Category Archives: Home defense

Knee-jerk reactions

Posted on by

Before getting started I wish to offer my condolences and sympathies to the victims of the Las Vegas shooting as well as their family members, friends and co-workers. I also wish to express my thanks to the first responders and to all of those at the concert who assisted the wounded and injured. You all are in my thoughts and prayers.

As with the previous posts this post will cover a lot of ground and the same still applies.

It did not take long for the usual cast of clowns to surface, as usual. All of a sudden every Tom, Dick and Harry is an expert on everything from mass-shootings to ballistics. We unfortunately live a world of instant gratification. Answers to questions are not being answered fast enough to some, so in the absence of fact they interject theory. As usual the media is there shoving their confounded microphones in the face of survivors and the family members of victims, seeking to be first with a story any story. The investigation is ongoing and may take some time. Be patient and wait for the facts and report on that. Give those who lost family members time to grieve and give the wounded and injured time to heal.

Emotions are running high after the shooting in Las Vegas, and that is exactly what the usual cast of clowns count on an emotional response. It is always the same after any tragedy or disaster occurs. That which can be politicized will be politicized, but they must strike while the iron is hot. The facts do not matter, what does matter is politicizing the event as soon as possible. That and capitalizing on emotions.

So let me address the anti-gun crowd, the ones that are usually identified as being on the left. They demand more stringent gun control laws, and their supporters cheer them own. They claim that gun violence must end, but guns themselves are not violent, they are an inanimate object. Guns are no more violent than a knife, a car, a hammer, an axe or any other inanimate object. But if a person who is hell-bent on doing harm can get his/her hands on any inanimate object he/she can use that object to bring about destruction and death, if he/she chooses too.

So let us talk about laws for a minute. It seems that the enlightened clowns that write legislation think that they can eventually pass a piece of legislation that a criminal will obey. There is already a law on the books against murder, but that law does not prevent murder. The prisons and jails are full of people who could not bring themselves to obey the laws already on the books. No law passed has yet to have the desired effect on the criminal element. Law-abiding people obey laws, law breakers do not.

I have to ask this. Why must the enlightened clowns further restrict the rights of the law-abiding citizen in a vain attempt to have an effect on criminal activity? Name me just one law that could have been enacted that would/could have prevented the carnage in Las Vegas. You cant can you? But your knee-jerk reaction is to think you can. You pass laws banning high-capacity magazines, the criminals still possess high-capacity magazines. You pass laws saying don’t do this or that and still the criminals do what they want.

God, Himself wrote the First Laws, the Ten Commandments, on tablets of stone and gave them to Moses and the people. God said “don’t murder” and still people murder. Those laws were set in stone. Does congress think they have more sway than God?

For arguments sake, let’s say that by some stroke of luck you are able to repeal the Second Amendment. What would that do for you? Nothing. Now let us say that you pass and enact legislation to ban all firearms, privately owned firearms that is. What does that do for you? Little to nothing. Now let us say you pass legislation that all privately owned firearms must be surrendered within so many days. What does that do for you? Again little to nothing. Sure some will surrender their firearms but most will/would not. Now you have created an even bigger problem for yourselves, sort of another unintended consequence. You really have no idea how many firearms are in this country. Do you? How will/would you know if all of them were surrendered? You would not would you? Not only do you not know for sure just how many firearms there are you also have no idea how much ammunition for those firearms there is. What you would have done in this instance would be to force the people to make a choice. A choice to remain law-abiding citizens or to become law-breaking citizens.

Let us now say that you did repeal the Second Amendment and pass the required legislation. How would you enforce that legislation? Even if the tidy sum of one million firearms were surrendered, you would have to assume that there were many more. What would you do about them? You only have two possible courses of action. Forget about the possibility that many more firearms were still in the hands of private owners. Or go to every home in America and kick-in the front door and search the residence for banned firearms. Some people are not going to take kindly to option two. You created yet another problem.

I might point out one other little item for you. There is the distinct possibility that some States will refuse to comply with a Federal action of this nature. They will simply say that that Federal Law does not apply in that particular State, simply ignoring federal law. Effectively Nullifying federal law within the boundaries of that State and there may be more than one. You will have no choice but to send in federal agents and forces to enforce your federal law. Now you have a really big problem.

No wait, you can not send in federal agents and forces to enforce federal law. You already have several states ignoring, Nullifying, federal law. You have several states that have passed laws allowing the recreational use of marijuana, which also allows for the possession of marijuana. You did not send in federal forces to force the states back into compliance with federal drug laws. Oh, and don’t forget about the states, counties and cities that are ignoring federal immigration laws by providing sanctuary to person illegally in this country. If the federal government took no action when several states ignored federal law and did what they wanted, how could the federal government justify going into a state to enforce one law while ignoring the nullification of others?

