What do they have in common?

Red Flag Laws and the current Impeachment Inquiry, what do they have in common? Some would say secrecy and no due process.

Secrecy.

There really is and was no secrecy in the impeachment inquiry unless you count the fact that it began behind closed doors. Even with that the “witnesses” were paraded about in the open. The media seemed to know what they would or might say even before the opening statements were made or questions were asked. Seems like some testimony may have “leaked” out.

It was no secret that the House had launched an impeachment inquiry. It is no secret as to who have been called to testify. Now the impeachment inquiry has moved to the public phase. The whole spectacle is televised and broken up into videos and recordings are made and broken up into soundbites with those on both sides playing the snippets or soundbites that aid their side. The media is right there to tell the public all they “need” to know, “unbiased” of course.

Are red flag cases handled in the same manner? I kind of suspect that the whole process is conducted in secrecy. Witnesses are not paraded about in public. What happens there does not leak out.

The President knew this was coming, it has been in the forefront since the democrats took control of the House. He also knew who testified and knows who will testify. He can watch the spectacle or have others watch it and brief him on what was said or just catch the snippets and sound bites.

Does the person in a red flag case have any idea what is coming his or her way? Can that person watch the proceedings or have others watch it for him or her? Are there any snippets or soundbites? I kind of suspect that the person has no idea what is coming.

Due process.

Is the President right now at this moment getting due process at this stage of the impeachment inquiry? Yes and no.
He does not have his attorney representing him or his interests at the moment, that covers the no part.
He does, however, have the republican members of the House asking questions of the witnesses and there is a staff lawyer, that covers the yes part.

Does the person caught up in a red flag case get due process? The answer is no. He or she is not present at the proceedings, nor is there an attorney present to represent to him or her. In fact only the opposition is present, kind of a one sided trial. The Judge makes the final decision.

While this inquiry is going on the President and his team are preparing themselves.

The person in the red flag case has no way of preparing.

Now moving along to the outcome.
If the House decides to not proceed, that will be televised. The same will be true if the House brings the articles of impeachment up for a vote. The same will be true if the House passes the articles of impeachment and sends them forward to the Senate. The President will immediately know.

The person caught up in a red flag case will only know if the Judge issues an order to seize the persons firearms, and will know very soon. Most likely at a most inconvenient time. If the Judge is not convinced and does not issue the order the person will never know. If the Judge does issue the order, the firearms are seized. He or she gets due process after not before. The person then must go to court in an effort to get his property back. Failing to convince the Judge that he is or she is not a danger to themselves or others will mean that the person will never get their property back, never. By the way the person just lost his or her Second Amendment rights, even though they never committed a crime or had any intention to do so.

By now some of you may be wondering just why I am writing this. Glad you asked.

If you go back to last February and check you will find the President making these two statements or proposals among others.
First. In reference to the school shooting at Parkland and the perpetrator and his interactions with law-enforcement and the perpetrators firearms “Take them away if you have the right or not”.
Second. “Take the guns first then due process”.

So you will pardon me if I do not shed a tear for someone complaining about not getting due process when just last February he was proposing doing away with due process for all legal and lawful gun owners.

They have nothing in common, but they would have something in common if.

Now I could see complaining about no due process if the House held all the hearings in secrecy. Passed the articles in secrecy and passed those articles to the Senate. The Senate did their part in absolute secrecy and convicted the President in secrecy and removed the President. No due process at all. Now the President would have to present himself and plead his case to be restored as President. By the way, he would be pleading to be restored to the same people that had just kicked him out in secrecy. I know that the Office of the President is not anyone’s property, this is just to illustrate a danger of red flag laws.

Is the President going to get a fair shake? I would have to say, NO! Especially when one member of Congress said shortly after getting elected “Now we impeach the mother****er”. How do you think she would vote regardless of the evidence. Not when so many in Congress have already made up their minds and there minds will not be changed regardless of the evidence or the lack of evidence. Not when the media has already convicted him and is doing it’s best to convict him in the court of public opinion.

What if? Part 2

Some talking-heads and pundits on the right are spending a lot of time, energy and ink discussing the possibility of a civil war happening in America and what would be the cause or causes. They seem to think there would be two triggering events. This post will cover the second cause they addressed. It will be based around and about the second amendment.

