the surveillance state.)
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous — decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."
Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html#ixzz0xmADY9EI
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)
It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism." (Read about one man's efforts to escape the surveillance state.)
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous — decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."
Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html#ixzz0xmADY9EI
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A woman speaks out on Prepping
Hoarding
I have a pet peeve. I hate the word “hoarding.”
Let me be more specific: I hate the term “hoarding” as applied toward Preppers.
Hoarding implies that by buying some extra bottles of shampoo, we are doing so at the expense of others. It implies that we are somehow wrong to store rice and beans to feed our families during hard times. That by storing food, we are literally taking it out of the mouths of others. It implies that there are already shortages, and we are taking more than our fair share. That by ramping up our own food storage, we are causing others to go hungry.
I'm sure you'll agree that none of these implications are true. We who are preparing are, by definition, doing so during "easy" times. Right now food and other resources are abundant and relatively cheap. Virtually everyone can do something to prepare for future shortages. Most just choose not to. And make no mistake, lack of preparedness is, for most people in this country, a choice.
Hoarding is an ugly word and, I believe, profoundly untrue as it applies toward those who are concerned enough about the current and future economic situation in our country that we are laying in supplies of food and other resources.
How many people, when they hear a rumor about a shortage of sugar, will go stock up on hundreds of pounds of sugar to the point that rumor becomes truth? I clearly remember such an incident from my childhood. Also toilet paper. Also coffee. Also (my husband remembers this from his early boyhood) vacuum tubes. (As in, for televisions.)
But Preppers have no need to engage in a run on sugar or toilet paper or any other resource…because they already have adequate stores, thank you. This is because they had the foresight to stock up on necessities long before anyone ever dreamed a shortage could happen. This is because they believe only by having adequate stores of resources can they avoid becoming one of the stampeding crowd, one of the desperate horde, one of the victims of violence because someone else wants the same bag of sugar or package of toilet paper.
It’s well documented that a resource doesn’t become “valuable” until it becomes scarce. How much does a pound of salt cost at the grocery store? $0.59? Imagine if salt was suddenly scarce. How much would that pound cost?
It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. By definition, Preppers are people who accumulate – “hoard,” if you will – resources when supplies are high and demand (and prices) are low.
What makes me furious is the reaction and attitude toward Preppers when these resources suddenly becomes scarce. How easy is it to blame someone who has a room full of toilet paper when there is none to be had at the store? Why won’t they share, dammit? It doesn’t matter that the Preppers bought TP when it was $5 for a 24-pack and no one else wanted it. I WANT SOME TOILET PAPER. IT’S NOT FAIR (kicking heels) THAT YOU WON’T GIVE ME SOME!!!
Why? Why isn't it FAIR? What's "fair" about trying to force me to share my resources with you when all you did was pooh-pooh my "hoarding" when you could have been doing the same thing? Can you see the childishness of this reaction?
Most Preppers are not rich. God knows we're not. We’re just ordinary folks who see the gathering storm clouds on the horizon and are doing what we can to provide for our families if hard times hit. Naturally we’re viewed with condescending tolerance and not a little laughter at our expense…until TSHTF.
Suddenly that tolerance and humor becomes frustration, outrage, and even violence if Preppers don’t share their store of resources. When asked to explain the logic behind the outrage, the Unprepared generally fall back upon the indignant accusation that the Preppers are “hoarding.”
I see. So why didn’t the Unprepared “hoard” when they, too, had the chance?
What follows is a stuttering list of excuses. Lack of money. Lack of storage. Lack of interest. Lack of foresight. Lack lack lack.
What it translates to, folks, is denial. The Unprepared refuse to become Preppers because they simply cannot, or will not, grasp the idea that anything could interrupt their comfortable lives. Even those who have lived through hardship and deprivation – the aftermath of hurricanes, violent urban riots, war, acts of terrorism – cannot extrapolate into the future and see that deprivation can happen again. And again and again and again. At any time. Totally without warning.
