My commentary on a variety of issues that interest me including gun rights, individual liberty, illegal immigration, politics, religion, taxes, aviation, judicial activism, journalistic bias and laziness, environmental activism, education, family, health, gardening, history, Scouting, genealogy, etc.
I am a retired international airline captain. In real life, I strike fear into the US Department of Homeland Security as a right-wing extremist (in other words, I believe in God, go to church regularly, own a gun or two, oppose Al Gore and the environmentalist fraud, expect the government to aggressively enforce immigration laws, believe English should be established as the nation's official language, believe the US Constitution says what it says, seek a return to the limited federal government described in the US Constitution, and as a military veteran have sworn to support and defend the Constitution). To quote one of my heroes, Captain Moroni: "I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country." (Book of Mormon, Alma 60:36) In my spare time, I serve on the local Boy Scout District Training Committee. I coach a 4-H Shooting Sports club (see 4-H link below). I also teach the Utah Hunter Education Course, the Utah Concealed Firearm Course, and various other gun safety classes including most NRA courses (see Firearm Training link below).
Since the reelection of Barry Soetero (AKA Barrack Obama) and the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there has a been a resurgence in the move to ban so-called "high-capacity" magazines (those ignorant, or in contempt, of correct firearm nomenclature call 'em clips):
Here is a photo of two factory magazines for the 9mm P226 pistol made by Sig Sauer. They are dimensionally identical.
The magazine on the left holds 18 9mm cartridges. This is what Sig designed the pistol for. It therefore is properly called a standard-capacity magazine. Hoplophobes (people with an irrational fear of guns) and those who exploit the ignorance of hoplophobes incorrectly call it a high-capacity magazine. In free jurisdictions, such as Utah, this is the magazine that comes with the gun. (Note: The purpose of the short crease in this magazine is to assure feeding reliability.)
Non-free jurisdictions, such as California, arbitrarily limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds -- something that Sig and most other manufacturers would never intend. To comply with the arbitrary and capricious capacity limit imposed by non-free jurisdictions, Sig presses a long, deep crease into each side of the magazine as shown in the right. The sole purpose of the long deep crease is to reduce the internal capacity to the mandated, arbitrary 10 rounds -- almost half! Hoplophobes call this a normal-capacity magazine. It is properly called what it really is -- a crippled magazine.
Responsible Americans in non-free jurisdictions will be imprisoned for the mere possession of the magazine on the left -- even without possessing the gun or ammo! Does any rational person really believe that a thug in California will shun the 18-round magazine because it might mean jail time? Face the facts, hoplophobes: Criminals, by definition are not deterred by your silly laws, let alone by the good laws!
So, who needs 18-round magazines? Hopefully, nobody. Ya gonna bet your life on hope? A law-enforcement officer -- even in the non-free jurisdictions -- with a 9mm Sig P226 typically has a round in the chamber plus a full 18-round magazine in the gun plus two more full 18-round magazines on his belt. That's 55 rounds! Does he really need 55 rounds? Hopefully not. But neither a wise cop nor his wise chief bets a cop's life on hope. Is your life or your child's life less worthy of uncrippled protection than a cop?
All these silly restrictions do is cripple the ability of responsible people to protect themselves and the people they love.
On December 14, 2013, a mentally-disturbed young man murdered his mother, then massacred over two dozen innocent children and school staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut. As expected, this incident inflamed the discussion on gun rights. But, most of the rhetoric does not address the real issue: Mental health.
Mark Walters, host of Armed American Radio, a weekly three-hour radio talk sho that focuses on firearms, gun rights, and self defense. I found this edition of his show to be the best he has ever produced and the best treatment of the issues surrounding the Sandy Hook massacre and other violent crime. I urge all to listen. You will not regret it.
After listening, I'm sure you will conclude that we shooters know how to fix the problem of mass shootings. We've always known. Our response comes from facts and reason -- not hysteria as is so pervasive in the anti-gun crowd, the "news" media, and the misinformed/uninformed public.
Last month, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave a speech which included his thoughts about values:
We have common values that go far beyond the Constitutional right to bear arms....we absolutely have to reassess a number of our society's value choices on issues like easy access to guns....
Yes, Mr. Secretary, we have "common values."
We value our lives and the lives of our children enough to say that waiting 20 minutes for the police to stop a massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School is unacceptable.
We value our "easy access to guns" because we know that guns are the only tools that enable our teachers, our children, and us to live long enough for the police to arrive and take over the fight against evil.
Our values are enshrined in and protected by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- not in the statist pontifications of elites in government office like you. Please understand that this is why we, and the Constitution, require people like you to swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." We require that oath because we know that your values (power of the State) are not our values (value of the individual).
For example, we know the values held by the State and by people like you include the concept that police exist firstly to protect the State (ie enforce mostly arbitrary mala-prohibitum laws) -- not to protect our children, our teachers, and us from deranged murderers. Sure, your law-enforcement officers will come to the aid of our children when they can, but too often they arrive just in time to draw chalk outlines, take photos, do autopsies, and otherwise conduct an investigation. Sandy Hook proved that to us -- again.
Our values, as expressed in the 2nd Amendment, demand that our right and ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones be unimpeded. Your values are threatened by self-reliant people and by the resistance to tyranny posed by those same arms of self defense.
