Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
We were entertained by Trump-hats reading, “Make America Great Again.”
Then incredibly creative minds came up with:
Major Gun Rights Bill Headed for Republican Congress
Posted On 09 Jan 2017
Conservative voters are counting on Donald Trump and a Republican Congress to protect the Second Amendment, but a new bill from North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson could indicate a much more aggressive agenda for the 115th Congress.
Hudson has introduced a national reciprocity bill that would force every U.S. state to recognize concealed-carry licenses issued in other states – a law that gun-rights groups have wanted for years.
The right-wing always is hyper-concerned about states’ rights, unless the states actually use those rights. Then, as we have discovered, shooting rights are far more important than any other rights.
“Your driver’s license works in every state, so why doesn’t your concealed-carry permit?” Hudson asked in a fact sheet accompanying the bill.
Uh, well . . . could it be that the citizens of some states don’t want a bunch of lunatics carrying guns everywhere?
The purpose of the bill isn’t necessarily to change local and state laws by federal decree, but rather to prevent situations where gun owners are arrested for unintentionally violating another state’s laws.
Actually, the purpose of the bill IS to change local and state laws by federal decree. That’s the whole idea.
It has the support of the NRA, which released a statement approving of Hudson’s legislation.
What a surprise. The NRA favors guns over states rights. The NRA favors guns over all rights.
“Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines,” said the organization’s Chris Cox. “This is an extremely important issue to our members and we thank Congressman Hudson for leading the fight to protect our rights.”
Yes, what could possibly go wrong with gun-runners . . . uh, people carrying guns across state lines — even into airplanes, for instance? Of course, that never would happen.
The bill should have no trouble passing the House, but it could run into problems in the Senate where Republicans have a much slimmer majority. Passing legislation requires 60 votes, and the GOP only has 52 seats under their control.
There are a few Democrats who could potentially be persuaded to support a bill like this, but we’ll see. The party is in fight mode right now, so it may be obstruction as far as the eye can see.
What?? A political party devoted solely to obstruction? Whoever heard of such a thing?
Democrats would actually do themselves a big favor by supporting this bill, though. It’s a harmless law and it’s common sense.
The party could find a way to support it without dropping their gun control messaging, and it would be an olive branch to gun owners after the disastrous Obama years.
Yes, just a harmless little law. Hardly even worth discussion.
And the states still could have gun control, except they couldn’t control guns any more than the most gun-crazy of all 50 states.
Yep, other than that, the states would have complete control.
But wait, why limit it to state law. How about a law to force every U.S. city to recognize concealed-carry licenses issued in other cities.
So, if Flaming Nape, TX, passes a law requiring every citizen to carry a gun, all American cities would be bound by that law.
After all, your driver’s license works in all cities. We don’t want gun owners arrested for unintentionally violating another city’s laws, do we?
Unfortunately, there’s no indication that Democrats are interested in pulling themselves out of the far-left bubble they’ve built for themselves, so don’t hold your breath.
Oh, that terrible “far-left bubble” — you know. It’s the “bubble” that brought America the disastrous Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights bills, anti-poverty bills, equal education, the Voting Rights Act, aids to the arts, urban renewal, rural development, etc. — all that “far-left bubble” stuff the right-wing did its best to protect America from.
But those rights don’t compare in importance with the one BIGGEST right — the right to shoot at someone who pisses you off, kill a few innocent bystanders, and claim self-defense afterward.
That’s what the founders meant when they wrote “well-regulated militia.”
Question: What problem is this law intended to solve? Not enough guns in America? Not enough shootings in the most gun-crazy nation on earth? Not enough deaths and woundings from bullets?
Have millions more guns really protected us as the NRA promised? Have millions more people carrying guns made us safer? Does the idea even work?
So, O.K., let’s just do it. Begin with allowing “law-abiding” people to carry a gun into Congress.
Then, if that seems to work without problems, then later we can expand it to allowing “law-abiding” defendants to carry guns into trials. (Why not? They haven’t yet been convicted of anything.)
Follow it up with allowing “law-abiding” people to carry guns into statehouses and into governors’ mansions, and “law-abiding” visitors to take guns into jails, and “law-abiding” kids to carry guns to kindergarten.
Baby steps, first — as long as they’re “law-abiding.”
Let’s keep America gory.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..
•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.
•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
•Deficit spending grows the supply of money
•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..
4 thoughts on “Restore American Gory”
Thanks for deflating that FOX News bubble again. It’s always a pattern with these clowns. They try to indoctrinate the Millennials into their pile of crap. When I only had a high school diploma, I was very much a conservative and a right-libertarian, but shifted much more and more to the left overtime, and no I did not major in the liberal arts to the dismay of many who like to play that strawman. When I was even younger, I considered myself a diehard Democrat.
Their dumbass strawman arguments are always “Socialism!” and “stop spending my money on lazy people.” Just look at this pitiful attempt to try to debunk MMT from one of these people. Ironically this person claims to LOVE empiricism and advocating for people to study in STEM and join the military. It’s a video from a little while ago but had been bothering me for a while. A whole 40 minute plus video on trying to debunk undeniable fact. Elizabeth if you’re reading this, I think you’d get a kick out of it. It was from 2 months ago when Mike Norman got a ton of heat for his article on TheStreet.com.
‘…bothering me for a while.’
Aaron Clarey = same old tired rebuttal(s).
You’ve heard them all before:
‘Zimbabwe (just 30 seconds into the video!),Weimar, Rome, money printing, the Fed buys, Treasuries are a hedge, lose reserve currency status, rollovers ad infinitum, robbing Peter to pay Paul, when Aaron Clarey borrows from Bill, yadda,yadda, yadda…’
EH serves up a nice, VALID analysis of Mike Norman shortcomings (pre Street.Com article) right here:
E.H. is an interesting psychological study. She understands the implications of Monetary Sovereignty and the “Gap,” while at the same time denying the Holocaust and admitting she “hates Jews.”
I suppose that demonstrates one can be wise in some areas and a total idiot in others.
Does it get any funnier than this?
Now what could possibly go wrong with that?