NYT Editorial: 9mm pistol is now considered an “assault weapon”

The New York Times published an editorial today praising the Tucson, AZ City Council after their move to require background checks at gun shows before firearm purchases can be made. The author went on to mention the 2011 Tucson shooting that killed 6 and injured Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords, referring to the gun that shooter Jared Loughner carried as an “assault weapon”.

Loughner carried a Glock 19 (pictured to the right), a mainstream, run of the mill 9mm semi-automatic pistol. Our government and media have cleverly managed to make a segment of our populace believe that anything short of a revolutionary musket or 18th century Derringer (the weapon that John Wilkes Booth used to kill Lincoln) to be “assault weapons”, a term coined in the media to elicit thoughts of senseless violence and murder – a bloodbath.

A link to the entire editorial is below. To those who believe I’m giving this author undue exposure by making light of this story, you’re exactly right. I want people to recognize how dangerous this discussion has gotten, and how close we are to re-defining the term “assault weapon” to mean almost anything, giving the government ample opportunity to significantly expand their weapons bans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/opinion/tucson-takes-on-the-gun-lobby.html

Gun companies refuse sales, apply same civilian limits to police

Posted by Steve Adcock

In an effort to protest the continued destruction of basic second amendment rights, several gun companies are now restricting sales, or refusing to sell, to police and law enforcement in the same way the state restricts sales to law-abiding citizens.

This means if the state limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds or less, gun companies will apply that same restriction to law enforcement in the state.

Several companies, like Olympic Firearms and LaRue Tactical, have implemented policies that no longer provide exceptions to law enforcement, and many are encouraging other companies to follow suit. LaRue Tactical will only sell firearms to police and law enforcement that comply with state restrictions imposed on civilians.

Olympic takes it one step further. ”Legislation recently passed in the State of New York outlaws the AR15 and many other firearms, and will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to own a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines,” wrote Brian Schuetz, the president of Olympic Firearms, who is refusing to sell any firearm to New York state personnel after the passage of its recent gun control law. ”Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.”

Another seller, York Arms, is refusing to sell any firearm to any New York state government department due to the state’s new restrictions.

Both Cheaper Than Dirt and Spike’s Tactical will limit sales to police and law enforcement in states that limit civilian purchase and use.

Barrett Firearms refuses to sell firearms to California state law enforcement due to the state’s restrictive gun control statutes, arguing the state is in violation of the 2nd and 14th amendments to the United States constitution. The president of Templar Customs issued a strong statement against restrictive gun controls on their Facebook page and announced they will no longer sell firearms to government personnel in the state of New York. EFI, LLC now restricts the sales of firearms to government personnel to match state restrictions to citizens.

These policies come after some states have taken the opportunity after the Sandy Hook school shooting to remove the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from these very same killers. States like New York, California and Colorado have implemented the strongest controls on guns in recent weeks. Colorado just passed a set of 4 laws that significantly restrict gun purchasing, transfers and magazine capacities.

Colorado to consider stripping gun rights from state residents

Posted by Steve Adcock

According to the Washington Times, the state of Colorado will convene today to consider four different measures that curtail a lawful person’s right to carry firearms and load magazines with a capacity that the state considers to be excessive. The Times believes the new laws are likely to pass.

House Bill #1224 bans gun magazines with a capacity greater than 15 rounds. Bill #1226 will restrict individuals with valid CCW licenses from carrying weapons onto the campuses of colleges and universities. Bill #1228 imposes a new so-called “gun tax” when running background checks ahead of a firearm purchase. Lastly, Bill #1229 will make it a crime to transfer or sell a firearm privately between two people without another background check.

Despite the fact that gun free zones are notoriously susceptible to gun violence, the state of Colorado seems steadfastly focused on disarming law-abiding citizens and turning state residents into sitting ducks that cannot possibly defense themselves against attacks, especially on school campuses.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Stay safe, and stay vigilant.

Obama’s State of the Union proposals to cost taxpayers $84 billion

Posted by Steve Adcock

President Obama put forth a plethora of proposals during the State of the Union speech last week that, he said, would not raise the national debt. According to the National Taxpayer’s Union, the total cost to taxpayers of those proposals could reach $83.4 billion, the most expensive plan yet by Obama during the State of the Union speech.

“This is a slush fund that has a lineage back to the 2009 stimulus and more recently the President’s Jobs Act from the last Congress; back then CBO scored it at $39.16 billion over five years, which breaks down to $7.832 billion on an annualized basis,” said NTU’s Executive Vice President, Pete Sepp. The taxpayer’s watch dog group estimated the cost to implement 40 items mentioned during Obama’s speech that would cost the American taxpayer.

Speaking of the President’s vague tax proposals, Sepp said that they ”contained enough buzzwords to bear a close resemblance to the tax reform blueprint he put out last year, which in turn draws from previous administration plans. The window-dressing changes, but not so much what’s behind it.”

Listen to the Podcast of the NTU analysis.

Minimum wages kill jobs, increase costs and send money overseas

Posted by Steve Adcock

A portion of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech discussed the creation of an economic climate that encourages businesses to open up shop in the United States and invest earned capital locally rather than overseas. The president then addressed several policies that would accomplish precisely the opposite.

Obama proposed raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00 an hour, arguing that it would raise the incomes of millions of families. “It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets,” he said.

The problem? It’s a lie. Entry level economics courses teach the true effect of minimum wages. Minimum wage jobs are filled by low skilled labor, many of whom are in high school and college and learning the skills necessary to succeed in the United States…skills such as working with others, taking direction from managers, being responsible with your authority and privileges. Minimum wage jobs are teaching jobs. When governments raise the minimum wage, businesses respond by slashing opportunities to these jobs, or increasing the price on products and services – or both.

What incentive do businesses have paying unskilled laborers more money? I was asked a question recently: “How do you expect a person to make a living off of minimum wage?” My answer is simple: I don’t. Low skill jobs are not designed to support entire families. Ask yourself a simple question – why would somebody work 60-hour weeks at a high-skilled professional job to support his or her family, when they could serve up burritos at the local Taco Bell and still support their family? This is not realistic, and the world does not – and cannot – work this way. There is a reason why people obtain the skills to get better jobs. This is what makes career progression even possible. It is why your local grocery store is clean and stocked with food, and why you are probably reading this article from the comfort of your home or building.

The net result in rising minimum wages is fewer jobs and an increase in prices for all of us. How does this help the economy? How does this help the very people whom our president claims to care about? It doesn’t. In fact, Obama’s policies demonstrably hurt the lower and middle classes by once again putting the burden of federal regulation on them.

To incentivize business, government needs to create a climate where businesses can operate without the fear of countless punitive regulations. To encourage businesses to stay here in the United States, cut the corporate income tax rate. Cut the personal income tax rate and cap it below 20%. Remove the minimum wage, which is far beyond the scope of the federal government, and let states decide what is in the best interest of their residents and businesses.

More business-friendly states will, naturally, see more business – and less business-friendly states will be forced to change. The free market is a powerful thing. It works. Americans see it work all the time in their local communities. So much of what Americans spend their money on comes at the discretion of the free market. It is enabled by a company’s ability to develop products and services that the people want and make money while doing so. The free market builds economies, not the government.

While our government continues to willfully ignore even the most basic economic principles of incentivizing business, low and middle class Americans will be forced to continue shouldering the burden of its incompetence.