US Supreme Court Delivers a pro-free speech and business decision

On Monday in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that government has no authority to "protect minors" from video games that are deamed harmful to psychological health. Antonin Scalia worte the opinion of the court and was joined by all but justices Breyer and Thomas who dissented. California's regime claimed it was protecting parents rights. They were playing favorites by picking the parents who oppose video games over the parents who view video games as mere entertainment. Another issue is the morality of using force to solicit video game suppliers into refusing to sell certain violent video games to young people. Breyer's dissent has no real deal. Thomas dissented because he believed that our founding fathers approved of the right of parents to have absolute control of their children. Slavery was also legal in the southern states in the 1790's up to 1865 when the 13th amendment was ratified abolishing slavery. The 14th amendment established equal protection of the law and applied due process and other rights and freedoms to the states. The only constitutional distinction of age and gender would be voting, members of congress. The constitution is the highest law of the land and supercedes any law inconsistent with it. The 14th amendment means that all status offenses are unconstitutional and that the constitution is based on moral principles when dealing with rights rather than pragmatic approaches. Hopefully in future cases challenging status offenses or any law that treats youth like second class citizens this case can be of great help and from the looks of it I feel that status offenses could be struck down by no later than a few years from now if somebody acts soon. Wal-Mart v. Dukes was another case the court decided on last Monday and ruled unanimously that Wal-Mart is free to do their business, rejecting claims of discrimination of female employees. The US Constitution's commerce clause is only meant to prevent states from treating out-of-state goods more harshly than in-state goods and enables congress to enforce that policy, that's it. Commerce clause also gave congress the power to settle disputes between states and Indian tribes and set a trade policy with foreign nations such as tariffs. Government at all levels has turned from being a servant with limited powers to a fearful master with unlimited powers. I also want to tell you that house rejected a proposal to allow president Barack Obama to continue US action in Libya by a 295-123 vote with suprisingly a majority of Republicans voting AGAINST the Libya resolution. If this keeps up, government could once again become the fettered servant with limited powers within a whopping two years should Obama be defeated that is. Ron Paul is the strongest candidate against Obama, even going ahead in a recent poll. For Ron Paul's running mate, I propose that former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson be Paul's running mate. Johnson is also a libertarian who opposes interventionalist foreign policy(wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and potentially Libya for examples), the Fed, War on drugs, centralized economy and high taxes, and assaults on civil liberties like the PATRIOT Act and hates socialized healthcare known as Obamacare. I hope to see the Paul & Johnson ticket next year and hopefully defeat Obama on Tuesday November 6th of next year which happens to be election night, where real libertarian change will come to America!

If I were Running For President

Forgive me for not posting a single blog in 19 days. I watched the presidential debates for Republicans last night on CNN and I have to say each candidate says they are going to have Obamacare repealed, free markets respected, and the constitution respected. I trust Ron Paul the most because he actually KEEPS his words and does the WALK when it comes to policy meaning he means what he says and is honest. Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts has a liberal record and the most notable is Romneycare, a state level predecessor to Obamacare, a blueprint that the Obama administration has to thank. Romneycare includes a mandate to purchase health care insurance and also restricts patient choice, things common in socialized medicine. Romney was also in favor of the bailouts and TARP before he flip flopped on that issue and others. Mitt Romney is a dishonest Richard Nixon Republican who has flip flopped on issues such as illegal immigration, abortion and gun control. Romney’s position on gun control as governor was 'We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them; I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.' He also supports the “assault” weapons ban and the 5-day waiting period and the Brady Bill. He did win the debate but Michelle Bachman won the debate as an underdog and she is fantastic. She was the first person in congress to introduce a bill to repeal Obamacare before it was even signed into law by President Obama.