The major topic today is the banning of so-called assault weapons(ARs, AKs and their variants). Unlike the assault weapons ban of 1994 which grandfathered those firearms already in possession, the new ban would also include those already in possession. The schemes run the entire gambit from a mandatory buy-back to licensing and registration and each democrat candidate in the primaries has a plan.

The lawful gun owners are not the problem. The lawful gun owners in the States that have enacted the most onerous gun control laws have not violently descended on their State Capitols. I have heard of no lawful gun owners resorting to violence when a fellow lawful gun owner has fallen a victim to a red flag law.

As a matter of fact, the lawful gun owners have not caused a problem at the State or Federal level, save for a few misguided individuals in some sort of attempt to make a statement or show support for the Second Amendment. We too have some idiots.

Here is the reason I do not think the lawful gun owners will be the instigators of a civil war. You only have to read this in the Declaration of Independence.
… Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light or transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. …
It would appear that the lawful gun owners are the descendants of some very wise men. The lawful gun owners wait for the next election and hope and pray that wiser choices are made in electing those that would govern.

I again believe the talking-heads and pundits spouting off about a civil war coming about by the right have it exactly backwards.

What if gun control does not become a reality for the left?

If you have read part one you know where I am headed.

If a civil war were break out it would be because the President is not impeached and gun control, the most onerous gun control, measures are not put into law. In that instance the pundits and talking-heads could be correct it would be about impeachment and the Second Amendment?

The end of this post is by no means the end of this series, how ever the title will change.

What if? Part 1

Some talking-heads and pundits on the right are spending a lot of time, energy and ink discussing the possibility of a civil war happening in America and what would be the cause or causes. They seem to think there would be two triggering events. One of the reasons would be the impeachment of the president. I suppose by impeachment they mean a guilty finding and removal from office.

The democrats and their allies in the media have been beating the impeachment drum for a considerable length of time. Some have been beating this drum since election night 2016. The democrat leadership would not venture into these waters until public opinion showed support for impeachment. According to the polls the pendulum swung in favor of impeachment. We now have an impeachment inquiry in the House. A word about polls and polling data. I fail to understand why politicians from either party still trust and rely on polls, given that most all polls had the democrat nominee handily winning the 2016 presidential election. Yet they still site poll results.

The democrats in Congress have pretty much painted themselves into a corner over impeachment of the President. Even if they at some point conclude that they have made a poor choice there is no way they can not bring the articles of impeachment and still manage to save face. They have already crossed the Rubicon on this.

At this point most on the right think and indeed believe that there is no way the Senate will vote to remove the President. You will notice that I said most on the right. I personally do not place that much confidence or trust in the republicans in the Senate. More than one of them wanted to be President and some may be harboring a grudge, after all some unkind words were exchanged during the republican primaries and since. Jealousy and revenge have driven many to extremes.

There is also this to note. The democrat leadership in the House did not go forward until the polls had shown that the pendulum had swung in favor of impeachment. Why the wait? Some democrats believe they already have enough evidence to have the vote. The word ironclad came up the other day, the House would not proceed until there was an ironclad case. So I pulled out Webster’s and looked up the word ironclad, having no obvious weakness. I think they now wait for enough republican support in the Senate to remove the President, there may also be one or two democrat hold-outs.

Let’s say the House charges and the Senate convicts. The President is removed. Will this trigger the civil war predicted by the talking-heads and pundits? Think about it. How often and how many times have the republicans in Congress(House and Senate)disappointed the voters? A provision in the Constitution would have been followed. I do not think this would trigger a civil war, however some isolated violence could possibly break out. It would however guarantee one thing, there would never be another republican elected to a national office, which would lead to total democrat control which would lead to a socialist state.

What if the talking-heads and pundits from the first paragraph have it exactly backwards? Would the President not being impeached lead to civil war, started by the left.

Let’s say that the House, for whatever reason, does not introduce and vote on the articles of impeachment. Many if not most on the left fully expect the House to follow through on impeachment. They will at the very minimum be severely ticked off if the democrat controlled House fails them. How will they react?

The House could charge and the Senate could acquit. Again the leftists will be mightily ticked. How will the leftists react?

It was not the right that were rioting, burning and breaking things. From what I have seen the right, with very few exceptions, has been remarkably restrained for years. The left not so much.

