Political contributions...

Okeh.

Could someone please tell me how political parties generate their public donor lists?

I have been registered NPA since 1990 (I've never agreed with either major party.  The Republicans are closest to what I think, but they're too centrist for my liking.  I'm too damned far to the Right for the Libertarians!  Tiny government, basic functions only, minimal tax bite, and why are we paying the bastards at all - let alone as much as we do?)

But, the Democrats keep pestering me for $3 at a time.  Probably twice a week.  Over & over again.

I have NEVER donated to the Democrats.  I don't plan to donate to the Democrats.  The last Democrat I can think of that would have gotten my vote was JFK - at least he believed in protecting the nation, not selling it out or selling out the people (Obama, you listening?  Pelosi?  Feinstein?  Boxer?  Lofgren?  You're not following your Oaths!  STOP IT.)

So, why to the Democrats keep pestering me?  Why can't they get the message?  I'm not going to donate to them.  I'm probably NEVER going to donate to them - they're so far to the Left these days that they'd trip over Stalin's grave if they made a centrist move!

I don't really want the job.  I wouldn't spend the first four years campaigning for a second four years.  I figure if I do a good job, you'll tell me - or you can hold my second term in reserve.

But, I'm thinking I could do a better job as President than most people since Reagan.  And, I'd like to use Executive Orders to:
- Stop "riders."  If it doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter of the bill proposed, it gets struck.  Full stop.
- Proposed bills are allowed to be fifty pages long (single-sided) or twenty-five pages long (double-sided.)  If I can't read it in five minutes, it gets kicked back for a rewrite.
- Every law proposed /will/ include a provision to redact an existing law.  This should be doable for the next 30 or 40 years before we start to notice, but it should stop the wild growth of laws.  Seriously - the body of law is like a damned field of dandelions!  Have you ever /been/ to a law library?
- This "full-time legislature" thing is going to stop.  Therefore, they don't need full-time pay, or full-time staff.  This should help bring the budget down.
- Speaking of: If the budget can't propose expenditures of 95% /or/ /less/ of projected income, it gets struck and kicked back for resubmission.  If this goal can't be met one month before the end of the Fiscal Year, ALL elected personnel forfeit their pay until the budget is submitted /and/ /approved/.  Suck it up, buttercup - if you want to get paid, you fix it so everyone knows what's going on!  (This includes Cabinet-level people.  They're not popularly elected, but they /are/ approved by Congress, and they're responsible for the budgets for their departments.)  And no, you don't get back pay once it's done - forfeited pay gets used to service the principal on the Public Debt.
- And speaking of that: The 5% gap between income and expenditures?  3% of projected income is used to service the Public Debt, the remaining 2% is banked as a "Rainy Day Fund" once Social Security and Medicare has been refunded.
- And then Social Security and Medicare are to be left /alone/ - unless it is to fund a project that either benefits the Nation /as/ /a/ /whole/ or the race /as/ /a/ /whole/.  No more pork-barrel crap.
- In fact, no special projects done for cronyism.  If I find out about it, I hope you've picked your replacement - I'm going to find a way to fire your ass!
- No retirement from elected office.  Period.  No benefits accrue.  You can get Social Security like the rest of us.
- No Cadillac health plans, either.  You get MediCare (see how fast those get fixed!)
- Peruse previous Executive Orders, rescind orders prejudicial to liberty.  This is going to require a balancing act, I'm sure - but it's necessary.
- Peruse the /Federal/ /Register/.  Did you know that if something was published in the /Register/ and unchallenged for a given time (90, 120, or 180 days - I don't recall which offhand,) it carried the /force/ /of/ /law/?  /Without/ debate or voting?  Anything that carried the force of law through publication in the /Register/ gets considered, debated openly, and (likely) rescinded.
- Also, go through USC and CFR.  With a red pen.  I'm perfectly willing to bet that fully a quarter to a third of the body of law, at the Federal level, can be rescinded out of hand without any negative social effect.

That's a good start, anyhow.

Discuss.

The difference between fact and fiction? (NSFW-L)

Fiction is still constrained by the limits of believability.

Which is why we have the phrase, "You can't make this shit up!"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/washington-state-gets-rid-sexist-language-162549523.html

Yes, the world has indeed gone mad - some of it just faster than others.

The "Great State of Washington" has decided, debated, voted upon, and signed into a law a measure requiring that current and future laws be rewritten in "Gender Neutral" language.

"Fisherman?"  Nope - you're a "fisher" now.
"Freshman?"  Try "First-year student."
"Penmanship?"  Gone entirely - now it's "handwriting." 

In all, they've had the time, resources, and funding to change some 40,000 words of state law (the fact that there were 40,000 words that "needed" changing - and weren't even all of the words of state law - is an issue for another discussion!)

Oh, fuck me very much.  (And it should come as no surprise that this is a Democrat measure, signed into law by a Democrat governor.)

I just can't believe this.  With the price of housing creating a new class of person - the "working homeless" - the price of petroleum blowing EVERYTHING out of proportion, the job market falling to bits around our ears, wages aren't keeping up with inflation anyhow, the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") coming in a few more months to bone us all, and everything else that fair DEMANDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, you have the time, effort, and money to piss away on THIS bullshit?

Stupid ideas like this are why I'd like to be "HMFIC of Common Sense" - my job to walk around legislative chambers with a four-foot section of 2x4, and swat anyone who comes up with a stupid idea like this in the back of his head and fine him whatever I feel necessary, in proportion to the asininity displayed (min. fine $5,000, but true "weapons-grade stupidity" may be punished by just withholding ALL of their pay and having done with it.)

It's incidents like this that make me think that elected officials should be paid according to quality and utility of work output - because then THEY would pay US for permission to work, which would help to offset the continuous budgetary deficits they keep bawling about...

Discuss.  Bear in mind that, as I was taught in school (and countless generations before me,) "In cases of mixed, indeterminate, or unknown gender; the use of the masculine pronoun shall be considered appropriate."  (This has held true in every language I've had even a passing familiarity with...)

More from Lofgren re: "Safe Schools"

Dear Mr. Kelley:

 

Thank you for your follow-up response regarding the Safe Schools Act. 

 

You're right that we certainly agree on the desired result of safe schools for our children, but, after reading your email, we do differ when it comes to our beliefs about the best method for achieving that goal.  While we may not agree entirely, I appreciate hearing your views, and I assure you that I'll keep your letter in mind as we continue to debate school safety in Congress.  

-----     SNIP     -----

Cripes.  Yes, we do differ.  Come up with a proposal that has a shot at working, and I'll listen.  I've given you a couple, but you won't.

Now tell me, which of us should be in office?

Bugger.