          Anyway, if I were running for president, I would have a simple, common sense and understandable policy: Government is a necessary evil and a servant of the people. The holy role of government is to protect rights to life, liberty and property, enforce legit contracts, protect the nation from foreign invaders and threats which is mostly the federal government’s responsibility. Foreign policy and the military are the most important roles of the federal government and when you have more than 130 military bases around the world then military spending will skyrocket and either taxes will have to be raised or money will have to be borrowed but neither of these are acceptable because spending is the problem. 130 military bases are mostly the reason why the United States spends more on military spending than the rest of the world. The neo-conservative foreign policy of interventionalism and nation building has resulted in Islam radicals committing acts of terrorism against America because they want the American military off of muslim soil. The United States is the aggressor in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and not a single war or military action was constitutionally declared by congress since World War II. The last war the United States had legitimate reasons to be involved in was World War II because Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were a threat to America and to the entire world. Japanese air forces bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and after congress declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Hopefully the assassination of Osama Bin Laden reminds people, especially Republicans who favor war that the radicals had America because they bomb the Middle-East. If these terrorists hate us for our freedom, then they would also be attacking Switzerland. Switzerland has a staunch non-interventionalist foreign policy which involved no military intervention overseas. America has become leaning more towards a third world country because of major embarrassments to a liberty-loving nation such as $14 trillion debt, $1-2 trillion deficit, war on drugs, numerous federal and even state gun control measures, federal mandates, federal involvement and takeover of education, healthcare, transportation, violations of civil rights and liberties, drinking age of 21, criminal “injustice” systems, the state believing that it knows what’s best for us and our children, etc. Terrorists couldn’t care any less about our lifestyle and even if they hated us for our freedoms, our freedoms have been violated in almost every way. Politicians and law enforcement refuse to protect them most of the time and the judicial system hardly helps the situation and in some cases make it worse. Government has become the institutionalized version of violent criminals. This is unacceptable under the constitution and to our founding fathers who fought over 230 years ago to create this once great nation. We can’t condone or escape from these problems because they will eventually catch up and could destroy the world politically and economically. The only crimes should be crimes against people and property, conspiracy to commit those crimes, actions posing imminent and immediate danger.

