http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GngOleHLS1U

I want to point out that the ability to machine firearm parts is nothing new. Firearm manufactures have been using CNC machines to create frames, lower receivers and parts for years. Over time, these 3D CNC machines have become less expensive – as with any technology – and now we have small CNC machines (3D printers) that can produce parts out of what is essentially reinforced plastic.

Say what you want about Cody Wilson, but it’s the Internet, software and other technology advancements that have made this possible, not Wilson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA

Update: And here is the video released of the Liberator pistol that was created and fired. There are metal parts in these firearms, plus they are using standard brass-cased ammunition so no matter what any politicians say, they are not invisible to metal detectors. If they were, they would not pass muster with the ATF. From Fox News…

All 16 parts of the controversial gun, called the Liberator, are made from a tough, heat-resistant plastic used in products such as musical instruments, kitchen appliances and vehicle bumper bars.

Fifteen of those are made with a 3D printer while one is a non-functional metal part which can be picked up by metal detectors, making it legal under U.S. law. The firing pin is also not made of plastic, though it is easily crafted from a metal nail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drPz6n6UXQY

The original versions, “released” in January, only became available in March.  (I have absolutely no explanation for this.)  In any event, your mission in tackling the forms is now far easier.

The January versions were a svelte 21 pages should you be single, and over 60 pages long if you had a family.  And both included a ”helpful” 12 minute video to guide you through the process.  That has all changed, at least for the moment.

If you are single, the application is now only 5 pages long, and a mere 12 pages should you have a family.  No word yet on either the fate of said video in the new versions of the application, or what it cost you, the taxpayer, to create it.

You can find the “I’m single” version of the application here, and the “I’m married” version here.  And, be assured, these versions are the final versions…until HHS revises them yet again.

Two thing did strike me though.  Both applications contain the following language:

If you want to register to vote, you can complete a voter registration form at xxxxx.gov.

First, are we creating a new “.gov” just to register people to vote?

And second, what is this language doing in an application for health insurance?

Here is what has happened recently.  HHS has gone to Congress seeking an additional $5.9 billion to get the exchanges up and running.  This is a mere $2 billion more than HHS estimated last year, and, of course, $5.9 billion more than Obamacare anticipated in its original funding.  Both the House and Senate Democrats denied the request.  Undaunted by this rebuke, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has announced a fall back position.

Obamacare created a slush, er Prevention Fund that so far has been used for such laudable projects as,

… bike-path signs[and] to patronage for liberal pressure groups lobbying for fast-food taxes.

There is some $5 billion left in the slush fund, and so, HHS has announced that it will raid that fund to pay for the costs of the exchanges.

The House of Representatives, however, has a different approach.

As you know, the Obamacare fund created to cover those with pre-existing medical conditions and who are unable to obtain insurance, went broke some ten months sooner, and about 150,000 thousand people fewer, than Obamacare anticipated.  The House wants to take the remaining $5 billion in the slush fund and use it to provide care for those with pre-existing conditions who are now shut out of the pre-existing conditions program.

Interesting…what do Senate Democrats do when confronted with such a bill?

Do they spend the slush fund on people who need care, or spend it on bureaucracy?

As best I can tell, Senator Harry Reid’s beloved Cowboy Poetry Festival is still slated as scheduled.  Yes, it “only” costs taxpayers $50,000 a year, but, why are we spending your money on this event in the first place?

The President has argued repeatedly that he can do nothing to alter how the sequestration is implemented, because, you see, the sequester is an act of Congress, and thus he is powerless to intervene.

To that extent it is refreshing to learn that the President believes he cannot unilaterally overturn an act of Congress with which he does not agree.

And yet, in recent months, the President, by Executive Order, has decided to allow children of illegal immigrants to obtain work permits in this country.  This order violates federal laws duly passed by Congress.

The President also, by Executive Order, has altered the work requirements contained in our welfare laws.  Those laws, too, were duly passed by Congress.

If the President does not like the effects of the sequester, is there some reason why he can’t use an Executive Order to make it less painful to the American public by, let’s say cancelling funding for the Cowboy Poetry Festival, or the thousands of other programs that should not be funded with your dollars?

Am I missing something, or is it the President’s design to make life as difficult as possible for the American public?

Update:

Should you need anymore proof,

On Monday, as flight delays were hitting travelers at airports around the country due to these allegedly unavoidable cuts, the top story on the Department of Transportation’s website announced a $474 million grant program that promises to “make communities more livable and sustainable.”

 

The video is long, but very comprehensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xSASJt6k3U

As a result, security has been heightened in major cities throughout the world, including Washington D.C. where the section of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House has been closed to traffic.

You can find more updates at Hot Air.

Update: (April 15 at 5:24 – Steve)
Keep in mind, that most of what you are hearing in the media will turn out to be incorrect information. It’s not on purpose, it’s just that people hear and interpret things differently. This is all breaking news.

New York Post is reporting 12 dead, and more than 50 injured

A federal law-enforcement source confirmed to The Post there are at least 12 dead. [Most report two dead.] Massachusetts General Hospital was treating 10 people with amputated limbs and all operating rooms were on hold, sources said.

