-wits

uncle-sam-prayer-for-americaEnough already. The levels of incompetence and ignorance have reached a new all time height. I mean even modern jets have a maximum ceiling(altitude) and even a maximum airspeed where they can still function safely. Apparently there are no such restrictions on incompetence or ignorance, there are no limits on how high it can go or on how fast it can spew forth.

A prime example of this is the political reaction to the recent terrorist attack in Orlando. The political solution is apparently to further restrict the rights of law-abiding American citizens. Everybody at the club were law-abiding citizens, they were out for an evening of entertainment and merry-making. As I recall firearms are not allowed in the part of a club serving alcoholic beverages, so consequently the lawful were disarmed, obeying the law. The only one who broke the law was the terrorist who entered the club with firearms. And then he did what terrorists do, he starting killing unarmed citizens(civilians). He chose a “soft target” because he wanted to go about his terroristic intentions unimpeded by the possibility of encountering anyone inside the club that may have been armed. You will note that this like almost all large-scale terrorist attacks the intended victims would have no way to effectively defend themselves. The laws on the books worked just fine, problem is the terrorist had no intention of following the law. It will be the same the next time it happens, wherever it happens, the same as in California. The law-abiding citizens obeyed the law, the terrorists did not nor will they, ever.

Immediately the gun control crowd jumped up on their “soap-box” claiming that more gun control was needed to prevent such acts. They actually blamed the murder and mayhem on the gun. So they cries went out for somebody to do something, the gun violence must be stopped. I do need someone to explain to me how a gun, an inanimate object can become violent all by itself. It again just like every other crime or terrorist act took the intentional effort by a human being to carry out the act. It was not the gun that is or became violent enough to load magazines itself and pull back the charging handle and the aim itself at people and then commence firing and change magazines as the ammo became depleted. No all those actions required a human. I would even be bold enough to claim that if a rifle were to be loaded with a full magazine, the charging handle pulled back and released to send a live round of ammunition into the chamber and the safety not engaged(left on fire) and then placed in a corner the loaded rifle would stand right there until the end of time and never turn violent. The only thing left to do was to pull the trigger and it would go bang, it would wait right where it was left waiting for a human. Magazines can not load themselves, charging handles can not pull themselves to the rear and triggers can not depress them selves, all those steps require human action, willful and intention human actions.

What needs to happen is that the right to self-defense of the citizens of this country needs to be unimpeded. But the gun control crowd and the liberal socialists in government(democrat, republican and independent)will demand and do just the opposite. It is not the law-abiding citizens that are the problem in this country nor is it the availability of firearms. The problem is the criminal element and now terrorists in this country. We do not need gun control, what we do need is criminal control and terrorist control. Criminals can be controlled by the laws already on the books, but only if the laws are enforced. Terrorists can be controlled by not letting them in this country, in other words immigration and visa control. Failing to control immigration and visas into this country is akin to letting people into your house that should never have been allowed on your lawn, then acting surprised when they destroy or attempt to destroy you and yours.

One interesting tidbit was the congress critter from down Orlando way spewing this garbage, people should not be allowed weapons that fire seven hundred a minute. That idiot should do the math on his foolish statement. 700 rounds per minute would equate to 11.6 round per second, that is one fast semi-automatic rifle no to mention the quickness of changing magazines, and the weight of that much ammunition. Are the good people from his district really contemplating sending him back to congress? Lord help us. After hearing what that man had to say I had to consult Webster’s for a possible word and definition that would help describe the level of incompetence and ignorance of some of the distinguished members of government, I came up with the following;
Nit-wits, Half-wits, Dim-wit and Witless, they pretty much all mean the same thing. A stupid or foolish person. The I looked for words to describe the statements they make and possible laws they may attempt to introduce in the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack. I came up with the following; Half-baked, not completely thought out.
1959792_716153281770894_2116533504_n

I would like to point this out in case any of the gun control crowd missed it. When the call for help went out it was answered by people with guns, a lot of people with a lot of guns. If you are so against guns why did you call for and expect people carrying guns to show up? If the terrorist wanted to cause such carnage and he did not have a gun or two he would have chosen a different method, the result would have been the same many innocent would have died. The same can not be said if someone, anyone or everyone in the club would have had a least the same capability as the terrorist. I thought you liberals were all about equality and creating a level playing field. You gave one an advantage over many others. Why do you promote policies that go against one of your stronger beliefs? All things being equal, I mean. Seems to me you actually promote inequality.