So why do, say, homeowners in Florida not keep plywood, food, water, duct tape, and other resources in their garage for the inevitable hurricane? Denial. Maybe they don’t think bad things could ever happen to them. (It always happens to someone else, right?) Maybe they think someone else will protect them. (The government. Natch.) Maybe they think God will look after them. (It was J.G. Holland who said, “God gives every bird its food but does not throw it into the nest.”) Whatever their excuse, the fact remains that when a tragedy strikes, the Unprepared are caught with their drawers down – and then they’re angry at those who aren’t. The Unprepared line up at Home Depot for plywood and then get angry with their neighbors who knew enough to keep plywood in the garage between hurricanes. Oh, and food and water too.
This isn’t to imply Preppers can’t be affected by tragedies. Of course they can. I know someone with a serious interest in preparedness whose wife died of cancer. He wasn’t “prepared” for that. The rain falls on the just and the unjust, and as with anyone affected by a loss, all he could do was pick himself up, grieve, and get on with life.
But Preppers are doing their best to mitigate disaster. It’s all any of us can do.
No one objects to Preppers “hoarding” food during easy times. We’re viewed with tolerant amusement at our hobby of bucketing beans and rice, at canning every vegetable that comes our way, at buying a few extra tubes of toothpaste. Folks usually view us as a little quirky but otherwise harmless. After all, we’re spending our own money and not asking anyone else to provide those resources for us.
It’s only post-TSHTF that our efforts are suddenly viewed with hostility as “hoarding” because, gee whiz, we’re reluctant to distribute our “hoard” to every grasshopper who demands a share.
“The time to gather emergency supplies,” as a reader pointed out, “is when there isn't an emergency. There will be more supplies available for everybody that way.” In fact, who knows? If there’s enough of a demand for resources, the supplies may ramp up their production to meet the demand, thus assuring plenty of resources for everyone. (Until the bleep hits the fan, of course.)
Hope this clears up any misconception on “hoarding.”
I have a pet peeve. I hate the word “hoarding.”
Let me be more specific: I hate the term “hoarding” as applied toward Preppers.
Hoarding implies that by buying some extra bottles of shampoo, we are doing so at the expense of others. It implies that we are somehow wrong to store rice and beans to feed our families during hard times. That by storing food, we are literally taking it out of the mouths of others. It implies that there are already shortages, and we are taking more than our fair share. That by ramping up our own food storage, we are causing others to go hungry.
I'm sure you'll agree that none of these implications are true. We who are preparing are, by definition, doing so during "easy" times. Right now food and other resources are abundant and relatively cheap. Virtually everyone can do something to prepare for future shortages. Most just choose not to. And make no mistake, lack of preparedness is, for most people in this country, a choice.
Hoarding is an ugly word and, I believe, profoundly untrue as it applies toward those who are concerned enough about the current and future economic situation in our country that we are laying in supplies of food and other resources.
How many people, when they hear a rumor about a shortage of sugar, will go stock up on hundreds of pounds of sugar to the point that rumor becomes truth? I clearly remember such an incident from my childhood. Also toilet paper. Also coffee. Also (my husband remembers this from his early boyhood) vacuum tubes. (As in, for televisions.)
But Preppers have no need to engage in a run on sugar or toilet paper or any other resource…because they already have adequate stores, thank you. This is because they had the foresight to stock up on necessities long before anyone ever dreamed a shortage could happen. This is because they believe only by having adequate stores of resources can they avoid becoming one of the stampeding crowd, one of the desperate horde, one of the victims of violence because someone else wants the same bag of sugar or package of toilet paper.
It’s well documented that a resource doesn’t become “valuable” until it becomes scarce. How much does a pound of salt cost at the grocery store? $0.59? Imagine if salt was suddenly scarce. How much would that pound cost?
It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. By definition, Preppers are people who accumulate – “hoard,” if you will – resources when supplies are high and demand (and prices) are low.
