Gun Control Laws Are Missing the Target.

     Additional gun control laws are being deliberated now.  It is too soon to be making these decisions after recent tragedy. They would leave law-abiding citizens defenseless. Many new restrictions have come because the public misunderstands the meaning of “assault weapons.”

     Plenty of time needs to be taken when a decision is to be made that affects many people; in order to think it through to make sure it is the right thing to do. Acting out of emotion or on impulse can be detrimental, especially when it affects the entire country. The President is trying to get Congress to pass the law because of tragic events that have happened. The entire country is heartbroken over these tragedies but see different solutions. Just as in the time following personal tragedy it is advisable not to make any major decisions, these national tragedies have happened too recently to be deciding something of this proportion. The emotions involved are too effecting and can blur the truth of good reasoning.

     The President, and those in Congress who agree with him, strongly believe that controlling guns means that there will be fewer murders in the United States. Statistics show that murder rates actually tend to be higher in places with tight gun control laws. These laws disarm the good people who follow them. This leaves law-abiding citizens vulnerable and defenseless against criminals who have guns in spite of controlling laws, because for some weird reason, outlaws, by definition, don’t really follow laws. Where is there logic in trying to form laws to reign in those who are already outside of the law? Shouldn’t we instead more strongly enforce those we currently have by prosecuting the lawless? 

     Some people think that assault weapons are the same thing as automatic weapons. They would be wrong. For one thing, fully automatic weapons were banned decades ago! The press is often uninformed about the differences in guns. Then, they refer to both fully automatic and semiautomatic guns as fully automatic assault rifles. Fully automatic and semiautomatic guns work very differently. 

It seems to me that we are approaching this entire ordeal from the wrong angle, at the wrong time, and for the wrong reasons. Even if they did pass a stricter gun control law, it would not do much good, if any, in situations similar to the recent tragedies. 

Comment on a colleague’s blog

On Katy Kullenburg's "GOVERNMENT: Past & Present":

The first issue that jumped out at me when I read this was "one of the main points in the constitution is the freedom of religion and separation of church and state." Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the separation of church and state? Guess what, it doesn't! The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." The only thing the constitution says about religion that might lead people to believe that what Thomas Jefferson said refers to that phrase in the Constitution is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."(First Amendment)

Now I would like to address the statement “although they say that it is completely wrong because it is what is stated in the bible there are many many scriptures which ban certain things that people practice anyways.” The verses about beards and mixed cloth have to do with Jewish rituals. Other verses that state laws that people “break,” such as in Leviticus 11 where God tells them what they can and cannot eat, are resolved later, as seen in Acts 11:5-10.

I understand what you meant when you said “Although this would be a valid point for a Christian it has absolutely no meaning to someone who is not.” For a society to survive, there must be some level of morality. If people don’t realize that what they are doing is a sin, why would they feel guilty about it? It makes me think of something I read once: “Gun laws would prevent shooting sprees? Please tell me more about how criminals follow laws.” I think that is a somewhat similar idea.

Just because people break God’s law doesn’t justify breaking others.

Should the Federal Government Have Their Nose in Local Schools?

The No Child Left Behind Act, passed by the Federal Government, is a bad idea. This sounds good, but it is bad. It has brought plenty of trouble to those who teach. The government has set too many rules and regulations. These rules and regulations require great amounts of paperwork. Too much paperwork distracts from teachers being able to actually teach. There are too many tests. Teachers have to teach to the test instead of teaching basics: reading, writing, and arithmetic. The federal government does not need to make blanket requirements. There is so much pressure in these tests that children are fearful that they will fail. They think that if they fail, they won't have any future.

We need to return to the basics. Teach children to read and make sure they accomplish this before moving on. Teach basic math, not always trying to bring in "new math."

It is not necessary to teach social issues in school. Attempting to teach social issues in school is faulty because there is no morality base any longer from which to teach. Instead, they should teach the basic truths of education that served our country for so long. The proper social issues stem from the teachings of the Church or religious institution. Unfortunately, our country has turned from such foundations and removed them from schools and our society is paying the price.

Bilingual education is not necessary. Just teach students English. It will benefit the children in the long run if they know English. When one must teach bilingually, each student loses part of what is taught because the teacher uses half the time teaching in one language and half in another. Students have so much homework because the teachers can't take the time to teach it thoroughly in class. Then, many suffer because they can't understand it on their own. Teachers should make sure the students know English before advancing them to other studies. We are in the United States of America and English is still the language. Perhaps students would not suffer from grammar problems if teachers were given the time to emphasize its importance.

