The More the Government Intrudes the More Irrelevant It Is

[wctriumph]

I read this article (see below) and various others like it from both sides of the argument and the one thing that stands out is that the more the government intrudes on our lives with more and more rules, regulations and laws, the more irrelevant and useless they have become to us. Everything "they" do to "us" to make themselves more relevant to their own ideas just keeps pushing them farther and farther away from us, the citizens that they should be working for.

Our government is useless. They no longer have any relevant value to the citizens of the United States of America. We must replace these completely out of touch with reality public servants with new servants that will follow the Constitution and enable the citizens of this great country to again prosper by our own blood, sweat and tears. Make no mistake, there is a "They/Them" and "Us" mentality going on here and "They" are the ones pushing it to keep us divided and distracted from what is important. I know that I am preaching to the choir here. I will not give up and I will continue to fight in any way that I can at the moment.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ns_118376.html

BELLE VERNON, Pa. -- The owner of a small gun shop here sits on a wooden stool behind a glass-topped counter filled with handguns. The only thing folks talk about when they come into this store is what Washington will do next to attack gun owners, says the man, dressed in a crisp white shirt, dark blue pants and a ballcap from a local paint store.
“The story that is not being told is how afraid folks really are,” he says, refusing to have his name published. He has lived through the turbulent '60s and '70s and served in Vietnam, he says, but none of that compares to the fear he sees in today's customers.




“When you have not one, not two, but dozens of women well over 70 come in here to buy a gun, something is going wrong out there,” he says. “It's not just little old white women — it's young people, white and black, affluent and struggling, who are worrying about the (government's) overreach and the need to protect themselves.”
As if on cue, a middle-aged black man walks in and is greeted with a hearty handshake. The man says he came in to pick up a gun he ordered the week before.
The 65-year-old shopkeeper says everyone who walks through his door is concerned that the latest push for stricter gun laws will return to the congressional agenda, perhaps within weeks, despite his belief that Americans do not support the legislation as much as the Obama administration claims they do.
His newest customer nods in agreement.
President Obama made gun control a priority after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. After months of speeches that demonized the National Rifle Association, the gun bill failed in the U.S. Senate last month.
Obama called that defeat “a pretty shameful day for Washington.” Yet the overwhelming public outrage that he anticipated simply never materialized.
A poll released by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center one week later showed only 47 percent of respondents were “disappointed” that the Senate failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales.
Part of the problem is how the bill was pushed by Obama and his political arm, Organizing for America: People who own guns were condemned in shrill, strident terms that puzzled people who own guns, and even those who don't.
One of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., insists he hasn't given up; he does near-daily cable news interviews, hoping to bring a gun bill back up for a vote.
And Michael Bloomberg, New York's billionaire mayor, is dumping money into Pennsylvania for a television ad pressing folks to “demand” that their legislators support such a bill.
Yet, last week, when Bloomberg's Mayors Against Guns organization held a rally in Beaver County, fewer than 20 people attended; most were organizers of the event.
It's not unusual for members of Congress to misread public opinion, either from personal bias or a simple cultural lag. Obama and the Senate's majority Democrats clearly did on this issue, for both of those reasons.
Among history's more spectacular examples of this phenomenon was the repeal of Prohibition, according to historian David Pietrusza.
“The ‘driest' Congress ever was elected very late in the game, in 1928,” he recalled, “but within two years, the tide had turned dramatically … by November 1932, 98 ‘dry' House members and seven ‘dry' senators met defeat.”
Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political scientist, theorized that it is in Republicans' interest to keep the gun issue alive for its potential value as a wedge issue in 2014 “and maybe even 2016.”
The gun shop's door opens to another customer, filling the air with the blare of an oncoming freight train's sequenced horn — long, long, short, long blasts, warning motorists of a train crossing Belle Vernon's Main Street, a few blocks away.
Customers come and go from different walks of life, different ages, different genders, different ethnicities — a virtual social melting pot passing through one small gun shop, all echoing the same concern: fear that their way of life will be under attack again, and soon.

Salena Zito is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page columnist. E-mail her at szito@tribweb.com


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...#ixzz2T9V4AkoR
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

[GilpinGuy]

They no longer have any relevant value to the citizens of the United States of America.

For the hordes of leeches sucking off of the tit of the federal government, "they" are very valuable. Therefore, the hordes give them their votes so they can continue to receive the goodies.

[JohnTRourke]

We live in an Ineptocracy. It says it does everything, but in reality it does nothing.

[Singlestack]

I'm not sure "relevant" is the word I'd use. I think of relevant as "does it matter", and to that I would say more than ever. That is, government can be "relevant" in bad ways even more easily than being "relevant" in good ways. Higher taxes, more regulation, fewer freedoms, and intimidation - association with Tea-Party related groups as being a basis for an IRS audit, for example. are extremely relevant to me.

Clearly, government - especially Federal, but state as well - has become significantly more intrusive at an alarming rate. People are creatures of fear first and foremost, and their behavior reflects that.

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah, I disagree with your assessment the gov't is irrelevant, too. As a matter of fact, I think the gov't becomes more relevant the more it intrudes into places it has no business being. I completely agree with Singlestack's take on it.

We live in an Ineptocracy. It says it does everything, but in reality it does nothing.

For the same reasons I think this is an incorrect assessment, too. Gov't serves some very important functions. And gov't does a lot of things. Most of what gov't does is inefficient when compared to the private sector. But if gov't truly did nothing then why do we constantly rant on how intrusive they are in our lives? Gov't does plenty...most of which we could do without or do on our own.

[buffalobo]

Yeah, I disagree with your assessment the gov't is irrelevant, too. As a matter of fact, I think the gov't becomes more relevant the more it intrudes into places it has no business being. I completely agree with Singlestack's take on it.



For the same reasons I think this is an incorrect assessment, too. Gov't serves some very important functions. And gov't does a lot of things. Most of what gov't does is inefficient when compared to the private sector. But if gov't truly did nothing then why do we constantly rant on how intrusive they are in our lives? Gov't does plenty...most of which we could do without or do on our own.

^^This.

We get way too much govt.

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2

[68Charger]

I think the word he was looking for is "ineffective"

In that the administration wants LESS guns out there, yet their actions lead to the opposite happening.

[JohnTRourke]

Yeah, I disagree with your assessment the gov't is irrelevant, too. As a matter of fact, I think the gov't becomes more relevant the more it intrudes into places it has no business being. I completely agree with Singlestack's take on it.



For the same reasons I think this is an incorrect assessment, too. Gov't serves some very important functions. And gov't does a lot of things. Most of what gov't does is inefficient when compared to the private sector. But if gov't truly did nothing then why do we constantly rant on how intrusive they are in our lives? Gov't does plenty...most of which we could do without or do on our own.

but government doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
borders, defense, roads
it intrudes into everything, with tons and tons of people and then doesn't do what it's main function is but they manage to pay and employ millions of people to do nothing.
that's the very definition of inept.

and BTW, 30 million illegals don't think government is intrusive. Laws only apply to those that choose to follow them. We live in a banana republic, most of the government can be completely ignored.