The coming mid-terms

This seems to be one of the three or four things on the minds of most folks these days. I will get to the others later. November aint that far off some primaries have already been held with more upcoming.

Democrat talking heads are predicting a “blue wave”, while Republican talking heads are predicting a “red wave”. Must be political football season again, the blue and red teams are about to take to the field. According to the experts(ex-spurts)the home team(the party in control)generally suffers the most defeats in the mid-terms, referred to as the “mid-term curse”(more on this in a minute).

A few of the democrat “clowns” still want to impeach the President. For what I don’t know. I did not think that hating the sitting president was an impeachable offense. Their leadership wants them to knock off such talk as it might create a windfall for the republicans, as in guarantee a republican(red wave)victory. Basically the democrats have nothing to offer other than the same old same old.

It seems that some of the republicans are trying to throw(lose)the upcoming elections. The republicans hold the majority in the House as well as the Senate, even got the White House. But I do have to wonder what the republicans are up to. Why are they(some of them)doing the work of the minority party. It looks to me that some in the republican party are trying to intentionally lose(throw)the mid-terms with this push to force a discharge petition on amnesty. Now there may be some sort of genius behind this move but I doubt it. I think this is a move to piss of the voters so they sit this one out, ensuring a “blue wave”.

There are many in the republican establishment that still are never Trump(NT), and or anybody but Trump(ABT)and they want him gone(out of office). The question is, How far are they willing to achieve this goal? It was reported that 18 and possibly 19 republican representatives have signed onto this discharge petition. I have to wonder if there might be someone behind the scenes pulling the strings, perhaps a big money donor calling in his or her marker.

Back to the so-called experts. The pollsters(I believe all but one)had HRC handily winning the 2016 presidential election. Well they were wrong. Trump won the election much to the consternation of the experts. They thought the “fix” was in, there gal would win. Now we have the Russian collusion investigation going on entering the second year. There would have been no such investigation had HRC won. Why? I suppose they figured there was no way Trump could become president and if he did it would be because of some outside help or interference. They just could not accept that their candidate was flawed, horribly so.

From the moment President Trump announced he was in the run the establishment was against him(I believe they still are). How many times did they try to get him to drop out? He hung in. I believe there was a secret strategy meeting(most likely more)to find a way to do something about Trump. Not going to rehash that whole fiasco, you get the point.

The night of the election and Trump won it looked like the democrats, liberals, leftists, socialists, progressives(repeated myself)and the establishment were going to lose their minds. Some democrat clowns in congress were looking for reasons to impeach even before President Trump was inaugurated. Before the election how many of the left said Trump would never be president? It was if they had a crystal ball or something(insurance policy).

Now let us go back to these 18 and why they are doing, or attempting to do, the bidding of the left. It takes a lot of money to run for political(Constitutional)office a lot of donors and I do not mean the ones who contribute 20 or so dollars. I am talking about the big money supporters. There is no one who will invest that much financial support and not expect something in return. I have to wonder about these 18 and their motivation. Are they just looking for that last vote? That which they now attempt, is it what they believe to be right? It was not what they campaigned on, did they “evolve”? Are they just repaying donations? When it comes to political campaigns many millions are spent to make hundreds of thousands. Many holding Constitutional office are millionaires or multi-millionaires yet when it come re-election time they hold out their hands begging for contributions, they seem unwilling to risk their own personal fortunes. They end up owing somebody something. President Trump was the exception.

This coming November will be two years since the political establishment was shocked by the win of a “political nobody”. President Trump is still president despite the attempts by some in both parties to force him out or kick him out. In their attacks against the president they have been attacking those who voted him into office. They have been dragging this Republic through the mud for far too long. The investigation by the Special Counsel is entering its second year and the president has come through unscathed. Look at some of the actions to protect that investigation, some republicans have tried to introduce legislation to protect the Special Counsel from being fired by the President. If I am correct it is republican leadership that has stopped this legislation saying it is unnecessary. I believe that they have a different reason, even if the legislation is passed the president would have to either sign it into law or veto it. If he signed it into law then that would in effect be saying he has nothing to fear(no collusion), and they know it. I doubt that the president would veto this.