Authorities have a identified a suspect, a Saudi national, who is currently being guarded in a Boston hospital with shrapnel wounds. [This was denied by the Boston Police Commissioner at 5:559 p.m. ET]

The Boston Globe reported that there were up to 100 injuries stemming from the explosion.

The following video is from the Boston Globe, sorry … it plays right away. Content warning.

Earlier today, I thought the timing was interesting. The bombs went off 4 hours and 9 minutes into the race, which is very close to the average time for finishers in recent years.

Kerry mentioned…

… the US, South Korea and the international community were “all united in the fact that North Korea will not be accepted as a nuclear power”.

Also this morning, Kerry…

… noted that North Korea has tested three nuclear bombs, but said this was “very different” from possessing a “miniaturised” warhead.

However, he acknowledged that every nuclear test brought North Korea “closer” to the ability to mount a warhead on a missile, the true hallmark of a nuclear-armed power.

This begs the question, where is the line? I would have assumed if North Korea is able to make nuclear bombs and test three of them, they would officially join the club. The DPRK’s nuclear bomb tests have been small in comparison to the first tests by the United States, Russia and the U.K., but the most recent test – if it really was nuclear – was two months ago today and registered as a 5.1 magnitude earthquake.

Kerry mentions the warhead missile as being the “true hallmark” of a nuke power, but I’m wondering why the definition has changed and the bar has been moved outward as compared to tests in the 40′s, 50′s and 60′s when one big bomb – not delivered by a missile – defined a nuclear power. If North Korea can load a nuke into an aircraft and drop it somewhere – anywhere – and have it go off … I’d say they were in the club. Kerry on the other hand seems to think they don’t cross the line until they can “miniaturize” a nuke (a harder thing to do) and deliver the payload via an accurate missile (even harder).

Look, the three North Korea tests were estimated to be .5 kilotons, 2.35 kilotons and 6 kilotons respectively. Again, those are small in comparison to the first United States test of 20 kilotons. (The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 16 kilotons.)

This post really is not a dig at Kerry, but more of a post pointing out we just don’t draw lines in the sand anymore. We’re – for a lack of a better phrase – wishy-washy when it comes to diplomatic relations these days. Nobody wants to say anything conclusive, or lay things out on the table.

Back in September, I wrote the following as it would apply to the Middle East and our dealings with Iran. Do you think the same would apply to North Korea becoming really stupid?

… if there is a “small” nuclear attack against United States interests, Israel or another allie in the region, I do not think the Obama administration – or even the United States people – would know how to respond. I’m not even sure we would respond with military force.

…

Any major attack – including conventional, nuclear or biologic – against the United States or allies in the region will not be from a defined, established government in the region. The State of Iran wouldprobably never send a missel into Israel, and if they did, it would be blamed on an outlier group who was not affiliatedwith the government. In other words, it would be a terrible tragedy that was some sort of mistake. They would be sorry. Somehow, a radical Islamic fundamentalist group – an outlier – got control over a weapon and used it. The official government leaders would be ashamed. They would promise to root out the evil in their country. The diplomats would go to work again.

If North Korea was able to explode a small-yield 1 kiloton bomb somewhere in South Korea and it killed 1,000 people, what do you think would happen? Would the international community move with overwhelming force against the people who have been oppressed by a Communist dictatorship? Certainly they can be considered victims and many will say they should not suffer the consequences.

What if the leadership in North Korea is betting on that? Your comments please…

The Blue Angel and Thunderbird shows have been canceled. There are rumors of cancer patients not getting drugs. Head Start lost 5 percent of their funding and other schools supposedly are losing funding. Small airports are planning to send air traffic controllers home. Furloughs are happening, reducing work hours by 20 percent.

Math Alert… The sequester is a $41 billion cut in 2013, not the $85 billion the politicians claim. (The rest might happen after the 2013 budget cycle.) Total spending for 2013 is estimated to be about $3.6 trillion.

That’s a “devastating cut” of about 1.14%

We spent a few dollars less in 2012 ($3.5 trillion) which for the math-challenged is a federal budget increase of $100 billion. Factoring in the sequester, we’re spending an additional $59 billion this year, but they canceled the White House tours for kids? I guess a few billion just doesn’t go as far as it used to.

On to Memphis Soul music at the White House the other night.

The sequester may have many across the country singing the blues, but for President Obama, it was all about Memphis Soul.

Even with the threat of furloughs and government cuts sparked by the sequester, Obama took the time to enjoy a star-studded concert at the White House tonight.

The White House celebration of Memphis Soul music in the East Room – which included special guest appearances by Queen Latifah and Justin Timberlake – is likely to rile Obama’s Republican foes.

It’s so encouraging President Obama “took the time” to enjoy the show. Someone should be having some fun.

Of course, we should ask how long this has been going on for and what it will be replaced with, but I don’t think we should expect a response. This document claims the Second Amendment only provides the right of a state to keep an armed National Guard. Are you outraged yet?

The classroom curriculum included the worksheet shown to the right. Click on the image to view full size. The worksheet page is from The Bill of Rights in Today’s World, written for Grades 5 – 8 and published between 2000 and 2003 by Instructional Fair. The ISBN number is 1568229194. It was handed out to 8th graders at Northeast Middle School on April 8.

