We recently had a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA and the POTUS almost immediately called for gun control despite the fact that the attackers and their supporters had broken many laws (aside from murder) concerning the firearms to use those firearms, laws that already existed and which they ignored. What good would it do to have more laws that they would ignore?
Meanwhile, it is estimated that Americans commit 3 felonies each and every day, mostly in complete ignorance, because we have criminalized so much behavior. Just how does that help anyone? Does it make us safer? Healthier?
Recently, the Governor of Virginia, in an apparent bid to repay favors given him in his run for the governorship, issued an executive order to "ban" firearms from state offices including rest stops. That this "ban" is unenforceable or that for the time being the only charge could be trespassing, matters not one bit. Only the law abiding will be affected. Then the Attorney General for Virginia unilaterally decided to negate concealed handgun permit reciprocity with 30 other states. In one act he abrogated the rights of citizens of those 30 states as well as Virginians who acquired their Concealed Handgun Permits with the understanding that there would be reciprocity. Again, this affects only law-abiding citizens who have passed background checks to purchase and again to carry concealed those firearms. Meanwhile, criminals are under no restraints. How does this actually help anyone other than the criminal?
The truth is that gun control is an act of political control. Control over one's personal security is the ultimate act of control. So what happened as a result of each of these acts?
Sales of firearms. After each act there was an increase in sales in excess of what we would expect given the holiday season. Sales weren't just to rednecks, they weren't just to hobbyists, they weren't just to activists, those sales were to men and women and couples (of all kinds) who had never owned a gun, have never before carried concealed (but were signing up in droves for the required classes), and who were absolutely opposed to these restrictions. It was reported that on "black Friday", the day after Thanksgiving, over 187,000 firearms were sold. Based on this year's trends 40%+ or about 75,000 of those firearms went to first time buyers. Based on what I've seen these new buyers are not the politically disconnected or inactive, these are voters.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Friday, July 17, 2015
Thoughts on Islamic attacks on military facilities...
Yesterday, there was an "lone wolf" shooting attack at a recruiting station and then a Navy Reserve station in Chattanooga, TN. 4 Marines were killed and a Marine and Sailor were wounded. The shooter was killed by local police responding to the scene. He was a Kuwaiti immigrant who had attended high school and college here in the U.S. He used a firearm (purportedly some form of semi-automatic rifle) in his attack.
It appears that the feds need some sort of security arrangements at these military facilities that include armed people. It would be relatively inexpensive for some military units to assign this duty on a rotating basis to personnel assigned to a particular facility just as they have done in the past. It was called guard duty.
I remember that I stood guard duty, armed with an M16 and ammunition, at a small arms repair facility at Fort Jackson before I had completed basic training. Certainly combat veterans can do the same at recruiting stations (the Chattanooga facility was NOT the first recruiting station that had been attacked). However, this will not be a fail-safe solution. Don't expect the military (for many reasons) to reverse the "gun free zone" approach.
The military leadership really doesn't trust the enlisted folks to be armed unless they have officers present to "control" them. This mindset is intrinsic in military thought to the point that for centuries NCOs and junior enlisted have been awarded high level medals for taking charge and leading men in combat without an officer present. This attitude precludes arming of service people all over a base. There is also the unstated thought that a certain level of loss is acceptable. Further, the President does not want to undermine his agenda of civilian disarmament by obviously arming the military in their day-to-day domestic operations.
We know that these attacks will continue and can only hope that something is done, even if on the "down low", so that the Jihadists are stopped in their attacks.
It appears that the feds need some sort of security arrangements at these military facilities that include armed people. It would be relatively inexpensive for some military units to assign this duty on a rotating basis to personnel assigned to a particular facility just as they have done in the past. It was called guard duty.
I remember that I stood guard duty, armed with an M16 and ammunition, at a small arms repair facility at Fort Jackson before I had completed basic training. Certainly combat veterans can do the same at recruiting stations (the Chattanooga facility was NOT the first recruiting station that had been attacked). However, this will not be a fail-safe solution. Don't expect the military (for many reasons) to reverse the "gun free zone" approach.
The military leadership really doesn't trust the enlisted folks to be armed unless they have officers present to "control" them. This mindset is intrinsic in military thought to the point that for centuries NCOs and junior enlisted have been awarded high level medals for taking charge and leading men in combat without an officer present. This attitude precludes arming of service people all over a base. There is also the unstated thought that a certain level of loss is acceptable. Further, the President does not want to undermine his agenda of civilian disarmament by obviously arming the military in their day-to-day domestic operations.
We know that these attacks will continue and can only hope that something is done, even if on the "down low", so that the Jihadists are stopped in their attacks.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
White privilege, etc...
I recently read about a sociology professor at Boston University who tweeted, "white masculinity is THE problem for America's colleges," and "Deal with your white (expletive), white people. slavery is a (asterisk)YALL(asterisk) thing," and "Every MLK week I commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses. And every year I find it nearly impossible." I can't say that I am offended but I am disappointed and, unfortunately, I am not surprised.
Saida Grundy, who is described as a "black sociology professor", is an example of racism. Not reverse racism, but racism. Simple, straight forward all-encompassing racism. This from a sociology professor, i.e. somebody who has supposedly been educated in the how, why and when of human social behavior. So much training that she's been made a professor and supposedly has earned her doctorate based on her extensive knowledge on the various human behaviors, the motivations/causes of those behaviors and the results of those behaviors. All this education and she still finds it impossible to control her base impulses to exhibit and promulgate her own racism.
She does not know most "white" people. She can't. Certainly there are people all over the world who hold prejudicial views about other races, adherents of other religions and other nationalities and then act on those prejudiced and racist views. There are also those people, all across the world, who choose to or naturally judge others by the content of their character dealing with individuals as individuals.
In my own family I had a great-great-grandfather who enlisted as soon as possible to go to war in opposition to slavery. His father followed some few months later, not to defend liberty for the disenfranchised but for what he thought might benefit himself financially as he apparently care very little one way or another about slavery. Such widely divergent opinions are not uncommon in families of any race.
Professor Grundy should know this and it disappoints me that she either does not realize this or chooses to ignore it. It disappoints me that she was awarded a doctorate despite her obvious inability to learn the subject matter. It disappoints me that she so quickly dismissed as sub-standard any number of her future students. Why would anyone take a class taught by someone who dismisses you. I am disappointed that a college or university would hire somebody who is so obviously unable to teach.
I am unfortunately unsurprised that such has happened. We have converted our schools to instructors of dogma rather than fact. We have set one group upon another for the benefit of the political class. We failed to educate our children about the past or to equip them to think for themselves.
What else can we expect in such circumstances? (that is a rhetorical question) I don't see any good coming from this. History tells us that this is the beginning of our self-destruction as a nation. This country, for all its faults, has been the one continuing exemption to the human condition throughout all the rest of history. That this one shining light of liberty will be extinguished is sad to contemplate but it would seem inevitable.
Saida Grundy, who is described as a "black sociology professor", is an example of racism. Not reverse racism, but racism. Simple, straight forward all-encompassing racism. This from a sociology professor, i.e. somebody who has supposedly been educated in the how, why and when of human social behavior. So much training that she's been made a professor and supposedly has earned her doctorate based on her extensive knowledge on the various human behaviors, the motivations/causes of those behaviors and the results of those behaviors. All this education and she still finds it impossible to control her base impulses to exhibit and promulgate her own racism.
She does not know most "white" people. She can't. Certainly there are people all over the world who hold prejudicial views about other races, adherents of other religions and other nationalities and then act on those prejudiced and racist views. There are also those people, all across the world, who choose to or naturally judge others by the content of their character dealing with individuals as individuals.
In my own family I had a great-great-grandfather who enlisted as soon as possible to go to war in opposition to slavery. His father followed some few months later, not to defend liberty for the disenfranchised but for what he thought might benefit himself financially as he apparently care very little one way or another about slavery. Such widely divergent opinions are not uncommon in families of any race.
Professor Grundy should know this and it disappoints me that she either does not realize this or chooses to ignore it. It disappoints me that she was awarded a doctorate despite her obvious inability to learn the subject matter. It disappoints me that she so quickly dismissed as sub-standard any number of her future students. Why would anyone take a class taught by someone who dismisses you. I am disappointed that a college or university would hire somebody who is so obviously unable to teach.
I am unfortunately unsurprised that such has happened. We have converted our schools to instructors of dogma rather than fact. We have set one group upon another for the benefit of the political class. We failed to educate our children about the past or to equip them to think for themselves.
What else can we expect in such circumstances? (that is a rhetorical question) I don't see any good coming from this. History tells us that this is the beginning of our self-destruction as a nation. This country, for all its faults, has been the one continuing exemption to the human condition throughout all the rest of history. That this one shining light of liberty will be extinguished is sad to contemplate but it would seem inevitable.
Friday, January 03, 2014
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
Friday, August 09, 2013
Monday, June 10, 2013
Traitors or Patriots?
One 29-year old Booz Allen Hamilton employee, Edward Snowden, is reportedly the person who "blew the whistle" on the National Security Agency (NSA) PRISM project. Said project is reportedly gathering phone/e-mail/internet information on every American citizen. There are of course 2 sides to the discussion about his act(s).
