New Rant about Tea Partiers

Is it just me, or does the Tea Party people think that they own the country? Last time I checked, they didn't. They don't even coordinate. I am sure they don't think things through.

Ben Stein said that the Tea Party guys are way off base for demanding deeper cuts. I agree with Ben Stein. If we were to cut off spending the way some of the Tea Partiers envision, we would be putting too many people out of work. People who would vote against the Tea Party candidates. People who would have loads of time on their hands to vote down a Tea Party candidate.

Look down to see the comments. Over half of them think it is easy to cut. What they don't realize, most of the budget is on entitlements like social security, pensions, medicare, medicaid, welfare and the like. Direct payments to people.

This pie chart shows just what the budget spends. Now, if we do cut out a good portion of this by slashing everything, there better be a full two years before a new election. Otherwise there is going to be a huge group of people pissed off. Most of them will vote TEA partiers out in a second.

Right now, we have the elected Democrats in a precarious position. They have made too many changes. They have been too restrictive towards all businesses except their select few. They have been arrogant and unresponsive. And they have threatened the businesses who haven't left with more regs and taxes.

This has demoralized their base and destroyed most of the good will they have accumulated over the years. Now, we have the Tea Partiers and the recipients of government largess. If the recipients of government largess get in their minds that voting against Tea Party Candidates keeps their goodies coming (and so far they haven't), they will make sure that the ones that promise the goodies stay in charge.

The Tea Partiers still don't have a chance in hell if the people who usually stay at home and don't vote but get most of the money decide that it is time to flex their muscle. The bad economy and the poor employment rate and the stupid things said by the Democrats have combined to create the notion that the Democrats shouldn't be running this country. That can change overnight.

The Tea Party is the largest winner so far, but in truth it has been long PR campaign. Forcing the US to default is not too bright just a year and four months out. It give the Democrats time and room to portray the Tea Party People as loons. A fantastic beautiful uprising will have been wasted because these people can't restrain themselves.

Concealed Carry Laws

Concealed Carry Laws usually involve the applicant supplicating the state for the permission to carry a hidden fire arm. It is promoted as a safety thing, a data record of people who could possibly be carrying a gun for the cops. It is so that cops won't hassle people who feel it is necessary for them to carry a concealed weapon. A taxi driver for instance.

It usually involves onerous responsibilities for the supplicant to carry out while in order to keep a hidden gun. One is announcing to any cop who approaches that he is armed. Dumb question, Doesn't that fly in the face of common sense. A person goes through expensive training and effort to obtain a permit. He or she then allows personal information on to a data base accessible to any cop (assuming the cop can read) on the fly with the computers that permeate our culture now. Why does this person need to tell the cop then? Safety says the general public. Safety for who? Safety for the Cop. He is supposed to know this, he has it available. Ah, maybe he really doesn't know. Why then the coolio database and the rigamarole of training courses if the cops aren't going to access it? Kinda stupid hunh? Also kinda stupid for the cop to not assume that the person he is stopping doesn't have a gun. The cop is paid for risking his life. No one held a gun to his head or threatened legal action if he didn't take the job on the police force. Also, I haven't heard that there is a draft for police men. So, why the overblown concern for the safety of an officer?

I understand that the cop is in a tough situation. He is being asked to blindly stop people when he sees something that is amiss. But is he really that blind? Something is amiss. Out of the ordinary. Car tags out of date, a woman standing outside a car late at night, a car with a driver matching the description of a bank robber. Surely a cop doesn't stop a car simply to stop a car. So the cop isn't that blind. I do think the cops sometimes are willfully ignorant, but that is something for a later date.

As it stands right now, if a cop stops a CCW person, and the person doesn't immediately tell the cop he or she has a gun, then the cop has the right to arrest this person and take him to jail. This is assuming the cop has given the person a chance to announce to all and sundry the fact that he is carrying a concealed weapon. A fact that the person had wished kept silent, for what else the need to have a concealed weapon.

How soon is immediate? Two nano-seconds? Three? Five? Or is it in seconds? Minutes? Hours? At first possible chance? Kind of gray area there.

What happens if he forgets, the cop doesn't see the gun and nothing was found to be out of order? Then he informs the cop that he has a ccw permit. Can the cop arrest him then? Should the cop arrest him? Nothing else was found amiss. It is a technical violation of a questionable statute.

I also have a problem with the asking of a state the permission to carry a weapon. Concealed or not.

Consider the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

At no point in this amendment is there an exception about weapons concealed or not. To be a little fair, it was assumed back then that the stupid man was the one who didn't carry a gun.

The demand that people apply for a concealed carry weapons permit is a liberal nostrom usually with some sort of skid in it that makes the permittee work overtime in getting it. The skid is to stop people from getting and bearing guns. Or make it normal for a person to "ask the state" permission for a right they already have. It then makes it easier intellectually for the state to demand they give up their guns.