No, you will not repeal the Second Amendment, or pass/enact legislation to prohibit the private ownership of firearms, unless you want a repeat of 1860/1861. If you had any intention of doing so you would have done it when the democrats had the House, Senate and the White House, 2008-2010. Quit lying to the people. You only seek campaign donations. Pandering to your base, pretty much the same as the republicans.

What you will do is to pass more meaningless laws, and some of those laws have/had unintended consequences as well. You will likely propose legislation that bans the manufacture, sale and possibly the possession of stocks that reset the trigger of a semi-automatic rifle that allows for rapid fire. You may also ban the manufacture, sale and possession of certain other items that enhance the performance of semi-automatic weapons. You may also propose legislation that requires the registration of certain types of firearms or possibly all firearms. You will only have an effect on the law-abiding population. The criminal element will obey your new laws the same way they did the past gun control legislation.

Now let us address the above possibilities. You could, I suppose introduce legislation that prohibits the manufacture and sale of certain performance enhancement parts for firearms. But when it comes to possession of them you find yourselves in the same predicament you did about firearms and ammunition just don’t know how many there are and exactly who has possession of them. You once again find yourselves having to kick-in every front door in America, and again some people will not take to kindly to that. Now let us talk registration, just like when I addressed surrendering them some will comply most wont. You would have again made law-breakers out of those that are normally law-abiding. Then again you could/would be faced with the possibility that some States will not enforce your federal law. Again 1860/1861.

Now let us talk about the absurdity of the left. You seek to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens when it comes to private ownership of firearms, but nothing you do effects in the least the criminal element. You do this in the name of ending gun violence, not in the name of crime control or prevention. There are facts that prove that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime. More guns equals less crime, well that goes against your agenda. Doesn’t it? You do this in the noble cause of protecting the public, which sounds fine to some, they actually believe you care. But at the same time you block attempts to protect the most vulnerable, the unborn. When a State attempts to restrict abortion, you throw a tantrum saying that the rights of the woman are being trampled. You seek to place controls and restrictions on legal and lawful citizens and the private ownership of firearms, while at the same time you seek to remove controls and restrictions on abortions. A person is no less dead from a gunshot as an abortion. Murder is murder. You get campaign donations from both groups, anti-gun and pro-abortion. Freaking hypocrites. You protect the rights of the woman, you ignore and deny rights of the unborn. You manufacture/protect non-existent rights of illegal immigrants, while trampling the rights, very much existent rights, of the legal and lawful.

Now let me for just a minute go to some on the right, normally seen as pro-gun. One, a radio talk show host, said something has to be done. Here are the suggestions offered by that individual. Place metal detectors in the lobbies of all motels. TSA screeners in every motel. The host even went so far as to call the shooter a “cracker”. You have got to be kidding me. This character in the name of security is willing to give away liberty, he may well get his wish. He removed his mask. You get groped to fly, you may soon get groped to stay in a motel. There may come a time when you and I will have no liberties at all, everything would have been traded for a little security, and will have neither. He is not the only reacting from emotion instead of logic. If I may I would like to make one more point. The carnage in Las Vegas would have continued on until the shooter ran out of ammunition had not good guys with guns arrived.

We may find out because of this latest tragedy that there is only one political party in America. The radical left and their allies past and present have been long in the process of destroying what remains of this Republic. They have but one plan and that is to turn this Republic into some kind of Socialist/Communist Utopia. They are the new Jacobins, the ends justify the means. They have no concern as to the cost to reach their goal. One of them may/will become the new Robespierre.

I dont have the answer as to why the shooter did what he did. I dont even have an idea of what to do to prevent it from happening again, most likely there is nothing that can be done. But, I do know exactly what not to do. Placing restrictions on the law-abiding citizens is not the answer and will not prevent future occurrences of this type.

When a wolf comes to the door I would like to have some wolf repellant. Calling animal control will not keep a wolf from your door, by the time animal control arrives the wolf would have done what wolves do and most likely be long gone. Animal control will bring with him/her exactly what I should have had.

What gets the blame the next time?

Posted on by

We have the Liberal Socialist Progressives pedaling yet another lie. Recently the Secretary of DHS gave an interview in which he stated “Gun control is Part and Parcel of Homeland Security for Public Safety”. That is one big lie, in fact the man is 180 degrees out of plumb. The Truth is that “Gun ownership and the Right of Self-Defense are Part and Parcel of Homeland Security and Public Safety”. But the lie will be repeated and accepted as truth. The victims in Orlando, San Bernardino, Ft. Hood, Chattanooga and others all had one thing in common, they were in areas where firearms were prohibited. In each instance the victims obeyed the law, the same can not be said of the Terrorists. Gun control in action.

