Lockyer anti-gun ideology would hit CA taxpayers

lockyerDec. 18, 2012

By John Seiler

America still mourns the victims of the Newtown mass murder. It’s predictable that anti-gun Democratic ideologues would use the tragedy to advance their position — at the expense not only of our Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms,” but at the expense of taxpayers.

California Treasurer Bill Lockyer now is insisting that state retirement funds divest themselves of investments in gun companies. He said: “STRS and PERS should not be investing in any company that makes guns that are illegal in California, especially ones used to kill 20 innocent children and 6 innocent adults.”

If he had been forthright, he would have said, “California taxpayers should be forced to pick up the tab for my anti-gun ideology. Because twisting investment strategies in that direction will mean lower returns on fund investments, which must be made up by taxpayers.”

If we are to have these retirement funds whose performance is guaranteed by the taxpayers, then the funds should have one purpose: to maximize investment return so the taxpayers don’t have to pick up more of the tab than they already are.

Already, taxpayers are being socked for $6.5 billion a year to make up for pension shortfalls. That amount is more than the $6 billion the just-passed Proposition 30 is supposed to bring into the state.

How much?

How much are we supposed to pay to subsidize Lockyer’s ideology?

If he’s really so anti-gun, then he should openly campaign to repeal the Second Amendment.

But so long as investing in gun companies is a profitable and legal investment, then state pension funds should be free to own their stock to reduce the taxpayers’ liability.

And as to banning companies that make something illegal in California, that would mean emptying almost everything in the retirement funds’ portfolios — because so many things are illegal here. For example, California’s minimum wage is higher than in most states. So any company with workers in, say, Mississippi or Alabama not paying a California-high minimum wage to those workers should be divested.

And California investment officials should go to China to make sure factories there are complying with AB 32 in China.

Finally, here’s a thought. If Lockyer hates such dirty investments so much, how about getting the state entirely out of the pension-investment business? Let’s convert all pensions, including those of current employees and even those already retired, into 401(k)-style plans that would allow the retirees themselves to direct their own retirement funds.

That way, if some employees like Lockyer — and he will get a massive pension should he ever leave government — want to divest themselves of gun-company stocks, they would be free to do so. But taxpayers would not be forced to pay for their ideology.

 

10 comments

Write a comment
  1. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 18 December, 2012, 09:08

    John Seiler says,
    America still mourns the victims of the Newtown mass murder. It’s predictable that anti-gun Democratic ideologues would use the tragedy to advance their position — at the expense not only of our Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms,” but at the expense of taxpayers.
    ============================
    Again, the real difference in our opinions compared to yours john is this. We see the children in CT as victims, you see them as collateral damage so as long as you can keep your weapons!!

    Reply this comment
  2. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 18 December, 2012, 10:35

    “We see the children in CT as victims…”

    BS. You see them as ideological pawns.

    Once again, NTHEOC shows why morning bong-hits are not a good idea.

    Reply this comment
  3. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 18 December, 2012, 11:02

    NTHEOC: What would the “collateral damage” be if you went, house to house, and grabbed the more than 300 million guns owned by Americans? Would you do it personally? When hundreds of thousands of Americans resisted, would you shoot them?

    — John Seiler

    Reply this comment
  4. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 18 December, 2012, 11:17

    NTHEOC, it was only last spring that the Connecticut state legislature defeated a bill, which would have given the state the right to institutionalize a person who is mentally ill for treatment, if the state had enough evidence to believe that the person could be a danger to himself or the community.

    Predictably, the ACLU opposed the important bill with calling it “outrageously discriminatory.” The ACLU said the bill would “infringe on patients’ privacy rights by expanding [the circle of] who can medicate individuals without their consent.”

    This guy would have qualified as mentally ill under this law.

    Katy

    Reply this comment
  5. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 18 December, 2012, 17:17

    Hey, at least he is not floating a “ban”, as DiFi did in 83 in SF….well, DiFi did more than float the idea, she implemented a city policy/law banning firearms. Didn’t last long.

    Reply this comment
  6. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 18 December, 2012, 19:27

    CalWatchdog says:
    NTHEOC: What would the “collateral damage” be if you went, house to house, and grabbed the more than 300 million guns owned by Americans? Would you do it personally? When hundreds of thousands of Americans resisted, would you shoot them?
    – John Seiler
    =========================
    John, first off, I am not advocating taking all guns away from people. Just the high powered assault type weapons(i.e AR15) that are or can be converted easily to full auto,or can hold 100 round clips.Also,these rambo wannabes store thousands of rounds of ammo,and for what? There is no amount of stockpile you people can have that would be sufficient to stop the gov’t. Do you really think that you could! I do support home and business protection and a 12 guage shotgun is more than enough! I also support hunters who eat their kill and the only rifle i would want to be legal would be a bolt action single shot.Like you really need an AR15 for that!! If all the millions of assault rifle gun owners are so law abiding like you say then they would have no problem obeying the law and turning in their guns, right? Otherwise they can choose to go down “WACO STYLE”!!!!