The Constitution says that our values trump yours. Unfortunately, half the voters are on your side. We need smarter voters.
In many cases, the illness that was being treated is likely what triggered the violence. Shockingly, the medications, themselves, used to treat the mental illness have known side effects that also could have triggered the violence! We are giving people who are prone to violence to self and/or others drugs that are known to trigger violence! Who came up with that idea?
There has been a recent surge in talk about gun control. My commentary in this blog is a part of that surge. But, everyone needs to come to grips with the simple fact that, while violence is easier and more efficient with a gun, the gun does not and cannot cause violence. Violence comes from a mind that isn't working right. This is the problem that needs to be addressed because with our without a gun, that mind will continue to be the problem.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
We must always err on the side of Liberty. Liberty comes with risks -- sometimes people get hurt. The risks don't magically go away when we give up our Liberty. That's why frail old guys like me -- and school teachers -- need a gun.
This legislation is long overdue. Why should any responsible adult need government permission to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed individual right?
Some will fuss over how this legislation will result in wild-west shootouts in Walmart. Well, that hasn't been the result in any other state with "Constitution carry." In fact, probably 10% of the adults you see in a Utah Walmart have Utah carry permits. How badly did they hurt you?
Vermont has never had a permit requirement. They don't have a problem with wrongful shootings.
Alaska, Arizona, Montana, and Wyoming dropped their permit requirements. These four states also do not have a problem with wrongful shootings.
Several states, such as Washington, have no training requirement for their permits. Likewise, no problem with wrongful shootings.
The statistics simply don't show that responsible citizens are in the habit of shooting the wrong guy or shooting when shooting isn't justified.
Should everyone have training? Absolutely! Any truly responsible person will voluntarily seek all the training they can afford. As a Utah Concealed Firearm Instructor, I benefit from a training mandate. But, should it be mandatory? The statistics say no.
Should people who carry be required to have a permit? Again, the statistics say no. In reality, the permitting process is primarily a revenue stream in most jurisdictions.
Requiring training and permits doesn't stop criminals from carrying. So, why should any responsible American need government permission to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed individual right?
Anti-gun paranoids need to come to grips with the fact that responsible Americans won't hurt anyone unless necessary to protect themselves or other innocent persons. This bill will not allow irresponsible persons (eg, criminals, crazy people, addicts, drunks, etc.) to possess a gun nor will it diminish our need to protect ourselves from them.
I urge the Utah Legislature and the Governor to pass this bill immediately. Every other State would be wise to do likewise.
James Alan Fox, criminologist at Northeastern University and an expert on mass shootings, notes that "most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization," so "they would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally." And if they were, he adds, "mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends."
Nevertheless, Barrack Obama, and others, have proposed a "universal background check" be required for all transfers of firearms. There is also a call from some for a background check on all ammunition transfers.
Federal law (18 USC § 922(d)) already prohibits certain persons from possessing firearms and ammunition. These persons include felons, persons adjudicated mentally incompetent, drug abusers, illegal immigrants, etc. It is also unlawful to transfer a firearm or ammunition to these restricted persons.
It therefore is incumbent upon anyone selling, loaning, gifting, or otherwise transferring a firearm or ammunition to another person to take reasonable steps to ensure the transferee is not a restricted person. Failure to do so subjects both persons to severe penalties -- up to 10 years in federal prison.
Because of this already-existing restriction on the transfer of firearms, I see no need to require any form of "universal background check" on firearm transfers between responsible persons.
Mandatory universal background checks would impose unnecessary and unreasonable costs and inconvenience on transactions where the transferor already knows the history and character of the transferee such as a father and son or friend to friend.
Jurisdictions that already impose "universal background checks" do not have a better record of keeping guns out of the hands of violent persons than do other jurisdictions. In fact, jurisdictions with mandatory universal background checks often have higher rates of violent crime!
One argument in favor of "universal background checks" is to close the so-called "gun-show loophole." Most firearms purchased at gun shows are dealer transactions with already-mandated background checks. A few firearms are sold at gun shows in private non-dealer transactions. These latter transactions are generally not subject to background checks. While these transactions are still subject to the above cites prohibition on the sale of firearms to restricted persons, it is very rare for a gun-show firearms to be later used in a crime.
Criminals generally get their guns by theft, from other criminals, through illegal straw-purchasers, and a few corrupt dealers -- very rarely at gun shows or other legal transfers. The persons involved are already committing a crime under current law. They are not, and will not be, deterred by current law nor will their acquisition of firearms be affected by a new and largely unenforceable "universal background check." No reasonable person would believe that criminals would obey any new law mandating a "universal background check" for their black-market trade in firearms. Such a law would only affect responsible persons, so what's the point?
I can foresee that a universal background check requirement could inadvertently (or by sinister design) impose severe penalties on someone like me who serves as an instructor for various gun safety courses including Hunter Education and a 4-H youth shooting club since I often allow my students to borrow and shoot my personal firearms during their training.
Anyone who has ever smoked a joint gives up his right claim that imposing more regulation on responsible gun buyers and gun owners will have any effect on the behavior of violent criminals.
Current law is more than sufficient in managing the legal non-dealer transfer of firearms. Any effort to impose any form of universal background check must be rejected. If such a law is introduced, I demand that it exempt the following (unless there is reasonable belief that the transferee is a restricted person):
· family members and close friends
· temporary use of borrowed firearms by participants in a course of shooting instruction, members of a shooting club, or at an established shooting range
· transactions where the transferee possesses a government-issued firearm permit
· other persons with evidence of a current criminal background check (eg law enforcement officers, school teachers, members of the Armed Forces)
This morning (Jan 20, 2013), in compliance with the US Constitution, Barrack Obama took the oath of office for his second term as President of the United States:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. (US Constitution - Article 2 Section 1)
Tomorrow (Jan 21), he’ll repeat the oath at a public ceremony. A few days ago, newly elected and reelected members of Congress were also sworn in (I also have taken this same oath as a military officer and as a federal law enforcement officer):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (US Constitution - Article VI)
Note that both oaths of office require loyalty to one entity, and one entity only: The Constitution of the United States. There is no sworn loyalty to a political party, a political leader, a religious leader, a political agenda, a king, or anything else.
An oath of loyalty to the US Constitution is also required of state and local elected officials; federal, state and local judges; members of the Armed Forces; and of civil servants.
Why did the founders require such an oath from our nation’s leaders? They broke away from a nation where loyalty was sworn to a monarch rather than to ideals of liberty. From sad experience, they knew that accreting loyalty in one individual or group of people, tyranny is almost always the result. Hence, the revolutionary concepts of a declaration that human rights come from the Creator – not by government edict and a Constitution which describes and authorizes a central government with clearly defined and limited powers and a prohibition from infringing the God-given rights of the people.
They knew that majority rule inevitably results in the majority infringing the rights of the minority, so they established a representative government – a republic rather than a democracy. They expected that we would elect men and women of sound character who would live up to their oath to the Constitution. They expected that by demanding loyalty to the Constitution and the principles of Liberty that it enshrines, our government officials would protect the human rights of every American – not merely the members of an aristocracy, a particular party, persons of a certain skin color, or other special interest.
Sadly, our elected leaders, judges, and civil servants have lost with the concept of loyalty to the Constitution rather than loyalty to a person or party. How did this happen? Because the voters themselves do not understand the Constitution and how it would work if followed. Few Americans have read it and consequently fail to elect public officers who have the courage and integrity to follow it.
Voters are willing to be bribed with their own money or, worse, with the money of their neighbors. Voters cast ballots based on selfishness, covetousness, party label, personality, emotion, even skin color -- everything the founders fought against! Voters think that their lives will improve because of government programs -- they fail to understand that their lives only truly improve when they accept responsibility for their own success and only demand of government that it protect their right to succeed.
[I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted....If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. — Noah Webster (History of the United States)
Yesterday (Jan 23, 2013), Barrack Obama announced 23 initiatives allegedly to stem gun violence. All of his ideas have been tried at the state and/or federal levels and all have failed to reduce violent crime.
While all 23 of his ideas clearly violate the constitutional limits imposed on the central government, one of these power-hungry and misguided ideas involved doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. It would:
Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home.
It is preposterous to presume that any medical professional has a right "to talk to their patients about gun safety" or "to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms" any more than they have a right to ask about the color of their carpets. They have not right to intrude into a patient's life in areas completely unrelated to the quality care he or she does have an obligation to provide.
Medical doctors, nurses, and other staff are trained in medicine. They are not qualified in firearms and firearm safety (unless they also happen to be NRA-certified firearm instructors). To venture outside their professional role and training as a healthcare provider violates an important ethical boundary:
...your doctor may be violating a doctor-patient boundary. Doctors are ethically bound not to use their patients’ trust to advance a personal interest such as a political agenda. And the evidence shows that in almost every case, doctors’ questions to you about guns are motivated by anti-gun politics. -- Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
If a medical professional becomes aware of a patient's status as a gun owner, it might be wise to advice him or her to seek training from a qualified firearms instructor. Otherwise, it is none of his or her business!
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. -- United States Bill of Rights
What is it about "shall not be infringed" that doctors and politicians don't understand?
This cartoon brings to mind what happened to dissenters in other nations: Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc.
May I live up to the anti-government, pro-liberty standard set by dissenters such as those mentioned above, our nation's founders, and the inspired Constitution our founders wrote.
According to the World Health Organization South Korea has the world's highest suicide rate. Guns aren't readily available to the average Korean -- North or South.
The people of Japan have no guns, yet double our suicide rate.
In fact, guns aren't much of a factor in any of the countries with high suicide rates. So, gun-control advocates, don't you dare blame suicide on guns!
Are guns used in suicides in the US? Yup. Far too often. But, does any rational person really believe that the suicide rate would go down if there were no guns in the hands of responsible people?
Suicide is a spiritual and emotional problem -- not a gun problem. Let's focus on the real problem: The spiritual death of society and the death of the traditional family.
More than 30% of children grow up in broken homes. Children from these broken homes account for:
• 90% of homeless juveniles and runaways
• 85% of behavioral disorders
• 75% of all drug abusers
• 71% of teen pregnancies
• 71% of high school dropouts
• 70% of those in juvenile detention
- 63% of teen suicides
• 57% of all prison inmates
Read that again, 63% of teen suicides come from broken homes!
Suicide is yet another evidence that our respect for life is so shallow that we tolerate, legalize, even endorse, the legal killing of over 3,300 unborn children every day -- most often because the child is an annoying inconvenience! Ya gonna blame that on guns too?
Suicide is still another evidence that our respect for our own bodies is so degraded that we even disfigure our own bodies -- which are the temples and the image of God -- with grotesque tattoos and piercings! Ya gonna blame that on guns too?
If Liberals really want to do something that will make a difference, ban broken homes, encourage parents to take their kids to church, and stop banning God from schools and the public square. It would be much more helpful.
The high cost of training makes learning to fly prohibitive. The low starting pay for airline pilots makes entry into that career field unattractive. Consequently, airlines are facing a shortage of trained pilots. To make matters worse, the FAA is increasing its arbitrary standard of experience and skill (flying hours) for airline new-hires.
A few years ago, the mandatory retirement age for pilots was 60. It was increased to 65 as a band-aid fix for the pilot shortage. Those older pilots are now again reaching the new mandatory retirement age. I hear rumors that the retirement age could be raised again as another band-aid fix. (If Orrin Hatch and Strom Thurmond can serve forever in Congress, why can't a pilot fly forever?) While I support that change for pilots who meet mental and physical fitness standards, I am disappointed that Congress and the FAA are not looking for a better solution.
It seems to me that the best solution for nearly all problems, including this one, is to get government out of the way!
Congress must encourage the airlines, pilot unions, flight attendant unions, and consumers of aviation services to join hands in forming an independent, industry-owned and controlled standards association much like SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute for the firearms industry), UL (Underwriters Laboratories for a variety of other industries), and ANSI (American National Standards Institute). This private aviation organization would establish training, safety, and security standards that would be agreed to and followed by the airlines, pilots, security screeners, etc. (It goes without saying that the airport security screening process (TSA) must be returned to the private sector immediately.)
Such an organization is very likely to be more responsive to the real safety and transportation needs of the public than the entrenched bureaucrats of the FAA and heavily-lobbied congressmen.
Most people seem to be unaware that the "AR" in AR-15 does not stand for Assault Rifle. Instead, the "AR" is an abbreviation of Armalite, one manufacturer of the AR-15. The name "AR-15" was never intended to represent "Assault Rifle"! Since "AR-15" is a trademark of Armalite, it is not even properly applied to similar or identical rifles made by scores of other manufacturers including Colt, Bushmaster, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and Rock River.
Although so-called "assault rifles" look like military weapons and frighten cry-babies and fraidy-cats with a control fetish such as Senator Diane Feinstein, they function exactly the same as millions of other civilian firearms that don't look like military arms. They fire only one shot per pull of the trigger -- they are not automatic weapons (ie machine guns) and therefore are not used by military forces anywhere.
The "news" media likes to illustrate its commentary on these guns with video in the background of a machine gun shooting and spraying, but that is not how civilian AR-15 rifles operate. Contrary to many claims, civilian firearms, by design, cannot be easily -- or legally -- converted to fully automatic.
Civilian ownership and use of fully automatic weapons (an essential characteristic of a light military "assault" weapon) are severely regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1934 -- an early edition of many unconstitutional gun control laws in the US. That act requires fingerprinting, background checks, and federal approval of anyone who seeks to own any of the scarce fully automatic arms in civilian hands (prices $15k and up for a firearm that costs a few hundred dollars to make). The sale of new fully automatic arms to civilians was completely banned in 1986.
So-called "assault rifles" are used in less than two percent of gun crimes (except for the legally owned ones, which are used in approximately zero percent of gun crimes) including assault.
So, let's get this definition straight: Assault is a crime. Assault is a verb. It is not an adjective to be applied to anything owned by responsible people.
A related issue: Many have grown accustomed to the term, "high-capacity" magazines. "High-capacity" is not an appropriate term for the capacity of a magazine that the manufacturer intended to be used with a particular firearm. What is commonly called a "high-capacity" magazine is more properly called a normal-capacity magazine. On the other hand, a magazine that holds less (ie 10 rounds) than the manufacturer's design is properly called a "limited-capacity" magazine. Restricting the capacity of magazines does not somehow make a person with criminal intent less lethal, but it does impair the ability of the rest of us to respond to an attack on our lives.
I'd like to know what is it about "shall not be infringed" that politicians and other hoplophobes can't or won't understand? Those four simple words make it very clear that there is no room in the Constitution for compromise on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. Yet, politicians have already compromised far to much on this issue. It is past time to push back on those compromises -- hard!
The anti-gun politicians and members of the so-called "news" media exploit the public ignorance of the meaning of "AR" to the disadvantage of responsible Americans. People need to get better educated so that they can't be pushed around and indoctrinated by those who are eager to obliterate your rights and the rights of your neighbors and family. Don't count on the "news" media or politicians to do that educating.
Unfortunately, even many gun owners, including owners of so-called "assault rifles" allow the anti-gun crowd to misname their guns and even wrongly use the term themselves.
All that said, I really see nothing wrong with civilian ownership of fully-automatic firearms. If somebody can afford to feed a machine gun, what's the harm? People need to understand that causing harm to another is the crime. Not possession of an inanimate object that cannot possibly harm anyone when used responsibly -- unless someone needs harming (eg an attacker).
