Sacred cows of the left

It would appear that the left has more concern for their “sacred cows” than for this Republic. The left’s sacred cows are based on opinion rather than fact.

I may as well dispense with this now. The left will claim that the right has a sacred cow as well, the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is based on fact not opinion, that fact is spelled out in the Constitution.

There is one more thing to dispense with. Opinions change, Facts do not. It is a fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, the rising and setting of the sun is based on fact not opinion.

Speaking of opinions. I for one am just about tired of opinion polls, sick and tired of hearing what percentage of Americans support or believe in whatever. Opinions change based on new information or when hidden facts come to light. Pollsters are paid, their polls are skewered to get the answer desired. If you ask 100 gun haters about guns you will get a typical gun hater response. Polls are also wrong, every poll taken with the exception of one had HRC handily winning the last presidential election.

When I hear talking-heads on the right spouting the results of the latest poll I just shake my head. When I hear a leftist talking-head spouting the results of the latest poll, well that is to be expected. Both of them, left and right, only spout the poll numbers that further promotes what they are trying to “sell”.

It is sad indeed that this Republic appears to no longer lives under “the Rule of Law” and lives under the “Rule of Opinion”.

The left is in a tizzy over the newest Supreme Court nominee, some of their present “sacred cows” may be dispensed with and some of their future “sacred cows” may never come to light. So let us examine some of those “sacred cows”, and while I am at that I will point out the dangers of being governed(ruled)by opinion.

Abortion. Abortion(the legalized murder of children in the womb)comes to this Republic courtesy of the opinion of the majority of 9 Supreme Court Justices. The left is scared that the newest nominee mat take this “sacred cow” to slaughter rather than continuing to slaughter(legalized murder)children in the womb.

Congress passed no law legalizing the murder of children in the womb and certainly no president signed it into law. It is very doubtful that legalized murder would have ever became law if not for opinion.

I find it a little more than ironic that those who support abortion and perform abortions were themselves in fact born. They art the product of live birth, but in true leftist fashion they seek to deny or provide an avenue for the denial of others what they themselves have, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The left uses the equal protections clause when it suits their needs or agenda. They claim that it is the woman’s body and therefore her choice, but the unborn has no choice. The unborn is in essence deprived of life and liberty without due process of Law.

Same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage comes to us courtesy of the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court Justices.

Congress passed no law legalizing same-sex marriage and again no president signed it into law. There is no address of marriage in the entire Constitution, yet same-sex marriage is now a constitutional right. The left used the equal protections clause.

The only historical document that addresses marriage is the Holy Bible, described by God as being between a man and a woman.

Those that profess to support same-sex marriages are the product of marriage as described by God.

I could go on with examples of opinion trumping law but you get the picture.

As said above the left is in a tizzy over the Supreme Court nominee over the way he may vote on issues that effect their “sacred cows”. The fact is no one knows exactly how he will render his opinion. The left can not take that risk, they want a Justice who will hold the same opinion as the leftists and render his opinions as a leftist. They fear a Constitutionalist.

DEO VINDICE.

Advertisements

What could go wrong?

In years past when the democrats(socialists)had the whole federal ball of wax(the House, the Senate and the Presidency)they would have never have dreamed to go for broke(repeal the Second Amendment) much less even mention the idea. They placated the gun control cult by nibbling around the edges of the pie that is the Second Amendment. That was then, this is now. Now many in the gun control cult have come out and said as much, one even “penned” an op-ed. So, what happened? Florida happened.

Shortly after the school shooting at MSD in Parkland, the Florida legislature passed gun control legislation and the governor signed it into law. Thing is that the Florida government is controlled by the republicans(House, Senate and Governor). The gun control cult finally had a republican state in their corner. I believe they got more than they really expected, they never could/would have dreamed a group of NRA endorsed republicans would hop aboard the gun control train. Like the proverbial camel, it/they got its/their nose in the tent.

The left sees this as their time to strike, strike while the iron is hot. They have the propaganda arm of the democrats/gun control cult/leftist/globalists(again your choice)the MSM behind them as well as the “children”.

The DNC is being pushed, pulled or dragged(your choice)further to the left, this is being done by their own Frankenstein. The Frankenstein they created in the education system is now poised to take over the party.

The democrats/gun control cult/leftists/globalists(yet again your choice)will undoubtedly bring up some of their old ideas as well as some new schemes to go after law-abiding gun owners. They have been unable with their schemes be able to do anything about the criminal element.

They will bring up a national firearms registry. Requiring all citizens to register their firearms. We all know the result of registration, it will lead to confiscation. On a side note it was not Hitler that had firearms registered. He used what the previous government(the Weimar Republic)had done in the name of safety, registered firearms. Hitler was able to use the gun registration list to selectively disarm(confiscate personal weapons)his opposition as well as those who he would eliminate(murder or have murdered). I suppose that at some time in the future the leftists will once again have the whole ball of wax.