-JDK 

Feinstein's Response (Internet Sales Tax)

Dear  Mr. Kelley :

Thank you for your expressing your opposition to collecting sales taxes on Internet purchases.  I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I am a cosponsor of the "Marketplace Fairness Act" (S. 743,) which was introduced by Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY) on February 14, 2013.  This bill would allow states to require sellers to remit sales taxes on internet purchases.  The legislation includes an exemption for online retailers with gross annual sales in the United States under $1,000,000.  The "Marketplace Fairness Act" is awaiting consideration by the Senate Finance Committee.

I understand you have concerns that this legislation would create a new tax on internet purchases.  To be clear, this is not the case.  Items purchased over the internet are subject to sales taxes in states that levy these taxes, including California.  Under current law, it is the responsibility of the buyer to report these purchases and pay the taxes.  This system puts brick and mortar businesses, which have to collect sales taxes at the point of sale, at a relative disadvantage in the pricing of their products. This bill would make it easier for states to collect the sales taxes they are already owed on internet purchases.  Ultimately, it would be up to states to decide whether to require the collection of these taxes.

Once again, thank you for writing.  If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. 

  -----     SNIP     ------



     That Feinstein is a co-sponsor surprises me not.  Feinstein is a statist Democrat - she'd be in favour of anything that increases government power or government funding.  Anyhow.....






-----    SNIP     -----

Senator Feinstein -

     Thank you for making your position on this known (it came as no particular surprise to me,) but I note that you didn't seem to address any of the points I'd brought up in my letter.

     Meanwhile, allow me to address your points in kind, and perhaps add a couple of my own:

"I am a cosponsor of the "Marketplace Fairness Act" (S. 743 ), which was introduced by Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY) on February 14, 2013.  This bill would allow states to require sellers to remit sales taxes on internet purchases.  The legislation includes an exemption for online retailers with gross annual sales in the United States under $1,000,000.  The "Marketplace Fairness Act" is awaiting consideration by the Senate Finance Committee."

     How are we to expect collection and disbursement of all of these sales taxes to be handled?  Where these taxes are to have been collected, that fell to the purchaser (on his annual tax return.)

     However, you now want a broad assortment of RETAILERS to keep track of the various sales tax jurisdictions: their rates, their process, their contact information, &c &c.  Isn't this putting an unnecessary load on these businesses?  Are you expecting the states to simplify how they're going to get "their" money?  How much is that anticipated to cost - yet another cost that taxpayers are expected to bear...

     (Yes, I know the bill CURRENTLY stipulates a one million dollar gross sales/year threshhold - but how many of us REALLY think that it will stay up there?  How many of us think it will be eventually ALL RETAILERS?)

"I understand you have concerns that this legislation would create a new tax on internet purchases.  To be clear, this is not the case.  Items purchased over the internet are subject to sales taxes in states that levy these taxes, including California.  Under current law, it is the responsibility of the buyer to report these purchases and pay the taxes.  This system puts brick and mortar businesses, which have to collect sales taxes at the point of sale, at a relative disadvantage in the pricing of their products. This bill would make it easier for states to collect the sales taxes they are already owed on internet purchases.  Ultimately, it would be up to states to decide whether to require the collection of these taxes."

     I was not concerned about it as a "new tax" - naturally, if it had been the imposition of a "new tax," this bill would have had to have started on the House, not gone there after Senate approval (it's been 25 years since my last civics class, but I do recall that the Founders intended for the PEOPLE to be represented in taxation - not the States.  And, since the Senators were originally appointed by State legislatures, it was required that "finance" bills be introduced in the House.)

     However, while it won't impose a NEW tax, it will still impose a burden on the taxpaying citizen - and, looking at recent economic history, an increased effect tax rate is the LAST thin we need - we're trying to get into a recovery, and you can't do that if you keep having capital syphoned off without producing anything in return.

     But, I think you misunderstand where the "advantage" lies between walk-in retail and mail-order retail.  Walk-in retail requires more floor space to accommodate foot traffic, which calls for less efficient storage of wares, less ability to stock wares (without increasing floor space,) and is - by its nature - required to be situated in high-traffic (therefore high-rent) areas!

     Couple that with the fact that property "values" have been artificially inflated as a result of the recent "subprime lending crisis," which have dragged other prices along with them.  So, a walk-in retail store is stuck with a logistically (relatively) inefficient use of space & resources - which they have to pay more for.

     A mail-order business needs only to accommodate their own staff, is able to much more efficiently use their available floor space (and cubic volume!) is able to be situated wherever they please (as long as they have access to USPS/contract carrier shipping,) doesn't require the lighting of retail, has a lower burden for climate control - mail-order businesses have an advantage in logistics, more than anything else.  Their big expense is in shipping, but that can be balanced out through selection of location, efficient use of space & staff, reduced utilities, and the like.

     In short, mail-orders don't enjoy an advantage due to tax structure - it is entirely attributable to the business model!  And, it actually makes sense for much of our economy to shift to mail-order, it being more efficient than walk-in retail.  (This is not to say that walk-in stores will ever entirely go away, but it's probably going to primarily be things like foodstuffs, clothing, various parts, and entertainment venues.)

     And, if you're going to leave it up to the states to decide whether or not to collect (do you honestly think any of them are going to say No?) then why is a Federal law necessary?  Given that, I think it quite likely that there are other - far more important - matters to concern the Senate - recovery of the economy, increase in employment (tip: bring manufacturing jobs back!) correction of fuel prices (there's no reason for them to be as high as they are, not that I can see...) allowing the Postal People to operate under budget once again,) and other measures that will have a far more beneficial impact on the Federal AND local economy!

So, a brief analysis:

- Since the decision was, is, and apparently remains with the States, a Federal law is unnecessary,

- This law won't do anything to help the economy in terms of the Public at large - instead, it will cause somewhat more difficulty for citizens,

- It imposes an unnecessary, unproductive administrative burden on businesses (which will actually INCREASE base prices!)

- It has a theoretical "floor" for enforcement - but who is to say we don't get the rug yanked out from under us?

- It does nothing to address the intrinsic differences in business model between walk-in retail and mail-order retail (NOR SHOULD IT.  Businesses should be free to select under whichever model they choose to operate,)

- It does nothing to address inflation - either the inflation that's put businesses into the messes they're in, or the inflation that shall continue to come along,

- Nor does it address real estate or utility price increases - which will effect both businesses and residences.

One does not need a course in economics or government to figure out that this bill won't do anything useful to help businesses or people, it will merely add to the burdensome body of law to which we are already subject (If "Ignorance of the Law" is no excuse for breaking it, then the laws should be reduced in number until they become a body the average individual can keep up with - the fact that there are over twenty general specialisations of United States Law - a CREATED system - is indicative of an underlying problem, I think.

Jon D Kelley 

Proprietor and Chief Engineer
Kelley's Works in Progress
San Jose, CA

Internet Sales Tax measure:

This is expected to be vote on on Monday, 13MAY2013.  WRITE YOUR SENATORS NOW!

