Gun Control Debate Finally Settled: It Doesn't Work

Gun Control Definitively Proven a Failure, Debate Finally Over

In light of the recent strategy involving yet another school shooting and yet another balls-to-the-wall effort from democrats to exploit the tragedy to advance their gun control agenda, the debate has reared its ugly head once again for the first time since the 2004 election cycle.

Following a NOLA.com story involving yet another Tulane University student being robbed at gunpoint (thank God at least this time the victim was male, and there was no rape accompanying the armed robbery, as is typically the case), a former Tulane student who was enrolled in late 2003 and early 2004, a time period during which rapes and armed robberies of (mostly) female students walking home (or to their vehicles) from campus had reached epidemic proportions, dared to speak out against the violence against women by way of an editorial published in The Hullabaloo, the Tulane student newspaper suggesting his theory as to why so many students were being violently attacked while leaving campus.

His theory: a campus-wide firearms ban prevented students from adequately defending themselves in one of America's most dangerous cities, and one in which the criminals are keenly aware of the fact that these campus-wide gun-free zones exist. He went on to suggest that unless the university did away with the policy either voluntarily or following litigation initiated by the victims of these crimes seeking monetary compensation sufficient to account for damage to person and property, as well as punitive damages; the trend would only continue. He was right.

The week following the debut of his editorial appearing in the Hullabaloo, the paper received a record number of submissions of what ultimately were better classified as hate mail rather than legitimate letters-to-the-editor attempting to refute the student's editorial appearing the week before. An editor for the paper at the time all this was going on reportedly told the student that the paper received more than 600 total letters in response, and 450 or so by the deadline for print the following week. The overwhelming majority contained language rendering them unsuitable for print.

The week following the student's letter suggesting the gun ban on campus was if not the problem at the very least counter-productive towards any viable solution, the Hullabaloo devoted its entire op/ed page to the least vulgar of the letters written in response, published under a page-wide headline at the very top reading "Re: Peter Egan Jr".

Obviously, Kira McAllister, one of the students whose retort was published the following week, had never been raped while walking home from campus. She suggested better alternatives such as traveling in groups. Oddly enough, in an email exchange that ensued, Ms. McAllister denied Mr. Egan's request for accompaniment on his own walk home from class.

Well, with the issue back in the news both because if the attack on the Tulane student, the recent school massacre and the regime's efforts at removing the final obstacle barring the implementation of a full-fledged totalitarian police state, the story resurfaced. First, it appeared on the personal blog of the pro-women's rights student, Peter Egan. Later, a scaled-down version appeared at a social news site called Thruzt, a link to which later appeared on Facebook. It was in this Facebook status update containing the link to the story at Thruzt in which the debate was finally settled decisively, definitively and once-and-for-all.

In the follow-up post to this one, the debate that ensued will be published in its entirety for all to see. In it, each and every argument in any way related to the issue came up and was settled in favor of the pro-freedom crowd --- and by a wide margin at that. Each and every argument used to support arguments in favor of gun control was surgically dismantled with a degree of precision not seen in political communication since the heyday of Ronald Reagan.

In any case, the merits of the issue have now been decided. Anyone who wishes to may see for him or herself the extent to which from a debate standpoint, this one was quite the blowout. Anyone who believes in gun control can easily access facts that more than adequately refute the agenda-driven "studies", illogical and fallacious arguments used to support the systematic dismantling of arguably the most critical component of any free society.

After reading the entire conversation, the only way one could still support gun control is through either A) Blind Faith; B) Belligerence; or C) A desire to disarm the civilian population of a free society in order to transform it into a totalitarian state in which only police are permitted to possess weapons.

Here is the argument that decisively won the gun control debate: http://lamesubdomain.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-discussion-that-won-gun-control.html

Help Restore Louisiana's Wetlands & Coastal Ecosystem

I recently created a petition to the United States Congress (House and Senate) and the U.S. President, asking the respective bodies and the individuals in positions of leadership within those respective bodies to please commit to restoring Louisiana's wetlands and coastal ecosystem.

You can read (and sign) the petition here:  https://www.change.org/petitions/restore-louisianas-wetlands-and-coastal-ecosystem

I would very much appreciate it if anyone and everyone reading this would take just a moment to check out the petition, and if you agree with it, please also sign it. It's pretty hard to envision a scenario in which anyone would have any major objections to this goal.

Change.org|Start an Online Petition »

Wishful Thinking: The Anti-Soros

The Emergence of the Anti-Soros

As much as I'd like to say otherwise, I am not aware of anyone who appears to be maneuvering him or herself such that one day that person could serve as a counter-influence and check on George Soros' power. Not even myself :-( . Hey, a guy can have dreams though, right?