One side says he's a hero for dropping a dime on the tyrannical federal government abuse of power and the other says he's a traitorous terrorist operative. Meanwhile the executive branch is attempting to deflect criticism by supporting the demonization of Snowden while saying that inadvertently captured data on citizens was destroyed.
Frankly, I think there's some level of disinformation being promulgated by all parties to this. Here's what I think the "facts" are as best as we can (or may ever) know right now.
A man named Edward Snowden is/was an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton. Implied in that admission is that he did have access to the information he claimed to have. We have long known that the government is indeed looking at as many communications (via any media) with overseas terrorists as they possibly can. We have also been told that the government has, of course, the ability to do the same with in-country communications.
Now for the implications...
Let's get real. There are some "truisms" that apply. If it can be done it will be done. What is legal isn't necessarily right/moral/ethical/constitutional. What can go wrong will go wrong. For these reasons I believe that the NSA is indeed capturing all possible data on all communications inside and outside the country. Aside from the problem of data storage it is probably easier to apply filters when searching the content than it is to apply filters to capturing content. Like a looter they are just grabbing all they can and sort it out as the opportunity presents or circumstance demands.
Given the number of people with access it is likely that somebody is abusing this capability in some way. Maybe it is as "innocent" as some employee checking out a spouse to make sure they aren't having an affair. Maybe it is some employee having a voyeuristic peek at some citizen(s) life. Just maybe it is the government actually gone fishing on 309 million Americans.
That last is the thing that the government is not supposed to do. It is but one step in subjugation of a people. Other countries have tried it before but technology (or the lack of technology) made such efforts come up a bit short. This is the reason many people feel a bit nervous about this.
So is Mr. Snowden (and others like him) a patriot or a traitor? We may never know. Certainly the government has to treat him as a traitor. He apparently knows that, after all he ran away to China. That's just fine. But we will likely never know the reason he has done what he has done and that is what we must know to define him as a patriot, somebody who puts country (all fellow citizens) first.
PS - it is now the 14th of June and we have learned that Snowden hasn't just dropped a dime on the domestic collection of data but apparently had/has information on our legitimate spying on the People's Republic of China (PRC). Further, he is apparently using that information to give him some leeway in his use of Hong Kong as a safe haven. To my mind what he has done is attempt, for some reason best known by himself and perhaps by his PRC handler, to use the domestic spying info to make him seem like a hero when he is nothing more than a turncoat spy who happened to also reveal the abuse of US citizens by their own government. No hero. Traitor. Benedict Arnold redux.
PPS- now the 22nd of June and it was announced that Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act. The complaint is sealed. This is to be expected.
One side says he's a hero for dropping a dime on the tyrannical federal government abuse of power and the other says he's a traitorous terrorist operative. Meanwhile the executive branch is attempting to deflect criticism by supporting the demonization of Snowden while saying that inadvertently captured data on citizens was destroyed.
Frankly, I think there's some level of disinformation being promulgated by all parties to this. Here's what I think the "facts" are as best as we can (or may ever) know right now.
A man named Edward Snowden is/was an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton. Implied in that admission is that he did have access to the information he claimed to have. We have long known that the government is indeed looking at as many communications (via any media) with overseas terrorists as they possibly can. We have also been told that the government has, of course, the ability to do the same with in-country communications.
Now for the implications...
Let's get real. There are some "truisms" that apply. If it can be done it will be done. What is legal isn't necessarily right/moral/ethical/constitutional. What can go wrong will go wrong. For these reasons I believe that the NSA is indeed capturing all possible data on all communications inside and outside the country. Aside from the problem of data storage it is probably easier to apply filters when searching the content than it is to apply filters to capturing content. Like a looter they are just grabbing all they can and sort it out as the opportunity presents or circumstance demands.
Given the number of people with access it is likely that somebody is abusing this capability in some way. Maybe it is as "innocent" as some employee checking out a spouse to make sure they aren't having an affair. Maybe it is some employee having a voyeuristic peek at some citizen(s) life. Just maybe it is the government actually gone fishing on 309 million Americans.
That last is the thing that the government is not supposed to do. It is but one step in subjugation of a people. Other countries have tried it before but technology (or the lack of technology) made such efforts come up a bit short. This is the reason many people feel a bit nervous about this.
So is Mr. Snowden (and others like him) a patriot or a traitor? We may never know. Certainly the government has to treat him as a traitor. He apparently knows that, after all he ran away to China. That's just fine. But we will likely never know the reason he has done what he has done and that is what we must know to define him as a patriot, somebody who puts country (all fellow citizens) first.
PS - it is now the 14th of June and we have learned that Snowden hasn't just dropped a dime on the domestic collection of data but apparently had/has information on our legitimate spying on the People's Republic of China (PRC). Further, he is apparently using that information to give him some leeway in his use of Hong Kong as a safe haven. To my mind what he has done is attempt, for some reason best known by himself and perhaps by his PRC handler, to use the domestic spying info to make him seem like a hero when he is nothing more than a turncoat spy who happened to also reveal the abuse of US citizens by their own government. No hero. Traitor. Benedict Arnold redux.
PPS- now the 22nd of June and it was announced that Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act. The complaint is sealed. This is to be expected.
Saturday, June 01, 2013
Printing guns...
Much is being made of the concept of using computers and plastic-3D printers to "print" firearms. Some see it as a bane on society while others see it as a great liberating concept, both for the same reason(s), i.e. that anyone can produce a firearm at any time so long as they have a printers. Something like the Star Trek replicators in concept, the printing of firearms is advancing quite rapidly. In as much as many modern firearms are mostly made of some sort of polymer anyway, there is little or no stigma attached to such a firearm. To put it another way, plastic guns made one way work, why not plastic guns made another way? Printing of guns might me that way, at least for the some gun smith.
Sor far as it goes now, it isn't illegal for an American to fabricate a firearm so long as it meets the other criteria as mentioned in the linked article. Handguns must have a rifled barrel to avoid being an National Firearms Act (NFA) regulated firearm and they must have some metal in them to avoid being an undetectable firearm. However, the real attraction of printing firearms comes from the ability to "stick to the man", i.e. the government, a concept that many currently active progressive/liberal politicians have supported from the time of Richard Nixon. Unfortunately for them, they are "the man" now and they are all too well aware of that. They don't like it one bit and they intend to make it illegal.
It might be interesting to watch this show. Unfortunately for the banners, history doesn't support the idea of successful bans. If you don't believe me, just look at all the marijuana these same folks smoked since the 1960s. If people want something, they'll get that something and use it as they please and eventually it will become the norm and permitted. This is happening with pot in Colorado, California and Washington, it is happening with homosexual "unions" and I'm sure it will happen with any number of things before I die.
Sor far as it goes now, it isn't illegal for an American to fabricate a firearm so long as it meets the other criteria as mentioned in the linked article. Handguns must have a rifled barrel to avoid being an National Firearms Act (NFA) regulated firearm and they must have some metal in them to avoid being an undetectable firearm. However, the real attraction of printing firearms comes from the ability to "stick to the man", i.e. the government, a concept that many currently active progressive/liberal politicians have supported from the time of Richard Nixon. Unfortunately for them, they are "the man" now and they are all too well aware of that. They don't like it one bit and they intend to make it illegal.
It might be interesting to watch this show. Unfortunately for the banners, history doesn't support the idea of successful bans. If you don't believe me, just look at all the marijuana these same folks smoked since the 1960s. If people want something, they'll get that something and use it as they please and eventually it will become the norm and permitted. This is happening with pot in Colorado, California and Washington, it is happening with homosexual "unions" and I'm sure it will happen with any number of things before I die.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Thoughts on "Gun Control" today...
I'd like to think that this would be logically organized and reach a conclusion but I doubt it. So what I'm just going to record my thoughts on this as they occur to me.
This is a subject that has been dominating the news since the morning of 14 December 2012 when a young man first killed his mother then stole her guns which he took to a local elementary school and murdered 26 more people and then killed himself when police arrived and confronted him. While I don't want to dwell on this incident for this post, we do know that this follows what seems to be a standard protocol for such events now. Mentally ill young man on prescribed medication acquires firearms illegally, goes to a location where people are certainly unarmed, murders as many people as he can until confronted by armed resistance at which time he kills himself. We are deeply sorrowful for the families of those murdered but we are not oblivious to the fact that such acts are anomalous. However, that realization is ignored by self-serving, opportunistic, politicians (a charitable term) who didn't let this crisis go to waste and immediately exploited it to advance their agenda to disarm the citizens of the United States. It should be noted that the incident took place at about 0930 and that the President of the United States was making a statement demanding "gun control" at about 1100 that same morning. Since that time those intent on destroying our civil rights have had successes not only in Connecticut where that attack occurred but also in New York, Colorado, and Maryland. While none of the laws passed would have stopped the attack if in force at that time, they do limit the legal access law-abiding citizens have to firearms.
What I'd like to talk about here is some of the thoughts I've had on the subject. Among the foremost of those "thoughts" is a realization that there isn't another country that acknowledges in writing that its citizens have the right to be armed to resist tyranny by that same government. I've lived long term in one other country and visited others and one can readily see the differences in the expectations and mind-set of the people who live there without this guarantee. First among those is that they realize that they also can suffer the consequences of expressing any political thought and that they are helpless in the face of the government.
