BUCKEYE FIREARMS: Stay up-to-date on gun laws, politics, and events. Plus get the Grassroots Action Guide FREE!
Gun control, an already difficult task, just got even more difficult. The 3D printing revolution is well under way. This wonderful new technology will allow small companies and even individuals to manufacture a wide range of items, such as medical devices that fit each individual’s unique size and shape. However, it is increasingly obvious that guns and gun parts can be made, even including entire assault weapons. Unfortunately, the initial regulatory proposals will likely increase crime. As usual, new technology is hard to stop, and the Department of Homeland Security last week declared: "Limiting access [to 3D-printing to make guns] may be impossible." Until now the stumbling block has been to design a gun that would be sturdy enough, something that can withstand the explosion when a bullet is shot down the barrel. In other words, you don’t want the gun to go off like a grenade in your hands instead of hitting the target. . . .
Oprah Winfrey fired some political shots during a commencement speech at Harvard University on Thursday. . . .
Winfrey went on to address gun control, arguing that “the vast majority of people in this country believe in stronger background checks.”
“Because they realize that we can uphold the Second Amendment and also reduce that violence that is robbing us of our children,” she said, referencing the Sandy Hook shooting last year. . . .
Moving on to immigration, the talk show host endorsed “a clear path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants who reside in this country.” . . .A discussion on the problems with background checks is here and a discussion on the political support for them is here. At least if one is going to go heavily political at a university, one hopes that the speaker has something deep to say, not warmed over generalities.
By PHILIP ELLIOTT -- WASHINGTON (AP)- - The Associated Press' president and chief executive says the government's secret seizure of two months of reporters' phone records has already had a chilling effect on newsgathering, a week after the subpoenas were revealed publicly.
In his first television interviews since the AP reported the Justice Department seizure, Gary Pruitt on Sunday said it has made sources less willing to talk to AP journalists and, in the long term, could limit Americans' information from all news outlets (emphasis added). He called it "unconstitutional" and a violation of the First Amendment.
''The people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know and that's not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment,'' he said. In a separate interview Pruitt said, ''I can tell you we are positively displeased and we do feel... violated.'' http://tinyurl.com/nmmd9jk
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Still clueless even after government agents "violated" them, the AP leader (and his minions judging by their ongoing behavior), believes government interference might restrict news the American public gets, and that the "news" machine's cozy relationship with government isn't already among the main limitations on information the public receives. "Chilling" effects on reporters is such a remote factor it is hardly worth mentioning.
"The public is actually lucky that government agents illegally collected a ton of information from the AP," said The Uninvited Ombudsman, "as this woke up that slumbering giant to the normal levels of abuse the public routinely faces." Awakened and outraged, the AP may actually do something, where it otherwise snores so loudly you can't hear its mind-numbing banter. Government overreach and rights violations in Second Amendment issues are legendary and well known, despite news blackouts.
Reporters, especially AP reporters, are already one of the greatest restrictions on news the American public gets. See, for example, any of these 123 reports: http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm.
For grotesque ethical violations in the "news" that are fun but infuriating, look here: http://www.gunlaws.com/NewsAccuracy.htm.
Anything outside the approved mainstream narrative is suppressed or distorted beyond recognition, a fact known by anyone who carefully follows a subject of interest to them. The AP is famous for taking government handouts and spoon-feeding them to the public with no reporting whatsoever.
Among the most abused and suppressed areas of news, as readers of Page Nine know, are anything not left of center, such as firearms, religion, abortion, taxation, Tea Party activity, classical economics, classical education, Western civilization, capitalism, public morality, the entertainment industry, the purpose of government or even the news media itself. The most basic political questions are never even asked: http://www.gunlaws.com/the%20liberty%20poll.htm
Using a popular media technique, we could take Pruitt's words above out of context, and use them to summarize the standard model of AP reporting for many stories: "The people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know." That's an exact quote. An accent might provide some clever color, just for fun: "Ze people of ze United States vill only know vat ze government vants zem to know." Maybe not so funny.
Seoul, South Korea -- North Korea fired three short-range guided missiles into its eastern waters on Saturday, a South Korean official said (emphasis added). It routinely tests such missiles, but the latest launches came during a period of tentative diplomacy aimed at easing tensions, according to Sam Kim, reporting for the Associated Press. The story was picked up by every major mainstream news outlet. http://tinyurl.com/ayz7u3q
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The United States had South Korea make an announcement to the AP, for reasons that were unclear, about North Korea's routine test firing of missiles. The U.S. typically makes such announcements, and frames the context. In this case, the launches were described relative to "tentative diplomacy" aimed at easing tensions.
It is the U.S. that monitors all North Korean missile launches from our ground-based visual, radar, radio, infrared and microwave monitoring stations, as well as seismic, piloted, drone, naval and satellite observations posts, and from spies all around North Korea. Most of South Korea's monitoring capabilities are directly tied to U.S. support.
"There is always a reason why the U.S. allows its allies to make reports instead of doing it directly, but it's unclear why they let the South Koreans do it this time," a knowledgeable observer pointed out. The lapdog AP reported the report that was reported, without reporting, in typical "news reporting" fashion.
In other news, U.S. agents chose to inform the AP directly that North Korea withdrew two mid-range "Musudan" missiles recently, and pointed out that the North is banned from ballistic missile launches under U.N. Security Council resolutions, as if that's meaningful. Why they didn't have the South make this announcement was also unclear, but the AP dutifully carried the handout they were handed.
No one involved pointed out that these U.N. resolutions are meaningless wastes of paper, ignored by everyone and serve no purpose other than to fill newspaper space, thereby contributing to deforestation and global whining.
A little-noticed part of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act channels some $12.5 billion into a vaguely defined “Prevention and Public Health Fund” over the next decade–and some of that money is going for everything from massage therapists who offer “calming techniques,” to groups advocating higher state and local taxes on tobacco and soda, and stricter zoning restrictions on fast-food restaurants.
The program, which is run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has raised alarms among congressional critics, who call it a “slush fund,” because the department can spend the money as it sees fit and without going through the congressional appropriations process. The sums involved are vast. By 2022, the department will be able to spend $2 billion per year at its sole discretion. In perpetuity. . . .
A group of anti-abortion activists in Iowa had to promise the Internal Revenue Service it wouldn’t picket in front of Planned Parenthood.
Catherine Engelbrecht’s family and business in Texas were audited by the government after her voting-rights group sought tax-exempt status from the IRS.
Retired military veteran Mark Drabik of Nebraska became active in and donated to conservative causes, then found the IRS challenging his church donations.
While the developing scandal over the targeting of conservatives by the tax agency has largely focused to date on its scrutiny of groups with words such as “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, these examples suggest the government was looking at a broader array of conservative groups and perhaps individuals. Their collective experiences at a minimum could spread skepticism about the fairness of a powerful agency that should be above reproach and at worst could point to a secret political vendetta within the government against conservatives. . . .