Connect with us

Offbeat

How to become a federal criminal: The most ludicrous laws in America

Published

on

Did you know making obscene gestures towards a horse is a federal offense? How about selling Swiss cheese without holes? Selling llama poop? Feeding a pig trash that hasn’t been cooked by a license garbage cook?

These and so many other laws are on the books and they’re absolutely ridiculous. Some estimates put the current legal code at somewhere around 300,000 laws. That’s a far from from what was essentially three federal crimes at our nation’s founding.

In a new book called, How to Become a Federal Criminal: An Illustrated Handbook for the Aspiring Offender, criminal defense attorney Mike Chase breaks down the craziest federal laws currently being held over us. His Twitter account is both hilarious and infuriating.

This video interview by Reason lets Chase explain why the sheer size and total silliness of the current code is a problem. You may be breaking a federal law without even knowing about it.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Guns and Crime

Let’s subsidize the 2nd Amendment

Published

on

Lets subsidize the 2nd Amendment

If there’s one thing that chaps my fiscal conservative khakis, it’s subsidies. Too much in taxpayer dollars is given to people and private businesses through programs designed to “help” them despite the demonstrable reality that most subsidies merely enable continued failure. For example, ethanol subsidies combined with fuel mix mandates artificially inflate demand and price while setting farmers up for a cataclysmic fall when superior alternatives arise. Then, there are sugar subsidies which take money from taxpayers so they can then spend MORE on sugar-based products than they would if the subsidies didn’t exist.

In our welfare state, individual subsidies are often panned by the right and embraced by the left, but there are clear arguments about both perspectives. People really do need help sometimes, and it’s not just because they’re lazy or wishing to live off welfare. Many need help through hard times so they can get themselves back on their feet. On the flip side, the left’s perspective that more people on welfare means they’re helping more people is one of the most backward concepts latched onto by a political ideology known for its backwards concepts.

As a whole, both individual and corporate subsidies need to be reduced by weening as many as possible off the assistance merry-go-round through increased prosperity and opportunity, In many cases, this can be accomplished by pulling government out of the way and letting Americans do what Americans are capable of doing when unhindered.

With my obligatory anti-subsidy rant out of the way, let’s talk about guns. More importantly, let’s talk about crime. As crazy ideas go, this is one that’s certain to be panned by both the right and the left, but it’s crazy enough to work. As I’ve said before, the way to mitigate gun violence is to make gun laws looser, not stricter. A gunman’s favorite venue is a place where there are no other guns present. Gun-free zones are massacre spots waiting to happen.

The argument that more “good guys with guns” would help relieve the so-called gun violence epidemic is demonstrated in places where the opposite is the law of the land. Chicago decided to eliminate “good guys with guns” with obtuse gun laws that restrict law abiding citizens from owning firearms. But their gun problem has consistently been getting worse. This makes no sense to the left who can’t seem to grasp that criminals will do as criminals do. They’ll acquire, carry, and utilize firearms illegally, and in a place where the law abiding citizenry is disarmed, it’s the criminals who will rule the streets.

It’s time to give the people the means by which they can defend themselves against crime and government tyranny. Instead of trying to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, we should arm them. It’s time for the government to subsidize the 2nd Amendment.

Any adult who is willing to go through gun safety, care, and usage training and who has no criminal record should be offered a “personal firearm” with varying degrees of government assistance. Low-income families can get them for free, one per household. Others can receive a voucher to help subsidize their purchase of qualified firearms from registered dealers participating in the program.

Just because someone can’t afford a gun doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have one. If the government allows easy and often free access to healthcare, education, food, and other necessities, they should also offer free and easy access to the one thing that can protect them when things get really bad.

Many will balk. They’ll say it’s a terrible idea because more guns means more crime. But they’re wrong. More guns in the hands of the right people will mean less crime. Moreover, the knowledge that any given household a criminal may intend to enter has a certain likelihood of having an armed resident is a deterrent in itself.

There are plenty of drawbacks, which is why this concept is practically impossible to implement in America today. The first time a government-subsidized firearm is used in a deadly crime will be the policy’s death knell. As a society, we have a tendency to focus on individual instances rather than the big picture, which is why calls for “assault weapons” bans are so prevalent despite the fact that less than 1% of 1% of AR-15 owners use their firearms to commit a crime.

But wait a second. You’re thinking it’s ridiculous to call for government to help people acquire more firearms because some will be used to harm others. It’s a terrible plan, you’re thinking. But isn’t that the argument made by pro-abortion activists who are calling for government to fund abortion?

Obviously this is article is (mostly) tongue-in-cheek. It’ll never happen. But it’s no less ludicrous than people calling on government to fund abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood. As Will Chamberlain from Human Events noted, the same calls to subsidize Planned Parenthood could be made into calls to subsidize the NRA.

At least with gun subsidies it’s certain that doing so will save lives. With abortion subsidies, it’s all about taking life.

Why should low-income families have to choose between putting food on the table and having access to the tools that can keep their family safe? The left calls for subsidized abortions to take lives. Why not subsidized guns to save them?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Now they want you to accept literal vampirism, too

Published

on

Now they want you to accept literal vampirism too

As article from Katherine Timpf in National Review from 2015 is getting new life as Truthstream Media called it up and highlighted the utter ridiculousness of claims made by “real vampires.” And by “real,” we’re talking about those with a mental disorder that makes them believe they need some form of sustenance to survive that falls outside of the standard food realm. Some drink blood. Some drink “psychic energy.” All of them have a detachment from reality.

As we move into the post-truth society envisioned by radical progressives, truth is only a function of one’s feelings. We are not allowed to question the validity of anyone’s personal claims. If they say they’re a girl even if they were born a boy, then the post-truth society demands we call them girls. If they believe they need to drink human blood to survive even if biology says otherwise, then by golly pour them a pint or two.

If you still have doubts we’ve been heading towards a post-truth society for a long time, watch this video. Kat Timpf’s NRO article and Truthstream Media’s video should put all your doubts to rest with no hope of coming back from the dead.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Offbeat

To end confusion, President Trump calls on Iceland, Greenland to swap names

Published

on

To end confusion President Trump calls on Iceland Greenland to swap names

Yes, this is satire, and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking otherwise, even for a moment.

As rumors spread that President Trump has asked his staff to explore the possibility of buying Greenland, he took to Twitter this morning to request the largest island in the world switch names with its nearby island neighbor.

“It’s way to confusing, like parking in a driveway and driving on a parkway,” he said in a Twitter thread. “Greenland and Iceland should swap names to put an end to the madness they’re causing. I’ve been to Iceland. There’s no ice!”

Greenland carries a sparse population for an island so large due to the thick ice that covers most of the land. Meanwhile, Iceland is a lush landscape with more plant life than it’s inappropriately named neighbor across the sea.

Democrats invoked “fluid identity” to rebuke the President’s request.

“Just as a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man, so too can Greenland be covered by ice and Iceland be covered by green,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. “How dare the President try to force his opinions about identity on other nations.”

Members of “The Squad” attacked the President for trying to misname the islands. “Just because we believe Israel should be called Palestine doesn’t give the President the right to ask countries to change their names.”

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending