By choice or force?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History says no.

Republicans are going to the table with their newfound appetite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How big is the republican appetite?

Who is going to pick up the check?

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

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

Since when….?

This is the first part of a series.

Since when did doing the right thing become based on diminished public interest? What I am referring to here is reports of the current AG saying that he would not pursue based on diminished public interest referring to the Clinton e-mails and all that was associated with them. It is not just the e-mails but all of the wrongdoing in the previous administration.

While it may be true that public interest has diminished somewhat. It does not mean that the public is no longer interested in the matters the AG made reference to. Nor does it mean the level of frustration has lessened at the apparent incompetence with the AG and the DOJ, in this administration or the last. What the diminished public interest means is that people have passed away patiently waiting for someone to come along who would do the right thing and pursue the corrupt in government even if it went or goes all the way to the top. Not just pursue but prosecute.

It would appear that the current AG has taken a new view of polling, public opinion is based on polling. It seems that he believes the results of polling. If the majority says on thing then it must be true. The poll must be right. I remind him of the polls just last year that had HRC up by several points and in some cases by double digits. If the polling data was correct up until last November’s election HRC would be sitting in the White House and his ass would still be sitting in the Senate.

Doing the right thing should be a matter of conscience not at matter of public interest(polling), whether it has diminished or not. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

It seems that your reluctance to pursue these matters indicates that there is something to hide. We as citizens of this Republic have a right to know the truth about those in our government. You, Sir have an obligation to the citizens of this Republic.

Now is the time to embark on a Great Crusade, a crusade for truth.

DEO VINDICE