What makes me furious is the reaction and attitude toward Preppers when these resources suddenly becomes scarce. How easy is it to blame someone who has a room full of toilet paper when there is none to be had at the store? Why won’t they share, dammit? It doesn’t matter that the Preppers bought TP when it was $5 for a 24-pack and no one else wanted it. I WANT SOME TOILET PAPER. IT’S NOT FAIR (kicking heels) THAT YOU WON’T GIVE ME SOME!!!
Why? Why isn't it FAIR? What's "fair" about trying to force me to share my resources with you when all you did was pooh-pooh my "hoarding" when you could have been doing the same thing? Can you see the childishness of this reaction?
Most Preppers are not rich. God knows we're not. We’re just ordinary folks who see the gathering storm clouds on the horizon and are doing what we can to provide for our families if hard times hit. Naturally we’re viewed with condescending tolerance and not a little laughter at our expense…until TSHTF.
Suddenly that tolerance and humor becomes frustration, outrage, and even violence if Preppers don’t share their store of resources. When asked to explain the logic behind the outrage, the Unprepared generally fall back upon the indignant accusation that the Preppers are “hoarding.”
I see. So why didn’t the Unprepared “hoard” when they, too, had the chance?
What follows is a stuttering list of excuses. Lack of money. Lack of storage. Lack of interest. Lack of foresight. Lack lack lack.
What it translates to, folks, is denial. The Unprepared refuse to become Preppers because they simply cannot, or will not, grasp the idea that anything could interrupt their comfortable lives. Even those who have lived through hardship and deprivation – the aftermath of hurricanes, violent urban riots, war, acts of terrorism – cannot extrapolate into the future and see that deprivation can happen again. And again and again and again. At any time. Totally without warning.
So why do, say, homeowners in Florida not keep plywood, food, water, duct tape, and other resources in their garage for the inevitable hurricane? Denial. Maybe they don’t think bad things could ever happen to them. (It always happens to someone else, right?) Maybe they think someone else will protect them. (The government. Natch.) Maybe they think God will look after them. (It was J.G. Holland who said, “God gives every bird its food but does not throw it into the nest.”) Whatever their excuse, the fact remains that when a tragedy strikes, the Unprepared are caught with their drawers down – and then they’re angry at those who aren’t. The Unprepared line up at Home Depot for plywood and then get angry with their neighbors who knew enough to keep plywood in the garage between hurricanes. Oh, and food and water too.
This isn’t to imply Preppers can’t be affected by tragedies. Of course they can. I know someone with a serious interest in preparedness whose wife died of cancer. He wasn’t “prepared” for that. The rain falls on the just and the unjust, and as with anyone affected by a loss, all he could do was pick himself up, grieve, and get on with life.
But Preppers are doing their best to mitigate disaster. It’s all any of us can do.
No one objects to Preppers “hoarding” food during easy times. We’re viewed with tolerant amusement at our hobby of bucketing beans and rice, at canning every vegetable that comes our way, at buying a few extra tubes of toothpaste. Folks usually view us as a little quirky but otherwise harmless. After all, we’re spending our own money and not asking anyone else to provide those resources for us.
It’s only post-TSHTF that our efforts are suddenly viewed with hostility as “hoarding” because, gee whiz, we’re reluctant to distribute our “hoard” to every grasshopper who demands a share.
“The time to gather emergency supplies,” as a reader pointed out, “is when there isn't an emergency. There will be more supplies available for everybody that way.” In fact, who knows? If there’s enough of a demand for resources, the supplies may ramp up their production to meet the demand, thus assuring plenty of resources for everyone. (Until the bleep hits the fan, of course.)
Hope this clears up any misconception on “hoarding.”
A woman asks: Question Legislation
Question Legislation
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:21
By
Mary Carpenter
---------------------
Mariposa California: the paternal grandmother of two children brutally stabbed to death with a pitchfork inside their rural Merced home on Aug. 23, 2000 demands that we stop passing gun control laws that empower murderers.
The Mariposa Gazette is one of the oldest, continually-published newspapers in the US. The editor confirmed to me that the following letter appeared in the April 5, 2001 issue.
