Just wondering

With all or most of the democrat hopefuls signing onto the green new deal, I was just wondering if they will be taking the train to their campaign events. No why not? Aint one of the plans in this farce to do away with air travel? I mean after all the leader of this environmental cult said that we only have 12 years to save the planet. We must take radical steps now or it will be too late, she says. If it was all that important they should step up now, lead by example. Oh yeah leave your car behind, as another part of this is to get cars off the road. Ride the train, when you get to a passenger terminal get off the train and walk the rest of the way to your event. Show the rest of us how much you want to commit to stop using fossil fuels.

No these people are not going to take the train, they will instead continue to use jets to continue their campaigning. Nor will they give up travel by car. No they will instead keep using fossil fuels while preaching to the rest of us we must give up the use of fossil fuels. Sort of like the last group of environmental wackos preaching to us that we were destroying the planet, while going to their environmental summits in passenger jets or in some cases private jets. Yep, they too were preaching that we have to change our habits.

If you take the White House on the promise of this green new deal will you commit right now to getting rid of the fleet of Presidential Aircraft? Will you commit right now to getting rid of all the aircraft used by diplomats, agency heads and the rest right now if you win?

I did not think so.

So just when does this 12 year doomsday clock start ticking? 2020? 2032? Maybe never? They gave up on their 10 and 5 year clocks. Back when I was in elementary school(1960’s)they said that a new ice age was coming. The new ice age never arrived.

As for this high-speed rail system, it is over a one hour drive for me just to get to the nearest Amtrak station. If I even wanted to take a train, which I do not, I would have to walk for hours if not days if I were deprived of my truck. I might also point out that much of the land here in North Central Florida and indeed this Republic is not suitable for train tracks of any type let alone high-speed rail.

So you want everybody that wants a job to have a good paying government job. Looks like your plan blasts right through socialism and goes to full-blown communism. For every one to have a government job then the government would have to control everything, the means of production all the way to the means of distribution. You also want them to be union jobs. Why union jobs? Could that be a part of you plan because you green new deal will cost a lot of union jobs? Much of the auto manufacturing industry as well as the airline industry are good union dues paying members. You still must protect the unions.

Okay so you want to save the planet. Could you please tell me what providing a free college education to all has to do with saving the planet? Like wise could you tell me what free health care(Medicare for all)has to do with saving the planet? This guaranteed wage thing needs also to be explained.

Someone once said “Green is the new Red”. Some one also said “A communist is just an impatient socialist”.

Some, if not most, on your side claim that President Trump and the GOP are out of touch with the citizens of this nation and the values of this Republic. You, I dare say, are out of touch with reality.

Again I ask this, Is it too late for a divorce.

DEO VINDICE

Advertisements

No Time

Before getting started I do sincerely hope that each and every one of you had a joyful and Merry Christmas. I also hope you found time to remember the “reason for the season” our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

On a side note I will get back to the series,How far will they go, hopefully before the democrats take control of the House.

Well here we are again, in the midst of, yet, another partial government shutdown. This one, like all of the previous shutdowns was totally preventable. All congress had to do was its job and send a budget funding the government to the president. But no, they had to drag this out again, keeping things humming along with a continuing resolution until a later date, well that later date has arrived. Seems as though they did not have enough time or they squandered the time away. One or the other happened you decide.

They, some of them(democrat and republican), had more than enough time to make total asses of themselves during the Supreme Court nominee hearings and confirmation vote.

They, all of them, had ample time to take their numerous vacations and attend their “retreats”.

They had time to “haul” individuals before their various committees to hold hearings. Did these hearings really amount to anything productive?

They had time to appear before the cameras of their favorite media outlets.

They, those who had primary challengers, had plenty of time for campaigning, meeting with their donors and holding those stupid town hall meetings.

They, those running for re-election, had plenty of time to go campaigning, meet with their donors and hold even more of those stupid town hall meetings.

Some found time to go “stumping” on the campaign trail for their preferred candidate.

More than a handful have found time to visit Iowa and New Hampshire in hopes of seeking a higher office, putting out “feelers” for possible donors and staffers.

They had plenty of time after the election to throw their victory parties and in some cases their pity parties for losing.