Let us go back to registration for just a minute. I am sure that this scheme will need to be a searchable database, which means that it will also be a hackable database. That firearms registry in the wrong hands could be devastating, it would provide a shopping list for criminals, names, addresses and type(s)of weapon(s). We would never have to worry about this list being weaponized, turned against us. Would we? Who would be granted access to this list? For what purpose?

Would banks/mortgage companies, doctors, school administrators, insurance companies or employers have access? You could find yourself unable to get a mortgage, loan, education or a job just because you chose to exercise your Second Amendment Rights. To secure those things you would possibly have to give up your Second Amendment Rights.

If this ever happens, and becomes law if you listen carefully you could hear the criminals running down to the registrars office to register their weapons, Not. The criminal element does not obey the law, if they did they would not be criminals. What on God’s green earth makes a politician/leftist think that a criminal will obey this one? Simple answer, they know the criminals will not obey the law, and they don’t give a tinker’s damn.

What happens if the law-abiding citizens refuse to comply?

They now want the Church to come out for gun control, claiming it to be a big pro-life issue. The silence is deafening from most churches when it come to speaking out against abortion(infanticide), a real pro-life issue.

They propose a mandatory gun buy-back on certain types of weapons, this is no more than confiscation. It will never stop with just one certain type or class of firearm. Again if this ever becomes law the criminal element will not be going to the local buy-back office. I am sure the price offered will be fair, Not. Pennies on the dollar at best.

What happens if the citizens refuse to comply?

Read a post today where surprise, surprise democrats had proposed legislation requiring citizens obtain(purchase)a license to own or purchase firearms or ammunition. The criminals will say “License, we don’t need no stinking license.

Again, what happens when the citizens refuse to comply?

There is no law the leftist politicians can pass that will ever change criminals into law-abiding citizens. I am quite sure that while I am writing this many more schemes were being hatched by the leftists.

I do have to wonder why it is so important to the left that the citizens be denied the right to possess firearms. There has to be a reason. Nothing they have done has prevented a single act of violence by a criminal that was committed with a gun.

Actions have consequences, whether intended or not. Will some comply with any of these if they become law? I suppose that a few will. Then what? Who would be chosen to enforce these laws? Could they even be enforced?

DEO VINDICE.

Now they try this

The gun control cult will try anything to get us to relinquish our rights as owners of firearms. They now go to the church and try to shame Christians. They use the same old tactics and spread the same lies(drivel)but now some in their cult are doing it from the Church.

Came upon a post in the WordPress reader this morning, not one that I follow and have never seen it before but the title grabbed me so I read it, glad I did. The post is entitled Guns as Idolatry posted on the 28th. I did not link to it and I will sure as heck not re-blog this one. In this case paraphrasing his words would not do so his is word for word. His words are his words my words are my words. We need to know where these people(hide)are and what they do. This individual claims to be a Youth Pastor, and in his words has been one all of his life. Personally I would not let my children anywhere near this man. He put it out there I am obliged to respond.

I will admit when I saw the title I had my suspicions of where this post would lead, just by the title. Even with that suspicion I did read the whole post through, which is something this man will not do when or if he comes across this post being my response. He will stop as soon as he realizes I am on the opposite side.

Well here it is.

(His words)I have to admit, I grew up loving all types of guns. I was the typical full-blooded American boy. I could turn anything into a gun. Give me a stick, it’s a gun. Give me a pile of Lego’s and guess what I would always create . . . a gun! And then Star Wars came out and I wanted to be Han Solo with a laser gun strapped to my waist. Every young boy is fascinated with guns. But this is the realm of fantasy, whether it is imitating a cowboy, a sci-fi space pirate, a gangster or a cop. My teen years were even more influenced by the way of the gun to solve problems through the cinematic influences of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis. There are no aliens, terminators, Nazi’s, Russian’s, or bad guys that a good gun with an all-American superhero could not stop.

He referenced a “good gun”. So I think his point was it was “fantasy” to believe a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, not sure because of the wording he used. It is not fantasy that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. It is however under reported. It is under reported because the MSM has become the propaganda arm of the leftist gun control cult. If they believe it to be fantasy, why do they always call the cops, the cops are the good guys and they bring guns, sometimes they bring their friends with their guns. So stop living in a fantasy world by calling the cops every time a bad guy comes into someone’s life. By the way the vast majority of Civilians are also good guys, they also have friends, I have heard no complaints when a good guy “civilian” stops a bad guy when he/she comes into someone’s life.

(His words)Unfortunately our country is in a moral quandary with the fact that we are seeing more and more actual gun violence playing out in real-life America. It is getting to the point where it seems like every week we are introduced to another news story of someone taking out their grievances by using guns on innocent victims. Whenever this happens it seems like a majority of Americans are broken by the cycle of violence that we seem to find ourselves in. And yet there seems to be a small but powerful segment of America that digs their heals in and praises the 2nd Amendment despite all the gun violence we are experiencing as a nation. Now I have no problem if someone chooses to own a gun for the purposes of hunting or home protection. But what I am witnessing is that the gun has become a form of idolatry within our country. When the “right” to own certain types of weaponry trumps the lives of innocent victims, I have a problem with that, especially with those who claim to be apart of the community of Christians.