Then I have to say that the Dim-wits, Nit-wits and Half-wits can only be in government if people of the same caliber continually elect and re-elect them. The only way we have half-baked ideas for laws is that people elect people who hatch half-baked laws. You reap what you sow. You elect stupid you get stupid.

Then there is this, incompetence and ignorance runs rampant through society. Read on Free Republic today where the Southern Baptist Convention(SBC)has banned the display of the Confederate Flag in SBC churches. So let me address this real quick while on the subject of Dim-wits, Nit-wits, half-wits, Witless and Half baked. The Southern Baptist Church I attend does not display the Confederate Flag on the grounds or in the Sanctuary, there are however on display in the Sanctuary the Christian Flag and the U.S. Flags. Were you referring to the Stars and Bars(the Flag of The Confederacy, The Confederate States of America) or the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia? Just asking. Since when did political correctness enter the Sanctuary? If you are by decree banning the flag that may or may not be displayed in a Southern Baptist Church because someone may be offended, when will you deny Christianity because someone may be offended?

Advertisements

A Little Common Sense Would be In Order Part 3 The United Nations and World Opinion

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. They go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.
This post applies to our “distinguished” elected representatives(past and present), their merry band of minions(past and present), the liberals, the progressives, those masquerading as conservatives(past and present)and the MSM.

First and foremost America, itself, is not responsible for, nor can America itself be blamed for the drama, chaos and crises around the globe. The problems, turmoil and crises around the world are caused by world leaders, more correctly national leaders who view themselves as world leaders. The United Nations shares in the responsibility and blame for world problems, turmoil and crises, as does it’s predecessor The League of Nations. Why, you ask? The answer is really quite simple with the advent of these two world bodies the nations, sovereign nations, began to adjust policy, domestic as well as foreign. Some nations, America in particular, began a policy of caving into or adjusting to meet world opinion. Suddenly it became necessary for the world to view America in a “favorable light”. Conforming to world opinion became more important to the politicians than doing what was and is right for America and the legal lawful citizens.

The League of Nations came into existence after WWI and went “dormant” at the outbreak of WWII. The United Nations came into existence after WWII and lasts to this day. One thing both of these “world bodies’ have in common is that they were both dreams of the Liberals. Was it world opinion that caused America to enter WWII? No, it was brought about by an attack on Pearl Harbor. During WWII, America built alliances with nations to defeat the Axis Powers world opinion did not matter defeating the enemy is what mattered. If world opinion had mattered America would probably have never sided with or given aid to Stalin or Russia. Could this be the reason The U.S. and Russia who have a common enemy ISIL/ISIS/IS do not join together to fight the terrorists as a team? Both countries have a common enemy, but world opinion gets in the way. Russia is assisting one whom the world looks at unfavorably, Assad in Syria, while America wants a favorable world opinion. It seems that keeping a favorable world opinion is more important than defeating ISIL/ISIS/IS. America no longer builds alliances, instead America forms “coalitions”. It seems that only a “coalition” will satisfy the need to have a favorable “world opinion”. There was a time when America cared more about doing what was right and less about world opinion. There was a time when and where America went off to war to right a wrong, or help a nation that was under attack, now America goes off to war based on world opinion and takes sides based on the same world opinion. I ask you this which is better, a coalition acting on world opinion, or allies joining forces to do what is right?

