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.

Advertisements

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?

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?

A possible solution

There is some common ground on mass shootings, both sides want them to end. Unfortunately that is all the two sides have in common.

I have a possible solution, but it is going to take cooperation, a lot of cooperation, from both sides of the gun issue, and indeed their allies. Both sides will actually have to sit down and have a civil debate. I know this is asking a lot.

First, a little background on how I came up with this. As I was looking through my news feed I came across something that was a very bad idea, but it did open some interesting ideas for a solution. Actually solutions for many things.

I will sum up the article, you can find it on your own and read the whole thing.

The leader of a large labor union is threatening to boycott the largest retailer in the country, the boycott centers around two demands.
1. Stop selling guns.
2. Stop making political contributions to politicians who oppose gun control.
The union leader claims to have 1.7 million members. The “leader” also has a few other suggestions for the retailer in a letter written to the CEO, in this letter the “leader” calls on the company to do its part to help build a future with fewer guns and safer communities and also urges the retailer to fund buyback programs and for the CEO to create a summit with other CEOs to discuss ways corporate America can address rising gun violence.

My first thought as I was reading this article was here is yet another leftist threating to boycott a retailer because of what they sell, they sell guns and ammunition and just about everything a person could use or want. Worse using her position as the leader of a large labor union to do it, a loss or potential loss of 1.7 million customers could be catastrophic. But would the loss of 1.7 million out of perhaps 100 million be all that much of a loss? The retailer would just adjust for the loss of revenue by reducing the workforce. Then I reread the article and thought wait a minute this lady might be onto something and came up with many solutions for many problems.

Campaign contributions. The meat and potatoes of politicians, but a lot of that money is wasted as only one is going to win election or reelection. That means that the money given to and then used by the loser just goes up in smoke. The money left over(not spent/wasted)win or lose goes into their “war chest”. On a side note I watched all four of the democrat debates and many of them said that they needed to get the “dark” money out of politics. Here is a sure way that none of that money is wasted and has the side benefit of proving that you believe in your position.

For the gun control groups rather than wasting that money on politicians take that money and partner with law-enforcement and institute a voluntary buyback program. Actually buyback is impossible since they never bought it from you to begin with, it would be a turn in program, a turn in for cash. People could turn in(sell)magazines, parts, accessories and even complete firearms of their own free will. Do make sure that the people in your group can pass a background check before they take constructive possession of the firearms being turned in for cash, would not want any one to break the law. And please, please take a safety course for your safety and the safety of others.

For the pro gun groups do not waste that money on politicians(and possibly end up being disappointed)instead set up firearms safety courses, hunters safety courses, weapons training, open ranges and encourage shooting sports. Your services would be needed as the ones operating the turn in sites would need training and a safety class or two.

A little bonus in this section. For the labor unions that have taken a stance one way or the other on the issue of guns, stop wasting your money on politicians. Chip in with your dollars and support one of the above listed causes. Take away those labor union donations and you will see how much the politicians really care about you or your union. For the Hollywood types that have made millions on shoot’em up movies but are in the gun control camp, take the money you have made on those movies and put it, all of it, in the turn in pile. Stop being a hypocrite. For the politicians that support the buyback scheme put some of your fortune in that pile as well. I could go on with this but I reckon you get the picture.

If a politician wants to seek higher office he/she should pay their own way.

If you take away the donations to campaigns from the gun control and gun rights groups you would then find out the true position of your particular politician or political party when it comes to guns or any other issue. Some of you might be quite surprised.

You see this one act can bring about positive results.
First it will get all of the “dark” money out of politics. This may bring about other positives as well. If the politicians no longer receive special interest money they will have no need to subsidize those special interests. The lobbyists would leave town.
Second a “buyback” program that is not tax-payer funded.

Keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. By using the term “the wrong hands” I suppose they mean the criminal element. Again a simple solution. Congress could pass a law and send it to the president to sign. The law should simply say: Effective this very second, all gang leaders and members, drug dealers and convicted felons will surrender all fire arms to law-enforcement without compensation. Failure to comply with this law will result in legal penalty(prison and/or fine).

You can here them now, running to surrender their firearms.

Came across another article where a mental health professional of some importance in that article he noted “there is little correlation between mental illness and violent killings”. Study after study shows that this is not the case. More often the reverse is true, they are victims not perpetrators.

Also in the article is this; Racism, Hate and White Supremacy are not diagnosable mental illnesses.

Find the full article, read it.

Wait, Hold the phone, the latest reports are that the republicans are coming to the table to talk, talk gun control. Looks like there is an “appetite” for some of your schemes and demands but you will have to wait until September to find out how much appetite they have. You might even hook them like a hungry catfish.

Think about this

One of the twenty democrats on stage during the DNC debates, or one of the uninvited, will eventually be the democrat nominee. Any one of the the twenty debaters would be a disaster for this Republic as well as the others. More may well jump in.

Yep, I watched the debates, both of them. Now many, if not all, will be out doing damage control either for the answers they gave or for past actions, inaction or statements made. Some will even claim that they were misquoted or taken out of context, even though what they said was what they said. Some will claim they are or have been the victim of some sort of ism.

Each and everyone of them think and believe that more government control will cure all the ills in this country, on this the republicans are no different.

On healthcare most of them were trying to sell(pitch)Medicare for all, the basis for which is that the healthcare system is broken and one claimed the deductible was too high. Was not the Affordable Healthcare Act(ACA),aka Obamacare, supposed to fix the broken healthcare system? Could it be that they knew it would not, just a stepping stone to get to Medicare for all(single-payer)? The dream of every liberal politician.