They had plenty of time to send billions upon billions of dollars to foreign lands funding foreign governments, yet they had no time to fully fund our government.

The new Congress will be sworn in on the 3rd of January, their re-election bid begins on the 4th of January. Who is minding the store?

In fact, they had plenty of time to do everything except to perform the job they were sent to D.C. to do.

Just how many days out of the year does congress actually spend doing the job they were sent to do? Out of those days just how many hours a day to they set about doing the needed business of this country. My guess is not many.

It should be apparent that the biggest problem is not who occupies the White House as that person is there for 8 years at the most. The biggest problem is indeed those who occupy the halls of Congress for decades or even multiples of decades.

Had Congress sent forward the spending bills, all of them, to fund the government for the full fiscal year, instead of yet another piecemeal approach we would not be at this point again. It sometimes makes me think they do this on purpose, just to play the part of the “drama queen”.

How about next time, after the dust settles, when Congress sends the government funding bills to the President to sign, he hand it right back to them unless the entire government is funded and only the government, no more playing “kick the can”. If the critters “tack on” some extras like funding for PPH, the President should ask if PPH is a part of the federal government. The same goes for subsidies to corn, sugar, electric autos and the rest, address those separately.

DEO VINDICE

How far will they go? Part one

For this part of this post I will use some parts of some historical speeches and yes I am going to cherry pick.
June 5th 1788, a speech by Patrick Henry…There are many on the other side, who, possibly may have been persuaded of the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force you are inevitably ruined… The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, if it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves are gone; and have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America….

June 7th 1788 another speech by Patrick Henry… That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages… It is on a supposition that our American Governors shall be honest, that all good qualities of this Government is founded: But its defective, and imperfect construction, puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men: And, Sir, would not all the world, from the Eastern to the Western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad. Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty? I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt….

It was not all that long ago that California Congress critter and another gentleman got into an “exchange” over a gun confiscation scheme. The congress critter implied that the people would simply obey the law, and the gentleman said there would be a civil war. I know you have heard seen or read about this, but again bear with me. The congress critter said it would be a short-lived war the U.S. has nukes. Things went wild around the internet over the implied use of nukes on Second Amendment supporters. I think the congress critters implication was that we would obey willingly or force would be used to bring us into compliance. Words have meaning and those were the words of a petty tyrant. The two things I took from the congress critters statement was:
1. The government under democrat control would contemplate or attempt a gun grabbing scheme, one like a voluntary buy-back program. Which is not meant to be voluntary by any means, you would participate(comply)or else.
2. The or else, is the use of government force and the infliction of penalties to make one wish they had “voluntarily” complied.

More recently there was yet another California congress critter that said he would like to limit speech, but the First Amendment prevented him from doing that. What he said is troubling to say the least, but I do admire his honesty. At least he did say that the Constitution did prevent him from doing this, However, I doubt seriously he would have the same mind-set about anything he could do to infringe on the Second Amendment, which is also a part of the Constitution. Again the words of a petty tyrant.

Which brings me to ask these questions. Is there a swearing-in ceremony for congress critters? If there is a swearing-in ceremony, do they swear(affirm)to protect and uphold the entire Constitution? Perhaps they only swear(affirm)to defend and uphold only the parts of the Constitution they, their party, their donors and their base supports. Perhaps they do not give a tinker’s damn about the Constitution and only mouth the words, you know with their fingers crossed.

this goes for women too, would not want to appear sexist

So why is it that this Republic is inching closer and closer to socialism? Hint, it aint changing demographics.

It was once said that if socialism/communism were ever to come to this land it would come by way of the ballot box. In this recent election how many socialists were running for office? How many socialists were elected? How many socialists were re-elected? Don’t get me wrong I do read and laugh my tail off when the memes are posted poking fun at the young woman, the self-declared democratic socialist, from New York who was elected to congress. But here is a news flash, she is going to congress where she and those like her will be legislating for the next two years, legislating over the entire country. In two more years will she and those like her be voted out of office? Will she and those like her be re-elected? Will even more like them be elected in 2020? Think about this, we will be and are paying socialists from the national treasury(tax dollars)to legislate over a free country.