What Should Be the Age of Adulthood? Part 2

There’s something I want to get out that I want to tell people about. It’s about restricting freedom based on age, relying on your birthdate. You could say to a teenager to just wait till they turn 21 to enjoy a glass of wine or a beer but that misses my point. My point is that the consequences of status offenses do not disappear after you turn the age that the age restriction is lifted. For example, someone who will turn 21 tomorrow gets caught by law enforcement drinking a beer and is charged with underage drinking. The charge will not be automatically invalidated and the criminal record that goes with it will not be automatically expunged on your 21^st birthday. Plus, Memorial Day is almost here as of the day I posted this blog and this gives me an opportunity to discuss servicemen and women in the military who have lost their lives in war before their 21^st birthdays. Do you think that it’s ethical to tell them that they’re too immature to drink alcohol and buy handguns based solely on their birthdate? What about the deceased servicemen and women who never had a chance to legally drink? I support ALL members of our military who believe in and protect the constitution and freedoms of the United States regardless of race, creed, nationality, age, economic status, and anything not relating to ability and performance on duty. We owe it to our troops who brazenly fought for our freedoms and for our country to bring them home and respect the civil rights of all Americans with no exceptions except if there are conditions imposed by a court of law on someone who has been convicted of a crime, such as probation, parole, prison, etc. I’m two months away from being 19 and my birthday is on July 28. Your birthdate doesn’t measure your maturity. Also, even though the brain doesn’t fully develop until you turn 25 or even 30 doesn’t mean that a teenager’s brain is inferior to a 35 year olds brain. The brain reaches its maximum weight at 16-18 years old for females and 19-21 for males. The brain actually starts to deteriorate once it’s fully developed. The brain changes constantly and I feel that anyone with a sound mind can realize that. If the ludicrous theory of drinking alcohol before 21 could ruin your brain was true then nearly every adult in western European countries and other eastern civilizations would be brain damaged alcoholics because throughout history ever since alcoholic beverages were introduced, very few people have waited till their 21^st birthday and most people who do wait are non-drinkers by choice, whether it be for religious reasons or displeasure of alcohol. If you don’t like alcohol, don’t drink it but you have no right to force others not to drink. If someone is believed to be a danger to themselves or others regardless of who they are, make sure they don’t get behind the wheel of a car or are left unsupervised. Good friends don’t let friends drive drunk. What about youth who are killed by drunk drivers OVER 21? Have the supporters of the drinking age ever think about that? Do they respond to that with the mentality of “at least he/she wasn’t drinking underage or providing alcohol to those minors”? Statistics are also used to justify the drinking age. However, an alcohol related crash is defined by the NHTSA as ANYONE, regardless of if they were driving or not or merely a pedestrian, who has any alcohol traced in their system. When you say that statistics “prove” that the drinking age of 21 “saves lives”, most teenagers injured or killed in alcohol related crashes were NOT EVEN DRIVING! They probably had a designated driver or walked home and were hit by a drunk driver who most of the time was OVER 21! In fact, 90-95% of drunk drivers in the past 20 years have been OVER 21. Are young people merely statistics? Relying on statistics to justify enacting a certain policy reinforces that ideology and if you believe that statistics should be used to justify limitations on our civil rights and liberties then you answer yes to the idea that people are just statistics. You may not say so but actions speak louder than words. I heard a story shortly before about an 18 year old who was hosting a drinking games party that had no alcohol and used root beer kegs instead. Police raided his house and tested 90 people for alcohol with non testing positive. What a waste of tax payer dollars to raid a home of teenagers minding their own business after mistaking the root beer kegs for alcoholic beer. OOPS! What about arresting the dangerous drivers before they hurt more people? Is it better for someone to be killed by a 15 year old than a 50 year old? It doesn’t matter because regardless of who killed that person, he or she is dead and the killer’s race, religion, age, economic status, nationality or other characteristics can’t influence what happened. What influences a homicide case lies in it being either justified, excusable or criminal. I feel that the best alternative to relying on an arbitrary age that judges people based on their date of birth is for parents and caregivers to teach responsibility when the child is able to understand by mental ability how to function properly in society instead of isolating them and then expecting them to be responsible at a given age at the drop of a hat. It doesn’t happen that way in real life. It’s easy to ban something and assume people will be more responsible than it is to be honest and teach responsibility. The easy way out is never the best way out of a situation most of the time. I feel that youth policy has been influenced by personal feeling and experiences rather than using logic. Government doesn’t understand people individually and can never do so. Government is not a god on earth and our rights do not come from government because it’s a man made institution. Rights come from our humanity. Our body is the most important possession of humanity because without a body, you cannot exist and that means that since it’s your body, nobody has the right to prohibit you from exercising it in a way that does not do harm to others. Punishing someone for abusing their rights by harming other people is more appropriate than prohibition. It’s okay to be afraid of bad things in life. But it’s unhealthy to deny reality and think that those things can go away if an institution of force known as the government can be used to change the health and well being of individuals. Not even local governments can fully understand people as individuals. Since rights come with responsibilities it would only make sense that people are presumed responsible for their own actions until proven otherwise. Freedom and responsibility are birthrights and not rewards. If a person is too incompetent to care for his or herself then the caregiver is the person who is responsible for the incompetent or dependent in their care. If a caregiver is to be punished for what the person in their care did in regards to hurting self and/or others then the prosecution needs to prove that the person who did it is incompetent to accept the consequences of his or her actions, that person was in the care of the person accused and also must prove that the caregiver could prevent that person from harming self or others. If you can accept the consequences for your actions, then why ban alcohol for those who are under 21 yet are able to accept the consequences of their actions? Government cannot teach responsibility that way. It never works that way. Forgive me if some of what I just wrote here may confuse you. My point is that people should be judged based only on their abilities and actions and reasons should be related to the matter being judged. The one size fits all approach to protecting children is ineffective and unfair. The people who need to exercise responsibility the most are the leaders and caregivers who need to set examples and be good role models because America’s future does better when they have examples instead of this ends justify the means non-sense. Happy Memorial day to our brave troops who fought for our country since the American Revolution.