While it is true that there is no proof that the victims could have defended themselves from the Terrorist if they were armed, there is a high probability that they could have lessened the death toll. There is also the very high probability that the Terrorist would have passed them by if he even suspected they might be armed. But we will never know if they could have or not. Why you ask? They were not given the chance to prove you right or me wrong. Why you ask? They followed the law, the one which you made that prevented them from defending themselves. They may well have failed but at least they could have tried, they never had a fighting chance. You took that from them. Now you push gun control for public safety, you have got to be kidding me. The victims were out in public at a public establishment and they were attacked. When the Terrorist attacked he used a gun or two and those that responded brought guns, many guns. Again the good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy with a gun. But they had to wait for you. The same action taken by law-enforcement could have been the same action someone in the club could have taken without the wait, if only they had the means.

As of yet America does not have exploding people, yet the government allows people into this country that are prone to explode. Nor does America have exploding cars, trucks, buses or motorcycles yet the government allows people into this country that are prone to own or operate wheeled vehicles that do Explode. Nor does America at this time have roads that explode yet the government allows people into this country that seem to enjoy exploding roads. It seems that it would just make common sense to keep people out of this country that explode, drive or ride in exploding vehicles or enjoy exploding roads. Our government does just the opposite allows them to come here and worse yet they encourage them to come here and even worse they bring them here.

When the time comes, and it will come, when people start exploding it will not be the clothing that exploded it will be the person wearing the clothes. The government will spend more time finding out who made the clothes, so they can blame the clothes and the ease in which that brand can be bought in America, rather than the exploding person. The same goes for cars, buses and trucks even the roads.

In case you missed it, there seems to be a practice in parts of the Middle-East where if a gay is found he is taken to the top of a building, dangled by his feet and then dropped to his death. In some cases they were just outright thrown off of the roof top. When this happens here in America, will you claim that the building was to tall or that the ground was too hard? When a woman gets stoned to death here in America, will you blame her for getting stoned or will you blame the rock for attacking her? What will you blame when mass beheadings occur in America? Will you blame the one being beheaded or will it be the knife? Not to mention the offenses committed against women and children, what will you blame in that instance? The list goes on and on.

You push gun control while you should push for terrorist control. Makes me wonder what it is you really want to control. The legal and lawful gun owners are under control most, definitely the vast majority, exercise self-control while others, a definite minority, are controlled by the laws. Those that exercise self-control will never be a problem, unless forced. Those that are controlled by the law will not be a problem as long as there are laws. What is out of control are the terrorists, they have no self-control and are not afraid of you or your laws much the same as the criminals. Seems to me you are taking out the frustrations of not controlling terrorists or criminals on the already law-abiding.

You push to limit and/or take away the only means that the legal and lawful citizens have to protect themselves. While you on the other hand have a small army at you disposal(a well armed small army)to keep you safe at all times. I have only me to protect and defend me and mine. By the time help arrives, it is most often to late. If you doubt that watch the news.

Seems kind of backwards to me that you provide better for them in their homelands than you will allow me to have in my homeland, and still you seek to further limit me. By the way, Which country is it that your are Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for?

I have a much better idea for you to focus your time and energy on. Why don’t you go there(where ever they are from)and teach them how to make clothing that does not tend to explode. Help them build modes of transportation that are not prone to explode. Help them build roads that are not prone to explode. And don’t forget to teach them to build kitchen appliances that are not prone to explode.

-wits

Posted on by

uncle-sam-prayer-for-americaEnough already. The levels of incompetence and ignorance have reached a new all time height. I mean even modern jets have a maximum ceiling(altitude) and even a maximum airspeed where they can still function safely. Apparently there are no such restrictions on incompetence or ignorance, there are no limits on how high it can go or on how fast it can spew forth.

A prime example of this is the political reaction to the recent terrorist attack in Orlando. The political solution is apparently to further restrict the rights of law-abiding American citizens. Everybody at the club were law-abiding citizens, they were out for an evening of entertainment and merry-making. As I recall firearms are not allowed in the part of a club serving alcoholic beverages, so consequently the lawful were disarmed, obeying the law. The only one who broke the law was the terrorist who entered the club with firearms. And then he did what terrorists do, he starting killing unarmed citizens(civilians). He chose a “soft target” because he wanted to go about his terroristic intentions unimpeded by the possibility of encountering anyone inside the club that may have been armed. You will note that this like almost all large-scale terrorist attacks the intended victims would have no way to effectively defend themselves. The laws on the books worked just fine, problem is the terrorist had no intention of following the law. It will be the same the next time it happens, wherever it happens, the same as in California. The law-abiding citizens obeyed the law, the terrorists did not nor will they, ever.