Here he “comes out” to reveal what I suspected from the start. In true leftist fashion he is blaming the gun not and not the person. The violence you blame on the Second Amendment would be much greater without the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was not written so we could hunt. Just for your education the Second Amendment was written because of the following and it comes to us straight out of the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms July 6, 1775. One of the Founding Documents of this country you claim as being in a quandary.

The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure the dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrate, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligations 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 town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.

That, Sir, is why we have the Second Amendment. It was not deer, rabbits or squirrels that confined those people to that town. Nor was it the aforementioned animals that denied them their most valuable effects. Now as to idolatry, I have yet to pray before anything but the Lord, never have never will. You seem to think a person can not own a firearm and still worship the Lord.

(His words)I will be straight up, I have never owned a weapon. I can’t justify it theologically, nor do I feel that I would want to bear the responsibility to own one. With kids in my home and working as a pastor, I see that owning a weapon would be hypocritical to what I believe. First of all, I am not a hunter. I have no problem with those who choose to do so, but this born-and-raised suburbanite could not find the will to kill any of God’s creation. I couldn’t do it. I will leave that task up to people who have a stomach for that type of thing.

He has never owned a weapon, if he had he would know that guns do three things; 1 they work 2 they don’t work 3 they rust. He we go with the leftist drivel, he could not justify owning one. Why is it that the left always want justification for owning a firearm. How about this for justification, because I want to, not mention what happened in Boston in 1775. He thought he would be a or seen as a hypocrite if he owned one being a pastor and having children around. He also points that he is not a hunter but has no problem with those that do. Here we go again with the hunting thing. Being a born and raised suburbanite he could not muster the will to kill any of God’s creation, didn’t have the stomach. More on this as the post unfolds.

(His words)Have I ever shot weapons for sport? Absolutely! I have been to gun ranges. I have shot clay pigeons. And I actually enjoy the sport of paintball in that you can actually play games against each other without death and carnage occurring. I grew up on video games with digital guns (especially Goldeneye!), and I loved movies with lots of guns, superheroes and villains.

Here he brings up weapons for sport been to the range and has shot clay pigeons, interjecting the sports shooting thing the left is famous for. He fails to mention if he had a range safety course, safe handling of firearms. So he enjoys the sport of paintball, pointing out that you can actually play games against each other without actually causing death and carnage, pretend death and carnage. He grew up on video games with digital guns and loved movies with lots of guns, superheroes and villains. I would point out that maybe we should have never made a game of killing. This goes back to the responsibility issue, one is not held responsible for what they do in a game, you can make all the mistakes you want and just say “oops”. No punishment no penalty.

(His words)But there is a difference between fantasy and reality. Our country has a huge obsession with weapons and we fail to see the benefit to having a conversation about how we can best protect the greater good of people and still respect responsible gun owners. We desperately need to have this conversation. Instead, we see the NRA, backed by some of its supporters, constantly raising the warning that the government is coming to take you guns away and destroy the 2nd amendment. This simply is fear-mongering at its worst. And what is the purpose of such fear mongering? To sell more weapons. The NRA played this card all throughout the Obama administration. Any suggestion to talk about gun violence and gun safety was always met with cries that they are coming for your guns! Now that our own kids who are victims of gun violence are speaking up they are being called out as terrorists and liberals.

Wow. We have been trying to talk to them, we have talked to them until we are blue in the face. They are the ones who refuse to talk, they only make demands. In true leftist fashion attacks the NRA. Accusing them of fear mongering. As for them coming for our guns and trying to destroy the Second Amendment, maybe he missed the op-ed written by a former Justice of the Supreme Court when he offered his opinion that it was time to repeal the Second Amendment. Maybe he missed the interview where the “queen of confiscation” said if she could have gotten enough votes in the Senate it would have been “Turn then in Mr. and Mrs. America, turn all of them in”, I believe she mention the number 51. Not to mention many in his cult have come right out and said the same thing. I might point this out to the gentleman that the kids are not the victims of guns or gun violence(as you call it)they are instead the victims of other kids, violent kids. Was it an adult or one of those precious children that was shouting “Burn Her, Burn Her” at the NRA representative, Dana Loesch during the town-hall? Just who is it that resorts to name calling when they loser or begin to lose a debate? As to the obsession with guns he alluded to I will get to who is obsessed and with what later in this post.

(His words)I have heard tired and lazy arguments to blame everything else other than the easy access we have created within our culture to be able to get any type of weapon you want. It’s video games! It’s the entertainment industry! It’s medications! It’s mental health! It’s the breakdown of the family! It’s because we took God out of the schools (which actually is HORRIBLE theology of God’s omnipresence)! We want to blame everything else other than the fact that we have ridiculously easy access to weaponry that is designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time.

