Author Archives: willisbryan2014

What would be the Price, Cost, Value and Worth?

Posted on by

The question in the title of this post is in reference to the God-given and Constitutional rights each American is free to enjoy and exercise or not as they see fit. Another series of questions that goes along with this post is the following; Could a person be convinced to sell their God-given and Constitutional rights? Could a person be convinced to trade or exchange their God-given and Constitutional rights?

There has been much of late on the internet about a possible gun grab by the federal government. It is my, as well as others, belief that a gun-grab by the federal government would have dire consequences. Of all I have read regarding the gun-grab and the plans to do so whether by executive order or by legislative means I have neither seen or heard about the following possibility.

Could it be possible to tie the free exercise of the Second Amendment to money, money from the federal government. No, I am not talking about a gun buy back plan or program. What I am talking about is tying gun ownership to receiving government monies. Think about this for a moment. How many households across America receive checks, federal government checks, every month retirement pensions, social security, disability checks or welfare, food stamps, wic and the rest of the long list of what are now called “government entitlements”.

I do not think that the federal government would or could implement and carry out a gun grab. But the federal government could tie gun ownership to government payments. The federal government would not be necessarily infringing on the right to keep and bear arms per se. Gun ownership or the lack of gun ownership could just be a pre-condition to receiving federal checks or federal benefits. It could be as simple as if a person was not willing to give up the right to keep and bear arms he or she would be ineligible for government money of any type. If a person wanted to continue receiving federal government he or she would only need to “voluntarily” give-up the right to keep and bear arms. In this instance the federal government did not deny the person their right to keep and bear arms, the right was exchanged for money, sold so to speak.

Think about this for a moment, the “experts” estimate that 47% of the households in America are on at least one form of government assistance. Could these households go a month without the checks that they rely upon for their very existence? Probably not. Add to this the numbers of retirees from the military and the federal government, they also receive pension checks from guess who? Don’t forget about the number of persons on social security old age or disability, that check also comes from guess who? Also don’t forget about the number of persons getting VA benefits, again a government check. Most of America could and would be disarmed with this simple maneuver, tying gun ownership to money. The government would not be grabbing your gun you would be giving it up freely.

Voluntarily disarming could also be a pre-condition to being hired by the federal government. Simple you want a government job, disarm. Gun=No government job. The only gun you could carry would be a government issued gun and then only if the position required it, and only as long as the tour of duty.

This would be only the beginning, not only would you “voluntarily” give up your right to keep and bear arms, you would also most likely be placed on a prohibited person list. You would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm the same as a common criminal, though you committed no crime. You could not buy guns or ammunition. There would most likely be a form that you would be required to sign explaining all of this to you.

Hold on it gets worse. Now that the right to keep and bear arms has been freely exchanged for a continuation of government checks, and the person placed on the prohibited persons list, there now must be a system to ensure compliance. To ensure the person is in full compliance with the “exchange program” there must be a system of checks and balances, so to speak. The government would be authorized to conduct unannounced and warrantless searches for guns and ammunition. The way the system is now if a search warrant is issued for a 65 inch flat screen TV, no area can be legally searched where a 65 inch flat screen TV could not be hidden. There would be no excluded areas for search if they were searching for a single bullet.

If one is found with a prohibited item I am sure there would be confiscation, fines and a loss of benefits along with a lengthy prison term. No telling what could or would be found looking for a single bullet. So in fact you sold your Second Amendment right, and lost your Fourth Amendment protection. They get a two for one deal. The question is this; How much will you sell your rights for, and what others would you lose?

Oh, and keep this in mind, even a draconian measure like this would not effect a single criminal.

Wrong again

Posted on by

My prayers and thoughts go out to the victims and their families in San Bernardino, Ca. My appreciation goes to the Law-Enforcement agencies and other first responders.

Another tragedy presents another opportunity for the politicians and activists to politicize the sorrow. Even as the tragedy was unfolding it was being politicized. The Liberal Socialist Progressives will use this tragedy to further promote their agenda. They will as usual politicize the tragedy as they attempt to assign blame or find a way to justify the actions of those responsible for the carnage, which ever serves best to promote their agenda. They will get this wrong as they have in the past gotten so much wrong.

