Living in interesting times

No surprise the democrats voted to impeach the President. Now on to the Senate, provided the Speaker sends the Articles of Impeachment forward.

This post is about another matter, Second Amendment sanctuaries. At last check 85 Counties, 10 Cities and 16 Towns in the Commonwealth of Virginia have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. This is being done as some democrats in the soon to be democrat controlled government in Virginia have pre-filed some onerous gun control legislation that will come up for a vote once the democrats take control in January 2020. The democrats in Richmond have pretty much painted themselves into a corner with this gun control journey, much the same as the democrats in the US House did with impeachment, they once started could not turn back. Not to mention that a lot of money poured into Virginia from the gun control groups to help elect the democrats. These gun control groups fully expect a return on their expenditures. And just for the record, I do know that the pro-gun groups do the same things. There is a big difference between the two. The anti-gun groups are demanding that the right to keep and bear arms should be severely limited or outright eliminated while the pro-gun groups simply want the right to keep and bear arms left alone. There is another difference the anti-gun groups are more than willing to have the government use force to accomplish their agenda, the pro-gun groups are not demanding the government use force to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.

It would appear that many in Virginia are fed up and these brave citizens are pretty much telling the government in Virginia to “stick it”. The legal and lawful gun owners are sick and tired of being the “whipping boy”, being blamed for the actions of a minute few that do not and will not obey the laws already on the books.

What is the government and indeed the Governor of Virginia going to do? No matter what is done, America will be watching.

They could abandon this course they are planning to embark on. No, they will not do that, no turning back now. They feel as though they were elected on a gun control agenda and as much they believe the must follow through.

They could pass the legislation and sign it into law while knowing full well that that law would not be enforced in the vast majority of the Commonwealth. No they can not do that either. If a law is to be simply ignored and not enforced what good would it be to have laws?

Side road. The latest mantra of the democrats is, “No one is above the law”. How many times have we heard that one used against the President during the impeachment process. They also like to say, “We are a nation of laws” and “The rule of law”. They say this while allowing the recreational use of marijuana is lawful in some leftist sates while their is a federal prohibition against the possession and use of marijuana. Some jurisdictions even profit from the use and sale of marijuana by taxation. Imagine that, profiting and taxing an illegal activity. The left also offers sanctuary in some states and cities for persons in this country illegally. Some allow them to get a drivers license, allow them to vote in local elections, provide welfare and so on. Being in this country without authorization is against federal law, yet they defy federal law and shelter criminals. So much for being a nation of laws and the rule of law. You get no “moral high ground” in this case, even if there were any available which there ain’t.
Just to note, the Federal Government has not “fallen” on the States allowing the use of recreational marijuana and harboring illegal aliens using governmental force to bring them into compliance.

Back to the post. They could pass the legislation, sign it into law and fire(remove from office)any local government official who refused to comply with and enforce the law. Firing a government employee is one thing(though they would be forced to deal with the government employee unions), removing a duly and constitutionally elected government official is quite another. The residents of the counties, cities and towns effected might just get pissed off. Who would be installed in those vacant offices? Seems to me the criminals would be the biggest supporters of this move and benefit the most. I have heard of legislation coming that says refusal to enforce the gun control legislation would be effectively self-terminating from the office which they hold, quitting. They could withhold funds from the locales that refuse to comply. This move would bring about a whole series of calamities.

They could use the Virginia National Guard, as one suggested, to force compliance. How can they be sure that the men and women in the Guard would descend on their fellow Virginians? Are there enough Guardsmen to cover such a large area?

Are they actually contemplating using force, government force, to disarm the citizens of Virginia? Will Lexington and Concord be repeated?

January is closing in.

The Second Amendment sanctuary idea is catching on, perhaps it will spread across the land.

We are living in interesting times.

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.


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.


Gun Control or Population Control?

This post and some subsequent posts have their foundation in the post entitled, Refugees, Illegal Immigration, Sneak Attack, Capitulation and Community Organizing.
Gun control or population control, which is it that the gun control activists want? I have stated many times before that government is all about power and control. If the government has absolute power they by default gain absolute control. You ask, Why did I mention gun control activists and government in the same paragraph? The answer is quite simple, at some point activists began to be elected to political, no Constitutional office, while many others have simply been appointed or confirmed to their posts and some were hired. Those that were nominated were done so by those who were elected. Those that were confirmed were done so by those that were elected. Those that were appointed were done so by those that were confirmed. Those that were hired were done so by those that were appointed. And so it goes, everybody in government tends to surround themselves with those that are like-minded.

