How many armed conflicts are we engaged in now? Lingering Iraq action, Combat actions in Afghanistan, secret Ops in Somalia and elsewhere, and now maybe Mali?
We have had many "green on blue" attacks on our Soldiers. That is, terrorists dressed and/or working as a "friendly" police or military counter-part, attacking our guys.
We try extremely hard to avoid collateral damage and death to innocents, and sadly, at a greater risk to our own soldiers. Sometimes, such cautiousness means over-cautiousness, and could be placing additional threats to our folks in the field.
In all cases, I think we need to get extremely serious about our military responses and engagements, as well as well defined armed engagement (that's "war" to anyone involved!). Personally, just as one guy not in this fray, and as a very opinionated veteran of a long ago war, I'd offer the follow for consideration:
Military engagements/wars -
1. Other than an required "immediate response" to a direct threat to the US, or a very close ally, then ALL military action on foreign soil (and air space), should ONLY happen with Congressional approval.
2. In such an event, clear objectives are to be defined, and all manner to be given to achieve it.
3. Then, ALL manner of force is to be used for the quickest possible defeat of our enemy,
and NO occupation longer than the action calls for. (Get in. Kill'em. Get out.)
4. Rules Of Engagement (ROE) will be open to all measures needed to rain hell on the enemy, and any places the enemy uses to hide, launch attacks, use as shields, and what ever else the Field Commanders need to bring the conflict to a quick conclusion. (In WWII, we bombed whole cities, with young and old, women, children, just to destroy the enemy war machine, and bring them to their knees.)
5. ALL people should know, without question, that if they ALLOW aggressors to use their home, village, mosque, or other place, we will take no pause in leveling that place. WE need to be more feared (*) than our aggressor, or they will permit our aggressors to use them because of the greater fear of them.
6. I would make clear to the world, this: The USA does not want to occupy any other nation; the
USA does not want war in any other country; but if any country causes the USA to engage in war,
ALL HELL will be brought down on the earth our enemy stands on. NO MERCY on anyone who
combats us, or aides those who do. George Bush had it right! You're either for us, or you're
against us. I'd only add that you don't have to be for us, as long as you're not participating in some
way against us. Leave us, and our close allies, alone, and we'll leave you alone. If other 3rd world
countries want to kill each other, then it's not our concern. If it's genocide, then the world can
petition the UN to do something about it! Sometimes, the weak choose to remain weak, and they are their own victims.
I read somewhere, "If one is put in a position to respond to violence, then let it be so devastating that concern of reprisal would not be needed."
WAR IS HELL .... not a surgical operation with pain killers and sterile surroundings! And HELL
is what any potential enemy needs to be sure of coming with us!
(*) In MY view, we should be "feared" in combat actions. WE need to be the baddest sons-a-bitches on the land, sea, and air.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Partisanship and the Media
Recently, you may have seen a Congressional hearing over the attacks in Benghazi, in which 4 Americans (including an Ambassador) were killed. That attack should be well know by most, and I won't go into all that part.
When I wrote about some of that hearing, and in particular about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony, I did get a response from one person. That person said that they were disappointed at the partisanship that was displayed in that hearing. I suspect, that is from a viewpoint that all we seem to see today, is a very divided electorate on most every issue presented. And I mostly agree. I won't assume the person was suggesting a one-sided display only. It was both ways, to be sure.
But in this case - it is MY view - that "partisanship" was shown far more by the Democrats. If anyone watched, with a truly objective eye, the Dems in that hearing spent most there time offering glowing comments about and to Sec. Clinton. And I can not recall any truly "objective" or "critical" question asked by the left. If I missed them, please correct me.
But let me pose this thought - IF, by any real measure, one side asked appropriately critical questions of anyone, then the other side asked "softball" (or no) relevant questions, one could look at the very one-sided line of questioning, as being "partisan". The absence of object inquiries by one side, should not make the other side's questions, to be called partisan. Both sides should be asking critical and investigatory questions.
Now, add to that, a majority of reporting (media), commenting that the only one side was overly critical, and some may come away thinking that is true. In MY view, the media has kowtowed so much to one side, to the point of actually supporting one side, that we can no longer depend on them to provide us, the people, with dependable information to make informed decisions on who we vote for. And that goes for both sides and most media. I happen to believe that MOST major news media, weighs heavily to one side. (I used to think CNN was THE place to expect objectively balanced and honest reporting - GONE!)
There are so many unanswered questions surrounding the attacks on our people in Benghazi. And few answers. That hearing should have been a time to get some answers. But it didn't. It didn't, in MY view, because Clinton was protected by one side, therefore skirting most of the issues. And the media played along.
When I wrote about some of that hearing, and in particular about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony, I did get a response from one person. That person said that they were disappointed at the partisanship that was displayed in that hearing. I suspect, that is from a viewpoint that all we seem to see today, is a very divided electorate on most every issue presented. And I mostly agree. I won't assume the person was suggesting a one-sided display only. It was both ways, to be sure.
But in this case - it is MY view - that "partisanship" was shown far more by the Democrats. If anyone watched, with a truly objective eye, the Dems in that hearing spent most there time offering glowing comments about and to Sec. Clinton. And I can not recall any truly "objective" or "critical" question asked by the left. If I missed them, please correct me.
But let me pose this thought - IF, by any real measure, one side asked appropriately critical questions of anyone, then the other side asked "softball" (or no) relevant questions, one could look at the very one-sided line of questioning, as being "partisan". The absence of object inquiries by one side, should not make the other side's questions, to be called partisan. Both sides should be asking critical and investigatory questions.
Now, add to that, a majority of reporting (media), commenting that the only one side was overly critical, and some may come away thinking that is true. In MY view, the media has kowtowed so much to one side, to the point of actually supporting one side, that we can no longer depend on them to provide us, the people, with dependable information to make informed decisions on who we vote for. And that goes for both sides and most media. I happen to believe that MOST major news media, weighs heavily to one side. (I used to think CNN was THE place to expect objectively balanced and honest reporting - GONE!)
There are so many unanswered questions surrounding the attacks on our people in Benghazi. And few answers. That hearing should have been a time to get some answers. But it didn't. It didn't, in MY view, because Clinton was protected by one side, therefore skirting most of the issues. And the media played along.
Monday, January 28, 2013
YOU are Your Own First Responder!
Recently, there have been county Sheriffs from all over the country speaking out about newly suggested gun control measures. In the past, I've even heard a South Texas Sheriff tell his county residents to arm themselves, because he didn't have enough Deputies to respond to every call, and that the illegal drugs and human smuggling growing in that region, the citizens were under more threat.