    Reply this comment
  7. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 19 December, 2012, 04:32

    John, first off, I am not advocating taking all guns away from people. Just the high powered assault type weapons(i.e AR15) that are or can be converted easily to full auto,or can hold 100 round clips
    ==
    NTHEOC, I know in CA no magazine holdimg more than 10 rounds is leagal, is that not the case natioonwide also??

    As fpor converting a semor auto to automatic, can you name one incodnet in the lasyt 10 years where a semi automatic was convirtes to full automatic and used in a mass murder like CT or CO?????

    Reply this comment
  8. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 19 December, 2012, 09:55

    NTHEOC writes – “We see the children in CT as victims, you see them as collateral damage so as long as you can keep your weapons!!”

    Jimmiedee is right, you only see children as political pawns in your public disarmament schemes. He also has a point about putting away the morning bong before writing such self serving drivel.

    Your statement about AR-15’s being converted to full auto is irrelevant nonsense. Non of these mass shootings involved automatic weapons. Rifles of all types account for less than 3% of all gun related deaths in this country. The semi-auto’s you gun haters want to ban are a fraction of that 3%. There are tens of millions of these semi-auto rifles in private hands already so how would a ban on further sales stop more mass shootings? Ever heard of Anders Brevik? Norway has stringent gun control laws like England and both countries still have mass shooting sprees by demented individuals. No free society can stop mass killings entirely so how much of a police state do you want to implement in a failed attempt to achieve the impossible?

    “I am not advocating taking all guns away from people.”

    Not yet anyway. The way gun control works in this country is incrementally. First semi-auto rifles are made illegal, then after more mass shootings with pistols you gun haters will want handguns made illegal. Then when someone uses a 12 gauge home defense shotgun to commit a mass killing you will advocate banning defensive shotguns, which by the way, are far more deadly at close range than an AR15 rifle and can be made concealable with nothing more than a hack saw.

    “Also,these rambo wannabes store thousands of rounds of ammo, and for what?”

    For shooting of course! As in recreational activity like hunting, target practice, plinking and personal defense training. A competitive shooter can expend 500 or more rounds in one weekend of competition. If you had ever taken a defensive handgun course you would know that they require shooting 500 to 1000 rounds to successfully complete the program. Shooting sports are like any other sport. Achieving high skill levels requires lots of practice, which requires lots of ammunition. DUH!

    Do you see the pattern here? Every time gun control fails, like with the Gun Free School Zones Act, the solution from gun control Fascists is more gun control and more citizen disarmament. Only irrational or stupid people keep advocating more of the same failed policies and expecting a different result. NO FORM OF GUN CONTROL WILL STOP THESE KINDS OF UNUSUAL BUT GRUESOME CRIMES. Gun hating Fascist phonies like DiFi know this. They just cynically use these tragedies to scare an ignorant and frightened nation into supporting more failed policies.

    STOP DANCING IN THE BLOOD OF VICTIMS AND WRINGING YOUR HANDS WITH GLEE WHEN INNOCENTS DIE.

    STOP USING SENSATIONALIZED TRAGEDIES TO PUSH YOUR DISARMAMENT AGENDA.

    SOMEDAY YOU GUN HATER GOONS WILL GO TOO FAR AND THEN IT WILL REALLY GET UGLY.

    BEFORE THAT HAPPENS GET A CLUE AND LEARN SOME RESPECT FOR OUR 2ND AMENDMENT CIVIL RIGHTS, WHICH DON’T EXIST JUST SO ELMER FUDD CAN HUNT WASCALLY WABBITS.

    Reply this comment
  9. Rye
    Rye 19 December, 2012, 16:54

    I served in the military for 9 years, 2 of those years as an armorer. I can tell you rex that it is more difficult than you think to convert an AR to full auto. The parts are not the same in a semi as they are in auto, and are not so readily available. It has been done without the proper parts (or a proper smith), however, these “conversions” are easily fouled or break very quickly. As for Ntheoc, have you ever witnessed the carnage that a single individual can create with a single shot, bolt action rifle ? Horrifying doesnt begin to describe it.

    Reply this comment
  10. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 19 December, 2012, 17:55

    I know the converting of semi auto to fulll auto is NOT a problem as Iknow of no recent acts like that, in gfact I can not recall one in the past althought there must be a few instances.

    Gus didn’t kill Bin Laden, Navy Seals Did. Food didn’t kill Chris Farley, his eating habits and lack of exercise did. Don’t blame honest firearm owners for the small number who are mentally ill and go crazy- as the CT and CO shooters obviously were.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Tags assigned to this article:
Bill LockyerCalPERSCalSTRSJohn SeilerNewtown

Related Articles

It's White Suit Day!

Katy Grimes: Last week Sen. Rodrick Wright reminded colleagues during a hearing that today is the official kick-off of White

Govt. Stockholm Syndrome Strikes

John Seiler: You’ve probably heard of Stockholm Syndrome, where hostage victims end up identifying with the hostage takers. Here’s Wikipedia’s

Cap and trade “pretend” media auction today

Aug. 28, 2012 Katy Grimes: The California Air Resources Board is holding a webinar for credentialed media today “to familiarize them