Join the NRA or only criminals will have guns.

One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in…

A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced.
Gun control advocates respond “Just wait… we’ll be safer… you’ll see…”.

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:

* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
* Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
* In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
* There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
* At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said “self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm”
* From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
* The ban has destroyed Australia’s standings in some international sport shooting competitions
* The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
* Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns”. Their response has been to “wait longer”.

“…The best organization you’ve got there, the biggest organization you’ve got there is the NRA. We don’t have an organization that size. We didn’t have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we suffered. And we hope that you don’t suffer…”


FCC now can act when TV commercials are too loud.

Will it make any difference, or will they just keep on doing what they want because this is really just an excuse to try to illegally, (allegedly) give powers to the Fcc that they do not have nor should they have.

Since 1960 reports have been coming into the FCC, allegedly, but nothing has ever been done, now we have the CALM act, but will it do any good at all?

I just have one question, why has Fox news not covered this momentous achievement of the Obama Administration?

Well could it be that they are taking money from the very people that the FCC wants to CALM DOWN, sure and why not we are sick and tired of the overly loud TV commercials, that blast your ear drums over and over again or how about this, the practice of reducing the volume on regular TV programming so that you have to turn up your TV each time you want to watch something that is not a commercial.

So why has Fox news not covered this story, or for that matter why has not CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, well has anyone covered it?

So what up, besides the volume, I mean when I watch a TV show and I have to turn down the volume on every commercial because of how loud it is, that is just wrong.

Are you seeing loud commercials?

If you are you should get your eyes checked because we are talking about how loud a commercials and since you cant see, then you better listen up.

From the FCC website,
If You Have a Complaint

Under most circumstances, it is in the interest of broadcasters to use equipment and procedures to avoid “loud” commercials and background noise. If you have a complaint about “loud” commercials and background noise, first try reducing the volume by checking your television and remote control. You may also contact the station(s) involved and explain your concerns. You should identify each message of concern by the sponsor or product’s name and by the date and time of the broadcast.

So, does this cover, cable networks that are really blasting your ear drums, with excessive, noise?

Probably not, but it may be one of the “convenient excuses” that the FCC decides to use in order to take over the internet and cable networks.

However, knowing just how excessive this noise can actually be would it really be such a bad thing that some control is exerted over the programming jerks that constantly bombard us with loud commercials?

Perhaps not, as long as they do not ask for an inch and intend to take a mile.

So what is next, should we regulate how much sugar is in a can of soda?