What would be the Price, Cost, Value and Worth?

The question in the title of this post is in reference to the God-given and Constitutional rights each American is free to enjoy and exercise or not as they see fit. Another series of questions that goes along with this post is the following; Could a person be convinced to sell their God-given and Constitutional rights? Could a person be convinced to trade or exchange their God-given and Constitutional rights?

There has been much of late on the internet about a possible gun grab by the federal government. It is my, as well as others, belief that a gun-grab by the federal government would have dire consequences. Of all I have read regarding the gun-grab and the plans to do so whether by executive order or by legislative means I have neither seen or heard about the following possibility.

Could it be possible to tie the free exercise of the Second Amendment to money, money from the federal government. No, I am not talking about a gun buy back plan or program. What I am talking about is tying gun ownership to receiving government monies. Think about this for a moment. How many households across America receive checks, federal government checks, every month retirement pensions, social security, disability checks or welfare, food stamps, wic and the rest of the long list of what are now called “government entitlements”.

I do not think that the federal government would or could implement and carry out a gun grab. But the federal government could tie gun ownership to government payments. The federal government would not be necessarily infringing on the right to keep and bear arms per se. Gun ownership or the lack of gun ownership could just be a pre-condition to receiving federal checks or federal benefits. It could be as simple as if a person was not willing to give up the right to keep and bear arms he or she would be ineligible for government money of any type. If a person wanted to continue receiving federal government he or she would only need to “voluntarily” give-up the right to keep and bear arms. In this instance the federal government did not deny the person their right to keep and bear arms, the right was exchanged for money, sold so to speak.

Think about this for a moment, the “experts” estimate that 47% of the households in America are on at least one form of government assistance. Could these households go a month without the checks that they rely upon for their very existence? Probably not. Add to this the numbers of retirees from the military and the federal government, they also receive pension checks from guess who? Don’t forget about the number of persons on social security old age or disability, that check also comes from guess who? Also don’t forget about the number of persons getting VA benefits, again a government check. Most of America could and would be disarmed with this simple maneuver, tying gun ownership to money. The government would not be grabbing your gun you would be giving it up freely.

Voluntarily disarming could also be a pre-condition to being hired by the federal government. Simple you want a government job, disarm. Gun=No government job. The only gun you could carry would be a government issued gun and then only if the position required it, and only as long as the tour of duty.

This would be only the beginning, not only would you “voluntarily” give up your right to keep and bear arms, you would also most likely be placed on a prohibited person list. You would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm the same as a common criminal, though you committed no crime. You could not buy guns or ammunition. There would most likely be a form that you would be required to sign explaining all of this to you.

Hold on it gets worse. Now that the right to keep and bear arms has been freely exchanged for a continuation of government checks, and the person placed on the prohibited persons list, there now must be a system to ensure compliance. To ensure the person is in full compliance with the “exchange program” there must be a system of checks and balances, so to speak. The government would be authorized to conduct unannounced and warrantless searches for guns and ammunition. The way the system is now if a search warrant is issued for a 65 inch flat screen TV, no area can be legally searched where a 65 inch flat screen TV could not be hidden. There would be no excluded areas for search if they were searching for a single bullet.

If one is found with a prohibited item I am sure there would be confiscation, fines and a loss of benefits along with a lengthy prison term. No telling what could or would be found looking for a single bullet. So in fact you sold your Second Amendment right, and lost your Fourth Amendment protection. They get a two for one deal. The question is this; How much will you sell your rights for, and what others would you lose?

Oh, and keep this in mind, even a draconian measure like this would not effect a single criminal.

Advertisements

Wrong again

My prayers and thoughts go out to the victims and their families in San Bernardino, Ca. My appreciation goes to the Law-Enforcement agencies and other first responders.

Another tragedy presents another opportunity for the politicians and activists to politicize the sorrow. Even as the tragedy was unfolding it was being politicized. The Liberal Socialist Progressives will use this tragedy to further promote their agenda. They will as usual politicize the tragedy as they attempt to assign blame or find a way to justify the actions of those responsible for the carnage, which ever serves best to promote their agenda. They will get this wrong as they have in the past gotten so much wrong.

In the attempt to politicize this tragedy the Liberal Socialist Progressives and activists will first blame the gun. They will blame the gun, even though the gun was not the cause of the carnage it was merely the chosen instrument. It was the person behind the gun that should be blamed, and rightfully so. But they will not blame the person, unless the person they can assign the blame to fits in with their narrative and agenda. Then someone will attempt to find some occurrence in the past that justifies the actions of these murderous Moslems.

The first I will address is the apologists. The Liberal Socialist Progressives and the Apologists will attempt to find some occurrence in the past that would justify the actions of these murderous Moslems. Let me just address this in this way, there is no justification for what those murderous ingrates did.