First let us take a look at the gun control activists groups, the ones not in government, at least not yet. To begin let us examine where they get their operating funds. While some funding comes from donors the majority of their financial resources come from the ultra-wealthy. In at least two groups the ultra-wealthy are also their mouth-pieces. They spout facts that they come up with that furthers their cause, but never give all of the facts. Partial facts are no more than a partial lie. The followers of these mouth-pieces miss several important items. The first is that even though your favorite mouth-piece may or may not personally carry a fire arm he is surrounded by those that do. You can sure bet that somewhere close is a personal bodyguard armed to the teeth, and they are always there. He provides for himself what he wants to deny you, and still you follow him. His children and grandchildren do not go to the same school your children and grandchildren attend. His are protected but yours are not. He does not expose himself or his family to the same dangers he wishes you and your family to be exposed to, and still you follow. If you follow a hypocrite what does that make you? One has to question his motivation.

Now let us take a look at the gun control activists, the ones that are in government. The ones holding political, no Constitutional office, they are surrounded by armed men and women. The buildings they occupy are protected by armed men and women. Is where you work or live protected by an armed security detail? Depending on their office they send out armed details to ensure their safety. Do you enjoy the same in your travels? They are protected, their families are protected all by armed and women. We the tax-payers pay for all of that. If you do not see the hypocrisy in that you are truly hopeless.
While on this subject let us look at gun control activist legislation, both that has passed and that is proposed.
There is only one thing to say about that which has already became law, the only people effected were the law-abiding public, it had no effect on the criminals.
There is much to say about the proposed legislation, but I want to discuss on especially. The proposed additional taxes on fire arms and ammunition, one was a $25 dollar tax on each fire arm sold and a tax of up to 5 cents per bullet. This all comes on top of sales tax. If I understand this correctly, legislature and or city and county commissions are proposing to tax citizens for exercising their Constitutional Rights. Imagine that taxing a person to exercise his or her Constitutional Right. If they are willing to tax one when will they tax the rest? Then there is the proposed licensing fee per gun, per year. It is bad enough that some states require a law-abiding citizen pay a fee and obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, now they want a per year fee per gun, yet another tax or fee to exercise a Constitutional Right. This leaves one to wonder is it about gun control or a revenue source, or is it to make the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right so expensive it becomes unaffordable. None of this will ever effect the criminal element.

In the previous post I made the statement that the American population would never voluntarily be disarmed, and I stand by that. As I and others have said, there are only two ways to get people to agree with your position, and they are Reason and Force. The gun control activist groups have been trying for some years to sell their case and they have failed, miserably. They now must seek the help from government to help them further their agenda of disarmament. They have used many catchy slogans and used skewered statistics to sell their case. Let me point out two of their catchy slogans and the complete idiocy in them.

They use the term “Gun Violence”. The claim is that they want to stop “gun violence”. The term “gun violence” in itself is a complete lie. A gun is not capable of being violent. But, they never use the term used in “Self Defense”. As soon as a shooting happens the gun control activist groups are on the scene, but only if the shooting fits their agenda. They never show-up at the scene where a Law-abiding citizen uses a Lawfully acquired gun to protect him or herself and family from a criminal. Government officials even get in on the frenzy. Who says anything when a criminal uses a stolen gun to murder an innocent citizen who just happens to be out for a walk on a beautiful day? But what did the lawyer blame, he blamed the gun for not having a safety, it was not the lack of a safety that caused the gun to fire, it was the willful intention of a known criminal to pull the trigger. It was not the gun, it was the criminal pulling the trigger. I am surprised the lawyer did not blame the victim for getting in the path of the projectile.

Then there is the term “We have to do something”, or “Something must be done”. This an attempt to use emotion instead of logic. Using emotion to deal with a problem is to further restrict the Rights, Freedoms and Liberties of the law-abiding population. Or was this your intention all along? Deal with the problem, the problem is crime and the criminal element, it is not the law-abiding population. It is not the law-abiding population that commit crimes, it is the criminals. Crime and criminal activity will never be effected by imposing even stiffer restrictions on the law-abiding population. If you really want to do something become a crime-fighter, and stop being a rights denier. America and the law-abiding citizens do not need another law to restrict our rights any of them, not a single one. What we do need is the laws already on the books enforced against the criminal element not the law-abiding public. Not just the laws but the penalties. Controlling crime should be the focus. Make the criminal pay for the crime, he or she committed the crime not the law-abiding citizen. How did it get to the point where laws, rules and regulations restrict the rights of the law-abiding and not the law-breakers?