The circus during and surrounding the Supreme Court Justice confirmation showed just how many clowns there are in congress. So now we are going to be governed by clowns as well as socialists. If Patrick Henry could see what our government has become, I believe he would say “I told you so”.

Not all leftists are in the democrat(socialist)party there is likely more than a handful or two in the republican party. It was once said that there is not a dimes worth of difference between a democrat and a republican when it comes to politicians. Think about this it makes news when a politician changes party affiliation and the party gaining welcomes them with open arms. If a republican switches to democrat does he/she abandon the principles they once stood for or said they stood for? The same goes for a democrat switching to a republican. Is it just a uni-party when it comes to politicians? It seems that assimilation is not a problem for a politician.

Without a doubt the democrats that will control the House of Representatives come Noon on the 3rd of January will continue to push their anti-gun agenda. They will seek to continue their push for their so-called “common sense” gun control measures. As I see it, there is with a high degree of probability that they will attach their schemes to “must pass” legislation, like funding bills. How many so-called republicans will join them, you know in a bi-partisan fashion?

I do have suspicions of any government that would want the citizenry disarmed. I also have suspicions of any government that would seek to limit(curtail)if not outright take away any of our Constitutional Rights.

So to answer the question, How far will they go? The leftists will go as far as they can possibly get away with, inching ever closer to socialism.

To answer the question, Why is this Republic inching closer to socialism. Oddly enough the answer lies in the 60’s and 70’s, possibly even before. The 60’s and 70’s did provide us with some great music. Even the protest songs of that by-gone era were and still are better than the noise they try to pass off as music these days. Still listen to and enjoy the music.

But like most things, there are two sides. The same goes for the music of the 60’s Hello Viet Nam, written by Tom T. Hall and performed by Johnny Wright. This song has some truth in the lyrics.

America has trouble to be stopped
We must stop Communism in that land
Or freedom will start slipping through our hands.

I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don’t put out will bigger burn
We must save freedom now, at any cost
Or someday, our own freedom will be lost.

I have nothing but the highest respect for all who served in Viet Nam, for each and every one of you I am forever grateful.

Back to the lyrics of Hello Viet Nam. Communism was not stopped in that land. Freedom is slipping through our hands. The world did not learn. The fires are burning bigger. Freedom was not saved. Someday our freedoms might be lost.

Back to the congress critter wanting to limit speech. Actually congress does not have to legislate laws to silence the opposition to the leftists, that messy business can be handled by the tech giants and the current gambit of social media platforms.

Back to the “exchange” concerning a civil war for just a moment. No on second thought I will save this for the next part.

DEO VINDICE

If only it were possible

This month April has much significance in American history, both good and bad. Since this is such a historical month I thought it would be fun and a learning experience to send some people back in time to relive those events. You know sort of experience history firsthand.

I think first I would like to send the leaders of the gun control cult back in time to Boston, Concord and Lexington Green on say about the 17th of April, 1775. I figure that way they would live the tense moments leading up to the events of the 19th of April, 1775 when the shot that was heard around the world was fired. Yep, they would get to see the British troops marching through the streets. They would get to see and experience firsthand what happens when a government turns on its own people. Leaving them there long enough so they would learn and then bring them back.

Then I would pack them up again and send them to Philadelphia to witness the drafting and signing of the Declaration of Independence on about the 1st of July 1776 and leave them there until the 4th. Then bring them back once again.

Next I would send them to Yorktown, VA. on say about the 16th of October, 1781. They could witness the last few days of war and on the 19th they could watch the British surrender. Here they would learn a very important lesson. They would learn that guns can be used for evil or for good. The British were using guns for evil, to force by the use of arms the colonies comply and be forever subjugated. The Colonials(Americans)were using guns for good, to gain Independence(not to be subjugated). Then again bring them back to the present.

Next I would pack them off the Philadelphia for the second time in the Spring of 1787. Then and there they could witness the Constitution the debates and perhaps gain an understanding of why a bill of rights was added, including the Second Amendment they so despise. They would also understand why the Founders and Framers had no desire to have a full-time standing army. They had not long since defeated a standing army of the Crown. An army that had turned on the citizens(subjects)of the Colonies. The King had declared the Colonies out of his protection and sent his army and army of mercenaries to force the Colonials into submission. Basically the King declared war on his own people(subjects). If the King could declared them out of his protection that would leave one to believe that they were under his protection previous to being out of his protection. They trusted him to protect them yet he offered no protection instead attacked them and their rights. Then once again bring them back to the present.