A New Hampshire police captain and trainer, Massad Ayoob, has some more thoughts on so-called "assault weapons": Part One
This was an act of hate and selfishness -- not journalism. To be fair, these miscreants aren't the first "news" outlet to do this sort of thing to law-abiding gun owners.
The Journal News has unwittingly reinforced yet another reason to oppose gun registration and even licensing of responsible adults who carry concealed firearms.
My employer's headquarters is near White Plains. I checked the maps for names of my fellow employees. Sure enough, their status as a handgun permit holders shows up on this new map. Now, every burglar in the world knows their homes are likely to have at least one handgun. That could be a deterrent -- if they're home. If they're not home, it's a magnet for anyone who wants to steal a gun and then do what ever they want with my coworkers' wives and children.
Can you imagine being a cop or judge who has locked way some evil people who want revenge? Or imagine being a woman trying to hide from her ex who wants to kill her? This website tells the bad guys exactly where to go! Unconscionable! Just how low is the so-called "news" media willing to go to create "news" and foment hysteria?
People are not inherently evil simply because they have a gun or a gun permit. But "news" people who do this to innocent, law-abiding fellow Americans meet my definition of evil.
If you have a pastime or religion or occupation or national origin or favorite sports team or political opinion or lifestyle or blog or skin color or book or car/truck or alma mater that isn't politically-correct, beware! The next map might have a dot with your name and address on it!
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
Every employee and officer of The Journal News should be ashamed. But, the fact that their maps are still up indicates they have no conscience or soul. I pity them.
Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, has proposed a new political party -- the Anti-Incumbent Party. His idea has much merit in a nation where nearly everyone is unhappy with government, yet we somehow reelect over 90% of incumbents with the notion that everything will change.
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein
I have an idea somewhat similar to Scott's. I've long thought that each ballot should include a line for "None of the above."
• If a majority of voters select "None of the above," or
• If the number of "None of the above" voters plus the number of people registered to vote but who don't vote is greater than the sum of voters for all candidates in that race,
• Then that entire branch of government would be disbanded including all politicians and bureaucrats therein who have "served" longer than 2 years and their retirements and other benefits forfeited.
That would followed by a new election to fill the vacated political positions. Anyone who has served in any political or bureaucratic office longer than 2 years would be forever banned from elected office, government employment, or employment as a lobbyist.
After the new politicians are seated, they would conduct a full audit of all government agencies, programs, laws, etc. to purge everything they deem unworthy. Only then could hiring of fresh government employees begin to staff the newly reorganized bureaucracy.
Today, the NRA had a press conference (see video below) wherein it announced a plan to deal with mass shootings in our schools. The ideas presented were generally good, but I'm disappointed that the plan seems to add to the notion that the central government needs to be a part of school security. That's wrong-headed! When has the central government done anything to make anything better?
Even the idea that the federal government can or should simply provide funding is wrong-headed because state and local governments have their own taxing authority and can raise their own money with better accountability to the public -- without all the strings, rules, and mandates attached to federal money. School security and safety, like all aspects of education, is a local and state issue only! (See Constitution, Article I, Section 8 and Amendment 10.)
The only role for the central government to play in school security is for Congress and the President to immediately repeal all the federal legislation and regulation that infringes on the right of parents and school staff to defend themselves and the innocents around them.
The NRA's plan seems to be largely built on in-school police officers. The problem here is that one or two officers cannot possibly protect more than a small portion of the people in a school building and surrounding property that covers acres of land and often has a maze-like floor plan. In a shooting spree, distance = time = additional death. In his portion of the press conference, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre even admitted that an in-school cop is "a minute away"!
I can't support a plan based mostly or entirely on full-time in-school police for a few reasons:
1 - Cost
2 - There is less than a one in a million chance that a mass shooting will occur in a school on any given day
3 - Appearance of a police state
4 - An incredibly boring assignment for the cop
5 - Uniformed police will likely be the first target -- then what?
6 - The cop is unlikely to have the best tool for the job -- a rifle or carbine
7 - If the officer isn't taken out first, who has the gun and where, the shooter will simply go to the other end of the school to start shooting. Considering the size and the maze-like floor plan of many schools, it could take even an in-school officer at least a minute or two to reach the shooter.
I do support local police making random appearances throughout the school day -- especially during recess or breaks between classes so they can interact with the students and staff and go to the cafeteria for a free donut during lunchtime.
A friend suggested we simply lock the school doors. That seems like an easy and cheap solution. The doors at Sandy Hook were locked -- didn't help. The doors at Virginia Tech were locked -- didn't help. Classroom lock-downs alone fail to protect the children and adults who continue to be murdered before the police arrive. Plan on a determined criminal or terrorist to come prepared to deal with known and identifiable obstacles.
It is my opinion that the best option is what we do in Utah. All persons who hold the Utah Concealed firearm Permit, including teachers and other school staff, are trained and licensed to possess a firearm in federal so-called "gun-free" school zones within Utah -- even right into the classroom. Thousands of Utah's school teachers and staff have and use this permit to protect themselves and our children every school day. Unlike a cop, their response time is seconds -- not minutes. Time saves lives. While a licensed teacher or janitor won't have the above mentioned best tool, teachers are in every classroom and on the playground. They are positioned to stop an attack in seconds. Not all school staff will, or need, be armed, but the attacker has no way of knowing who has the gun(s). That uncertainty is a huge deterrence. And, it won't give our schools the appearance of a police state as NRA's proposal would do.