Then today (1/28/2013), a county Sheriff, David Clarke, Jr., of Milwaukee County, releasing a statement for his citizens, and in effect, "...simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."
Side note: Some in the media, and Milwaukee's Mayor, have said that the Sheriff was telling people to not call 9-1-1 and to get a gun. That is NOT what he said. "..simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. And, "Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm ..." But typical of the media wanting t sensationalize a story, presented it differently.
The FACT is, that Sheriff is right. SO are the other sheriffs who say they can't always be there. They CAN'T. As a former Deputy and Police Officer, I can tell you that is absolutely true. While I, and every other Law Enforcement Officer, wanted to get their to stop a crime and save citizens from becoming victims, the FACT is, we responded to calls. Calls that go out most often, after the crime had taken place, or at best, in progress.
But the point the Milwaukee Sheriff was making, was that each of us, are our own FIRST RESPONDERS. And yes, consider a firearm for protection, but that isn't the only option. And as strong of a 2nd amendment supporter that I am, I have never said that guns are the answer for everyone.
But we, you and I, ARE our first responders. WE, you and I, need to take some level of responsibility in our own protection. I have dogs and guns and locks and alarms. I HOPE some bad-guy doesn't get past the locks, or past the dogs. But if so, and while awaiting the police to get here, I have a gun and will use it. Many people feel comfortable with stopping with a dog, or a ball bat. But a scared, or dead, dog and a ball bat, will not stop an oncoming bad guy(s) with a knife or a gun, or just bigger and badder! So while you wait, assuming you could even get a call made, WHAT WILL YOU DO,
"...beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed..."?
Law Enforcement, most every time, will be the 2nd RESPONDER. And we all need to understand that!
Then today (1/28/2013), a county Sheriff, David Clarke, Jr., of Milwaukee County, releasing a statement for his citizens, and in effect, "...simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."
Side note: Some in the media, and Milwaukee's Mayor, have said that the Sheriff was telling people to not call 9-1-1 and to get a gun. That is NOT what he said. "..simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. And, "Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm ..." But typical of the media wanting t sensationalize a story, presented it differently.
The FACT is, that Sheriff is right. SO are the other sheriffs who say they can't always be there. They CAN'T. As a former Deputy and Police Officer, I can tell you that is absolutely true. While I, and every other Law Enforcement Officer, wanted to get their to stop a crime and save citizens from becoming victims, the FACT is, we responded to calls. Calls that go out most often, after the crime had taken place, or at best, in progress.
But the point the Milwaukee Sheriff was making, was that each of us, are our own FIRST RESPONDERS. And yes, consider a firearm for protection, but that isn't the only option. And as strong of a 2nd amendment supporter that I am, I have never said that guns are the answer for everyone.
But we, you and I, ARE our first responders. WE, you and I, need to take some level of responsibility in our own protection. I have dogs and guns and locks and alarms. I HOPE some bad-guy doesn't get past the locks, or past the dogs. But if so, and while awaiting the police to get here, I have a gun and will use it. Many people feel comfortable with stopping with a dog, or a ball bat. But a scared, or dead, dog and a ball bat, will not stop an oncoming bad guy(s) with a knife or a gun, or just bigger and badder! So while you wait, assuming you could even get a call made, WHAT WILL YOU DO,
"...beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed..."?
Law Enforcement, most every time, will be the 2nd RESPONDER. And we all need to understand that!
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Why I Oppose Gun Registration
For many years I was a Law Enforcement Officer. In those years, I worked Patrol and later as a Detective. In the course of those duties, I had many occasions where I searched, often "incident to arrest" persons, vehicles, and inside structures. I also executed many "search warrants", based on "probable cause", and signed by a Judge.
Why a "search warrant", when I had reason to believe what I was seeking, was hidden somewhere? I was a Police Officer, conducting lawful business, and was trained. So WHY would I need a "search warrant"? If the person had nothing to hide, then WHY should I even need to go through a process to seek a "search warrant"?
If I believed, by reason of my professional suspicions or even a good hunch, that you had marijuana in your house, then why shouldn't I just go in and get it? And if you didn't have such contraband, then WHY would a lawful citizen NOT let me in to make sure? If you have nothing to hide (or risk), then why not just let any police officer in, anytime their was a hunch something was amiss?
Because of the 4th Amendment guarantees our right, to wit:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
Germany, in 1939 Poland, used Poland's gun registry to confiscate weapons from those citizens. Poland, with a military unable to defend against Germany, was further handicapped with a populace that was quickly disarmed.
Could we, gun owners and NRA members, be the next "Jew" or Pol or Russian dissident to have our "rights" taken away? Remember, Hitler was so popular in 1938 that Germans overwhelmingly supported him, and his actions to make Germany a "better place".
I oppose ALL gun registration beyond what was required by the 1968 Gun Control Act. And as a law abiding citizen, it is my view that ANY property I own, and legally obtained, is none of the governments business. PERIOD!
Why a "search warrant", when I had reason to believe what I was seeking, was hidden somewhere? I was a Police Officer, conducting lawful business, and was trained. So WHY would I need a "search warrant"? If the person had nothing to hide, then WHY should I even need to go through a process to seek a "search warrant"?
If I believed, by reason of my professional suspicions or even a good hunch, that you had marijuana in your house, then why shouldn't I just go in and get it? And if you didn't have such contraband, then WHY would a lawful citizen NOT let me in to make sure? If you have nothing to hide (or risk), then why not just let any police officer in, anytime their was a hunch something was amiss?
Because of the 4th Amendment guarantees our right, to wit:
The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized.
We have relied on that amendment for generations, to protect ourselves from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Even if you did have something to hide, it was up to the government (law enforcement) to prove to a Judge that sufficient probable cause existed to "permit" the government to enter private property, and to seize illegal items or persons. Otherwise, why not just let any police office show their badge, and let them in? If we had nothing to hide, what difference would it make?
The difference - is because we have the "right" to be secure in our homes and property. And, because unbridled authority would no doubt lead to abuses. Even with legal authority, such actions are abused all the time!
Which brings me to the subject of "gun registration". To many, that does not seem to be such a bad thing. Right? I mean, if you have nothing to hide, then what would be the problem with the government knowing what you own? Just register the firearms, and no worry about it.
To many of us, and the lessons of history, "registration" could easily be a first step to "confiscation". Today, we have government officials saying that they have no intentions on "confiscation", in violation of the 2nd amendment. But if we accept the "government's word" on that, then why not accept the government's word about the 4th amendment, and they would never just start going into homes on hunches that crimes were committed? We DON'T trust that, and that is why we have the 4th amendment.
