A Resurrection Day Quote

“Christianity, unlike any other religion in the world, begins with catastrophe and defeat.  Sunshine religions and psychological inspirations collapse in calamity and wither in adversity.

“But the life of the Founder of Christianity, having begun with the Cross, ends with the Empty Tomb and Victory.” – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen


May everyone sit back and reflect upon the greatest sacrifice the world has ever known.

Government For The People?

Congress is on recess, a budget has yet to be passed, and the President is in full campaign mode for gun control.  Does anyone else have the feeling that our government is completely lost among the weeds?

With the lack of passing a workable budget by both Houses of Congress and the non-leadership of the President on the same issue, the American People’s confidence in our government solving the fiscal ills of this country is poor at best.  What I personally see is power politics at its worst, each side jockeying for positions, talking points, and approval from their Party leadership.  Not very many politicians are behind doing what is right for the financial health of the country – balanced budgets, eliminating deficit spending, and government spending only what it takes in.

The reactionary response of various Congressional members to Sandy Hook is appalling.  When I found out for a fact that Sen. Dianne Feinstein had written gun control banning legislation in advance to Sandy Hook and was waiting for the appropriate time to introduce the legislation, I hit the roof.  Sen. Feinstein is nothing but a ghoul, waiting to use the blood of innocents shed during a crime to advance her non-Constitutional agenda.

People do not trust our government to do the right thing for the country, and that includes the rights of the citizenry.  This includes assaults of various natures upon rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth, and Second Amendments of the Constitution.  Here are some examples:

Hate speech laws are subjective at best, and are under constant revision.  What can be simply an expression of opinion could be termed “hate speech” if the spoken or written word “offends” someone for any reason, up to and including just not liking the content.  Here is the problem with hate speech laws – they are subject to what someone finds objectionable to their race, religion, and/or belief system.  In other words, there are no absolute standards or limits to what these laws could eventually cover.  This is a suppression of our ability to voice our opinions for fear of being charged with a hate crime.  Freedom of speech now becomes a casualty of “political correctness” and “hate crime” laws.

While I have written about this in a previous post concerning our government apparently playing fast and loose concerning Fourth Amendment rights, it bears mentioning again.  Are our rights against being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” really protected?  Besides the afore-mentioned post, stop and think of the power of the Internal Revenue Service’s ability to seize assets as a result of non-payment of taxes.  In that arena, you must prove your innocence instead of the Government proving your guilt in a court of law.  With ObamaCare right around the corner, the expansion of authority of the IRS is frightening.  You may draw your own conclusions on this point.

Many readers of past posts know my stance on the Second Amendment.  I have issues with expanding any of the gun control measures proposed by Congress or the President.  There are already background checks, laws against illegal transfers of firearms, and restrictions upon various types of firearms without Federal licensing.  There really is no need for further laws – the ones that are in force are not consistently enforced, and the proposed laws would have done nothing to prevent the past mass-murders by deranged people.  This statement by our esteemed Vice-President says it all:

“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now.”

So why pass new laws that will not solve the problem, and penalize law-abiding citizens by infringing upon their Second Amendment Rights?  Only to look like “We’re doing something,” which is a poor excuse for keeping one’s job.

In closing, let us look at an incident in which all the above listed Rights were almost violated if allowed to progress through to it’s end.  From Yahoo.com:

The ruddy-cheeked, camouflage-clad boy in the photo smiles out from behind a pair of glasses, proudly holding a gun his father gave him as a present for his upcoming 11th birthday.

The weapon in the photo, posted by his dad on Facebook, resembles a military-style assault rifle but, his father says, is actually just a .22-caliber copy. And that, the family believes, is why child welfare case workers and police officers visited the home in Carneys Point last Friday and asked to see his guns.

“They said they wanted to see into my safe and see if my guns were registered,” Moore said. “I said no; in New Jersey, your guns don’t have to be registered with the state; it’s voluntary. I knew once I opened that safe, there was no going back.”

With the lawyer listening in on the phone, Moore said he asked the investigators and police officers whether they had a warrant to search his home. When they said no, he asked them to leave. One of the child welfare officials would not identify herself when Moore asked for her name, he said.

So here a person cannot post a photo of a child holding a gun without causing concern (First Amendment), having a nameless government bureaucrat with law enforcement wanting to come into a home without a warrant to search for unregistered weapons (Fourth Amendment), and potentially confiscating a firearm (Second and Fourth Amendments).  Is this really a government that we want?  If so, then this is what is in store for every American:

Cyprus in the US?

I know that the following will probably nominate me for induction into the Tin Hat Society.  If so, then so be it…

Events from the past couple of weeks concerning the European Union’s economy concerning Cyprus have left me uneasy at best.  The Government of Cyprus has decided a one-time tax (i.e., legalized confiscation) of funds from any account over 100,000 Euros is necessary to raise funding to secure a 10-Billion Euro bailout package from the European Union.  Cyprus is the latest country to have financial problems, joining Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy.  Between you and me, this is only a temporary stopgap – I truly believe that the European Union experiment is imploding.

I look at the state of our economy, and that of the failure of our Congresscritters to pass budgets & responsibly spend our tax dollars, and find myself not only disgusted, but downright frightened.  With the national debt approaching the $17 Trillion mark without a viable budget proposal being agreed upon, I wonder about the safety of our savings and pensions.

Of course, many of you will poo-poo the idea of our government seizing our assets to pay off the national debt like what Cyprus is doing.  Folks, I will tell you right now that I believe that the groundwork is being laid to do just that.  Consider the following:

The ObamaCare legislation authorizes the IRS to confiscate funds directly from your accounts if you do not have a health plan that meets the requirements of the ObamaCare mandate.  This has been upheld by the Supreme Court because ObamaCare is now classified as a tax.

The Supreme Court has already heard cases concerning Eminent Domain which state that private property can be seized and used for the public use.  I can fully see where these laws & decisions could be used and extended to bail the government out of the financial mess that generations of irresponsible Congresscritters have put us in.  After all, the government is for the public good, right?

And what property would that be?  Our 401Ks, Regular & Roth IRAs, and any investments that we would have.  I have it on good authority that the politicians are salivating at the billions of dollars tied up in the tax-deferred savings accounts, and would love nothing more to get their hands on that money to fund whatever special project they have.

Oh, by the way, there is something called the Sixteenth Amendment, which give Congress (via the Internal Revenue Service) the ability to collect taxes.  Congress will write the legislation to cover both the eminent domain and the tax angles.

Now at this point, people would start screaming bloody murder, stating that such confiscation would be illegal, and violate their Fourth Amendment rights.  The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Haven’t any of you been paying attention to what is happening to the Second Amendment?  If the politicians are able to circumvent one of our Rights, what makes any of you think that they will stop at just that one, especially if there are huge sums of money involved?  In addition, the Supreme Court won’t stop it – they didn’t with ObamaCare, and with the Court constantly looking across the world to “improve” their legal decisions, I wouldn’t count on them to uphold the rights of the People.

This is where it is important to let your respective Congresscritter know that:

  • The Constitution and it’s Amendments are not to be circumvented by short-termed, self-serving legislation, which includes the Second and Fourth Amendments.
  • A budget must be passed to address, eliminate, and prohibit deficit spending.
  • A budget must be passed to address and eliminate the National Debt.

If any of your Congresscritters are unwilling to commit to the above, then it’s time to replace them with someone who respects and supports the People and the Constitution of the United States.  Remember:

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit what the Government can do to the People, not to limit what the People can do to the Government.

It’s up to us, the PEOPLE, to keep our elected officials in line.

Our Dysfunctional Politicians

Before we start on this post, let me tell you a little bit about myself and my background with firearms.

I grew up in the country outside of Terre Haute, Indiana.  My father taught me to shoot a .22 rifle when I was 5, and gave me my own .22 rifle for Christmas at 12 years old that I still have to this day.  We had a place off the driveway that we would shoot down into a small valley at soda cans and a few targets.  Later in college, I was a member of a marksmanship team that traveled around the Great Lakes Region competing in NCAA sanctioned matches which included the prestigious Camp Perry.  My father and I reloaded our ammunition for the larger calibers, and I also competed locally.  Occasionally, the local chipmunk population had to be thinned out as well as other vermin.  There were other, less happy times as well involving firearms (link here near the end of the post).  Through all of this, I learned that firearms are not toys, were tools to be used and respected just like a table saw, and must be handled properly to be safe.  Improper handling can lead to disaster, not only for yourself, but to others as well.

It should then not be a surprise that I support the 2nd Amendment, and oppose gun control banning, especially legislation proposed by Senator Diane Feinstein and the rest of her ilk.  What gun control banning implies is that the good Senator does not trust the population with weapons of any kind, and in the same stroke, disarm law-abiding citizens.  That in itself is a crime against the citizens who are honest, hard-working, and wish only to provide for & protect their families.

Professor Gary Kleck of the Florida State School of Criminology and Criminal Justice performed a study on defensive gun use.  During this study, estimates from 2.2 to 2.5 million incidents in which a gun was used to avert or prevent a crime were cited , although Professor Kleck does weed down this estimate by the time he gets to his conclusions.  A statement in his conclusion caught my eye:

“Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they “almost certainly” saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.”

I look at this statement, and start thinking of the statistics, figures, arguments and statements used by the gun control banning crowd as their reasons for legislation that would disarm and remove personal protection options from people, and I have to shake my head in bewilderment.  I can think of the statement, “If it saves one life…”, apply it to the above study, and turn the gun control ban argument back around on these people.  Somehow, Senator Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo, and others believe that they know better than the American Public on how to keep everyone safe (even if the afore mentioned politicians have security surrounding them at all times and we don’t).

But in reality, after all the facts and figures are presented, discussed, argued, and picked apart, their reasoning for gun control bans boil down into one statement:  Guns are evil and must be banned because someone could get hurt.  As Col. Potter would exclaim, “Horse Hockey!!”

Guns are inanimate objects.  They don’t have feelings, nor are they likely to jump down off of a table and attack someone.  No, it is the person using the gun that will determine if the use for the gun is for criminal or legal activities.  This is not the politically correct view of where people are inherently good and the weapon is inherently bad.  To which I would then ask…

If guns are responsible for crime, then what about crimes that are committed with hammers, knives, baseball bats, tire irons, steam irons, fists, feet, fireplace pokers, statuettes, desk phones, candlesticks, rope, lead pipes, pipe wrenches, etc…?  Did those items (even when directly attached to a person) cause the person to go apes**t and commit a crime?  The argument may be silly and inane, but I would like to think that you, the reader, would get the point that the person, not the object, is solely responsible for their actions.

Our gun control ban friends don’t think about that.  Crime is something that some of them believe that can be legislated away, even though it is a proven fact that criminals disobey laws every day of the year!  If the premise of passing legislation prevents crime were true, then rapes, robberies, murders, drug abuse, and drunk driving are now no longer a problem.  You and I know, the sane people, that this is not the case.

However, some of our gun control ban friends do recognize that crime is a problem.  But their solutions for people’s personal safety are anything but safe.  For instance:

Need I go on?  Are you starting to see the insanity, or perhaps the insensitivity, of our gun control banning politicians giving us advice concerning our safety and at the same time trying to remove our rights to self defense with a firearm?

Now I know that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA was flamed for making the statement, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”  But stop and think:  What are you doing when you call the police for help if you believe your life is in danger?  You’re calling a good guy with a gun, and that’s only if you have the opportunity to make that call.

But how long is it going to take them to get to you after you make the call?  I read somewhere that the average response time in my area for an officer to show up at my door is 8 minutes.  In other sections of the country, it’s far longer (30 minutes plus).   Sandy Hook was reported to be 20 minutes, although the time was probably around 11 minutes.  Believe me, even 5 minutes is an eternity to wait for help if you are being attacked.

Gun control banning legislation only benefits the criminal element in our society.  Our gun control banning politicians do not seem to realize that their legislation removes the Rights of the People to protect themselves…or maybe they do, and do not care because they have an agenda.

I would like to close out this post with the following statements:

I have purposefully kept the terms Liberal, Conservative, Republican, and Democrat out of this post.  There are reasons for that –

  • Not all Conservatives are pro-gun
  • Not all Liberals are anti-gun
  • Not all Republicans are Conservatives
  • Not all Democrats are Liberal

The elected officials, our representatives, must be evaluated on their positions and their actions, and not by their political party affiliation.  These politicians are ultimately responsible to We the People, and can be hired, rehired, or fired every election cycle.  Did the politician serve your interests and uphold the laws of the United States, the US Constitution w/the Bill of Rights, & the Constitution of your state?  This is their job evaluation, and you are their boss.  If so, then vote for them.  If not, then vote for their competition.  This is how We the People ultimately affect our will upon the politicians if they do not respond to our letters, emails, and phone calls on issues that concern us.


Cross-posted to Wise Conservatism