“Common Sense” and logic would say that it is far past the time to disband the United Nations, and let it go down as yet another failed liberal attempt at what ever it was they envisioned. The money being wasted on that “distinguished” world body could be better used here in America. The giving of money to foreign entities such as the Palestinian Authority is based on what? Is it the right thing to do? Or is it to influence world opinion? The same goes for the billions upon billions of dollars to foreign nations. Here are some fitting questions. How much of the over 18 trillion dollars of the debt of the United States of America is because of the monies given to foreign governments? Does The American government borrow money to give away? Why is it that The government of the United States of America gives to money to governments who only wish to do America harm and seek to destroy America? Is this an attempt to buy a favorable world opinion? How much of the annual budget of the United Nations comes straight from The U.S.A.? Tomorrow is United Nations Day, there will most likely be some sort of gala or event to commemorate this “notable” event, how much will that cost?

Think on this, The U.S.A. as well as many other “advanced” nations around the world pour countless billions into the money pit that is the U.N. each and every year, this is done for what reason? Is it for the U.N. to promote “peace, well-being, harmony and equality” around the world? If this is the reason and the case, then I have some bad news for them, the U.N. has failed in all four areas. Equality could quite possibly be achieved one day, but it will not be the equality they envisioned.

Is it really all that important to conform to “world opinion” and become a part of the “world community” if in the process of conforming to the world that a sovereign nation looses its national identity to the point that the nation no longer places itself and its citizens first? To truly help another you must first take care of yourself. It really is time for the United Nations to go the way of The League of Nations and just cease to exist, go away quietly without even a whimper.

With that being said, there is nothing wrong with helping those who are in need, really in need. But it should be up to the nations of the world to choose who or what they will or will not help. It should be based on what is right and not based on world opinion. There was a time when American national leaders knew what was right, regardless of world opinion. For example is it right to support those who are determined to destroy another? Through the U.N., America supports those who would destroy our friends and also those who would destroy the U.S.A., that makes no sense common or otherwise.

A Little Common Sense Would Be In Order. Part 2 Israel and the Palestinians

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. Their actions go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.
This post applies to our “distinguished” elected representatives and their merry band of minions.

On Exercising Restraint. I am getting mighty tired of Israel being told to exercise restraint when it comes to dealing with Terrorists, and especially the Palestinians. Israeli PM Netanyahu, the IDF and the Israelis in general have exercised extreme and remarkable restraint in the latest attacks by the Palestinian terrorists. It is by contrast that the Palestinians have exercised the total lack of restraint. The latest from the State Department is for both sides to exercise restraint. The current Administration and its merry band of minions in the State Department along with the MSM make it seem that the ratio of dead Israeli victims and dead Palestinian terrorists are disproportionate. What are they looking for a game of tit-for tat, one for one? Would they all rather that Israel wait for the number of Israeli killed by terrorists rise to the number of dead terrorists before more can be killed and then only in matching numbers? Excessive force and disproportionate numbers of dead are the constant talking points of the administration and the MSM.

While the current Administration and its merry band of minions call for both sides to exercise restraint, none of them demand that the Palestinians stop the attacks. This is by far the most telling of who the Administration supports. The Administration could use financial sanctions against the Palestinians by withholding funds to the Palestinian Authority until the attacks stop. But they have not taken this route nor will they. The citizens of our closest ally and friend in the Middle-East are being brutally and viciously attacked and the Administration keeps sending money to the ones doing the attacking. Go figure.

I wonder if the Administration would slap sanctions on Israel, if Israelis were the aggressors. I bet they would. I also wonder how much restraint BHO and his minions would demonstrate here in America if the situation were reversed. If the attackers were Muslims on Jews or Christians, would it be restraint or action? If the attackers were Jews or Christians on Muslims, would it be restraint or action? Think about it.

It makes no sense common or otherwise to demand restraint from the ones being victimized. It also makes no sense common or otherwise not to demand the attackers cease and desist. It does make sense common and otherwise to force and use force to stop the attack even if it seems excessive. If the attack is vicious and brutal the response must be overwhelming and not a weak or half-hearted response.