To me, I see such an act of required registration by the government, to being open to the "potential" of being abused. If we should accept the government's word that they would not use that to confiscate, then find out they had a change of mind? We have a guarantee now, and it's called "shall not be infringed"! Besides, if we take a close look at the 4th amendment, we should be "secure" in our property, and could we really be secure, if an errant government knew what we owned? And our firearms, ARE our property too! IF such a government were to deviate from our Bill of Rights, for some supposed "greater good", then how secure would any of us really be? (Besides, WHY would the government really want "registration", if not for a possible confiscation later?)
History has born out that registration can, and has, lead to confiscation. Here is a writing of some of that 1938, and on, history in Germany:
Germany, in 1939 Poland, used Poland's gun registry to confiscate weapons from those citizens. Poland, with a military unable to defend against Germany, was further handicapped with a populace that was quickly disarmed.
Could we, gun owners and NRA members, be the next "Jew" or Pol or Russian dissident to have our "rights" taken away? Remember, Hitler was so popular in 1938 that Germans overwhelmingly supported him, and his actions to make Germany a "better place".
I oppose ALL gun registration beyond what was required by the 1968 Gun Control Act. And as a law abiding citizen, it is my view that ANY property I own, and legally obtained, is none of the governments business. PERIOD!
Friday, January 25, 2013
Teaching the Fear of Guns
(Although I am a Life Member of the NRA, the following are MY personal views only, and not those of any organization, association, or any other entity.)
I believe the fear of guns, is UN-healthy, and even causes our children to be in MORE danger. Fear of anything, may cause a reaction that could be a more dangerous response than the stimulus itself. Having "respect" for a firearm, is much safer than a "fear" of firearms, and can save lives.
Our current rhetoric from political and anti-gun activists, are instilling unnecessary fear, by targeting "guns", and even "gun owners", as evil. Instead of a focus on "evil" people, we are being diverted away from them, to the "gun". Guns are but one of the tools of an evil person may use. (Remember, Tim McVeigh used "fertilizer" bomb to kill 168 people!)
Many people simply get nervous, even fearful, at the mere sight of a gun, on a police officer's belt or otherwise. This is an unreasonable fear, that has been taught and reinforced by anti-gun political forces. I know that from my time as a Police Officer, I would encounter some everyday people who would look at my sidearm, and I could see a slight facial recoil from that sight. I still think that is a silly notion. MY firearm was of NO threat to them. Yet they displayed fear of my police sidearm.
In today's classrooms around the country, we are instilling such a fear, and school children are even being suspended for the simple use of a "finger" held like a pointed "gun", or a pencil drawing of a "gun", and to even include the drawing of a soldier with a "rifle"! How absurd. And I suggest, even dangerous. (You might also read my post, http://american1st.blogspot.com/2012/12/portrait-of-gun-nut.html )
We should be teaching ALL children, a healthy "respect for" and the "safety around", firearms. A healthy respect of what they are, what can be dangerous about them, and most importantly for our children, what to do if they encounter a "gun". NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program school children, is an exceptional one. The taught motto, "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult".
But sadly, because it's provided by the NRA, that program is often shunned!
See: http://www.aaof.com/ed1.htm
But we, our country in general, are doing the opposite. We are teaching "fear" to our children. And that "fear" is UN-healthy. By making fearful children, we make fearful adults. Fear is a natural response to danger. But instilling fear of "things" not presenting an immediate danger, is not productive.
In the real world, there is much to fear. School shootings for one. Tragic shootings, by purely evil people, is a problem that causes all parents to fear for their children. That fear, in MY view, is causing people to react by focusing on the wrong things. Focusing on some of the tools of the evil, is not focusing on the evil. Being fearful of any true danger of any one "thing" is one thing. But better placed fear is of an evil person, and what ever method they may use.
In a split second, someone can be so afraid that they may react as if their life were in danger, even if it actually isn't a deadly threat, and their body would initiate the fight-or-flight response that is critical to any animal's survival. Even when there is no danger at all, but the belief that danger is present, caused by a stimulus such as a spider, a sudden sound in the dead of night, or the sight of a gun, can also cause some people to react wrongly, and increase their own danger.
Reactions to fear can be different for different people. I KNOW from personal experience, that fear can cause one to be frozen in place, or if armed (in my case), fire without focus and control, emptying a magazine uncontrollably.
I believe that could be why many do not want armed police/guards in schools. They are so afraid of "guns", or the sight of a gun, that even an armed police presence make people fearful. This is shortsighted, and dangerous, as it leave "guns" to be in the hands of just the bad guys, who will not care a lick about a "Gun Free Zone" sign on the front door! And with over 300 MILLION firearms in this country alone, the "gun" will never go away. NEVER. Even if we stop producing firearms, other countries WILL provide black market guns, true machine guns, to street thugs. (Or Eric Holder will arrange the sale to drug bandits!)
To coin a phrase, that IS appropriate, "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns." Deny as some will, but it is absolutely true.
TEACH our children knowledge and respect, NOT fear. Its one thing to acknowledge that "danger" may be present, but knowledge of what to do will provide for a more controlled response, and a safer one.
I believe the fear of guns, is UN-healthy, and even causes our children to be in MORE danger. Fear of anything, may cause a reaction that could be a more dangerous response than the stimulus itself. Having "respect" for a firearm, is much safer than a "fear" of firearms, and can save lives.
Our current rhetoric from political and anti-gun activists, are instilling unnecessary fear, by targeting "guns", and even "gun owners", as evil. Instead of a focus on "evil" people, we are being diverted away from them, to the "gun". Guns are but one of the tools of an evil person may use. (Remember, Tim McVeigh used "fertilizer" bomb to kill 168 people!)
Many people simply get nervous, even fearful, at the mere sight of a gun, on a police officer's belt or otherwise. This is an unreasonable fear, that has been taught and reinforced by anti-gun political forces. I know that from my time as a Police Officer, I would encounter some everyday people who would look at my sidearm, and I could see a slight facial recoil from that sight. I still think that is a silly notion. MY firearm was of NO threat to them. Yet they displayed fear of my police sidearm.
In today's classrooms around the country, we are instilling such a fear, and school children are even being suspended for the simple use of a "finger" held like a pointed "gun", or a pencil drawing of a "gun", and to even include the drawing of a soldier with a "rifle"! How absurd. And I suggest, even dangerous. (You might also read my post, http://american1st.blogspot.com/2012/12/portrait-of-gun-nut.html )
We should be teaching ALL children, a healthy "respect for" and the "safety around", firearms. A healthy respect of what they are, what can be dangerous about them, and most importantly for our children, what to do if they encounter a "gun". NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program school children, is an exceptional one. The taught motto, "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult".