In the attempt to politicize this tragedy the Liberal Socialist Progressives and activists will first blame the gun. They will blame the gun, even though the gun was not the cause of the carnage it was merely the chosen instrument. It was the person behind the gun that should be blamed, and rightfully so. But they will not blame the person, unless the person they can assign the blame to fits in with their narrative and agenda. Then someone will attempt to find some occurrence in the past that justifies the actions of these murderous Moslems.

The first I will address is the apologists. The Liberal Socialist Progressives and the Apologists will attempt to find some occurrence in the past that would justify the actions of these murderous Moslems. Let me just address this in this way, there is no justification for what those murderous ingrates did.

Now I will address the Liberal Socialist Progressives. The Liberal Socialist Progressives as well as the gun control activists will start out saying that “something has to be done to control gun violence”. They will claim that only way to stop or lessen gun violence is that more laws are needed, more gun control laws. The gun control laws already on the books only effect the law-abiding population and has had no effect on the criminal element in our population, nor will any future laws. If there is anyone who believes that laws already on the books have any effect on criminal activity, they need to look no further than the prison system. America has laws making murder a criminal act punishable by imprisonment or death, murders still occur. There are laws against rape, robbery, drug possession and sale, theft and many others, yet the prisons contain people, men and women, convicted of the same acts(crimes). Criminals break the law, that is what they do. The residents in the prison system are not there for obeying the law, if they obeyed the law they would not be in prison.

Not only will they blame the gun, they will attempt to demonize the legal and lawful gun owners and the groups that support and defend their rights to gun ownership. It is not the legal and lawful gun owners that are the problem. I have often wondered why the legal and lawful owners of firearms would need to have an advocate to act on their behalf to guard and protect the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. This is particularly puzzling when each and every politician, upon taking office swears or affirms to uphold the Constitution. Which brings up this point. The Founders and Framers must have known that at some point in time the Federal Government would begin to act as Monarchs and that is most likely the reason why the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights ends with words “Shall not be infringed”. Only the Second Amendment ends with these words.

Think on this for a moment. Could Law Enforcement patrol the entire length and breadth of America, given the sheer size of America, providing safety and security of the population? How often do the residents of rural America even see law enforcement on patrol? Where are the most law enforcement officers seen, in the cities and towns or as they say “out in the sticks”? Law enforcement and the military operating simultaneously could not patrol America for coast to coast and border to border. If the agenda and objective of the Liberal Socialist Progressives and the gun control groups is to have the legal and lawful Americans disarm, either voluntarily of involuntarily, would America be a safer nation for its legal and lawful citizens? I submit to you that it would not. The criminal element has already demonstrated their utter disregard for the law already and would not obey a new law the same as they have disregarded the past laws. I ask this, Would you rather defend yourself and your family with a cellphone or with something at least as powerful as what the criminal who is assaulting you or your family with? If you chose the phone at least the one the other end of the call heard what happened to you or to your family. If you wish to defend yourself or your family with a cellphone I suggest you learn to throw it at 2000 feet per second.

Not only do the Liberal Socialist Progressives get it wrong every time regarding firearms, they also get it wrong on immigration, every time. There was a time in years past, now many years past, when people immigrated(legally)to America to make a better life foe themselves and their families. The legal immigrants assimilated into American society willingly living under the laws and customs of America, that was then this is now. The immigrants of today are no longer expected to assimilate into American society. If they are not expected to assimilate, what makes the Liberal Socialist Progressives believe that they will obey the laws of America, much less respect the customs or traditions? Let me use this example. If an immigrant moves in next to you that comes from a nation where murder is legal, would you want them to assimilate and live under the laws of America, or not to assimilate living under the laws of America and continue murdering because it is the custom of their native land? Would you feel comfortable living next door to a rapist, after all they only rape because it is a custom in their native land? How about a thief or a child molester? Today not only are immigrants not expected to assimilate they are not even expected to immigrate legally.