Ron Paul Officially Runs For President as a Republican

Ron Paul announced he will run for president as a Republican. He is the only hope to avoid what I presume to the the true 2012 doomsday of America and possibly other parts of the world. If Barack Obama gets re-elected in 2012, I know in my heart that Obama will have four long years to destroy this great American nation without any political reprecussions! There are many clowns trying to run for president on the republican ticket and some are establishment clowns such as Mitt Romney, infamous Romneycare signed into law in Massachusetts in 2006 establishing the first socialized healthcare plan in United States history. Romneycare requires residents to buy healthcare insurance. Of course, if residents could not afford healthcare insurance they could recieve government subsidies. Romneycare should be considered a prequal to Obamacare. Both laws are identical in everyway except for one or two. Obamacare is at the federal level and named by and signed into law by a Democrat (President Barack Obama) and Romneycare is at the state level and is named after and signed into law by a Republican (Governor Mitt Romney). Mike Huckabee as Governor of Arkansas called for several tax increases and he was called a progressive liberal by the conservative watchdog group Club for Growth. Huckabee also supports draconian measures concerning drugs such as an ineffective addiction to incarceration for even the smallest non-violent victimless drug offenders, even for those using medicinal marijuana prescribed by a doctor. Newt Gingrich declared his candidacy two and a half months ago who supports big government intrusion and says global warming is real: "The evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere." Newt Gingrich as speaker of the house in the mid 1990's was responsible for big government as much as Bill Clinton was. Gingrich said that he was a huge fan of Franklin Roosevelt and a huge fan of Woodrow Wilson. Was he an alternative to Bill Clinton? Anyway I will mention some other Republican clowns who have screwed many Americans over who will not run for president. George W. Bush was sick in the head for doubling the national debt, increasing domestic spending to more amounts than LBJ's "Great Society" of the mid 1960's, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even after missions were accomplished which leads to the fact Bush lied about promising non-intervention in his campaign in 2000 when he was running as a conservative, and Bush once said  "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." YOU CAN'T SAVE THE FREE MARKET BY ABANDONING IT! That's like punishing victims or potential victims of crime to protect them from crime. George W. Bush has made the 2000's the worst decade in American history because of his 8 years of disasterous policies from 2001-2009. Republican canididates other than Ron Paul who have already declared candidacy include Newt Gingrich,Gary Johnson, lesser known candidates Fred Karger, Jimmy McMillan, and Andy Martin. Should Ron Paul become president and god forbid he is defeated, then Ron Paul will save America and the World and become the greatest president since Thomas Jefferson and Grover Cleveland. Ron Paul would surely defeat all that is unconstitutional and bring America to truly being the freest country in the world. We can all feel like Americans again if we reject Obama and big government clowns like him and put someone in power who won't be corrupted and that is Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead!

May 2, 2011 is a day justice for 9-11 victims have been served. Osama Bin Laden was shot by a small team of US navy seals and counter intelligence officers in the CIA. America should dramatically thank the brave heroes who killed this scumbag leader of al-Qaeda responsible for masterminding the 9-11 attacks that killed around 3,000 Americans. Keep in mind that this fight is still not over yet. Al-Qaeda may try to avenge his death and another bin Laden may take place of Al-Qaeda’s leader. Another terrorist attack on this great nation is unknown. Bush has clearly failed to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice since shortly after 9-11. 9-11 was a day of fear, sadness, grief, loss as many children lost a parent or both parents and the orphaned are either sent to live with relatives such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. or placed in the foster care system. 9-11-2001 was a beautiful blue sky day and all seemed good before hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Centers in New York City with smoke coming from buildings as well as from the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia; another target of terrorism and let’s not forget about flight 93 which crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The hijacking did not reach the intended target.

            But surely we should be reminded about what dangers the government can take in time of crisis. Fear can turn to hatred. Within a few weeks of the Pearl Harbor of the 21^st century, congress enacted a vague legislation called the PATRIOT Act assaulting civil liberties. Although some provisions are essential and efficient and fair, it’s hard to interpret the law due to the amount of pages that are estimated at about 1,000. Obamacare is twice the amount. Congress never read both of those bills and the US tax code is 40,000 pages long! Congress has a real problem with not reading the bills before they vote on them. Fear can make people do crazy things that normal people wouldn’t normally do in normal times or even in times of emergency for that matter. After Pearl Harbor’s bombing on 12-7-1941, fear became hatred for Americans of Japanese descent. The Japanese were sent to internment camps that were more like prisons only with more discomfort inside horse stables. America regretted that massive incident and passed a declaration declaring that the internment of Japanese-Americans was a bad policy created out of fear, hysteria and poor leadership. The Muslim radicals attack this great nation not for our freedom, but for our foreign policy concerning military intervention in the Middle East. Switzerland does not receive any terrorist attacks what so ever from terrorists due to the Swiss non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. Perhaps it’s time America adopt the same foreign policy as Switzerland’s to cut spending and eliminate reasons for terrorist attacks. We should not give into terrorism. In no way is killing innocent people recklessly or intentionally justifiable or even excusable. However, if we are to ever solve America’s battle against terrorism we must remember to keep foreign policy to ourselves. The shenanigans of the Bush years concerning trying to force democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq are horrible failures that have enraged the Muslim community in those nations. I want to make a difference between normal Muslims and radicals. Radicals use violence which kills innocent people. If our American government can get its act together and strive for America to be truly the freest nation on Earth then we can truly have liberty and justice for all. A man can love his country but hate his government.