But sadly, because it's provided by the NRA, that program is often shunned!
See: http://www.aaof.com/ed1.htm
But we, our country in general, are doing the opposite. We are teaching "fear" to our children. And that "fear" is UN-healthy. By making fearful children, we make fearful adults. Fear is a natural response to danger. But instilling fear of "things" not presenting an immediate danger, is not productive.
In the real world, there is much to fear. School shootings for one. Tragic shootings, by purely evil people, is a problem that causes all parents to fear for their children. That fear, in MY view, is causing people to react by focusing on the wrong things. Focusing on some of the tools of the evil, is not focusing on the evil. Being fearful of any true danger of any one "thing" is one thing. But better placed fear is of an evil person, and what ever method they may use.
In a split second, someone can be so afraid that they may react as if their life were in danger, even if it actually isn't a deadly threat, and their body would initiate the fight-or-flight response that is critical to any animal's survival. Even when there is no danger at all, but the belief that danger is present, caused by a stimulus such as a spider, a sudden sound in the dead of night, or the sight of a gun, can also cause some people to react wrongly, and increase their own danger.
Reactions to fear can be different for different people. I KNOW from personal experience, that fear can cause one to be frozen in place, or if armed (in my case), fire without focus and control, emptying a magazine uncontrollably.
I believe that could be why many do not want armed police/guards in schools. They are so afraid of "guns", or the sight of a gun, that even an armed police presence make people fearful. This is shortsighted, and dangerous, as it leave "guns" to be in the hands of just the bad guys, who will not care a lick about a "Gun Free Zone" sign on the front door! And with over 300 MILLION firearms in this country alone, the "gun" will never go away. NEVER. Even if we stop producing firearms, other countries WILL provide black market guns, true machine guns, to street thugs. (Or Eric Holder will arrange the sale to drug bandits!)
To coin a phrase, that IS appropriate, "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns." Deny as some will, but it is absolutely true.
TEACH our children knowledge and respect, NOT fear. Its one thing to acknowledge that "danger" may be present, but knowledge of what to do will provide for a more controlled response, and a safer one.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
What Difference Does It Make?
In front of a Congressional panel on the Benghazi attacks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got defensive over a question that was asked by Senator Ron Johnson. In an heated response, she stated in part, "...what difference at this point does it make?"
Clinton in essence, stated that those four men were already dead, and that it was time to move forward to avoid that happening again. In that response, I saw someone who was caught in an indefensible position, and instead of confronting that question, lashed out with a very stupid and disrespectful response.
Well Hillary, if we don't fully understand ALL that went wrong, we CAN'T learn from it to avoid future attacks. So Hillary, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Hillary, FOUR men are dead, and we need to know WHY? So Hillary, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
From what I've read and heard, the breakdown in security left the Ambassador vulnerable for such an attack. And we must know how and why that happened. From what has been released, there were multiple requests for retaining the security that had been there (and removed), added security, existing threats to our Embassy as well as other foreign offices, and the increased activity of al-Qaeda affiliates. Yet, NO additional armed security personnel were added, and in fact, were reduced. WHY? By WHO's authority? We must know that. It DOES matter!
Every LIE told by members of State and the White House, about some video inspiring riots that evolved into that attack, seems to me to have been an attempt to cover up ALL the failures leading up to the attack. So Hillary, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
When the attacks commenced, urgent messages were sent to D.C.. Yet, NO security aid, via CIA or Military, was tasked to do ANYTHING. Drone(s) were overhead, but NO combat assets dispatched? WHY? By WHO's authority? We must know that. It DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
The CIA assets who were about a mile away, were ordered to "stand down", when requesting to aid the Ambassador. WHY? By WHO's authority? We must know that. It DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Those CIA Officers went anyway, and attempted to save the Ambassador and his staff. In what has been reported as a 7 - 8 hour firefight, with 2 - 3 requests for assistance, and even "painting the target" with targeting lasers, NO "ready response" assets were sent. For 7 - 8 HOURS! WHY? By WHO's authority? We must know that. It DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
For the self-righteous Clinton to burst out with such a comment, in her attempt to defray the hard questions, is inexcusable. And it was WRONG. It absolutely matters, and it DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Clinton in essence, stated that those four men were already dead, and that it was time to move forward to avoid that happening again. In that response, I saw someone who was caught in an indefensible position, and instead of confronting that question, lashed out with a very stupid and disrespectful response.
Well Hillary, if we don't fully understand ALL that went wrong, we CAN'T learn from it to avoid future attacks. So Hillary, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Hillary, FOUR men are dead, and we need to know WHY? So Hillary, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
From what I've read and heard, the breakdown in security left the Ambassador vulnerable for such an attack. And we must know how and why that happened. From what has been released, there were multiple requests for retaining the security that had been there (and removed), added security, existing threats to our Embassy as well as other foreign offices, and the increased activity of al-Qaeda affiliates. Yet, NO additional armed security personnel were added, and in fact, were reduced. WHY? By WHO's authority? We must know that. It DOES matter!
Every LIE told by members of State and the White House, about some video inspiring riots that evolved into that attack, seems to me to have been an attempt to cover up ALL the failures leading up to the attack. So Hillary, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
When the attacks commenced, urgent messages were sent to D.C.. Yet, NO security aid, via CIA or Military, was tasked to do ANYTHING. Drone(s) were overhead, but NO combat assets dispatched? WHY? By WHO's authority? We must know that. It DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
The CIA assets who were about a mile away, were ordered to "stand down", when requesting to aid the Ambassador. WHY? By WHO's authority? We must know that. It DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Those CIA Officers went anyway, and attempted to save the Ambassador and his staff. In what has been reported as a 7 - 8 hour firefight, with 2 - 3 requests for assistance, and even "painting the target" with targeting lasers, NO "ready response" assets were sent. For 7 - 8 HOURS! WHY? By WHO's authority? We must know that. It DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
For the self-righteous Clinton to burst out with such a comment, in her attempt to defray the hard questions, is inexcusable. And it was WRONG. It absolutely matters, and it DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Would YOU Ride?
Paul Revere, along with William Dawes, at great risk of arrest or death to themselves, mounted their horses and rode to alarm of the coming threat. The British "Regulars" were coming to Concord, to arrest the outspoken Samuel Adams and John Hancock, and to seize the militia's weapons caches.