So he grows tired of the same argument we put forward as possible causes. He really proves how little he knows about guns. We can not just have anything we want, somethings are totally prohibited and something require a special tax and approval just to possess making them out of reach for the average citizen. Of course he blame the easy access to firearms, yet above he admitted to never owning a firearm, therefore he has no direct knowledge of it being either easy or difficult. Again just regurgitating what he has been feed, which is a line of crap.

(His words)So, being that I have never gone through the process of actually owning any type of weapon, I propose the following if it is not already law:
1.Buying a gun should have a process that is similar to getting a driver’s license. One should have to get a license to own a weapon. I understand that this is the case but there are still loopholes in which people can buy weapons without going through this process. Recently a news story showed an underage boy trying to buy cigarettes, alcohol and pornography at a local convenient store and got denied in all three instances. But then they took him down to a gun show where within minutes he walked away with a high-powered weapon. He was a 13 year old.
2.Which brings me to my second point, the age of owning a gun needs to go up to 21. Now that we better understand the brain development of teens, and their ability to be impulsive without thinking thorough the consequences of their actions, we should not be providing them with weapons that kill. Give them time to develop and grow. They need to earn the responsibility to own a weapon.
3.When a teenager causes a death that was influenced by being under the influence of alcohol the parents are held responsible if the alcohol came from their home. I am tired of mindless parents of school shooters having no clue that their kid was into said violence. This is not responsible gun ownership or parenting. They need to start bearing the responsibility for the actions of their child/teen. Having high-powered weaponry easily available to their kids is the height of irresponsibility. We hear a lot about “law-abiding” gun owners but let’s talk about RESPONSIBLE gun owners instead. If your kids uses your guns to shoot up a bunch of innocents then you lost your responsibility to own guns and you should be held accountable for the consequences.
4.There needs to be a national gun registry. We need to be able to track where weapons have come from and hold those people responsible. The government already knows what vehicles I own and apparently anyone can pull up a CarFax to know the history of my cars. Why can’t this be done within the context of weapons?
5.The CDC needs to be able to study gun violence. Why would we not want this? And the bigger question is why would the NRA prevent this from happening? The more we know, the better equipped we will be to tackle this plague of gun violence within our country.
6.One should have to have a certain amount of recorded training in order to own a weapon. My teens have to go through 50 hours of driving experience with a licensed adult in order to qualify to take their driving test! Why can’t we require this type of training before one can own a gun?
7.I am tired of our politicians being owned by special-interest lobbies, in this case, the NRA. The NRA bears some of the responsibility for where we have found ourselves because they stoke the flames of fear that people are trying to eradicate the 2nd Amendment and do all they can to prevent legitimate research that would help us know more about when, where and why gun violence is happening. We need to vote out politicians who accept money from the NRA and ignore the voices of those who voted them in. I have not found one quote in which someone wants to eradicate the 2nd amendment. I want gun owners to be responsible and not cave in to the constant fear-mongering of the NRA. Is it just me, or is it not so obvious that this constant fear-mongering helps to sell more guns which benefits the gun manufacturers? Someone is becoming ridiculously rich off all this fear mongering. Why do people cave into this so easily? Is it just plain ignorance, gullibility, or naivety? There is no doubt in my mind that we have experienced a “dumbing-down” in America. Have we just become that stupid that we do not see when we are being played?