Immediately the gun control crowd jumped up on their “soap-box” claiming that more gun control was needed to prevent such acts. They actually blamed the murder and mayhem on the gun. So they cries went out for somebody to do something, the gun violence must be stopped. I do need someone to explain to me how a gun, an inanimate object can become violent all by itself. It again just like every other crime or terrorist act took the intentional effort by a human being to carry out the act. It was not the gun that is or became violent enough to load magazines itself and pull back the charging handle and the aim itself at people and then commence firing and change magazines as the ammo became depleted. No all those actions required a human. I would even be bold enough to claim that if a rifle were to be loaded with a full magazine, the charging handle pulled back and released to send a live round of ammunition into the chamber and the safety not engaged(left on fire) and then placed in a corner the loaded rifle would stand right there until the end of time and never turn violent. The only thing left to do was to pull the trigger and it would go bang, it would wait right where it was left waiting for a human. Magazines can not load themselves, charging handles can not pull themselves to the rear and triggers can not depress them selves, all those steps require human action, willful and intention human actions.

What needs to happen is that the right to self-defense of the citizens of this country needs to be unimpeded. But the gun control crowd and the liberal socialists in government(democrat, republican and independent)will demand and do just the opposite. It is not the law-abiding citizens that are the problem in this country nor is it the availability of firearms. The problem is the criminal element and now terrorists in this country. We do not need gun control, what we do need is criminal control and terrorist control. Criminals can be controlled by the laws already on the books, but only if the laws are enforced. Terrorists can be controlled by not letting them in this country, in other words immigration and visa control. Failing to control immigration and visas into this country is akin to letting people into your house that should never have been allowed on your lawn, then acting surprised when they destroy or attempt to destroy you and yours.

One interesting tidbit was the congress critter from down Orlando way spewing this garbage, people should not be allowed weapons that fire seven hundred a minute. That idiot should do the math on his foolish statement. 700 rounds per minute would equate to 11.6 round per second, that is one fast semi-automatic rifle no to mention the quickness of changing magazines, and the weight of that much ammunition. Are the good people from his district really contemplating sending him back to congress? Lord help us. After hearing what that man had to say I had to consult Webster’s for a possible word and definition that would help describe the level of incompetence and ignorance of some of the distinguished members of government, I came up with the following;
Nit-wits, Half-wits, Dim-wit and Witless, they pretty much all mean the same thing. A stupid or foolish person. The I looked for words to describe the statements they make and possible laws they may attempt to introduce in the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack. I came up with the following; Half-baked, not completely thought out.
1959792_716153281770894_2116533504_n

I would like to point this out in case any of the gun control crowd missed it. When the call for help went out it was answered by people with guns, a lot of people with a lot of guns. If you are so against guns why did you call for and expect people carrying guns to show up? If the terrorist wanted to cause such carnage and he did not have a gun or two he would have chosen a different method, the result would have been the same many innocent would have died. The same can not be said if someone, anyone or everyone in the club would have had a least the same capability as the terrorist. I thought you liberals were all about equality and creating a level playing field. You gave one an advantage over many others. Why do you promote policies that go against one of your stronger beliefs? All things being equal, I mean. Seems to me you actually promote inequality.

Then I have to say that the Dim-wits, Nit-wits and Half-wits can only be in government if people of the same caliber continually elect and re-elect them. The only way we have half-baked ideas for laws is that people elect people who hatch half-baked laws. You reap what you sow. You elect stupid you get stupid.

Then there is this, incompetence and ignorance runs rampant through society. Read on Free Republic today where the Southern Baptist Convention(SBC)has banned the display of the Confederate Flag in SBC churches. So let me address this real quick while on the subject of Dim-wits, Nit-wits, half-wits, Witless and Half baked. The Southern Baptist Church I attend does not display the Confederate Flag on the grounds or in the Sanctuary, there are however on display in the Sanctuary the Christian Flag and the U.S. Flags. Were you referring to the Stars and Bars(the Flag of The Confederacy, The Confederate States of America) or the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia? Just asking. Since when did political correctness enter the Sanctuary? If you are by decree banning the flag that may or may not be displayed in a Southern Baptist Church because someone may be offended, when will you deny Christianity because someone may be offended?

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.

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 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 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.

Lies, Deceit and Hypocrisy

Posted on by

First my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families after the latest shooting in Oregon.
The Liberal Left and the Progressive Liberals are at it again doing their best to politicize another tragedy. A tragedy caused by the policies they support and in most cases have instituted. BHO has politicized every event that supported his as well as the progressive agenda, however this time he came out and said it, he is politicizing this tragedy and will keep politicizing it. I did notice one thing different in his approach this time he has stopped using the term “gun control” and has instead gone with the term “gun safety”.