Israel lives in a rough neighborhood and each day is a fight for survival. The citizens of Israel and indeed Israel itself have a right to self-defense. The Administration and the merry band of minions, or at least most of them, have only “fought for survival” during the “Black Friday” sales.

Common sense and indeed logic would dictate that if you are under attack you should respond with even more determination than the attacker. Furthermore the attacker showed no restraint in his or her actions and the intended victim should show no restraint in defending themselves. There is the right to defend oneself and there is an obligation to defend others who are not capable of defending themselves. We are our brothers keeper as well as our sisters keeper. The Jews are the brothers and sisters of Christians.

A Little Common Sense Would Be In Order. Part 1 Firearms

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. Their actions go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.

On gun control, gun safety or whatever they call it now.
BHO, the Liberal Progressives and the Social Progressives somehow think it makes common sense to regulate law-abiding citizens. To them this is logical. They suggest laws and rules that serve to encumber only the law-abiding public. Rules, regulations and laws have been passed at the state and local levels that seek to limit the amount of ammunition that can be loaded in one magazine. High capacity magazines have been banned, there have been attempts to ban certain types of ammunition and certain types of firearms. There have been attempts to place a special tax on firearms and ammunition. There have been attempts to ban the sale of firearms between citizens unless there is a firearms dealer involved along with the appropriate government paperwork. These and all the other what you call “common sense” proposals, only serve to place an undue burden on the good and decent law-abiding citizens while not causing a drop of inconvenience on the criminal element.
Conservative “common sense” and logic should and would dictate that the good and decent law-abiding public not be deprived of a single thing that would or could quite possibly enhance their safety in an unsafe world. No person should have to prove or show need a need if he or she wants a high-capacity magazine, or a certain type of firearm, the same as no person should prove or show need when buying a house or a car. Free trade, sales and bartering, between good and decent law-abiding citizens concerning firearms should not be impeded anymore than the sale of homes and cars between citizens. If it is crime you wish to lessen then pass and enforce laws that affect the criminal element and none that impede the good and decent law-abiding citizen.

Perhaps, it is time for the Liberal Progressives, Social Progressives, BHO and the entire Democratic Party to come forward and tell the good and decent law-abiding public of America what it is that they truly want, seek and desire. Gun Control is not your final objective, it is but a “bench-mark” on your way to your final objective.

Here is what I think, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Your final and ultimate objective is a totally disarmed population. Let me correct that, Your final and ultimate objective is a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding population. The criminal element of the population will not be disarmed.

If it is true, and I suspect that it is, your final and ultimate objective is a totally unarmed good and decent law-abiding population you must have some sort of plan in place to achieve it. There must be other bench-marks along the way, that is unless you are brave enough to just outlaw private ownership of firearms. You did nothing to further your agenda when you had complete and total control of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, and the Presidency. I suspect you did nothing because you did not have control of the Judicial branch at that time. The Judicial Branch would have most likely “struck-down” any law that infringed on the Second Amendment, if that happened you would have been exposed for what you really are. That would have ended the progressive movement, you were not willing to run that risk.

What you would gain from a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding population would be a population totally dependent on government for their safety. Without a definitive means of self-defense, one that was at least equal and perhaps superior to that of the criminals, they would have to call on the government to provide for them what they at one time could provide for themselves. You would also gain a totally compliant population, but only to the extent of a good and decent law-abiding population.

What the criminals would gain from a totally disarmed good and decent law-abiding public would be many more victims. Victims with no means to defend themselves.

What the good and decent law-abiding public would lose by being totally disarmed, everything.

You will not admit that the “Gun Free Zones” are a total and abject failure. What do you do? You only try to make more and more gun free zones. Gun free zones have not, nor will they ever provide for safety. They only provide victims. If you get your wish and make the whole of America a gun free zone, America will become a nation of victims from coast to coast and from border to border. They will be victims of either the criminals or the government.