I'm going to divulge little bit about myself here for those of you readers visiting this blog for the first time, or who are simply unfamiliar with me in general, and thus are unaware of the context most readers of this blog know by way of past experiences with me.


I work about 80 hours a week on average, and sometimes more. Sure, I would like to one day be as wealthy as George Soros. While I have no doubt that should I achieve my financial goals or anything even close, I would thoroughly enjoy the money (a yacht with a harem of topless women feeding me grapes and strawberries in the Caribbean sun comes to mind), the primary reason I strive for such riches is so that I can become - for lack of a better term - the Anti-Soros.


Please do not mistake me for believing I am or ever could be Jesus Christ or his reincarnation (or ever be even 1/7777777 the man he was and is). That said, if I were to do as much good in the world as one would have to accomplish in order to earn even remote consideration for a title such as the "Anti-Soros", I'd feel much better about my chances for receiving forgiveness for my own worldly sins, which are many.


That said, I'm not an evil person, and I do have a good heart, flawed as I am. It would be nice though to be able to invest $10,000,000 into developing SmokersVote.org (a yet-to-be-established political PAC I intend to develop into an organization that at this point would best be described as the "NRA of and for Tobacco", as well as anyone else who believes in freedom-of-choice and personal responsibility.


It would also be nice to be able to take $500,000,000 and donate it to the campaign fund of GOP Presidential frontrunner Herman Cain using anonymous overseas donations of less than $200 (which is how Soros circumvented U.S. campaign finance law when he contributes roughly half of Obama's 2008 war chest).


I'd love to be able to contribute millions of dollars to Pro-Life candidates for the Unites States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate and state Governorships in hopes that someday, the right side will finally win large enough majorities in the federal lawmaking chambers and/or win the governorships of enough states to either have a law made outlawing abortion outright, have the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the unprecedented historical tragedy of Roe v. Wade, and/or accomplish the same end by way of a Constitutional amendment (which if my memory serves me correctly would require 37 states to sign on).


I'd thoroughly enjoy buying or founding my own nationwide and/or worldwide newspapers, cable networks and institutions for higher learning --- even if the investments yielded a perpetual negative return monetarily speaking which of course I would be easily able to sustain given my wealth --- for the sole purpose of attempting to revive the terminally ill profession of news and journalism, and bring it back to the fundamentals of Who, What, Where, When, Why and How, with the facts of the stories being covered actually being factual in nature, with personal and political opinions confined to the OP/ED page.


My schools would teach history (which has been absent from course curricula in America for generations across all levels of the education/propaganda system). For example, in Econ 101 at UFL (University of Fat Lester), students would be asked to write their final term paper on John Maynard Keynes and his theories regarding economics. Students who would fail to point out in said term paper the fact that "Keynesian Economics", while fundamentally-sound on its surface and in theory, and perhaps even altruistic in nature in terms of the motivation underlying Keynes' thinking (and that of the political figures throughout history who have applied Keynes' economic principles), has failed miserably in each and every single example of its actual application as a mechanism for economic planning and governance, would receive an "F" for the paper and no credit for the course.


Nature's Law of Supply and Demand would be introduced in elementary school and would be a yearly recurring theme until high school, during which it would be taught in Physics class as well as in Biology, Civics and American History. The reason being that Supply and Demand is every bit as much of one of the few natural laws which govern the universe as are the Law of Gravity and the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. The only difference between the laws from the standpoint of a physicist is that the latter two require no life, while the former must have life present in order to be applied and recognized. It is a common misnomer that the Law of Supply and Demand is exclusive to human society. In fact, this is the law that governs all life on earth, from the tiniest single-cell organisms to the most complex beasts nature has to offer, and everything in between.


Evolution is fueled by Supply and Demand. As environmental conditions (including supplies of food and the demand thereof - i.e. "competition") change over time, life forms (including plants, animals, bacteria and so forth) either evolve so as to continue to survive in an ever-changing environment or become extinct. It is this, the most natural of all the laws which govern nature and the natural world, from which the economic system known as Capitalism is modeled. Obviously, Capitalism must be slightly modified to meet the needs of a civilized human society (you can't just kill your next-door neighbor and steal his potatoes because you're hungry). However, in terms of its viability as a system providing all of the necessary components for long-term success and prosperity for nearly all involved parties - including but not limited to its own built-in system of checks-and-balances - it is unparalleled. This is especially true when compared directly with the system envisioned by Keynes, which contradicts virtually every aspect of human nature, and --- dare I say --- nature itself.


Students attending the schools and universities controlled by my hypothetical future money would be taught facts like these beginning at an early age. A tremendous emphasis would be placed on teaching students how to think (for themselves) as opposed to what to think (as most schools and universities are oriented toward). However, students who reject indisputable fact and fail to substantiate their dissenting position(s) with a logical argument that exposes one or more flaws in the established thinking would be required to spend additional time learning the principles of logic, reason and critical thinking - perhaps the most glaring deficiency of all in today's American education system, which for the past 70 years or so has been unanimously dominated by the liberal establishment (with substantial influence and significant contributions by the Soviet KGB - * see video at bottom of page if you decide to click the link).