The sudden change in wording set me to thinking, “What are they up to now”? The change from “control” to “safety” is a change in strategy, but has no effect on the ultimate goal. Think about this, safety and the usage of the word. Motor vehicles are much safer today than they were years ago. That would lead one to believe that fewer people die on the roads and highways of America. Seat belts save lives, so we have a law requiring motorists to wear seat belts, again to decrease the number of motor vehicle deaths each year. Safety seats are used in motor vehicles to make the children safer in the event of an accident. There are countless “safety” laws, rule and regulations in place to make the work place “safer”. Safety glasses have reduced the number and severity of eye injuries. Safety equipment used in and around the work place have reduced the numbers of deaths and injuries. There are even safety items in and around the home to lessen the likelihood of falls and injuries. This would all lead one to assume that safety in all aspects of life is an overall good thing.

Even with the fact that motor vehicle manufacturers making motor vehicles safer, many thousands of people die each year in motor vehicle accidents. Children still die or are seriously injured while in a car seat. People still die or are seriously injured while wearing seat belts. People are still injured or die around the workplace. Many people still die or are seriously injured in accidents around the home.

It would be my guess that some time in the very near future there will a government study. A study on safety, showing the benefits of safety versus reckless behavior. It will also show how government intervention in the name of safety has decreased the number of serious injuries and deaths based on safety laws, rules and regulations. The “facts and figures” will of course show the desired results of the study, even if they have to be skewered. The truth means nothing, the agenda means everything.

This is why gun control laws and measures do not work, nor will they ever. There has yet to be a law, rule or regulation that has stopped a criminal doing what a criminal does, which is to disobey or break the law. Maybe a law should be passed making it illegal to break the law, rule or regulation, that one might convince the criminals to stop their criminal behavior. No that will not work, it would cause the politicians to become law-abiding citizens. That is unless they could somehow see themselves as above the law. Oh silly me, the criminals and politicians already have that view and act accordingly.

With the exception of inserting the word “safety” where “control” is usually used the liberal left and the liberal progressives talking points remain the same. “We must protect the children”.” People need a safe environment to study, learn and grow”. “For the sake of the children”. And so it goes, the talking points never change.

Let’s examine for a moment the utter hypocrisy of the liberal left and the liberal progressives. So you want to provide a safe place for children, do you? The safest place for any child is supposed to be the mother’s womb. Yet you deny the child that safety, you support and fund organizations that go into the womb and take the life of a child, literally ripping them from safety and security. Some of you are even okay with going into the womb and taking the life of a child up to the moment of birth. You want a safe place for children to learn and grow as long as it is not in the womb. Rather than control yourself and not engage in activity that history has proven leads to pregnancy, you choose abortion.
How about them school buses? Are the seats any safer now than the were when I rode them in the 1960’s? Do they have seat belts yet? Oh, that’s right safety costs money. If school buses were safer they would cost more money. Are you letting children’s safety slide for monetary reasons.

As for control there are at present only two types of control the liberal left and the liberal progressives care about, and they are gun control and birth control. A world where abortions are on demand and free of guns.

Just stop claiming it is for the children when you seek gun control, or the new term gun safety your actions have already proven you do not have a concern for the children. Abortion is the number one cause of the death of children. Tell the nation the truth what is your true agenda concerning personal firearms. Stop lying, if you can, and just say what your ultimate goal is.

You claim to want to make a safer environment, yet you seek to deny me and those like me with the most important tool that make the safer environment. The tool that provides a deterrent. No sign announcing a gun-free zone has ever deterred a single mass shooter. How many have been encouraged by or drawn to a place to do evil by the simple sign announcing there will be no resistance. What does the absence of the sign provide? Doubt in the mind of the criminal.

While on the subject, since your intent is to provide for a safer environment for your children. Assuming that they made it out of the womb alive, and you see firearms as evil, and Lord knows that you must protect the children from evil. I have a quick question for you. Have you placed that gun-free zone sign in front of your house yet? No, why not? Could it be that you already know that the gun-free zone sign only invites trouble?

Gun Control or Population Control?

Posted on by

This post and some subsequent posts have their foundation in the post entitled, Refugees, Illegal Immigration, Sneak Attack, Capitulation and Community Organizing.
Gun control or population control, which is it that the gun control activists want? I have stated many times before that government is all about power and control. If the government has absolute power they by default gain absolute control. You ask, Why did I mention gun control activists and government in the same paragraph? The answer is quite simple, at some point activists began to be elected to political, no Constitutional office, while many others have simply been appointed or confirmed to their posts and some were hired. Those that were nominated were done so by those who were elected. Those that were confirmed were done so by those that were elected. Those that were appointed were done so by those that were confirmed. Those that were hired were done so by those that were appointed. And so it goes, everybody in government tends to surround themselves with those that are like-minded.