There were rumors that the investigation would take a break due to the upcoming elections. I believe that says more than just that, the investigation may be hinged to the mid-terms. If the republicans hold both the House and the Senate the investigation may just wrap up with no further findings. If the republicans lose the House but retain the Senate it may continue for a while or come to an end. It will definitely continue if the democrats take both the House and the Senate. One of the first orders for business for the democrats if they take both the House and the Senate will be to impeach the president. They may bring the president up on impeachment charges if they only win the House, if for no other reason that to please(quieten down) some of the noisier democrats.

So are the republicans intentionally trying to lose(throw)the upcoming elections? I will let you draw your own conclusions, I have my own. I point out that around four dozen republicans(House and Senate)are calling it quits. Some are facing a tough re-election(wonder why)or maybe they feel that they may just lose the primaries(remembering what happened in Virginia). These 18 appear to be trying to put the icing on the lose cake.

The republican establishment, including the big money supporters are still pretty well ticked off at us lowly voters for putting A President Donald Trump in the White House, instead of electing one out of their preferred stables. They may just still be ticked enough to throw the elections and subject us to the democrats for a while, you know just to teach us a lesson for departing the reservation.

DEO VINDICE

Advertisements

Just too far apart

Liberals and Conservatives can work things out through compromise(negotiation), truth is they have much in common. Their differences are not all that far apart. They just have to hammer out the finer details. The same is not true of the Left and the Right, they have nothing in common. There are no finer details to hammer out. When it comes to compromise(give and take)with the left they are willing to give nothing and are only interested in how much the right is willing to give them. That is their idea of give and take, taking anything the right is willing to give. The Right and the Left have nothing in common on any issue.

As stated above the Right and Left have nothing in common, no common ground. They, the Left, cant be negotiated with, they seek no compromise. Yet many on the right believe, and wrongly so, that they can work out the differences between the Right and the Left. Here is how the Left negotiates with the Right. We(the Left)are going to cut off one of your arms. Here is what the right does. They present the left or right arm to be cut off and then claim that at least they(the Right)saved the other arm, or say at least we(the Right)did not lose both arms. You simply cant negotiate like that, the correct response would have been “No you(the Left)are not, You(the Left)will cut neither arm off”. No negotiation. No compromise.

Look at what happened in Broward County as a direct result of the PROMISE program. Criminal behavior and acivity were decriminalized because of a supposed school to prison pipeline. There is no direct path from school to prison. To get to prison one must be convicted of a crime serious enough to be sent to prison, that means that law-enforcement was involved. Crimes were overlooked and as such there was no punishment for criminal acts or behavior, no law-enforcement involvement. It seems that too many school children were having run-ins with law-enforcement in Broward County, making the school district look bad. In other words some if not many students were not conducting themselves in a legal and lawful manner so the school district intervened. Because laws were not being enforced one POS was able to legally acquire a firearm, one which he would later use to do exactly what he threatened to do. So in this instance it was the Left that had a program that decriminalized criminal activities and then demanded that non-criminal activities be criminalized. Lost yet? Had the laws already in place been enforced the shooter would have in most likelihood been denied the purchase of a firearm. But sadly we will never know for sure. What we do know for sure is that each and every 18, 19 and 20 year-old(unless in the military or law-enforcement)in the State of Florida is being penalized for the actions of one, just one, 19 year-old. The Left demanded more gun control and the Right offered up the less that 21 year-olds, they can no longer purchase long guns without meeting certain criteria. In fact all Floridians were offered up, as now there is a waiting period to purchase long-guns(unless the customer holds a CCW license). The laws on the books were not being enforced and yet more laws were demanded and enacted. Great, just great.

How are these laws going to effect the elections here in Florida? The gun control legislation in Florida was enacted with the support of the republicans, here the republicans control both Houses and the Governors office. The republicans running for re-election are going to have some explaining to do. They were elected to serve the State, not to vote away the rights of its citizens. States that have enacted onerous gun control laws that are firmly in the hands of the leftist democrats have little to worry about. But Florida? Nationally?