I oppose the imposition of a firearms-training burden on teachers and staff above that necessary to obtain their State's concealed firearm permit. But, optional training needs to be available to them at little or no cost. For example, our teachers must take continuing education throughout their career in order to keep their jobs and teacher certification. I suggest that the NRA's school-security proposal include developing supplemental firearm and classroom-defense training that would satisfy their continuing-education requirements.
The NRA's plan must be expanded to include the teachers and janitors who are everywhere in our schools and who can respond in seconds while awaiting that officer who is "a minute away." The school staff and parents must to have their Second Amendment rights restored and to be full partners in protecting themselves and the children until the police arrive from the other end of the school property! It works in Israel, Thailand, and in Utah. It'll work in the other States.
Another area that must be explored is mental health. We need to identify those who are having mental health problems and get them help. All of the mass-shooters that I've studied have raised more than enough red flags to warrant intervention. People are ignoring those flags in their neighbors, friends, and family. Even a university psychologist ignored the flags put up by the Aurora theater shooter! However, watching people around us for mental health red flags reminds me a lot of Stalin. We gotta be very careful.
With input of NRA's thousands of trainers and members, I have full confidence that the NRA can and will expand its training programs to include a well-thought out school-security training program. Many of us firearms trainers already provide free or discounted training to school staff because we understand that they are the best and only true first line of defense in our schools. Armed school staff (supplemented by police officers), is what will keep our children safe -- not gun control laws or expansion of federal intrusion into our lives.
Most importantly we need to work on restoring the moral fiber of our nation. We need to blast that secularist "separation of church and state" scam out of the water. We can't shove God out of the schools and the public square then wonder where he went when innocent people start falling. Every time the bullies at the ACLU, the NEA, and similar Leftist anti-American hate groups threaten the morality and religious liberty of our students and teachers, our school boards and executives need to tell then to go pound sand, then call liberty Counsel and/or the Pacific Legal Foundation! The same goes for our mayors, city councilors, and county commissioners.
Here's the fact – bad people are going to have guns. And if you've ever smoked a joint, you are disqualified from arguing that prohibition works. -- Kurt Schlichter
Legislation that relies on emotion to get enacted is always bad legislation (eg PATRIOT Act). It is never "reasonable nor "common sense." This can be seen more easily in gun control than perhaps any other area. Much of federal, state, and local gun law is based on emotion and is therefore ineffective in accomplishing the purported goal: to control violent crime. The only people who are really affected by gun laws are those who obey laws. That compliance leaves the good people defenseless against those who, by definition, disobey the law: criminals. (If you have ever smoked a joint or if you have consumed alcohol or tobacco while under-age, you cede to me the argument that prohibition does not work.) The misinformed and uninformed seem to believe that the best way to fight gun crime is to make it harder or impossible for the good people to fight back. That's hardly reasonable nor common sense.
Those who seek to advance gun control know that a substantial portion of the nation is ignorant on the Constitution in general and gun rights in particular, the criminal's mind, causes of crime, crime deterrence, self defense, and gun safety. Typically, those who seek to further regulate firearms and ammunition are, themselves, ignorant in these same issues. This sinister combination is extremely dangerous to liberty and to innocent life.
If anything is to be done about guns, it must be to reasonably reevaluate the infringement of the gun rights of responsible Americans. For example, so-called "gun-free" zones can be found in and around schools, post offices and other government buildings, churches, businesses, and even military installations. The vast majority of these "gun-free" zones provide no substitute for the responsible individual's self-defense firearm. Very rarely is there any security screening and effective armed guard to counter a violent criminal attack. Over and over again, these unreasonable "gun-free" zones have proven to be extremely dangerous places. "Gun-free" areas must be abolished in all cases where effective security screening and armed protection are not provided by the entity creating the "gun-free" zone. Government "gun-free" zones such as post offices and other government facilities must set the example by restoring the reasonable, common sense, and clear intent of the Constitution: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!"
Another common sense step that politicians must take is to fully honor the Constitution by restoring the right of all responsible adults to conceal and carry the common sense and best means of self defense -- a gun. States that adopt reasonable "shall issue" legislation or policies typically see an almost immediate drop in violent crime. "Shall issue" must become the law in every State and territory, including the District of Columbia.
It is troubling that a lawfully armed and responsible adult can cross invisible political boundaries (ie from one county to another or from one State to another) and suddenly find himself in violation of the law. This infringes of the right of Americans to freely and safely travel around the "land of the free and the home of the brave." Where is the "common sense" or "reasonableness" of that? Therefore all federal, state, and local jurisdictions must honor the right of all responsible Americans to travel freely throughout the nation and its territories, including the District of Columbia, with a concealed firearm.
Yes, we need to have a discussion about guns. The discussion must be about restoring our gun rights! Reasonable Americans reject and condemn any and all efforts to increase gun control. Instead, it is common sense to take aggressive steps to push federal, state, and local gun laws back to what great minds like Thomas Jefferson knew and advocated:
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." — Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776)
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Cesare Beccaria (On Crimes And Punishment, 1764) (Quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, p 298-316)
Yes, we need reasonable and common sense gun laws. As America's premier gun law, the Second Amendment meets those standards. Prohibiting violent people from having guns presumably also meets those standards, although such laws are typically ineffective, because violent people will usually get guns anyway -- or employ another mode of violence. Very few of the 20,000 federal, state, and local gun-control laws meet the standard of "reasonable" or "common sense." They must be abolished!