Harry Schneider, Chairman, Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association
---------------------
I am writing to alert my fellow Mariposans to something going on at the state level that should be far more frightening to you than the so called "energy crisis." We must remember our legislators have a tendency to use such media hogging items to conceal their dirty legislation. SB52 and AB35 will require you to be fingerprinted, pay an unlimited fee, pass a written firearms law test, pass a shooting proficiency test, pass a hand gun handling demonstration exam, require notification of address change (just like a registered sex offender), pay fees that begin in the $40 to $50 range going as high as $100 or more, and comply with various loaning and transferring laws in order to own a handgun.
And what if you do not pass these tests?
I am the paternal grandmother of the two children brutally stabbed to death with a pitchfork inside their rural Merced home on Aug. 23, 2000. Although there were sufficient guns in the house for my granddaughters to defend themselves and their siblings, because of my son's willingness to comply with California State law, two of his children are dead.
(Had the girls been able to get to the gun, by California law, my son would have been charged with a felony.)
If it had not been for my nine-year-old granddaughter's willingness to sacrifice her life for her siblings, four of them would be dead. The man who killed them was a stranger to the family and though not on drugs at the time, was a known drug abuser. He had recently been arrested for assaulting a police officer and was on parole because of jail overcrowding. (Yet they would have room for me should I fail my test and refuse to give them my gun.)
The killer had already violated his parole. The police knew his address. They knew where his mother and grandmother lived. He had mental records. His wife had reported that he had kidnapped her and held her at gunpoint in 1997. She had more recently reported he left threatening messages on her answering machine. Yet my son would have been in more trouble had his 14 or 13 year-old daughters been able to get to his gun. How safe will we be against these predators if they know we are not armed?
Please think about it, and call your legislators today.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:21
By
Mary Carpenter
---------------------
Mariposa California: the paternal grandmother of two children brutally stabbed to death with a pitchfork inside their rural Merced home on Aug. 23, 2000 demands that we stop passing gun control laws that empower murderers.
The Mariposa Gazette is one of the oldest, continually-published newspapers in the US. The editor confirmed to me that the following letter appeared in the April 5, 2001 issue.
Harry Schneider, Chairman, Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association
---------------------
I am writing to alert my fellow Mariposans to something going on at the state level that should be far more frightening to you than the so called "energy crisis." We must remember our legislators have a tendency to use such media hogging items to conceal their dirty legislation. SB52 and AB35 will require you to be fingerprinted, pay an unlimited fee, pass a written firearms law test, pass a shooting proficiency test, pass a hand gun handling demonstration exam, require notification of address change (just like a registered sex offender), pay fees that begin in the $40 to $50 range going as high as $100 or more, and comply with various loaning and transferring laws in order to own a handgun.
And what if you do not pass these tests?
I am the paternal grandmother of the two children brutally stabbed to death with a pitchfork inside their rural Merced home on Aug. 23, 2000. Although there were sufficient guns in the house for my granddaughters to defend themselves and their siblings, because of my son's willingness to comply with California State law, two of his children are dead.
(Had the girls been able to get to the gun, by California law, my son would have been charged with a felony.)
If it had not been for my nine-year-old granddaughter's willingness to sacrifice her life for her siblings, four of them would be dead. The man who killed them was a stranger to the family and though not on drugs at the time, was a known drug abuser. He had recently been arrested for assaulting a police officer and was on parole because of jail overcrowding. (Yet they would have room for me should I fail my test and refuse to give them my gun.)
The killer had already violated his parole. The police knew his address. They knew where his mother and grandmother lived. He had mental records. His wife had reported that he had kidnapped her and held her at gunpoint in 1997. She had more recently reported he left threatening messages on her answering machine. Yet my son would have been in more trouble had his 14 or 13 year-old daughters been able to get to his gun. How safe will we be against these predators if they know we are not armed?
Please think about it, and call your legislators today.
Extinction
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." ~ Ronald Reagan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)