Why keep bringing them back you ask? To let them reflect of what they are attempting to do. But if they still did not understand I would pack them off one more time. This time the dead of winter, the night of December 25th and morning of December 26th, 1776. They could witness firsthand the lengths men will go to just to be free, independent and guarantee their rights, their God-given rights. Crossing the icy Delaware River at night on Christmas just to attack an enemy.

Just putting this out. Why are some Americans so concerned over the antics of the royal family? I care not that one of them has uploaded or downloaded, I care not if a royal pooch expired. My ancestors fought them and drove them out.

Just for fun I would like to go back to October the 20th 1781 and bring back a few of those brave and heroic Colonials(Americans)and let them see what has become of what they so valiantly fought for and handed down to us. I would ask them, Was it worth it and would you do it again knowing what has become of this precious gift? How would they answer?

DEO VINDICE

Taking the wrong path

It would seem that the Florida State Senate has taken up the “mantle” of Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England, the Great Appeaser. Was he not the one who said after his meeting with Hitler, “peace with honour” and “peace for our time? All he and Edouard Daladier of France had to do was grant almost all of Hitler’s demands. Czechoslovakia was to cede the Sudetenland to Germany, leaving Czechoslovakia defenseless. Then Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia.

I guess to his way of thinking it would be better to lose a part than the whole thing. The problem is that the Sudetenland was his nor Daladier’s to give away. I can just here Hitler’s reaction now to all of his demands not being met. Aw shucks, okay then I will settle for this if it is all I can get. It seems that politicians will never realize that they can not appease tyrants, they can never give them enough. Make no mistake about it the liberal leftist socialist progressives(LLSP)and their allies are no more than tyrants.

Mind you the Senate bill passed on a 20-18 vote, with 2 republicans siding with the democrats.

What is being given up.
Raising the minimum age to by rifles to 21 from 18.
Create a waiting period on the sales of weapons.

The article stated that many pro-gun rights republicans did not like the idea of raising the minimum age to by rifles or creating a waiting period on the sales of the weapons. If they did not like either of the ideas then why in the heck did they vote for the bill? The answer is quite simple. They are caught up in the “We have to do something” crap. If they dont do something the gun control crowd and the other LLSP will remind the voters that they did nothing when they had the chance come election season. Appeasing the left, attempting to negotiate with a tyrant. Sound familiar?

Does this go far enough for the democrats? Absolutely not. In the words of one democrat, No! No, I don’t. The democrat would have liked to see an assault weapons ban. The republicans believe that they have gotten somewhere. What they have done is to allow the “Camel to get its nose into the tent”. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. The democrats are expressing their own, “Aw shucks” moment. Will the democrats settle, at least for now, for what the republicans are willing to give up? Why not? The proof is in the statement made by a democrat Senator “This is the first step in saying never again”. I suppose to mean they will take more later. If the republicans were to have banned “assault weapons” the democrats would still have wanted more. If the republicans would have banned all semi-automatic long guns that still would not have been enough.

The democrat Senator stated, I can not live with a choice to put party politics above an opportunity to get something done that inches us closer to the place I believe we should be as a state. Well just where does the good Senator believe that we should be as a state? But party politics did come into play, all democrats opposed this Senate bill.

The Florida House is at this moment still “hatching” their scheme. The legislative session in Florida is scheduled to end this coming Friday, hopefully it will end before these distinguished knuckleheads can further restrict the rights of legal and lawful gun owners. But alas, they will either cobble something together at the last-minute hurriedly so they can go home, extend the legislative session or call a special session to enact gun control measures, just to appease the LLSP.

But, to be sure what ever the State of Florida does, it will pale in comparison to what the distinguished bunch in D.C. will come up with.

