Have you heard the politician Leahy, saying that deers have more protection by limiting magazines to 6 rounds than people do? He concludes we value deers more than humans.
Let’s say some deers have more sense than some humans! But frankly, the more rounds permitted, the more respect being shown to human life.
We limit defense of it to, let’s say 3 rounds per magazine, than we are not affording more protection of life, but significantly less protection for human life.
You see, that’s the rub: Guns are for defense. Yes criminals – as always – will seek to intimidate those they exploit. It’s a lot harder to do that when the law-abiding citizen can defend themselves with high-caliber, unlimited rounds.
Stop allowing guns to be called out as attack tools. Rather, quite the contrary, they are defensive tools – protecting innocent life from criminals – and perhaps even as the Founding Fathers viewed it: protection for personal liberty and freedom against tyrannical governments that might evolve or seize power.
The logic of the left seems to make our headline meaningful. But more so is the assertion constantly made that a society bristling with guns is a deadly one. But quite the opposite is actually true according to a study cited by Ann Coulter in her recent column decrying the poor research (and I decry their lack of journalistic standards as well!) in an article by one of their hacks:
“There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws.” Ann Coulter, Human Events column.
If common sense rules (and I know it doesn’t) – government would be looking for ways to arm citizenry to prevent growth in crime and mass killings. Rarely does a mass-killer stand up to a simple pistol aimed his way.
George Wills makes an excellent point: Because the fiscal cliff deal made permanent the Bush-era tax cuts for all but about 1/2 of 1% of top taxpayers, financing the large federal apparatus liberals have in mind – is not possible. “The math” will not permit the vast expansions of federal power!
Now that’s good news! Fought it hook, tooth and nail, with a house speaker jaw boning a deaf president in private, this is nevertheless, a good thing.
Now we plunge on to another crises: The Debt Limit. Fiscal legislation originates in the House, money measures must originate with it. If it wished, it could mandate (to maintain the good faith and credibility of the United States) allow for interest payments to investors, and shut down any expansion of further debt.
It would be vetoed – of course – and a crises of “government shut-down” ensue. Only essential federal expenditures could take place. One can’t ask for a more conservative approach to spending! Hopefully government, under those circumstances, will shut down. The result of Senate inactivity, or veto should the Senate pass the bill proposed by the Republicans in the House.