Category Archives: American Spirit

Memorial Day

Posted on by

Today was the second Memorial Day that I have observed this year. The first was back in April, Confederate Memorial Day observed during Confederate History Month.

Went down the road a piece today to pay my respects, a well-kept green field(cemetery)filled with simple white stone markers, Crosses or Stars of David, Name, Rank, Branch of Service, Birth and Death Dates, a small U.S. flag waving in a gentle breeze at each headstone. The men and women lying in the cemeteries did not go shopping today, nor did they go on a picnic or a family outing or a barbecue. Their futures were sacrificed in lands far from home to help guarantee a safe and secure future here at home. There are also many thousands that were lost at sea and they have no headstone only the cold depths of the oceans of the world as a grave, many thousands died on remote islands and were never buried they simply disappeared into the ground, some lie there to this day. The days between the birth and death dates are the memories of family and friends. The date of their death are the memories of friends who survived and they remember the last words said, or they died alone with their last words lost in time, or the end was so violent that there were no last words.

As you went shopping today, did you pass a cemetery with small American flags waving gently in the breeze? Did you stop for a minute just to say thank you? Did you even notice? If you went to the beach today, did you look out to sea for a moment and give thanks? As you swam in the warm waters you will notice the coolness as you go deeper into the water, imagine how cold it is at the very bottom.

Due to the lateness of the hour many have by now returned home from what ever you did today. I do hope that you enjoyed this day. I would also hope that somewhere in the course of the day you did offer a thank you. It not it still is not too late. As you sit down to supper tonight you set and extra place, you know in memory.

Pause for just a second and ask yourself if you have been a good steward, jealously guarding what you have because of their sacrifice.

It is time, past time, to try something else

Posted on by

The height of insanity, as they say, is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So if what you are doing aint working try something else.

Grab a cup of coffee, it is a long one.

Another shooting in a gun free zone, this time at a school in Texas. Was just recently we had another in Florida, Marion County. The shooter in Texas was a student at the school he attacked, the two in Florida were former students of the schools they attacked.

The fact that these schools were gun free zones did little, actually nothing, to dissuade these three villains. In fact it only made things safer for the perpetrators of these violent acts. The only opposition they faced was a SRO, the one in Broward County failed(to put it mildly), the one in Marion County was “Johnny on the spot” though the villain had already surrendered to a teacher. There was also a school shooting in Maryland not too long ago, that SRO also responded in a timely manner, and again the shooting was in-progress.

So let us look at what is not working.
What is not working is the gun free zones of our school system. Being a gun free zone has not deterred a school shooter. I don’t believe it ever has or ever will. That sign only has an effect on law-abiding citizens. I have often wondered just what prompted the primary, secondary and post-secondary school campuses to be legislated into gun free zones. Was it because of just one incident or a series of incidents? Was it a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy? Was there suddenly an epidemic outbreak of guns at schools? They say that “Life is a two-way street”. Life in a gun free zone is a one-way street. If an attack occurs the bullets are only going in one direction towards the intended victim, that is until armed help shows up.

So what about the SRO, is it working? Yes and no. Much like the cop on the beat he can not be everywhere at once, but his or her presence is or can be a deterrent. Think about this, would you “blow through” a red light if there was a cop car sitting at the intersection? Of course you would not. The SRO much like most law-enforcement waits for a call for service during his or her patrol. If he or she observes something in the course of there patrol they are expected to take appropriate action. When it comes to preventing crime, police presence can deter crime, but is no guarantee, some criminals are determined and will proceed no matter what. In a shooting situation the SRO only responds after the first shot is fired. The cop on the beat responds to a crime in progress.

There is a more important question, concerning the SRO, and that question is why is there a necessity of having law-enforcement in our schools? I believe that the SRO is in the school system because some of the student body is “off the chain”, no self-control(self-discipline) the total lack of the ability to “police” themselves and no respect and the fact that the school system has lost control of the schools and the students. I do not believe for a moment that the SRO was ever put in place to respond to a shooting, that task has just been added to his or her list of responsibilities.

Further gun control measures directed at the law-abiding gun owning citizens. This one speaks for its self. Criminals are not going to care one iota about staying within the law.

I think everyone can agree on the fact that these types of shootings should never happen again. But for even a chance to at least limit these acts we must first abandon the failed course we have taken, in other words it is time to make a “hard pivot”. The left likes to say; “If these measures save even one life then they are worth it”. There is no evidence that gun free zones or the associated signage have ever saved a life, not one. I would wager that no armed criminal has ever walked away because a sign said the citizens therein were unarmed. There is also no evidence that a SRO has ever prevented a single school shooting, the two schools in Florida had an SRO, and still shootings occurred. Therefore it is time to try something else.

Let us then look at and examine some other approaches that could be considered. One could also look at the chances of success.

In my school days, back in the last ice age, we did not ever see a cop at school much less have one posted at the school. In High School, I would venture to say that almost all of the pick-up trucks in the student parking lot had a gun in it, especially if it was hunting season yet we did not shoot each other. I would imagine there were guns in school staff cars and trucks as well. Something has changed. There was no need of an SRO in my day, but then again we were a respectful lot. Nowadays students being “off the Chain” is perhaps why the schools have and need a SRO.

So the current thinking is to harden the schools. The Broward and Marion county incidents prove that entry into schools is to easy, neither of these two chaps had any business being where they were. One possible thing is to have fewer entry and exit points(controlled). Installing metal detectors is another option. Is armed school staff an option? Yes and no. Depending on how the school is laid out arming the teachers may be a bad idea. If the classrooms are still laid out nowadays as they were in my school days having armed teachers is a stupid idea. In my day the teacher sat at the head of the class, farthest from the door with the students between the teacher and the door(the only exit, one way in and one way out). If a shooter were to enter the classroom the teacher if he or she responded would have to shoot over or through the students, running around in a panic. Arming administrative and support staff is a better option, but they must be willing to carry out that mission and undergo training. If they aint willing that option goes out the window. Carrying a firearm comes with great responsibility. That responsibility is why a lot of people choose not to carry a firearm. Using the firearm under stress is yet another matter. Then again there is the political machine(agenda)that must be overcome.

