I do believe you. One suggestion that came from multiple fronts was the idea of permitting teachers, already possessing their permit, to have their sidearms with them at school.

It was well-clarified to the administration that this could be done, not in the sense of creating some new deputies or pseudo-cop, but simply that it has been shown time & again that once a monster receives any push-back to their plan they fold, either by giving up or (often) doing the tax-payer's work in offing themselves. Aimed fire is a wonderful kind of push-back. Even the appearance of the potential of it was enough to cause a major rudder correction in the Oregon mall shooter's direction. Teachers as speed bumps. If the monster comes into the room of cowering children they're going to get shot at.

This offering was immediately demonized with the prop-machine doing the administration's bidding and that of those who are against reliance & empowerment because of the hoplophobic terror of a firearm in even closer physical proximity to a student - in the classroom on their teacher's hip or in their purse (hopefully not, I detest the idea of off-body carry but 'nuther discussion).

Oh, wait. That might actually achieve something because it might take a situation, difficult to predict at best, from one number of casualties down to much less. Results-based, so forget I said anything.

Meanwhile, "No."

To me, that's viable, and not just in schools.

Are you sure about that?

What I have found is that a majority of tax and other associated payments to the Federals is done by/required by the individual or the corporation in question.

Individual taxes (as we are all familiar....or at least MOST of us ;) ) are remitted by the individual through the familiar tax return filings.

For Employers

Then other specific commodities or sectors as follows:
What is most interesting is in the "From those according to what they have to those according to what they need" method of distribution of those funds.

For instance, the States where the most Federal revenue is collected are not necessarily the States where the most Federal dollars are expended. The top State for receipt of Federal dollars is New Mexico (2007 data) which receives just over$2.00 for every dollar the "State" (being the collective residents and businesses) contribute. The lowest return on money sent to D.C. is New Jersey, where only .61 of every dollar is returned to the State.

(Link to data from the Tax Foundation here)

More complete data set is located here

So at the end of the day....the individual taxpayer and the businesses must serve multiple masters, exclusive of one another. The States levy taxes based upon their code and the Feds theirs. Depending upon where you live that burden can be applied in a multitude of ways. In the DPRM, it is a tax-on-tax State. Multiple levels of taxes are paid and can range from the State, County, City, Municipality, Fire District...etc....

So if you are talking about how the Feds can squeeze? Well considering the Feds doled out over $490B (That's $490,000,000,000 just for the visual) in grants in 2011...

How much money do state and local governments receive from the federal government?

Source here

My opinion has always been that government (at any level) is in the business of perpetuating it's own existence. If you accept that point...then consider the fact that the State and the politicians attached to it will not be able to (literally) bring home the bacon...and threaten their reelection.

Good luck with that.

With few exceptions, the "Rights of the People" will be sacrificed for the perpetual existence of the bureaucracy.

YOMV

If you want to do a litmus test to see where your tax dollars go, try writing a check out to the US Treasury for any income tax owed. It will be sent back to you. A good study of the Bretton Woods Act and its amendments should be a clue as to where your tax dollars are headed and why. It will also define the players and who and what is dejure vs who and what is defacto.

Vermont Senator Withdraws Gun Bill

MONTPELIER, Vt.
"Just a week shy of being introduced, Vermont's senate majority leader is withdrawing a bill that would have banned semi-automatic guns."

Posted: Jan 21, 2013 11:52 AM EST
Updated: Jan 21, 2013 12:02 PM EST
By Lesley Engle
Fox 44 News

http://www.fox44abc22yourvoice.com/s...draws-gun-bill

More sheriffs take a stand.
Many from California...

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.co...updated/31948/
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s2900557.shtml

That is awesome. Hopefully more get on board and hopefully the 30 GOP Governors will stand up to the president in this matter.

I was working at a county jail when the State Hospital for the Mentally Ill closed. Immediately the population changed. I now work state corrections and nearly half are diagnosed with some mental illness.
I don't have a solution. I do know it is wasting resources attempting to prepare them to be productive citizens. It is beyond our scope.

Oklahoma:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf...B548%20INT.PDF
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf...B401%20INT.PDF
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf...B552%20INT.PDF

WY moving forward
 

A friend brings to me notice that it appears their HB0104 as previously mentioned will be going forward.

The bill will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee at noon on 1/28. There's 30+ days left in the session, plenty of time for committee vote, three readings, House vote, and Senate vote. WY is starting to suffer some of the yuppie immigrant riff-raff issues that CO residents have lamented about. But with a state legislature that only sees fit to meet for such short terms, hopefully they are just focusing on the important stuff & go back to their day jobs. Wish other legislatures (like Congress) ran that way. IIRC WY is also way down the list in terms of the amount of bak-sheesh taken from the Fed.