I do feel they are at least a little dishonest in their Medicare for all plan, anybody over 65 will tell you Medicare A covers doctor visits, Medicare B covers hospital stays but only 80% of the total the remainder is covered by supplemental insurance(insurance you must purchase on your own)commonly called Medicare part C, then there is Medicare part D which covers prescription drugs. So just what are they really offering? By the way anybody that has Medicare part B will tell you that part B has a monthly premium. As to part D, all medications are not free sometimes there is a co-pay and some medications are not covered, which means those drugs are paid for “out-of-pocket”.

More than a few raised their hand when asked if they would end private insurance. If private insurance was eliminated how would a person pay the remaining 20%?

Is their plan to cover medical costs, all medical costs, from cradle to grave? If that is the plan how could it possibly be paid for? There is no way taxes could be increased enough to pay the bill.

There was only one person in the first debate that brought up this little tidbit. Hospitals could and would possibly go out of business if they were only reimbursed at Medicare rates. I wonder how many doctors would continue in practice if they were only reimbursed at Medicare rates.

Then again that could be the plan. Drive the hospitals and doctors out of business. Imagine living in a country where the hospitals are all government owned and operated, and all doctors are government employees.

By the way this Medicare for all, single payer or universal healthcare(or what ever it morphs into)will also cover those here illegally.

On education almost all have a plan to give away something. Many want to either forgive student loans or at a minimum help pay down the debt. As to forgiving the debt owed by university graduates, just how could that debt be forgiven? It is money owed, it must be repaid. The plan is to tax Wall Street to come up with the funding for this scheme. There was only one during the first debate that said it would not be right to have those who never attended college to pay off the loans of those who did.

There is also the issue of a free college education, even to four year university. Could a university remain open if all students could attend free? They can not be in earnest if they think this could all be paid for by taxing the rich, Wall Street and Corporations. Could a government owned and operated college and university system with all professors and staff being government employees be in our future? The government already controls the primary and secondary school system as it is. So why not expand the government education(indoctrination)system?

There was one with a plan for universal pre-k. The lady can not be in earnest. She has a plan for universal pre-k while supporting abortion. She supports the killing, in the womb, of those who would benefit from her proposal.

On gun control. They all have some sort of scheme to further encroach on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

This one is just stupid. One has a plan for a anyone who owns a firearm to obtain a gun license. They would have to apply for a firearm license at a local office that would be widely available in urban and rural areas. I have no idea which Constitution this man has read but according to the one I have we already have a firearm license, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment to that Constitution.

Read this carefully. “Keep your pistols, keep your rifles, keep your shotguns, but we can take the most dangerous weapons from the most dangerous people”. I would like to point out that this man is not earnest, how can he say on one hand keep your rifles when he plans to ban and confiscate a class of rifle. Remember back when someone said if you like your plan you can keep your plan? What is he saying? Does he consider the law-abiding American to be dangerous just because they choose to possess a certain type of rifle? Who or what are we a danger to?

That comes to us courtesy of the same Representative who got in an exchange concerning a mandatory buy-back plan(gun confiscation scheme)and starting a civil war and saying that it would be a short war the government has nukes. The same one that wants to ban and buy back every “assault weapon” in the United States and prosecute everyone who fails to comply. He seems to think that most all Americans would comply with this scheme.

Here is another one for you to read, and do read it carefully. “As somebody who trained on weapons of war, I can tell you that there are weapons that have absolutely no place in American cities or neighborhoods in peacetime. Ever. What is he saying? The words “in peacetime” caught my attention.

One claimed she liked the Representative’s plan but said congress was reluctant to act and she would give them 100 days to pull these plans into a bill she could sign. Should they fail at this she would take executive action.

One said “The gun manufacturers are the enemy”. The enemy of who or what? These are the same gun manufacturers that produce the firearms carried by his security detail.

I do wish that one, just one, of these moderators would have the “brass” to ask the following at one of these debates. By a show of hand, how many of you are for gun control. Every hand would go up. Now by a show of hand, how many of you would give your armed security? Do you think any hands would go up?

I am quite sure that security at the debates was many layers thick and armed to the teeth.

As I said above one of this cast of many is going to be the eventual nominee for the DNC. There are some in this cast of many that knew from the outset they did not stand a snowball’s chance in Hades of ever becoming the nominee. They are just there to gain enough support to influence the remainder of the field, pushing them farther left. As one after another bails out those remaining will be seeking their endorsement. I do wonder if the nominee has already been selected.

They spent considerable time bashing the usual big money donors. How do they expect to fund their campaigns without big money donors? Perhaps a wink and a nod, watch what we do not what we say.

If the eventual nominee wins the presidential election the people who were promised all this free stuff are going to demand all of that free stuff. In fact they will expect all of the promises made to be promises kept.

A few more items before I close.

They spoke of the corruption in D.C. Considering how long some have been there they are part of the problem, yet they try to convince the voters they can be the solution.

The subject of police involved shootings came up none of them could state the obvious, which is Stop doing stupid stuff that causes the police to shoot you.

The subject of incarceration came up and again none of them could state the obvious, which is Stop doing stupid stuff that gets your butt sent to prison.

It is not the fault of this nation that people trying to enter this country illegally die in the process. It could be the fault of the liberals for encouraging them to come here by offering freebies upon arrival.

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