This is why I say your “common sense” gun control measures and gun laws make no sense, common or otherwise.
There are only two segments of the American population The Good and Decent Law-Abiding Citizens and The Criminal Element, if the politicians are counted they are either a third segment or will fit into one of the first two groups. No the politicians are a separate segment, they could and should be considered the third segment. You should be focusing your laws on the second element, but instead you focus of the first. You appear to have failed in eliminating the criminal element, to make-up for your failures in eliminating the criminals you seek to eliminate the good and decent law-abiding population. You take out your wrath on the good and decent law-abiding population. What ever the politicians do to the first segment will not apply to them as most act as if they are above the law anyway. Your gun control measures will apply to only the good and decent law-abiding population, you will keep for yourself what you would deny others and the criminal element does not care about your laws.

Maybe you should read the writings of Thomas Paine, Common Sense and The American Crisis. You already have the Good and Decent Law-Abiding public behind you, yet you seek to punish them.

Just saying

Decisions and action may have immediate benefits, but it does have consequences and there are almost always unintended consequences.

Let’s take same-sex marriage. The SCOTUS just up and decided to make a Constitutional issue out of an issue that was not a Constitutional matter. Marriage is based on religion. One could say that the SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the Constitution on all matters constitutional. But leaving that aside, if marriage at least in their eyes and opinion has become a Constitutional issue what about divorce. Is divorce now also a Constitutional issue?
Let’s face it some marriages do end in divorce, some of which turn into bitter court battles. Marriages end in divorce for many reasons infidelity, financial reasons and so many more. But above all Marriage is the leading cause of Divorce.
I can’t wait to hear about these same-sex marriages ending up in divorce court. Some people spend thousands of dollars or even tens of thousands of dollars to get married and much more is spent terminating the marriage. Lawyer fees, court costs and the like. How will the judge decide who pays child support or alimony? As to the matter of alimony in traditional marriage that was pretty easy. As to child support, unless the same-sex couple adopted a child one of them came into the marriage with children. Really I can hardly wait. Will the judge make one pay for the others child or will the judge say the child is your responsibility. Oh, the possibilities. Same-sex divorce could even spawn a new reality show.
Who knows the SCOTUS may have just taken an action that would turn the economy around, lord knows the administration has not. Lawyers will certainly benefit. Revenue will increase in the issuance of marriage licenses, government profits.

We now have this from the administration and the DOD, we are warned to avoid large gatherings this Independence Day, now referred to as the 4th of July. If the threats are credible why not just cancel the events? The events are not cancelled, but mass attendance is discouraged. Why? Could this be a further attempt to chip away at the foundation of America?

I was just wondering if there are any Gay Pride events scheduled, after all they just got the right to get hitched. If there are, was mass attendance discouraged?

Will BHO be American proud and illuminate the White House Red, White and Blue for Independence Day?

BHO and his administration still negotiate with countries where homosexuality is punishable by death, yet lit up the White House in gay pride colors. The other side of this equation is that those who execute homosexuals are willing to negotiate with BHO after his open support of homosexuality. Some people in government have no morals or principles.

To what ends?

It has been said that “the ends justify the means”. There was also a statement to the effect of “fundamentally changing America”, which should have been to the effect of “radically changing America”. America has certainly been “fundamentally changed” by “radicals” in government, from the executive branch to the judicial branch including the legislative branch. The legislative branch has willingly abdicated its powers and responsibilities to the executive branch and in some instances to the judicial branch. The judicial branch has usurped powers from the states and nullified the voices(votes) of the people. The executive branch, well.

The SCOTUS has usurped the power and assumed authority to legalize same-sex marriages in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Regardless of state laws and without regard to the will of the people. The judicial branch has apparently assumed the role of legislating from the bench. Apparently the States have no rights and the people have no say.