One thing about the Liberal Socialist Progressives is that they will never admit that their agenda was flawed or had failed. The only failure they ever admit to is that “we did not go far enough”. They never admit the plan was unwise or unjust, just that the plan was not “grand” enough. They only want to “progress”, go forward, no matter the cost or outcome. They are willing to destroy America in the name of “progress”. Maybe the “grand” plan of the Liberal Socialist Progressives is to reduce the entire population of America to a cowering population seeking cover and calling for another to come and save them from some terrorist or criminal. The one receiving the call will undoubtedly arrive carrying what you despise most, a gun. Or maybe the Liberal Socialist Progressives do not think there are already enough criminals in America, they seek to create more by making the legal and lawful owners of firearms criminals.

I can not control every minute of every day, as a matter of fact most of what happens daily is out of my control. I can not be there every second of every minute for my family. But when I am in the presence of my family they can rest assured that I will protect them from harm or die trying. My family and especially my wife will never hear these words from my lips “I am sorry Honey, I wish I could have done more than call for help”.

The difference between me, those like me and the gun control zealots is that not only will I place myself in harm’s way to defend and protect my family I will do the same for your family and even you. While I am willing to place myself in harm’s way to protect those that I love I will do the same for a stranger. The best I can hope for from you is that you will run away and hide then when you are safe you will call someone for help that would use the same tool I would have used, a gun. Amazing isn’t it, I would stand and fight while you would run. Maybe Chivalry is not dead after all, at least not yet.

Just about tired of:

Posted on by

I for one am just about tired of hearing from the talking heads whether on TV, Radio, or in Print say that America needs put “boots on the ground” to fight and defeat ISIL/ISIS/IS. These talking heads fail to realize or do not care that each pair of boots will have one of Americas best standing in them. The one standing in those boots will be someone’s son or daughter, someone’s grandson or granddaughter, someone’s father or mother, someone’s husband or wife, someone’s cousin, niece, nephew, or friend or even someone’s grandfather or grandmother.
Why in Gods name would these blowhards even suggest that America’s best be sent into harms way while at the same time saying that there is no clear plan to defeat ISIL/ISIS/IS? If there is no plan to defeat, there is no plan to win. Are they actually suggesting that more of America’s best be wasted? Are they suggesting that more American service members be sent into yet another “meat-grinder” without the administration having the apparent will to win?

The possible reason that the term “boots on the ground” is so popular with the talking heads is that it removes the human from the equation. After all the boots are not the son or daughter of anyone, nor do boots have brothers or sisters. Boots have no family or friends at all. Boots are just inanimate objects. Putting boots on the ground will accomplish nothing, it takes a Human wearing those Boots to accomplish something. Boots can neither act or think. It is highly unlikely that the boots will feel any pain, but the human that wears them will, if only for a moment. Boots can not scream out in agony nor will they call for their mother, that again takes a human wearing those boots.

Unless these talking heads are willing to go to the Armed Forces recruiting station and sign up. Better yet, these same talking heads should take their own sons and/or daughters down to the nearest Armed Forces recruiting station and sign them up. If these talking heads are unwilling to do these things, they just need to shut the hell up. In other words “put up or shut up”. The talking heads in the media are willing to spend(waste)the lives of sons and daughters the same as politicians are willing to give away money. The politicians will give away all the money of other people, but not theirs. The talking heads are willing to waste the lives of the sons and daughters other people, but not theirs.

Would the talking heads be so vocal about putting boots on the ground if their sons or daughters were wearing those boots?

Inviting Disaster

Posted on by

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families in the wake of the horrendous terrorist attack in Paris on 11/13/15, a terrorist attack carried out by radical Islamic extremists.

Given what happened in Paris on 11/13/15 I have to wonder why the refugees are still being allowed entrance into the countries of Europe and especially wonder why in God’s name are the refugees from Syria and Iraq being allowed admittance into the U.S. This is especially troubling since some in our own government have openly stated that terrorist are most likely blending in with the refugees.