That leads me to my next thought and that regards the weapons (the "Arms") protected by the 2nd Amendment. Arms ARE weapons. While we most often think of these as firearms I don't believe that ANY weapon is excluded. The military uses a wide variety of arms from edged weapons to nuclear explosives. If it exists and you can afford it then you should be able to have it. Radical? Hmmmmm, maybe. I know that very often the proponents of arms control for citizens say that when this was written all there were were muskets (a smooth bore flintlock analogous to today's shotgun) but that isn't true. There were rifles which had greater range, there were pistols, swords and cannon. Cannon were often privately purchased and mounted on commercial freighters to defend against piracy. In fact, the US government issued letters authorizing citizens to act as government agencies in making war on enemy shipping, using privately purchased and owned ships, cannon, firearms and edged weapons. To as strictly apply those standards to today's technology US citizens should be able to legally acquire full-auto firearms, artillery, etc. In fact, any available technology. No, we don't allow that. Limitations have been placed on explosives, full-auto firearms (not all that practical for individual users anyway) and swords. Even knives have had limitations codified which prohibit public carry of blades of certain shapes, lengths or folding mechanisms of particular types. Many of those restrictions have their origins in a desire to improve "safety" or "security" initiated by criminal misuse. E.g. the ban on bowie knives originated in the mid-19th century because the blade shape was almost startlingly effective in combat and fully-automatic firearm restrictions were the result of criminal use in the 1930s "gangster" era.
Most recently, the restrictions sought by the controllers have been on what they call "assault weapons" (unless the Department of Homeland Security buys them and then they are Personal Defense Weapons AND fully-automatic). These are semi-automatic firearms which are similar in appearance to military weapons. It is the appearance of these firearms by which they are judged as if appearance makes them more lethal. There is likely much to be discerned about the psychological makeup of people who have reached such illogical conclusions and it is typical of the emotional approach to this subject.
Associated with this is a desire to restrict access to "high-capacity" magazines. Limitations to 10 and 7 round magazines have been made. I have to note that these restrictive laws were passed without sufficient review to preclude such inanities as Connecticut's law which bans NEW magazines holding more than 10-rounds AND, although one can still possess them, prohibits putting more than 10-rounds in magazines of greater capacity as if that would be in any way enforceable. In New York the law was written (perhaps) and passed so rapidly that other inanities resulted. First, police and military weren't exempted. The response was that the police would simply not enforce it for themselves (now isn't that rich?). It also ignores otherwise legal possession by National Guards members. On duty they would be issued such magazines for training but if one finds its way into their gear and is overlooked before they head home after training they are suddenly committing a felony. Also, many, perhaps most, semi-auto box magazine fed firearms have never had 7-round magazines manufactured for them. This would effectively prohibit those firearms.
This brings us to another aspect of this rush to ban items previously legal to own and use. Ex post facto laws (Laws that provide for the infliction of punishment upon a person for some prior act that, at the time it was committed, was not illegal.) are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. So far as firearms (and now, magazines) are concerned this was previously avoided by "grandfathering" those items so that those already owned could be kept (albeit with restrictions on use) while only new items of that type were banned. However, there is another disturbing trend which applies to other legislation as well and that is to establish a "privileged class" such as police officers, private security firms, politicians, judges, or those wealthy enough to pay the taxes on these items or to hire those with access to provide personal security.
Further, about owning these firearms prior to bans and 99.9% of the time they have not been misused, why would one think that I can be presumed to be a criminal now? And why, after Haynes vs. the U.S. should I bother to register my firearms or comply with such schemes. Presumably I'm already a criminal (once these laws are enacted) and announcing my ownership, as put forth in the decision, is self-incrimination. Due to this the National Firearms Act was amended to only apply to those who could legally possess, but if nobody can legally possess... More inanity.
Which brought me to this thought, stupid laws are generally ignored and when this is done the eventual response is a general disrespect for the law, i.e. lawlessness. I don't think that this is a condition that we want. We also don't people to avoid treatment for medical conditions because they believe that this will result in the loss of their civil rights. That is another approach, well documented in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, of labeling "enemies of the state" as psychologically ill, affected, disabled or some other negative context. Since just about any problem today is treated with some sort of medication, it appears that the prescription and use of any of these medications is now grounds for the immediate negation of civil rights, at least of owning a firearm. New York has this in their SAFE act (if ever there was a misnomer...) and have already experienced abuse of the act. Whereas Federal law now says you have to be adjudicated, i.e. judged in court, as mentally incompetent/insane, no such limit exists in New York state law. How wonderful for all those people who were innocently prescribed any number of mild sedatives, sleep aids, etc, who are now subject to the whims of bureaucrats.
Mayor (and BILLIONAIRE, i.e. 1%er) Bloomberg has said, "Number two, I would argue if you want to sell your gun to your son, maybe you have a problem in your family. Why don't you just give—I don't know if you should have a gun or not, but if you have a commercial transaction of $100 with your son, there's something wrong in your family. It's just not something where everybody's pulling together in the same direction." Well, here's the deal. MILLIONS of Americans teach their children personal responsibility (as in not depending on Mr. Mayor for guidance) and one way that's done is teaching financial responsibility. Also, families without $BILLIONS, financially help parents, brothers and sisters, etc., by exchanging money for personal possessions such as guns and cars or businesses. There is NOTHING wrong with such transactions. The truth though is that GIFTS would also have been prohibited. In the language of some such laws, even handing a firearm to a person to teach them about firearm safety would have been a violation. This is just another example of how Mayor Bloomberg doesn't "get" real life.
As the debate continues and the Senate comes to a vote and defeats the measure we discovered a few things that aren't really surprising. First, we discover that the hypocritically elitist view of the subject is pervasive. Supporters of limits such as Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly enjoy shooting, he using a Glock just like the one used to shoot Congresswoman Giffords. His "excuse" was that his only holds 17-rounds (which is a prohibited magazine capacity in NY, CT, CO, and MD) rather than the 33-rounds supposedly used in her attacker's Glock. Not exactly logical but apparently that is the limit of their ability to reason.
Further, and perhaps most striking, is the reaction by the President and others to the bill's defeat. Mr. Obama was angry, outraged even. The actual murder of the school children in Newtown, the public servants in Benghazi, or the race attendees in Boston didn't arouse that ire and indignation. The truth is that the President doesn't care for the people affected what he cares about is how this vote will affect his personal political power. Because of the defeat of the bill in the Senate he won't be able to put the blame on the Republicans in the House of Representatives and that doesn't bode well for the 2014 elections. His is a purely selfish view of events.
Above all, it seems to me that this "discussion" about "gun" control has become an example of the desertion of logic and reason in support of accepting one's civil rights to accepting as laudatory the emotional or hysteric response. I liken it to a wounded child's mother who runs around a room screaming rather than taking the immediate step of applying a pressure bandage to the cut. It also seems that there is no person immune to this hysteria and that even those who initially resisted feel compelled to go along with those panicked fools as if being referred to as "calm and collected" was the worst sort of pejorative. Additionally, there are any number of socialists willing to take advantage of the "crisis", perhaps to exacerbate the "crisis", in order to promote their own circumstances. Although they have come to office portraying themselves as leaders and public servants their interest is purely self interest.
This is a subject that has been dominating the news since the morning of 14 December 2012 when a young man first killed his mother then stole her guns which he took to a local elementary school and murdered 26 more people and then killed himself when police arrived and confronted him. While I don't want to dwell on this incident for this post, we do know that this follows what seems to be a standard protocol for such events now. Mentally ill young man on prescribed medication acquires firearms illegally, goes to a location where people are certainly unarmed, murders as many people as he can until confronted by armed resistance at which time he kills himself. We are deeply sorrowful for the families of those murdered but we are not oblivious to the fact that such acts are anomalous. However, that realization is ignored by self-serving, opportunistic, politicians (a charitable term) who didn't let this crisis go to waste and immediately exploited it to advance their agenda to disarm the citizens of the United States. It should be noted that the incident took place at about 0930 and that the President of the United States was making a statement demanding "gun control" at about 1100 that same morning. Since that time those intent on destroying our civil rights have had successes not only in Connecticut where that attack occurred but also in New York, Colorado, and Maryland. While none of the laws passed would have stopped the attack if in force at that time, they do limit the legal access law-abiding citizens have to firearms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What I'd like to talk about here is some of the thoughts I've had on the subject. Among the foremost of those "thoughts" is a realization that there isn't another country that acknowledges in writing that its citizens have the right to be armed to resist tyranny by that same government. I've lived long term in one other country and visited others and one can readily see the differences in the expectations and mind-set of the people who live there without this guarantee. First among those is that they realize that they also can suffer the consequences of expressing any political thought and that they are helpless in the face of the government.
That leads me to my next thought and that regards the weapons (the "Arms") protected by the 2nd Amendment. Arms ARE weapons. While we most often think of these as firearms I don't believe that ANY weapon is excluded. The military uses a wide variety of arms from edged weapons to nuclear explosives. If it exists and you can afford it then you should be able to have it. Radical? Hmmmmm, maybe. I know that very often the proponents of arms control for citizens say that when this was written all there were were muskets (a smooth bore flintlock analogous to today's shotgun) but that isn't true. There were rifles which had greater range, there were pistols, swords and cannon. Cannon were often privately purchased and mounted on commercial freighters to defend against piracy. In fact, the US government issued letters authorizing citizens to act as government agencies in making war on enemy shipping, using privately purchased and owned ships, cannon, firearms and edged weapons. To as strictly apply those standards to today's technology US citizens should be able to legally acquire full-auto firearms, artillery, etc. In fact, any available technology. No, we don't allow that. Limitations have been placed on explosives, full-auto firearms (not all that practical for individual users anyway) and swords. Even knives have had limitations codified which prohibit public carry of blades of certain shapes, lengths or folding mechanisms of particular types. Many of those restrictions have their origins in a desire to improve "safety" or "security" initiated by criminal misuse. E.g. the ban on bowie knives originated in the mid-19th century because the blade shape was almost startlingly effective in combat and fully-automatic firearm restrictions were the result of criminal use in the 1930s "gangster" era.
Most recently, the restrictions sought by the controllers have been on what they call "assault weapons" (unless the Department of Homeland Security buys them and then they are Personal Defense Weapons AND fully-automatic). These are semi-automatic firearms which are similar in appearance to military weapons. It is the appearance of these firearms by which they are judged as if appearance makes them more lethal. There is likely much to be discerned about the psychological makeup of people who have reached such illogical conclusions and it is typical of the emotional approach to this subject.
Associated with this is a desire to restrict access to "high-capacity" magazines. Limitations to 10 and 7 round magazines have been made. I have to note that these restrictive laws were passed without sufficient review to preclude such inanities as Connecticut's law which bans NEW magazines holding more than 10-rounds AND, although one can still possess them, prohibits putting more than 10-rounds in magazines of greater capacity as if that would be in any way enforceable. In New York the law was written (perhaps) and passed so rapidly that other inanities resulted. First, police and military weren't exempted. The response was that the police would simply not enforce it for themselves (now isn't that rich?). It also ignores otherwise legal possession by National Guards members. On duty they would be issued such magazines for training but if one finds its way into their gear and is overlooked before they head home after training they are suddenly committing a felony. Also, many, perhaps most, semi-auto box magazine fed firearms have never had 7-round magazines manufactured for them. This would effectively prohibit those firearms.
This brings us to another aspect of this rush to ban items previously legal to own and use. Ex post facto laws (Laws that provide for the infliction of punishment upon a person for some prior act that, at the time it was committed, was not illegal.) are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. So far as firearms (and now, magazines) are concerned this was previously avoided by "grandfathering" those items so that those already owned could be kept (albeit with restrictions on use) while only new items of that type were banned. However, there is another disturbing trend which applies to other legislation as well and that is to establish a "privileged class" such as police officers, private security firms, politicians, judges, or those wealthy enough to pay the taxes on these items or to hire those with access to provide personal security.
Further, about owning these firearms prior to bans and 99.9% of the time they have not been misused, why would one think that I can be presumed to be a criminal now? And why, after Haynes vs. the U.S. should I bother to register my firearms or comply with such schemes. Presumably I'm already a criminal (once these laws are enacted) and announcing my ownership, as put forth in the decision, is self-incrimination. Due to this the National Firearms Act was amended to only apply to those who could legally possess, but if nobody can legally possess... More inanity.
Which brought me to this thought, stupid laws are generally ignored and when this is done the eventual response is a general disrespect for the law, i.e. lawlessness. I don't think that this is a condition that we want. We also don't people to avoid treatment for medical conditions because they believe that this will result in the loss of their civil rights. That is another approach, well documented in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, of labeling "enemies of the state" as psychologically ill, affected, disabled or some other negative context. Since just about any problem today is treated with some sort of medication, it appears that the prescription and use of any of these medications is now grounds for the immediate negation of civil rights, at least of owning a firearm. New York has this in their SAFE act (if ever there was a misnomer...) and have already experienced abuse of the act. Whereas Federal law now says you have to be adjudicated, i.e. judged in court, as mentally incompetent/insane, no such limit exists in New York state law. How wonderful for all those people who were innocently prescribed any number of mild sedatives, sleep aids, etc, who are now subject to the whims of bureaucrats.
Mayor (and BILLIONAIRE, i.e. 1%er) Bloomberg has said, "Number two, I would argue if you want to sell your gun to your son, maybe you have a problem in your family. Why don't you just give—I don't know if you should have a gun or not, but if you have a commercial transaction of $100 with your son, there's something wrong in your family. It's just not something where everybody's pulling together in the same direction." Well, here's the deal. MILLIONS of Americans teach their children personal responsibility (as in not depending on Mr. Mayor for guidance) and one way that's done is teaching financial responsibility. Also, families without $BILLIONS, financially help parents, brothers and sisters, etc., by exchanging money for personal possessions such as guns and cars or businesses. There is NOTHING wrong with such transactions. The truth though is that GIFTS would also have been prohibited. In the language of some such laws, even handing a firearm to a person to teach them about firearm safety would have been a violation. This is just another example of how Mayor Bloomberg doesn't "get" real life.
As the debate continues and the Senate comes to a vote and defeats the measure we discovered a few things that aren't really surprising. First, we discover that the hypocritically elitist view of the subject is pervasive. Supporters of limits such as Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly enjoy shooting, he using a Glock just like the one used to shoot Congresswoman Giffords. His "excuse" was that his only holds 17-rounds (which is a prohibited magazine capacity in NY, CT, CO, and MD) rather than the 33-rounds supposedly used in her attacker's Glock. Not exactly logical but apparently that is the limit of their ability to reason.
Further, and perhaps most striking, is the reaction by the President and others to the bill's defeat. Mr. Obama was angry, outraged even. The actual murder of the school children in Newtown, the public servants in Benghazi, or the race attendees in Boston didn't arouse that ire and indignation. The truth is that the President doesn't care for the people affected what he cares about is how this vote will affect his personal political power. Because of the defeat of the bill in the Senate he won't be able to put the blame on the Republicans in the House of Representatives and that doesn't bode well for the 2014 elections. His is a purely selfish view of events.
Above all, it seems to me that this "discussion" about "gun" control has become an example of the desertion of logic and reason in support of accepting one's civil rights to accepting as laudatory the emotional or hysteric response. I liken it to a wounded child's mother who runs around a room screaming rather than taking the immediate step of applying a pressure bandage to the cut. It also seems that there is no person immune to this hysteria and that even those who initially resisted feel compelled to go along with those panicked fools as if being referred to as "calm and collected" was the worst sort of pejorative. Additionally, there are any number of socialists willing to take advantage of the "crisis", perhaps to exacerbate the "crisis", in order to promote their own circumstances. Although they have come to office portraying themselves as leaders and public servants their interest is purely self interest.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE by Carl F. Worden
January 15, 2013
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.
Carl F. Worden
- The Archives of Carl F. Worden
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.
Carl F. Worden
- The Archives of Carl F. Worden
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Another brick in the wall...
Nana listened to the President's "ground breaking" speech on gun control and his efforts to end violence in America. He is prepared to use the force of the government against the law-abiding to prevent the criminals and crazy people from hurting children. Nana joined the NRA half-way through this speech. Here's the 23 things he is going to do and about which he signed executive orders today. Of course he also brought some kids up on stage to show he liked kids.
1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. The implication is that they do not do so at this time. What data would that be? Arrests? Investigations? Mention in an investigation? Somebody who was body cavity searched by the TSA?
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. Like those prohibiting doctors from asking if you own a firearm.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. Funding the infrastructure changes to allow the computers to share data?
4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. Such as adding to or expanding the definitions of prohibited persons? Would this be like adding soldiers, still serving, who have been treated for PTSD?
5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.This would presumably be the same background NICS check done according to the law on transfers.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.You know, just in case Congress can be blackmailed into passing legislation requiring such checks for private sales.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. Like the Eddy Eagle campaign?
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). Better locks? Preparing for a requirement that owners must have gun safes (as opposed to security containers even)?
9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.The implication is that they aren't doing that now, but they are in an attempt to return that property to their rightful owners. I have such a gun, seized and returned to the person from whom it was stolen.
10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. Do they not release these reports now? Are they secret?
11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Did he FINALLY find somebody who was qualified and not a crook?
12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. They sure do need that. As it is now, schools put too much faith in door locks and cinderblock walls.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. Oh, you mean such as actually prosecuting those who are denied by NICS when they try to buy a gun? Actually prosecuting felons caught in possession of firearms? Funny, but none of these shooters was a felon.
14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. How about a look into the effects of these psychotropic drugs. Almost every one of these "mass" killers has been on one or another (or several).
15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies. Technology from companies bankrupted by Obamacare and tax increases...
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes. In other words, change the law.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. And presumably that the law won't prohibit them lying about it or misrepresenting the risk due to a personal dislike for an individual. You do know that the psychiatrists were a big help to the Soviets in dealing with their political opposition, aka dissidents, don't you?
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers. That means money.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. Necessary to do before offering the training mentioned earlier.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. Will that include institutionalization, you know, to remove the nuts from society?
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. Didn't they just say this?
22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations. What, again with health care? Isn't this really just one item rather than 4?