One Thing San Francisco Got Right

As I was reading the news on my computer yesterday morning, I came across a headline in a San Francisco newspaper that would never appear in a Louisiana newspaper about a Louisiana industry or company: "Medical Marijuana Hydroponics Cultivation Company Announces Summer Products," it read.

The first line of the story was even better:

GrowOp Technology, the nation’s first medical marijuana-friendly hydroponics distribution company, announced today the launch of its 2011 summer product line up.

It has always baffled me how a state like California that is so backwards in so many ways could get this one particular issue right-on, while states in the southeastern U.S. that typically play the role of the calm, rational adult in a room full of crying children (New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc.) could get this one so hopelessly wrong.

(Neo-Nazi legislator Ricky Templet thinks he knows better than
God which of God's creations should exist and which should not.)

 So while California is allowing its citizens to enjoy their First Amendment rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (huh huh... I said penis, huh huh huh), and allowing their businesses to function free government intervention in a free market, generating revenue for themselves and the state, Neo-Nazi politicians in bankrupt Louisiana were busy turning back the clock all the way to the 1920's in enacting new prohibitions against recreational mood-altering substances.

Synthetic THC-like compounds have been an extremely popular (and until last week legal) product in Louisiana, as hard-working, tax-paying professionals and laborers would unwind with a little bit of the smokable potpourri, which they could enjoy and still keep their jobs since it wasn't illegal and didn't show up in a drug test.

Apparently, the taxpaying citizens having just a little bit of fun is more than Nazis like Louisiana State Representative Ricky Templet, who sponsored the abomination of legislation that has since become (a very bad) law.

Shame on you Ricky Templet of the National Socialist Party of Louisiana for once again seeing to it that Louisiana remains the laughing stock of the nation. Big Law Enforcement and their crooked lobbyists may increase their annual bribes to your campaign war chest, but you've done a horrible, horrible thing to the state of Louisiana and its citizens. It's a crying shame when California can honestly say that on at least this one issue, the voters and politicians of that state are more levelheaded and not nearly as irrational as a majority of members of Louisiana's state government.

War on Drugs May Work to Ron Paul's Advantage in 2012

The U.S. government's insane bipartisan position on the "need" for the War on Drugs may well be the issue that converts me into a Ron Paul supporter before all is said and done.

I've already stated my support for Government outsider Herman Cain in the 2012 Republican Primaries. However, with so many good candidates in the race, my vote will factor in performance of the respective candidates in the primary elections leading up to the Louisiana GOP Primary. Specifically, I am not going to vote for a candidate who hasn't won a primary by the time Louisiana's nominating contest rolls around, and I reserve the right to vote for a candidate who may not necessarily be my first choice based on among other things, a candidates respective standings in the race to be the party's 2012 Presidential nominee.

So while Herman Cain may be my first choice, and while I would ideally like to see him win the party nomination (and ask Ron Paul to be his running mate), should Cain fail to make a splash in the states leading up to Louisiana's primary, I may well cast my vote for someone whose campaign is in play for the nomination. My first choice among the other candidates Cain excluded is Ron Paul, who is almost neck-and-neck with Cain in the race to win over my vote. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are in a virtual tie for third, and I could feasibly see myself voting for any of these candidates should the others fall out of contention early on.

Of the four names mentioned, the one who has gained the most traction with me as a voter and Tea Party activist in the time since the 2008 elections is Ron Paul. Many of my readers may remember my cold reception to Ron Paul's candidacy in 2008, even as he took the digital world by storm with his staunch libertarian beliefs and apparent disdain for the government.

I did not consider Congressman Paul to be a serious candidate in 2008. My how things have changed. I not only would consider voting for Paul in the GOP Primary this go-round, I have an unprecedented level of optimism for both he and Cain --- two candidates who in other election cycles would have been quickly relegated to the realm of "fringe candidates" who are quickly dismissed by the media and voters alike. Typically, these candidates might get a few percentage points in each of their party's primary elections, but never come close to actually winning one.

I believe the political dynamics this go-round are markedly different from any other election cycle in my lifetime, and I think the very same positions on the very same issues and dynamics that in years past would all but disqualify men like Ron Paul and Herman Cain may not only work to their advantage this time around, but may even be significant enough to put both men into real contention.

There are just so many things wrong with the so-called war on drugs. First and foremost, the very premise of such prohibitions are un-American and unconstitutional. America's war on drugs has created a real war in Mexico pitting the nation, its government and its law enforcement agencies against drug-gang militias that have killed tens of thousands of people in the last few years alone.