Well, looky here he never has been through the process of buying firearm, yet above he said it was ridiculously easy. He aint even sure if what he suggests is a law or not, Lordy.
Point 1. Truth is it is far easier to get a driver’s license than to get approved to purchase a fire arm, in some of the leftist states they will allow anybody a to get a driver’s license even if they are in this country illegally. Are you sure you want to lower the standards? Besides a drivers license is a privilege while owning a firearm is a right. So if he suggests having a license to exercise rights, would he be okay with getting a license to exercise his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh or Eighth? Thirdly he mentions the mythical loophole the left say exists, for the umpteenth time there is no loophole. Fourthly, Good God, man, crimes were committed was anybody arrested. There was at the least conspiracy in his news story, conspiracy to corrupt a minor. Was the fellow who sold the gun to the 13-year-old arrested? Did this even happen, come on? News reporters do not have the right to commit crimes to prove a point or get a story. I do hope that if this real you had the common sense to report this to law-enforcement. There should be at least three people sitting in jail right now because of this, the two(at least two)people(you did say they)who were corrupting the minor and the one who sold him the gun(I say sold because based on experience there is nothing available at a gun show for free). He accuses the NRA of fear mongering. What does that say about his first point, fear mongering?
Point 2. Did the brain development of teens slow down over time, their brains developed just fine a few years back. Just how, pray tell does one earn responsibility? Did he mean right? Besides if the age limit was raised to 21 you next would demand 25.
Point 3. His third point is going to cause a boom in the construction industry. Never once did he mention punishing the child for his crime. He qualified the drunken kid excuse with statement if the alcohol came from their home. He knows full well that there is no way to prove when much less where the child got snockered. He further claims that he is tired of mindless parents of school shooters having no clue that their kid was into said violence, saying this was not responsible gun ownership or parenting. They need to start bearing the responsibility for the actions of their child/teen. He went on claiming the height of irresponsibility was having high-powered weaponry easily available to their kids. He is also tired of the talk about law-abiding gun owners, he wants to talk about RESPONSIBLE gun owners. He then says, if your kids uses guns to shoot up a bunch of innocents then you just lost your responsibility to own guns and you should be held accountable for the consequences. Wow, where to start? I will just say for now that he wants the parent and the gun to be responsible. He fails to hold the child/teen/kid accountable. Perhaps he does not understand that law-abiding gun owners are responsible gun owners. Once again he uses the word responsibility where I think he meant to use the word right. So if his kid were to kill someone while he/she was driving and texting he would lose his responsibility(right)to own a car and a cell phone. Better build more prisons.
Point 4. His fourth point is that we need a national gun registry, because he has to register his cars and apparently anyone can pull up a Carfax on his car and know the history of it and he wants to know why this can not be applied in the context of guns. I could point that historically speaking gun registries have spelled disaster, but instead I will use this. Would he be happy registering all of his effects with the government? Given the hacks on information, he might just be uncomfortable if some nefarious person would gain access to what he has, you know just in case they wanted it? Then they could just enter Stuff Fax. And again driving is a privilege owning a firearm is a right.
Point 5. he thinks we need a study by the CDC and he accuses the NRA of trying to prevent this. He wants this study because the more we know the better we can tackle this plague of gun violence. He might just not like the results when the results of that study comes out, provided they were to conduct an honest study and our side is proven right.
Point 6. Has he never heard of hunters safety courses? I might also mention the NRA has partnered with others to provide firearms training. Even with the training required to become a licensed driver children still die, far more children are lost to motor vehicle accident than to what he calls gun violence.
Point 7. His biggest beef is with the politicians who get financial support from the NRA. He wants all NRA backed politicians backed by the NRA voted out. He also claims the NRA bears some of the responsibility for where we have found our selves because they stoke the flames of fear. He says, He has not found one quote in which someone wants to eradicate the Second Amendment. He must have missed the op-ed by the former Justice and the interview with the “queen of confiscation”. He wants gun owners to be responsible and quit caving into the fear mongering of the NRA. He goes on by asking several questions that I feel he should ask himself. Especially the one, on just plain ignorance, gullibility and naivety. He then states, There is no doubt that America has experienced a dumbing-down. Then he asks, Have we become that stupid that we can not see that we are being played? I have a question in response, just who has been dumbed-down? By reading your post, the entire thing I would say that the answer to the last question, in your case is yes.

(His words)And finally, the most disappointing thing I believe in all of this is that the church is not the leading voice in wanting to stop this carnage. We as Christians need to speak up louder against gun violence. This is a BIG pro-life issue! It is the height of hypocrisy to act so sanctimonious about life in the womb but ignore lives affected by gun violence. If you believe that there is a real devil who is out to destroy God’s creation then you have to see that he is celebrating our idolatry to weapons and reveling about each loss of life. The Bible teaches that he has come to kill, steal and destroy. If you are defending the current state that we find ourselves in you can not claim to be following the way of Jesus. Jesus is the Prince of Peace who told his followers to turn the other cheek, pray for your enemies, and to bless those who curse you. He was the very one who took on all the violence directed at him on the cross and defeated all his enemies through love, self-sacrifice, non-violence and resurrection. We are encouraged to pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven”. We are supposed to be ushering in a new way of life as a community that is radically different from the status-quo, yet the modern-day American church has unfortunately become a mere reflection of our culture. We have allowed empire worship to trump Christ worship and we don’t see the difference between the two.

So he thinks the time is right for the churches to come out for gun control, being the leading voice. I guess he never heard of the table being overturned and the money-changers being driven from the Temple.

(His words)I have been a youth pastor all my life. I am grieved beyond words for the kind of country we have created for our kids. We have been in a perpetual war ever since 9/11, we are spending ridiculous amounts on our military while Flint, Michigan still doesn’t have clean water and Puerto Rico doesn’t have full power. I honestly believe that we have become more of a reflection of the Biblical state of Babylon than the mythical “Christian nation” that some still believe. It is time we stop hunkering down to protect our “rights” and begin to break out of our selfishness and lust for power, and start thinking about what is best for the next generation of kids growing up. It is time to take our eyes off of the idols we have created and focus back on our kids who are dying. It is easy to read the Bible and be horrified that the Israelites got to the point where they were literally sacrificing their children to the god Molech. But I fail to see the difference between that and where we are at right now. We have more innocent Americans who have been murdered by gun violence within our country than service people in the line of duty! That’s just crazy and should be a big wake-up call for our entire country but especially the Church!

