No Chance for Feinstein's Gun Control; and Murder in Chicago

At least, that's what North Carolina's Third District Congressman, Walter Jones, says. Jones, during an interview on Live and Local with Raeford and Friends, doesn't give the proposed ban any chance of even getting through the Senate. Let's hope he's right.

That interview can be heard here https://soundcloud.com/raefordandfriends at least for a few days. Scroll down until you find the link "Interview with Congressman Jones".

The gun ban is not the only issue he talked about. He dealt, extensively, with women in combat roles, the debt ceiling, and more.

Moving on to guns, a hot topic these days, have you noticed that gun control freaks seem to use murder statistics in Chicago when they call for more gun bans and controls? Well, let's just take a look at those stats. The most recent ones I found were from 2011. Actually, the first six months of 2011, January to June. There were 185 homicides in the Windy City. Not sure how many involved guns, or how many of those were pistols, rifles, assault rifles or shotguns. Matters not, but one will rightly assume that most of the murders involved a firearm.

The population of Chicago, according to the 2010 census:
42% White
37% Black
26% Hispanic
...and the rest

The stats, according to the stats available, show that the killers were:
3.7% White
61% Black
35% Hispanic
...and the rest

In other words, 96% of the murders in Chicago in the first half of 2011 were committed by Blacks and Hispanics. Given that the majority of those murders involved guns, would one...if he wants to be labeled a racist or a bigot...not conclude that confiscating guns from all Hispanics and Blacks would reduce the number of murders in Chicago?

In North Dakota, by comparison, there were 10 murders STATEWIDE in a recent year. There are a lot of guns in North Dakota. Less than 2% of the population is Black.

If gun control advocates want to use statistics to prove their cases, then they should show us ALL of the statistics.

Going a step further. Chicago gangs, from the information available, are comprised mostly of Hispanics and Blacks. I can find no stats on the murders and how gangs play in them. But, I would venture an educated guess that a large number of those killings are gang-related. So, why not control gang activity with tough laws and stiff punishment? We "don't need no stinkin'" community organizers to handle tough problems in the inner city, we need tough cops, tough DA's, and tougher judges. Instead we decide that punishing 80-million law abiding gun owners who have more than 300-million guns, guns that were involved in NO murders last year, is the solution.

Typical liberal reaction to a real problem.
 

It’s NOT about raising money or taxes

 

Good for North Carolina’s new governor. He’s going about trying to cut expenses instead of raising money, i.e. taxes. Finally, a politician who “gets it”. Pat McCrory, a successful businessman, the former mayor of North Carolina’s largest city, is looking for ways to reduce the runaway spending programs across the state. It only makes sense to do that. Unlike those guys in Washington who’s only plan is to raise taxes, borrow more, and spend even more, maybe…just maybe…the McCrory crowd can get at least one state back on the right track.

That said, there are some additional steps that could be taken to make this state economically sound.

There are more than 20,000 inmates serving time in the state’s prison system. Estimates vary, but it’s generally accepted that it costs North Carolina’s taxpayers $40,000 per year for every one of these prisoners. That’s for food, housing, clothing, guards, and heaven knows what else. Ok, so, doing the math, I find that the annual cost just to keep these guys in prison is 800-MILLION dollars a year.

Can that be right? Isn’t there something we can do to reduce that financial burden? It’s a given that MOST of those serving time are repeat offenders, and that the only reason they were released in the first place was because the prison system is overcrowded. Building more prisons is expensive. We all admit that. And, none of us want that added expense. But, if you look at the big picture, an intelligent person might deduce that it would be cheaper to build more prisons than it is to catch and prosecute a formerly convicted criminal who should not have been on the streets in the first place. Stands to reason.  And, if you add up the costs for the losses caused by these denizens of society, it looks like a no-brainer.

“Losses?”, you question. Yep. A parolee who breaks into your home and steals your property causes you losses. Even if you have insurance, you lose because your insurance rates…already high because of crooks…will likely go up.

And, of course, cops have to investigate, and though they don’t make a lot of money, it still costs taxpayers who pay their salaries. And, local jails have to take care of these crooks once they’re arrested. And, there’s the cost of prosecuting them, which will likely include the cost of a public defender. All at taxpayer expense. Money that could be used for education.

Wouldn’t it be cheaper to build more prisons and keep these clowns off the streets in the first place?

Ok, so we don’t want to go to that expense. I have another solution. Why not contract with other countries to take care of the REPEAT offenders? Those we know are going to get out of jail and do the same crimes over and over again. Those who we know are going to cost taxpayers a lot of money. I bet that by soliciting other countries, allowing them to BID on the opportunity to take care of our scums, that they could do it a lot cheaper than $40-thousand a year. First, there would be an immediate savings. Second, other countries would see this as a source of revenue and it’s doubtful that they would be granting early releases. And, third, once these thugs are released, I suspect they would think twice about doing another crime that would send them back to that sort of hell.

To me, it sounds like a win-win. For the taxpayers, if not for the criminals.

More Dangerous than a Madman with a Rifle

Over the last five years, an estimated 25-times as many kids have died than were killed by an armed mad-man in Connecticut ten days before Christmas. And, it’s because our government has done nothing.

By its own estimates, the government of the United States says that some 110 children, under 10, die every year when they are backed over by drivers who can’t see them. As you would expect, most of those drivers are related to the victims.

This is one you can’t blame on George Bush. In 2008, before leaving office, then President Bush signed into legislation a LAW calling for new manufacturing techniques to provide better visibility BEHIND a car. That law went into effect almost five years ago. Since then, an estimated 500 kids have died.

You want to get mad about something, then get mad about this. The standards signed into law have yet to be mandated because of delays by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has pushed back that deadline three times — promising last February that the rules would be issued by the end of 2012. And, guess what? Not yet.

Seems to me that Transportation Secretary LaHood needs to become history. Sure looks like he is a politician who needs to find a pasture. What really sucks is that he had announced plans to retire after Obama’s first term, but is now indicating he wants to stick around for a while longer. I guess he doesn’t have enough blood on his hands. Perhaps another 500 children will have to die before he takes this situation seriously. 

Politicians certainly make strange bedfellows. Bloody LaHood is a republican, appointed to the position in 2009. If he can’t carry out one little command that, once implemented, could save the lives of as many as 100 children every year, then he should be ridden out of town on a rail, wearing a combination of tar and feathers.

Won’t happen, of course. He may be a registered republican, but he’s an Illinois politician.