:lifter

CT to propose reducing 2A rights
 

Just received this from NSSF. This may be the one and only opportunity to appear at a public hearing on the matter in CT before the legislature takes action.

Connecticut Legislators Eyeing Long List of Gun-Control Measures; Public Hearing Set for Monday, Jan. 28

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/201...161-R00-SB.htm

...law abiding folks can't have mags holding > 10 rounds and are required to have a permit to own a weapon with that dangerous pistol grip...registration of firearms, all semi-auto rifles deemed "assault weapons" etc., etc., -- that'll stop those crim'nals or mentally deranged folks from doing evil.

There will only be a few opportunities for discussion and opposition as many in Hartford are trying to pass legislation as quickly as possible. The first hearing (and may be the only time to testify) will occur next Monday, Jan. 28, at 10 a.m. at the Legislative Office Building.

Gun Violence Prevention Working Group Public Hearing
Monday, Jan. 28, 2013
Legislative Office Building
10 a.m., Room 2C

From what I have seen here working in NJ, I have to ask if those "Federal dollars to the States" is genuine.

Does that number for NJ include Federal grants that go to County and Municipal agencies? New Jersey is the State with over 600 municipalities. Add to that the 26 counties and too-many-to-list agencies that share jurisdictions.

Every government agency builds their budget with entire sections coming from "State" or "Federal" or Some Named Agency providing the grant/ funding.

Many times, quasi-government agencies dealing with education or infrastructure are not counted in the State roll-up, as the State labels them as "Private Corporations". Port Authority of NY/ NJ is a prime example.

At the end of the day, the government agencies are in business to spend more money. I feel better that I drive home into Pennsylvania, but I feel more of the NJ crap spreading across the Delaware River. Wife and I are already discussing moving to SC, ID, TX. I refuse to just pick up and move, as I believe in fighting for what is right.

Pennsylvania has not made it onto any Anti-Federal Gun Grab list, though I wonder what the new Democrat AG will do. PA has some great firearms laws and has been very friendly, to include Castle Doctrine.

GA HB 90

A GA bill introduced to protect Second Amendment rights.

http://legiscan.com/GA/text/HB90/id/...Introduced.pdf

Summary
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Part 1 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the O.C.G.A., relating to general provisions regarding dangerous instrumentalities and practices, so as to provide that no officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, no persons performing governmental functions, and no firearms dealer shall enforce or attempt to enforce any federal law or regulation relating to a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state; to provide that no federal law or regulation shall be enforceable within this state that attempts to ban or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or any magazine of such firearm or that requires the registration of any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

From a political standpoint, they don't need to.

In general, conservatives base a great deal of their intellectual credibility in interpretations of America's past that have been either discredited thoroughly or updated so that they're paradoxically more comprehensive and also less definitive. (That is, the more you study American history, the less you know about American history.)

So, when conservatives speak/write of the "lessons of history," those lessons are likely to be out of date (by 30 to 50 years). From there, a person can just say "These guys don't know what they're talking about" and score a huge political point--even though that person may not know what he/she is talking about either. (This corresponding level of historical ignorance is often offset by the argument that the past should not determine how .GOV responds to present day issues, and/or that those very issues are legacies of past, which must be overthrown.)

A point that I've been making (or attempting to make) over the last year or two is that, until the American political right can (a) find the time to get "up to speed" on the changes to the historiographical landscape and/or (b) become more familiar with the historiographical framework of their own understanding of America's past, we need to be very careful about how we talk about the past so that we do not fall into that trap. (Or, worse, we provoke a senior academic historian (or two) from writing a book that destroys, point by point, the conservative view of America's past.)

One last point. Your comment about a "desired result" is a way to put the president, and others, into positions where they can walk the talk in which they say they agree that the Second Amendment establishes the inalienable right of gun ownership for law abiding citizens. That is, the president talks of a reduction in gun violence against children and showing a willingness to try solutions, then why not ask "Okay, what about regular mental health background checks on all school employees in the country, especially at public schools?" Why not suggest, "Okay, let's put veterans returning from OEF/OIF to work as armed security staff?" And then say, if those two options don't meet the criteria you set, we will try additional measures. (It is purely by coincidence that these two options don't help the Democratic Party politically. And none of the measures will unduly impact the ability of lawful citizens to buy, to own, or to sell fire arms.)