Since it appears that many physicians are now inquiring about firearms in the home per President Obama's executive orders, you may find the this useful.
My favorite blog is at it again-- a brilliant analysis of Obama's inauguration speech. Consider this passage:
The economic “rights” asserted by Roosevelt in his second Bill of Rights and by Obama in his appropriation of the principles of the Declaration differ and conflict with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness asserted in the Declaration. They are claims on the liberty of others. If I have a right to medical care, you must have a corresponding duty to supply it. If I have a right to a decent home, you must have a duty to provide it.
This is the best article in existence concerning explaining why gun-control doesn't work.
EDIT: fixed the link. Mobile app didn't link it.
Today, President Obama gave his remarks upon the occasion of his inauguration into a second term. I've undertaken some commentary from selected portions that are notable either for the dishonesty (Obama saying what he doesn't believe) or for their insight when Obama says what he *does* believe.
Here is his speech, with clarification by yours truly.
Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:
Each time we gather to inaugurate a President we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they’ve never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. (Applause.) The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.
And for more than two hundred years, we have.
It's hard to square this with Obama's history of class warfare rhetoric-- singling out "millionaires and billionaires" for extra taxation while expanding exponentially the number of people dependent upon government largesse. Obama doesn't believe in a a government "of the people." No, he believes in a government of the right kind of people." These are people who know that government is a a source of incredible good, who know that man is basically good and that injustice happens when government corrections are withheld. People who know that the planet is warming and that it the "other people"-- the wrong kind-- have to be saved from themselves, because they will use too much gasoline or electricity or might do something unsafe, like eat too much fat.
Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.
Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers.
Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.
Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.
We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. So we must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.
We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. (Applause.) For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.
The government (that thing we all belong to, remember?) will take the lead in remaking the labor market. Again, the free market is inadequate to do so. You'd think that when a nursing shortage drives wages through the roof, it would create incentive for people on their own to turn to nursing and alleviate that shortage. But you'd be wrong, because only the government can remake our labor market, apparently.
"But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future." Hence, the trillion-dollar deficits that are evidence that no one is making ANY choices. Choices only come from scarcity the allocation of a fixed quantity of resources. As long as you can borrow with impunity and your economic advisers assures you that having debt greater than your entire GDP is ok, then certainly no one *will* make any hard choices. Obama is essentially saying that he rejects the idea of demographics, that we can have our cake, eat it too, and no one will ever have to pay the bill.
Obama's last line is insulting and frankly a lie. Does he think that no one ever had any comfort in old age until Social Security was invented? No one ever saved until the government made them do it? Finally, does Obama actually believe that there was no such thing as charitable support for the disabled until a government program came along? Of course he does. Obama hates private charities because they compete with government do-gooders. Thus, the sleight to private charity is likely intentional.
It only makes sense to a depraved mind.
This is about how I feel...
I pose the question in the context of the overall economy. I intend to demonstrate that there are some long-term benefits that unemployment can bring-- which is not to deny the short term hardship that is all too real to many Americans right now.
If you were a business owner and had to let someone go due to slow business, whom would you let go? I would suggest that the person who was let go was the person whose presence added the least overall value to the enterprise. They might be the least productive person in a higher paying job, or they are they are an otherwise capable performer doing work of the least value in your operation.
You may like the person who collects all the trash, but it turns out that you can have people take their own trash to a common receptable (like they do at home). Maybe this person gets fired.
What happened to the overall productivity per person of your business? It went up! More money is now available to invest in the folks that add more value.
And that person who lost his job may decided to go to school and gain some skills that allow him to do some work that is more valuable.
Maybe that's what Obama is thinking about growing our economy through high unemployment!
Today's WSJ has an excellent article on a particular gun ban that proved to not work at all-- the ban in Washington DC.
Two particular passages must be mentioned:
The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.
What about after the ban was struck down? Apocalyptic rises in crime? Actually, no.
Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. The decline resulted from a variety of factors, but losing the gun ban certainly did not produce the rise in murders that many might have expected.
The only thing a gun ban does with 100% certainty is infringe upon the rights of the law-abiding. There is no clear evidence that correlates more gun regulation with lower crime rates. The data is at best inconclusive.