Would more SROs be an option? Yes, but they are expensive or maybe not. What ever happened to Reserve Deputies and Auxiliary Police Officers? You may remember, citizen law-enforcement, working with law-enforcement for free in their own communities. They had the same training as regular law-enforcement, had to pass the same background checks and had the same authority. Now the schooling is not free or cheap, nor is the in-service training. But something could be worked out to pay for the training and it may not be as expensive as one might think. I would venture to say that each and every community(school district)has many if not hundreds of capable and qualified citizens in their midst, retired military(including military police), retired law-enforcement(including correctional officers). Many of these would jump at the chance to serve again, they already have much of the training required and would have no problem with a background check. Speaking of training dollars, how many could have been trained with the money wasted watching shrimp on a treadmill? How many could be paid with the money given to abortion providers? But still the only deterrent offered is their presence.

School Protection Teams could be established, groups of trained and armed individuals patrolling the school grounds.

There are other things that could be considered. Like perhaps talking with the Israelis and finding out how they prevent mass shootings at their schools, if what I read is correct they have only had one. That one was years back and none since. Please do not use the argument that firearms in the hands of Israeli citizens is not as “prolific” as private firearm ownership here in America. Firearms have been in this country since the very beginning, these mass shootings are a product of recent times. It has been reported that there may be as many as 300,000,000 firearms in this country, if guns were a problem there would really be a problem. It is not the gun, it is the person with the gun. The hardening of the schools by arming the staff and placing a SRO in each school still invokes a reactionary approach. Perhaps it would be better to keep them out of the schools, the Israeli’s seem to have done that. The Israeli’s have found it easier to keep them out rather than fight them once them they get in. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure.

I as well as others have said that we do not have a gun problem, what we have is a people problem. It seems that nowadays violence is the first option. How many times has it been reported of an argument going straight to a shooting? Look at what happened just outside of Atlanta this past weekend, across the street from a graduation ceremony. People, some people, just have lost the art of communicating, they however are prone to violence. Back in my youth when we had a problem we first tried to talk it out(resolve it), after all reasonable attempts were exhausted we took it behind the field house and settled it there. There were even times where it was decided that the best course of action was to keep a respectable distance between the parties involved until things worked themselves out. They almost always did. Thing is that most involved became life-long friends. I my day violence was the last option considered and was the exception not the rule.

Perhaps something like a think tank could be formed to come up with a solution, a group of rational adults with no particular political motivation and no agenda. Well that just killed that idea. Seriously, we need to stop looking to government to do anything to prevent or to even limit mass shootings. It was government that gave us the gun free schools. The only thing government is good at is either spending or wasting money, even if it means that more money must be spent or wasted. Government thought they could eliminate poverty by giving people money they did not earn and certainly were not entitled to, today welfare is referred to as an entitlement. Their welfare created dependence on government as the producers earned more the moochers needed more. The two longest wars are the war on poverty and the war on drugs.

We need to look to “We the People” to come up with a solution.

A school uniform might lessen the school shootings. How many times has jealousy brought about acts of violence? Uniforms do make a person not in one to stand out as not belonging. I can hear it now, “My clothes are freedom of expression, you are trampling my rights”. Then there is always the left and “the poor cant afford school uniforms” crap. Hell, they cant even afford identification according to the left. How do they live? Private Schools have uniforms. Do not those student have rights also? Go ahead say how the poor cant afford private schools. I point this out, the parents that pay to send their children to private schools are also the one’s footing the bill to pay for the public schools, you know property taxes. They pay twice and still manage to fund the school uniforms, if you rent you pay nothing and still cant fund the school uniforms. Knock of the “pity party” and do better for yourself and your children.

How about we demand that that stupid sign be removed? You know the one that says, “Gun free zone”. Replacing it with one that has the wording similar to,
“Warning”
The Staff and Faculty herein is Heavily Armed, Highly Trained, Highly Motivated and Dedicated Beyond Belief and they will Use any Force necessary, up to and including Deadly Force, to protect the Lives and Well-Being of those placed in our Trust.
Stupid People Win Stupid Prizes.
Do Not Test Our Resolve.
This Is And Will Be Your Only Warning.

Whether or not it is true(the statement on the proposed sign)the above warning may give “pause” to someone with evil intentions. The other sign certainly has not. After all, using the logic of the left, “if it only saves one life it would be worth it”.

By the way, if memory serves schools are also “drug free” zones, the schools must be very successful at combating drugs while failing miserably at keeping guns out of schools. We are not bombarded with coverage of drug busts at schools, the schools must have won the war on drugs. If the schools have won the war on drugs, please tell the federal government your secret, it appears they could use some help. My guess is that drugs are prevalent yet we hear nothing of the drugs.

Maybe the media should end the practice of constantly showing the face of and mentioning the name of the villain. Yesterday nobody even heard of that POS and as soon as the deed is done the face and the name of the POS is everywhere. Instant recognition, now everybody knows their name, much like the so-called talent shows that invade the homes(by invitation)almost nightly. Instant fame. When a person wins one of those “talent shows” how many are inspired by the fame and recognition. How many are inspired by those who carry out these vile acts, because of the coverage they get? Mention their name once, either that whoever is now dead or captured. If the POS was captured the name should be mentioned once more when a guilty verdict comes in. Unless there is a man-hunt underway we should never see their face of hear their name again. The only story that needs to be told is the story of the victims.

Perhaps the answer is as simple as the adults regaining control of the children. Parents are not meant to be friends with their children. Parents need to be parents, they are responsible for raising their off-spring. It seems that in the lives of some or most children today there is no discipline, none from their parents and those that are old enough to practice self-discipline are severely lacking in that arena. There was a time when I saw children I saw the next generation of citizens and it offered great hope for the continued success of this great Republic. In my outings to the local China-mart that vision sadly disappears. What I see is the next generation of inmates. When I see their parents I do not have to wonder why the child is behaving in such a manner. The parent, most often singular, does not give a crap how unruly their child is much less what the child does in the store. The child is a product of their upbringing or the lack of it, a reflection of the parent and life at home with the child being worse that the parent. When those children grow up and have children of their own they will be worse yet. The breakdown in society begins at the home and is only amplified outside the home and over time.

If the parent/s step up to the plate(become parents)most of this may fix itself and would not cost a dime. If it saves even one life it would be worth it.

Or just keep doing what you are doing and let the “village” raise your children and this crap will never stop. What we are doing aint working.

DEO VINDICE

The coming mid-terms

Posted on by

This seems to be one of the three or four things on the minds of most folks these days. I will get to the others later. November aint that far off some primaries have already been held with more upcoming.

Democrat talking heads are predicting a “blue wave”, while Republican talking heads are predicting a “red wave”. Must be political football season again, the blue and red teams are about to take to the field. According to the experts(ex-spurts)the home team(the party in control)generally suffers the most defeats in the mid-terms, referred to as the “mid-term curse”(more on this in a minute).