The proposed gun control measures and legislation at the state or federal levels have nothing at all to do with ending mass shootings or with protecting the children. If it was about protecting the children, the LLSP would oppose abortion, after all the unborn child is the most vulnerable. The students in school have been taught and therefore expect government to protect them. It was the government that let down the students at the school in Parkland. The unborn child expects his or her mother to protect them, many are unfortunately let down by their mother. More children are lost to abortion in this country than any other cause. Nobody thinks about or are reminded about the innocent lives lost to abortion because there is no memorial service, moments of silence, candle light vigils, grave or urn, they dont get one.

The LLSP here in Florida and nationwide are using the student activists as a tool and a propellant for their agenda. They will use them for all they are worth and only as long as they are useful. The student activists were expecting and now demanding that government do something to make their lives safer. They do this even though in this particular incident it was government that failed them, it stares them in the face and yet they refuse to see it. The Founders and Framers had already provided for their protection in the Constitution. The First Line of Defense was provided for by those wise men, provided for by the Militia and the Second Amendment. As others have said, “The Militia was the original homeland defense”.

The LLSP, composed of the leftists(even those who wear the mask of conservatism), their accomplices in the media, the various gun control groups and now the student activists seek and demand restrictions and bans on the law-abiding population in an effort to do what, control crime or to control the law-abiding public? Radical ideologues, each and everyone.

Some on the right say stupid things like, We have to accept things like this occurring because we live in a “Free and Open Society”. These mass shootings are not a result of living in a “free and open society”. They are instead what happens in a society that has lost its way. If these mass shootings were a result of living in a free and open society they would have always been a part of our culture. They are instead only recent additions.

The left likes to say, “These measures will not prevent such acts in the future, but if we can save just one like they will have been worth it”. They already know what they want will never work. There is no proof that the last “assault weapons” ban saved even one life, but they want to ban “assault weapons” again.

The last assault weapons ban of 1994 came with a sunset date 2004, the next one will have no such feature. It will last forever. Once they get the “assault weapons” they will come for the rest, one by one, or lump sum. Just like Hitler, he wanted it all, they gave him most, then he took the rest. He lost his ass when he got greedy, “He bit off more than he could chew” as we say down in these parts.

There is no historical proof that had Hitler not received concessions WW 2 would have never happened. There is however historical proof that even though he got his concessions WW 2 happened. Hitler, like all tyrants and dictators in history began their reigns of terror by imposing restrictions on the population. Would the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and the rest been so easy to control if they had been able to retain their arms? Would it have been as easy to get them to get in the box cars?

I say no more, no more concessions. You can not negotiate with tyrants, not even in good faith, they have no faith. They give nothing. The right seems to think they win if they only give them some of what they want and demand. One day it may come down to us only having muskets. The appeasers will say “Look at least we still have muskets and have preserved the Second Amendment”.

DEO VINDICE

Riding the wave of tragedy

It appears that the liberal leftist socialist progressives(LLSP)are going to ride the wave of tragedy(the shooting in Parkland)right up to the mid-term elections. They are capitalizing on the fact that some republicans are now in the chorus line of “We have got to do something”. Some republicans are ready to throw the law-abiding gun owners under the proverbial bus of gun control, the round table meeting should be proof of that.

The democrats and some republicans see this as their “golden opportunity” to begin disarming American civilians(the law-abiding public). It is a high probability that the LLSP will go “whole hog”(go for broke)as a result of republican cooperation in gun control.

There is talk of a bill moving through the Tallahassee state house that will raise the age from 18 to 21 for the purchase of Long guns, the same age required to buy a hand gun. There is also talk of banning “bump stocks”, and banning high-capacity magazines, more background checks and what ever else the LLSP can add to the legislation. The same ideas are being bandied about in D.C. and many more I am sure. Disappointed in Florida to say the least.

So, what does this say about 18, 19 and 20 year olds? It says that the government state and federal does not trust them. They are all lumped into one group, the “untrustables”, not trustworthy. This based on the action of very few, in this case the actions of just one. There are many thousands of young men and women that have legally purchased long guns and are no threat to society or themselves. Why? They are responsible adults. This is likened to throwing the baby out with the bath water. What is to become of the long guns the less than 21 year olds have in their possession?