First let us take a look at the gun control activists groups, the ones not in government, at least not yet. To begin let us examine where they get their operating funds. While some funding comes from donors the majority of their financial resources come from the ultra-wealthy. In at least two groups the ultra-wealthy are also their mouth-pieces. They spout facts that they come up with that furthers their cause, but never give all of the facts. Partial facts are no more than a partial lie. The followers of these mouth-pieces miss several important items. The first is that even though your favorite mouth-piece may or may not personally carry a fire arm he is surrounded by those that do. You can sure bet that somewhere close is a personal bodyguard armed to the teeth, and they are always there. He provides for himself what he wants to deny you, and still you follow him. His children and grandchildren do not go to the same school your children and grandchildren attend. His are protected but yours are not. He does not expose himself or his family to the same dangers he wishes you and your family to be exposed to, and still you follow. If you follow a hypocrite what does that make you? One has to question his motivation.

Now let us take a look at the gun control activists, the ones that are in government. The ones holding political, no Constitutional office, they are surrounded by armed men and women. The buildings they occupy are protected by armed men and women. Is where you work or live protected by an armed security detail? Depending on their office they send out armed details to ensure their safety. Do you enjoy the same in your travels? They are protected, their families are protected all by armed and women. We the tax-payers pay for all of that. If you do not see the hypocrisy in that you are truly hopeless.
While on this subject let us look at gun control activist legislation, both that has passed and that is proposed.
There is only one thing to say about that which has already became law, the only people effected were the law-abiding public, it had no effect on the criminals.
There is much to say about the proposed legislation, but I want to discuss on especially. The proposed additional taxes on fire arms and ammunition, one was a $25 dollar tax on each fire arm sold and a tax of up to 5 cents per bullet. This all comes on top of sales tax. If I understand this correctly, legislature and or city and county commissions are proposing to tax citizens for exercising their Constitutional Rights. Imagine that taxing a person to exercise his or her Constitutional Right. If they are willing to tax one when will they tax the rest? Then there is the proposed licensing fee per gun, per year. It is bad enough that some states require a law-abiding citizen pay a fee and obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, now they want a per year fee per gun, yet another tax or fee to exercise a Constitutional Right. This leaves one to wonder is it about gun control or a revenue source, or is it to make the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right so expensive it becomes unaffordable. None of this will ever effect the criminal element.

In the previous post I made the statement that the American population would never voluntarily be disarmed, and I stand by that. As I and others have said, there are only two ways to get people to agree with your position, and they are Reason and Force. The gun control activist groups have been trying for some years to sell their case and they have failed, miserably. They now must seek the help from government to help them further their agenda of disarmament. They have used many catchy slogans and used skewered statistics to sell their case. Let me point out two of their catchy slogans and the complete idiocy in them.

They use the term “Gun Violence”. The claim is that they want to stop “gun violence”. The term “gun violence” in itself is a complete lie. A gun is not capable of being violent. But, they never use the term used in “Self Defense”. As soon as a shooting happens the gun control activist groups are on the scene, but only if the shooting fits their agenda. They never show-up at the scene where a Law-abiding citizen uses a Lawfully acquired gun to protect him or herself and family from a criminal. Government officials even get in on the frenzy. Who says anything when a criminal uses a stolen gun to murder an innocent citizen who just happens to be out for a walk on a beautiful day? But what did the lawyer blame, he blamed the gun for not having a safety, it was not the lack of a safety that caused the gun to fire, it was the willful intention of a known criminal to pull the trigger. It was not the gun, it was the criminal pulling the trigger. I am surprised the lawyer did not blame the victim for getting in the path of the projectile.

Then there is the term “We have to do something”, or “Something must be done”. This an attempt to use emotion instead of logic. Using emotion to deal with a problem is to further restrict the Rights, Freedoms and Liberties of the law-abiding population. Or was this your intention all along? Deal with the problem, the problem is crime and the criminal element, it is not the law-abiding population. It is not the law-abiding population that commit crimes, it is the criminals. Crime and criminal activity will never be effected by imposing even stiffer restrictions on the law-abiding population. If you really want to do something become a crime-fighter, and stop being a rights denier. America and the law-abiding citizens do not need another law to restrict our rights any of them, not a single one. What we do need is the laws already on the books enforced against the criminal element not the law-abiding public. Not just the laws but the penalties. Controlling crime should be the focus. Make the criminal pay for the crime, he or she committed the crime not the law-abiding citizen. How did it get to the point where laws, rules and regulations restrict the rights of the law-abiding and not the law-breakers?