Now I will address the Liberal Socialist Progressives. The Liberal Socialist Progressives as well as the gun control activists will start out saying that “something has to be done to control gun violence”. They will claim that only way to stop or lessen gun violence is that more laws are needed, more gun control laws. The gun control laws already on the books only effect the law-abiding population and has had no effect on the criminal element in our population, nor will any future laws. If there is anyone who believes that laws already on the books have any effect on criminal activity, they need to look no further than the prison system. America has laws making murder a criminal act punishable by imprisonment or death, murders still occur. There are laws against rape, robbery, drug possession and sale, theft and many others, yet the prisons contain people, men and women, convicted of the same acts(crimes). Criminals break the law, that is what they do. The residents in the prison system are not there for obeying the law, if they obeyed the law they would not be in prison.

Not only will they blame the gun, they will attempt to demonize the legal and lawful gun owners and the groups that support and defend their rights to gun ownership. It is not the legal and lawful gun owners that are the problem. I have often wondered why the legal and lawful owners of firearms would need to have an advocate to act on their behalf to guard and protect the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. This is particularly puzzling when each and every politician, upon taking office swears or affirms to uphold the Constitution. Which brings up this point. The Founders and Framers must have known that at some point in time the Federal Government would begin to act as Monarchs and that is most likely the reason why the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights ends with words “Shall not be infringed”. Only the Second Amendment ends with these words.

Think on this for a moment. Could Law Enforcement patrol the entire length and breadth of America, given the sheer size of America, providing safety and security of the population? How often do the residents of rural America even see law enforcement on patrol? Where are the most law enforcement officers seen, in the cities and towns or as they say “out in the sticks”? Law enforcement and the military operating simultaneously could not patrol America for coast to coast and border to border. If the agenda and objective of the Liberal Socialist Progressives and the gun control groups is to have the legal and lawful Americans disarm, either voluntarily of involuntarily, would America be a safer nation for its legal and lawful citizens? I submit to you that it would not. The criminal element has already demonstrated their utter disregard for the law already and would not obey a new law the same as they have disregarded the past laws. I ask this, Would you rather defend yourself and your family with a cellphone or with something at least as powerful as what the criminal who is assaulting you or your family with? If you chose the phone at least the one the other end of the call heard what happened to you or to your family. If you wish to defend yourself or your family with a cellphone I suggest you learn to throw it at 2000 feet per second.

Not only do the Liberal Socialist Progressives get it wrong every time regarding firearms, they also get it wrong on immigration, every time. There was a time in years past, now many years past, when people immigrated(legally)to America to make a better life foe themselves and their families. The legal immigrants assimilated into American society willingly living under the laws and customs of America, that was then this is now. The immigrants of today are no longer expected to assimilate into American society. If they are not expected to assimilate, what makes the Liberal Socialist Progressives believe that they will obey the laws of America, much less respect the customs or traditions? Let me use this example. If an immigrant moves in next to you that comes from a nation where murder is legal, would you want them to assimilate and live under the laws of America, or not to assimilate living under the laws of America and continue murdering because it is the custom of their native land? Would you feel comfortable living next door to a rapist, after all they only rape because it is a custom in their native land? How about a thief or a child molester? Today not only are immigrants not expected to assimilate they are not even expected to immigrate legally.

One thing about the Liberal Socialist Progressives is that they will never admit that their agenda was flawed or had failed. The only failure they ever admit to is that “we did not go far enough”. They never admit the plan was unwise or unjust, just that the plan was not “grand” enough. They only want to “progress”, go forward, no matter the cost or outcome. They are willing to destroy America in the name of “progress”. Maybe the “grand” plan of the Liberal Socialist Progressives is to reduce the entire population of America to a cowering population seeking cover and calling for another to come and save them from some terrorist or criminal. The one receiving the call will undoubtedly arrive carrying what you despise most, a gun. Or maybe the Liberal Socialist Progressives do not think there are already enough criminals in America, they seek to create more by making the legal and lawful owners of firearms criminals.

I can not control every minute of every day, as a matter of fact most of what happens daily is out of my control. I can not be there every second of every minute for my family. But when I am in the presence of my family they can rest assured that I will protect them from harm or die trying. My family and especially my wife will never hear these words from my lips “I am sorry Honey, I wish I could have done more than call for help”.

The difference between me, those like me and the gun control zealots is that not only will I place myself in harm’s way to defend and protect my family I will do the same for your family and even you. While I am willing to place myself in harm’s way to protect those that I love I will do the same for a stranger. The best I can hope for from you is that you will run away and hide then when you are safe you will call someone for help that would use the same tool I would have used, a gun. Amazing isn’t it, I would stand and fight while you would run. Maybe Chivalry is not dead after all, at least not yet.