Is the U.S. government taking, not just taking but accepting the risk that a few radical Islamic extremists may infiltrate the ranks of the refugees? As we saw in Paris on 11/13/15 the actual attack was conducted by just a few radical Islamic extremists. The same as America witnessed on 09/11/01 with the radical Islamist attack, the actual attack was carried out by fewer than twenty. The Paris attack was carried out by fewer that ten. The attack at Ft. Hood was carried out by one. The attack in Chattanooga was carried out by one. How many were involved in the Charlie Hebdo attack, Two? The large-scale and coordinated attacks require planning and logistics with many people operating in the background, the so-called lone wolf attacks do not. The only thing the two have in common is picking the right target. It does not take a lot of radical Islamic extremists to cause great amounts of death and destruction sometimes as few as one is all is that is needed.

My question for the government is what is the acceptable level of risk for your refugee resettlement program? Is the government inviting disaster? Is government willing to risk and accept that 1 out of 100 is a radical Islamic extremist? 1 out of 1000? 1 out of 10,000? Remember what one at Ft. Hood and one in Chattanooga were able to accomplish. When I hear that you will have a “robust vetting process” in place it does little to bolster my confidence. My guess is that you are gambling, playing the odds, with the lives of Americans, hoping for the best. Even one radical Islamic extremist is one too many.

BHO had claimed that ISIL(as he prefers to call them)are contained. Then Paris happened. BHO said that was a minor set-back. BHO may have been correct when he said that ISIL was contained. The policy of “containment” has been a success. ISIL(as BHO prefers to call them), their affiliates and their sympathizers are contained on six out of the seven continents, unless they have an affiliate branch in Antarctica.

For arguments sake, let’s say that by some major miracle the government gets this one right and no radical Islamic extremists arrive with the refugees, the government is still flirting with disaster. The disaster facing America in this case would be a financial disaster. Resettling refugees costs money a lot of money. At present the plan for resettlement is to accept and resettle 10,000, I suspect that many more than 10,000 will be arriving. Since they will be arriving without much in the way of finances or belongings they will be provided with the necessities of life and in many cases the luxuries of life. They will need housing, food and clothing at a minimum. All of that costs money as said a lot of money. The money to pay for the refugee resettlement must come from somewhere. The somewhere is actually somebody, and that somebody is the American taxpayer.

I have to wonder where and when the “robust vetting process” will take place. I suspect that the vetting will be conducted upon arrival in America. My question at this point is this. What would be done when a known radical Islamic extremist is found amongst the refugees? Would he or she be sent back to their home country? Would he or she be tried and imprisoned or simply held in the prison system?

It seems that the terrorists operating outside of the Middle-East and North Africa seem to have a tendency to pick “Soft Targets”. The best definition of a “Soft Target” is one in which the terrorist will face the least resistance, meaning an unarmed civilian population. An area where the only protection comes in the form of government forces, whether it be Law-Enforcement of the Military. France itself is not a “soft target”, but the people are as is most of the civilian population of Europe as well as the places they frequent. Most any place the people of Europe frequent is a “soft target”.

Getting to the question of would or could America face the same kind of attack experienced by Paris for a moment, and the answer of it is not a matter of if but when. This is my feeling on that issue. The same thing that was credited with keeping the Japanese from invading may be the same thing keeping the radical Islamic extremists at bay. And that is a citizenry with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Whether or not the right is exercised it does place a feeling of doubt in the mind of criminals as well as terrorists. Make no mistake the radical Islamic extremists are here, waiting, and more may be arriving with each batch of refugees and they too may wait. But waiting for what. Could they be waiting for sufficient numbers to wage a large-scale operation? I already pointed out that very few or even one can cause large-scale death and/or destruction. Could they be waiting until the gun control groups finally achieve their goal of a totally disarmed civilian population? I think the latter, just waiting for a “soft target”. At this point America itself is not a “soft target” and neither is the population. Just imagine, if the gun control groups and the politicians got their way and somehow managed to disarm the civilian population, what would happen. First off America is a large land mass, if the population was disarmed either voluntarily or by force there is no way that the federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies could patrol the entire country and provide safety for the population. Even if the military was included it would not be enough. Government, Law-enforcement and the Military would be occupied just protecting large cities and critical infrastructure and would barely be able to do that, those of us in the rural areas would be on our own and at the mercy of the terrorists. The rural areas would be given up as most would migrate to the large cities just for some protection. The cities would not be capable of supporting the entire population of this country. America would be a “soft target” from coast to coast.