At any rate I am glad I am not in a planning and operations section in any government agency. They should be already deep in the planning of a response.

The high cost of things labeled as free

I am quite sure that by now everyone has heard the old adage “There is no such thing as a free puppy”. The puppy may have been given to you for free, however now you must pay for the upkeep vet bills, food and so forth. Pretty soon you will realize that that free puppy was not free after all, it will cost you something.

All free things come with a cost. That “free” college education the politicians are promising you will come at a cost, someone is going to have to pay for your free college. The same goes for the other promises of free stuff, someone will have to pay the price.

Some things labeled as Free come with a terrible cost. Those brave men that fought for the Freedom of this nation paid a cost, some paid the ultimate cost. The women suffered as well.

There is another thing labeled as “free” that comes with a terrible cost. Think about the terrible cost and the high price paid for having “gun free zones”. Politicians created the gun free zones.

With all of the laws on the books why hasn’t Congress declared this land to be a “crime free zone”?

Even being a free nation comes at a cost and that cost is vigilance.

By choice or force?

The leftists are going all out with their plan to disarm the peaceful law-abiding citizens of this Republic. Quite sure by now everyone, not living under a rock, has seen the clip of the 2020 presidential hopeful saying “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47”. Some in his political party have tried to distance themselves from his statement. I do have to wonder if it is the message they are against or the delivery. Did he say openly what most leftists talk/dream about privately? They might not be able to get the toothpaste back in the tube.

When he used the word “We” he meant the government. So what he actually said was, “Hell yes, the government is going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

The following comes from the Patrick Henry speech “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” 23March1775.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.

The following excerpt comes from The Declaration of Arms also known as the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, 06July1775
The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the General, their Governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants, having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire to leave their most valuable effects behind.

There is something to note from the excerpt above The word arms is used twice, the word muskets is nowhere to be found.

The citizens of Boston trusted that the General, their Governor, would honor his word(treaty). They were sadly mistaken. Once disarmed they had no means to resist what was coming.

They could have, I suppose, asked or even begged for the return of their arms so they could defend themselves or at least force the General, their Governor, to honor his word. Do you think that a population that had been disarmed would be rearmed?

What happened in Boston that day in April 1775 was perhaps the first recorded example of a voluntary buy-back scheme. The price the government would pay for the voluntary surrender of arms by the citizens was the freedom to depart Boston and with them take the remainder of their possessions.

They traded one thing to gain another and wound up with neither and nothing. Seems like Benjamin Franklin had a quote on that matter. He had another, “Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you”.

There was a quote attributed to Edmond Burke, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it”(the word doomed is sometimes used in place of destined). There is another old adage that fits, “History is a guide post not a hitching post”. History is chock full of examples of what has happened in countries where and when the population, the peaceful law-abiding population, is disarmed. Roundups and exterminations.

It was once said that one man with a gun can control one hundred without guns. If that is true then you just have to do simple math to figure out where this leads, if one can control one hundred, than ten can control a thousand, one hundred can control ten thousand and so on.

The gun control debate is just a part of the overall control issue. Gun control is not about the elimination of arms, it is about controlling who is armed.

Some in government and some wanting to be in government are more than willing to use the force of government to disarm the peaceful law-abiding citizens. Some politicians, the various gun control groups and their allies in the media tell us how much safer we will be if we disarm.

There are only two ways that an armed civilian population can be disarmed.
Choice.
Force.

Can peaceful law-abiding citizens(civilians)trust the government if only the government is armed.

History says no.

Lies of the left

Have you noticed how many leftists refer to the United States as a Democracy. I am going to point this out once again, not all leftists are democrats. The United States was founded as a Republic. The US has been called a Democracy so often that many believe that to be true. There is an old adage that goes something like this; Repeating a lie does not make it the truth. It has also been said that if you repeat a lie often enough people will take it for the truth.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked; What do we have? He responded; A Republic. He also added these few words as a part of that answer; If you can keep it. He answer seemed to imply that it would take some “work” to keep this a Republic and not let it become a Democracy.

At some point along the way the “ball” got dropped. The Pledge of Allegiance, is it still recited in school? The word Republic is in the pledge, the word Democracy is not. I thought I would include this video by Red Skelton.