Adams and Hancock had to grab what they could, and took to hiding before they could be arrested. A good many of our Founding Fathers, risked everything, "Their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred Honor", to get this new country started.
I don't rant, or "sound an alarm" as it might be, because the "Brits are coming. Or that our government is coming for us today. I sound my alarm, because I fear being silent permits such government encroachments to evolve until too late. I feel there are many signs for such alarm. Our President, and not just this one, has cast a larger net of government rules, laws, dictates by Executive Orders, protected possible wrong doing by Executive Privilege, and has essentially ignored half of his citizenry. Even in this President's own words, "...sometime the constitution gets in the way of some things I'd like to do.", is very dangerous thinking, and if not abated, could lead to a President doing what ever he wants. That isn't Presidential. That's dictatorial!
So, in my small way of blogging, tweeting, discussing on-line or in person, I will protest this government at every errant direction I see it take. To be silent, would be the same as leaving my horse in the barn and not taking that ride of 1775.
How many today would risk "Their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred Honor", to take such a ride today? Would you? I promise, I would and will if it comes to that.
Adams and Hancock had to grab what they could, and took to hiding before they could be arrested. A good many of our Founding Fathers, risked everything, "Their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred Honor", to get this new country started.
I don't rant, or "sound an alarm" as it might be, because the "Brits are coming. Or that our government is coming for us today. I sound my alarm, because I fear being silent permits such government encroachments to evolve until too late. I feel there are many signs for such alarm. Our President, and not just this one, has cast a larger net of government rules, laws, dictates by Executive Orders, protected possible wrong doing by Executive Privilege, and has essentially ignored half of his citizenry. Even in this President's own words, "...sometime the constitution gets in the way of some things I'd like to do.", is very dangerous thinking, and if not abated, could lead to a President doing what ever he wants. That isn't Presidential. That's dictatorial!
So, in my small way of blogging, tweeting, discussing on-line or in person, I will protest this government at every errant direction I see it take. To be silent, would be the same as leaving my horse in the barn and not taking that ride of 1775.
How many today would risk "Their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred Honor", to take such a ride today? Would you? I promise, I would and will if it comes to that.
Friday, January 11, 2013
What James Holmes Counted On
This past year, in a movie theater in Colorado, a young man entered, and fulfilled his plan to shoot and kill as many people as he could. We all know the story of James Holmes, who's trial is going on as I write. There is no understanding of why anyone would commit such a heinous crime.
While the trial will go over every known detail of the crime and the planning, there are a few things we should understand. Holmes had a very reasonable expectation of several things in the course of committing this act.
1. Holmes had reason to believe that there would be no one armed inside the theater. The theater was posted to forbid firearms, as Holmes knew before he got there that day. Holmes had been to that theater before, planning his horrific deed, and KNEW the theater was posted for no firearms. So Holmes had every expectation that he would not have to be confronted by an armed citizen. Holmes KNEW he could do as he pleased, at least until the police arrived.
2. When Holmes calculated the arrival of the police, he exited the theater, and waited. Holmes KNEW he would be arrested, but with him remaining compliant, he would not be hurt and would be treated professionally by the police. Holmes was compliant, and did not give them any reason to hurt him.
3. Holmes KNEW this would make huge headlines, and he would become famous, or infamous as it is. In some twisted circles, he knew there would be a following. The headlines, the TV coverage, the stories to be written, would lift him high on the notoriety podium. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't expect fan mail, and even some girlfriends to write him.
4. Holmes KNEW he would be given a fair trial, and knew it would be drawn out as long as his lawyers could make it, thus enhancing his reliving his deeds. And the notoriety would continue all the while he would remain safe from harm in the jail facility. Because that's what our very civil, very humane, society does.
5. Holmes also knows he will be convicted, and will go to prison as a cult hero of sorts, at least until he is put to death. Until then, he may have 13 years, or even many more, to await the sleepy civilized injection of death. So he KNOWS that during all that time, he can have his prepared meals, reasonable access to sunlight, recreation, library privileges, health care, and TV.
Holmes KNOWS these things, because we have a just and fair judicial system, and humane penal systems that make sure that ALL his civil and human rights are afforded to him. And all the while, he can write, be interviewed, and have his exploits live on for decades to come.
Yep, Holmes counted on all these things. And when all of his appeals end, and that needle goes into his arm, we will sit back and proudly profess that "the system worked". Well, it ONLY worked for Holmes. And, it'll work for the next nut-bag who follows in his footsteps. But if it up to me, I'd change that. At least, right after his conviction.
While this will be seen as barbaric to many - After his fair trial, and upon a conviction of "Guilty Beyond ALL Doubt" (which there should be such a judgement outcome), I'd put him the electric chair. I'd slowly turn up the juice, as photos of all his victims were on a screen in front of him. I'd time his slow execution, until all the photos were shown. I'd have his screams echo around the walls of the jail, documented by the media, for all to know that THIS is the cost of such a crime. I doubt that smirk on his face would be there then.
In short, I would want HIS death, to be as horrific as possible. Yes, pretty sick to imagine for many, I'm sure. But we treat such animals so humanely, that there is hardly a fear at all of any real "punishment". I think we're just too damned civilized. And people like Holmes KNOW it. They count on it. (Someone could kill a hundred people in front of TV cameras, and just as the police show up, drop their gun and just give up! Safely!)
Well there should be a FEAR of "punishment". And someone like Holmes, should piss his pants every day of trial, just KNOWING that his end will come like what I described. He should live that FEAR every stinking day he has remaining on this earth. At the very least, we should bring back the electric chair, and fry them! No mercy. The victims received none.
While the trial will go over every known detail of the crime and the planning, there are a few things we should understand. Holmes had a very reasonable expectation of several things in the course of committing this act.
1. Holmes had reason to believe that there would be no one armed inside the theater. The theater was posted to forbid firearms, as Holmes knew before he got there that day. Holmes had been to that theater before, planning his horrific deed, and KNEW the theater was posted for no firearms. So Holmes had every expectation that he would not have to be confronted by an armed citizen. Holmes KNEW he could do as he pleased, at least until the police arrived.
2. When Holmes calculated the arrival of the police, he exited the theater, and waited. Holmes KNEW he would be arrested, but with him remaining compliant, he would not be hurt and would be treated professionally by the police. Holmes was compliant, and did not give them any reason to hurt him.
3. Holmes KNEW this would make huge headlines, and he would become famous, or infamous as it is. In some twisted circles, he knew there would be a following. The headlines, the TV coverage, the stories to be written, would lift him high on the notoriety podium. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't expect fan mail, and even some girlfriends to write him.