If the situation were reversed and America found itself in the same position as the middle-east where could the Americans flee too? It is highly unlikely that the countries of the middle-east would accept American refugees. There would be no refugee activists waiting with open arms to welcome anybody. It would be best and even considered wise to close the borders. America must consider America first and stop taking un-necessary risks. There is nothing wrong with helping others but you must take care of yourself. No one has ever been helped by the helpless.

The possibility of even on radical Islamic extremist making it to America is not worth the risk of taking in refugees. The government must stop inviting disaster. As I mentioned America and the American people are not soft targets but there are many soft targets in America.

A sincere Thank You to all who served

Posted on by

Today is Veterans Day, a day to thank all Veterans who served their nation in times of peace or war. I send out my heart-felt thanks to all my brothers and sisters in arms, and to each and every one of you I say you made a difference when a difference needed to be made. It does not matter which Branch you served in, it matters that you served. It does not matter if you were drafted or volunteered, when the nation called you answered, many answered without being called.

Today is also a day where the rest of America should look to the veterans as an example of togetherness. We do not divide ourselves into different classes, nor do we allow ourselves to be divided. We do not have a day for white veterans, black veterans, brown veterans, red veterans or any other color imaginable. All of that was put aside, we are all one.

1v

Veterans day1v

A Little Common Sense Would be In Order Part 3 The United Nations and World Opinion

Posted on by

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. They go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.
This post applies to our “distinguished” elected representatives(past and present), their merry band of minions(past and present), the liberals, the progressives, those masquerading as conservatives(past and present)and the MSM.

First and foremost America, itself, is not responsible for, nor can America itself be blamed for the drama, chaos and crises around the globe. The problems, turmoil and crises around the world are caused by world leaders, more correctly national leaders who view themselves as world leaders. The United Nations shares in the responsibility and blame for world problems, turmoil and crises, as does it’s predecessor The League of Nations. Why, you ask? The answer is really quite simple with the advent of these two world bodies the nations, sovereign nations, began to adjust policy, domestic as well as foreign. Some nations, America in particular, began a policy of caving into or adjusting to meet world opinion. Suddenly it became necessary for the world to view America in a “favorable light”. Conforming to world opinion became more important to the politicians than doing what was and is right for America and the legal lawful citizens.

The League of Nations came into existence after WWI and went “dormant” at the outbreak of WWII. The United Nations came into existence after WWII and lasts to this day. One thing both of these “world bodies’ have in common is that they were both dreams of the Liberals. Was it world opinion that caused America to enter WWII? No, it was brought about by an attack on Pearl Harbor. During WWII, America built alliances with nations to defeat the Axis Powers world opinion did not matter defeating the enemy is what mattered. If world opinion had mattered America would probably have never sided with or given aid to Stalin or Russia. Could this be the reason The U.S. and Russia who have a common enemy ISIL/ISIS/IS do not join together to fight the terrorists as a team? Both countries have a common enemy, but world opinion gets in the way. Russia is assisting one whom the world looks at unfavorably, Assad in Syria, while America wants a favorable world opinion. It seems that keeping a favorable world opinion is more important than defeating ISIL/ISIS/IS. America no longer builds alliances, instead America forms “coalitions”. It seems that only a “coalition” will satisfy the need to have a favorable “world opinion”. There was a time when America cared more about doing what was right and less about world opinion. There was a time when and where America went off to war to right a wrong, or help a nation that was under attack, now America goes off to war based on world opinion and takes sides based on the same world opinion. I ask you this which is better, a coalition acting on world opinion, or allies joining forces to do what is right?

“Common Sense” and logic would say that it is far past the time to disband the United Nations, and let it go down as yet another failed liberal attempt at what ever it was they envisioned. The money being wasted on that “distinguished” world body could be better used here in America. The giving of money to foreign entities such as the Palestinian Authority is based on what? Is it the right thing to do? Or is it to influence world opinion? The same goes for the billions upon billions of dollars to foreign nations. Here are some fitting questions. How much of the over 18 trillion dollars of the debt of the United States of America is because of the monies given to foreign governments? Does The American government borrow money to give away? Why is it that The government of the United States of America gives to money to governments who only wish to do America harm and seek to destroy America? Is this an attempt to buy a favorable world opinion? How much of the annual budget of the United Nations comes straight from The U.S.A.? Tomorrow is United Nations Day, there will most likely be some sort of gala or event to commemorate this “notable” event, how much will that cost?

