Thursday, January 31, 2013
Rand Paul: “Over-The-Top Aggressive Foreign Policy” Isn’t Conservative
Sen. Rand Paul appeared on conservative talk radio host Bryan Fischer’s show on Wednesday and denounced a conservative foreign policy that he views as “over-the-top aggressive.”
Asked how he would “evolve and adapt” the Republican party, Paul said, “One of the things that I think really may scare away some people is sometimes our discussion of foreign policy is about, oh, well we need to bomb this country, or no, I would bomb them before you would, or I would bomb them the day before yesterday, or I would bomb them into oblivion.”
“I don’t think that’s necessarily a conservative point of view,” Paul said. “That sort of over-the-top aggressive foreign policy doesn’t have to be really a conservative or constitutional point of view but it scares some people away from our party.”
Paul called for a party that emphasizes “strong national defense as a deterrent to war, but not eager for war” and said it was important that “we don’t appear to be the party that’s eager for war.”
“That’s what I mean by evolving.”
Paul is due to give a foreign policy speech at the Heritage Foundation next week, where he “will discuss his vision of a foreign policy that respects the plain language of our Constitution, the legal powers of Congress and the proper duties of the Commander-in-Chief.”
What Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun?
I would like to propose a scenario for you.
For the sake of argument, let’s just say the gun control people get every item on their gun grabbing wish list. We then have a ban on 151 different weapons deemed as “assault” weapons or in some way “militaristic.” Larger magazines are a thing of the past and every firearm has a clip that can only house 7 bullets. Every weapon is registered and no citizen own one without going through a strenuous background check. Gun shows are no more and private citizens will have to go through a 3rd party dealer to sell their own property if it happens to be deemed a weapon by our federal officials. Let’s say all of the other laws that gun control advocates would want to pass, trampling on the 2nd Amendment as they go, are signed into law.
My question is simple. Will you then be able to guarantee tragedies like the ones in Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and the other horrendous tragedies would never happen?
If you are answering honestly and with consideration of all the facts, the answer is no. You would never be able to make the claim that a child would never again be killed or that a mass shooting would never occur. The fact is that you can never fully stop evil from being evil. No laws can protect you from the obsessions of a person who is set on doing the unthinkable to you or I.
In Sandy Hook, the shooter Adam Lanza, broke 50 laws before arriving at the school and murdering those children and administrators. To take it one step further, murder is already a crime that has yet to stop these massacres from happening. Enacting more laws will not persuade the reprehensible form happening as it is only the law abiding citizens that will follow the laws. In essence we are just stripping the rights of the well meaning citizens to try to control the actions of the uncontrollable. If there was a law that would eliminate evil people form taking the life of another, the laws and strict penalties against murder should suffice.
No, Mr. Vice President. Cops Today Are Not ‘Outgunned.’
I suppose it’s no surprise that Vice President Joe Biden was put in charge of President Obama’s gun control initiative. Biden has always been an innovator when it comes to finding new reasons to put people in prison, and for longer periods of time.
He’s also long been a law-and-order guy. Back in 2009, he assured a gather of prosecutors and police officers that Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor “has got your back” — a stunningly tone-deaf thing to say, given that a Supreme Court justice is supposed to protect and uphold the Constitution, even if that means occasionally ruling to limit the power of law enforcement. (Fortunately, he was wrong. Since her confirmation, Sotomayor has arguably been the Court’s most reliable defender of the rights of the accused.)
Biden has also long been a champion of the federal COPS and Byrne grant programs that have contributed to the massive rise in SWAT teams across the country — and have given rise to drug war debacles like those in Hearne and Tulia, Texas. Obama and Biden campaigned on refunding both programs and indeed, under the Obama administration both programs have been funded at record levels.
Last week, Biden again invoked the law-and-order theme in calling for a federal ban on assault weapons. From USA Today:
UNION LEADERS’ EPIPHANY LEAVES THEM SCRAMBLING: WAIT, OBAMACARE IS GOING TO DRIVE UP OUR COSTS?
Imagine the following scene:
A handful of union bosses crowd around a card table, punching numbers into their calculators. They’ve been up all night. Someone puts on another pot of coffee and a few of the older bosses are starting to fall asleep. Those who are still alert and active scratch their heads and re-enter their calculations.
“Oh, my gosh!” one of them concludes at the end of the all-night exercise. “‘Obamacare’ is going to cost us!”
Yes, according to a recent report from the Wall Street Journal, union leaders (i.e. the same people who campaigned tirelessly in favor of universal healthcare) are trying to figure out a way to avoid paying for the costs associated with “Obamacare.”
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
IF ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’ ARE BAD…WHY DOES DHS WANT TO BUY 7,000 OF THEM FOR ‘PERSONAL DEFENSE’?
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56×45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.
The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56×45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56×45mm NATO rounds.”
Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.
Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban. The bill would ban more than 150 firearms and limit magazines to 10 rounds. There is no expiration date on Feinstein’s bill.