4. Holmes KNEW he would be given a fair trial, and knew it would be drawn out as long as his lawyers could make it, thus enhancing his reliving his deeds. And the notoriety would continue all the while he would remain safe from harm in the jail facility. Because that's what our very civil, very humane, society does.
5. Holmes also knows he will be convicted, and will go to prison as a cult hero of sorts, at least until he is put to death. Until then, he may have 13 years, or even many more, to await the sleepy civilized injection of death. So he KNOWS that during all that time, he can have his prepared meals, reasonable access to sunlight, recreation, library privileges, health care, and TV.
Holmes KNOWS these things, because we have a just and fair judicial system, and humane penal systems that make sure that ALL his civil and human rights are afforded to him. And all the while, he can write, be interviewed, and have his exploits live on for decades to come.
Yep, Holmes counted on all these things. And when all of his appeals end, and that needle goes into his arm, we will sit back and proudly profess that "the system worked". Well, it ONLY worked for Holmes. And, it'll work for the next nut-bag who follows in his footsteps. But if it up to me, I'd change that. At least, right after his conviction.
While this will be seen as barbaric to many - After his fair trial, and upon a conviction of "Guilty Beyond ALL Doubt" (which there should be such a judgement outcome), I'd put him the electric chair. I'd slowly turn up the juice, as photos of all his victims were on a screen in front of him. I'd time his slow execution, until all the photos were shown. I'd have his screams echo around the walls of the jail, documented by the media, for all to know that THIS is the cost of such a crime. I doubt that smirk on his face would be there then.
In short, I would want HIS death, to be as horrific as possible. Yes, pretty sick to imagine for many, I'm sure. But we treat such animals so humanely, that there is hardly a fear at all of any real "punishment". I think we're just too damned civilized. And people like Holmes KNOW it. They count on it. (Someone could kill a hundred people in front of TV cameras, and just as the police show up, drop their gun and just give up! Safely!)
Well there should be a FEAR of "punishment". And someone like Holmes, should piss his pants every day of trial, just KNOWING that his end will come like what I described. He should live that FEAR every stinking day he has remaining on this earth. At the very least, we should bring back the electric chair, and fry them! No mercy. The victims received none.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Arm Teachers?
With the past horrific shooting deaths of school children, and the renewed and intense gun debates, many are seeking some kind of answer. And I agree, we DO need to explore WHY such things happen, and HOW we can curtail such acts.
I'll be clear right here though. I am NOT an advocate of additional gun laws. NONE. We aren't enforcing enough of what we have now. And further laws only serve to restrict freedoms. I'll leave the rest of that argument for later. (Registration? See comments at bottom.)
National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre suggested having armed guards at every school (which I agree with). Others, suggest arming teachers. Others still, want school administrators only to be armed. Well surprise, I have an opinion ... or two!
To start with, I am NOT in favor of - "arming teachers". I AM in favor of "allowing school districts" to be open to teacher/administrators being "permitted" to armed carry in schools. But first and foremost, I want our teachers, the best we can get, to TEACH. Fact is, most teachers would not want to be armed, and shouldn't be armed. They are "teachers" of our nation's schools. They aren't cops, or otherwise trained security guards (*). But they should be permitted the option, same as with our airline pilots.
I am in absolute favor of armed "School Resource Officers" in every school in America. And those assigned, should be proportional in numbers to the school's student ratio, i.e., 1 SRO per 1,000 students (as example). Similar to the average ratio of Cops per 1,000 population. Today, as has been for some time now, many schools already have SROs.
I would also prefer sworn Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs), and not private "security guards". LEOs go through FAR more training than most any security guard ever will. And, they practice shooting FAR more than most any security guard ever will.
(*) Private security guards, like Mall Cop types, are NOT sworn Law Enforcement, and except for trained "personal security" folks, most all Security Guards get very limited training, and are far less screened and vetted.
Add to that, they should get special SRO training to focus on "student safety" and responses. They should not be used to supplement normal Teacher/Admin in-school discipline issues!
Okay, as for the combined issue of - Manpower and Budgets, I'll chip in this ...
Manpower, so as not to take away from much needed LEOs on the street, I would hire more SROs, and I would pull from our returning Veterans. Fully vetted returning soldiers, already well trained in firearms, and dare I say, street diplomacy, I think are an ideal resource to draw from. Besides, who would dare try to challenge one of our Veterans? They have lived in an environment where they faced constant threats, and were ready to commit their very lives to defend and protect their buddies and their mission. (The biggest threat to these folks however, could be boredom!)
Budgets are a concern for every School District. Well, what ever taxes need to be directed toward this, should be done. (How and where to tax, is another discussion.) We find other reasons to tax for other stuff(and pork), and what better reason than that of the safety of our children!
While some (many?) will argue this, I'll say that for ME, I would be willing to work for a little less money, as a SRO, than what street Cops get. Lets face it, active SROs would not be handling day to day, call to call, contacts with dangerous people. Street Cops are paid to address serious and dangerous people every day. A SRO would likely never encounter such a deadly threat, and if so, once would most likely ever happen at any one school. An SRO would not be paid for what they do, near as much as what they may HAVE to do. (What about recently retired LEO's and Military, to supplement their retirement incomes? Hire them part-time [saving expense of benefits], with rotating personnel to cover full weeks throughout the school year. - I'd be willing to do that part-time now!)
It is my belief, that once enacted, that professionally armed presence would thwart most all threats of a violent person attempting anything on our schools.
MAKE NO MISTAKE - There is no such thing, as complete security! Evil people, driven do do evil, will find a way. No matter what we do, that applies!
As for the so-called "assault weapons", well, I ranted on about that before. MY bottom line, is what is legal today, should be legal tomorrow. These type firearms, which I also own, are used for possible defense of person, home, neighborhood. They are also sporting rifles, plinking guns, and competition rifles. So they DO have legitimate sporting purposes. (Anyone who is a "plinker", knows that "re-loading" mags is a pain in the butt, when you want to kick up cans, perforated paper, and hear the ting of a steel target! So extended mags are fun and convenient.)
And on the AW subject, the 2nd amendment was written for ONE reason, and that is so citizens had access to weapons in order to oppose a tyrannical government. If citizens cann't own their own firearms, then ONLY such a government would have them. That was to be prevented with the 2nd. Times may have changed, but the principles have not! Besides, the modern day AW, is yesterdays Musket.
I am a firm supporter of the NRA, and encourage membership for everybody, even non-gun owners. At least get on their website and read what all they do and are involved in. If you don't know them, then you will be surprised.