A few of the democrat “clowns” still want to impeach the President. For what I don’t know. I did not think that hating the sitting president was an impeachable offense. Their leadership wants them to knock off such talk as it might create a windfall for the republicans, as in guarantee a republican(red wave)victory. Basically the democrats have nothing to offer other than the same old same old.

It seems that some of the republicans are trying to throw(lose)the upcoming elections. The republicans hold the majority in the House as well as the Senate, even got the White House. But I do have to wonder what the republicans are up to. Why are they(some of them)doing the work of the minority party. It looks to me that some in the republican party are trying to intentionally lose(throw)the mid-terms with this push to force a discharge petition on amnesty. Now there may be some sort of genius behind this move but I doubt it. I think this is a move to piss of the voters so they sit this one out, ensuring a “blue wave”.

There are many in the republican establishment that still are never Trump(NT), and or anybody but Trump(ABT)and they want him gone(out of office). The question is, How far are they willing to achieve this goal? It was reported that 18 and possibly 19 republican representatives have signed onto this discharge petition. I have to wonder if there might be someone behind the scenes pulling the strings, perhaps a big money donor calling in his or her marker.

Back to the so-called experts. The pollsters(I believe all but one)had HRC handily winning the 2016 presidential election. Well they were wrong. Trump won the election much to the consternation of the experts. They thought the “fix” was in, there gal would win. Now we have the Russian collusion investigation going on entering the second year. There would have been no such investigation had HRC won. Why? I suppose they figured there was no way Trump could become president and if he did it would be because of some outside help or interference. They just could not accept that their candidate was flawed, horribly so.

From the moment President Trump announced he was in the run the establishment was against him(I believe they still are). How many times did they try to get him to drop out? He hung in. I believe there was a secret strategy meeting(most likely more)to find a way to do something about Trump. Not going to rehash that whole fiasco, you get the point.

The night of the election and Trump won it looked like the democrats, liberals, leftists, socialists, progressives(repeated myself)and the establishment were going to lose their minds. Some democrat clowns in congress were looking for reasons to impeach even before President Trump was inaugurated. Before the election how many of the left said Trump would never be president? It was if they had a crystal ball or something(insurance policy).

Now let us go back to these 18 and why they are doing, or attempting to do, the bidding of the left. It takes a lot of money to run for political(Constitutional)office a lot of donors and I do not mean the ones who contribute 20 or so dollars. I am talking about the big money supporters. There is no one who will invest that much financial support and not expect something in return. I have to wonder about these 18 and their motivation. Are they just looking for that last vote? That which they now attempt, is it what they believe to be right? It was not what they campaigned on, did they “evolve”? Are they just repaying donations? When it comes to political campaigns many millions are spent to make hundreds of thousands. Many holding Constitutional office are millionaires or multi-millionaires yet when it come re-election time they hold out their hands begging for contributions, they seem unwilling to risk their own personal fortunes. They end up owing somebody something. President Trump was the exception.

This coming November will be two years since the political establishment was shocked by the win of a “political nobody”. President Trump is still president despite the attempts by some in both parties to force him out or kick him out. In their attacks against the president they have been attacking those who voted him into office. They have been dragging this Republic through the mud for far too long. The investigation by the Special Counsel is entering its second year and the president has come through unscathed. Look at some of the actions to protect that investigation, some republicans have tried to introduce legislation to protect the Special Counsel from being fired by the President. If I am correct it is republican leadership that has stopped this legislation saying it is unnecessary. I believe that they have a different reason, even if the legislation is passed the president would have to either sign it into law or veto it. If he signed it into law then that would in effect be saying he has nothing to fear(no collusion), and they know it. I doubt that the president would veto this.

There were rumors that the investigation would take a break due to the upcoming elections. I believe that says more than just that, the investigation may be hinged to the mid-terms. If the republicans hold both the House and the Senate the investigation may just wrap up with no further findings. If the republicans lose the House but retain the Senate it may continue for a while or come to an end. It will definitely continue if the democrats take both the House and the Senate. One of the first orders for business for the democrats if they take both the House and the Senate will be to impeach the president. They may bring the president up on impeachment charges if they only win the House, if for no other reason that to please(quieten down) some of the noisier democrats.

So are the republicans intentionally trying to lose(throw)the upcoming elections? I will let you draw your own conclusions, I have my own. I point out that around four dozen republicans(House and Senate)are calling it quits. Some are facing a tough re-election(wonder why)or maybe they feel that they may just lose the primaries(remembering what happened in Virginia). These 18 appear to be trying to put the icing on the lose cake.

The republican establishment, including the big money supporters are still pretty well ticked off at us lowly voters for putting A President Donald Trump in the White House, instead of electing one out of their preferred stables. They may just still be ticked enough to throw the elections and subject us to the democrats for a while, you know just to teach us a lesson for departing the reservation.

DEO VINDICE

Just too far apart

Posted on by

Liberals and Conservatives can work things out through compromise(negotiation), truth is they have much in common. Their differences are not all that far apart. They just have to hammer out the finer details. The same is not true of the Left and the Right, they have nothing in common. There are no finer details to hammer out. When it comes to compromise(give and take)with the left they are willing to give nothing and are only interested in how much the right is willing to give them. That is their idea of give and take, taking anything the right is willing to give. The Right and the Left have nothing in common on any issue.

As stated above the Right and Left have nothing in common, no common ground. They, the Left, cant be negotiated with, they seek no compromise. Yet many on the right believe, and wrongly so, that they can work out the differences between the Right and the Left. Here is how the Left negotiates with the Right. We(the Left)are going to cut off one of your arms. Here is what the right does. They present the left or right arm to be cut off and then claim that at least they(the Right)saved the other arm, or say at least we(the Right)did not lose both arms. You simply cant negotiate like that, the correct response would have been “No you(the Left)are not, You(the Left)will cut neither arm off”. No negotiation. No compromise.