What Should Be the Age of Adulthood? Part 1

Nearing the 10^th anniversary of the arrest of the twin daughters of then president George W. Bush Jennifer and Barbara Bush for underage drinking in Texas on April 29, 2001, I want to explain my feelings about laws that restrict freedom based on your birthdate alone. It’s hard to determine a fixed age of adulthood without basing it on a single birthdate alone. This could be impossible for some people to prove who don’t even have a clear birth certificate or ID. Keep in mind that these chronological age based laws not only affect those underage, but those who look underage in terms of having to show ID to purchase alcoholic beverages possibly until you look old and somewhat grey, can affect for example people who provide alcohol and/or guns to those considered by law “underage” regardless of the provider’s age, the parents or caregivers are also affected because they could be forced to be responsible for their youth’s behavior regardless of the youth’s state of competence and ageist laws against youth can make it more difficult and even impossible to teach their kin about responsible habits such as handling alcohol and weapons responsibly. With attempts at a highly sophisticated big-brother style national ID system it would be even more difficult to buy alcohol unless you looked old which could not happen until you’re possibly near 30 or even 50 years old. Thanks to state nullification of Real ID throughout the past few years, Real ID is considered De Facto null and void. How do we determine who is an adult without basing the fact on an arbitrary age?

            The age of majority in almost every state in the United States is 18 with exceptions being alcohol, handgun purchases, sometimes gambling, etc. at 21. Believe it or not, there used to be times in America’s history where most of aged based laws restricting liberty and justice were non-existent and even unheard of. There were very few laws restricting youth under 18 during the American Revolution of the 1770’s and 1780’s with one notable exception being the voting age of 21. Before the mid 19^th century, prohibition anyway in the United States of America was non-existent. A handful of states by 1855 including Maine banned the entire sale of alcoholic liquors. The only state to have a drinking age before the ratification of the 18^th amendment in 1919 was Wisconsin which set its drinking age at 18 for most alcoholic beverages in 1839 and 21 for all alcoholic beverages in 1866. Drinking ages are scars of prohibition that were not repealed in 1933 although left to the states. In fact, Americans drank 1.7 bottles of hard liquor per week on average in 1830, three times the average in 2010. "Drunkenness was condemned and punished, but only as an abuse of a God-given gift. Drink itself was not looked upon as culpable, any more than food deserved blame for the sin of gluttony. Excess was a personal indiscretion." There’s no doubt to my mind that alcohol abuse needs to be condemned harshly. Constitutional rights apply to all persons regardless of race, gender, creed, nationality, age, etc. and the drinking age is just like prohibition only applying to those under their 21^st birthdays. In 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled that due process and natural rights could not be infringed because of youth or old age (In Re Gault). Two years later in 1969, the US Supreme Court ruled that free speech may not be infringed for age based reasons and cannot be unreasonably infringed inside the school gates (Tinker v. Des Moines School District). I do acknowledge that schools have a duty to protect the youth inside the schools; however schools should not be enclaves of totalitarianism and should not be involved in student and teachers private lives. The next year in 1970, the US Supreme Court would rule in favor of youth rights for the third and possibly final time that no matter the age of defendant whether in juvenile or adult court that the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases (In Re Winship).

            In 2008 DC v. Heller and 2010 McDonald v. Chicago the US Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, the right to keep and bear arms is still not kept to the same protection standards as for example the 1^st and 4^th amendments protecting free speech and bans on unreasonable search and seizure. The right to keep and bear arms is still infringed on draconically and the example I will talk about in this blog is the restrictions based on age. The infamous and evil Gun Control Act of 1968 created a broad range of gun control laws and regulations on the gun manufacturing industry and created a list of prohibited purchasers. The age to purchase a rifle or shotgun from a Federal Firearms Licensee is 18 and for handguns and semi-automatics and items on the National Firearms Act of 1934 the age is 21. In 1791, there were very few gun control laws at the state level and no gun control laws at the federal level, though bans on concealed carry probably existed but our founding fathers would oppose these bans because of the need to protect ourselves outside of our own homes. The right to keep and bear arms is not only for sportsman and hunters and even for self-defense but a safeguard against tyranny and ageist youth crushing laws are tyranny! Ageist politicians don’t want youth to have guns because it would be a threat to their power and the power of tyrannical government forces who’s activities are more than equivalent than activities of the mafia and street gangs nearly combined. Difference between government and organized crime is that government is the legal version of organized crime. Youth are already vulnerable due to the fact they have no means of self-protection on our streets in a legal sense and the criminals regardless of the law. Carrying weapons assures us that we can feel safe by arming ourselves and fending off criminals and tyrants who try to harm us.