This measure's primary proponent is Senator Mark Enzi (R-WY,) so email him and email BOTH of your state senators!  This is likely to place an unnecessary burden on small businesses (now or in the future,) and is wrongheaded and foolish - especially with all of the economic troubles we're having right now...

-----     SNIP     -----

Senator Enzi;
      I would like to write you in protest of the Internet sales tax being discussed (and, hopefully, voted down.)
    I do not believe the consequences of such a bill are being fully considered, and it is being pushed through for the wrong reasons.  Allow me to elaborate:
    - If a state "depends" on revenue generated from sales tax (local or interstate sales,) then it should work to reassess its priorities.  Perhaps spending less money would be an answer?
    - Having to assess, collect, and remit sales taxes for all state imposes an unnecessary and burdensome task upon small businesses that conduct sales over the Internet.  This will also open up businesses to potential for being audited, penalized, and even potentially sued by any of the forty-odd states that collect sales taxes, rather than just the state in which they are present and the Federal government.
    - Having to send out separate remittances to a number of states every quarter similarly imposes a great (and unnecessary) adminstrative burden upon small businesses - a large corporation has the resources and manpower to handle this, but a "one-man band" business?  Not so much.
    - This bill is purported to help small business.  However, small businesses (like myself, for instance) are more likely to go out of business entirely, rather than deal with the headache that would be imposed by this measure.
    - The businesses that are complaining most about a "tax advantage" for Internet sales are most likely located in various microeconomies where local inflation has run rampant, and they therefore have a greater cost of doing business.  Assessing state sales taxes does nothing to address this problem - what is needed is economic recovery in various areas (urban California, New York City, and the like spring readiliy to mind,) because the base price will still be lower - and it's entirely possible that the cost of ordering online, including paying sales tax and shipping, will be rather less.
    - This can also open the travelling consumer up to "double taxation" - once the "use taxes" become mandated, what's to stop a state from assessing purchases made in corpus out-of-state with the state's own "use tax" above and beyond the sales tax already paid?  (Nota Bene: I believe this is what is happening with California's "sin tax" on tobacco - in all forms - but i have yet to verify this.  So, if I were to purchase a box of cigars while out-of-state, I am theoretically required to pay: state sales tax, state tobacco tax, and California's tobacco tax - and from all of these taxes, I get nothing in return.)
    While the measure - as currently proposed - seems to exempt small businesses - what's top stop it from being changed later, to apply to all Internet sales?  And, potentially, to all purchases made while a state resident is not physically present in the state?
    In addition, with all of the economic headache that America has right now, how can it be thought that increasing the tax bite on the consumer would be any help?
    Senator, I implore you to reject this measure out of hand, it does not serve the interests of the American people, and it is open to greater abuse in the future.  Moreover, I consider it wrong-headed and foolish, and is likely to serve as a sterling example of the Law of Unintended Consequences in the near future!

Thank you.

(signed) Jon D. Kelley

cc: Senator BOXER, Senator FEINSTEIN.

-----     SNIP     -----

Per usual, I will be sure to post any responses I get.

Letter from The White House:

(Reproduced here verbatim and in its entirety, just left out my address.  Comments in [braces]):

-----     SNIP     -----

April 24, 2013 [got it today the 29th - I guess that's not bad for coast-to-coast First Class Post these days...]

Dear Jon: [I haven't given him leave to call me by my first name - state legislators understand this.  Also, a business letter has the salutation closed with a semicolon, not a colon - using my given name makes it a personal letter, so a comma would be used.  Either way, it's wrong.)

  Thank you for taking the time to write.  [I actually did not - it was another generated letter to start the exchange.]  I have heard from many American regarding firearms policy and gun violence in our Nation, and I appreciate your perspective.  From Aurora to Newtown to the streets of Chicago, we have seen the devastating effects gun violence has on our American family.  I join countless others in grieving for all those whose lives have been taken too soon by gun violence.

  Like the majority of Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.  [Really, Mr. President?  I somehow doubt that...]  In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that has been handed down from generation to generation.  Hunting and sport shooting are part of our national heritage.  [As is ownership of firearms for self-defense.  I note you left that out?  The Japanese refused to invade us in WWII because they KNEW we'd hand their asses to them!]  Yet, even as we acknowledge that almost all gun owners in America are responsible, ["responsible" how - or for what - Mr. President?] when we look at the devastation caused by gun violence - whether in high-profile tragedies [God, I HATE the misappropriation of this word!] or the daily heartbreak that plagues our cities - we must ask ourselves whether we are doing enough.

  While reducing gun violence is a complicated challenge, protecting our children from harm should not be a divisive one.  Most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.  [I am somehow inclined to doubt your assessment here, Mr. President.]  Most also agree that if we took commonsense steps to curtail gun violence, there would be fewer atrocities [more appropriate than "tragedies" - thank you for that] like the one that occurred in Newtown.  We will not be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing we can do to reduce gun violence - if even one life can be saved [this is yet another mantra that I'm sick to my teeth of hearing!] - then we have an obligation to try.

  That is why I asked Vice President Joe Biden to identify concrete steps we can take to keep our children safe, help prevent mass shootings, and reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country.  He met with over 200 groups representing a broad cross-section of Americans and heard their best ideas.  I have put forward a specific set of proposals based off of his efforts, and in the days ahead, I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality.  [Yeah - over 200 groups.  Violence Policy Center, Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, ...  I find it particularly interesting to note that the Brady Center is intended to prevent HANDGUN violence - but Jim Brady was shot with a RIFLE...]

  My plan gives law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, and the public health community some of the tools they need to reduce gun violence.  These tools include strengthening of the background check system [how's this going to work against people who STEAL guns for their acts?] helping schools hire more resource officers and counselors and develop emergency preparedness plans, and ensuring mental health professionals known their options for reporting threats of violence.  And I direct the Centers for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence - because it is critical that we understand the science behind this public health crisis.  [oh - mass shootings are a "disease" now?  How's that work?  Is it viral?  Bacteriological?  Fungal?  Prions?]  From improving mental health services [essential, but let's not get Draconian about it] to looking more closely at a culture that too often glorifies violence [true - but this has to be addressed in both popular entertainment AND newsmedia!] we must leave no stone unturned when working to keep Americans safe.

  As important as these steps are, they are not a substitute for action from Congress [I think Congress has done enough, thank you.]  To make a real and lasting difference, members of Congress must also act.  As part of my comprehensive plan, I have called on them to pass some specific proposals right away.  First, it is time to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun.  [But what about anyone trying to STEAL a gun?]  Second, Congress should renew the 10-round limit on magazines and reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban [10rd mags?  Pointless.  "Assault weapons" ban?  Make sure you know what you're talking about, first.  I should write a primer...]  We should get tougher on those why buy guns with the purpose of selling them to criminals, and we should impose serious punishments on anyone who helps them do this [already illegal Federally and probably in all 50 states - cf: "straw man purchases."]