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=nranews
As for gun registration? I am absolutely against it. We do have criminal background checks on purchases from dealers. And, every firearms dealer licensee (FFL), is required to keep the yellow form that is filled out by the buyer. Those are not sent to law enforcement or the feds, but can be available for review by law enforcement should they need to search a purchase. ATF can check with a manufacturer, and on to a supply house, to track a firearm to a dealer. The dealer can then be contacted to check on that inventoried firearm, then match to a buyer, should a gun be used and recovered in a crime. Registration, logged onto a government database, is the first step in confiscation. Even if no confiscation is planned now, that is NO guarantee that it won't with any new administration. (Years ago, when I closed my little shop, it was only then that I had to turn in all my forms and sales books.)
Disclaimer: I am a Life Member of the NRA, but speak ONLY for myself. I am also a father, former Combat Vet, former Deputy Sheriff and Police Officer, and have been involved in children's programs of all sorts.
I'll be clear right here though. I am NOT an advocate of additional gun laws. NONE. We aren't enforcing enough of what we have now. And further laws only serve to restrict freedoms. I'll leave the rest of that argument for later. (Registration? See comments at bottom.)
National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre suggested having armed guards at every school (which I agree with). Others, suggest arming teachers. Others still, want school administrators only to be armed. Well surprise, I have an opinion ... or two!
To start with, I am NOT in favor of - "arming teachers". I AM in favor of "allowing school districts" to be open to teacher/administrators being "permitted" to armed carry in schools. But first and foremost, I want our teachers, the best we can get, to TEACH. Fact is, most teachers would not want to be armed, and shouldn't be armed. They are "teachers" of our nation's schools. They aren't cops, or otherwise trained security guards (*). But they should be permitted the option, same as with our airline pilots.
I am in absolute favor of armed "School Resource Officers" in every school in America. And those assigned, should be proportional in numbers to the school's student ratio, i.e., 1 SRO per 1,000 students (as example). Similar to the average ratio of Cops per 1,000 population. Today, as has been for some time now, many schools already have SROs.
I would also prefer sworn Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs), and not private "security guards". LEOs go through FAR more training than most any security guard ever will. And, they practice shooting FAR more than most any security guard ever will.
(*) Private security guards, like Mall Cop types, are NOT sworn Law Enforcement, and except for trained "personal security" folks, most all Security Guards get very limited training, and are far less screened and vetted.
Add to that, they should get special SRO training to focus on "student safety" and responses. They should not be used to supplement normal Teacher/Admin in-school discipline issues!
Okay, as for the combined issue of - Manpower and Budgets, I'll chip in this ...
Manpower, so as not to take away from much needed LEOs on the street, I would hire more SROs, and I would pull from our returning Veterans. Fully vetted returning soldiers, already well trained in firearms, and dare I say, street diplomacy, I think are an ideal resource to draw from. Besides, who would dare try to challenge one of our Veterans? They have lived in an environment where they faced constant threats, and were ready to commit their very lives to defend and protect their buddies and their mission. (The biggest threat to these folks however, could be boredom!)
Budgets are a concern for every School District. Well, what ever taxes need to be directed toward this, should be done. (How and where to tax, is another discussion.) We find other reasons to tax for other stuff(and pork), and what better reason than that of the safety of our children!
While some (many?) will argue this, I'll say that for ME, I would be willing to work for a little less money, as a SRO, than what street Cops get. Lets face it, active SROs would not be handling day to day, call to call, contacts with dangerous people. Street Cops are paid to address serious and dangerous people every day. A SRO would likely never encounter such a deadly threat, and if so, once would most likely ever happen at any one school. An SRO would not be paid for what they do, near as much as what they may HAVE to do. (What about recently retired LEO's and Military, to supplement their retirement incomes? Hire them part-time [saving expense of benefits], with rotating personnel to cover full weeks throughout the school year. - I'd be willing to do that part-time now!)
It is my belief, that once enacted, that professionally armed presence would thwart most all threats of a violent person attempting anything on our schools.
MAKE NO MISTAKE - There is no such thing, as complete security! Evil people, driven do do evil, will find a way. No matter what we do, that applies!
As for the so-called "assault weapons", well, I ranted on about that before. MY bottom line, is what is legal today, should be legal tomorrow. These type firearms, which I also own, are used for possible defense of person, home, neighborhood. They are also sporting rifles, plinking guns, and competition rifles. So they DO have legitimate sporting purposes. (Anyone who is a "plinker", knows that "re-loading" mags is a pain in the butt, when you want to kick up cans, perforated paper, and hear the ting of a steel target! So extended mags are fun and convenient.)
And on the AW subject, the 2nd amendment was written for ONE reason, and that is so citizens had access to weapons in order to oppose a tyrannical government. If citizens cann't own their own firearms, then ONLY such a government would have them. That was to be prevented with the 2nd. Times may have changed, but the principles have not! Besides, the modern day AW, is yesterdays Musket.
I am a firm supporter of the NRA, and encourage membership for everybody, even non-gun owners. At least get on their website and read what all they do and are involved in. If you don't know them, then you will be surprised.
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=nranews
As for gun registration? I am absolutely against it. We do have criminal background checks on purchases from dealers. And, every firearms dealer licensee (FFL), is required to keep the yellow form that is filled out by the buyer. Those are not sent to law enforcement or the feds, but can be available for review by law enforcement should they need to search a purchase. ATF can check with a manufacturer, and on to a supply house, to track a firearm to a dealer. The dealer can then be contacted to check on that inventoried firearm, then match to a buyer, should a gun be used and recovered in a crime. Registration, logged onto a government database, is the first step in confiscation. Even if no confiscation is planned now, that is NO guarantee that it won't with any new administration. (Years ago, when I closed my little shop, it was only then that I had to turn in all my forms and sales books.)
Disclaimer: I am a Life Member of the NRA, but speak ONLY for myself. I am also a father, former Combat Vet, former Deputy Sheriff and Police Officer, and have been involved in children's programs of all sorts.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Why Vilify The Tea Party?
Recently, someone emailed me and compared The Tea Party movement, and me as a supporter, to the Nazi party. What nonsense. There simply are no reasonable comparisons between the two. To suggest so, is only an attempt to scare people from really looking at and/or joining the movement.
We have seen time and time again, protesters and politicians condemning The Tea Party, painting it (us) as some "right wing" extremists. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has stated in a warning to Republicans, "leave Tea Party 'extremism' behind and learn what legislation is all about.
