Thursday was a special day for gun grabbers nationwide. It marked the seventh anniversary of the signing of the Brady Law. Bill Clinton marked the anniversary with an event at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, along with Janet Reno and Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
The Violence Policy Center – a bunch of gun-control chest-beaters – released a report saying that in the six years after the Brady Law and the 1994 Crime Bill were passed, the number of federally licensed firearms dealers dropped from 245,628 to 69,591.
That's a 72 percent drop in the number of licensed gun dealers!
Most of those who closed up shop were individuals selling guns out of their homes. The Violence Policy Center still wants to get rid of the remaining "kitchen table" gun dealers, who make up 56 percent of the current crop of dealers. They say these one-person operations need closer scrutiny than storefront dealers.
Thom Mannard of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence was quick to point out that the Brady Law was a smashing success in reducing "indiscriminate home sales of guns."
What Mannard and the Violence Policy Center fail to tell us is that gun dealers who operate out of their homes are subject to exactly the same federal regulations as storefront dealers. In fact, they receive more scrutiny than larger dealers. Gun buyers are subject to the same background checks and paperwork procedures as they would be in a gun shop.
There's nothing different about buying a gun from a home dealer. A lot of them already have day jobs. They'll handle gun transfers for themselves and their buddies. That's about it. This myth of criminals getting their guns from individual dealers is hogwash.
Can we expect logical arguments from these people? No. Because the truth and facts aren't on their side. They're at their most effective when they stir up emotions and hysteria among the feeble-minded.
How would you like to receive a letter from your child’s school informing you that you must meet certain federal guidelines if you opt to send your child to school with a lunch you fixed at home?
Well, the parents of children in the Oak Meadow Montessori School received just such a letter last week. The letter contained some fluff about Thanksgiving celebrations and dropping your kids off at school, then it got around to school lunches. Here is the pertinent paragraph. Spelling and punctuation errors have been left untouched.
"As you know, we will begin providing catered lunches, five days per week, starting Monday. In last week’s Parent Communication Envelope, we included information regarding the menu for the week of November 27th through December 1st. The catered lunches are designed to satisfy the USDA food program requirement. You may still choose to send in your child’s lunch. However, you must provide the appropriate servings from the recommended food groups. If you do not, we will be responsible for providing your child with a "well balanced" lunch. Lunches ordered in advance are available for $3 per day. Lunches that we need to provide because you forgot to bring one, or because you did not provide the proper choices to satisfy the United Stated Daily Recommend Allowances for lunch, will be billed to your account at a rate of $5 per lunch. Please make sure to review the enclosed flier regarding our new lunch box requirements."
Just what are the requirements for these officially approved school lunches? Well, that’s not really the point here, but you might be interested to know that Cheese Whiz is an acceptable meat substitute.
Don’t go making irate phone calls to the Oak Meadow school. This standard applies to ALL schools. They’re just enforcing it.
Can you believe it? The Imperial Federal Government of the United States is now using its agents in our government and private schools to peer into those lunches you prepare for your children to see if you’ve done it right according to government bureaucrats. This particular school will charge you five bucks if you’ve done it wrong and will "supplement" your child’s lunch with officially approved food.
Can they do this in your home? Hell, who knows? If the government can peer into your child’s lunchbox at a private school, why can’t that same government come into your home at dinnertime to make sure you’re serving your child a government-approved dinner?
And why stop with your child? Is there some special provision in the U.S. Constitution that limits the government’s snooping to only your child’s lunch? How soon will they be checking out what
As government continues to grow, this might be what your lunches with clients are like in the future:
"Can I take your order, sir?"
"Yes, I would like a New York Strip, medium, with a baked potato and one glass of iced tea."
"And what would you like for your other vegetable or fruit, sir?"
"Nothing. Just the steak, potato and tea, please."
"Sorry, sir. You must order another vegetable or some fruit."
"Says who?"
"It’s a government regulation, sir. We have a federal inspector back in the kitchen that will review your order. If you don’t order another fruit or vegetable, he’s going to choose one for you and you’ll have to pay for it."
"The hell with this. I’m going somewhere else."
"Won’t do any good, sir. The same rules went into effect everywhere today. You think it’s bad here, you ought to see the problems they’re having next door at McDonald's."
"Bring me a salad, then."
"Fine, sir. Now what about your milk and bread selections?"
This is what you get when you have hoards of marginally employable bureaucrats with limited job skills sucking down government paychecks week after week and looking for something to do with their time.
According to the
And Gore isn't anywhere near conceding. A former consultant said, "Al Gore is flying solo and not even willing to listen" to other points of view. "There is no Plan B and there is no talk of 2004."
Top campaign aide Carter Eskew said that Gore's inner circle is of one mind. And no one outside that inner circle is willing to question Gore's decision to forge ahead on a self-destructive path. It's all or nothing.
Where else is Gore going to go? Back "home" to Tennessee? He couldn't carry his own state in the election. His chances of winning a House or Senate race there are nil. Back to Washington? He's political deadwood there.
A word of advice to the private liberal arts colleges out there: Watch your mail for a resume on vice presidential letterhead. It'll be coming sometime in late December or early January.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.