I want to point out some of the factual errors in the document may be excused since it was written 10 years ago. That said, a complete bias against the true meaning of the Second Amendment flows through the entire page. The administration and teachers can not be excused for using this worksheet. They have not meet the expectations of the public. Along with the priceless illustration of a “trigger lock”, the worksheet’s text reads as follows…

The Second Amendment Today

The Second Amendment today is surrounded by controversy. This controversy is centered mainly on the two words militia and people. The group that supports gun control does not want the word people to have any meaning in the amendment. The gun rights group would not like the word militia to mean anything. The interpretation of this amendment takes on different meaning when these tow groups define those two words.

Oh really? Gun control advocates don’t even bother with the Constitution any more. Not one references the Second Amendment to prove their point, they avoid it in every way imaginable. All they can to is mention muskets and tell me I don’t need an AR to shoot deer. I’ve got no problem with the Second Amendment as written, because I know what the at-the-time definition of a militia was, and it was not the National Guard.

The best way to look at the true meaning of this amendment is to look at what the courts have said about it. Generally, the Constitution is considered to be a living document, which means that the interpretation changes to meet the needs of the times. The judges and courts of each generation provide the interpretation of the document.

Did anyone else just throw-up a little bit? God forbid we look to the Founding Fathers – who wrote the document pledging their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the cause – to see how they interpreted the Second Amendment. Their interpretation was clear. It is not a “living document.”

The courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms. Instead, the amendment provides the right for the states to arm a militia such as the National Guard. The courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional. The courts have also said that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states. This means that the right of this amendment are not extended to the individual citizens of the states. So a person has no right to complain about a Second Amendment violation by state laws. According to the courts, the Second Amendment only provides the right of a state to keep an armed National Guard.

Yup, that’s what your kids are being taught to this day. Certainly Heller and McDonald were not case-law when this was written, but even though, every bit of it is complete hogwash. This worksheet used the word “facts” … who approved this crap? This was pure indoctrination when it was written 12 years ago and should never have been used. As far as we can tell, teachers have been using this worksheet for 12 years.

Dr. Ellen Solek, the superintendent of schools in Bristol, issued the following statement earlier this afternoon. It was sent via email and not published on the school system’s website. (At least I don’t see it.)

The assignment given to students at Northeast Middle School has been withdrawn in the best interest of the district. Parents with concerns or questions regarding any assignment are encouraged to contact the school directly.

Steven Boibeau from Bristol contacted us before noon this morning looking to send us the document, but I did not get back to him until just before 7 p.m. ET. He shared his story with Todd Starnes at Fox News Radio earlier in the morning. I found reference to the document on another forum and a member forwarded me the information. Thanks to Bill J. for sending me details with the text of the email from Solek.

We don’t hear from these professionals simply because they are not allowed to speak officially on the subject. But every law enforcement professional I’ve spoken with off-the-record (about 13 or so) are convinced the proposed gun-control legislation at the federal and state level won’t do a damn thing, and many think it will make some situations worse.

Today, PoliceOne.com released the results of a gun policy survey you will not read about in the main stream media. You won’t hear the Connecticut governor or the president speak to the results either. The opinions of this survey will not be suppressed, rather they will be ignored. OK, maybe you’ll see the results in a brief clip, and if you do … let me know. The survey…

… was conducted between March 4 and March 13, 2013. More than 15,000 officers completed the survey, which was promoted by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of verified law enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel were eligible to participate in the survey. The survey sample size was broadly distributed by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at large. Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those that took the survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were former/retired law enforcement.

I have the PDF of the survey available, but here is some general information, with percentages rounded.

What effect do you think the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have in improving police officer safety?
86% of respondents say passage will have no impact or a negative impact on officer safety. One of four think additional gun-control measures will make their job more difficult and have a negative impact on their safety.

What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as “assault weapons,” would have on reducing violent crime?
Almost 92% off officers think a ban on the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons” will have no effect – or a negative effect – on reducing violent crime.

Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?
96% of respondents answered No.

I’ll add a qualifier to the above. The questions – since they are not specific to the details of legislation may or may not be in the pipeline – are a bit general since they do not mention ban specifics: grandfather current owners, prevent future purchases or confiscation schemes. That said, the general opinion is is clear and overwhelming. Current law enforcement officers do not think the legislation being discussed will do anything to reduce violent crime in the United States.

On other topics, cops feel that arming teachers is acceptable if they are vetted and trained (77%). And…

• Concerning mass-shooting events like Newtown and Aurora, 80% think a legally-armed citizen would have reduced casualties.
• They think gun buyback programs are not effective (82%).
• They support concealed carry (91%).
• They support mandatory sentences with no plea bargains for crimes involving firearms (91%).

Surveys like this one must be discussed and not ignored. These are line-officers who work day-to-day on the street dealing with criminal activity, gang violence, drugs, stupid drivers, the mentally ill and – very rarely to the extreme – must respond to mass shooting events. We should listen to their voice.

Doug Wyllie, the PoliceOne editor and chief, writes…

Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard.