Well, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act has made it out of committee and is about to be debated on the House floor. A short summary of the bill from congress.gov:
This bill amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.
A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.
Additionally, the bill specifies that a qualified individual who lawfully carries or possesses a concealed handgun in another state: (1) is not subject to the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm in a school zone, and (2) may carry or possess the concealed handgun in federally owned lands that are open to the public.
I am of mixed feelings about this legislation. On one hand, I would love to be able to carry and protect myself and my family where ever I go in this great country. I would love to go and visit my brother or sister in Illinois and be able to concealed carry a firearm. However, another part of me, which understands the intent which the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, with strong states and a weak federal government, disagrees with the federal government overriding the states’ rights. The states have a right to be chuckleheads and restrict their citizens’ gun rights, and their citizens have a solemn right to move to another state which respects their Constitutional rights and leave the state a vast, under-populated wasteland. Just as gun companies moved from restrictive states to ones more friendly to their business.
The pro-reciprocity side believes that a CCW permit should be viewed in the same manner as a driver’s license or a marriage license, that you can drive across state lines, and that you don’t have to remarry when you move to another state. Others, however, believe CCW permits should be more akin to medical or legal licenses. You cannot pass the bar in one state and automatically be allowed to practice law in a different one, nor can you practice medicine in a different state without passing their boards. Given that the former two examples are personal licensing, while the latter two are professional licenses. I would tend to think of a CCW in the former category.
Another problem I have with this bill is that the federal government is coming in and attempting to dictate to the states. In this case, it is a positive thing, at least to many in the country, but the gun-grabbers have done the same thing. The “assault” weapons ban in the Clinton era is a prime example of this. So what other decisions has the Federal government come in and taken away from the states? Well, Roe v Wade took the right to decide about abortion away from the states…And more recently, the supreme court ruleing forced gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states. This strikes me as a violation of both the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. –Amendment IX
The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. –Amendment X
The Tenth Amendment helps to define the concept of federalism, the relationship between Federal and state governments. As Federal activity has increased, so too has the problem of reconciling state and national interests as they apply to the Federal powers to tax, to police, and to regulations such as wage and hour laws, disclosure of personal information in recordkeeping systems, and laws related to strip-mining.
So having the Federal government come in and dictate to the states a policy such as this, regardless of how seemingly helpful, still smacks of “Hello, we’re here from the government, and we’re here to help.” which seems to be a harbinger of disaster and government overreach. By all rights, the Second Amendment should be all we need to carry across state lines. This legislation is trying to overcome state government overreach. Some states (Lookin’ at you here, California, New York, etc.) feel that it is their right to restrict citizens’ rights, especially when it comes to firearms. However, the right to protect yourself is a right given by God, and the states or the federal government have no right to take it away or restrict it, and they should not be able to dictate the method with which you can defend yourself and your family. If I have four home invaders, each with Glocks, and I want to defend my family with an AR-15, the government has no right to preemptively tell me what is “too much” firepower.
Aside from the personal protection which I stated above, the other thing is that there is a tendency within the socialist/communist/progressive movement, and including left-leaning republicans and establishment politicians who seem to care more about their careers and lining their pockets than doing the will of the People who elected them. It seems a number of them are trying to take guns out of the hands of the People. They are using the mainstream media to plant a negative image in the mind, where they blame legal gun owners for the actions of criminals like the Texas church shooter or the Las Vegas shooter. (And since the majority of the mass shooters, and pretty much all of the presidential shooters were liberals, who’s to say that these shooters are not being “groomed” for the role?)
At the same time, they claim to want to have “common sense gun laws.” However, their idea of “common sense” is a registry of gun owners or banning certain guns or the like. But they are focusing on a) a vanishingly small part of the deaths in America, as gun deaths are 1/100th of the number one cause of death in this country; and b) people who are generally not causing gun violence in our country.
Another worrisome issue is the patchwork of gun laws around the country. New York has the (so called) SAFE act, California has their own crazy gun laws, as does Massachusetts. So how will people from states that have more sane gun laws be treated? Am I going to have to worry, when in New York, whether the police are going to arrest me for having a 17 round magazine, even if I am only loading it with 10 rounds? It is already a known fact that police in repressive states will target CCW holders traveling through their states simply because they have a CCW. In the article linked above, the guy’s CCW was from Florida, he was traveling to NJ for Christmas and a wedding, and his firearm was locked in his safe in Florida. But that did not stop a police officer from harassing this family, and violating Amendment IV, against unwarranted search and seizure.
So these forces are using the same tactics as Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, Josef Stalin did in Soviet Russia, Pol Pot did in Cambodia, and the like. They propagandized and demonized gun owners, they implemented a registry of gun owners, then they made gun owners turn them in or went and confiscated them. And we should think the progressive left wants to do this for a different reason…why? They have proven time and time again that they don’t care about the People, so why would we think they are on the up-and-up now? Fool me once, shame on you…Fool me twice, shame on me.
So there are good arguments on both sides, and I am still unsure which side I am on, but I am leaning toward the side that does not give the federal government more power.
I have recently been considering Star Trek: Discovery, since I just watched the finale of Star Trek Continues. You could not ask for two more different shows. Star Trek Continues is a show which is much more in the vein of Roddenberry’s vision, while Discovery is nothing more than a social justice warrior’s bully pulpit. In fact, I would posit that Star Trek Discovery (STD) sacrifices storytelling, acceptance of differing viewpoints, and leaving the viewer something to consider and work out in his own mind, in order to push their social agenda. As an example of the acceptance of differing viewpoints, Gene Roddenberry was, it was said, an agnostic. Yet in the TOS episode Bread and Circuses, Septimus and his band of Sun (Son) worshipers (Christians) were the good guys of the episode. And the episode didn’t virtue signal about slaves or slavery.
Meanwhile, STD seems to have taken the Federation into a U-turn. Set 10 years before TOS, it appears that they have decided that the United Federation of Planets have gone imperial and have more in common with the Borg. The war with the Klingons started because the Klingons only wanted to be left alone. The Federation, on the other hand, seems to believe that no one can be truly happy, unless they are part of the giant collective that is the Federation, and you will be happy, even if we have to break your arm twisting it behind your back. And if you want to be left alone, or if you have different viewpoints, well, that is not allowed.
Coming back to planet earth in 2017, the creatives on STD have stated in interviews that they have written the “isolationist, racist, xenophobic” Klingons to represent Trump voters. Can they wear their politics any further out on their sleeves? Well, I guess they could take a knee in protest of injustice or something… Oh wait…
This is the problem with social justice movement. When broaching subjects they don’t agree with or pointing out he illogic of their position, they do the social equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “that’s racist/sexist/misogynistic/transphobic/etc.” Yet, on subjects which they support, they are all in the faces of those that they think hold opposing views. You know, the way they treat people who just want to be left alone with their beliefs or moral stance, or thoughts on an issue. They don’t want to accept the “you do you, I’ll do me” mentality with respect to their hot-button issue du joure. They feel it is their mission in life to push their controversial views on those that don’t agree with them. Hence, they claim that everything is racist, gay couples target Christian bakers and force them to make wedding cakes, they force their gender fluidity or racial ambiguity upon society, such as forcing the allowance of men to use the womens’ bathrooms and vice versa. In this way not only do you need to accept that they hold those beliefs, but social justice rubs your nose in it, and requires that you agree with those views, otherwise you are labeled as racist or sexist or misogynistic or homophobic or whatever phobia makes you hold an anti-SJW-viewpoint. Even ambivalence is considered a negative trait to the SJW. A transexual penned an article a few month ago, in which it was stated that “if you don’t desire a “woman with a penis” then you are “transphobic.” It’s not that you accept his choices, but that if you don’t desire someone with those traits, it somehow makes you a bad person. So to the SJW, you are not allowed to have your own opinion or preference. You are expected to march along with whatever fuzzy, illogical, hare-brained idea that comes out of their heads. Coed bathrooms, flexible gender, white privilege, whatever.
But on the other hand, if you are a white person or embrace a cultural norm, and you do anything, including eating a burrito or tikka masala, this makes you guilty of “cultural appropriation.” They call out cultural appropriation, without consideration of the intent or personal preference, and label the “appropriator” as racist…even if the person is doing it out of respect or personal preference. And to complete the cycle of illogic, if someone does just the opposite, they are still racist. A SJW once claimed that the Pioneer Woman’s husband as being racist because she mentioned that he preferred spicy hot wings to Asian wings. But the converse, if he liked Asian wings, that would be cultural appropriation. So his crime is being white. And the forces claiming that cultural appropriation is a thing are now claiming that this cultural appropriation is causing tangible damage, as in theft. So I am damaging a culture because I like Korean food? Please. And the thing is that most cultures believe, like any right-thinking entity, that emulation is the sincerest form of flattery. Most cultures love to share with others. It’s only the SJWs who have attempted to model themselves as the arbiters of fairness, that take offense.
Anything that can be used to belittle or reduce what people have decided is the dominant race or societal norms (like transgender or gay marriage) is good in the eyes of the SJWs. They want nothing more than to upend society. They defy logic and science (males have an X and a Y chromosome, and females have two X chromosomes. And having surgery to mutilate your genitals, or loading your body with estrogen or testosterone to try and overcome the natural tendencies of a body with your gender does not change your gender.
You know, as I read back through this post, it sounds like I am dismissive of the SJWs. Actually I am. Or what SJWs have become. Traditionally, there have been social justice issues that have needed attention, and to a much lesser extent today, there still are. But SJWs in 2017 seem to be “majoring in minors” or finding non-existent problems, which they then use as a club to beat those who disagree with the liberal agenda into submission. Their primary tool is manufactured outrage. And, news flash for that vocal minority that wants to push society in a direction that the majority doesn’t want to go. Our patience is not infinite, and at some point, your platform is going to get too ridiculous, and we are going to start pushing back.
I’m going to try here not to turn into one of those onion-on-my-belt get-off-my-lawn curmudgeons, but I have a feeling that it is doomed to failure. I have been watching some of the responses since the church shooting in Texas, and I have to wonder if older generations looked at the younger generations like I am looking at the current generation, or if it has reached a new low. But when I look at this generation, bathed in self-entitlement and living in a bubble of their own concerns. I know that my generation had some issues, but never to the level that we are seeing now, where the attitude seems to be “screw the greater good or what everybody else wants. I want what I want, and if you don’t agree to give it to me, you are my enemy.” This is a source of much of the division today, which is being encouraged by the political elite, who are taking a “divide and conquer” style of leadership, as well as the divisiveness of the mainstream media.
Look at the reactions to the election. People think they should have their own way regardless of what the majority thinks. Hence you see people trying to overthrow President Trump, through riots and a special prosecutor who is obviously in a conflict of interest and on a witch hunt, after a year of investigating; you have opposition members of congress who are floating articles of impeachment, even though there has been no crime committed. I refer to this as Participation Trophy Syndrome. Over the last 30 years or so, if you participated in an activity, just by participating, you received a so-called participation trophy, just so no one felt left out. So what was the fallout of this? Achievement was downplayed at best, or outright discouraged at worst. You were looked down upon for working harder to succeed (e.g. white privilege), or if you were successful, you were expected to share their success with those around you. Those around them were thus not driven to succeed on their own, they felt they could “ride on the coat tails” of the successful. Look at the millenials today, who think that the rich should pay a higher percentage of taxes because they “can afford it,” and fund their free healthcare and free education, so they can get out and earn a lot of money. When I was growing up, this had a name — Socialism.
Let’s look at one of the current hot-button issues, gun control. At the time of this writing, we are a 6 weeks beyond a gunman shooting up a concert in Las Vegas, in what is, to date, the deadliest “mass shooting” in American history, in which 58 people were killed. (Personally, I think that many were trampled, and that a relatively few were actually killed by gunfire, but that is my own opinion, and the police have not stated this, they are too busy changing the basic facts of the shooting…) Then this past Sunday, a lunatic walked into a church with an AR-15 and started shooting, and killed 26 people. Before the crime scene had even been investigated and the bodies removed, people in Hollywood and liberals everywhere were mocking prayer and calling for gun control. Noted secular humanist Wil Wheaton’s savage twitter attack on Speaker Ryan’s call to pray for the families and victims:
The murdered victims were in a church. If prayers did anything, they’d still be alive, you worthless sack of shit
Teen Vogue writer Lauren Duca and other liberals said the same thing, many pointing out the need for “common sense gun control.” Even country artist Tim McGraw spouted off to that effect.
Look, I’m a bird hunter — I love to wing-shoot,However, there is some common sense that’s necessary when it comes to gun control. They want to make it about the Second Amendment every time it’s brought up. It’s not about the Second Amendment.
Let’s take a look at that. Given the circumstances in which it was framed, the 2nd amendment is common sense gun control. The 2nd amendment was framed by the Founding Fathers in a time when they were fighting against the British, as well as to protect America against a tyrannical government (like the one that the progressive socialists want to see implemented). Everybody had guns, because if you didn’t have a gun, you didn’t hunt, and if you didn’t hunt, you didn’t eat. Historically, actions like the the Battle of Athens in 1946 prove the intent and the efficacy of the 2nd Amendment.
And now, fast forward 70 years. The governor of California wants to see people who don’t believe the way he wants them to about global warming^H^H^H^H climate change to be forced into brainwashing. Senator Dianne Feinstein is lovingly crafting legislation to outlaw every weapon that she and her ilk consider and “assault weapon.” And that is only a stopgap until she can figure out how to take them all from us. News flash, Dianne. Assault is a behavior not a device. Which is to say that anything can be classified as an assault weapon. If I maliciously cut someone with my pocketknife, that knife is an assault weapon. If I use my car to run someone off the road, my car is an assault weapon. If I throw a rock at someone, you guessed it, the rock is the assault weapon. And conversely, none of my guns have ever been fired in anger, so technically, even though I may own semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles and pistols, by definition, they are not assault weapons, since none of them have been used in an assault. So, Timmy, it is all about the Second Amendment. We’d better protect it, or it is going to get stolen from us.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“Crazy uncle Joe” Biden, who apparently is throwing sound bites out there to attempt to position himself to run for president, has come out and said that he would rather have more people die in mass shootings than to have someone use a legally owned so-called “assault weapon.” Still think it’s not about the second amendment, Tim? Still think the gun control people care one iota about the People beyond extending their power?
Now let’s look at some hard numbers. The anti-gun line up and say how horrible the gun numbers are. I am not taking deaths lightly, so do not get that idea. However, as of 11/11/2017 at 7:52pm EST, 9,897 people have been killed by guns year to date. This includes the Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs shootings, but also includes the 604 people who have lost their lives to gun violence in Chicago, which none of the anti-gunners mention, because it is an example of their failed gun legislation attempts. But I digress. In that same time period, 29,114 people have been killed by drunk drivers…Nearly three times the number of murders by gun. But are they considering banning vehicles or “common sense car laws”? Or, let’s talk about the #1 killer in this country. Abortion. 940,407 murders by abortion year to date. That is over 95 times the number of babies murdered than people by gun. When are they going to talk about common sense scalpel control?
There is more to it than this. They think their opinions are superior to opposing views, to the point where they feel justified in committing violent acts against those that hold a different opinon. So if they feel that they don’t want guns, nobody should have them, because they don’t feel comfortable. My personal opinion is that they have impulse control problems and project that onto everyone. But they feel it is perfectly okay to go out and kill their babies, and, well, you’d damned well better support that because that is their opinion, and you are not allowed to have a different one. Or, “You can’t ban cars, because I like my car. (until I don’t — And then you damned well better be willing to get rid of yours because you are destroying my earth, what the science says be damned!)” Or even worse, I am going to preach to you about how you are destroying the environment, and going to use my multi-million dollar jet to come and browbeat you in person about how bad of a person you are to dare to burn fossil fuels.
The fact that the anti-gunners try to label guns as “good” and “bad in Feinstein’s new “assault weapon” ban is simply ridiculous. Consider that the church shooter was using an AR-15, but so did the gentleman who took him down. So is the AR-15 good or bad? I think labeling the tool as good or bad is ridiculous. Akin to labeling phillips-head screwdrivers as evil, while flat-head screwdrivers are good. It’s almost like claiming that Home Depot rental pickup trucks are evil because it was used to kill 8 pedestrians in New York City. What it boils down to is that the tool is not intrinsically good or bad, it is the person wielding it. And in cases when seconds count, and the police are minutes away, it may be a good guy with a gun that saves your bacon.
There are a lot of names that have been used to define the “establishment” politicians of the Republican party. Neocon, and RINO, seem to be the most used. The latter being an abbreviation for “Republican In Name Only”. Of course, these go under the assumption that “republican” and “conservative” are synonymous. To me, that’s simply not the case.
Let me go ahead and define my definition of “Conservative” and “Liberal” before I move on…
As I see it, the terms liberal and conservative refer to the creation and application of laws. Meaning, do you create and apply laws in generous amounts, or are you more discerning in the laws you create, keeping them to the bare minimum? Of course, this is based off my study of history and the early stages of our government.
It would seem as though this has been perverted and construed to mean personal values. In that, you have to believe a certain way to be associated with said party. Some more benign examples could be a “liberal” who likes guns or a “conservative” who is pro gay marriage. More caustic examples would be “blacks and women should only be liberals” and “the conservative party is for old white men”.
Of course, none of that is truly the case. I have many friends that go against those “traditional” roles. Again, I don’t believe they are traditional definitions, but more so modern perversions to fit a narrative.
This leads me to my point about being a “RINO”. I’m conservative, sure, but only within the confines of the definition mentioned previously. The problem is that the republican party continues to get further and further from those values, and while they suggest they have the more modern values of conservatism, they really do little to support those claims.
So, I am a “Republican in name only”. I hope that my vote can help bring the party back into line with my beliefs. I’d like them to represent me, but I don’t know if that will ever happen. It may be that I have to switch parties to one more in line with my beliefs, which I’d prefer to not have to do.
This is the problem with partisan politics and the 2 party system. There is nothing good that comes from it.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. -George Washington
Boy were our founding fathers ahead of their time…
Ever since the American People elected Donald J. Trump as President, it seems that forces on the left who did not vote for him have been doing everything in their power to undermine our individual rights. It started with the extreme left groups screaming “Not my President” and the whole resist movement. The question in my mind was how they were going to resist freedom. Isn’t that kind of like trying to fight a cloud? But I guess they are trying to do it. Places like Berkeley are curtailing free speech, and no, the irony is not lost on me that the home of free speech is rioting to keep people from expressing themselves. As I said in previous blog posts, we have seen the liberal left, when they were running the government, violate the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments. In other words, the rights of the People don’t matter to the liberal left.
However, I believe that the establishment politicians have stopped giving much of a tinker’s damn about the rights of the People. Witness the latest bit of legislation being pushed forward. Because of the shootings in Las Vegas, and after people like Sen. Dianne Feinstein stated clearly that no law currently on the books or that could be proposed could have stopped the shooting, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and his co-sponsor, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), have proposed a supposed “bump stock ban.” However, nowhere in the legislation is “bump stock” mentioned. Instead, the legislation bans “manufacture, possession, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle.” A semi-automatic weapon uses recycled gas from the current round to eject the brass and cycle the action to put the next round into the chamber. What this equates to is one shot per trigger pull, so any part of the rifle, from the gas block to the buffer springs to the trigger could be made illegal. Additionally, there is no grandfather clause (so current possession could also be outlawed), and the loose wording of the proposal gives the appearance they are trying to outlaw semi-automatic rifles, and by extension, semi-automatic pistols as well. Hey Republicans, I thought you had taken on the mantle of guardians of the Constitution. Which part of “shall not be infringed” does not compute? This is clearly a power grab on the part of Washington.
The impression I got was that the former administration thought of themselves as royalty, and congress thought of themselves as the nobility, and that the People are nothing more than serfs to serve the government. (“Dennis, there is a lovely piece of filth over here!” — Monty Python and the Holy Grail) They expect us to throw our shekels into the machine, and shut up and let them get on with their agenda. And as time progresses, it seems like more and more establishment Republicans, such as McConnell, McCain, Graham, Murcowski, Collins, and others, have been slowly (or not so slowly) throwing in their lot with the radical left. These faux-Republicans, who don’t care about the rights of the People have done their damnedest to fight the repeal of the ACA, and are now trying (or threatening) to derail tax relief for the American people. These are the people who elected them to represent them. The only thing that they are representing, that I can see, are their own personal interests. What they are doing, and the liberal left as well, is a betrayal of the American people, the majority of them that voted for Trump.
In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, and to an extent, every other mass shooting event, so called experts come out of the woodwork on both the left and the right, people who have zero experience with firearms of any type, people whose vast body of knowledge about firearms consists of repeated viewings of the Die Hard, Rambo, every Arnold Schwartzenegger movie ever made, and the like. These people have likely never touched a gun, but use their publicity to spew hateful, emotion packed, factually inaccurate, anti-gun screeds.
First up, you have Kai Penn, some kind of actor, who tweeted,
Americans killed on 9/11: 2,996
Days it took Congress to authorize war:3
Americans killed by guns in 2017: 11,652
Days in 2017 so far: 275
Aaron Cowan responded to this ridiculous tweet by saying
Wait, so you want to declare war on guns? Because after 9/11, we didn’t declare war on airplanes, we declared war on terrorists…
Not only that, but Kai Penn’s disingenuous tweet omits a number of facts. First, suicides by gun make up nearly 2/3 of all gun deaths in this country. So now we are down to about 3884 non-suicide gun deaths, 513 of which has happened in Chicago, whose ultra liberal city government has already declared war on guns (and how is that going for them?) They want to declare war on guns. But they haven’t declared war on cars to combat drunk drivers, who accounted for nearly 26,000 fatalities, more than six times the number of non-suicide fatalities by gun. They are also not recommending a truck ban, even though those have been used in multiple terrorist attacks, nor are they advocating banning silverware to stave off obesity.
Then you have Jessica Chastain who piped up saying that people wait 6 months for an X-ray, but 5 minutes for an AR-15. Come on, Jessica, hyperbole much? There is a reason that your movie, Miss Sloane was such an epic failure (grossed $3M on a $13M budget). Because your “bonk-bonk on the head” gun control message was not well received. We go to the movies to be entertained, not to be preached down to, especially on a subject on which you show your ignorance every time you open your mouth. Your job is to memorize lines, pretend to be someone you’re not, and amuse us. Stop trying to conflate this role with anything having to do with the real world.
And now, icing on the cake, you have Nancy Sinatra saying that members of the NRA should be lined up and shot by firing squad. Kind of a harsh punishment to be suggested by an obviously anti-gunner. I guess their arms would get tired if they tried to behead us all?
Can’t have an event like this without politicians trying to force their opinions on the “little people.” Hillary Clinton piped up the day after the attack and said
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.
Then she blamed legal gun owners for the mass shooting. Oh, but as Judge Janine said, them on the left say not to blame Muslims for the actions of a few, but it is perfectly fine for them to blame legal gun owners for the actions of these mass shooters. In fact, during the Pulse shooting, the former worst mass shooting in American history, the left, in the same breath, blamed gun owners for the shooting and said not to blame Muslims for the actions of the shooter. Then her former running mate, Tim Kaine, doubled down on the silencer rhetoric from Clinton. Then he went on to say that we have “lost our minds” on gun policies. Well, the original gun policy is
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.
Londo Mollari on Babylon 5 once said
Londo Mollari: But this – this, this, this is like – being nibbled to death by, uh – Pah! What are those Earth creatures called? Feathers, long bill, webbed feet, go “quack”.
Vir Cotto: Cats.
Londo Mollari: Cats! I’m being nibbled to death by cats.
The left, for about the last 80 years has been nibbling at the edges of the second amendment, trying to take a larger and larger slice out of the gun rights of the American people. Thus, I would have to agree with Kaine that the gun laws are out of control. But my view is 180 degrees out of sync with his. The second amendment, as written is good. Adding on legislation including
- the National Firearms Act (1934)
- the Gun Control Act (1968)
- the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986)
is akin to being nibbled to death by cats. And, Tim, you are absolutely the wrong person to lecture us on guns. Wasn’t your son arrested as an Antifa terrorist? Sorry, Timmy, I’ll take my chances with a loaded gun, thank-you-very-much.
And both politicians called out “silencers.” It is not a silencer, it is a suppressor. Gunfire is approximately 150 dB in volume. That is the equivalent of being 25 meters from a jet taking off, and can rupture your eardrums. A suppressor, or “can” will reduce the sound pressure level by about 30 dB, or down to the sound level of a jack hammer, unlike the action hero silencer which changes the report of a supersonic round into a gentle “pfffft.”
And then you have various “experts” that are saying things like “former FBI agent” Manny Lopez, who said, on MSLSD, that “hunters use suppressors so that deer cannot hear the gunshot.” Really, Manny? What did you do at the FBI?
There is even misinformation on the right. Laura Ingraham, whose opinions I respect on things she knows about, said that “you can’t put a suppressor on an AR-15, it would melt the barrel.” While it is possible to destroy the barrel of an M-16, or any machine gun with automatic fire (most machine guns, which are designed for automatic fire, have quick-replace barrels, dating back to the German MG.42 from WWII), an AR-15/M-16 barrel would require nearly 1000 rounds to cause a catastrophic failure. Putting a can on an AR is possible. Rapid fire would tend to destroy the baffles, but not cause a premature failure of the barrel.
I ask all pundits to stop trying to appear as experts in areas in which you have zero knowledge, and to stop trying to emotionally load terms to get a knee-jerk response to push your agenda. If you want to learn about it, go to a range and see what it is all about. Hell, you might just find yourself enjoying it. And you will definitely see that firearms are about more than just being “killing machines.” And maybe, just maybe, you will be able to speak intelligently on the subject, or at least know when to keep your mouth shut.
It has been several months since I blogged here. I have a case of, what can best be described as combat fatigue, as I watch the liberal socialist communists in this country (and the world) descending in a death spiral of insanity. In the past, I would blog on each new outrageous extreme of the left… The hypocrisy of their words and views… The insanity of their actions… Just too many to catalog. When I was first invited to blog here, every incident, every increasingly stupid thing would cause me to sit down at the computer and comment about it. Until at some point, it was too tiring to post, because the hammer blows of stupidity merged into a constant staccato tone that is the backdrop to America…Almost as if this constant cacophony is meant to desensitize the American people to the outright theft of their rights and the shift toward a socialist/communist dystopian American society. After all, the communist elements in our country say that they need to “start indoctrinating children in kindergarten.” I believe what we are seeing here was predicted by God through the prophet Isaiah:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. — Isaiah 5:20, (NIV)
The liberal left is steadily replacing those things that are good, such as the nuclear family, children, male and female, and freedom of speech with liberal darlings like gay marriage, abortion, transgenderism and only allowing speech that agrees with their opinion. Christians are being routinely persecuted. In 2016, 90,000 Christians were murdered worldwide, mostly in the middle east. ISIS is up to their usual shenanigans, from beheading adults to killing Christian children or using them as human shields to deter Allied bombings. But if you ask a liberal, it islamophobia is the largest problem in the world. But the liberals would rather protect Muslims from the evils of bacon sandwiches, than protecting Christians from being slaughtered in job lots. What we are seeing is spoken to in the first chapter of Romans:
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. — Romans 1:28-32, (NIV)
For a fuller view, read Romans 1:18-32. I honestly believe that what we are seeing today is a concerted effort to distract us while people intent on destroying this country, attempting to cripple those people doing good, and furthering their agenda of evil.
For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places. — Ephesians 6:12 (ESV)
So while it appears that we are fighting a bunch of masked goons, and a liberal socialist/communist movement, and the sexual immorality and abortion attendant with the downfall of society, it is representative of an unseen enemy behind the scenes. So as you watch society circling the drain, stop and think about who’s finger is on the flush handle.
I can’t help shaking my head in disgust by the liberals’ abuses or ignoring of the Constitution. During the last administration, the federal government itself seems to have declared war on every one of the amendments that have to do with personal or states’ freedoms. I can come up with cases where the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments were violated in the last 8 years.
Even today, the so-called anti-fascist movement (who are the most fascist acting group I have seen since the cold-war Soviet Union) has done their dead level best to destroy free speech. UC Berkeley, the home of the free speech movement, is now a hotbed of violent riots in protest of conservative speakers. Their claim is that because these speakers don’t agree with the protesters, their words are so-called hate speech. Liberal commentators go a step further, saying that hate speech is not covered by the 1st Amendment. First of all, yes it is. The Constitution does not stop you from making an ass of yourself, as the liberals do on an almost daily basis. (see also, Chelsea Clinton’s twitter feed.) And these same liberals who get so offended by opposing views, are more than willing to use violence to force their opinions on the populace, create paintings of a beheaded President Trump, a college professor who calls for white genocide, and says a passenger on an airplane who gave his seat (which this professor didn’t pay for) to a soldier “made him want to throw up.” But saying that all people are created equal, and that LGBT or blacks or illegal aliens are not more equal than everyone else or that they support President Trump is hate speech and worthy of a beating.
Now, a blogger on the Huffington Post website believes that shooting someone in self-defense is illegal because it deprives violent criminals the right to a fair trial. Go back and read that sentence again. Yes, he really wrote that. In his own words:
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.
Now in my humble opinion, this is an occupational hazard of your chosen profession. Just like a lumberjack might have a body part cut off by a chainsaw, or a racecar driver could be horribly disfigured in a crash. A violent criminal has an occupational risk of choosing (poorly) an armed victim. And criminal law has proven that (except in deep blue liberal areas), that the right to self-defense is supported by law (and case law). Thus it is not illegal, and my (and my loved ones’) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness more than trumps the rights of a violent criminal who hasn’t yet been arrested. And even if I were to be arrested for self defense, I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. However, the point of the matter is that it is not illegal to shoot someone in self-defense in most areas of the country.
The problem with the liberal left is either ignorance of what the laws and the Constitution actually say, or their selective understanding wherein they wildly misinterpret the law and twist it in their minds so only applies to their side of the argument, or they try to do away with the laws they don’t like. For instance, they try to apply the 14th amendment to illegals, while trying to steal the rights from the people to whom they actually apply.
This has got to stop.
I could go so many directions with this, but for now, I just have to ask. Are the Democrats really that far out of touch, and do they not know that things have a tendency to backfire?
I am referring to the legislation introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). This bill, which was introduced during Congress’ April recess, empowers former presidents and former vice presidents, along with the currently sitting vice president, to be able to determine the suitability of the sitting president to hold office.
First off, this is so short-sighted. Currently, there are five living presidents. Three are Democrats, two are Republicans. So apparently, their Trump Derangement Syndrome is telling them that they can use this happy state of affairs to eliminate Trump, and that it will continue. However, just like the “nuclear option,” this too will come back to bite them in the ass. They will scream like gelded pigs the first time their ill-considered legislation is used against them, just like the rhetoric that the Democrats used after the nuclear option was used to confirm Justice Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
However, the most important question to my mind, is that We the People elected him through the due process that has been in place for 230 years. It is not your role to oppose the will of the People and “decide” for us that the President is not meeting your expectations and should be removed from office.
President Trump is doing nothing more than fulfilling the promises he made when running for the office. That it is undoing the ultra-radical, America-defeating “legacy” of his predecessor is popular with the folks who voted him in. Leave him alone and let him get on with his job. Remember, we didn’t propose such nonsensical legislation when his predecessor was in office, even though we didn’t agree with his agenda.