2011 – Page 171 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Wasted Money: Advertising Wine & Liquor in Pennsylvania

In the last week, I’ve had two wineries run ads that popped up for me on Facebook. Â Unfortunately, it’s another example of how government regulation leads to more waste in the economy. Â How is a Facebook ad an example of wasted money due to government intervention in the market? Â Stick with me here while I explain:

Victim 1: Elyse Winery
All wine sold in Pennsylvania is governed by bureaucrats at the PLCB. According to the law, we cannot even purchase it out-of-state and bring it back in. According to the PLCB’s website, there are exactly 3 bottles available to the entire state. Three freakin’ bottles for the entire state of Pennsylvania, and they are located about an hour from here. What are the chances I’m actually going to go try their product? I would have been open to trying a new wine if a liquor store near me carried it, or there were more than 3 bottles in the entire state. As it is, I just felt sorry for the winery owners who are wasting their precious cash advertising to Pennsylvania residents who can’t even buy their wines (unless they live near the store the bureaucrats have deemed “worthy” to carry the Elyse product).

Victim 2: Gracianna Winery
The bureaucrats at the PLCB have decided not to allow us taxpayers to sample any products made by Gracianna Winery. We cannot special order (at a minimum of 6 bottles, typically), nor can we find it for sale at any retail outlets.

Victim 3: Chambord Flavored Vodka
Black raspberry-flavored vodka sounds intriguing. I first heard about it via an advertisement on a SEPTA bus driving around this area. Unfortunately, none of state stores located near the bus route actually carry the product. Anyone driving behind it would need to travel to another town to actually purchase the product. What the hell is the use of advertising it if you can’t even buy it at any of the government-controlled stores near the bus route? It’s certainly a lot more waste for Chambord than the two winery ads.

We need state liquor/wine privatization now. I realize that these products aren’t likely to appear on the shelves of any stores that will open under a private system near me. However, with market forces, I can reward those private sellers who do carry an interesting variety of wines & liquors. I realize that technically I could special order more products through my local store, but since most of the state employees around here make it clear that you are unwelcome as a customer in their store, it’s not something I’m likely to try anytime soon. If a private store was run by a reasonably friendly staff, then I’d likely approach them with requests to try new products I see advertised. Then, those dollars wouldn’t be wasted.

In the meantime, the PLCB staffers have declared war on us. I look forward to even worse service and more obnoxious employees getting in the way of my attempts to buy wine & liquor. Fortunately, the GOP has indicated they will try to have a privatization bill passed in the House by Memorial Day. That will be something worth raising a glass to on the holiday weekend!

Shift in Gun Debate

Daniel Webster, co-director of the Joyce funded “Center for Gun Policy and Research” at Johns Hopkins, admits that current strategies for defecating on our Second Amendment rights aren’t working, and aren’t spurring the right kind of debate. He believe we need to look for new, and innovative ways to defecate on Second Amendment rights, such as raising the age at which you can buy a gun, or denying Second Amendment rights based on some measure of precognition (precrime?). As to the age, raise it to what? It’s already 21. 25? 35? Is this a right or a privilege?

The Sting

Like jilted lovers, the Brady Campaign is pretty clearly reeling from Obama not mentioning gun control, with only some vague promises from Administration officials that gun control is coming in a later speech, no doubt to a much smaller and more politically focused argument. Just keep looking at the pictures of Bill Clinton you keep on your desks, and dreaming of better days. That’s my advice. Remember the good times.

In the mean time, it has to hurt even more that Chuck Schumer, of all people, is defending the President for leaving gun control out, saying “One of the reasons there’s less impetus for gun control is the success we had in the ’90s.” Which I think he’s exactly right about. They’ve moved the issue forward to the point where the vast majority of Americans are comfortable with where the law is, and to the extent they might think certain other measures are a good idea, they aren’t really motivated to do much to drive those measures forward. Perhaps the Brady Act was all they were ever meant to achieve.

Sad Panda Icon courtesy of Sharp as a Marble

Like Vultures

Looks like MAIG has been busy trying to recruit from the victims of Tucson. This is a classic tactic of gun control groups, because without victims, where would they be?