Think on this, The U.S.A. as well as many other “advanced” nations around the world pour countless billions into the money pit that is the U.N. each and every year, this is done for what reason? Is it for the U.N. to promote “peace, well-being, harmony and equality” around the world? If this is the reason and the case, then I have some bad news for them, the U.N. has failed in all four areas. Equality could quite possibly be achieved one day, but it will not be the equality they envisioned.

Is it really all that important to conform to “world opinion” and become a part of the “world community” if in the process of conforming to the world that a sovereign nation looses its national identity to the point that the nation no longer places itself and its citizens first? To truly help another you must first take care of yourself. It really is time for the United Nations to go the way of The League of Nations and just cease to exist, go away quietly without even a whimper.

With that being said, there is nothing wrong with helping those who are in need, really in need. But it should be up to the nations of the world to choose who or what they will or will not help. It should be based on what is right and not based on world opinion. There was a time when American national leaders knew what was right, regardless of world opinion. For example is it right to support those who are determined to destroy another? Through the U.N., America supports those who would destroy our friends and also those who would destroy the U.S.A., that makes no sense common or otherwise.

A Little Common Sense Would Be In Order. Part 2 Israel and the Palestinians

Posted on by

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. Their actions go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.
This post applies to our “distinguished” elected representatives and their merry band of minions.

On Exercising Restraint. I am getting mighty tired of Israel being told to exercise restraint when it comes to dealing with Terrorists, and especially the Palestinians. Israeli PM Netanyahu, the IDF and the Israelis in general have exercised extreme and remarkable restraint in the latest attacks by the Palestinian terrorists. It is by contrast that the Palestinians have exercised the total lack of restraint. The latest from the State Department is for both sides to exercise restraint. The current Administration and its merry band of minions in the State Department along with the MSM make it seem that the ratio of dead Israeli victims and dead Palestinian terrorists are disproportionate. What are they looking for a game of tit-for tat, one for one? Would they all rather that Israel wait for the number of Israeli killed by terrorists rise to the number of dead terrorists before more can be killed and then only in matching numbers? Excessive force and disproportionate numbers of dead are the constant talking points of the administration and the MSM.

While the current Administration and its merry band of minions call for both sides to exercise restraint, none of them demand that the Palestinians stop the attacks. This is by far the most telling of who the Administration supports. The Administration could use financial sanctions against the Palestinians by withholding funds to the Palestinian Authority until the attacks stop. But they have not taken this route nor will they. The citizens of our closest ally and friend in the Middle-East are being brutally and viciously attacked and the Administration keeps sending money to the ones doing the attacking. Go figure.

I wonder if the Administration would slap sanctions on Israel, if Israelis were the aggressors. I bet they would. I also wonder how much restraint BHO and his minions would demonstrate here in America if the situation were reversed. If the attackers were Muslims on Jews or Christians, would it be restraint or action? If the attackers were Jews or Christians on Muslims, would it be restraint or action? Think about it.

It makes no sense common or otherwise to demand restraint from the ones being victimized. It also makes no sense common or otherwise not to demand the attackers cease and desist. It does make sense common and otherwise to force and use force to stop the attack even if it seems excessive. If the attack is vicious and brutal the response must be overwhelming and not a weak or half-hearted response.

Israel lives in a rough neighborhood and each day is a fight for survival. The citizens of Israel and indeed Israel itself have a right to self-defense. The Administration and the merry band of minions, or at least most of them, have only “fought for survival” during the “Black Friday” sales.

Common sense and indeed logic would dictate that if you are under attack you should respond with even more determination than the attacker. Furthermore the attacker showed no restraint in his or her actions and the intended victim should show no restraint in defending themselves. There is the right to defend oneself and there is an obligation to defend others who are not capable of defending themselves. We are our brothers keeper as well as our sisters keeper. The Jews are the brothers and sisters of Christians.