Americans must reject and oppose the irrational emotionalism that always follows human tragedy, fanned by self-serving politicians and so-called "news" reporters. No new gun control! Instead, push it back! There must be no compromise!
I have long been troubled by the seemingly pervasive crime of rape. Public, political, and "news" media reaction to another egregious crime, murder, has given me an idea of how we can impose "reasonable" and "common sense" laws that will deal with the crime of rape:
• Limit all condom purchases to one condom per month per person.
• Purchases of more than one condom per month per person must be reported to government agents. (Yeah, I know that this conflicts with the one-condom-per-month-per-person rule, but contradictory government rules are the rule.)
• Condoms may only be stored in containers that will hold not more than 10 condoms -- no "high-capacity" containers.
• Condoms must conform to strict color, shape, and other aesthetic characteristics having no relationship to actual function so as to not be too scary to the uniformed.
• Condoms must must have a "sporting purpose."
• Condoms with exceptional effectiveness are prohibited.
• Each Condom must be marked with a unique serial number. Obliteration of this serial number is prohibited.
• Each condom must be used by an inspector before packaging for sale or distribution.
• The "fingerprint" of each condom must be recorded to facilitate the tracing of rapists.
• Each condom must include an illustrated booklet containing safety rules and instructions for approved use.
• Each condom must include a lock or built-in locking mechanism to prevent use by unauthorized persons.
• When not in use condoms must be locked to prevent use by unauthorized persons.
• When not in use condoms must be disassembled to prevent use by unauthorized persons.
• When not in use condoms must be stored separately from other items or materials used in sexual activity.
• Condoms must have safety mechanisms that prevent unintentional or accidental discharges should the safety rules not be followed.
• Condom manufacturers must provide samples to government agents for testing and approval before they may be sold to the public. Each change -- including color, size, texture, shape, etc. -- will require a new sample, new government testing, and new government approval.
• Condoms may only be purchased from licensed condom dealers.
• Condoms dealers must undergo close scrutiny from government agents including background checks, license fees, recurrent government inspections, and eternal retention of all paperwork related to each and every condom sale. Spelling errors or unapproved abbreviations in the dealer's paperwork are prohibited.
• Condom manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must be subject to extreme civil penalties should anyone ever misuse a condom including, but not limited to, the commission of a crime.
• All persons who intend to buy, possess, or use condoms must first take a condom safety class from a government-approved trainer, pass a condom safety test, and possess a Condom Owner's Identification (COID) card.
• All condom purchasers must pass a background check prior to any acquisition of any condom(s).
• Condoms may not be sold or otherwise transferred to residents of another State.
• Condoms may not be possessed or used by persons who use illegal drugs or who are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.
• Condoms may not be used by persons who are intoxicated.
• Condoms are prohibited in churches establishments that serve alcohol.
• Condoms may not be possessed or used by persons who are the subject of a restraining order.
• Condoms may not be possessed or used by persons who have been convicted of a felony.
• Condoms may not be possessed or used by persons who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
• Condoms may not be inherited by an heir or gifted from one person to another unless the ownership is transferred through a licensed condom dealer.
• All condom purchases must be recorded on a document that is available to government scrutiny at the government's discretion.
• There must be a waiting period of 7 days after a condom purchase before the purchaser may take possession of the condom(s).
• "Straw purchase" of condoms for any person who is not authorized by the government to possess or use a condom is unlawful.
• Condoms may not be sold or otherwise transferred at any public gathering such as a gay pride event, abortion rights rally, etc.
• One must be at least age 21 to buy a condom.
• Condom use by a person under age 18 must be supervised by an adult.
• Persons under age 18 who use a condom must have, in their possession, written permission of a parent or guardian.
• Possession of a condom within 1,000 feet of a school is prohibited.
• Condoms are prohibited in churches.
• Condoms are prohibited in government buildings including post offices.
• Condoms are prohibited in businesses where management has an irrational fear of condoms.
• Employees may not possess condoms in businesses -- including parking lots -- where management has an irrational fear of condoms.
• Of course, politicians, judges, other government agents, and politically-connected non-government persons need not comply with and of the above rules and government agents will continue to have unfettered authority to impose non-consensual sex, with or without condoms, on any member(s) of society they choose at any time at taxpayer expense.
Silly, you say? All these restrictions are imposed or proposed on responsible gun owners somewhere in the "land of the free and the home of the brave." Not one of these 20,000+ "common sense" and "reasonable" laws and rules really has done anything to affect criminal behavior or criminal use of firearms. But, surely, similar "common sense" and "reasonable" regulation of condoms will reduce or eliminate rape.
You say that one need not possess or use a condom to commit rape? True enough. Cannot the same can be said for other forms of violence, including attacks on school children?
How about this: We could simply outlaw rape and murder and imprison or stone all rapists and murderers and simply leave all responsible adults alone!