Same-sex marriage was a “social issue”, and what was once a social issue was taken up by the courts and is now law. There are dangers when social issues are taken up by the courts, and especially dangerous when they become law. They are enacted without the legislative process. There was no bill from congress, passed by congress then sent to the president for signature that would allow same-sex marriage throughout the land. Ask yourself why? The answer is this, the politicians would have committed political suicide if they passed such a bill. They relied on the courts to decide that one, again abdicating their powers and responsibilities. Much the same way they decided to “deal with Obamacare”, they let the courts decide that one too.

Breaking down the saying “the ends justify the means”. The “ends” refers to the finishing of or arriving at the goal. The means refers to the route taken or the object or method used.

Now that the SCOTUS has legalized same-sex marriages, all the same-sex couple has to do is to pay a fee to obtain a marriage license and find a place to “tie the knot”. There are many options available but I will only discuss three.
1. Go to the Justice of the Peace. This avenue will garner a few but it does not make a “statement”.
2. Go to a Mosque. This avenue will garner none, in the muslim world homosexuality is punishable by death. No Iman will perform a wedding ceremony for homosexuals and no one will force a muslim to perform the ceremony. Political Correctness, you know, fear of offending the muslims. Homosexuality is against their religion.
3. Go to a Christian Church. This avenue will garner the most activity. Why you ask? Because it makes a “statement”. The homosexual community will go to a Christian Church and demand to be married in the church, knowing it is against their religion. The government will step in and force the church to perform the ceremony. There is no fear of offending a Christian. Besides the government has the power through the IRS to cause financial hardships on the Church by revoking the tax exempt status.

So, with the above in mind consider this. If the “ends” were to destroy Christianity in America the “means” to do so is legalizing same-sex marriages. If a Pastor of a local Church is approached to perform a same-sex marriage he has two choices.
1. Deny the request only to be forced by the government to do so.
2. Perform the ceremony, which violates the basic tenants on which Christianity is founded, marriage is between a man and a woman. If the Pastor performs the ceremony the people who attend church will leave the church as the basic tenants of Christianity are no longer followed by the Church. Darned if you do, darned if you don’t. No way to win. How many Churches will remain if no one attends? NONE.

The Church could voluntarily give up the tax exempt status and avoid pressure by the IRS. But you still have the DOJ to contend with, namely in the form of the civil rights division. Legalizing same-sex marriages has by default made it a right, a civil right, and we know how the current administration views denying someone their civil rights. The LBGT community probably has their own version of the reverend waiting in the shadows ready to visit at a moments notice.

The above references to the Christian Church refer only to the physical building, not the religion or to the real “church”. The building is only a place to gather for worship and fellowship. The Pastor is the leader, the authority figure. If the Pastor is ill or cannot make it to “Church” there is another who can lead the service. The Christian religion lives in the heart of the Christian. The Church is the Christian.

The legalizing of same-sex marriage will not destroy Christianity in America. It may cause “Churches”(buildings) to close, but the Religion and the real Church(the Christian) will endure and flourish. It may even cause Christianity to go “underground” for a time. Christians may be persecuted, but that is nothing new. Neither one is.

Legalizing same-sex marriages was just another vain attempt by man to think he knows better than God. We as man are but ashes and dust temporarily inhabiting a body, and to ashes and dust we shall return when our time on earth is finished. God has always been and will always be.

The attempt to destroy Christianity in America may just be a point along the way to the ultimate “ends” the total and utter destruction of America itself. Most houses undergo destruction or demolition from the roof down. Even though the house is destroyed the foundation remains. A new house can be built on the existing foundation, providing the foundation was strong enough to withstand the demolition of the house. To erase all signs of the original house the foundation must also be destroyed.

The United States was built on a strong and solid foundation. The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that is our foundation. The founding documents make a reference to the Creator of the Universe. There is also reference to the Laws of Nature and of nature’s God. There is also a reference to being endowed by their Creator.

