Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category


June 25, 2016

Again and again we hear that citizens don’t need AR-15s or AK-47s or handguns with high capacity magazines. Those guns are not needed for hunting or sport shooting. Those guns are for nothing other than killing large numbers of people. And the people shouting those slogans are right.

The second amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” was added for the sole purpose of protecting “We the People” from the potential of a tyrannical government.

What most people, on both sides of the gun rights or gun control issue, constantly miss is the preamble to the bill of rights; the first portion of which carries the importance and need for the first ten amendments.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The remaking of our speech, aka: politically correct speech, is a Marxist method of controlling the ignorant and under-educated government dependents by effectively negating the first amendment. Speaking with definition excludes certain potential members of a class. This is done for purpose. Example: “Radical Islamic Terrorists” defines a subset of individuals with a propensity for violence. It separates that group from moderate or peaceful Muslims. However, this administration wants you to believe that it in fact includes all Muslims. This purposeful conflation serves only the radical Muslim community – the ones who want nothing more than to convert or kill all who do not share their primitive views to the fullest.

Please excuse the previous digression, but it does also lend itself to the oncoming and overpowering dictatorial direction of the country. That direction is exactly why the founding fathers of this country deemed it necessary for the citizenry to be armed.

The founders reasoned that the people should have armament like that of any oppressor. Muskets and cap and ball pistols may have been the weaponry of the day, but they were the armament of both the citizens and the government. Today, we have more semi-trained government personnel (this includes the IRS, DHS, HHS, DOL, DOT, EPA, BLM, Departments of Agriculture and Commerce and many more), authorized to carry weapons than total Marine Corps personnel. The government is armed to the hilt with the best and most modern handguns, rifles and ammunition that your money can buy. And, they want nothing more than to remove any potential opposition to their usurped despotic authority.

It is the budding dictators and their uneducated ignorant lemmings who wish to disarm the patriots (“The duty of a Patriot is to protect his country from its government.”Thomas Paine)
of this land so that they can turn it into the likes of Venezuela, Greece, Cuba, China and the former U.S.S.R.

Vote for gun control only if you are at the top of the heap or you choose to figuratively shoot yourself in the foot with the last round legally available to the public for your defense.



January 8, 2016

Let me preface this rant with the honest statement that I am 100% in favor of legitimate background checks for firearm owners.  However, I do not believe that funneling tainted, biased, adverse information about medical patients to the government is ever legitimate.

The recent and expected spate of executive orders includes allowing doctors the ability to prevent some patients from obtaining firearms. While this sounds fine on the surface it, as per so many rights restricting laws, regulations and executive edicts, is so loosely written that it is ripe for abuse.

First, let’s take the doctors who are adverse to gun ownership. Any doctor, no matter what his or her training or particular discipline, can now declare a patient a threat or incompetent. If a patient is on a medication previously prescribed by that or another physician it may be a limiting factor. We know that synthetic pharmaceuticals are often prescribed that have potential side effects. Those potential side effects might, in themselves, provide excuse for some doctors to report the patient as incompetent to possess a firearm whether or not the patient experiences any side effects.

If a doctor is of an anti-gun mindset the prescription sets up the perfect situation to prevent an otherwise sane and capable person from obtaining or possessing the ability to protect oneself. The patient may never be able to access the information behind his or her background check rejection and is thus unable to refute it.

Second, we have trained and capable active duty and military veterans who may express to their doctor that they tend to flinch when hearing a car backfire or other loud noises. Such a statement could subject these men and women to a diagnosis of PTSD and rule them ineligible to own firearms without further explanation.

Third, we have patriotic combat veterans who might be classified under the Marxist’s fiat eruption as potential terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security report (IA-0257-09)  contains the phrasing “returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”

Also within the above linked document are the irrational administration fears that people concerned with illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty could be mentally ill for holding extremist views. In other words, if you believe differently from the current administration, you are a right-wing extremist and must be controlled.

Yes, I am in favor of comprehensive background checks. I also believe that every citizen has the Second Amendment right to protect themselves against terrorists and extremists even if those extremists are government officials. I am not in favor of government regulating citizens by using executive dictates to undermine the U.S. Constitution.


December 10, 2015

All this talk from the gun-grabbing left about assault weapons has taken its toll on my senses. From the beginning the argument is flawed. The terms used are flawed and the premise is flawed. Assault weapons? The label sounds so menacingly salacious in itself that certainly something must be done immediately. So let’s break down the emotion invoking term into its various parts and see how that works.

