Google's Bias against Guns

When researching information on Gun Control for a future posting, I discovered Google's bias against guns showing. I executed a search for information about John Lott, and all pages with information about him showed that the websites would harm my computer, including the wikipedia entry for John Lott.

A Washington Post article claims Tom Daschle didn't pay his taxes. Over the past three years Tom Daschle didn't pay $128K he owned. The least you could do, as a proponent of big government is to pay your taxes.

The Gun Show Loophole

The Washington Post has an editorial today about Virginia having an opportunity to close the "gun show loophole." I have been to several gun shows in Virginia, as has my wife. We have both purchased guns at gun shows and always went through the exact same process as when we have bought guns in stores. In fact, I have never seen a person at a gun show in the Commonwealth who has purchased a gun without a background check.

Why is it that the anti-gun advocates are so obsessed with the gun show loophole?

They claim 35% of guns purchased at gun shows are purchased from unlicensed dealers. This may be the case, I don't know, but I do know one statistic, only 0.7% of guns used by criminals is obtained at gun shows. The same survey states that 8.3% of guns used by criminals were obtained from retail gun stores. All of the retail purchases needed background checks. Clearly the background check process is not perfect, but there is not a significant flow of guns from gun shows into the hands of criminals.

Financial Crisis and Entitlements

We have to be ever more vigilant in times of crisis to make sure that the Federal Government doesn't overstep its bounds. As Congressman Jim Moran states on his website:

From its inception in 1935, Social Security has been a safe, stable, and dependable source of financial assistance for retirees and their families. Today, 95 percent of all workers are covered by Social Security and 6 out 10 seniors depend on it for over half of their total income.

The problem is that Social Security was designed to be a temporary measure to help people who had their retirement saving or pensions wiped out and to encourage people to retire in order to allow younger workers to be able to get jobs. Now all social security does it cause people to take excessive risk with their retirement account, and put a financial burden on younger workers.

We should have gotten rid of Social Security a long time ago, but now it is a sunk cost and people expect it. Had we rid ourselves of Social Security after its immediate purpose was accomplished, we would be able to institute a temporary system to help support retirees that have had there savings wiped out by the current crisis, if we need to. Now we don't have the reserves to be able to do this.

We need to be sure that we don't allow any new temporary programs instituted as a fix for problems during this financial crisis become entitlements.

Virginia Restaurant Concealed Carry Ban Petition

As I have been reminded by a reader, everyone should sign the petition to repeal the restaurant ban.

Virginia Restaurant Concealed Carry Ban

The VCDL reports that Virginia SB 1035 has passed out of committee. This bill would repeal the ban on carrying a concealed handgun in a restaurant that has an ABC license (can serve alcohol on premises). In the report is some quotes that illustrate what is wrong with the reactionary thinking and lack of analysis by many of our politicians.

Senator Marsh took the cake, however. He said that if a concealed handgun permit holder came into a restaurant with the intent to "pop" someone in the restaurant, and the permit holder couldn't find someone to declare that he has a concealed gun, he might just go ahead and kill his victim anyhow, without notifying the restaurant of his concealed gun.

Senator Cuccinelli had fun with that one, saying, "So, Senator Marsh, the permit holder, determined to commit murder, would not do so because he was worried about getting charged with a Class 3 misdemeanor?"

Marsh just sat there with a blank look on his face.

This is an argument that I hear again and again from people wanting to ban guns. If we let people carry guns legally, they'll commit murder. Well folks, I think Senator Cuccinelli has it right, if you are going to commit murder, a couple of misdemeanors won't stop you.

Another example of backwards thinking came from a representative from the Alcoholic Beverage Commission:

We are concerned that this is a public safety issue... What if someone carrying concealed has their gun taken away from the by a drunken customer and used to shoot someone.

Um.... It is currently legal to open carry in a restaurant serving alcohol in Virginia. So people carrying concealed handguns might have them seized by drunks, but people carrying openly won't?

NY's 20th Congressional District

It has been a while since I've written, but I'm back.

I'd like to take a look at one of the items on the platform of one of the candidates for the 20th District special election in New York, Michael S. Pollok.

The item is regarding mortgage relief and the financial crisis. Mr. Pollok's proposal is the following.

Keep ALL homeowners in their homes by federal restructuring of mortgages based on fair market values and refinancing at fixed rates at 4% or less. This is not nationalization! A New Bank of the United States needs to be chartered to take over these mortgages. The interest going to the treasury.

He goes on further to say:

If a person would like to opt out he may do so and continue paying the interest and principle to the new US Bank. The private banks would be out of the consumer loan business but would be permitted to continue to make commercial loans under very tight regulation.

So to summarize, Mr. Pollok wants to nationalize all mortgages, but not call it nationalization, because he'll create a new private bank. Banks that currently hold the mortgages, well your screwed. This would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment since there would be no due process. Also as a seizure under eminent domain, there must be monetary compensation, which is not discussed at all. You would think that a lawyer would understand this.

Even if this was constitutional, it would be a very bad idea. This new bank would offer loans (and it fact would be the only bank allowed to offer loans to consumers) at arbitraily determined rates without taking into account the risk associated with the loans. Even worse, the bank wouldn't keep any of the interest. How will this help?

Where would the capital for this bank come from? Would the treasury supply it, leading to hyperinflation? What happens when people can't make payments, would the bank foreclose? If not why would people continue to pay? If so, how does this prevent the foreclosure crisis in light of layoff and rising unemployment.