Christianity has long been under attack and assault by the liberal progressives. Not just Christianity it is the symbols of the Christian religion. What the liberal progressives and at times the SCOTUS are engaged in is the chipping away at the foundation of the house in an attempt to bring down the house and remove all signs that it once existed. The House that was and is America. There is a more powerful force in this universe than the liberal progressives. You have weakened the house but the house still stands.

Two passages came to mind when I heard the decision by the SCOTUS.
1. Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do. Then I thought, yes they do they are vain and stupid.
2. Jesus wept. Then I thought He probably did.

Coexistence part 2 Guns

Can the people who are pro-gun and the people who are anti-gun coexist? The answer is YES. People “coexist” each and every day with differing points of view. The reason they can do this is because they make a choice to exercise their right to own a gun or not.
as for me, I am in the pro-gun “camp”. Owning and carrying concealed weapons is my right and I choose to exercise that right. There is however a high level of responsibility that accompanies the exercise of this right as with exercising any right. A responsibility that I willingly accept.

My responsibilities as a gun owner and a concealed weapons permit holder.
I am responsible to know and understand my weapon its capabilities as well as its limitations. Not only must I know my firearm, I must know the ammunition that is associated with a particular firearm.
I am responsible to secure my weapon and ammunition to prevent unauthorized use. I would do this even if there was no law, much the same as I would never drink from a toilet. Just like the law making a person secure weapons and ammunition, someone somewhere thought it was a good idea to post a sign behind a toilet telling the user it was unsafe to drink.
I am responsible to know and understand firearms safety and how to safely handle a firearm.
I am responsible to know and understand the laws of my state concerning firearms and concealed carry.
When traveling I am responsible to know the laws of the states concerning firearms and concealed carry that I will or could possibly travel through as well as the laws concerning firearms and concealed carry of the state that I intended to visit for a spell. In some cases it gets even more involved than that, sometimes the local laws must be known and understood.
My list of responsibilities goes on and own, if you have got the picture by now you are definitely not in the same camp I am in, you are in the anti-gun camp.

Do those in the anti-gun camp have responsibilities? Yes, they do. As a matter of fact those in the anti-gun camp have many of the same responsibilities as those in the pro-gun camp, though hey do differ from the above list. The first and foremost is the protection, safety and well-being of yourself and your family, and this list goes on and on.

As to the matter of self-defense, just because a person is anti-gun does not necessarily mean that they are against self-defense. They may just choose to defend themselves when required to do so in a different manner. Whether it be a knife, a bat, a stick or just calling for help from someone with a gun.

There are many reasons that could land a person in the anti-gun camp, religious reasons, strong moral convictions and again the list could be long. Below are just some of my own observations.
One thing that I have noticed for so many in the anti-gun camp is that some people have a fear and/or misunderstanding of firearms. This instance of fear was addressed in a previous post, titled The problem is the reason. Another reason is the total lack of respect of a firearm. Education is another reason, it seems that “fear” in the main educating point concerning firearms by the anti-gun culture, teaching about firearms was also addressed in a previous post, titled Teach them young teach them correctly. Another reason is the lack of exposure. How many in the anti-gun camp have ever been to a public firing range? The answer is relatively few.

To make an informed statement about firearms or any other subject it is my opinion that one must educate themselves and not rely on others who are just speaking to be heard. You know, the ones who do not even have a proper understanding of the subject and use data skewered towards their position whether the data is true or not, most often not. The truth matters not to these people, just the furtherance of their agenda.

After you have educated yourself and have had at least some exposure you can make an informed statement and possibly argue your point based on fact not propaganda. If after education and exposure you still remain in the anti-gun camp I will support your choice and decision, even though I disagree.
But, if you refuse to educate yourself or even be exposed to firearms, religious and moral convictions excluded, then you are not in the anti-gun camp, you are in the gun-control camp and you will be addressed shortly.