            Other laws that are bad policy include laws against running away from home and moving out on your own will because such a law deprives you of liberty and liberty is freedom from being under legal custody, curfews violate the right to travel, child labor laws infringe on your ability to make a decent living and achieve financial freedom and independence, compulsory education laws only slow down progress and waste time and 1^st amendment rights to believe what you want.

  “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”-Thomas Jefferson

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” –Thomas Jefferson

It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father. – Thomas Jefferson

            Government exists to protect and enforce the rights and contracts of the people. No rights are protected or enforced when someone else’s rights are infringed. Punishing someone for certain activity for the reasons of “protecting” them from harm not only fails to protect but also victimizes them to being arrested, fined, jailed and branded with a criminal record. Nobody is a hero when they are the aggressors regardless of whatever reason it may be. Being aggressive is never the answer to individual and social and economic problems. I realize what people may think about what I believe about why there should be no age of majority. It is arbitrary and unreasonable to discriminate someone based on their date of birth and I also believe that the 14^th amendment prohibits such discrimination under the equal protection clause. Youth are not livestock and property and no human being is. Responsibility comes with rights and for those judged incompetent to make their own decisions and know right from wrong then the parents and/or caregivers are the ones responsible for their judged incompetents in their care. America’s had a history of trying people as young as 12 as adults for serious crimes so let’s stop treating youth like children yet punishing them like adults. Freedom is a birthright and not a reward that you must earn and with aged based laws you have to attain an arbitrary age in order to exercise certain inalienable rights. America’s supposed to be the freest country on earth. I’ll write some more on this matter in another blog later on this week.

Why Gun Control is a Cowardly Pre-Crime Measure

Tragedies such as Columbine and Virginia Tech have sparked debates over gun control. However, gun control never works. I do believe it is reasonable to prohibit carry of firearms and weapons in government buildings and facilities that are likely targets of terrorist attacks such as the White House. The reason some gun control advocates feel they way they do is because of a tragic event that occured with gun violence. For example, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy became a gun control advocate after the December 7, 1993 mass shootings on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train by 35 year old Jamaican-American Colin Ferguson. McCarthy's husband Dennis was killed in the attacks. McCarthy ran for congress in 1996 defeating Republican Freshman Dan Frisa who was against federal gun control. Emotions can be powerful and people can do things that injure the rule of law and the constitution and harm others. For example, David Olofson was a Wisconsin gun owner convicted of knowingly possessing a fully automatic rifle when in fact it was semi-automatic and jammed. Olofson was ultimately defeated by a not so kind criminal justice system. After lower court appeals, the US Supreme Court in the fall of 2009 declined to hear Olofson's appeal. Olofson was recently released from prison and has opened up a business called Joules of Nature. Another example is a young adult from Colorado named Brian Aitkin in New Jersey. He was tried for "illegal" possession of firearms, convicted and eventually his prison sentence was commuted by Governor Christie just before Christmas time of 2010. Will putting these two good men through legal hell make people any safer. I couldn't disagree anymore! Emotions get so powerful that sometimes people will blame others who've harmed nobody and were not even involved in awful tragedies. Another gun control crony I wish to mention is one of the Virginia Tech shooting victims Colin Goddard who was then 21 years old. Ever since the tragedy, he's become a gun control monster working for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence or Gun Ownership as I call it. Jim and Sarah Brady pushed for a background check bill and obviously won was because Jim Brady was shot in the head during an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagans life 30 years ago by an obsessed fan of Jodie Foster named John Hinkley. Hinkley knew right from wrong at the time of the shootings which he shouldn't have been acquitted on insanity defense. The people who abuse the right to keep and bear arms by harming someone else in a violent way should be punished accordingly.