If your mayor is on this WaPo ad, e-mail him or print him out a copy, and ask why he’s appearing in a major national newspaper supporting new gun control.Â I’d bet money that Bloomberg never got their approval to use their names. Let’s turn the pressure back up on this weasel group. There are a LOT of Pennsylvania mayors on this list, and no politician liked being used this way.

Doesn’t Add Up

ATF made a major bust, and like most bureaucrats looking for a larger budget, makes a nice display of some of the guns they supposedly captured. Is it just me or are there cans on some of those rifles? Where’d they come from? And is it just me, or does one of those look like it’s clicked into the full auto position on the receiver? And what’s with the Ma Deuce in the background? Did they buy that at a gun show or dealer too?

More pictures here. Definitely suppressors on those AKs. Another angle here. We really need to give news photographers lessons in how to take pictures of guns so experts can evaluate the evidence floated. Video here. Pretty clearly there’s equipment in this spread that’s not ordinary, and not available at your average gun dealer.

UPDATE: Tam points out in the comments that they are likely kinks with fake suppressors welded to the barrel to meet the overall length and barrel length requirement of the National Firearms Act. So fake suppressors are the rage among drug cartels these days?

UPDATE: More from Tam:

Theyâ€™re not paying retail for these things; theyâ€™re probably trading dope to somebody here in the states. I donâ€™t think they get too wound up over whether somethingâ€™s full auto or not. These guns arenâ€™t for firefights; theyâ€™re for ambushing opponents, intimidating locals, and shooting witnesses. Cyclic rate isnâ€™t all that important.

Also, not every foot soldier of the cartels gets an autorifle from el patron. In those pictures from that border shootout there were clearly a few thumbhole stocks.

The majority of the guns down there (at least once you get far enough from the border) are probably walking off army bases or coming up from South and Central America. But for us to claim that No Guns No How are coming from the US civilian market makes us look a bit naive.

UPDATE: I think Tam wins the internets on this thread. If you look at this picture, I’m pretty sure I recognize the Century Arms tags that come with the firearm, that they attach to the trigger guard.

Millions Spent, And Nothing Gained

If I had access to the kind of money that Bloomberg has flushed down the toilet on his MAIG project, I could probably cure, or find a fairly good treatment for a few diseases that kill a lot more people than guns do. I’m not kidding on that count either, for those of you who know what industry I work in.

But yet he keeps trying, and even the New York Times notes it doesn’t amount to much. They note these fights are long, and they are. Expensive too. It’s a waste what both side spend on this issue. I think what really pisses me off, when you look at the numbers, if they were really interested in saving lives, there are many other ways this money could be better spent. Adam Smith said there was “a lot of ruin in a nation,” and that’s certainly true in this issue.

Whatever you may say about Bill Gates, he’s at least trying to find a way to help the developing world deal with the scourge of malaria. What’s Bloomberg doing? Spending millions trying to remove the freedoms of Americans. Whether that’s the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, or put salt on their food. When it comes to spending money where it counts, Bill Gates has the right idea. Bloomberg is a self-serving demogauge, and a disgusting creature. I’ll cheer the day his term is up and he departs the national stage.

Gun Control Speech Coming?

The real question here is whether they intend to follow through, and in what context? And how soon? After Obama is hopefully not re-elected? Allahpundit notes:

Lots of lip service to the Second Amendment and Americaâ€™s fine hunting tradition, plenty of upfront concessions about not wanting to ban handguns, etc. He canâ€™t afford to be aggressive on this issue, after all: Even knowing that nothing will pass the House and end up on his desk, he has to be careful about alienating the sort of rural Democrats he needs to win states like Pennsylvania.

And it’s not just Pennsylvania on that count either. Though I take exception to this, quoted by Allahpundit:

He just doesnâ€™t have a big problem among the kinds of voters who support gun control: minorities, urbanites and white liberals. What he does have is a serious problem with gun control opponents, who are disproportionately white, male non-college educated and rural. They are, in other words, exactly the people with whom Barack Obama struggles, even compared to other Democrats. Thatâ€™s why Hillary Clinton beat him by ten points in the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries and almost 40 points in the West Virginia primary.