  These are reasonable, commonsense measures that have the support of the majority of the American people [again, I somehow doubt your proportion.]  But change will not come unless the American people demand it from their lawmakers.  Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, out communities, and the country we love.  We owe the victims of heartbreaking national tragedies [here we go again!] and the countless unheralded tragedies [STOP THAT!] each year nothing less than our best effort - to seek consensus in order to save lives and ensure a brighter future for our children.

  Thank you, again, for writing.  I encourage you to visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime to learn more about my Administration's approach.

Sincerely,
(signed) Barack Obama

-----     SNIP     -----

Oh, I'm going to have to work on this one as well - and dig up some relevant sections of Federal law.  Gimme a bit...

I'm not sure I want to check the link cited, but I really should.  I'll probably find more holes to correct...

The part I can't figure out?  If this is supposed to prevent CRIMINALS getting hold of guns, why does it make it more difficult for people WITH NO CRIMINAL INTENT to get them?

Public safety my ass.  "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining - I'm not as stupid as you want me to be."

Any ideas, Dear Reader? 

Nothing has quite the persistence...

Of a wrongheaded notion.  I refer you to CA SB622, which is taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages.  Apparently, it's moving forward - there's the response I got to a form mailing to State Senator Jim Beall (CA-15):

-----     SNIP     -----

Mr. Kelley,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to Senate Bill 622, Taxation: Sweetened Beverage Tax: Children's Health Promotion Fund.  I want to take this opportunity to apprise you of the latest action taken by the California State Senate.

I supported Senate Bill 622 when it came before me in the Senate Government and Finance Committee. SB 622 did receive enough votes to pass out of this Committee and is currently pending before the Senate Health Committee, of which I am also a member.

While we may not agree on SB 622, I appreciate your input and hope you will keep me informed of your views on this and other legislative issues of concern to you.

If you are looking for information including the text of bills, analyses of legislation, or my voting history, I encourage you to explore the Legislative Counsel's website at www.leginfo.ca.gov.  This site is extremely helpful and is available free of charge.

To receive updates on bills throughout this session and sign up for my monthly newsletter visit: www.senate.ca.gov/beall

Best regards,

Jim Beall
Senator, District 15

-----     SNIP     -----

  Oy.  And just how is this tax (eve if it's only currently set to one cent per fluid ounce - but it's not like THAT is set in stone...) supposed to help to "change behaviour" or "promote health?"  I've got other ideas:

- Stop using "high fructose corn syrup" as a sweetener - it causes more trouble than cane sugar.  Go back to sugar - I happily pay a bit extra for Pepsi Throwback because IT TASTES BETTER (and it reminds me of some of the more pleasant times in my childhood.)

- Stop using aspartame as an artificial sweetener for diet drinks.  First-stage metabolite of aspartame?  Formaldehyde.  Remember getting pickled frogs to dissect in HS bio, if you're old enough?  Yeah - they were pickled in formaldehyde.  Dead people have their blood replaced with formaldehyde ("embalming fluid") so they still look good for open-casket a couple of DAYS later (yeah, they're also kept in a fridge - but that won't preserve any sort of look.)  You expect me to believe that drinking something that turns into FORMALDEHYDE is healthier for me?  At least sugar/HFCS can be burned off by activity - if someone slips me a diet drink, the pain in my head (acute rapid-onset formaldehyde poisoning) makes me not want to do ANYTHING.  Especially if it's daylight outside - makes me photophobic (instead of simply nocturnal.)  Last time someone slipped me a diet soda, I ended up in our spare room with all the lights turned off, wibbling to myself for about three hours.  From TWO OUNCES.

Yeah.  I wanna drink diet drinks.  I just don't know if I want to do it BEFORE or AFTER I loan my head out as an anvil to a large, energetic blacksmith for a 14-hour day...

- Taxes haven't changed behaviours.  People still smoke, no?  I quit when Luckies hit two bucks a pack out here - smokes in general are up around five, and they still move.  Yeah.  THAT worked.

- Prohibition don't work worth a shit either - haven't we learned the lesson of Amendment XVIII and Amendment XXI?  All that did was firmly entrench the underground criminal economy and stick us with NFA34 and (eventually) BATF - had to give all those "revenooers" something to do - couldn't just make 'em go do something productive for a living, right?  So, even if a prohibition gets lifted, we're still likely to be worse off than we were before.

- Some of us actually drink cola drinks to self-medicate.  Making the amount of coffee I'd need daily is a pain (although I do supplement my Pepsi with strong coffee.)  Why?  I've had a headache for the last six years (Post-Traumatic Headache of Unknown Etiology,) and it makes the migraine I had back about 1994 look like a mild irritant.  My neurologist told me that she was trying migraine meds on me because PTHAs respond in similar ways to migraine HAs.  Mine?  It responds to caffeine (normally) and nicotine (when it gets bad - but I have a cigar, so that may be a psychosomatic effect.  When I have a good cigar, I tend to relax.)  The amount of caffeine I need to keep my headache under control probably approaches LD50 on most days - drinking enough diet cola for that will make me dig my brain out with a spoon (it takes far less formaldehyde to make my head hurt WORSE than caffeine to make it hurt LESS.)

My response to Senator Beall will take a couple of days, I need to formulate a reply.  Any suggestions?

Well, at least she was on topic...

Dear Mr. Kelley:

 

Thank you for contacting me with your support for H.R. 35, the Safe Schools Act. I appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts with me. 

 

I support the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms. While I understand the desire to take all steps possible to keep our schools safe, I have many concerns about the unintended consequences that could arise from having armed personnel in our schools. H.R. 35 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. As a senior member of this committee, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind if this bill is brought before the full committee for debate. 

 

Although we may not agree on this issue, I encourage you to contact me about other issues that interest you. Again, thanks for being in touch. 

 

Sincerely

Zoe Lofgren

Member of Congress 

-----     SNIP     -----

No, we're not likely to EVER agree on this issue - after all Rep. Lofgren is a Democrat (as is nearly every other "elected" California official.  No, I'm not a Republican - I'm NPA, somewhere off to the Right of the Libertarians.  Can't help it - the purpose of the government is to punish transgressions of social order and against people, but the powers of government MUST be limited to favour the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, save where such rights are used to harm another.  NO-ONE has the "right" to harm another - and I can accept this.  However, if you believe you have a misplaced right to harm me - or another anywhere near me, don't think I'm not going to use whatever force is necessary to stop you.   Stop taking away the tools I need to defend myself or others!)

