After all, they've had the Capitol grounds surrounded by the National Guard for two months now. Nobody goes in or out of congress, the White House, or the Supreme Court without dealing with a phalanx of GWG (Guys With Guns) supposedly there to protect the precious few from the unruly many (US citizens). It's an odd thing, this occupation of the nation's capitol. Nobody living can remember anything quite like it. Many questions about why troops are stationed in and around the US Capitol remain unanswered, but one thing is certain: the National Guard isn't there just for show. Somebody's afraid of something, and it's probably the people on the inside, afraid of the people on the outside.
Having the ability to pass laws that would give the elected people access to all the guns in the country, or, at least a record of who has guns, might, in their squeamish little brains, give them some comfort and maybe even prompt the removal of the barricades and armed guards surrounding and supposedly protecting them.
House Democrats (and a few Republicans) recently passed a couple of acts designed to exert more control over gun ownership in the United States. The proposed legislation has to clear the senate, but will need 60 votes to pass procedural hurdles, so it's unlikely that their dreams of nearly complete gun control will come to fruition. A few more Democrats in congress and some arm-twisting of Republicans, however, could result in bans on popular sporting rifles, registration of all guns bought or sold in the country (even gun sales between relatives, neighbors, or friends, and no time limit on how long the FBI could take to complete a background check (it's currently three days, but their legislation would allow the FBI to hold up gun sales and purchases indefinitely).
These measures certainly seem to be on the extreme end of the spectrum and some say even violate the second amendment, which, if anybody wishes to recall, reads as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
That seems pretty straightforward to anybody at a fifth-grade reading level or better. Apparently, the current occupiers of the Capitol don't appear to have much of a sense for following the US Constitution, nor do they seem to have a working understanding of the words, "shall not be infringed," with emphasis on the word "infringed."
For their edification, and yours, here's a commonly-used definition of "infringe" from which "infringed" is derived in the past tense or as a past participle (thanks to both Mrs. Meyers for grammar school education):
infringe
[in?frinj]
VERB
infringed (past tense) · infringed (past participle)
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms:
contravene · violate · transgress · break · breach · commit a breach of · disobey · defy · flout · fly in the face of · ride roughshod over · kick against · fail to comply with · [more]
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed" · [more]
synonyms:
undermine · erode · diminish · weaken · impair · damage · compromise · limit · curb · check · place a limit on · encroach on · interfere with · disturb · disrupt · trespass on · impinge on · intrude on · enter · invade · barge in on · burst in on · entrench on
Gee, golly, those synonyms... erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise, limit, curb... sure make it sound like our Founding Fathers wanted everybody to at least have unfettered access to guns, i.e., having the right to bear Arms. All the laws, regulations, and limitations on gun ownership and possession seem to fly in the face of the founding document of the United States of America. According to some sources, there are more than 55,000 laws regarding gun possession scattered through federal, state, and local statutes. That sure seems like a lot of infringing by people who are elected by "we, the people" to uphold the constitution.
No wonder they're scared. They don't seem to be doing a very good job at following the law.
Leaving the constitutional argument hanging out there like a sore thumb, more immediate concerns for ordinary people - and even oddballs and extraordinary folks - involve money, finance, and choosing on what to spend those juicy stimulus checks.
Some banks and other financial outfits have done some studies on the topic and they've discovered that people used previous stimulus checks on food, rent, and paying down debt, but also on electronics, clothes, video games, bikes, and toys at major retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and others.
Bank of America concludes that the "stimmie" will largely go toward saving rather than spending, while coindesk.com sees a suspiciously high percentage of people planning on buying some bitcoin.
Other anecdotal evidence points out that much of the $1400 doled out to everybody earning less than $75,000 is going into stocks, and smaller amounts into other assets like gold or silver. Some people have already committed to buying guns and/or ammo, so the wants and needs of Americans really run the gamut of preferences, assumedly determined by how concerned about the future one may be.
People who are readying for Armageddon, full scale rioting, gun-grabbing, government overreach and so on are the ones shoring up their food and water supplies. These types used to be laughed at and called "preppers," but, since the run on toilet paper last Spring and the threat of more lockdowns and travel restrictions still loons, nobody's laughing at them any more. Today, they're being hailed as realists with good doses of common sense. Over the past year, it's a good bat that a large number of people have joined their ranks or at least began thinking seriously about what they need to have on hand for emergencies.
The gold bugs and silver stackers continue to believe there's upside in those "ancient relics" and they're right. Both of the precious metals have been employed as money for centuries. If the economy goes into the tank or things continue to spiral out of control. having some hard assets like bars or coins might be a handy trading tool. At the very least, they'll retain their value if everything else is going to heck.
As for guns and ammo, that would likely depend upon where you live and how secure you are in your possessions. Folks in the cities might think conditions have become more dangerous of late and they'd be right. Crime in large urban centers has risen dramatically over the past 12 months. Personal protection is high on the list when it comes to survival. People out in more rural areas are likely to be already well-armed, have solid supplies of food and water (many have their own wells or access to water in the wild), and may just sock that dough away in their IRA or savings account. Some will surely buy stocks or bitcoin or gold or silver or all of them.
Bottom line, one cannot go wrong with some canned goods, and, while $1400 worth of beans, peas, carrots, olives, pickles, and assorted culinary treats might be a bit on the extreme side, putting up $100 to $200 worth of extra food and bottled water seems like a no-brainer. It's all about perspective.
Here's looking at you, Green Giant.
At the Close, Monday, March 15, 2021:
Dow: 32,953.46, +174.82 (+0.53%)
NASDAQ: 13,459.71, +139.84 (+1.05%)
S&P 500: 3,968.94, +25.60 (+0.65%)
NYSE: 15,775.50, +60.30 (+0.38%)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment