Takeaways

We would like to take this opportunity to extend our condolences to the Victims of the Orlando shooting.

****

Over the past week, I have been reading and watching the circus being created over the tragedy over the shooting in Orlando.  Quite frankly, it’s sickening to see what the politicians and media are doing to spin this mass murder / terrorist attack into something totally different from what the reality actually is.  Let’s take a look as some of them.

Gun Free Zones disarm law-abiding people, turning that area into a killing zone for terrorists and mass-murderers.  The only person that has a weapon is the criminal, and they will use it because they have little or no fear of being stopped.  I do not know of any documented case of where a mass-murder or other violent crime has been prevented because of a gun-free zone.  However, all the recent mass-shootings have taken place in gun-free zones.  It is my personal opinion that gun-free zones and laws infringe upon a person’s right to defend themselves with a weapon.  I also believe that any and all lawmakers that passed or proposed such laws are complicit in the crimes and murders that happen in these areas, and should be criminally charged as accomplices.

Radical Islam are words that our President refuses to utter, stating in a petulant, chiding speech last Tuesday that labeling the enemy will not defeat them.  I beg to differ, Mr. President.  If one cannot name the enemy, then the enemy cannot be identified, and thus cannot be defeated.  However, once the enemy is specifically identified, the enemy can then be defeated.  Instead, you have directed the government agencies under your control to remove these words and use instead “extremist organizations.”  Very wimpy, politically correct language that serves not to offend, but certainly looses much of its effectiveness as we have seen more terror attacks on our soil attributed to individuals identified as being radicalized Muslims on your watch than that of your predecessor.

Radical Islam (and quite frankly, all of Islam’s holy books and teachings) state that homosexuals must be punished, up to and including execution by various, horrific means.  This fact is being ignored by the media and the Progressive Liberals who seem to go out of their way to defend Islam.

The motivations of the Orlando shooter are being diverted from his being radicalized to that of the gun or guns that he used for his murderous rampage.  I’ve stated in previous posts that the Progressive Liberals were using the LGBT lobby to gain political power, and once achieved, would toss the LGBT lobby aside in favor of their new pet “protected minority.”  The LGBT lobby has been used and discarded right before our eyes.

The diversion from Radical Islam to Firearm Control was about as predictable as the sun rising in the East.  The politicians of the anti-gun lobby (heretofore now identified as the Anti-Rights Lobby) are trotting out the same proposals that would not have prevented this tragedy nor any other terrorist attack (and yes, I believe this was more a terror attack than anything else).  Some of the proposals include:

  • Using the No-Fly List or Terrorist Watch List as a means to depriving a person on the list from acquiring a firearm.  Secret government lists that are created without due-process of the person being able to confront their accuser is patently a violation of a person’s rights as defined in the Bill of Rights, and is fraught with the potential of governmental abuse.  The Orlando shooter was not on either of these lists.  It also does absolutely nothing if the person already has a weapon or from acquiring one from another means.
  • Extended Background Checks are always a favorite of the Anti-Rights Lobby.  The Orlando Shooter passed multiple background checks for his work as a security guard, and was also contracted to the Department of Homeland Security!!  Again, extended background checks mean nothing to a criminal if they want a firearm – they will steal or buy one on the black market.
  • Reduced magazine capacity is another favorite of the Anti-Rights Lobby.  The idea is that the gunman can be rushed during a magazine change.  This is about as ludicrous as it sounds.  Most people will be running away from a gunman, not toward the gunman because of the flight response people have had drilled into them from day one.  Very few people have had the training or mindset to try and tackle a fully armed person, and fewer will win.  A better alternative is for a person with a concealed weapon to take the gunman out and minimize the body count.
  • Abolish Automatic Weapons.  Automatic weapons are already registered & regulated, and are classified as a restricted item.  A person must undergo a strict background check and be licensed to own one of these weapons.  No legally registered automatic weapon has been used in a crime for many decades.  Note that the Orlando Shooter did not have an automatic weapon.
  • Abolish Assault Weapons (like the AR15).  An assault weapon is defined as a firearm capable of automatic fire (holding the trigger down and the weapon keeps firing until out of ammunition.  The AR15 and it’s variants (like the Sig Sauer the Orlando Shooter used) are NOT assault weapons as they are semi-automatic (holding the trigger down will only result in the weapon firing once).  This is a far cry from being a “weapon of war” as the media and Anti-Rights politicians would have you believe.  The amount of willful ignorance on the part of the media and some politicians is mind-boggling. 
  • Abolish the Second Amendment.  This would require disarming over 100 million people in the United States alone, and that’s just the law-abiding people.  Criminals will retain their weapons and prey upon the population, and an unscrupulous government would feel free to enslave the population.  In countries that have banned weapons, criminals and terrorists have had absolutely no problems in obtaining weapons (some fully automatic as in the recent Paris attacks).  Personally, we should be encouraging gun ownership and training to mitigate incidents like Orlando. 
  • We need more laws to make shootings like this impossible to occur.  This is about as stupid a concept as possible.  We have more than enough laws to define what is lawful and what isn’t.  Obviously, mass murder is illegal.  Straw purchases of firearms are illegal.  Gun trafficking is illegal.  Making another law that restricts the rights of a person to own a weapon will not deter someone from committing a crime like Orlando.  I don’t think that any other right as defined in the Bill of Rights is as regulated as the Second Amendment.

To the Anti-Rights Lobby – Many of you have bodyguards with guns.  Do not ask me to give up my right to self defense without first giving up yours or your protection – my life is as precious to me as yours is to you.

Be well, my friends.

June 6, 1944

Seventy-two years ago today, more than 160,000 Allied troops landed along a 50-mile stretch of heavily-fortified French coastline, to fight Nazi Germany on the beaches of Normandy, France.  The majority of the soldiers hitting the beaches and parachuting behind enemy lines were in their late teens and early twenties.

These young men, even knowing that many of them would die in the early hours of fighting, did so because they believed in the cause of freedom and love of their country, the United States of America.  One cannot help but salute these brave men (yes, men!) for their courage and resolve under fire, and their patriotism.

I honor these young men for their service.  One of my great-uncles was among them. 

How times have changed…

Today’s youth seem to be more concerned with “safe spaces” from “hate speech” and thoughts that shatter their fantasy world with facts & reality.  They seem to believe that if they think it, then it’s real.  And when graduating from college with a liberal arts degree, they are capable of running a multi-million dollar company (yes, I know of a few of college students that believe exactly that.)

How in the Hell did we go from one extreme to the other?

The safe spaces for the American GI on the beaches was behind a barrier or in a foxhole.  I wonder how the Pajama Boy generation would fare in a similar situation (think fetal position).

I truly shudder from the implications…

More Gun Control?

This past week, a man killed his wife in Minnesota, traveled to UCLA in California, killed his former professor, and then himself.  Authorities have found a list that named another person at UCLA that was targeted, but that person was unharmed.

Since the murder/suicide occurred in California, a gun-rights hostile state, there are the inevitable calls to “do something,” although exactly what is never fully explained, even when more gun-control measures are introduced in the various legislatures.  And even then, it’s never enough.

Charles C. W. Cooke wrote the following in an article published in the National Review (excerpts follow):

As soon as the story hit the news, the usual suspects began cranking themselves up. Americans, they said, need to “do something.” It was time, they argued, for “more laws.” And the NRA? It was, of course, to blame.

Forgive me for being a broken record, but I have some questions in response to these reactions: Namely, “what something?”; “which laws?”; and “what, specifically, did the NRA do wrong here?” Rolled into one, these congeal into a single, simple inquiry: “What law — specifically — would have prevented yesterday’s shooting?”

I ask because, absent the total ban on firearms that gun-control advocates insist that they don’t covet, it is not at all obvious which rules would have stopped the perpetrator from carrying out his plan. According to the Los Angeles Police Department, the shooter bought a 9mm handgun legally in Minnesota, passing a background check in the process; then, gun in hand, he killed a woman in that state; and, finally, he drove with his guns to California, where he killed both his professor and himself.

In the process, he both obeyed and broke a number of existing laws. In Minnesota, he followed the purchasing rules to the letter, and, because he had no criminal record, he was rewarded for his fealty. But after that moment he resolved to ignore whatever rules got in his way. In both Minnesota and California he violated the statutes that prohibit gun owners from carrying their weapons without a permit; at UCLA he violated a rule issued in September of 2015 that prohibits gun owners from carrying firearms onto campus; and, rather obviously, he violated the flat-out prohibition on murder that obtains in all 50 states. He was, in other words, entirely happy to follow the rules when it suited him, and entirely happy to break them when it suited him. He was, like most shooters, not much interested in the sanctity of the law.

Let’s take this one step at a time…

One of the current candidates for President has stated that she would support an Australian style of mandatory gun buyback to reduce gun violence.  The idea is to outlaw the private possession of a firearm to reduce crime, i.e., a gun ban.

For all intensive purposes, this scheme would disarm law abiding people from a means to defend themselves.  John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center has shown in multiple instances that “where bans primarily disarmed law-abiding citizens and only increased violent crime. Indeed, around the world, every time guns are banned, murder rates go up.” (partial quote from Report to the Parliament of Australia on “The ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community”, Page 8)

There’s also one other point that I want to make before moving on:  Many of the same people that are calling for gun control are protected by armed bodyguards – elected leaders, entertainers, and socialites that have the means to hire or have provided to them armed protection.  Why do these people feel that their lives are more important than the average person?  Indeed, our lives are worth nothing to them, especially if losing our lives furthers their agenda.

The concept of laws not preventing crime, any crime, should not be lost on the reader of this post.  No law written will prevent a person from committing a crime if that person wants to commit that crime.  It also follows that banning guns will not prevent gun violence.

Washington DC and Chicago are two cities that have essentially banned gun ownership (or have made it extremely difficult to own a firearm), but post some of the highest violent crime rates.  Gangs with guns are mostly the cause.

Other countries have banned guns, but are not immune to the effects of gun violence, especially by terrorists.  France (the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan Concert Hall attacks) and India (Mumbai 2008) are but two instances of where nationalized gun control has failed.

Let me be perfectly clear:  Banning guns, partially or totally, will not remove gun violence or violent crime.  Likewise, people wishing to commit suicide will also find other means to die.  All that banning guns will do is to remove a means for which people to defend themselves from the predators among us.

criminal laws