Anyhow, my response to Rep. Lofgren -

-----     SNIP     -----

Representative Lofgren -
  Thank you for getting back to me WRT HR35 - "The Safe Schools Act." 
  While we obviously disagree on the methods, I'm sure we agree on the desired result - a decrease in violent acts perpetrated by miscreants.
  However, I think we can also agree, upon examination of historical evidence, that disarming the populace at large WILL NOT WORK.  It hasn't yet - one need only refer to Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, or New York City to see that this is so.
  Einstein once popularly defined "insanity" as "doing the same thing the same way, over and over again, yet expecting a different result."
  Every time something else like this happens, we get the reflexive "we need more laws!" response.  If the laws we had in place didn't work, how will MORE be of any help?
  And, why does any firearms control proposal we see coming down target the otherwise law-abiding, seeking to make criminals out of people with NO CRIMINAL INTENT whatever?  They - we - are not the problem.
  Moreover, it has been borne out in law throughout the history of the United States that the State has NO duty WHATEVER to protect the individual.  This is a principle found in English Common Law (upon which much of our early law was based,) to the creation of the office of "Sheriff" about 600 years ago - the original duty of the Sheriff was to the STATE, not the individual.  The only time the interests of the individual and the state intersect, WRT personal defense, is when the interests of the State are served by the protection of that individual (for example, material witnesses in major trials.)
  Since the State has no duty (express, implied, or derived) to protect the individual member of the body politic, then the body politic MUST be empowered with the choice and the ability to protect itself.  No other conclusion can be logically reached.
  As I see it, there are two possible solutions:
1) Make schools something akin to fortresses.  Keep kids locked down all day, don't even let them outside for recess.
  Know that I do NOT favour this approach!  We don't need to be raising children in a climate of fear, it would be far more damaging to their psyches, in the long term, than any single incident could be!
2) Empower and train school staff to "repel boarders," as it were - to deal with threats to the student body rapidly, decisively, and precisely.  Such training would be easy enough to implement; and a handful of faculty or staff, empowered & equipped to handle such threats, would have much greater response times than would waiting for the police.
  Let us refer to Sandy Hook - Lanza went in and started knocking the place down, then shot himself after some five minutes or so had passed, yes?  However, the PD response wasn't even ON SCENE for at least fifteen minutes - at which time, the threat had neutralized ITSELF.
  Now, if they had had, say, an armed & trained individual there in maintenance (which would make sense - maintenance workers are everywhere, move about at random, and have access to pretty much everything,) it is quite likely that Lanza would have been stopped COLD within a minute or two.
  Waiting for PD response involves first CALLING the PD to MOUNT a response.  Then they have to get there.  Then set up their C&C.  Then 'assess the situation' before mounting a response.
  About the only way you can get an active PD response inside of a half-hour is if they were ALREADY ON SCENE - with that sort of time before an effective response could be mounted, one could go through and kill most of the people in a school building with a simple baseball bat!
  This is also why expecting the PDs to secure the individual is impractical - they have to be called, they have to get there, they have to figure out what's going on, and THEN they can respond.
  I'm already there, I already know what's going on (since I'm in the middle of it,) I have already worked out a few different responses, I merely need to pick one.
  PD response time?  5-20 minutes.  My response time? 2-10 SECONDS.  Now, put yourself in that sort of position, and tell me what you would prefer (no driver, no security detail - just you, on the street somewhere.)
  I have nothing against police officers - I have plenty that I am proud to call friends.  However, the typical "beat cop" is really little more than a HISTORIAN - becoming involved AFTER the situation has reached its conclusion (satisfactory or no.)
  Given a choice, I'd rather be able to mount an effective response myself, since I have the duty that the police do not (and, if I don't exercise that duty to the fullest of my ability, that is MY choice.  However, I do not wish to have that ability artificially capped through the action of law.  The bad guys don't follow such laws - that is precisely why we call them "bad guys!")

  As always, I welcome further discussion on this topic.  It is impossible to have a "meeting of the minds," if the minds never meet.

-JDK

-----     SNIP     -----

(No, I signed it with my proper name.  But, I don't see a need to repeat that here.)

We'll see what comes of it.  I don't expect much - but, as they say, "hope springs eternal..."

And now, from the "What?" file... (NSFW-L)

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-will-teach-americans-to-budget-responsibly-no-joke/

(Disclaimer - I have not watched the video, I wish they would give text summations as well.  But, the IDEA of this set up enough cognitive dissonance that we had to talk about it.)

Seriously - what?  Fucking WHAT?

What, pray, does Obama know about "living within a budget," or "budgeting responsibly?"

Yes, I know that budget bills and suchlike are supposed to originate in the House, but they must cross the President's desk for approval or dismissal - he's the last stop.

Meanwhile, I think the first proposed budget in four years is finally approaching his desk (haven't had one get approved on his watch yet!)  Hasn't stopped the spend, tho.  Pet projects, "guaranteed loans" to "green" businesses (that have since folded - Solyndra?  A123?) increased welfare spend - and yet Pelosi says we don't have a spending problem?

I think we do.

I further think that, if Obots are silly enough to follow the advice of their Dear Leader (which I can only infer from his policies,) we're going to have a massive uptick in bankruptcy filings in the next couple of years or so.

The fact that there is still a large segment of the population that is silly enough to think he's doing a good job - after the past four years of fucking up pretty much everything - is particularly worrisome to me.  Seriously - what's wrong with people these days?

I will agree...

That smoking less will help.

I can agree that many people need some help to stop.

But, when will we stop putting people "in charge" (they're not supposed to be, but that's the way it always ends up) that insist on making people miserable for their own good?

Bloomberg's latest asininity: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bloomberg-latest-anti-smoking-push-require-stores-hide-174231138--politics.html

At least his soda ban got overturned.  I'm not sure his heart's in the right place on any of these - but I'm pretty sure he's not doing any proper thinking before he proposes & enacts this abject silliness (I can't quite classify it as "weapons-grade stupidity," but legislative stupidity is almost invariably stronger than the typical individual idiocy.)

Some people never learn...

Amazing, isn't it?

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-minimum-wage/  (Google for more.)

When are these imbeciles going to learn that raising minimum wage harms most the people it's purported to benefit, and the only people that really win are the people who collect the taxes?  I think this is something that EVERYONE needs to learn - government & public alike.

Discuss.

The English NHS is held up as a model... (NSFW)

For Obamacare.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-203452/Ambulances-reject-999-callers.html

Now, they're trying to triage incoming calls to determine whether an ambo crew is really needed - or if it's just the typical waste of resources by users.

Do we want to head in this direction as well?  Frankly, I blame the people on this one, more than I do the regulators.  It's similar to people going to an ER for the sniffles here - and end up getting sent home with an order for rest & fluids, because we have a cure for ZERO viral diseases (and most URIs, the common cold, and the grippe are all viral in origin.)

It's just as bad - because now you've got people running to the ER, and exposing people who are already actually ill to another viral illness - when their immunities are already compromised due to genuine major illness or trauma.

People, everything is not a fucking emergency!  Chances are, you can stay home and save us all the trouble & risk, and save the resources of the ER for the people who actually need them - and can get beneficial use out of them!

I think this is the direction that socialized medicine is doomed to take, until people get out of the "entitlement mentality" and learn what constitutes a genuine emergency and what does not.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/03/11/obamacare-may-bite-you-at-the-vets-office/

Further deponent sayeth not.

