I have been hearing, A LOT lately, about how the President and Democrats want to limit the magazine size of guns to less than 10 bullets. This has become THE BIG NEWS STORY since the tragic massacre in Newtown, by a psychologically disturbed madman who killed his own mother and stole her guns to perpetrate the slaughter in a gun free zone.
“Why We Must Ban High-Capacity Gun Magazines” – Huffington Post
“Gun control advocates target high-capacity magazines” – USA Today
“Obama gun control plan riles Hudson Valley critics” – Newsday
“Emanuel Calls Obama Gun Laws “Common Sense”” – NBC Chicago
I’m positive that you can find many, many more articles, but these give the basics. Obama wants to ban “high capacity gun magazines.
“For years, gun control advocates have tried to ban high-capacity magazines, arguing they have no place in civil society.”
“The proposed legislation would impose a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines”
I’m sure you get the argument, I mean, NO ONE NEEDS more than 10 bullets for “self-defense“!! Here is a quote from the President:
“…while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.”
Don’t you see, we need to save ONE LIFE!!!
And now for my opinion.
I’ll make a deal with the President, I will consider a ban on “high capacity magazines”, IF he will enact the following:
He will sign no bill into law that is longer than 10 pages. AND, he will eliminate any current law that is more than 10 pages.
I mean, who needs more than 10 pages to tell people what they cannot do?? Who needs 2,471 pages for a new law, like ObamaCare??
“But, is it really that number of pages? I don’t think that it is. It’s much, much more.
The bill is filled with references to other laws, bills, and regulations, and those references are not explained in context with the language of the bill.
(2) in subsection (c)(2)(C)—
(A) by striking ‘‘9.8 percent’’ in clauses (i)(II) and (iv)
and inserting ‘‘9.5 percent’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘(b)(3)(A)(iii)’’ in clause (iv) and
(b) COST SHARING.—Section 1402(c) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i)—
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘90’’ and inserting
(B) in subclause (II)—
(i) by striking ‘‘80’’ and inserting ‘‘87’’; and
(ii) by striking ‘‘and’’; and H. R. 4872—4
(C) by striking subclause (III) and inserting the following:
Would somebody tell me just exactly what the hell any of that means? Is there one person on the whole freaking planet that can understand that gobbledygook? I don’t think so.
Or how about this.
Replaced by section 10101(d).
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan (other than a self-insured
plan) shall satisfy the requirements of section 105(h)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to prohibition on discrimination
in favor of highly compensated individuals).
So this paragraph is meaningless unless we drag out the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and read section 105(h)(2).
But guess what? You can’t find section 105(h)(2). In an hour of searching irs.gov, I found ten-page summaries, and three-page summaries, and twenty-page summaries of that section. All from links on the IRS site that point to non IRS sources, so these summaries all had a disclaimer to the effect of “This a summary, and not the actual law, and should not be the basis of a legal decision”, or similar wording.
So, if you base a legal decision on the wording of a non IRS summary that the IRS directed you to, and some bureaucrat decides to make your life miserable, he can just blow the dust off of his secret copy of the actual document, and find something in it not covered by the summary, which you had no way of knowing, and he can stick it to you for violating a rule that NOBODY, not even the bureaucrat, knew existed before he started looking for a way to mess with you.
I don’t mean to impugn all bureaucrats. I presume that most aren’t inclined to use their power as a hammer on other people, but we’ve all encountered bureaucrats who are petty, small minded jerks who take their frustrations out on the general public for no other reason than the fact that they can.
There is not one single person on Planet Earth who can understand or explain this law in its entirety. Not even the people who drafted it, since it was drafted in pieces. You might find someone who could do a passable job of explaining pages 50 through 100, or 300 through 350, but no one who could explain it all.
The examples I’ve given are just a drop in the bucket. The bill is riddled with references to other bills. My best guess is that if you wanted to really understand the President’s health care plan, you would not only have to gather the two thousand plus pages of the bill itself, but about twenty thousand pages of other bills that it refers to.
You simply can’t understand this bill. I don’t understand it. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t understand it. Harry Reid doesn’t understand it. And the President doesn’t understand it.
So, to those people who are of the opinion that our country’s health care needs are better served with a large amount of government involvement, please think about the complexity of the bill. Why did they make it so incomprehensible? If the Obama/Reid/Pelosi triumvirate really had your best interests at heart, wouldn’t they have insisted on a bill that could be read and understood by the average person?” – Neill Arnhart
Or who needs MORE THAN 70,000 pages to tell Americans how much they need to pay the US Government in TAXES??
“The federal tax code, which was 400 pages long in 1913, has swollen to about 70,000. Americans now spend 7.6 billion hours a year grappling with an incomprehensible tangle of deductions, loopholes and arcane reporting requirements. That is the equivalent of 3.8 million skilled workers toiling full-time, year-round, just to handle the paperwork. By this measure, the tax-compliance industry is six times larger than car-making.
An incredible 82 percent of taxpayers are so flummoxed that they pay for help. Some 60 percent hire an accountant or tax preparer, while another 22 percent use tax software.
The Economist points out that “even the head of the Internal Revenue Service, Douglas Shulman, gets someone else to do his taxes.” I don’t know how the Economist reporters know that, but if that’s true it’s exhibit A in why we need tax reform.
Here’s exhibit B: The Annual Report of the National Taxpayer Advocate, who works on taxpayers’ behalf at the IRS, says that the most serious problem for taxpayers is that the IRS only answers their toll-free phones 71 percent of the time. I don’t think that’s the most serious problem when it comes to paying taxes.” – USNews
So what say you Mr. President?? Will you put a stop to the Bills and Laws that KILLING Grandmas and Babies?? How come you don’t care??
NO MORE LAWS LONGER THAN 10 PAGES!!!
Let me know what you think.