Has there ever been a time where the proper placement of a “Gun Free Zone” deterred a criminal? I would say NO!!! All those “Gun Free Zone” signs have done is to assure the criminal he or she will encounter is a steady supply of victims. Victims that will be cowering. Speaking of gun free zone signs, do you really think that when the gun control activist group mouth-piece encounters one of those signs that he leaves his armed bodyguards outside or has them disarm before going inside, or do they accompany him regardless of the sign? Go ahead guess which happens.

Let us discuss the real agenda of the gun control activist groups. Your true agenda is not gun control but control of who has guns. To control who has the guns you must first find out who has the guns. This is another big part of the gun control activist agenda. Gun owner registration, a national registry of gun owners. This why you spout off the non-sense about the supposed “gun show loophole”. There is no gun show loophole, every licensed firearms dealer in attendance is required to do the exact things he is required to do at his or her brick and mortar store. The only other firearm sales are those conducted by everyday citizens, an everyday transaction, a private sale between two people. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that a criminal would be at a gun show to start with, cameras are everywhere and his or her presence would be recorded and they know that. This would especially be true if the purchaser was a known felon. Still you persist with this non-sense. You seek universal background checks, one in which a private sale between two individuals must be conducted at a brick and mortar firearms dealer, and noted on a federal form. You still do not realize that criminals do not acquire firearms in a legal manner. Acquiring firearms in a legal manner would be obeying the law, you forget criminals do not obey the law. Still you persist. What could be your real objective? No I mean your ultimate goal. Is your ultimate goal firearm confiscation? Yes, I believe it is.

You may have become involved with the gun control activist groups thinking ” We must stop gun violence” or ” we have to do something” or that the “gun show loophole” must be closed, if this is the case you do not think for yourself and let others do the thinking for you. As I mentioned in the previous post one of the reasons Japan did not plan an invasion of mainland America was the fact that American citizens enjoy a right that few others enjoy, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. You need to read the real history of the nation around the world where the citizens enjoy no such right and the brutality and oppression they endured either from invading forces or the own government.

No, you have not offered any compelling argument for me to voluntarily disarm. You did not and can not win me over with reason. The reasons you offer go against all logic.

On the other hand I have offered you compelling reasons to stop trying to deny me my Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I have tried to win you over with reason. The difference between you and me is that I will only use reason to change your mind. You on the other hand will do something I and those like me would never do, and that is to use force where reason failed.

Coexistence part 2 Guns

Posted on by

Can the people who are pro-gun and the people who are anti-gun coexist? The answer is YES. People “coexist” each and every day with differing points of view. The reason they can do this is because they make a choice to exercise their right to own a gun or not.
as for me, I am in the pro-gun “camp”. Owning and carrying concealed weapons is my right and I choose to exercise that right. There is however a high level of responsibility that accompanies the exercise of this right as with exercising any right. A responsibility that I willingly accept.

My responsibilities as a gun owner and a concealed weapons permit holder.
I am responsible to know and understand my weapon its capabilities as well as its limitations. Not only must I know my firearm, I must know the ammunition that is associated with a particular firearm.
I am responsible to secure my weapon and ammunition to prevent unauthorized use. I would do this even if there was no law, much the same as I would never drink from a toilet. Just like the law making a person secure weapons and ammunition, someone somewhere thought it was a good idea to post a sign behind a toilet telling the user it was unsafe to drink.
I am responsible to know and understand firearms safety and how to safely handle a firearm.
I am responsible to know and understand the laws of my state concerning firearms and concealed carry.
When traveling I am responsible to know the laws of the states concerning firearms and concealed carry that I will or could possibly travel through as well as the laws concerning firearms and concealed carry of the state that I intended to visit for a spell. In some cases it gets even more involved than that, sometimes the local laws must be known and understood.
My list of responsibilities goes on and own, if you have got the picture by now you are definitely not in the same camp I am in, you are in the anti-gun camp.

Do those in the anti-gun camp have responsibilities? Yes, they do. As a matter of fact those in the anti-gun camp have many of the same responsibilities as those in the pro-gun camp, though hey do differ from the above list. The first and foremost is the protection, safety and well-being of yourself and your family, and this list goes on and on.

As to the matter of self-defense, just because a person is anti-gun does not necessarily mean that they are against self-defense. They may just choose to defend themselves when required to do so in a different manner. Whether it be a knife, a bat, a stick or just calling for help from someone with a gun.

There are many reasons that could land a person in the anti-gun camp, religious reasons, strong moral convictions and again the list could be long. Below are just some of my own observations.
One thing that I have noticed for so many in the anti-gun camp is that some people have a fear and/or misunderstanding of firearms. This instance of fear was addressed in a previous post, titled The problem is the reason. Another reason is the total lack of respect of a firearm. Education is another reason, it seems that “fear” in the main educating point concerning firearms by the anti-gun culture, teaching about firearms was also addressed in a previous post, titled Teach them young teach them correctly. Another reason is the lack of exposure. How many in the anti-gun camp have ever been to a public firing range? The answer is relatively few.