Except - tell me again why this is such a good idea?

Oh. Your. God. (NSFW)

http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/03/hillary-michelle-dream-ticket-in-works/

Are you fucking kidding me?!?

Clinton - who should have faced impeachment for moral turpitude (not so much due to the extramarital affair - if it's mutually agreed-upon, that doesn't bother me.  But, lying about it and covering it up is a problem.)

Obama - who should damned well be facing trial for treason, usurpation, and crimes against the Constitution.

Now, their wives are the "Democrat Dream Team" for 2016?

HOLY SHIT!

I'm  not sure what worries me the most about this:

- The fact that they think they have a chance at running?

- The fact that the Democrats think that their running is a good idea?

- The fact that there is a largish percentage of hollow-headed piss weeds that would vote for them?

-- That they'd get votes simply for being women?

-- That they'd get votes simply for being a Black woman and a White woman?

Considering the sort of things their husbands were up to, I think we can figure out what they'd try to do to this country.

People, we've got to wake up!  "God save the Republic" - but we've got to help!  God can't do it alone...

Discuss.

Disclaimer:

It occurred to me that I should so one, so here goes:

- Not all posts will be 'work safe' - primarily due to language used (if I feel deeply about something, I should emphasize that.)  I'll try to warn you in the title.

- Most of the opinions I express here will probably be unpopular.  Why?  I'm a Draconian son-of-a-bitch, and I have heavy-duty opinions.  Deal.  I've seen the worst of Man's inhumanity to Man, and I'm pretty far from the real nadir.

- Not all of the opinions I will express here are even mine.  Why?  Sometimes I'll take an extreme point of view in an effort to blast you out of your complacency and trigger some independent thought.

- I'm perfectly willing to entertain opposing viewpoints.  I'm also willing to be convinced if I'm wrong.  However, simply telling me I'm wrong, or just disagreeing me, is NOT going to work.  Put some effort into it - an argument is not formed from the automatic, knee-jerk reflex gainsay of a position!  If you're not willing to put some thought into articulating your disagreement, I don't want to hear it.  TALK TO ME.

I am articulate and intelligent.  I am also rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.  I have strong opinions, but they are not fixed - they are indeed subject to change.  Are you willing to put forth the effort to convince me?

I don't have a theme for this blog because life doesn't have a theme.  The closest I get to a personal life theme is "up to eleven" - beyond that, things change too much!  This is just what I'm thinking about, what I see that I like, or what pisses me off - and offering a solution (after all, if you can't offer a potential solution to the problem, you don't understand the problem.  Again, "you're wrong!" is not an acceptable answer.)

Welcome aboard.  Did you bring your helmet?  Watch for flying objects!

-JDK

DST Yet Again...

I am so tired of this nonsense.  It doesn't do anything useful, it won't do anything useful anymore, it screws with people, it screws with traffic twice a year (for about a fortnight at a time,) it screws with productivity, and it needs to stop.

Pick a time - I don't care which - and let us leave our clocks alone!

I don't care that many clocks are radio-synchronized or Internet-synchronized, I'm not going to drop $300 on a watch so I don't have to play with it - I'll probably screw it up anyhow (I can't wear digital, and battery-powered analogue watches are only good for 5-6 years for me.)

I grew up in Indiana without DST, and came out just fine.

Then that damned fool in Washington a few years back got the dates moved because "it puts a smile on people's faces."

You want to put a smile on my face?  Make the whole idea go away!

I'm about to throw all of my clocks on Zulu and leave them there - just remember what the current offset is.  Only problem with that is my wife doesn't think that way, and it would screw her up (it's taken her this long to get used to my thinking on a 24-hour dial...)

A Few Words on Littering...

"Littering is bad, m'kay?" [/MACKEY]

However, it still gets done.  And we get stupid laws put in place to "prevent" it - like San Jose's bag law - new this year! 

- Stores may not hand out plastic bags AT ALL anymore (takeout food shops are exempt.)
- Only paper bags may be offered.
- These bags must be from a source that certifies some percentage of post-consumer recycling (I don't recall how much.)
- Offered?  Yeah.  If you're smart, you bring your own bags.  If you don't, you can buy bags with your groceries - bags are ten cents each.  They say they're reusable, but the handles don't work and the bags tear.
- The merchant must purchase the bags, but funds raised from consumers buying the bags go to the city.
- And, it still doesn't address the basic problem - people throwing shit out the window.

Although I don't think that's the biggest source of litter.  Other sources?

- I'm always picking up stuff that people threw out on the side of the street into my yard!  At least a good chunk of it is CRV, so I do pick up some nickels with the trash (I have a very aggressive recycling programme here at home.  If I were allowed to run a small incinerator, and the City were to properly mount its kerbside recycling programme, I'd have a landfill footprint of ZERO.)
- People keep sticking business cards or flyers in my front door, or hanging them on the knob.  On laying them on the front stoop.  I know how to use Yellow Pages - dropping stuff in my lap like that is usually a good way to make sure I don't get anything from you!  And, it's been known to blow around.  Whose fault is it when it ends up in the street before I get home?
- People putting things under the windscreen wipers or in the beltline weatherstrip on my car door.  This Really.  Pisses.  Me.  Off.  It's invariably for items, services, or events I have no interest in, and don't care if they happen or not.  This leaves me with a few options:
-- Yank it out and drop it.  As far as I'm concerned, the person who put it there was littering, he just wasn't committed to the job.
-- Yank it out and handle it myself.  Why should I be forced to do your job?
-- Yank it out and ram it up your ass.  I would, but the person who put it there is usually long gone.
(I don't know why, but putting some BS like that on my car is a bigger pisser-offer than sticking it on my front door!)

And let's not limit "litter" to material objects?  How about pop-up adverts online?  Just more crap you don't want that you have to deal with.  I'd also include SPAM in that list, but that's more like "postage due junk mail" than anything else ("junk mail" because that's exactly what it is.  "Postage Due" because the sender doesn't have to commit any resources to getting it out.  At least regular junk mail is something that pays the Postal People...)

Whatever happened to the days when advertising was inoffensive, and could be readily ignored?

Discuss.

My full-time job...

Seems to be rapidly becoming writing letters.  Here's another I just put out:

-----     SNIP     -----
Senator Darrell Steinberg

State Capitol, Room 205

Sacramento, CA  95814

Senator Steinberg;

     I note with dismay a large number of measures being proposed, theoretically in an effort to “curb firearms violence,” but I feel that these measures will achieve little more than making criminals out of people with no criminal intent whatever.  Is this what our system of law is meant to do?