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan on mental health. I've got your "dialog". Stay the hell out of my private business and quit trying to find excuses to control everything I do, think, or say.
1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. The implication is that they do not do so at this time. What data would that be? Arrests? Investigations? Mention in an investigation? Somebody who was body cavity searched by the TSA?
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. Like those prohibiting doctors from asking if you own a firearm.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. Funding the infrastructure changes to allow the computers to share data?
4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. Such as adding to or expanding the definitions of prohibited persons? Would this be like adding soldiers, still serving, who have been treated for PTSD?
5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.This would presumably be the same background NICS check done according to the law on transfers.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.You know, just in case Congress can be blackmailed into passing legislation requiring such checks for private sales.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. Like the Eddy Eagle campaign?
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). Better locks? Preparing for a requirement that owners must have gun safes (as opposed to security containers even)?
9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.The implication is that they aren't doing that now, but they are in an attempt to return that property to their rightful owners. I have such a gun, seized and returned to the person from whom it was stolen.
10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. Do they not release these reports now? Are they secret?
11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Did he FINALLY find somebody who was qualified and not a crook?
12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. They sure do need that. As it is now, schools put too much faith in door locks and cinderblock walls.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. Oh, you mean such as actually prosecuting those who are denied by NICS when they try to buy a gun? Actually prosecuting felons caught in possession of firearms? Funny, but none of these shooters was a felon.
14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. How about a look into the effects of these psychotropic drugs. Almost every one of these "mass" killers has been on one or another (or several).
15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies. Technology from companies bankrupted by Obamacare and tax increases...
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes. In other words, change the law.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. And presumably that the law won't prohibit them lying about it or misrepresenting the risk due to a personal dislike for an individual. You do know that the psychiatrists were a big help to the Soviets in dealing with their political opposition, aka dissidents, don't you?
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers. That means money.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. Necessary to do before offering the training mentioned earlier.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. Will that include institutionalization, you know, to remove the nuts from society?
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. Didn't they just say this?
22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations. What, again with health care? Isn't this really just one item rather than 4?
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan on mental health. I've got your "dialog". Stay the hell out of my private business and quit trying to find excuses to control everything I do, think, or say.
Friday, January 11, 2013
The Boy Scouts' Motto...
BE PREPARED! At least that's how I remember the Boy Scouts' motto. It makes sense. If riding around in the winter, be prepared to have to walk or stand in the cold. Have a coat, decent shoes and socks so that your feet won't freeze. Be smart. Hot days? Have some water to drink or at least know where you can get some. Whatever you do, don't ignore what is happening around you and be prepared to deal with it.
I've been saying this for years with regard to your shooting supplies. Some of the folks who asked me for advice didn't take it and in 2008 they had to scramble. Others asked if I thought that would repeat, I said yes but they ignored me and now THEY are scrambling as well.
As soon as 2 hours after the Sandy Hook School shooting by a deranged man who we now know was on some sort of psychotropic drug(s), some politicians were calling for gun control and many people saw the writing on the wall. After the shooting at the theater in Aurora, Colorado (another young man on psychotropic drugs) they knew that all bets were off. Since the initial reports were rapidly being skewed towards blaming "assault" rifles for the shooting many people saw the writing on the wall and decided to get theirs while they could. The fear of the ban soon extended to anything with a magazine capacity of over 10-rounds and the magazines to feed them. Then it extended, in some regions, to the ammunition for those firearms. As the politicians ramped up their hyperbole in their everlasting search for something to make them necessary and relevant, more and more items were perceived as endangered by a ban.
Then, Senator Diane Feinstein of California, a perennially hypocritical supporter of gun control for the masses (but not for herself or her bodyguards) made her ever-ready bill public. Apparently she gave the pro-gun people a bone and removed the anti-grandfather clause (more likely because she knows the government hasn't the money to actually pay for the guns already out there as required by the constitution) and changed it to an NFA type tax (actually higher at $250 per firearm). Now people aren't just buying all they can, they are getting angry. One now commonly hears the famous refrain uttered by Charlton Heston, "...from my cold dead hands."
I don't think this is simply macho rhetorical posturing either. The sentiment seems to be accepted by many women as well. There is also a component of realistic expectation associated with the statement or similar statements in that the speaker often acknowledges that injury or death would be a certain result of individual resistance. I think that so many seem to know of the young, former Marine Corporal's letter to Senator Feinstein and the daily progress of legislative talk is indicative of a fairly widespread knowledge of and interest in the subject. In short, these people are just shooting off their mouths...
Glenn Beck has rather famously predicted that there could be widespread violence here as we've seen in Greece, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and so forth. His conclusion was that the Obama administration and its allies would be accepting of such a crisis as an excuse to have a wide-ranging limitation of personal liberty. Certainly, there are a number of people who perceive this is true based on the rather arrogant way in which public opinion was ignored to enact Obama-care without legislators reading the bill, it being introduced in the House as required by the Constitution and the rather tortured opinion written by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS to uphold the act. People generally perceive this as what it is, a separation of the government from the people.
A lot of people are banking on their representatives voting down any such legislation, at least in the House of Representatives if not also in the Senate. But now we've heard from the Vice President of the United States that the President is considering acting by executive order. That is, the President of the United States, sworn to defend the constitution, is going to ignore the constitution recently upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, and unilaterally act to control firearms possession. No legislation required. No vote.
It has happened elsewhere that such an act as the attempted confiscation of arms lead to resistance which lead to revolution or civil war. While we've survived one Civil War, it was only by the extraordinary efforts of a few to mitigate the animosities that lingered and to forgive, by public policy, the "rebellion" that we were able to reunite. Neither a revolution such as we began in 1776 nor a civil war such as we had in 1861-1865 have ever been so well ended as they have been here. It isn't likely that such would happen again.
What does this mean? It means we need to be prepared, in many different ways. Yes, you should have food just in case food supplies are somehow put in jeopardy. Yes, you should have some other way of heating your house if electricity and/or natural gas is cut off from your community. Yes, you should have as much of your necessary medications on hand as possible. Yes, it means that you should network with your neighbors so that you can act together for each other if that is necessary. You really should do a lot of these things anyway, including having cash on hand and perhaps protecting your investments from rampant inflation or seizure. But there are other ways in which you should prepare.
You have to be prepared to make critical decisions on short notice. What do you believe is right? What are you willing to do to support what you believe is right? To what risks will you subject yourself and/or your family? What is really important to you? You have to know, now, so that should the decision be required with little notice you will act properly, i.e. you will act as you deem proper and in a way that you can accept the consequences of that decision without regret. And let's face this one fact, EVERY act has consequences.
Will you be prepared?
I've been saying this for years with regard to your shooting supplies. Some of the folks who asked me for advice didn't take it and in 2008 they had to scramble. Others asked if I thought that would repeat, I said yes but they ignored me and now THEY are scrambling as well.
As soon as 2 hours after the Sandy Hook School shooting by a deranged man who we now know was on some sort of psychotropic drug(s), some politicians were calling for gun control and many people saw the writing on the wall. After the shooting at the theater in Aurora, Colorado (another young man on psychotropic drugs) they knew that all bets were off. Since the initial reports were rapidly being skewed towards blaming "assault" rifles for the shooting many people saw the writing on the wall and decided to get theirs while they could. The fear of the ban soon extended to anything with a magazine capacity of over 10-rounds and the magazines to feed them. Then it extended, in some regions, to the ammunition for those firearms. As the politicians ramped up their hyperbole in their everlasting search for something to make them necessary and relevant, more and more items were perceived as endangered by a ban.
Then, Senator Diane Feinstein of California, a perennially hypocritical supporter of gun control for the masses (but not for herself or her bodyguards) made her ever-ready bill public. Apparently she gave the pro-gun people a bone and removed the anti-grandfather clause (more likely because she knows the government hasn't the money to actually pay for the guns already out there as required by the constitution) and changed it to an NFA type tax (actually higher at $250 per firearm). Now people aren't just buying all they can, they are getting angry. One now commonly hears the famous refrain uttered by Charlton Heston, "...from my cold dead hands."
I don't think this is simply macho rhetorical posturing either. The sentiment seems to be accepted by many women as well. There is also a component of realistic expectation associated with the statement or similar statements in that the speaker often acknowledges that injury or death would be a certain result of individual resistance. I think that so many seem to know of the young, former Marine Corporal's letter to Senator Feinstein and the daily progress of legislative talk is indicative of a fairly widespread knowledge of and interest in the subject. In short, these people are just shooting off their mouths...
Glenn Beck has rather famously predicted that there could be widespread violence here as we've seen in Greece, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and so forth. His conclusion was that the Obama administration and its allies would be accepting of such a crisis as an excuse to have a wide-ranging limitation of personal liberty. Certainly, there are a number of people who perceive this is true based on the rather arrogant way in which public opinion was ignored to enact Obama-care without legislators reading the bill, it being introduced in the House as required by the Constitution and the rather tortured opinion written by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS to uphold the act. People generally perceive this as what it is, a separation of the government from the people.
A lot of people are banking on their representatives voting down any such legislation, at least in the House of Representatives if not also in the Senate. But now we've heard from the Vice President of the United States that the President is considering acting by executive order. That is, the President of the United States, sworn to defend the constitution, is going to ignore the constitution recently upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, and unilaterally act to control firearms possession. No legislation required. No vote.
It has happened elsewhere that such an act as the attempted confiscation of arms lead to resistance which lead to revolution or civil war. While we've survived one Civil War, it was only by the extraordinary efforts of a few to mitigate the animosities that lingered and to forgive, by public policy, the "rebellion" that we were able to reunite. Neither a revolution such as we began in 1776 nor a civil war such as we had in 1861-1865 have ever been so well ended as they have been here. It isn't likely that such would happen again.
What does this mean? It means we need to be prepared, in many different ways. Yes, you should have food just in case food supplies are somehow put in jeopardy. Yes, you should have some other way of heating your house if electricity and/or natural gas is cut off from your community. Yes, you should have as much of your necessary medications on hand as possible. Yes, it means that you should network with your neighbors so that you can act together for each other if that is necessary. You really should do a lot of these things anyway, including having cash on hand and perhaps protecting your investments from rampant inflation or seizure. But there are other ways in which you should prepare.
You have to be prepared to make critical decisions on short notice. What do you believe is right? What are you willing to do to support what you believe is right? To what risks will you subject yourself and/or your family? What is really important to you? You have to know, now, so that should the decision be required with little notice you will act properly, i.e. you will act as you deem proper and in a way that you can accept the consequences of that decision without regret. And let's face this one fact, EVERY act has consequences.
Will you be prepared?
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Psychotropic Drugs...
Little has been said in the media about the common thread of psychotropic drug use by participants in "mass" shootings. It would seem that there would have to be a connection. This is the last post John Noveske made on his Facebook page before he died in an auto accident (although some wonder if it was an accident):
Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold's medical records have never been made available to the public.
Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather's girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.
Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.
Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.
Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.
Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.
A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.
Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..
A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.
Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.
Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania
Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California
Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic's file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.
Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.
Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.
Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.
Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family's Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.
Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara's parents said ".... the darn doctor wouldn't take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil...")
Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002,
(Gareth's father could not accept his son's death and killed himself.)
Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family's detached garage.
Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.
Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.
Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.
A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.
Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and "other drugs for the conditions."
Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.
Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.
Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.
Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his
New York high school.
Missing from list... 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds....
What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21...... killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az
What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24..... killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado
What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or
What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct
Roberts is the only one that I haven't heard about being on drugs of some kind.
Sunday, January 06, 2013
If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? by Dean Garrison
If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?
I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.
If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.
Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.
Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin FranklinEven 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.
I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.
Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment.
Let me share a few quick quotes here:
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington
The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams
I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.
A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.
Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.
It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.
If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.
I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.
Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.
I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.
If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.
This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.
I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.
What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?
I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.
You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.
For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.
Are you willing to die to take my guns?
IMPORTANT UPDATE From Dean Garrison!!! When this post originally went viral I was trying to answer every single comment and that lasted for almost 48 hours Then I came to grips with the fact that I am human and I can’t do it. If for no other reason I value my family and I can’t steal time from them to constantly be on the site. I want you all to know that I appreciate your support and good debate whether you agree or disagree. I also want to thank each and every American Patriot who has made the honorable choice to serve their country. Anyone who wants to repost this on their blog or website is also given permission to do so, so long as nothing is changed in the text of the article, and a link is provided back to this site. Again, thank you so much. I am humbled. This free wordpress blog has just gone from averaging 300 visitors per day 40,000-50,000 hits per day and I have no idea when things may return to normal. That was caused by the people that cared and not the author. I am just an average American that cares. Every Facebook share, retweet, and email is helping and please continue to support what you believe in. We make no money from this blog. We may someday, but for now it is our choice to offer the truth as we see it for the good of our country and not for anything material. Keep on sharing and let’s make them pay attention to us! No sane American really wants a Civil War. We want peace but we will not back down from a government that chooses to ignore our founding principles. I am forever in your debt and service. -Dean Garrison
Friday, January 04, 2013
"Gun" Control
We're experiencing a new run at "gun" control. After a "mass" shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater where concealed carry was prohibited by the management, attempted at a Clackamas, Oregon mall where concealed carry was also prohibited by the management but ignored by ONE person who was seen by the shooter to merely draw his weapon (after which the shooter shot himself), and at the Sandy Hook Elementary School where, again, firearms were prohibited we are faced with a panicky run at gun control by certain illogical elements of society. How this plays out is yet to be seen. Many of us have already written and/or called our representatives no matter how little we think they will pay attention to us. After all, they just voted to tax us even more while throwing away even more of our money. Anyway, this new attempt at gun control is apparently has Senator Diane Fienstein as point and she recently laid out her perennial gun control bill as a starting point. That elicited this letter.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.I don't know if this is "real" but it certainly expresses the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of military veterans. I've had several people mention it to me in conversation. It is all over the internet in those places frequented by shooters.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Thoughts on Newtown, Connecticut
At about 0930 on Friday, 14 Dec 2012, a man entered the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and murdered 20 children aged 6-7 and 6 female staff members including the principal.
However, this is not the worst U.S. school murder ever. On 18 May 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan, a man committed 3 bombings and killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. The perpetrator first killed his wife, and committed suicide with his last explosion. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age[1]) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.
Apparently a 20-year old man with some degree of various personality "disorders" killed his mother and stole her legally owned firearms, specifically a Bushmaster AR-15 type rifle, a Glock and a Sig-Sauer pistol, went to the school. Shot his way through the door in some manner, went into the school and then went one room to another shooting children and staff as they appeared until the police response arrived and then shot himself. Among the details not in question is his shooting of individuals multiple times each and the reported expenditure of "hundreds" of rounds. (He could have actually expended about 150 rounds and still shot the victims 5-6 times each.) Whether or not he was aiming at the victims at ranges not exceeding about 35 feet or if he was simply shooting "from the hip" we might not ever know. 4 or 5 weapons were found at the scene, those mentioned and 1 or 2 others with what appears to be a shotgun found in the trunk of his mother's car.
Most of what I now know about the Sandy Hook event comes from various news reports and the reliability of those reports is in doubt. However, many people including, inevitably, the politicians have already reached various conclusions about what should be done based mostly on dogma supported by these "reports". In fact what we are discovering is that nothing the press has reported and not all of what the coroner has said in the news conference was accurate. So pretty much everything can be suspected as inaccurately reported for the moment. Still, the rush to ban guns, despite polls showing this is the LEAST desired course of action, continues.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis
However, this is not the worst U.S. school murder ever. On 18 May 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan, a man committed 3 bombings and killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. The perpetrator first killed his wife, and committed suicide with his last explosion. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age[1]) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.
Apparently a 20-year old man with some degree of various personality "disorders" killed his mother and stole her legally owned firearms, specifically a Bushmaster AR-15 type rifle, a Glock and a Sig-Sauer pistol, went to the school. Shot his way through the door in some manner, went into the school and then went one room to another shooting children and staff as they appeared until the police response arrived and then shot himself. Among the details not in question is his shooting of individuals multiple times each and the reported expenditure of "hundreds" of rounds. (He could have actually expended about 150 rounds and still shot the victims 5-6 times each.) Whether or not he was aiming at the victims at ranges not exceeding about 35 feet or if he was simply shooting "from the hip" we might not ever know. 4 or 5 weapons were found at the scene, those mentioned and 1 or 2 others with what appears to be a shotgun found in the trunk of his mother's car.
Most of what I now know about the Sandy Hook event comes from various news reports and the reliability of those reports is in doubt. However, many people including, inevitably, the politicians have already reached various conclusions about what should be done based mostly on dogma supported by these "reports". In fact what we are discovering is that nothing the press has reported and not all of what the coroner has said in the news conference was accurate. So pretty much everything can be suspected as inaccurately reported for the moment. Still, the rush to ban guns, despite polls showing this is the LEAST desired course of action, continues.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis
Friday, August 24, 2012
False Advertising
This morning a guy with a beef with his former boss caught the boss going to work and shot him in the head. He then tried to get away but was spotted, pointed out to police who tried to arrest him. Apparently he resisted and the result was that the criminal died and several others were wounded. The media is depicting this as a shooting "rampage". This is not a rampage. It was a planned execution with a poorly planned escape route which resulted in the near apprehension and death of the triggerman. Because this happened near to the Empire State Building during rush hour there was a crowd and several people were hit by somebody's pistol fire, perhaps from the police officers. Gun control didn't work for New York City, the criminal didn't hesitate to bring his gun into the city, to carry it concealed to the place he used it to MURDER his target. Does anyone believe that anyone that will MURDER another human being gives a hoot about any other laws? If so, what sort of mental deficiency are they experiencing?
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
What we have is what we choose to have...
What we have now is a President who thinks that you didn't work for anything what you have, the government gave it to you. We have a President who thinks that you are a racist because he and his preacher and his Attorney General are racists. We have a President that thinks that it is the business of government to steal from those that work to give to those that don't/won't work. We have a President who sees this country as all that is wrong with the world. We have a President who sees free speech as something which should be limited to those with whom he agrees. We should categorically reject these wrong ideas. My ancestors did categorically reject these ideas. I categorically reject these ideas.
When you create something, even in concert with others using government as a tool/servant YOU have created it, not government. When you disagree with a person because of their ideas/beliefs, it isn't necessarily because of the color of their skin, where they came from, how they dress, what they eat, it is most likely because you don't agree with their ideas. Free speech applies to everyone and proof that we believe this exists in their long time expression of their wrong ideas without persecution by us.
The truth though is this, that enough people WANTED this man as President that he was elected. Some were deceived by his rhetoric and believed his modern catchy call for "hope" and "change". Some simply wanted to prove to themselves that they weren't racist (no one saw their vote). Some were simply racist, voting for him ONLY because his skin color matched theirs. Some are true believers in his cause, socialism, the state before the individual, the antithesis of our nation's founding. Some were simply selfish, expecting handouts, payments for their vote. I don't doubt that some votes were frauds as his party is working to hard to deny every method of ensuring honest elections, methods they insist on in other countries. All this means that we who oppose this evil must work very hard, without respite, to get out the votes for his opponent.
We must tell the truth. We must ensure that others hear the truth. We must persuade ALL voters to ignore the color of his skin as we do. We must get our people to the polls, we must make them heard in this vote and we must do so in a manner beyond reproach. In doing these things we can honestly defeat this threat to our nation's existence.
What about those who believe in his view or those who want the handouts? I'm afraid that there will always be people who believe that they know better than ourselves how we should live and people who think theft from others is their only chance for a "fair" share of material things without their labor. Education might reduce the numbers in either group but I doubt that they will learn from the example of others if they haven't yet.
The time for choice is here, the time to work to save our country. Another time for choice is coming, the time to choose who will work for us in leading the country. What we will have is what we will choose to have. There will be no one to blame but ourselves.
When you create something, even in concert with others using government as a tool/servant YOU have created it, not government. When you disagree with a person because of their ideas/beliefs, it isn't necessarily because of the color of their skin, where they came from, how they dress, what they eat, it is most likely because you don't agree with their ideas. Free speech applies to everyone and proof that we believe this exists in their long time expression of their wrong ideas without persecution by us.
The truth though is this, that enough people WANTED this man as President that he was elected. Some were deceived by his rhetoric and believed his modern catchy call for "hope" and "change". Some simply wanted to prove to themselves that they weren't racist (no one saw their vote). Some were simply racist, voting for him ONLY because his skin color matched theirs. Some are true believers in his cause, socialism, the state before the individual, the antithesis of our nation's founding. Some were simply selfish, expecting handouts, payments for their vote. I don't doubt that some votes were frauds as his party is working to hard to deny every method of ensuring honest elections, methods they insist on in other countries. All this means that we who oppose this evil must work very hard, without respite, to get out the votes for his opponent.
We must tell the truth. We must ensure that others hear the truth. We must persuade ALL voters to ignore the color of his skin as we do. We must get our people to the polls, we must make them heard in this vote and we must do so in a manner beyond reproach. In doing these things we can honestly defeat this threat to our nation's existence.
What about those who believe in his view or those who want the handouts? I'm afraid that there will always be people who believe that they know better than ourselves how we should live and people who think theft from others is their only chance for a "fair" share of material things without their labor. Education might reduce the numbers in either group but I doubt that they will learn from the example of others if they haven't yet.
The time for choice is here, the time to work to save our country. Another time for choice is coming, the time to choose who will work for us in leading the country. What we will have is what we will choose to have. There will be no one to blame but ourselves.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Back from the NRA 2012 Annual Meeting in St. Louis...
Nana and I just returned from our trip to St. Louis, Missouri to see the 2012 National Rifle Association Annual Meeting. After picking Bailey up from the boarding kennel and having a bite to eat I thought I'd sit down and tell you about our trip.
We left Staunton at about 9:30 the morning of April 11. We were afraid that we'd have some problems because as soon as we got on I-81 South to Lexington we saw that I-64 West of Lexington was closed due to a brush fire. We discussed going around that on US 60 to Clifton Forge but felt that if one was closed it was very possible that the other was as well, especially since the recommendation was to go south to Troutville and back up on US 220 to Clifton Forge. What a pain. This tacked another 2 hours onto our trip so I was glad I'd made that a short leg. The rest of the drive to Shelbyville, Kentucky was uneventful.
We stayed at the Ramada and ate at the Cattleman's Roadhouse. The motel is spanking new and very nice. The steak was excellent and the service good. Cattleman's Roadhouse is a very nice restaurant. Had a good night's sleep (Grandpa was pretty tired).
The next day we got up and headed out to St. Louis. Along the way we discovered that one of Abraham Lincoln's boyhood homes was just south of I-64. We tried to find it but the available brochures gave no address OR directions and Nana's usual luck at getting her way didn't pan out so we didn't see it (or rather, what is remaining of it). Nana was much more disappointed than Grandpa was.
Otherwise the drive to St. Louis was uneventful. We had a bit of a time coming into town. It really isn't difficult but the GPS took us right to the front of the Edward Jones Dome and we had to figure out on our own to skirt the block to 9th Street and THEN we discovered that since I'd made my reservations the hotel had left the Holiday Inn Express line and become a Ramada franchise. I'd like to note that all the staff there, but particularly David, Dwight, Andre, Susan, and especially Acie were helpful, polite, kind and understanding of such as us. I'd also like to wish Acie's mom a happy 103rd birthday in Prescott, Arkansas. While there, we had the breakfast buffet every morning (worth the $7.95 for food and drinks including coffee, OJ, and diet Coke). We also ate the Saturday evening meal there which was a special of filet mignon, wild rice and broccoli for $10.95. Delicious.
I'd like to note that I was told many times that they'd been having hard times in the tourist business in St. Louis. Typical was one night when the hotel had only rented 3 rooms of the 295 available. One can't make money with an occupancy rate like that.
We found a place to park and got established and then walked the 1/4 mile to America's Center (the convention center) and 1/4 mile INSIDE the center to register for the annual meeting. After than Nana and I had an early dinner at the Dubliner, a pub on Washington Avenue in downtown St. Louis. Pretty nice. We sat on the sidewalk because the weather was so nice. The inside of the pub is very much pub-like. We made it an early night and watched a bit of TV before turning in.
Then it was a Friday, Saturday and part of Sunday at the Annual Meeting, looking at exhibits (mostly, but also talking with exhibitors), stopping to say hello to local knife-maker Edmund Davidson at the Contemporary Longrifle Association booth, and attending various functions. We attended what I think of as the big four of the "convention". Friday afternoon we attended the Leadership Forum, Friday evening we went to the Trace Adkins concert (opened by Tyler Farr), and on Saturday spent some time at the actual meeting and then to the Freedom Experience. We saw (and met some) Glenn Beck, Keni Taylor, Larry the Cable Guy, Oliver North, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, R. Lee Ermey, Michael Baine, Ted Nugent, Eric Cantor, Trace Adkins, Tyler Farr and, of course, Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox (the last of two whom are the only ones aside from Oliver North and Glenn Beck who elicited standing ovations as they moved down the hallways. We bought autographed books, got some swag from the exhibitors and generally helped perk up the local economy.
To address what really interested me at the annual meeting is going to take a bit... First, Nana and I went through most of the exhibit hall. I FINALLY got to hold the Browning 1911/22 and I STILL want one. We'll see. Of course I went by the Shiloh Sharps booth and drooled for a bit. Broached the subject of a $2000 rifle to Nana but got nada for a response. Saw Boge and Jeff Quinn of GunBlast.com but no other friends on the floor. Discovered that Yankee Machine (need to call Nate) no longer produces the Maxim suppressors but might have some in stock (now there will be some money). There were several collection type displays in the exhibit hall. There was Rock Island Auction's million dollar display of a multitude of absolute gorgeous firearms, the development of the sub-machinegun display, TWO Ruger displays, Parker shotguns, Marlin rifles, the Contemporary Longrifle display, and more. Sadly, it was the quietest corner of the exhibit hall.
One exhibitor was Empire Pewter Manufacturing Company of Amsterdam, NY. With an absolutely stunning selection of firearms related pewter pins they were also GIVING AWAY a really neat 2012 NRA Annual Meeting souvenir pin. I got a really nice M1 Garand rifle pin and a lever-action rifle pin that most resembles the Winchester 1876. You can contact them at Empire Pewter Mfg Co, POB 15, Amsterdam, NY 12010 or call 518-843-0048 or FAX 518-843-7050. They will even do custom pins.
Sunday we took a bit of a breather from the annual meeting and went on a tour of the greater St. Louis metropolitan area. We got to see a lot of the town including the 1904 World's Fair fairgrounds, now a city park. Of course Nana got to the Lumiere Casino and won $100. A couple of things to point out. EVERYONE, even a panhandler we turned down, was nice and polite. The city was CLEAN. Unlike other cities in which we have lived or which we have visited, we saw nary a scrap of paper on the ground.
On Monday, the 16th, we left for Marietta, Ohio to spend the night before visiting the Fenton Glass factory in Williamstown, West Virginia (just across the Ohio river). We stayed at the Hampton Inn in Marietta and it was a very nice room in a very recently built motel. We ate almost directly next door at the Bob Evans restaurant where Laura gave us excellent service and the meal was as good as they get. We got up at our regular time to be at the Fenton Glass place at 9 AM when it opens.