Hillary beat him on guns? Really? What do you people smoke? And for the record, I’m suburban and college educated. I work in a knowledge industry doing what many working class Democratic families around here would not consider “real work.” It’s not like I’m a rarity in my field either. Allapundit closes with:

Maybe he was just telling Tingles what he wanted to hear?

I think this is the case. He might talk about it in later speeches. He certainly tiptoed around the issue in the memorial service a few weeks ago. I just don’t think Obama wants to ride this tiger before the 2012 elections.

Live SOTU Coverage

Cam Edwards will be covering the event live at NRA News. Since I unplugged my cable, this is where I’m going to be watching.

UPDATE: So far not a lot of applause… it makes it go faster. Always rip the band aid off quickly.

UPDATE: Politicians love to talk about math and science, but we’re laying off people in math and science right now. If we have a shortage of people gifted in this, why is this the case?

UPDATE: Cam Edwards notes “Investment = SPEND!”

UPDATE: He’s talking Sputnik. Time for another Manhattan. He’s basically talking about how we need the government to spur innovation. Because, you know, there was never any innovation without government.

UPDATE: Oh god, now it’s green energy. Green energy is a scam if we’re not talking nuclear energy. Blah blah blah, evil oil companies. Blah blah blah. Does anyone believe green jobs is going to save the economy anymore?

UPDATE: He wants everyone to be teachers. The NRA News folks are joking because that means they’ll all be on the government dime, and the Democratic Party can get more donations from the NRA.

UPDATE: Obama says he wants to solve the problem of “undocumented workers.” How? I want a Cessna Citation Mustang too, you know.

UPDATE: Now he’s talking high speed rail, which means thousands of lefties across the country are suddenly becoming aroused. High speed rail is just like that for the left.

UPDATE: He wants to double our exports by 2014. This must by we’re debasing the dollar.

UPDATE: I think a Unicorn just farted a rainbow.

UPDATE: Now Health Care. This is where I really need another Manhattan.

UPDATE: Obama talking about controlling our national debt is like Jeffry Dahmer lecturing us on keeping Kosher. He wants a spending freeze. The freeze will apparently require painful cuts. *boggle* What? I should have made this a double.

UPDATE: We have to cut social security, apparently, without cutting social security.

UPDATE: Now talk of Salmon. Cam Edwards says “A Lox on both your houses.”

UPDATE: Apparently we’re beating the Towlieban. A terrorist version ofÂ this?

UPDATE: Obama endorses gays in the military. Good for him. This is something I support him on.

UPDATE: This speech read a lot better than Obama delivered it. Which is really surprising to me. The magic is gone. This guy is a much more talented candidate than he is a President. He is no Bill Clinton. He’s not even in the same universe.

SOTU Before it Happens

National Journal has a leak of the State of the Union address tonight. There is no talk of gun control in it whatsoever. Not even a platitude. It’s actually not a bad speech. This is probably as close as I’m going to get to wanting to give Barry O a high-five. As for the Brady Campaign and MAIG? Yeah, it’s that time again:

Drink up guys! You deserve it. Don’t fret over getting stiffed by the President too much. After all, if he had gotten behind new gun control, it would have fired up our base and made a fool of a number of Senate candidates who are up in 2012.

Crack Research From New York Times

I think I’m supposed to be horrified by this, but it actually makes me proud to be an NRA member. And if the Times wonders why we’ve prevented “research” into this, they answered their own question right here. It’s quite easy to make statistics say things they really don’t, and to draw inappropriate conclusions based on them.

I only use statistics for arguments sake. I could care less what the true causation is, because my rights aren’t subject to the outcome of any scientific paper, or statistical regression. If NRA is preventing my tax dollars from going to politically charged “research” ultimately aimed at undermining my constitutional rights, they are doing exactly what I want them to do.

Would we tolerate studies that show certain kinds of speech are dangerous, and contribute to crime, who’s conclusions implicate limitations on First Amendment rights? No. We shouldn’t tolerate it for the Second Amendment either.