And one by Johnny Wright.

Have we lost it? Is this Republic now on the verge of becoming a Democracy?

Republicans are going to the table with their newfound appetite

Yep, the republicans are going to the democrat gun control table with their newfound appetite for passing gun control laws. It seems odd that the republicans never ask the democrats to come to the liberty table to talk. Ever ask yourself, why? Perhaps the republicans have no appetite for liberty.

Think about it with this. Since the 2010 midterm elections the republicans were claiming to want to repeal the ACA. The electorate put the House in republican hands. They made it appear that the Senate stood in their way. The 2012 general elections came around and the electorate put the Senate in republican hands, they again made it appear that they were still trying to repeal the ACA. The White House stood in their way. the 2016 elections came around and lo and behold the electorate put the White House in republican hands. The objective suddenly changed, it now became “repeal and replace”. They could not even get that done, not enough of their own would back the republican plan. The plan I guess at that time was to repeal the democrat plan and put in place a republican plan. Either way health care would have remained under government control. The way I see it the republicans never had any intention of repealing the ACA.

Now the republicans are going to sit down at the gun control table of the democrats. The democrats will bring with them a list of demands and the republicans will bring with them a list of concessions they are willing to make in the name of cooperation and acting in a bipartisan fashion. The democrats call it negotiating, what it is, is one party making demands and the other party making concessions(appeasement). I seem to remember that was done in history with tragic results. It boiled down to one party surrendering to another party what was not his to surrender.

So what are some of the demands the democrats will be bringing to the table?
1. Bans of a certain class of firearms, reinstituting the assault weapons ban. Making it permanent this time.
2. Bans on “high capacity” magazines. No one has yet come up with the definition of a “high capacity” magazine they will come up with an arbitrary number, probably 10 rounds more or less.
3. Bans on certain types of ammunition.
4. Universal background checks. A background check required for all firearm sales, even between private citizens.
5. A national firearms registry. Registering every firearm in the country.
6. A firearms license to purchase or own firearms.
7. Some type of insurance for firearms owners.
8. A national red flag law.
9. raising the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21.
10. A gun buy back scheme.
I am sure that this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the list demands that the democrats will bring to the table.

So what are some of the concessions the republicans will bring to the table?
1. Background checks, this is a given as was said “we will have meaningful background checks”.
2. A national red flag law.
This too, most likely, is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to republican concessions as “one in the know” said, “other things are possible as long as it does not alienate too many republicans”. By that I suppose he was considering the republican senators, I do not think he was giving any consideration as to how many republican voters were alienated.

Just what is fueling this newfound republican appetite for gun control legislation?

Could it be the never ending polls? It could be, but if anyone has reason to doubt the accuracy of polls it should be the republicans. If the polls would have been accurate in 2016 HRC would be president.

It could be the State of Florida and what happened here after the shooting in Parkland. In the aftermath of Parkland the Legislature and the Governor felt that they had to do something. The legislature and the Governorship of Florida were firmly in republican hands. The legislature passed gun control legislation instituting a red flag law, raising the minimum age to buy firearms to 21 among other things. The Governor signed that legislation into law. Then came the elections of 2018. The State Legislature is still in republican hands, A republican was elected Governor. The same Governor who signed the gun control legislation into law won his election to become a US Senator, defeating an incumbent democrat. Florida was once known as a gun friendly state with the republicans in control of the state government, now Florida is known as a gun control state with republicans in control of the state government. It would appear to some that Florida took on a gun control stance and the republicans who drafted and enacted the gun control legislation did not suffer the wrath of the voters. One thing I would like to point out is that those republican victories for the Governor and US Senator came with a razor thin margin.

Then it could be that the republicans have always had an appetite for gun control. Two things probably stopped them from moving forward.
First. The wrath of the voters. They now because of the events in Florida think that it could be possible to push forward on gun control and not suffer politically.
Second. They could rely on campaign contributions and political support from gun rights groups. Now the larger of the groups is having a “bit of trouble”, the money might not flow in their direction. However there are a lot of gun control groups with a lot of money that will send political contributions to anti-gun candidates and politicians.

The democrats are right now along with some republicans planning the “menu” for the table. The table is set for September. That leaves only two questions.

How big is the republican appetite?

Who is going to pick up the check?