Do I believe that everyone should own a firearm? Absolutely not, there are some who should never be trusted to have a firearm and there are those who have lost that right by engaging in criminal activity. Much the same as there are some politicians holding a Constitutional office that should never be trusted to hold office any office especially if it gives or bestows upon them power over another.

Now to address the most heinous group of all, those in the gun control camp. I call you the most heinous group for this, you are not about gun-control you are about rights control and deprivation. You seek to use the power and force of government to deny or deprive me my right to own firearms. You use each tragic event where a firearm was used to further restrict my rights concerning firearms, and you have a powerful ally in the media. You report on tragedy but fail to report the lawful use of firearms to protect life and limb. You focus on criminal activity and neglect lawful activity. You are fools if you think you can reduce the swords into plowshares and still exist. Two quick points for you.
First, it was men using firearms that won America’s independence from a tyrannical king. If it were not for the use of firearms to gain independence, America would still be under the control of the British Throne. Is that where you would be? Living under tyranny. The King of England sought to keep America subjugated with firearms. The Colonials used firearms to win Independence.
Second, it was Americans that used firearms to save the world in two World Wars. Tyrants and Dictators sought to overrun and rule the world using firearms. The good and righteous saved the world using firearms.

Now, you in the anti-gun and gun-control camps think that I have just made your case for you and will attempt to use my words against me. You are wrong and nothing could be farther from the truth. I have instead made my point and case for owning firearms clearer.
Think on this. Prior to the advent of firearms Kings and other evil tyrants used any means and weapons available to subjugate other countries and indeed their populations, whether it was the jaw bone of an ass or a rock. Good and righteous men using the same weapons freed themselves from tyranny and oppression.

Firearms are not the problem. The problem is evil and tyranny. As long as there is evil and tyranny in the world, and it has existed since Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden of Eden. Good and righteous men and women will use the same weapons to defend themselves and to throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression as the tyrants of the world use to place them under tyranny and oppression. The evil tyrants use at this moment firearms in an attempt to place the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the necks of entire countries and the populations, some times even entire continents. The good and righteous at this moment will use firearms to prevent the placement of the yoke around their necks and in some cases to remove the same yoke.

For those not in the pro-gun camp think on this. It was the good and righteous through the use of firearms that made it possible for you to say and in some cases do or attempt to do stupid things.

There are only two ways to bring people to agree with your opinion or position, Reason and Force.
To the anti-gun camp I will attempt to get you to remove your tent from the campground you presently occupy and place it in the pro-gun camp. But the difference is that I will only attempt to use reason, never force. If I am unsuccessful in my attempt to convince you to move to my camp through reason you should remain in your camp if you remain anti-gun. If you are only anti-gun and remain as such but do not seek to limit the rights of others you are welcome to move to the pro-gun camp, because it is about more than being pro-gun it is about the preservation of rights. All of them. But if you are really gun-control which equates to rights control or elimination you should really be in the gun-control campground, where you belong.
To the gun-control camp, come out of the closet and state you true intention, which is to attempt to restrict or eliminate my rights. I see you for what you really are, you may as well admit it. You failed to bring me to you camp through reason, now you attempt to use the force of government to make me move. You will use government in an attempt to deny me the right self-defense.

Can the pro-gun camps and the gun-control camps coexist? Absolutely not, in my opinion. I am about freedom and liberty and the freedom to exercise my rights. They in my opinion are about tyranny and oppression by limiting or eliminating rights.

Do you really think that you still have the bill of rights or any rights at all because the government has your best interests at heart?

Look at other countries around the world, I mean really look with your eyes open. Take special note of the countries who deny the population a means to defend themselves, if it is not the government it is the terrorists who have placed the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the necks of the population. At present they have no recourse but to wear the yoke. But soon some brave soul may find and take up the jawbone of an ass or a rock and begin the process of removing the yoke. But how many will die before the same weapons that were used to place the yoke are used to remove the yoke.

Are you really sure that you only want to trust the government with weapons?