How many lives must be lost before the U.S. government decides to start behaving like adults with regard to the issue? How many non-violent Americans whose only crime was pursuing happiness in a manner the U.S. government deems illegitimate must be locked up, taken away from their families, losing their jobs and any prospect of a normal remainder of their lives in the process before Americans say "enough is enough".

For all the Democrats' nefarious behavior in terms of their rewarding campaign contributors with big government contracts, bailouts and other corporate welfare, the Republicans are on-par in their support of the "Big Law Enforcement" industry, whose lobby is hell-bent on seeing to it that drugs remain illegal for the foreseeable future.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who I am confident would do everything within his capability to end this expensive and ultimately counter-productive war. In the end, that may go an awfully long way to securing my vote in Louisiana.

Author's Note:  For the record, my position regarding the war on drugs is in no way an endorsement of use and/or abuse of illicit substances. I do believe addiction in America is a serious problem, but one that is not solved by incarcerating Americans who develop addictions to mood-altering chemicals. A propensity to abuse alcohol and drugs is passed down genetically from addicts to their children. Technically, addictive disorders are a medical illness, and putting people in jail for suffering from a genetic illness seems as un-American to me as anything with which I am familiar.

Lobbyists Gone Wild: D.C. Darlings

Editor's Note: In order to fully experience this post, I recommend clicking the "preview" button on the widget below and allowing the music to play while you read through the post.

Ever wonder what happens when the Washington Monument and the Oval Office get together for a joint appropriations hearing?

IT'S LOBBYISTS GONE WILD! - 'D.C. DARLINGS'

You won't believe the things these crazy guys and gals are willing do to get into bed with congress! This limited edition 'Lobbyists Gone Wild' extravaganza contains two full hours of raw, non-stop footage that will leave you amazed and wanting more.

See what really goes on when you turn out the vote and we turn on the cameras! Watch as these crazy lobbyists try to insert your tax dollars into places you never even knew existed!

If you think you've seen earmarks ---- THINK AGAIN! This video is 100% guaranteed to shock and amaze. In it, you'll find out just how many of these wild and crazy lobbyists can squeeze together inside a single pork-barrel. You'll also find out the real story about what goes on in the nation's capital after dark.

This shocking video is guaranteed to make you question the definition of "is". As we take you behind the scenes, you'll get access to raw, uncensored footage of Uncle Sam sticking Lady Liberty with more pork than Ron Jeremy to Marilyn Chambers in "Janet of the Apes".

When you order your special edition copy of Lobbyists Gone Wild 'D.C. Darlings' FOR ONLY $9.99, you'll also receive your choice between our limited edition Lobbyists Gone Wild: 'Interns Unleashed' video and our brand-new LGW: 'Democrats Exposed' - FREE!

Lobbyists Gone Wild: 'Interns Unleashed' features two intense hours of shocking clips that show what really goes on when interns and lobbyists are left alone in a room with only a bottle of Viagra, a cigar and 2.5 trillion in foreign debt.

Our brand-new LGW 'Democrats Exposed' free bonus video features 30 minutes of never-before-seen footage from inside former Democrat Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards' room at the Beverly Hilton. We'll "escort" you behind the scenes with former N.Y. Governor Elliot Spitzer and show you exactly why former Dem. Congressman Eric Massa is known as "the back-door man". You'll even find out the secret reason why those closest to the DHS Secretary Napolitano know her only as "Janetalia". This video is only available as part of this special TV offer and is not sold in stores!

Call now to reserve your copy of Lobbyists Gone Wild: 'D.C. Darlings' and your choice of LGW: 'Interns Unleashed' or LGW: 'Democrats Exposed'. Don't wait. This offer won't be around long so call now and place your order today while supplies last!

Cost of video does not include shipping, handling or taxes. Customers must be at least 18 years or older to take advantage of this incredible offer.

[ --- DISCLAIMER --- ]

* This offer is only available to citizens of the U.S. and Canada ages 18 years and older.

* Lobbyists Gone Wild accepts no responsibility for the actions of any persons appearing in the film including but not limited to those of Lobbyists, Democrats, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Janet Reno and/or Napolitano.

* LGW does NOT endorse or in any other way support or condone smoking marijuana without inhaling.

* LGW strongly advises that persons intending to view this film first speak with a doctor or healthcare provider about this film's potential side effects. These may include: nausea, vomiting, constipation, indigestion, gastrointestinal upset, diarrhea and temporary dementia.

* The sights sounds and images included with these DVD's does not justify spontaneously moving to Mexico (or Canada).

* Surprisingly (and thankfully), "Janet of the Apes" has nothing to do with DHS Secretary Napolitano.

* Viewer (and voter) discretion is strongly advised.