As to banning bump stocks, personally I dont want one. The reason is that after having fired machine guns in the military, especially the shoulder mounted ones they are a bugger to keep on target, a real ammo burner with no real effect or accuracy. But they were fun to fire, and if someone wants to have fun wasting money I say go ahead. But they are legal to manufacture, sell and possess, for now at least. What is to become of the bump stocks that are already in the possession of law-abiding citizens?

Banning high-capacity magazines. Just who or what is it that decides and declares what constitutes a high-capacity magazine? It will be just an arbitrary number that some LLSP will come up with, 2 could be considered high. If a 2 round magazine were to be declared a high-capacity magazine then we would be relegated to single shot firearms, therefore all magazines would be in effect banned. What becomes of all of the so-called high-capacity magazines already legally and lawfully in the possession of law-abiding citizens?

As to background checks, criminals do not submit to background checks, the law-abiding citizen does.

As stated above the LLSP will go all out on the gun control issue. The gun control advocates are no more than gun grabbers, a total ban on firearms for the law-abiding public. They dont like guns and dont want guns so they dont want anybody to have guns. They want them gone. They do not even want a single shot anything in the possession of the public.

There are two groups that are very happy with all of the talks on raising the age limit, banning of certain items and all of the other gun control schemes being floated.
1. The gun control advocates(the gun grabbers). They will finally be free of the scourge of society, the firearm.
2. The criminal element, they are not going to pay any attention to the bans or any other laws or schemes. They see it as a bonus for them they will face even less resistance, if any resistance to their criminal activities. Nothing but victims and potential victims wherever they look or happen to be.

For arguments sake, lets say that the LLSP does go all out on this and somehow get legislation passed at the federal level all banning guns or what they call assault weapons from possession of the private citizen. Turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in now.

Then lets say, for argument’s sake that a governor of a state along with the state legislature or governors of several states along with the legislatures of those states take the position that that federal law has no force in this or these states(nullification). Then lets say that the federal government then threatens to send federal authorities into that or those states to force the state into compliance. Then the state or states threaten to arrest any federal authority figure who attempts to enforce that law in that or those states. What does the federal government do at that point? What would the remaining states do? Seems like this has played out once before.

DEO VINDICE

Where next? What next?

I would have to say that I was more than a little disappointed when it came to light that the School Resource Officer did not enter the building at the Parkland High School. I have some questions. Was the carnage(murders)still occurring while he waited outside with his side-arm drawn? Could he hear the shoots being fired? Could he hear the screams and pleas for help?

Then it gets even worse. It has been reported that as many as 4 deputies, including the SRO, were outside of the building behind cars with their side arms drawn when the police arrived? The same questions apply, with the exception of replacing they for he.

There were so many failures by government in this horrific incident that there may well be a commission impaneled to find out what went wrong. Lack of follow-through on tips called in and reported erratic behavior of the shooter, see something say something. The list of failures just keep growing.

It seems to me that there was a commission to investigate the failures of government leading up the events of 9/11. Look at how much better things are now as a result of that commission.

So what is this really about, preventing mass shootings at schools or preventing any mass shootings? Or is it really leading to and about something else?

The big government republican(socialists)propose raising the age from 18 to 21 for a person to buy a semi-automatic rifle or any long gun. The reasoning 18 year olds can not buy a hand gun so why should they be allowed to buy any gun. Is there something magical to being 21? As I recall a person is automatically an adult upon reaching 18. A person can vote upon reaching 18. Will selling guns to only those 21 or older prevent mass shootings. Was the Ft Hood murderer less than 21? Was the San Bernardino duo less than 21, either of them? was the Colorado movie theatre shooter less than 21? Was the Orlando shooter less than 21? Was the Las Vegas shooter less than 21?

Okay, so you pass a law making it illegal to purchase a gun prior to one reaching their 21st birthday. Now what do you do with the 18, 19 and 20 year olds that now are legal and lawful owners of long guns? Do you force them to sell their own personal property? Do you confiscate their personal property with a promise, a conditional promise, to return it or them when they reach 21?