The story reminds us that two of the most dangerous places to be in the US are:
1 - Near a woman with a restraining order against her violent ex. (Note: A restraining order voids the restrainee's gun rights for the duration of the order.)
2 - In a "gun-free" zone such as a school.
Isn't it interesting that two of the most dangerous places are where guns are prohibited?
How is posting an absurd "Gun Free Zone" sign on our schools any different from posting a sign on your home or business that says, "We do not have a security system"?
Ironically, gun-rights advocates were condemned for pointing out the silliness of "gun-free" zones "so soon after the [latest] shooting." No such condemnation awaited gun control activists who exploited this evil to call for more gun control.
A friend and coworker lamented, "Something has to change! I'm so pissed off. This country gets worse & worse."
Her solution: "Maybe we should follow the rest of the world, & close up shop on a Sunday or a Friday. Make Christmas & New Year's a family holiday. Follow the Europeans with a law that all workers have 6 weeks a year vacation, not 2 weeks if you're lucky! Make everyone fast 1 month a year, so they can appreciate what they have."
Some of those ideas might well be worth considering. But it avoids the root of the problem: moral and ethical behavior compounded by mental illness and drugs.
When I was a kid, during recess we played "cops and robbers" and "cowboys and Indians." Today, banned. After Christmas, we took our brand-new official Roy Rogers toy guns to school for "show and tell." Today, banned. We prayed in school. Today, banned. Nobody was afraid or ashamed to talk about religion in school or in public. Today, banned. Any adult could by guns and ammo without a background check -- at the corner gas station! With that influence in our lives, nobody shot up schools, churches, and malls like they do today. Why? We knew right from wrong. Those who didn't or wouldn't were put where they couldn't hurt anyone.
Today, the value of human life has declined to the point where we kill over 3,300 unborn children each day -- most often because the child is inconvenient! Does anyone want to blame that on guns, too?
I grew up in a day of absolute truth as found in the Bible and in writings of other wise men and women. Today, all truth is relative -- what's true for you might not be true for me. Huh? The canary is dying! Society is close behind unless we get out of this poisoned coal mine of moral relativism.
Today, prayer and any mention of God is banned in our public schools. Religious influence on public affairs is taboo. People whine about "separation of church and state" -- a maliciously misapplied phrase found nowhere in our founding documents.
Parents delegate the rearing of their children to babysitters so they can work to buy their kids "things" but not give them time (other than to drive them to soccer practice). By default, TV and video games, with all their violence and immorality, are the primary ways children now learn about behavior, morals, ethics, and even gun "safety". When people have behavioral problems, especially children (more specially, boys), we don't correctly teach them how to behave. Instead, we simply drug them and hope the problem goes away. When things go badly, we don't blame parental and societal failure. No, we take the least responsible path: Blame an inanimate piece of plastic and steel.
You use the name of Deity in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the United States, and yet you cannot use it in the schoolroom. — Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain
I agree with my coworker that "something has to change" We need to go back to what worked: We need to get God back into our lives and into our society and to get parents back into parenting -- full time.
I don't think it's about more gun control. I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren't taught the value of life. — Samuel L. Jackson
Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur....For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives...have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus....Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society....The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. — Walter E. Williams
Everyone, regardless of political agenda, who is capable of rational thought knows the problem is not guns. It is our rejection of God and His truth and a complete failure to be our brother's keeper.
HR.709/S.3583, the "Community Parks Revitalization Act" would establish four related grant programs to fund urban recreation facilities and to support or establish at-risk youth programs. In order for local governments to receive funds under the Act, they would be required to match the grant amounts with local tax dollars.
The annualized cost for this legislation is said to be $445 million ($2.225 billion over five years). That does not include the matching cost that would be imposed on the state and local governments. Congress has bankrupted this nation with unnecessary social-engineering legislation like this!
I am outraged that Congress would consider another in a long list of legislation that funds state and local programs. Congress seems oblivious to the simple fact that if a local community needs "urban recreation facilities and to support or establish at-risk youth programs", it can identify that need on its own, convince the local voters of the need, then tax the community to pay for it -- without the interference, "help", or strings attached that always comes with federal programs.
It is even more outrageous that state and local governments always seem eager to seek and accept federal money for programs they often don't need or even want along with all the bureaucracy, regulations, and other "strings" that this "free" money entails.
I know that most of the members of Congress think it's funny when we commoners bring up the Constitution, but I see nothing in the US Constitution that authorizes Congress to fund, mandate, interfere with, or otherwise legislate local and state affairs. In fact, the Tenth Amendment specifically leaves those responsibilities with the States and the People and clearly prohibits Congress from doing anything that is best done at the state and local levels.
Moreover, to presume that only government can solve problems is absurd. "[A]t-risk youth programs" are best planned and executed by volunteers in youth programs such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire, Big Brother, Big Sisters, 4-H, etc. -- not big government! Yet, for some bizarre reason, many in Congress want to discourage charity and volunteering by cutting tax deductions.
Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem. -- Ronald Reagan
I remind every member of Congress that they took an oath of loyalty to the US Constitution -- not to any political party or leader, not to any lobbyist, and definitely not to bring home pork or to do the jobs of the States and local communities!
I urge every voter to take that first small step toward fiscal sanity in government. Urge your congressmen to vote no on HR.709 / S.3583 and to aggressively fight its enactment.
Posts