Where did he find those statistics?

(His words)So if you are a Christian and a gun owner, I would encourage you to advocate for sensible gun laws and consider what is best for the greater good of humanity. Think about your own children, think about your local schools, think about your communities. Every mass shooting has the same response: “I never thought it would happen here!” Why do we have to defend our rights until the violence comes to our own communities? Let’s come together as the body of Christ and be the kingdom that we are called to be and shake off the dirt of the Empire that we are entangled in.

Just another social justice warrior.

(His words)Lord have mercy on this nation.

His last statement is the only thing I can agree with him on. I cut my answer short on the last three, this post has gotten long, real long. If you are still here at this point I really appreciate it and thank you. I did it this way because I felt this should be exposed, again sorry about the length. Bear with me just a bit more.

I am nowhere near done with this, he has given me much ammunition.

If you attend Church and I hope that you do, please pay attention to the message being “preached”. This man claims to be a Youth Pastor, he is preaching to the kids. I am quite sure that he is not the only one.

DEO VINDICE

The liberals in a nut shell

They are for the death penalty as long as the condemned is still in the womb. Other wise they are totally against putting a person to death. Kind of seems backwards to me, willing to condemn the innocent but protecting the life of the guilty.

They fight tooth and nail against voter ID laws, claiming it imposes undue hardships on the poor. I guess that the poor can not afford a picture ID. Yet they have never proposed legislation that would provide a photo ID at taxpayer expense for the poorest. I can not understand why they never propose such legislation especially when they believe that government is always the solution. I also wonder why the republicans never propose this.

They are for religious expression as long as Christianity is not the religion being expressed. They are for free speech as long as everyone is saying what they are saying or what they want to hear. If it goes against what they say, think or believe then they call it hate speech. They demand to be heard while demanding others be silent. They don’t really have to worry about the press, the press is in their corner. They would rather have the First Amendment repealed than have to contend with differing view points.

They support the Second Amendment as it pertains to hunting, except for those that have come right and said the Second Amendment should be repealed. Problem with that cupcake is that the Second Amendment was not written to allow hunting. You can read the Second Amendment forwards, backwards and even upside down and you will not find the words hunting, target practice or sports shooting. The Second Amendment was written for a specific purpose and reason.

They only want to ban scary looking rifles and high-capacity magazines. They even come up with new words, their new one is military grade. The old one was assault weapon. They say no one should be allowed to have military grade weapons but the military and law-enforcement. I believe the correct term would be Mil-Spec(Military Specification). But you could not call the AR-15 a Mil-Spec weapon could you? The AR-15 is not made to Military Specifications, it is a modern sporting rifle made for civilian use.

But then that is what you do you use words, more accurately use a play on words. You cant really come out and say you are pro-abortion, can you? That would equate to being pro-death. So you use the phrase pro-choice, by using the word choice it gives the impression that what happens was the choice of all. The truth of the matter is that the one directly effected by the “choice” had no “choice” in the matter. So lets look at some of your other plays on words.

When it comes to gun-control you use phrases like;
End gun-violence. Why do you never speak of ending violence? The U.K. banned guns and that did not end or stop crimes committed with a firearm, they still happen. They may have lees crimes committed with a firearm than here in the U.S., but for two straight months this year(Feb and Mar)the murder rate in London surpassed the murder rate in N.Y. City. The residents of London now have to contend with knife-crimes and acid-crimes(violent acts committed with a knife or acid). So the U.K. stopped the mass shootings, sort of, and now they face the possibility of mass stabbings and acid attacks. Now London lawmakers are having to come up with laws to control knives and acid. They now have to end knife-violence and acid-violence. Our northern neighbors had an act of violence that involved a man driving a van on a sidewalk and mowing down pedestrians, 10 dead and 15 injured. He used neither a gun, knife or acid his weapon of choice was a motor vehicle. A person intent on killing or maiming will use whatever tool is available. Neither the gun, the knife, the acid nor the motor vehicle is violent on its own in each case it takes a human to use those items in a violent manner. For you it is not about ending violence, it is about ending guns in the hands of the citizens(law-abiding citizens). If your gun-control measures worked the most violent cities in this land would be the safest, but it is the exact opposite.

We have to do it for the children. You really expect me to believe that you care about children when far more are murdered by abortion. Enough said on this one.

If it saves just one life it is worth it. My question is worth what? You and I both know that there is no way to prove that even one life was saved. This simply can not be measured. Besides some in your camp(cult)have come out and said that no legislation could have prevented______(fill in the blank).

And then there is everyone’s favorite. We just did not go far enough.

Now that the gun-control cult has been outed, your far enough in that matter is the repeal of the Second Amendment and banning all firearms from the public. You are okay with the military and law-enforcement having all of the guns, well all of them but what the criminals have. The criminals will still have guns. Maybe you should look back in history, not that far back either, and see what happens to the civilian population when they are deprived of the tools to defend themselves. There was a reason that the Founders and Framers included a Bill of Rights, in particular the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Read about Boston, Lexington Green and Concord. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Constitution, there was a reason the Founders and Framers did not want a full-time standing army, if they did not want a full-time army they certainly had no intention of giving them all of the guns. Since law-enforcement is part of the government local, state and federal they certainly never meant for government to have all of the guns either. They also never meant for the people to be deprived of arms, if they had they would have said so.