     I refer you first to your own website - http://sd06.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-02-07-proposals-curb-gun-violence

     Fixed Magazines (Senator Steinberg.)  Once again, we’re trying to ban firearms based on features.  While a fixed vice a removable magazine is not strictly a “cosmetic” features (as the incredibly asinine criteria of “bayonet lugs” and “thumbhole stocks” are – even “protruding pistol grips” are more cosmetic than functional,) it is still silly to ban a firearm – or a class of firearms – based on features.  Or at all.  What was once the work of visionaries is now simply the work of craftsmen – once it’s known to be possible, much of the hard work is done.

     High-Capacity Magazines (Senator Hancock.)  Why the arbitrary limit of ten rounds?  How is limiting firearms to ten rounds in capacity going to serve to help anyone?  Maybe if, in the middle of a home invasion committed by one or two people, ten rounds of ammunition would be useful.  Confronted by a group with nefarious intent?  Not so much.  If a ten-round limit is so useful, then the police should be limited to ten rounds as well (given their track record, I think they need the magazine capacity ban more than private citizens do…)

     “Bullet Button” (Senator Yee.) Wants to ban a magazine catch that is easier to work?  This is the same mentality that would ban vehicle makers from using “double-cut” keys that can be inserted into the lock cylinder with either side up, I think.  What, honestly, is the point of this?  Is Senator Yee merely trying to justify his paycheque?

     Redefining Banned Shotguns (Senator Jackson.)  “New technology of a shotgun-rifle combination?”  Senator Jackson sounds more like she’s from Hanna-Barbera than Santa Barbara.  First, combining a shotgun and a rifle in a given firearm is not at all new – it’s called a “drilling,” and has been around at least since World War Two.  These were in common use among African game hunters as backup firearms in the 1920s and 1930s, often combining a mid-weight rifle (analogous to, say, the .308 Winchester) and a 12ga shotgun barrel.  The Taurus Judge mentioned (firing .45 Colt/.410 shotgun) merely takes advantage of the coincidence that the two cartridges are roughly equivalent in critical dimensions.  This makes for a firearm that would be quite useful in snake country.  However, by rifling the bore, the shotgun loads become useless rather rapidly (shot load dispersion and rifled barrels simply don’t get along well at all – you get a “donut” shaped pattern, and it becomes too dispersed to be of any use whatever beyond 10-20 yards, depending on shot size and charge density.  These firearms are hardly any “more dangerous” than anything else.)

     Ownership record of all firearms (Senator Steinberg.) Isn’t that what the CA DROS and BATF Form 4473 are for?  Are you losing these records?  Perhaps you should work on recordkeeping and filing, instead of passing a new law (that will do little to nothing to actually help the problems.)

     Gun Loans (Senator Block.) Providing a firearm – through transfer, sale, or loan – to a “prohibited possessor” is already a violation of state and federal laws – a felony, I believe.  So, why do we need another law?

     Ammunition Purchase Permit (Senator de Leon.) And what is to prevent the capricious denial of ammunition purchase permits, just as CCW permits are capriciously denied here in CA?  How will this help?  Possession of ammunition – as possession of firearms – by “prohibited possessors” is already illegal, once again.  We do not need a duplication of law.

     APPS Expansion & Enforcement (Senators Leno & Steinberg.) I am unable to find information on APPS in a casual search – but I assume this is yet another database listing people, probably persons prohibited from legal ownership of firearms under state or federal law, as a state reference.  If so, this seems to have the same potential for misuse or overuse as the TSA “No Fly” list – and can people find out what they did to find themselves on the list, or are they left to guess, if there was no obvious cause?  What “other crimes” are proposed to be added?  Why add DUIs?  (While I honestly don’t think that DUI is punished harshly enough in this country, I don’t think stripping rights is the way to go.  Fifty lashes would be more appropriate.)

      Firearms Safety Certificate (Senator Block.)  While I think people should be trained & safe with firearms, I think that forcing a license – and forcing annual renewal of same – isn’t the way to go.  However, I offer this compromise: if the requirements for the Firearm Safety Certificate (FSC) are to be similar to the requirements for CCW, then the CCW should be replaced by the FSC entirely.  Having a valid FSC should constitute permitting for carry of a concealed sidearm in California.  And, the FSC should be freely available to anyone who wishes to take the course, no argument about eligibility or cause, and the fee should be reasonable (in no case, more than $50, say, for a four-year license.  If annual renewal is to be required, then the fee should not exceed ten dollars.

     For a blow-by-blow of commentary on another site - http://offgridsurvival.com/californiatobansemiautomaticguns-confiscatefirearms/ :

Banning Possession of magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds: You have just made criminals out of a few million people who have no criminal intent whatever, and you have deprived them of real property without due process – or, I suspect, compensation for same.     

Possession of Hollowpoint bullets a felony:  Did you know that the original purpose of a hollownose projectile had nothing to do with wounding or killing potential?  By shifting weight from the core of the projectile to the rim, gyroscopic stability was increased – which lead to much less “wobble” in flight, and a straighter ballistic path.  Yes – hollowpoint bullets were originally developed for accuracy in competition marksmanship!  As far as “assault bullets” – I’ll leave this alone until I know what you’re talking about, because I can’t figure out what you mean here.      

Ammunition purchase permit/background check – See previous comments

Registration & reporting of ammunition purchases.  Limit to 500 rounds.  Dumb idea.  Take one guy with a .22 rifle who enjoys plinking – he can go through a good thousand rounds in a single outing!  He harms no-one, but you’re going to take that hobby away from him?  As far as permitting to purchase ammunition, see comments above

Gun owners licensed like drivers. See previous comments.  However, if you’re going to make me get a license, then that license should not restrict me in what firearms I can purchase – meaning that Form 4s for Class III/Title 2 and AOW would no longer be an obstacle.  After all, I can take my driver’s license and essentially buy whatever new or used vehicle I care to, yes?

Magazines not grandfathered.  Possession of a magazine manufactured/purchased prior to the ban a felony.  Something about ex post facto laws comes to mind here – and how they’re not permitted under Constitutional law.  Again, you’re making criminals out of people with no criminal intent.

Prohibited possessors can’t live in a house with a firearm, even if they don’t have access to it.  Yet another dumb idea.  Now, you’ve effectively made two people felons, through “constructive intent.”

Expanding the list of crimes that would bar a person from firearms possession.  Again – what are you proposing to add?  Why?  What justification are you using?

Senator Steinberg, I implore you to first compare the incidence in homicide in Chicago against the incidence of combat deaths in Afghanistan over the last ten years to see the “beneficial” effect gun control legislation has.  Or compare crimes against the person before-and-after firearms bans in England and Australia.  Then, do a similar comparison for Kennesaw, Georgia.