Look at what happened in Broward County as a direct result of the PROMISE program. Criminal behavior and acivity were decriminalized because of a supposed school to prison pipeline. There is no direct path from school to prison. To get to prison one must be convicted of a crime serious enough to be sent to prison, that means that law-enforcement was involved. Crimes were overlooked and as such there was no punishment for criminal acts or behavior, no law-enforcement involvement. It seems that too many school children were having run-ins with law-enforcement in Broward County, making the school district look bad. In other words some if not many students were not conducting themselves in a legal and lawful manner so the school district intervened. Because laws were not being enforced one POS was able to legally acquire a firearm, one which he would later use to do exactly what he threatened to do. So in this instance it was the Left that had a program that decriminalized criminal activities and then demanded that non-criminal activities be criminalized. Lost yet? Had the laws already in place been enforced the shooter would have in most likelihood been denied the purchase of a firearm. But sadly we will never know for sure. What we do know for sure is that each and every 18, 19 and 20 year-old(unless in the military or law-enforcement)in the State of Florida is being penalized for the actions of one, just one, 19 year-old. The Left demanded more gun control and the Right offered up the less that 21 year-olds, they can no longer purchase long guns without meeting certain criteria. In fact all Floridians were offered up, as now there is a waiting period to purchase long-guns(unless the customer holds a CCW license). The laws on the books were not being enforced and yet more laws were demanded and enacted. Great, just great.

How are these laws going to effect the elections here in Florida? The gun control legislation in Florida was enacted with the support of the republicans, here the republicans control both Houses and the Governors office. The republicans running for re-election are going to have some explaining to do. They were elected to serve the State, not to vote away the rights of its citizens. States that have enacted onerous gun control laws that are firmly in the hands of the leftist democrats have little to worry about. But Florida? Nationally?

One thing that happened as a direct result of the shooting at MSD in Parkland was that the gun control cult has finally been unmasked, and they did it themselves(though most of us have long suspected). They have come right out and said it is time for the Second Amendment to be repealed. So all of their talk about “common sense reforms” when it come to firearms in the hands of normal citizens was and is just that, talk. They do not seek anything less than total disarmament of the general population. The Left wants the population disarmed, the Right wants to keep and bear arms. There is no middle ground here, but again the Right believes they can negotiate and compromise.

One thing the Left always screams for a more background checks. We already submit to background checks to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer. They claim it is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But how good is a background check if the information is missing or inaccurate? If the young chap in Parkland had been arrested for his many episodes would he have been able to pass a background check? Would his butt have been sitting in jail or prison instead of taking those innocent lives?

So let us stick with background checks for just a moment. As far as legal immigration is concerned a person legally entering this country must pass a background check including a health screening and submit to several interviews. The same cant be said of illegals entering this country, there is no background check, no interview, no health screening, no nothing. When anybody and everybody is let in you have no idea who or what is among us. So the left does not really give a tinker’s damn about background checks.

The Left likes to promote and throw their idea of gun control(gun confiscation)in the country’s collective face, using the UK and Australia as an example.. The UK has some pretty restrictive gun laws. I am sure that by now most everyone has seen the video of the man with a knife keeping a large body of law-enforcement at bay. Even chasing them, first one then another. It looked a bit like an old Keystone Cops episode. Thing is the Keystone Cops were meant to be funny, you know poking fun. I was actually embarrassed for the UK police force, humiliating video. But even with the strict gun laws in the UK there are still reports of people getting shot. But in addition to people still getting shot they now have new threats, knives and acid. People being stabbed and most often being killed and acid attacks leaving the victims horribly disfigured. Not to mention the occasional motor vehicle being used as weapon. The city of London surpassed New York City in murders for two straight months. What is the Mayor of London concerned about? Fat food ads. Seems like not all that long ago NY city had a Mayor with similar concerns. Recently Australia, also having restrictive gun laws, suffered the first mass shooting in over two decades. Clever wording the report said first mass shooting not first shooting.

Back to America and the Leftist enclaves. If your so-called gun control laws worked the cities and states with the strictest gun laws would be the safest. The opposite is true, the cities with the strictest gun laws are the most violent and dangerous cities in this land. They are also the most crime infested. It is the law-abiding citizens who are the losers, while the criminal element enjoys the upper hand. Law-enforcement just cant keep up. I could not imagine being afraid to sit on my front porch at night because I might become the victim of a drive-by shooting. Nor could I imagine sitting in my house behind locked doors out of fear even in broad daylight. Criminals do tend to operate most effectively in areas where they will face the least resistance. The opposite is true, they tend to avoid areas where they don’t have the upper hand, facing resistance and possibly(most likely)armed resistance at that.

The Right can no longer foolishly believe that the Left can be reasoned with, negotiated with or compromised with. The time has come to say “No more”. Perhaps it is time to tell them to go piss up a rope. The left has renounced reason.

DEO VINDICE

The liberals in a nut shell

Posted on by

They are for the death penalty as long as the condemned is still in the womb. Other wise they are totally against putting a person to death. Kind of seems backwards to me, willing to condemn the innocent but protecting the life of the guilty.

They fight tooth and nail against voter ID laws, claiming it imposes undue hardships on the poor. I guess that the poor can not afford a picture ID. Yet they have never proposed legislation that would provide a photo ID at taxpayer expense for the poorest. I can not understand why they never propose such legislation especially when they believe that government is always the solution. I also wonder why the republicans never propose this.

They are for religious expression as long as Christianity is not the religion being expressed. They are for free speech as long as everyone is saying what they are saying or what they want to hear. If it goes against what they say, think or believe then they call it hate speech. They demand to be heard while demanding others be silent. They don’t really have to worry about the press, the press is in their corner. They would rather have the First Amendment repealed than have to contend with differing view points.

They support the Second Amendment as it pertains to hunting, except for those that have come right and said the Second Amendment should be repealed. Problem with that cupcake is that the Second Amendment was not written to allow hunting. You can read the Second Amendment forwards, backwards and even upside down and you will not find the words hunting, target practice or sports shooting. The Second Amendment was written for a specific purpose and reason.

They only want to ban scary looking rifles and high-capacity magazines. They even come up with new words, their new one is military grade. The old one was assault weapon. They say no one should be allowed to have military grade weapons but the military and law-enforcement. I believe the correct term would be Mil-Spec(Military Specification). But you could not call the AR-15 a Mil-Spec weapon could you? The AR-15 is not made to Military Specifications, it is a modern sporting rifle made for civilian use.

But then that is what you do you use words, more accurately use a play on words. You cant really come out and say you are pro-abortion, can you? That would equate to being pro-death. So you use the phrase pro-choice, by using the word choice it gives the impression that what happens was the choice of all. The truth of the matter is that the one directly effected by the “choice” had no “choice” in the matter. So lets look at some of your other plays on words.