Speaking of the Constitution you use it to your advantage when it suits your agenda. Take the Electoral College for instance, when your guy wins the Electoral vote you shout to the world that the system works, you do not mention the popular vote unless you by chance get both. When your guy, or in this case gal, loses the Electoral vote but wins the popular vote you scream that the election was illegitimate the Electoral College is outdated and does not represent America. When it comes to the Second Amendment you say the Founding Fathers never intended for us to have _____(fill in the blank). You use the equal protection clause for every group but Christians and gun owners.

They want every person in this country to vote in the elections regardless of citizenship. I guess not enough legal citizens supported your candidate, you need some illegal support. Win any way you can, right? You really are an obstructionist when it comes to securing the border. Would you act the same if those coming here illegally were apt to vote republican? While on this subject, you are having a “kitten” over the citizenship question being talked about when the new census comes out. You want to count heads not citizens. Why? Seats in the house are based on population, the number of citizens not heads. You could stand to lose some House seats, reports have it that there has been an exodus of citizens from your liberal leftist states. Not to mention the money that flows to states is also based on population. If it was the way it was you would have to send money to D.C. based on the census, you would kick the illegals out so fast and hard they would bounce three times before coming to a rest on the other side of the border and build a wall a hundred feet tall and ten feet thick with a minefield to keep them out.

What is going to happen on your march to go far enough? This question sets up another post.

DEO VINDICE

The hypocrisy of the left

It seems that the “spokes mouth” for infringing on the Constitutional Rights of others has his panties in a wad over his Constitutional rights be infringed. The little fellow wants his rights protected. He seems to think that the requirement imposed to carry only clear back-packs(book bags)violates his First Amendment Rights as well as his right to privacy. I thought the “march for our lives” was about making a safer environment for students. Does he not understand that the requirement to have see-thru bags increases his safety, thus increasing his security. By making just that one little sacrifice of his rights to better his chances of security would be worth it, would it not. I mean if it saves only one life, it would be worth it. After all I am sure that no further restrictions will be placed on them, the students I mean and their possessions. The ones who made the decision to increase safety by requiring clear back-packs(book bags)would never make further intrusions like creating a maximum size limits or conducting random searches. They will most likely be satisfied with just the clear bag requirement, they wont do anything else and wont want anything else. Good grief what a hypocrite.

But then again the leftists excel at hypocrisy. The students should take a closer look at those adults who have offered all of this support to their effort, misguided as it is.

The politicians for instance, they come out after every tragedy and shout that more must be done to save the lives of the children, are in fact the same ones who support abortion. That’s right, they are for killing children as long as it is in the womb, by the millions. Would more gun control have saved the first life that was cut short by abortion. But even the pro-choice supporters, who are not supportive of choice they are instead supporters of abortion, are hypocrites of the worst type. Each is the product of a mother that choose life, life for them. It is the pro-life supporters that are attempting to save those millions of lives. I say attempting because their attempts are thwarted by the pro-abortion activists and judicial system.

The Hollywood(Hollyweird)types for instance they, the vast majority of them, have made their millions producing, directing or acting in movies that promote violence and most of them kill more people in the course of one movie that die in the mass-shootings they claim to be opposed too. If they really were in support of your march they would swear off making violent movies. But if they did they would not have made their millions and been able to give you just a pittance. And by the way just how many of them have an armed security detail, for their safety and protection. But just who is it that they need protection from. You their fans or just in case of one deranged fan, or is it both? Do they care about your safety or your money. By the way why do you go to see those violence filled movies anyway? Oh, and the music industry types. Kind of think they too just might have an armed security detail, you know for security and protection.

Your big money supporters they, the vast majority of them, have armed security details. They are not against guns at all they just want to control who has guns. Who is it that they need protection from? By the way most of them give considerable political campaign contributions to the pro-abortion candidates. If they really cared about the safety and security of children they would with hold those contributions.

You bitch and moan about the NRA and politicians who accept money and support from the NRA, while you remain silent about the politicians who accept money and support from the pro-abortion providers and supporters. You say the NRA and those supported by the NRA have blood on their hands, while ignoring the ones whose hands are truly bloody. The NRA itself has not taken the first life, pro-abortion has taken lives by the millions. Seems a bit hypocritical.

Your march(rally)and the associated protests were, in my opinion, a bit more than disingenuous. What you held was a gun control event. There have been proposals made that would enhance safety and security for schools, but you don’t like these proposals. You and you supporters proposed only gun-control. But let me point this out. None of you are against guns, you only want to have guns in the hands of a select few. Ask yourselves this, if your money people had to forfeit their armed security would they continue this rhetoric? I submit they would not. They do not personally provide for their security and protection, they outsource.