How sad it was. While the gift shop and all was well maintained inside, the factory has shrunk from as many as 800 employees to 13. We took the factory tour. It didn't take long. 5 employees sat at their benches painting glassware (1, Robin) painting or making beads. One gentleman was making rain-drop earings. Production of glassware ceased in June 2011. The company is cleaning out all old stock and putting it in the gift shop. The tour guide said that prior to 9-11-2001 there were 24 tour guides and 10+ busses a day would arrive for tours and to buy glassware plus the parking lot would be filled. No longer. He is now the only tour guide and sometimes has nobody to take on the tour. Nana and I had a personal tour this morning.
 |
| Fire from Kerr's Creek in Rockbridge Co. (Jennifer Law Young) |
We stayed at the Ramada and ate at the Cattleman's Roadhouse. The motel is spanking new and very nice. The steak was excellent and the service good. Cattleman's Roadhouse is a very nice restaurant. Had a good night's sleep (Grandpa was pretty tired).
The next day we got up and headed out to St. Louis. Along the way we discovered that one of Abraham Lincoln's boyhood homes was just south of I-64. We tried to find it but the available brochures gave no address OR directions and Nana's usual luck at getting her way didn't pan out so we didn't see it (or rather, what is remaining of it). Nana was much more disappointed than Grandpa was.
Otherwise the drive to St. Louis was uneventful. We had a bit of a time coming into town. It really isn't difficult but the GPS took us right to the front of the Edward Jones Dome and we had to figure out on our own to skirt the block to 9th Street and THEN we discovered that since I'd made my reservations the hotel had left the Holiday Inn Express line and become a Ramada franchise. I'd like to note that all the staff there, but particularly David, Dwight, Andre, Susan, and especially Acie were helpful, polite, kind and understanding of such as us. I'd also like to wish Acie's mom a happy 103rd birthday in Prescott, Arkansas. While there, we had the breakfast buffet every morning (worth the $7.95 for food and drinks including coffee, OJ, and diet Coke). We also ate the Saturday evening meal there which was a special of filet mignon, wild rice and broccoli for $10.95. Delicious.
I'd like to note that I was told many times that they'd been having hard times in the tourist business in St. Louis. Typical was one night when the hotel had only rented 3 rooms of the 295 available. One can't make money with an occupancy rate like that.
We found a place to park and got established and then walked the 1/4 mile to America's Center (the convention center) and 1/4 mile INSIDE the center to register for the annual meeting. After than Nana and I had an early dinner at the Dubliner, a pub on Washington Avenue in downtown St. Louis. Pretty nice. We sat on the sidewalk because the weather was so nice. The inside of the pub is very much pub-like. We made it an early night and watched a bit of TV before turning in.
 |
| Edmund (in coat & hat) |
To address what really interested me at the annual meeting is going to take a bit... First, Nana and I went through most of the exhibit hall. I FINALLY got to hold the Browning 1911/22 and I STILL want one. We'll see. Of course I went by the Shiloh Sharps booth and drooled for a bit. Broached the subject of a $2000 rifle to Nana but got nada for a response. Saw Boge and Jeff Quinn of GunBlast.com but no other friends on the floor. Discovered that Yankee Machine (need to call Nate) no longer produces the Maxim suppressors but might have some in stock (now there will be some money). There were several collection type displays in the exhibit hall. There was Rock Island Auction's million dollar display of a multitude of absolute gorgeous firearms, the development of the sub-machinegun display, TWO Ruger displays, Parker shotguns, Marlin rifles, the Contemporary Longrifle display, and more. Sadly, it was the quietest corner of the exhibit hall.
One exhibitor was Empire Pewter Manufacturing Company of Amsterdam, NY. With an absolutely stunning selection of firearms related pewter pins they were also GIVING AWAY a really neat 2012 NRA Annual Meeting souvenir pin. I got a really nice M1 Garand rifle pin and a lever-action rifle pin that most resembles the Winchester 1876. You can contact them at Empire Pewter Mfg Co, POB 15, Amsterdam, NY 12010 or call 518-843-0048 or FAX 518-843-7050. They will even do custom pins.
Sunday we took a bit of a breather from the annual meeting and went on a tour of the greater St. Louis metropolitan area. We got to see a lot of the town including the 1904 World's Fair fairgrounds, now a city park. Of course Nana got to the Lumiere Casino and won $100. A couple of things to point out. EVERYONE, even a panhandler we turned down, was nice and polite. The city was CLEAN. Unlike other cities in which we have lived or which we have visited, we saw nary a scrap of paper on the ground.
On Monday, the 16th, we left for Marietta, Ohio to spend the night before visiting the Fenton Glass factory in Williamstown, West Virginia (just across the Ohio river). We stayed at the Hampton Inn in Marietta and it was a very nice room in a very recently built motel. We ate almost directly next door at the Bob Evans restaurant where Laura gave us excellent service and the meal was as good as they get. We got up at our regular time to be at the Fenton Glass place at 9 AM when it opens.
 |
| Fenton Glass in Williamstown, WV |
Friday, February 03, 2012
Politics is a part of living life...
Every once in a while I run into somebody who has written off politics for one reason or another. Oh, they have opinions which they willingly share at the drop of a hat, they might be extremely competent and intelligent but... they have come to the conclusion that participation in politics is an exercise in futility.
I could point to our gun-politics experiences here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. From the 1960s forward we began to see a slide to New York/Massachusetts style gun control. We had a hodge podge or potpourri of laws and ordinances in our various counties, cities, and towns. It was becoming impossible to know what was legal and what wasn't. Holders of concealed handgun permits were few and far between. Frankly, it didn't seem that the National Rifle Association or the Virginia Rifle and Pistol Association were doing much good on this front. To many it seemed that these organizations had either given up or been compromised by "the establishment". Then, in northern Virginia (NOVA) counties of Fairfax and Arlington, we had some activists coalesce an organization now known as the Virginia Citizens' Defense League. Since that time that organization has grown by leaps and bounds based on the grass-roots efforts of its members. We have "shall issue" concealed handgun permits, we have eliminated the hodgepodge of laws as one travels from one jurisdiction to another, and we have reversed the trend to state government control of our lives. I could point to this, but I won't. Such examples aren't really important.
What IS important is how you live your life. Politics, or rather government, is a part of that life. Why would you NOT want to be involved? Let me put it another way. When you go to your grandmothers' house for Thanksgiving dinner do you not talk to anyone at the table? When you go to a Super Bowl party, do you not root for a team or express your opinions about the various players or even the advertising? When you are working, are you a person who never expresses their opinion about the boss or, if you are the boss, do you let somebody else do your job? When you are with children, would you sit by while they drank drain cleaner? No, when you're at dinner you talk. When you watch a game with friends you have a give and take about plays, players, ads, and food. When at work, you gripe about the boss, perhaps offer suggestions, make decisions and if you are the boss you do your job and make decisions. If you're watching children you make certain that they are as whole and healthy as when you arrived and you give them direction to ensure this. This is what people do, this is life.
To put it simply, politics is life. Politics is letting others know what you want from government. In this country it includes the opportunity to express your view as to which person is best suited to do that for you and I think that it IS better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
We're approaching an election that could change our country forever. Choosing the wrong person could condemn us, our children, our grand-children, our GREAT-grand-children to lives of want and oppression we've never known.
I could point to our gun-politics experiences here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. From the 1960s forward we began to see a slide to New York/Massachusetts style gun control. We had a hodge podge or potpourri of laws and ordinances in our various counties, cities, and towns. It was becoming impossible to know what was legal and what wasn't. Holders of concealed handgun permits were few and far between. Frankly, it didn't seem that the National Rifle Association or the Virginia Rifle and Pistol Association were doing much good on this front. To many it seemed that these organizations had either given up or been compromised by "the establishment". Then, in northern Virginia (NOVA) counties of Fairfax and Arlington, we had some activists coalesce an organization now known as the Virginia Citizens' Defense League. Since that time that organization has grown by leaps and bounds based on the grass-roots efforts of its members. We have "shall issue" concealed handgun permits, we have eliminated the hodgepodge of laws as one travels from one jurisdiction to another, and we have reversed the trend to state government control of our lives. I could point to this, but I won't. Such examples aren't really important.
What IS important is how you live your life. Politics, or rather government, is a part of that life. Why would you NOT want to be involved? Let me put it another way. When you go to your grandmothers' house for Thanksgiving dinner do you not talk to anyone at the table? When you go to a Super Bowl party, do you not root for a team or express your opinions about the various players or even the advertising? When you are working, are you a person who never expresses their opinion about the boss or, if you are the boss, do you let somebody else do your job? When you are with children, would you sit by while they drank drain cleaner? No, when you're at dinner you talk. When you watch a game with friends you have a give and take about plays, players, ads, and food. When at work, you gripe about the boss, perhaps offer suggestions, make decisions and if you are the boss you do your job and make decisions. If you're watching children you make certain that they are as whole and healthy as when you arrived and you give them direction to ensure this. This is what people do, this is life.
To put it simply, politics is life. Politics is letting others know what you want from government. In this country it includes the opportunity to express your view as to which person is best suited to do that for you and I think that it IS better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
We're approaching an election that could change our country forever. Choosing the wrong person could condemn us, our children, our grand-children, our GREAT-grand-children to lives of want and oppression we've never known.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