When it comes to gun-control you use phrases like;
End gun-violence. Why do you never speak of ending violence? The U.K. banned guns and that did not end or stop crimes committed with a firearm, they still happen. They may have lees crimes committed with a firearm than here in the U.S., but for two straight months this year(Feb and Mar)the murder rate in London surpassed the murder rate in N.Y. City. The residents of London now have to contend with knife-crimes and acid-crimes(violent acts committed with a knife or acid). So the U.K. stopped the mass shootings, sort of, and now they face the possibility of mass stabbings and acid attacks. Now London lawmakers are having to come up with laws to control knives and acid. They now have to end knife-violence and acid-violence. Our northern neighbors had an act of violence that involved a man driving a van on a sidewalk and mowing down pedestrians, 10 dead and 15 injured. He used neither a gun, knife or acid his weapon of choice was a motor vehicle. A person intent on killing or maiming will use whatever tool is available. Neither the gun, the knife, the acid nor the motor vehicle is violent on its own in each case it takes a human to use those items in a violent manner. For you it is not about ending violence, it is about ending guns in the hands of the citizens(law-abiding citizens). If your gun-control measures worked the most violent cities in this land would be the safest, but it is the exact opposite.

We have to do it for the children. You really expect me to believe that you care about children when far more are murdered by abortion. Enough said on this one.

If it saves just one life it is worth it. My question is worth what? You and I both know that there is no way to prove that even one life was saved. This simply can not be measured. Besides some in your camp(cult)have come out and said that no legislation could have prevented______(fill in the blank).

And then there is everyone’s favorite. We just did not go far enough.

Now that the gun-control cult has been outed, your far enough in that matter is the repeal of the Second Amendment and banning all firearms from the public. You are okay with the military and law-enforcement having all of the guns, well all of them but what the criminals have. The criminals will still have guns. Maybe you should look back in history, not that far back either, and see what happens to the civilian population when they are deprived of the tools to defend themselves. There was a reason that the Founders and Framers included a Bill of Rights, in particular the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Read about Boston, Lexington Green and Concord. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Constitution, there was a reason the Founders and Framers did not want a full-time standing army, if they did not want a full-time army they certainly had no intention of giving them all of the guns. Since law-enforcement is part of the government local, state and federal they certainly never meant for government to have all of the guns either. They also never meant for the people to be deprived of arms, if they had they would have said so.

Speaking of the Constitution you use it to your advantage when it suits your agenda. Take the Electoral College for instance, when your guy wins the Electoral vote you shout to the world that the system works, you do not mention the popular vote unless you by chance get both. When your guy, or in this case gal, loses the Electoral vote but wins the popular vote you scream that the election was illegitimate the Electoral College is outdated and does not represent America. When it comes to the Second Amendment you say the Founding Fathers never intended for us to have _____(fill in the blank). You use the equal protection clause for every group but Christians and gun owners.

They want every person in this country to vote in the elections regardless of citizenship. I guess not enough legal citizens supported your candidate, you need some illegal support. Win any way you can, right? You really are an obstructionist when it comes to securing the border. Would you act the same if those coming here illegally were apt to vote republican? While on this subject, you are having a “kitten” over the citizenship question being talked about when the new census comes out. You want to count heads not citizens. Why? Seats in the house are based on population, the number of citizens not heads. You could stand to lose some House seats, reports have it that there has been an exodus of citizens from your liberal leftist states. Not to mention the money that flows to states is also based on population. If it was the way it was you would have to send money to D.C. based on the census, you would kick the illegals out so fast and hard they would bounce three times before coming to a rest on the other side of the border and build a wall a hundred feet tall and ten feet thick with a minefield to keep them out.

What is going to happen on your march to go far enough? This question sets up another post.

DEO VINDICE

If only it were possible

Posted on by

This month April has much significance in American history, both good and bad. Since this is such a historical month I thought it would be fun and a learning experience to send some people back in time to relive those events. You know sort of experience history firsthand.

I think first I would like to send the leaders of the gun control cult back in time to Boston, Concord and Lexington Green on say about the 17th of April, 1775. I figure that way they would live the tense moments leading up to the events of the 19th of April, 1775 when the shot that was heard around the world was fired. Yep, they would get to see the British troops marching through the streets. They would get to see and experience firsthand what happens when a government turns on its own people. Leaving them there long enough so they would learn and then bring them back.

Then I would pack them up again and send them to Philadelphia to witness the drafting and signing of the Declaration of Independence on about the 1st of July 1776 and leave them there until the 4th. Then bring them back once again.

Next I would send them to Yorktown, VA. on say about the 16th of October, 1781. They could witness the last few days of war and on the 19th they could watch the British surrender. Here they would learn a very important lesson. They would learn that guns can be used for evil or for good. The British were using guns for evil, to force by the use of arms the colonies comply and be forever subjugated. The Colonials(Americans)were using guns for good, to gain Independence(not to be subjugated). Then again bring them back to the present.

Next I would pack them off the Philadelphia for the second time in the Spring of 1787. Then and there they could witness the Constitution the debates and perhaps gain an understanding of why a bill of rights was added, including the Second Amendment they so despise. They would also understand why the Founders and Framers had no desire to have a full-time standing army. They had not long since defeated a standing army of the Crown. An army that had turned on the citizens(subjects)of the Colonies. The King had declared the Colonies out of his protection and sent his army and army of mercenaries to force the Colonials into submission. Basically the King declared war on his own people(subjects). If the King could declared them out of his protection that would leave one to believe that they were under his protection previous to being out of his protection. They trusted him to protect them yet he offered no protection instead attacked them and their rights. Then once again bring them back to the present.

Why keep bringing them back you ask? To let them reflect of what they are attempting to do. But if they still did not understand I would pack them off one more time. This time the dead of winter, the night of December 25th and morning of December 26th, 1776. They could witness firsthand the lengths men will go to just to be free, independent and guarantee their rights, their God-given rights. Crossing the icy Delaware River at night on Christmas just to attack an enemy.

Just putting this out. Why are some Americans so concerned over the antics of the royal family? I care not that one of them has uploaded or downloaded, I care not if a royal pooch expired. My ancestors fought them and drove them out.

Just for fun I would like to go back to October the 20th 1781 and bring back a few of those brave and heroic Colonials(Americans)and let them see what has become of what they so valiantly fought for and handed down to us. I would ask them, Was it worth it and would you do it again knowing what has become of this precious gift? How would they answer?