Final question – “Steinberg” is a Jewish name, is it not?  Recall the lessons of history – what happened when the Jews were no longer allowed to own firearms?  How many were killed?  Or rounded up and put into ghettoes, and left to die?  I would honestly hope that, of all people, the Jews would see the fallacy in firearms control legislation – although given the typical sources of such, I am forced to wonder.  Many of these proposals come from people with Jewish surnames.  Perhaps you should spend some time speaking to the leaders of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership?  Their founder (Aaron Zelman)         left us a few years ago, but I had the good fortune to have met him – and to have learned a few things from him (and he did not mind that I am a Scot, rather than a Jew.)  I haven’t had occasion to interact with their new leadership – but if they’re cut from the same cloth as Mr. Zelman, nearly anyone would find much to learn from them!  I have had occasion to interact with many Jews over the years, there are quite a few I have been proud to call friends, and most of the Jews I’ve known have shared one common characteristic – a keen knowledge of history and an aggressive desire to not repeat its mistakes.

Senator, I am at your disposal if you should wish to discuss these matters.  Due to a roads incident a few years ago, I keep bizarre hours – so electronic mail is easiest.  I have provided my address at the top of this letter.  I realize that I am not one of your direct constituents – but as a resident of California, what you do does have some effect on me.  Also, our son and his family live up in the Sacramento area, (our other son and his family are local to us here,) so you can see where my vested interests lie.  I find it odd that no-one ever seems to want to discuss these matters, but I am hoping that this trend eventually reverses.  I often feel that no input is accepted from dissenting voices, when such policies are crafted.

------     SNIP     -----

Per usual, I will post any replies I get.  I lose hope for a bloodless revolution as time goes on...

Another reply from Feinstein -

Dear  Mr. Kelley :

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation.  I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view. 

 

Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life.  From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings.  I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available.  These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged. 

 

I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings.  Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms , District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited.  That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both  before and after the  Heller decision.   I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate. 

 

Once again, thank you for your letter.  Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues.  If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. 

-----     SNIP     -----

And, my reply.

  

Senator Feinstein;

  Thank you for your reply - however, I still have issue with a few things.  I hope you won't mind if I apply some corrections?

  "Assault weapon" - Derived from "Assault Rifle," most likely, it should be noted that assault rifles are already subject to Federal control, under the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.  Part and parcel of the definition of "assault rifle" - one of the defining characteristics per the defining agency, the Department of Defense - is the ability to fire multiple rounds with a single trigger action, via either a "burst mode" (three- or four-round burst fired with a trigger pull,) or the ability to fire fully automatic.  This falls under the umbra of "select fire" - which means that the safety selector will have at least three positions: SAFE, FIRE (semi-automatic), and AUTO or BURST.  Therefore, firearms like the M16, M16A1, M16A2 (SAFE/FIRE/AUTO,) M16A3 (three-round burst) and M16A4 (four-round burst) are classed as "assault rifles," while firearms like the AR-15 (semi-automatic fire mode only) are not.  "Assault rifle"/"assault weapon" is a term that has been misappropriated by the press - and then politics (or the other way about?) - to elicit an emotional response for more laws that are genuinely not necessary.

  Yes, mass shootings are a problem in society.  Any sort of mass killing is a problem - but why are we so heavily focused on firearms?  If I drive my car through a storefront and kill fifteen people, will we then start calling for a ban on automobiles?  If I should wade into a gathering and beat a dozen people to death with a section of 2x4, will we hear calls for "lumber control?"  Probably not - in either case, the focus will be where it belongs, which is on the perpetrator.

  We need to focus more upon the perpetrator of the act, rather than on the tools used.  Citing the above examples, there is a single element of consistency - whatever method is used to kill, the victims are just as dead.  The difference?  If they're run over, beaten to death, thrown off of a cliff, locked into cages & starved, or whatever - your focus will be (correctly!) on the perpetrator.

  If people are shot; then, for some reason, the focus is on the firearm - and not the person holding it.

  Two problems here:

1) A firearm is an inanimate object.  It has no will, desire, or animation of its own.  It is just as inert as that 2x4 or that car that I mentioned earlier.  Why is it treated so differently?  I've heard the argument about firearms being "designed to kill" - that argument could be made about literally any other object used to kill.  A firearm is a tool, just as much as a computer, or a card index, or a wrench.  It may be used for good or for ill - and that difference is the intent of the user.

2) All of this focus on firearms speaks of an irrational fear.  Tell me, Senator, have you been shot?  Is that the genesis of your fear?  Many people fear what has harmed them.  By that logic, I should be afraid of a great deal - firearms, knives, automobiles, rocks, whatever.  Just about anything & everything has been used, at one time or another, to cause me harm.

  But, I don't fear any of it - because I make the distinction between the tool and the user.  As many times as I've smacked myself in the thumb with a hammer, you'd want to think that I wouldn't get anywhere near them anymore.  But, I have a broad assortment of hammers (for various tasks,) and I use them fairly regularly.

  I've been stabbed.  Am I afraid of knives?  No!  I carry one on a daily basis - it's a tool to me.  I've used it to feed myself, I've used it to help me repair things.

  I've been struck by vehicles - a number of times.  By now, I should be paralyzed with fear at the prospect of getting anywhere near a car, no?  I'm not.  I'm still a very good driver, and I have no particular fear of vehicles.

  So, I ask again - were you shot?  Is that the origin of your fear of firearms?  It's a genuine question - and I am minded of your argument a long time ago when trying to push through a ban on .50 caliber firearms - "they can penetrate armored limousines." 

  Senator, if that's what you're worried about, perhaps you should examine /why/ people might want to fire on an armored limousine? 

  However, I will offer this compromise.  If We The People don't need firearms (for whatever reason) - because your overarching aim is to eventually ban all of them - then /you/ don't need them either.  Not only should /you/ not be allowed to carry - or own - a firearms (what is good for the goose is good for the gander, no?) you should also forego the need for armed bodyguards - private or public.  Go on about your business as you would have us do - alone, relying upon yourself and your hands & wits for your own defense.

- No additional security at any of your offices.

- Dismiss security at the Capitol Building.

- No bodyguards.

- No personal firearms.

- No body armor

- No armored vehicles.

  As I learned a long time ago, leadership is best defined using two words - "Follow me."  As an elected official, you are expected to lead.  Lead by example.  Show your faith in your constituents.  Walk about in public - alone and unguarded - and actually talk to the everyday people.  What you find out may be quite educational! 

  If you don't trust people enough to be able to do that simple action, it may be time for self-analysis to figure out why you don't trust anyone.

  Walk alone among your constituents - let us see that you can.

  As far as mass shootings, wholesale violence, and the like?  Handle that the way you would handle any other mass killing - focus on the perpetrator, not the tool.  (Rather like the "War on Drugs" - you people have that backwards as well.  Instead of trying to cut the supply - when someone always ends up filling the void - you should be working on demand.  Find out why people are doing drugs, and correct that.  Then, the supply will dry up on its own!)

Jon D. Kelley
San Jose, CA

-----     SNIP     -----

I feel like I'm going after a lunatic asylum with a banana; but it is our right to ask these people what they're thinking, and if I don't make an effort I simply do not have any right to bitch!