What if? Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if? Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By choice or force?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History says no.

Lies of the left

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

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

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

And one by Johnny Wright.

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

How far will they go? Part one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEO VINDICE

If…

criminals(men and women)will not obey the Law and Word of God, then what could ever possibly make anybody think that they will obey the law and word of mankind? God already said “Thou shall not murder. Another mass shooting(murder)and more calls and demands for gun-control.

The left as well as those who favor gun-control push what they call “common sense” measures. The problem is that those measures will only apply to law-abiding citizens, they will not apply to the criminal element in our midst.

Look at it this way, when permits to carry are denied to law-abiding citizens they simply do not carry. The criminal has no intention of applying for a carry permit, in fact the criminal will carry and would carry no matter what the law says or does. The only thing accomplished here is that a person who could have been “allowed” to have in possession a means to prevent himself from being a victim was instead “allowed” to be come a victim.

It is one thing to have the means and capability to defend oneself or another and choose to not exercise that option. It is quite another when one is denied the means to defend oneself or another leaving them no option.

At this point I am going to have to admit ignorance, I am at least partially ignorant of the laws particular to California as to where a person can carry or can not carry. As a matter of fact on that point I do not know all of the laws of the other 48 states or D.C. either. At this point in time there is no need for me to know the gun laws in or of the other 49 states or D.C. as there is no chance in the foreseeable future of me venturing out of the state of Florida, so I shall remain blissfully ignorant. Even if I were to leave the state of Florida there are some states I would avoid like the plague based on what little I do know of your gun laws.

What I do know are the gun laws that pertain to Florida as well as the Federal Laws. I know where I can carry and where I can not carry. When I do have to visit a place where I can not carry I conduct my business and depart. If a business I visit has a no gun policy, I simply turn and walk away never to revisit. He/she made their choice and I made mine. My point here is that I follow the law, and this is exactly what the criminal element counts on. They count on us to follow the law.

I would venture to say that the vast majority of these mass shootings(murders)are conducted in the shooters(murderers)home state, home town, nearby town or at the very least a state the murderer is very familiar with. If the murderer is in his/her home state then it is very likely that he/or she knows the laws for that state or at least some of them. The same is true if the murderer is in a state they are familiar with. Operating in familiar territory has advantages, for instance these mass murderers want “big numbers”. They will not achieve “big numbers” if they choose a target in which the intended victims have a means to fight back. There is a reason why these mass murders never happen at or are even attempted at a “cop shop”. They want a “soft” target they do not want a “hard” target, they do not even want a target of unknown softness or hardness. They will pass up hard, possibly hard, possibly soft just to focus on a “known soft” target.

The murderers use the law to their benefit(advantage)in racking up numbers. It is not the tool(gun)that gives them the advantage, what gives them the advantage is the lack of opposition.

Now is a good time to bring up few points.

First, the criminal element does not give one hoot about the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact they see the Second Amendment as a hinderance to their criminal enterprise. An armed populace is the last thing they want and what they fear most.

Second, the criminal element is probably and most likely among the gun-control cult. The more restrictions that can and will be placed on the law-abiding public means that there are fewer obstructions for the criminal element to overcome. The criminal element is probably the loudest voice in the gun-control cult.

Third, the common sense gun control measures they push benefit the criminal element while they only effect and burden the law-abiding citizens.

Fourth, the ones bank-rolling this cult do so with armed, heavily armed, security at their side or at least very near. You can bet that what restrictions they want placed on the public will not apply to them.

I do have to wonder about the motivation of any government at any level that would start legislating away the rights and liberties of the population. They promise more security if you give up a little liberty. A quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin goes something like this, “Any society that will give up a little liberty for little security will deserve neither and lose both”. But even with the promise of increased security they have admitted that nothing can stop all of these mass murders. Yet their favorite mantra is “We just did not go far enough”.

Let us look at some of their common sense measures.
A national registry of firearms. Historically speaking this had led to disaster for the population registering their personal firearms. Registration leads to confiscation, even if only of political opponents. It would be difficult to confiscate firearms unless one were to know where they were and who had them.
Universal background checks. Each time you buy a firearm from a FFL you must do the paperwork and pass a background check.
Close the gun show loophole. One can not close what does not exist. If you want a background check done on all firearm sales, including private(between individuals)just say it.
A ban on the AR and AK platforms, which will morph into a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, which will morph into a ban on a semi-automatic anything, which will morph into a ban on their next “demon” until we are left with nothing but sticks and rocks.
A gun violence tax. A per bullet tax. A gun buy-back. A background check to by ammunition. Limits on magazine capacity. Bans on bump-fire stocks. The list just goes on and on.

Please note that none of the above will affect the criminals in the least.

In the past they claimed they did not want to stop us from hunting, sport shooting or target practicing, well that was pretty generous of them considering. But it was not all that long ago they said they thought it was time to repeal the Second Amendment.

We now wait to see what laws are shoved down the throats of law-abiding gun owners in the states now in control and those that will be in the control of the anti-gun left.

We are living in interesting times.

DEO VINDICE

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.