DEO VINDICE

The hypocrisy of the left

Posted on by

It seems that the “spokes mouth” for infringing on the Constitutional Rights of others has his panties in a wad over his Constitutional rights be infringed. The little fellow wants his rights protected. He seems to think that the requirement imposed to carry only clear back-packs(book bags)violates his First Amendment Rights as well as his right to privacy. I thought the “march for our lives” was about making a safer environment for students. Does he not understand that the requirement to have see-thru bags increases his safety, thus increasing his security. By making just that one little sacrifice of his rights to better his chances of security would be worth it, would it not. I mean if it saves only one life, it would be worth it. After all I am sure that no further restrictions will be placed on them, the students I mean and their possessions. The ones who made the decision to increase safety by requiring clear back-packs(book bags)would never make further intrusions like creating a maximum size limits or conducting random searches. They will most likely be satisfied with just the clear bag requirement, they wont do anything else and wont want anything else. Good grief what a hypocrite.

But then again the leftists excel at hypocrisy. The students should take a closer look at those adults who have offered all of this support to their effort, misguided as it is.

The politicians for instance, they come out after every tragedy and shout that more must be done to save the lives of the children, are in fact the same ones who support abortion. That’s right, they are for killing children as long as it is in the womb, by the millions. Would more gun control have saved the first life that was cut short by abortion. But even the pro-choice supporters, who are not supportive of choice they are instead supporters of abortion, are hypocrites of the worst type. Each is the product of a mother that choose life, life for them. It is the pro-life supporters that are attempting to save those millions of lives. I say attempting because their attempts are thwarted by the pro-abortion activists and judicial system.

The Hollywood(Hollyweird)types for instance they, the vast majority of them, have made their millions producing, directing or acting in movies that promote violence and most of them kill more people in the course of one movie that die in the mass-shootings they claim to be opposed too. If they really were in support of your march they would swear off making violent movies. But if they did they would not have made their millions and been able to give you just a pittance. And by the way just how many of them have an armed security detail, for their safety and protection. But just who is it that they need protection from. You their fans or just in case of one deranged fan, or is it both? Do they care about your safety or your money. By the way why do you go to see those violence filled movies anyway? Oh, and the music industry types. Kind of think they too just might have an armed security detail, you know for security and protection.

Your big money supporters they, the vast majority of them, have armed security details. They are not against guns at all they just want to control who has guns. Who is it that they need protection from? By the way most of them give considerable political campaign contributions to the pro-abortion candidates. If they really cared about the safety and security of children they would with hold those contributions.

You bitch and moan about the NRA and politicians who accept money and support from the NRA, while you remain silent about the politicians who accept money and support from the pro-abortion providers and supporters. You say the NRA and those supported by the NRA have blood on their hands, while ignoring the ones whose hands are truly bloody. The NRA itself has not taken the first life, pro-abortion has taken lives by the millions. Seems a bit hypocritical.

Your march(rally)and the associated protests were, in my opinion, a bit more than disingenuous. What you held was a gun control event. There have been proposals made that would enhance safety and security for schools, but you don’t like these proposals. You and you supporters proposed only gun-control. But let me point this out. None of you are against guns, you only want to have guns in the hands of a select few. Ask yourselves this, if your money people had to forfeit their armed security would they continue this rhetoric? I submit they would not. They do not personally provide for their security and protection, they outsource.

You have no idea of what spews forth from you mouth. You claim to be the school shooting generation, the generation that must endure active shooter drills. You want your school day to be free of distractions, hazards and interruptions. And to this you say “No more”, well good for you. However you are not the only generation that has had to endure distractions, hazards and interruptions during your school day.

Personal story segment. When I was in school right here in sunny Florida we never had to endure active shooter drills or worry about someone shooting up our school and killing classmates. We did however have to endure Civil Defense drills and all else that came with the Cold-War. We had to know what to do if the Soviets were to launch an ICBM. You should have been here during the times of the Cuban missile crisis. Imagine that, the Soviets were placing nuclear missile in Cuba, extremely short flight time. We were taught to dive under our desks if we were in class and the drill occurred. If on the playground we had to dive in low spots. Remember to close your eyes, don’t look directly at the flash. If you did see the flash count off the seconds to judge the distance. Remember that there would be a back-blast. Fall-out shelters were everywhere in town. Some more affluent families had their own constructed. When ever you were out you would look around for the symbol that identified the shelter, and know where every shelter was that you could get to, just in case. That was a lot for a kid to have to endure and still get an education, we managed.

You did learn about the Cuban missile crisis and the Cold-War in your American history classes didn’t you? Did you learn about Civil Defense? You know of “safe spaces”, but do you know of fall-out shelters?

I am going to interpret your way of thinking for just a moment. You obviously think that the whole ordeal of Civil Defense drills could have been avoided if America would have just destroyed all of its nuclear weapons. That would leave the Soviets with no one to launch nuclear weapons against because no one could launch one at them. There would be peace and security with no threat of a nuclear war.

Another personal story segment. I wrote a post recently concerning the fact that most of the boys in school carried a pocket knife. There was no way of knowing who had one and who did not, hell some of the girls probably had one as well. Yet we managed not to cut or stab each other. Mostly because we had no desire to cause that sort of harm to one another, that and we exercised self-control. We fought after school, a good old-fashioned fist fight and on the less dramatic occasions it was settled with a good old-fashioned arm wrestling contest, but never with knives. In hindsight there could have been another reason or two we never pulled a knife on each other. (1)The other guy might have one and(2)it might be bigger. Just those facts may have prevented some stupid acts. One acts stupid the other responds in kind, an understanding even if unspoken.

Back to the Soviets and nuclear weapons. First there was something called MAD(mutually assured destruction)if one nation were to launch nuclear weapons the other would respond in kind and possibly launch even more. You shoot we shoot back. Both would be destroyed. It was an understanding. Each knew the other would retaliate and keep doing so until all was destroyed. There have been talks to limit the size of the nuclear arsenal. Neither the US or Russia is willing to totally disarm, limit the number but never disarm. Why? If one or the other were to disarm the other would have total control and could do as it wished, the other would be powerless to stop aggression. MAD has prevented all out nuclear war and that idea still works today. Think about it, would you like to live in a world where only one person or country had the ultimate power to do as they wished? If the one with nuclear weapons decided to use them, with what could you deter them? More importantly how could or would you respond?

The turd that decided to come into your school had the advantage. First, having attended that school he “knew the lay of the land”. He knew when and how he could get in. He did not have to wonder if he could get in, he knew he could and he knew when. He knew the classroom layout. He, from what I understand, knew the SRO. He knew the schedule. Second, he knew there was no counter to his threat. He knew there would be no such thing as MAD. There is a reason that mass shootings never happen in “cop-shops”.

So I ask is the problem guns or the absence of guns?

There sure was a lot of security(guns)at your rally. Did you feel safe or unsafe? None of you looked the least bit uncomfortable. You did clean up behind yourselves didn’t you?