To make an informed statement about firearms or any other subject it is my opinion that one must educate themselves and not rely on others who are just speaking to be heard. You know, the ones who do not even have a proper understanding of the subject and use data skewered towards their position whether the data is true or not, most often not. The truth matters not to these people, just the furtherance of their agenda.

After you have educated yourself and have had at least some exposure you can make an informed statement and possibly argue your point based on fact not propaganda. If after education and exposure you still remain in the anti-gun camp I will support your choice and decision, even though I disagree.
But, if you refuse to educate yourself or even be exposed to firearms, religious and moral convictions excluded, then you are not in the anti-gun camp, you are in the gun-control camp and you will be addressed shortly.

Do I believe that everyone should own a firearm? Absolutely not, there are some who should never be trusted to have a firearm and there are those who have lost that right by engaging in criminal activity. Much the same as there are some politicians holding a Constitutional office that should never be trusted to hold office any office especially if it gives or bestows upon them power over another.

Now to address the most heinous group of all, those in the gun control camp. I call you the most heinous group for this, you are not about gun-control you are about rights control and deprivation. You seek to use the power and force of government to deny or deprive me my right to own firearms. You use each tragic event where a firearm was used to further restrict my rights concerning firearms, and you have a powerful ally in the media. You report on tragedy but fail to report the lawful use of firearms to protect life and limb. You focus on criminal activity and neglect lawful activity. You are fools if you think you can reduce the swords into plowshares and still exist. Two quick points for you.
First, it was men using firearms that won America’s independence from a tyrannical king. If it were not for the use of firearms to gain independence, America would still be under the control of the British Throne. Is that where you would be? Living under tyranny. The King of England sought to keep America subjugated with firearms. The Colonials used firearms to win Independence.
Second, it was Americans that used firearms to save the world in two World Wars. Tyrants and Dictators sought to overrun and rule the world using firearms. The good and righteous saved the world using firearms.

Now, you in the anti-gun and gun-control camps think that I have just made your case for you and will attempt to use my words against me. You are wrong and nothing could be farther from the truth. I have instead made my point and case for owning firearms clearer.
Think on this. Prior to the advent of firearms Kings and other evil tyrants used any means and weapons available to subjugate other countries and indeed their populations, whether it was the jaw bone of an ass or a rock. Good and righteous men using the same weapons freed themselves from tyranny and oppression.

Firearms are not the problem. The problem is evil and tyranny. As long as there is evil and tyranny in the world, and it has existed since Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden of Eden. Good and righteous men and women will use the same weapons to defend themselves and to throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression as the tyrants of the world use to place them under tyranny and oppression. The evil tyrants use at this moment firearms in an attempt to place the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the necks of entire countries and the populations, some times even entire continents. The good and righteous at this moment will use firearms to prevent the placement of the yoke around their necks and in some cases to remove the same yoke.

For those not in the pro-gun camp think on this. It was the good and righteous through the use of firearms that made it possible for you to say and in some cases do or attempt to do stupid things.

There are only two ways to bring people to agree with your opinion or position, Reason and Force.
To the anti-gun camp I will attempt to get you to remove your tent from the campground you presently occupy and place it in the pro-gun camp. But the difference is that I will only attempt to use reason, never force. If I am unsuccessful in my attempt to convince you to move to my camp through reason you should remain in your camp if you remain anti-gun. If you are only anti-gun and remain as such but do not seek to limit the rights of others you are welcome to move to the pro-gun camp, because it is about more than being pro-gun it is about the preservation of rights. All of them. But if you are really gun-control which equates to rights control or elimination you should really be in the gun-control campground, where you belong.
To the gun-control camp, come out of the closet and state you true intention, which is to attempt to restrict or eliminate my rights. I see you for what you really are, you may as well admit it. You failed to bring me to you camp through reason, now you attempt to use the force of government to make me move. You will use government in an attempt to deny me the right self-defense.

Can the pro-gun camps and the gun-control camps coexist? Absolutely not, in my opinion. I am about freedom and liberty and the freedom to exercise my rights. They in my opinion are about tyranny and oppression by limiting or eliminating rights.

Do you really think that you still have the bill of rights or any rights at all because the government has your best interests at heart?

Look at other countries around the world, I mean really look with your eyes open. Take special note of the countries who deny the population a means to defend themselves, if it is not the government it is the terrorists who have placed the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the necks of the population. At present they have no recourse but to wear the yoke. But soon some brave soul may find and take up the jawbone of an ass or a rock and begin the process of removing the yoke. But how many will die before the same weapons that were used to place the yoke are used to remove the yoke.

Are you really sure that you only want to trust the government with weapons?