You have no idea of what spews forth from you mouth. You claim to be the school shooting generation, the generation that must endure active shooter drills. You want your school day to be free of distractions, hazards and interruptions. And to this you say “No more”, well good for you. However you are not the only generation that has had to endure distractions, hazards and interruptions during your school day.

Personal story segment. When I was in school right here in sunny Florida we never had to endure active shooter drills or worry about someone shooting up our school and killing classmates. We did however have to endure Civil Defense drills and all else that came with the Cold-War. We had to know what to do if the Soviets were to launch an ICBM. You should have been here during the times of the Cuban missile crisis. Imagine that, the Soviets were placing nuclear missile in Cuba, extremely short flight time. We were taught to dive under our desks if we were in class and the drill occurred. If on the playground we had to dive in low spots. Remember to close your eyes, don’t look directly at the flash. If you did see the flash count off the seconds to judge the distance. Remember that there would be a back-blast. Fall-out shelters were everywhere in town. Some more affluent families had their own constructed. When ever you were out you would look around for the symbol that identified the shelter, and know where every shelter was that you could get to, just in case. That was a lot for a kid to have to endure and still get an education, we managed.

You did learn about the Cuban missile crisis and the Cold-War in your American history classes didn’t you? Did you learn about Civil Defense? You know of “safe spaces”, but do you know of fall-out shelters?

I am going to interpret your way of thinking for just a moment. You obviously think that the whole ordeal of Civil Defense drills could have been avoided if America would have just destroyed all of its nuclear weapons. That would leave the Soviets with no one to launch nuclear weapons against because no one could launch one at them. There would be peace and security with no threat of a nuclear war.

Another personal story segment. I wrote a post recently concerning the fact that most of the boys in school carried a pocket knife. There was no way of knowing who had one and who did not, hell some of the girls probably had one as well. Yet we managed not to cut or stab each other. Mostly because we had no desire to cause that sort of harm to one another, that and we exercised self-control. We fought after school, a good old-fashioned fist fight and on the less dramatic occasions it was settled with a good old-fashioned arm wrestling contest, but never with knives. In hindsight there could have been another reason or two we never pulled a knife on each other. (1)The other guy might have one and(2)it might be bigger. Just those facts may have prevented some stupid acts. One acts stupid the other responds in kind, an understanding even if unspoken.

Back to the Soviets and nuclear weapons. First there was something called MAD(mutually assured destruction)if one nation were to launch nuclear weapons the other would respond in kind and possibly launch even more. You shoot we shoot back. Both would be destroyed. It was an understanding. Each knew the other would retaliate and keep doing so until all was destroyed. There have been talks to limit the size of the nuclear arsenal. Neither the US or Russia is willing to totally disarm, limit the number but never disarm. Why? If one or the other were to disarm the other would have total control and could do as it wished, the other would be powerless to stop aggression. MAD has prevented all out nuclear war and that idea still works today. Think about it, would you like to live in a world where only one person or country had the ultimate power to do as they wished? If the one with nuclear weapons decided to use them, with what could you deter them? More importantly how could or would you respond?

The turd that decided to come into your school had the advantage. First, having attended that school he “knew the lay of the land”. He knew when and how he could get in. He did not have to wonder if he could get in, he knew he could and he knew when. He knew the classroom layout. He, from what I understand, knew the SRO. He knew the schedule. Second, he knew there was no counter to his threat. He knew there would be no such thing as MAD. There is a reason that mass shootings never happen in “cop-shops”.

So I ask is the problem guns or the absence of guns?

There sure was a lot of security(guns)at your rally. Did you feel safe or unsafe? None of you looked the least bit uncomfortable. You did clean up behind yourselves didn’t you?

There have been other options brought forward to counter the school shootings. More armed security, more law enforcement, training and arming teachers and other school employees. But none of you have expressed any interest in those options. Why? It goes against your agenda of gun control. Which is the agenda to disarm the law-abiding public and leave firearms in the hands of a select few, the police and the military. Right? Wrong. There will be exceptions, there will always be an exception to the rule. Like I before E except after C.

Back to the first paragraph. You demand that your rights not be violated while demanding the rights of others be infringed. You cupcake are a hypocrite.

You claim that you should be able to carry a backpack(book bag)in the color of your choice, free speech. What would be your reaction is a student were to come to class sporting an NRA book bag or t-shirt? You support the First Amendment(free speech)when the person has the same view that you have. I could swear I heard someone at the town hall you all had where someone yelled “Burn her” when a spokeswoman for the NRA was speaking. You support the Second Amendment but only if the police or military are armed.

You might want to check your history about what happens when only the police and military have the guns, all of the guns.

As I recall, when I did stop by to check on your rally a couple of students made mention of being in a Holocaust history class when the shooting began. So I have to ask, were the victims armed or had they been disarmed?

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

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