There have been other options brought forward to counter the school shootings. More armed security, more law enforcement, training and arming teachers and other school employees. But none of you have expressed any interest in those options. Why? It goes against your agenda of gun control. Which is the agenda to disarm the law-abiding public and leave firearms in the hands of a select few, the police and the military. Right? Wrong. There will be exceptions, there will always be an exception to the rule. Like I before E except after C.

Back to the first paragraph. You demand that your rights not be violated while demanding the rights of others be infringed. You cupcake are a hypocrite.

You claim that you should be able to carry a backpack(book bag)in the color of your choice, free speech. What would be your reaction is a student were to come to class sporting an NRA book bag or t-shirt? You support the First Amendment(free speech)when the person has the same view that you have. I could swear I heard someone at the town hall you all had where someone yelled “Burn her” when a spokeswoman for the NRA was speaking. You support the Second Amendment but only if the police or military are armed.

You might want to check your history about what happens when only the police and military have the guns, all of the guns.

As I recall, when I did stop by to check on your rally a couple of students made mention of being in a Holocaust history class when the shooting began. So I have to ask, were the victims armed or had they been disarmed?

DEO VINDICE

What? You expected something else

Posted on by

Some of act like you are surprised that your Facebook data was and is being used by research firms. Really, how much security did you expect? After all who was it that told them you were on your way to take a “dump”? You or them? Now you are mad at Facebook. Who forced you to set up the account and constantly update your status? You or them? Did you fill out all the information when you opened your account? Or did you just fill out the blocks with an asterisk(*), you know required fields? And the photos, please, if you must post “selfies” clean your mirror.

Speaking of mirrors, look in one and tell me what you see. Better yet do it this way. First affix the blame for your Facebook data being “out there”. Blame either Facebook or Yourself. Second look in the mirror. What do you see? If you blamed Facebook, you should be seeing the reflection of a Leftist Liberal Socialist Progressive. If you blamed yourself, you should be seeing the reflection of a Conservative.

Facebook only put the product out for you to use or not. It was your choice to have a Facebook account or not. Facebook is not to blame you are. But go ahead and take your anger out on Facebook. Frankly, this is the action of a socialist democrat. Blaming everything but the “root cause”. HRC has been all over this planet giving speeches and having a “good old-fashioned pity party” about losing the election. She lost, but has she yet to blame herself for losing? Everything and everybody else but never herself. Come to think of it has any politician ever really blamed themselves for losing an election, I really mean blame themselves? I do not mean the lack of “fire in their belly”, a total “copout”, an excuse.

The folks at Facebook should not get to worked-up over this “indiscretion”. The American people have a way of forgetting when they were wronged and who wronged them. Was not all that long ago there were some videos that came out with an abortion provider selling “baby body parts”. Man, the right sure got worked over that little “indiscretion”, hell, even congress threaten to defund them. I wonder if they got any part of that 1.3 trillion dollar pork package? I mean hell it was even more recent when the right were swearing off football, never to watch a game again because some knucklehead took a knee during the National Anthem. It seems that they got over that as well. The folks will get over the “indiscretion” at Facebook as well, after all there will surely be another “shiny object” to look at. If no other shiny object appears a good old-fashioned heartfelt apology usually does the trick, if all else fails somebody has to resign.

I very seriously doubt that anybody will be talking about the indiscretion at Facebook or the company that benefited after tomorrow. A new shiny object is about to appear that will cause all the past shiny objects to “pale in comparison”. The Facebook indiscretion will be forgiven, for tomorrow millions will put their anger aside and turn to social media.

Think about all of the other “social media” accounts you have. How much information did you voluntarily give them? Who has access to that data? Who has control of deciding who has access to the information? You did read the privacy policy and the terms of service, didn’t you?

DEO VINDICE

Taking the wrong path

Posted on by

It would seem that the Florida State Senate has taken up the “mantle” of Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England, the Great Appeaser. Was he not the one who said after his meeting with Hitler, “peace with honour” and “peace for our time? All he and Edouard Daladier of France had to do was grant almost all of Hitler’s demands. Czechoslovakia was to cede the Sudetenland to Germany, leaving Czechoslovakia defenseless. Then Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia.

I guess to his way of thinking it would be better to lose a part than the whole thing. The problem is that the Sudetenland was his nor Daladier’s to give away. I can just here Hitler’s reaction now to all of his demands not being met. Aw shucks, okay then I will settle for this if it is all I can get. It seems that politicians will never realize that they can not appease tyrants, they can never give them enough. Make no mistake about it the liberal leftist socialist progressives(LLSP)and their allies are no more than tyrants.

Mind you the Senate bill passed on a 20-18 vote, with 2 republicans siding with the democrats.

What is being given up.
Raising the minimum age to by rifles to 21 from 18.
Create a waiting period on the sales of weapons.

The article stated that many pro-gun rights republicans did not like the idea of raising the minimum age to by rifles or creating a waiting period on the sales of the weapons. If they did not like either of the ideas then why in the heck did they vote for the bill? The answer is quite simple. They are caught up in the “We have to do something” crap. If they dont do something the gun control crowd and the other LLSP will remind the voters that they did nothing when they had the chance come election season. Appeasing the left, attempting to negotiate with a tyrant. Sound familiar?

Does this go far enough for the democrats? Absolutely not. In the words of one democrat, No! No, I don’t. The democrat would have liked to see an assault weapons ban. The republicans believe that they have gotten somewhere. What they have done is to allow the “Camel to get its nose into the tent”. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. The democrats are expressing their own, “Aw shucks” moment. Will the democrats settle, at least for now, for what the republicans are willing to give up? Why not? The proof is in the statement made by a democrat Senator “This is the first step in saying never again”. I suppose to mean they will take more later. If the republicans were to have banned “assault weapons” the democrats would still have wanted more. If the republicans would have banned all semi-automatic long guns that still would not have been enough.

The democrat Senator stated, I can not live with a choice to put party politics above an opportunity to get something done that inches us closer to the place I believe we should be as a state. Well just where does the good Senator believe that we should be as a state? But party politics did come into play, all democrats opposed this Senate bill.

The Florida House is at this moment still “hatching” their scheme. The legislative session in Florida is scheduled to end this coming Friday, hopefully it will end before these distinguished knuckleheads can further restrict the rights of legal and lawful gun owners. But alas, they will either cobble something together at the last-minute hurriedly so they can go home, extend the legislative session or call a special session to enact gun control measures, just to appease the LLSP.