I believe it is more along the line of making it illegal to purchase or be in possession of any firearm prior to reaching the age of 21. There will be exceptions to the law but then again there is always an exception. For instance it would not be against the law for a member of the military active, reserve or guard to possess a fire arm if he or she was not 21, the same exemption would apply to members of law-enforcement who had not yet reached 21. It would be impossible for the members of the military and law-enforcement to perform their duties without a firearm? That covers the possession aspect. But what about the purchase aspect. Since the members of the military and law-enforcement are provided weapons why would they need to purchase one? It is not like times past when a person had to provide their own firearms.

There are many responsible citizens of this Republic that are not 21. They are responsible and act responsibly. Take this example, a responsible young man of 18 marries his high school sweetheart and together they move on and begin to live the American Dream. They want to start a family. They are both of legal age to marry. But it is now illegal for him to protect his young family with a firearm, he does not have one because he has not intention of being a criminal. He is 3 years away from being permitted to buy a firearm, three long years. One night a criminal breaks down the door, for argument’s sake lets say the criminal is also 18. The criminal has a gun, he broke the law. The criminal has his way, there is no resistance he has the upper hand and the only firearm in the house. The young couple endures the most heinous acts possible. They never had a fighting chance, in their haste to do something the politicians and activists made it impossible for them to have a fighting chance. It was taken away, oddly enough in the name of eliminating gun violence. Would things have turned out differently for the couple if they had a gun to defend themselves with? We will never know because that option was removed from the equation. The police officer that arrived at the scene also not quite 21 yet but legally armed looks around and says what a shame as he fills out his report and awaits the crime scene technicians.

So what will be their “we have got to do something” to stop this response be? Will only those 21 and older be allowed to marry? It would prevent underage couples from horrendous criminal acts.

The republicans seem to favor the banning of so-called “bump-stocks” now. A “bump-stock” was not used in the school shooting, it was alleged to have been used in the Las Vegas shooting last October. What other accessories and improvements are they looking at banning. What is to become of the banned items now in possession of individuals? Are they simply to destroy them? Are they to be confiscated? Are they to be turned in? They are in effect personal property, legally owned.

There is a plan to allocate more monies to place an armed SRO in each school. Why was that not done after the first time a student or former student went on a rampage, or just some nut? The question is, Why now? But it has come to light that an armed SRO at the high school in Parkland failed to intervene. He placed his own safety above those he was to protect. Some have attempted to justify his inaction because he was outgunned. Those inside the school were certainly outgunned.

There is also a republican plan to arm teachers who are willing to accept that responsibility and undergo the training. This plan garners little if any democrat support. Which brings me to this there are many who will not accept that level of responsibility, for whatever reason. Some people do no like guns and are uncomfortable around them. Then there was an opinion piece written the other day by a man who claimed he had served in the military and owns personal firearms. He stated that he was not willing and was refusing to take on this responsibility. I am okay with that. It was the reason he gave that caused me some pause. He sais he had done his bit in military.

There has been another idea floated around from time to time about using a volunteer force composed of retired military and law-enforcement to provide security for the schools. Trained and armed to react to and counter any threat. This too has little if any support from the democrats.

There is also more money being planned for additional mental health screening and care. Again why now? It has been long said that there is a mental health crisis. What is different about this shooting?

As to the big government(socialist)democrats they still have only one play in their book, Gun Control. With them it is always seeking to ban something they oppose. I suppose that they oppose anyone having the proper equipment to defend themselves or others.

They want an outright ban on any of what they call assault rifles. Was it not a private citizen who used his AR-15 to stop a shooting in Texas? He had matching firepower. How many more murders would have occurred if he had not been able to intervene?

They want to ban high-capacity magazines. Well just what is high-capacity and who gets to determine that? If a rifle comes with a factory 30 round magazine it is not high-capacity it is standard capacity. If the rifle comes with a 30 round magazine and the magazine is inserted in to the magazine well and a round is chambered, there is one round in the chamber and 29 in the magazine. Release the magazine and “top it off”, there is now one in the chamber and 30 in the magazine, it still holds no more than it was designed, it is still standard capacity.

They say nobody needs an AR-15. Well just who are they to say what I need or dont need. I am the best judge of what I need. The American people didn’t need you to foul up the health system either. You thought you knew better.