According to the dictionary, an assault is a sudden or violent attack and a weapon is anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim. Given those definitions, if a person advances on another with physical aggression and attempts to blind an adversary with the ballpoint pen, he or she has used an assault weapon. We must ban all pens immediately or at least register any writer in possession of the potential maiming tool!

Mike Tyson bit the ear of Evander Hollyfield during a fight in 1997. Should all teeth be banned as assault weapons?

Using the dictionary definition of the combined term: an assault weapon is a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. None of the mass murderers yet recorded, that my research can identify, have used a weapon capable of automatic fire. Thus, by dictionary definition, no “assault weapon” has yet been used.

Not only that, but the weapons used are always referred to as high powered rifles. The most common weapon used in these killings is the AR-15. It uses a .223 caliber bullet.

Assault weapons (again, by definition) use intermediate-power cartridges. The .223 caliber and its cousin the 5.56 NATO rounds which are most commonly used in these attacks are both considered intermediate-power cartridges. Thus, another contrived falsehood is the naming of weapons and projectiles for the specific purpose of depriving U.S. citizens of our 2nd amendment right.

I’m offended by the blatant and intentional misuse of terms. I must go to my safe place to recover now.


October 5, 2015

Once again we have experienced a mass shooting that took place in another gun-free zone. At Umpqua College, just like the preceding situations, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, and other locations the shooters felt they would be able to effect significant damage before anyone could show up to stop them. They would be able to “enhance their personal profile” even if it meant their own death.

I recently had a head spinning moment when I read an article on a left wing blog to which I subscribe. I found it just so far off the mark that I have to counter punch. I won’t name the blog because I may be their only subscriber and I don’t want to double the announced readership for this professional writers group. However, the posting is titled, “Data Proves Obama Right: Guns Deaths Are Bigger Threat To Americans Than Terrorism”.

The article quotes Democrats, other progressive and anti-gun blogs. It even includes a highly biased and dubious chart which professes to corroborate the president’s statement. I’m sure it works with semi-intelligent Obama worshipers who rage at FOX News or even CNN if there has been a differing fact or opinion presented. Of course, they get the distorted word through hearsay because most liberals cannot stand to directly access any information that doesn’t reinforce what they inherently know.  Thus they tend not to seek any truth.

What this article, as with most opinion biased presentations, fails to account for are the number of lives saved by guns. I can’t find any data regarding the number of lives saved by Obama’s cherished terrorists. Perhaps such data does exist, but I have tried five different search engines with no avail. The closest I can find through any of the search engines checked is an article on Homeland Security Today  titled “Inestimable Lives Believed Saved by Terrorist Watch List ” (emphasis added). The next closest might be “Waterboarding Saved Lives”, but the terrorists in that article did not save any lives through their own volition.

Gun Owners of America offers some fascinating historical facts that any liberal can only challenge by yelling racist, bigot, misogynist, homophobe or other derogatory term. I’m willing to bet that not one will attempt to dispute the footnote documented facts offered with anything less.


June 20, 2015

Once again we have a horrendous crime committed by a person out of his mind.

Yes, Dylann Storm Roof, the man who shot 9 people after attending bible study meeting in their church for over an hour is white. He was born caucasian and remains caucasian. Yes, the subjects of his outrage were black. Did race play it’s part in this heinous event? Most certainly. Roof appears to be a white supremcist. But that belief, in itself, does not cause death. This is not just a crime of hate or race.

This is a case of a young man who ingested synthetic pharmaceuticals that may have conflicted with some of his other prescribed psychotropic medication. This is another prescription drug crime just like Sandy Hook, just like Columbine, just like Aurora and just like so many other senseless murders. If there is to be a difference between this crime and the other notorious mass murders it might be that Dylann had obtained some of his illegally.

Of course, President Obama went right to race as the motive and dispatched Atty Gen. Loretta Lynch to investigate for hate motivation. Then he went into his other usual subject of tirade; guns. Keep it simple, first race, then guns. Liberals, in general, are myopic. Race, guns – problem.  Drugs – good stuff.

Was a gun involved in this crime? Yes, but the gun is not the culprit.

The gun used was not the profoundly denounced “high-capacity AR-15 or AK-47 assault weapon” used by others. The gun used does not accept M855 ammunition. This time it was a hand gun with a maximum 7 round magazine. It could have been a machete or knife or hatchet or baseball bat. But the real death merchant was a mentally deranged individual who had enhanced the disorder by taking mind altering drugs.

Once again, we have a situation where only one person had a weapon, the drug crazed perpetrator. Had there been even one other person in the room with a weapon, the situation undoubtedly would have been entirely different.

I’m starting to see a pattern here. We need to ban all psychotropic pharmaceuticals. They’re killing people.