But, to be sure what ever the State of Florida does, it will pale in comparison to what the distinguished bunch in D.C. will come up with.

The proposed gun control measures and legislation at the state or federal levels have nothing at all to do with ending mass shootings or with protecting the children. If it was about protecting the children, the LLSP would oppose abortion, after all the unborn child is the most vulnerable. The students in school have been taught and therefore expect government to protect them. It was the government that let down the students at the school in Parkland. The unborn child expects his or her mother to protect them, many are unfortunately let down by their mother. More children are lost to abortion in this country than any other cause. Nobody thinks about or are reminded about the innocent lives lost to abortion because there is no memorial service, moments of silence, candle light vigils, grave or urn, they dont get one.

The LLSP here in Florida and nationwide are using the student activists as a tool and a propellant for their agenda. They will use them for all they are worth and only as long as they are useful. The student activists were expecting and now demanding that government do something to make their lives safer. They do this even though in this particular incident it was government that failed them, it stares them in the face and yet they refuse to see it. The Founders and Framers had already provided for their protection in the Constitution. The First Line of Defense was provided for by those wise men, provided for by the Militia and the Second Amendment. As others have said, “The Militia was the original homeland defense”.

The LLSP, composed of the leftists(even those who wear the mask of conservatism), their accomplices in the media, the various gun control groups and now the student activists seek and demand restrictions and bans on the law-abiding population in an effort to do what, control crime or to control the law-abiding public? Radical ideologues, each and everyone.

Some on the right say stupid things like, We have to accept things like this occurring because we live in a “Free and Open Society”. These mass shootings are not a result of living in a “free and open society”. They are instead what happens in a society that has lost its way. If these mass shootings were a result of living in a free and open society they would have always been a part of our culture. They are instead only recent additions.

The left likes to say, “These measures will not prevent such acts in the future, but if we can save just one like they will have been worth it”. They already know what they want will never work. There is no proof that the last “assault weapons” ban saved even one life, but they want to ban “assault weapons” again.

The last assault weapons ban of 1994 came with a sunset date 2004, the next one will have no such feature. It will last forever. Once they get the “assault weapons” they will come for the rest, one by one, or lump sum. Just like Hitler, he wanted it all, they gave him most, then he took the rest. He lost his ass when he got greedy, “He bit off more than he could chew” as we say down in these parts.

There is no historical proof that had Hitler not received concessions WW 2 would have never happened. There is however historical proof that even though he got his concessions WW 2 happened. Hitler, like all tyrants and dictators in history began their reigns of terror by imposing restrictions on the population. Would the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and the rest been so easy to control if they had been able to retain their arms? Would it have been as easy to get them to get in the box cars?

I say no more, no more concessions. You can not negotiate with tyrants, not even in good faith, they have no faith. They give nothing. The right seems to think they win if they only give them some of what they want and demand. One day it may come down to us only having muskets. The appeasers will say “Look at least we still have muskets and have preserved the Second Amendment”.

DEO VINDICE

Riding the wave of tragedy

Posted on by

It appears that the liberal leftist socialist progressives(LLSP)are going to ride the wave of tragedy(the shooting in Parkland)right up to the mid-term elections. They are capitalizing on the fact that some republicans are now in the chorus line of “We have got to do something”. Some republicans are ready to throw the law-abiding gun owners under the proverbial bus of gun control, the round table meeting should be proof of that.

The democrats and some republicans see this as their “golden opportunity” to begin disarming American civilians(the law-abiding public). It is a high probability that the LLSP will go “whole hog”(go for broke)as a result of republican cooperation in gun control.

There is talk of a bill moving through the Tallahassee state house that will raise the age from 18 to 21 for the purchase of Long guns, the same age required to buy a hand gun. There is also talk of banning “bump stocks”, and banning high-capacity magazines, more background checks and what ever else the LLSP can add to the legislation. The same ideas are being bandied about in D.C. and many more I am sure. Disappointed in Florida to say the least.

So, what does this say about 18, 19 and 20 year olds? It says that the government state and federal does not trust them. They are all lumped into one group, the “untrustables”, not trustworthy. This based on the action of very few, in this case the actions of just one. There are many thousands of young men and women that have legally purchased long guns and are no threat to society or themselves. Why? They are responsible adults. This is likened to throwing the baby out with the bath water. What is to become of the long guns the less than 21 year olds have in their possession?

As to banning bump stocks, personally I dont want one. The reason is that after having fired machine guns in the military, especially the shoulder mounted ones they are a bugger to keep on target, a real ammo burner with no real effect or accuracy. But they were fun to fire, and if someone wants to have fun wasting money I say go ahead. But they are legal to manufacture, sell and possess, for now at least. What is to become of the bump stocks that are already in the possession of law-abiding citizens?

Banning high-capacity magazines. Just who or what is it that decides and declares what constitutes a high-capacity magazine? It will be just an arbitrary number that some LLSP will come up with, 2 could be considered high. If a 2 round magazine were to be declared a high-capacity magazine then we would be relegated to single shot firearms, therefore all magazines would be in effect banned. What becomes of all of the so-called high-capacity magazines already legally and lawfully in the possession of law-abiding citizens?

As to background checks, criminals do not submit to background checks, the law-abiding citizen does.

As stated above the LLSP will go all out on the gun control issue. The gun control advocates are no more than gun grabbers, a total ban on firearms for the law-abiding public. They dont like guns and dont want guns so they dont want anybody to have guns. They want them gone. They do not even want a single shot anything in the possession of the public.

There are two groups that are very happy with all of the talks on raising the age limit, banning of certain items and all of the other gun control schemes being floated.
1. The gun control advocates(the gun grabbers). They will finally be free of the scourge of society, the firearm.
2. The criminal element, they are not going to pay any attention to the bans or any other laws or schemes. They see it as a bonus for them they will face even less resistance, if any resistance to their criminal activities. Nothing but victims and potential victims wherever they look or happen to be.

For arguments sake, lets say that the LLSP does go all out on this and somehow get legislation passed at the federal level all banning guns or what they call assault weapons from possession of the private citizen. Turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in now.

Then lets say, for argument’s sake that a governor of a state along with the state legislature or governors of several states along with the legislatures of those states take the position that that federal law has no force in this or these states(nullification). Then lets say that the federal government then threatens to send federal authorities into that or those states to force the state into compliance. Then the state or states threaten to arrest any federal authority figure who attempts to enforce that law in that or those states. What does the federal government do at that point? What would the remaining states do? Seems like this has played out once before.

DEO VINDICE