The democrats want to impose mandatory registration of firearms. They claim that we register our cars without complaint. Well knucklehead driving a car is a privilege while owning a firearm is a right. A right not granted by government, but a right that is supposed to be protected by government. Something about “Shall not be infringed”.

The democrats and now the republicans(maybe it has always been like that)seem to think they can control criminal activity and criminal acts by imposing further restrictions and limitations on the law-abiding public. Name just one law passed that the criminal element has obeyed. There are major cities in this land that have very strict laws in place concerning the private ownership of firearms, yet the criminal element follows this law not. It is only the law-abiding citizen that is inconvenienced.

The law-makers can not seem to control or deter the law-breakers so they take it out on the law-abiding. After all the law-abiders are the easiest to control.

Now we have corporations distancing themselves from the NRA, refusing to give discounts to NRA members they had previously given. We have a bank that is no longer going to issue the NRA credit card. The mayor pro tem of Dallas wants the NRA convention moved to another city. The NRA had no part in this shooting or any other, but it is the NRA that is being punished.

So where do they go next and what will they do or attempt to do next? The mid-term elections are coming up in just a few short months and the campaign season is almost upon us. The politicians want to be re-elected and others want to be elected. The politicians will ride this wave as long as it lasts.

I would not at all be surprised to see some democrat plans from the past come up once again.
There was a plan to impose a violence tax on a firearm purchase. I Believe this was $25 per firearm
There was a plan to have a per round tax imposed on ammunition purchases. The tax was based on caliber.
There was a plan to limit the amount of ammunition that could be purchased. If I remember correctly the amount that could be purchased was enough to fill the firearm three times.
I am quite sure there were more schemes like these. They were just seeing what and how much they could get away with. They were also testing the waters to see how much support there was and how much push-back they would get. Remember the democrats had complete and total control from 2009 until 2011 and they did nothing about their gun control agenda.

The student(anti-gun)activists have some powerful supporters and backers. They have an ally in the media. They have parents, parents that are in the banking business, the real estate business, and investment business.

What about some future possibilities?
A credit card company could take up an anti-gun policy. They could deny a purchase if it was for a firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition. After all they are the one loaning you the money to make the purchase, they would simply deny you the loan.
A bank could take up an anti-gun policy. They could not open a bank account for a person in the business of manufacturing firearms or selling firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition. It would be difficult to operate a business without a bank account. They could deny a business loan or line of credit for any business in the business of firearms.
A property management company could simply deny renewal of a lease for a business manufacturing or selling firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition. Forcing them to move if they can find someone willing to lease them a property for their business. If they cant they will close, go out of business.
How about your bank, the one where you have all of your money. What if they denied a purchase based solely on what was being purchased or where it was being purchased from? Is your money your money? Are you sure? Who has possession?

I could go on but, I am sure you get the picture by now. By the way the above is not giving them any ideas. If I, a simple old boy, with only a high school education can figure this out, they have already thought of it.

The republicans seem to be to eager to capitulate on the gun rights issue. They are offering the democrats a great deal, but the democrats will stamp their feet and say it is not enough. Then they will settle for the ban on accessories, the raising of the minimum age and what ever gestures the republicans can come up with. This will finally give them a launch pad towards their ultimate objective. Their ultimate objective is the total disarmament of the civilian population. I go back to the lead up to same-sex marriage. Fist they settled for civil unions, then they made their move now same-sex couples have something the rest of us lack. Same-sex marriage became the law of the land based on the opinion of the majority of 9. At what point was opposite-sex marriage the law of the land? Ever?

Now I will really stir the pot, and hopefully wake some of you up. What we face is a two-pronged attack and we are going to find ourselves caught in a pincher movement. The NRA, GOA and the rest are fine organizations and have done much to preserve our Second Amendment rights. They could see what was happening before their very eyes. They got tunnel vision. They spent so much time, energy and money standing up to government they missed a bigger threat. They could not see what was going on behind their backs.

The real threat would come from the private sector, by way of the public sector public education to be specific. Rather than rehash all of that go back and read the post “The Big Payoff”.

We are living in interesting times, my friends.

When a boot is on your neck, it no longer matters if it is left boot or a right boot.

DEO VINDICE