Then there is the issue of financial responsibility in education. Having more money and putting an iPad in the hands of every student will not inspire good education. Too much money is thrown at education and too much ends up in the hands of the administration instead of the classroom. Allow States and local governments to make local reforms that are best, and chose how to utilize their local funds. The current economic climate should show the federal government to keep hands off of local decisions. It makes me glad to be homeschooled. Dr. Benjamin Carson is a fine example of a minority student who came from a single-parent home, who achieved great success as a renowned neurosurgeon. He credits his mother with “making him read.” Our society tends to blame others if they do not succeed and we have lost the “can-do” American spirit. Winners take resposibility; losers blame others. May we return to the America in which each citizen takes personal responsibility for behavior and success.

Sequester or Soliloquy?

This article,  “The Administration’s Thin Complaints About the Sequester” by Megan McArdle, deals with the sequester. What was happening with this sequestration was that the White House was predicting it to be much more terrible than it truly is. It reminds me of two children’s fairy tales: “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’” and “Chicken Little.” “A big ferocious wolf is about to attack the sheep!” and “The sky is falling!” seem to be the messages they want us to hear so they can spend however much money they want. Everyone panics and rushes to save themselves from the threat.

  

In this video, “Obama Warning About Sequestration,” Obama states that, “Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks causing delays across the country. These cuts will cut back medical science for a generation. The threat of these cuts has forced the navy to delay the deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf affecting our ability to respond to threats in an unstable part of the world. If these cuts go through, almost eight hundred thousand defense employees…will be forced to take an unpaid leave.” 

 “The president’s aides had to scramble to come up with reasons why the president could be correct, without actually knowing the facts.” “This is not the first time that the administration has been caught making grossly exaggerated claims about the impact of the sequester.” “These were not [teacher] layoffs, but rather “transfer notices” sent to 104 Title I teachers for reasons unrelated to the sequestration cuts.” “The administration is having a hard time finding concrete examples of bad things that the sequester is going to do.”

In this video, “Obama Myths of Sequestration Panic Debunked,”

Obama states in November of 2011 that he wanted sequester (automatic spending cuts that would reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion) to go through. He spins 180° by February of this year and describes the sequester as “brutal spending cuts.” The President is crying wolf.

Michael D. Tanner, Cato Institute Senior Fellow, makes these comments about Obama’s warnings. “Cuts aren’t even across all areas of spending, so domestic discretionary spending takes a hit of about 9%, returning us to the spending of 2009. This is mainly in defense spending, but it is projected that in 6 years we’ll be right back where we are today. The pentagon will still spend far more in inflation-adjusted dollars than at the height of the cold war.

There will be pain for those directly effected by these cuts and communities that depend on these federal paychecks, but these cuts amount to 3/100 % of our Gross Domestic Product. If we can’t cut federal spending by that amount without tanking the entire economy, then we are as bad off as Greece.”

Therefore, I don’t believe the sky is falling, though there may be some wolves in sheep’s clothing in Washington.

State's Tax Reform

  This article, "States tackle tax reform when Washington won't," deals with three topics: seven states now make ends meet without income taxes, unshackling businesses from crippling income taxes would lead to job creation, and considering tax reform at the federal level seems more necessary, yet more unlikely than ever.  All this means that the states are beginning to take the initiative to try to get our country out of the fiscal hole because the federal government won't.

  Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming have done fine without income taxes. Tennessee and New Hampshire have income taxes, however, it is only on capital gains or dividends. This status has only affected the people in these states in positive ways. There are more jobs, better jobs, and the potential for a higher income per capita. Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska, and North Carolina are considering replacing their state's income tax with an expanded sales tax.

  For states without corporate tax, from 2002 to 2011, Wyoming, Texas, Nevada, and Washington, on average, had an annual economic growth that was a full percent higher than the other 46 states. Due to the slight differences in each state’s proposals, each state would have different results. There is evidence from the "Tax Foundation" that these states do and will prosper.

  From the business side of it, as stated in this article, unshackling businesses from crippling income taxes would lead to job creation. Lower taxes for high-income taxpayers will potentially increase economic activity and employment. That lowers taxes for job creators to create jobs, and do so quickly. Inasmuch as the national unemployment rate is 7.8%, the hope of more, and better-paying jobs is highly welcomed. For example, a proposal to eliminate income taxes and replace them with consumption taxes in North Carolina could lead to between $14.4 billion and $25 billion more in personal income over a decade. An additional $1,500 to $2,600 of income per employee would be received with excitement.

  Federal tax reform may be necessary, but more unlikely than ever. However, these states and their governmental leaders should be applauded for considering the eradication of income tax. What could happen is the implementation of a federal sales tax or a federal flat tax. Everyone pays tax in federal sales taxes. It is a fairer tax, as anyone in the country would pay as they purchase. A true federal flat tax would tax each person at the same percentage with no deductions or adjustments. It could eliminate the need for the bureaucracy of the IRS.

  The founding fathers did the right thing by giving states the right to change things for the people’s good. There is still hope for the country to recover. The states are utilizing their right to pass laws for the common good whether the federal government does anything about it or not.