A Little Common Sense Would Be In Order. Part 1 Firearms

Posted on by

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. Their actions go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.

On gun control, gun safety or whatever they call it now.
BHO, the Liberal Progressives and the Social Progressives somehow think it makes common sense to regulate law-abiding citizens. To them this is logical. They suggest laws and rules that serve to encumber only the law-abiding public. Rules, regulations and laws have been passed at the state and local levels that seek to limit the amount of ammunition that can be loaded in one magazine. High capacity magazines have been banned, there have been attempts to ban certain types of ammunition and certain types of firearms. There have been attempts to place a special tax on firearms and ammunition. There have been attempts to ban the sale of firearms between citizens unless there is a firearms dealer involved along with the appropriate government paperwork. These and all the other what you call “common sense” proposals, only serve to place an undue burden on the good and decent law-abiding citizens while not causing a drop of inconvenience on the criminal element.
Conservative “common sense” and logic should and would dictate that the good and decent law-abiding public not be deprived of a single thing that would or could quite possibly enhance their safety in an unsafe world. No person should have to prove or show need a need if he or she wants a high-capacity magazine, or a certain type of firearm, the same as no person should prove or show need when buying a house or a car. Free trade, sales and bartering, between good and decent law-abiding citizens concerning firearms should not be impeded anymore than the sale of homes and cars between citizens. If it is crime you wish to lessen then pass and enforce laws that affect the criminal element and none that impede the good and decent law-abiding citizen.

Perhaps, it is time for the Liberal Progressives, Social Progressives, BHO and the entire Democratic Party to come forward and tell the good and decent law-abiding public of America what it is that they truly want, seek and desire. Gun Control is not your final objective, it is but a “bench-mark” on your way to your final objective.

Here is what I think, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Your final and ultimate objective is a totally disarmed population. Let me correct that, Your final and ultimate objective is a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding population. The criminal element of the population will not be disarmed.

If it is true, and I suspect that it is, your final and ultimate objective is a totally unarmed good and decent law-abiding population you must have some sort of plan in place to achieve it. There must be other bench-marks along the way, that is unless you are brave enough to just outlaw private ownership of firearms. You did nothing to further your agenda when you had complete and total control of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, and the Presidency. I suspect you did nothing because you did not have control of the Judicial branch at that time. The Judicial Branch would have most likely “struck-down” any law that infringed on the Second Amendment, if that happened you would have been exposed for what you really are. That would have ended the progressive movement, you were not willing to run that risk.

What you would gain from a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding population would be a population totally dependent on government for their safety. Without a definitive means of self-defense, one that was at least equal and perhaps superior to that of the criminals, they would have to call on the government to provide for them what they at one time could provide for themselves. You would also gain a totally compliant population, but only to the extent of a good and decent law-abiding population.

What the criminals would gain from a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding public would be many more victims. Victims with no means to defend themselves.

What the good and decent law-abiding public would lose by being totally disarmed, everything.

You will not admit that the “Gun Free Zones” are a total and abject failure. What do you do? You only try to make more and more gun free zones. Gun free zones have not, nor will they ever provide for safety. They only provide victims. If you get your wish and make the whole of America a gun free zone, America will become a nation of victims from coast to coast and from border to border. They will be victims of either the criminals or the government.

This is why I say your “common sense” gun control measures and gun laws make no sense, common or otherwise.
There are only two segments of the American population The Good and Decent Law-Abiding Citizens and The Criminal Element, if the politicians are counted they are either a third segment or will fit into one of the first two groups. No the politicians are a separate segment, they could and should be considered the third segment. You should be focusing your laws on the second element, but instead you focus of the first. You appear to have failed in eliminating the criminal element, to make-up for your failures in eliminating the criminals you seek to eliminate the good and decent law-abiding population. You take out your wrath on the good and decent law-abiding population. What ever the politicians do to the first segment will not apply to them as most act as if they are above the law anyway. Your gun control measures will apply to only the good and decent law-abiding population, you will keep for yourself what you would deny others and the criminal element does not care about your laws.

Maybe you should read the writings of Thomas Paine, Common Sense and The American Crisis. You already have the Good and Decent Law-Abiding public behind you, yet you seek to punish them.