Has there ever been a time where the proper placement of a “Gun Free Zone” deterred a criminal? I would say NO!!! All those “Gun Free Zone” signs have done is to assure the criminal he or she will encounter is a steady supply of victims. Victims that will be cowering. Speaking of gun free zone signs, do you really think that when the gun control activist group mouth-piece encounters one of those signs that he leaves his armed bodyguards outside or has them disarm before going inside, or do they accompany him regardless of the sign? Go ahead guess which happens.

Let us discuss the real agenda of the gun control activist groups. Your true agenda is not gun control but control of who has guns. To control who has the guns you must first find out who has the guns. This is another big part of the gun control activist agenda. Gun owner registration, a national registry of gun owners. This why you spout off the non-sense about the supposed “gun show loophole”. There is no gun show loophole, every licensed firearms dealer in attendance is required to do the exact things he is required to do at his or her brick and mortar store. The only other firearm sales are those conducted by everyday citizens, an everyday transaction, a private sale between two people. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that a criminal would be at a gun show to start with, cameras are everywhere and his or her presence would be recorded and they know that. This would especially be true if the purchaser was a known felon. Still you persist with this non-sense. You seek universal background checks, one in which a private sale between two individuals must be conducted at a brick and mortar firearms dealer, and noted on a federal form. You still do not realize that criminals do not acquire firearms in a legal manner. Acquiring firearms in a legal manner would be obeying the law, you forget criminals do not obey the law. Still you persist. What could be your real objective? No I mean your ultimate goal. Is your ultimate goal firearm confiscation? Yes, I believe it is.

You may have become involved with the gun control activist groups thinking ” We must stop gun violence” or ” we have to do something” or that the “gun show loophole” must be closed, if this is the case you do not think for yourself and let others do the thinking for you. As I mentioned in the previous post one of the reasons Japan did not plan an invasion of mainland America was the fact that American citizens enjoy a right that few others enjoy, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. You need to read the real history of the nation around the world where the citizens enjoy no such right and the brutality and oppression they endured either from invading forces or the own government.

No, you have not offered any compelling argument for me to voluntarily disarm. You did not and can not win me over with reason. The reasons you offer go against all logic.

On the other hand I have offered you compelling reasons to stop trying to deny me my Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I have tried to win you over with reason. The difference between you and me is that I will only use reason to change your mind. You on the other hand will do something I and those like me would never do, and that is to use force where reason failed.

Incentive or coercion

One has to wonder why now are so many restaurants, fast food and sit down, are posting no fire arms allowed signs, and why banking institutions are deciding to close accounts for firearms retailers or are refusing to open accounts for fire arms retailers.

The decision by the restaurant owners may be tied to Obamacare. The employer mandate exemption sought by many restaurant chains may have “strings” attached. Was the “exemption” only a “deferral”? What are the restaurant chains forced to do to continue to qualify for the exemption? The restaurant chains know that if they comply fully with the Obamacare mandates they will have to raise their prices as their overhead costs rise, or that they will be forces to fire or layoff workers to get below the threshold. They also know this, the placement of no firearms signs will invite criminals. This is called “making a deal with the devil”. Remember it was the politicians that forced their will upon you, removing your freedom of choice as how to conduct your business and what benefits you must provide or what restrictions you must make on your patrons. Remember them by voting their sorry asses out of office. You have the right to conduct your business as you see fit, not how the government forces you conduct your business. I will see and remember the sign on your door and you can rest assured that my shadow will never cross your threshold and my money will never cross your palm. I will never check to see if you took down that stupid sign, for me it will be up forever.

The decision by the banks may be tied to the bank bailouts and continued borrowing from the Federal Reserve. The firearms retailers seem to have been labeled as “high risk”. Insuring “high risk” occupations and borrowing against “high risk” business ventures come with a much higher premium for insurance, and a much higher interest rate for borrowing. The banking institutions may even get a “sweeter deal” from the fed if they refuse to serve certain accounts, this used to be called discrimination.

WE may even soon see the start in business insurance policy cancellations and denials for the “high risk” firearms retailers, after all the Insurance Industry was “bailed out” by the government(taxpayers) also. A business can not remain in business with out insurance, one “slip and fall” can wipe out a small business.

Labeling the firearms retailers as “high risk” will surely make its way to ownership of firearms as “high risk” to home owners insurance, health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance and even auto insurance. As pointed out above, the higher the risk the higher the premiums.

Which one of our Constitutional Rights will next be labeled “high risk”?

The Second Amendment is a guarantee that the federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it does not guarantee that private companies and individuals, including yourself even if forced to for economic reasons can not. We may be “forced” to “voluntarily” give up our Constitutional and Second Amendment rights for affordability.

Now is the time for the Pro-Gun groups to fix their differences and join forces to establish gun friendly banking institutions and insurance companies. You will get my business.