One thing that happened as a direct result of the shooting at MSD in Parkland was that the gun control cult has finally been unmasked, and they did it themselves(though most of us have long suspected). They have come right out and said it is time for the Second Amendment to be repealed. So all of their talk about “common sense reforms” when it come to firearms in the hands of normal citizens was and is just that, talk. They do not seek anything less than total disarmament of the general population. The Left wants the population disarmed, the Right wants to keep and bear arms. There is no middle ground here, but again the Right believes they can negotiate and compromise.

One thing the Left always screams for a more background checks. We already submit to background checks to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer. They claim it is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But how good is a background check if the information is missing or inaccurate? If the young chap in Parkland had been arrested for his many episodes would he have been able to pass a background check? Would his butt have been sitting in jail or prison instead of taking those innocent lives?

So let us stick with background checks for just a moment. As far as legal immigration is concerned a person legally entering this country must pass a background check including a health screening and submit to several interviews. The same cant be said of illegals entering this country, there is no background check, no interview, no health screening, no nothing. When anybody and everybody is let in you have no idea who or what is among us. So the left does not really give a tinker’s damn about background checks.

The Left likes to promote and throw their idea of gun control(gun confiscation)in the country’s collective face, using the UK and Australia as an example.. The UK has some pretty restrictive gun laws. I am sure that by now most everyone has seen the video of the man with a knife keeping a large body of law-enforcement at bay. Even chasing them, first one then another. It looked a bit like an old Keystone Cops episode. Thing is the Keystone Cops were meant to be funny, you know poking fun. I was actually embarrassed for the UK police force, humiliating video. But even with the strict gun laws in the UK there are still reports of people getting shot. But in addition to people still getting shot they now have new threats, knives and acid. People being stabbed and most often being killed and acid attacks leaving the victims horribly disfigured. Not to mention the occasional motor vehicle being used as weapon. The city of London surpassed New York City in murders for two straight months. What is the Mayor of London concerned about? Fat food ads. Seems like not all that long ago NY city had a Mayor with similar concerns. Recently Australia, also having restrictive gun laws, suffered the first mass shooting in over two decades. Clever wording the report said first mass shooting not first shooting.

Back to America and the Leftist enclaves. If your so-called gun control laws worked the cities and states with the strictest gun laws would be the safest. The opposite is true, the cities with the strictest gun laws are the most violent and dangerous cities in this land. They are also the most crime infested. It is the law-abiding citizens who are the losers, while the criminal element enjoys the upper hand. Law-enforcement just cant keep up. I could not imagine being afraid to sit on my front porch at night because I might become the victim of a drive-by shooting. Nor could I imagine sitting in my house behind locked doors out of fear even in broad daylight. Criminals do tend to operate most effectively in areas where they will face the least resistance. The opposite is true, they tend to avoid areas where they don’t have the upper hand, facing resistance and possibly(most likely)armed resistance at that.

The Right can no longer foolishly believe that the Left can be reasoned with, negotiated with or compromised with. The time has come to say “No more”. Perhaps it is time to tell them to go piss up a rope. The left has renounced reason.

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

Memorial Day 2018

Confederate Memorial Day that is. In Florida it is celebrated on April 26th. Just paying respects to those valiant men of the Confederacy who sought to gain Independence for the South. We have seen the SJW’s in tears over Confederate Memorials and demanding they been removed, many have been removed. Many have gone up in their place, there will probably be more on private land than will be removed from what they call public lands. Buy the way this is Confederate history month, yep we still celebrate Confederate history.

Read on another blog where the statue of Stephen Foster was taken down, something about a fellow sitting at his feet playing a banjo. It probably wont be long before the SJW’s demand that Confederate Memorial Day and Confederate History Month be banned. They wont stop at that the will demand that the music of the South be banned as well. After that it will be our accents they find offensive. After that who knows what?

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

He is Risen

Today, Easter Sunday my personal Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ defeated death. His sacrifice has given me a chance at eternal life with him in Heaven. Love has no greater example than One who would lay down his life for a friend, like the song says “What a Friend we have in Jesus”. He took my place and paid the ultimate price for my sins. John 3:16 says it best, For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

To that I can only add, Amen.

I wish each and everyone a Happy Easter, He is Risen.

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