I would hope that they understand that everything doesn't have to be a fight. Legislation is an art of working together, building consensus, compromise. And I hope that the Tea Party doesn't have the influence in this next year that they had in the previous year," Reid said.
(BTW Reid, I will NOT compromise my "principles"!)
Nancy Pelosi also called us extremists, radicals, and Nazis.
This is all said to try to shut up conservatives, and try to paint them (us) as a movement other people will not want to be part of. Its also said to try to intimidate conservative politicians from linking with Tea Party support, so they don't get labeled "extremist" or "racist". But when you read the platform (below), it shows THEM to clearly to be liars.
The Tea Party, excluding individual members who may takes thing out of context of the platform, is more FOR the constitutional principles. More so than most any politician, specially Reid and Pelosi. And there IS NOT a single racist thing in it. Not one! Anyone who honestly reads the platform, and looks at the vast majority of Tea Party members, can NOT find fault with their (our) standings. What part of this platform does any American disagree with?
Don't believe the bullshit. Read the below information for yourself. Honestly compare any Tea Party protest, to any other peaceful protest, or those of many of the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/15/reid-on-bipartisanship-republicans-drop-tea-party-extremism/#ixzz2HDo398Dn
Copied from - http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
We have seen time and time again, protesters and politicians condemning The Tea Party, painting it (us) as some "right wing" extremists. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has stated in a warning to Republicans, "leave Tea Party 'extremism' behind and learn what legislation is all about.
I would hope that they understand that everything doesn't have to be a fight. Legislation is an art of working together, building consensus, compromise. And I hope that the Tea Party doesn't have the influence in this next year that they had in the previous year," Reid said.
(BTW Reid, I will NOT compromise my "principles"!)
Nancy Pelosi also called us extremists, radicals, and Nazis.
This is all said to try to shut up conservatives, and try to paint them (us) as a movement other people will not want to be part of. Its also said to try to intimidate conservative politicians from linking with Tea Party support, so they don't get labeled "extremist" or "racist". But when you read the platform (below), it shows THEM to clearly to be liars.
The Tea Party, excluding individual members who may takes thing out of context of the platform, is more FOR the constitutional principles. More so than most any politician, specially Reid and Pelosi. And there IS NOT a single racist thing in it. Not one! Anyone who honestly reads the platform, and looks at the vast majority of Tea Party members, can NOT find fault with their (our) standings. What part of this platform does any American disagree with?
Don't believe the bullshit. Read the below information for yourself. Honestly compare any Tea Party protest, to any other peaceful protest, or those of many of the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/15/reid-on-bipartisanship-republicans-drop-tea-party-extremism/#ixzz2HDo398Dn
Copied from - http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
Preamble: The Tea Party Movement is an all-inclusive American grassroots movement with the belief that everyone is created equal and deserves an equal opportunity to thrive in these United States where they may “pursue life, liberty and happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:
1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. Protect Free Markets
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsibility
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. Believe in the People
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. Maintain Local Independence
Friday, January 4, 2013
ENFORCE the Current Gun Laws
While many are rushing to write new gun laws, hoping to stop gun violence, they are ready to trample all over the 2nd amendment. Some of those people, actually want to revise or eliminate the part of the 2nd amendment, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"!
But what is wrong with the laws we have? There are about 22,000 gun laws across the country, so why don't they work? Let's look at just a few things that need to be addressed.
In a recent news article, I read that a New York City Police Officer was shot, and the assailant, who was killed in the exchange of gun fire while in a subway train, was learned to have been a "convicted felon", with five prior convictions, and he was in possession of an unlawful gun.
Let's look at what little we do know on this case. This "felon" could NOT have have legally possessed a firearm, as a start; could not legally purchased a firearm; obtaining the firearm was likely done unlawfully by theft or by a straw-purchase; and the felon was carrying an unlicensed loaded handgun, on a mass transit. So, from what little we know on the surface, this FELON committed a number of felonies, prior to shooting the Police Officer. (If anyone reading this is a NYC LEO, jump in with other gun laws known to be broken.)
But do they try to follow the gun? How many other laws were broken? How many others were involved? The gun was stolen, so was it registered? If so, then laws were broken AFTER it was lawfully owned by a lawful person.
BTW - Some years ago when I was a LEO, a gun store was broken into and many guns were stolen. Many years later, only ONE gun turned up, bought at a garage sale, by a Police Officer! And while we tried to follow the gun back, it had been sold between lawful citizens, unknowing it was stolen, but we could not establish ownership past a few persons. Most the others were believed, by Feds, to have been taken to Mexico.
Then, here is another BIG element to such crimes. Judges have discretion to tailor punishment in most cases. What crimes and punishment did this felon have prior to the shooting? How short were his sentences? How long could he have been in jail, and not on the street?
In another case, a man tried to rob a business with a gun, and during the attempt, an off-duty officer managed to stop the robbery. The robber was part of a known robbery gang, and the gun was found to have been "stolen" from "North Carolina". That gun was stolen in the month prior.
How did a "stolen gun" from "North Carolina", get "across state lines", into "New York" and into the hands of a "New York City" "violent gang" with know "felonies" and "robbery crimes"? Who stole the gun? Who passed it on, illegally, to another person? Who illegally "transported" to New York? How did it end up in the hands of a known felon?
These are the questions that need to be answered. Those involved, are the ones to be targeted for punishment, NOT legal gun owners.
By the way, in New York
Possessing a loaded firearm without permit, outside of person's home or place of business: class C felony, classified as violent felony offense, punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum of 3.5 years.
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.01, 265.03, 265.20
Do other such felons see that kind of sentencing? I can tell you from past experience, that judges fall for all kinds of stupid appeals from defense attorneys, and the lowest of sentences are given all the time. Yet, there are those who want to eliminate MY 2nd amendment right, as well as my property rights, because they can't manage the evil-doers!
Every Cop I know, can tell you about a felon who got NO sentence, or a LIGHT sentence, only to go back on the streets and commit new felonies! And of those, many have been in unlawful possession of a weapon!
Follow the guns. Follow those involved. ENFORCE those laws we have now. Punish THEM. Take THEIR rights away. Do NOT punish ME, for the illegal acts of others.
By the way, of the 300 million+ firearms, legally owned by about 80 MILLION+ law abiding citizens, many of those would be classified as "assault weapons", and those ARE NOT an issue!
Many people, even some gun owners, might be in favor of "gun registration". I am not. Throughout history, we have seen governments go against its citizens, and the first thing they do is it to confiscate the firearms. Registration is the road map to who has the otherwise legal firearms. Without solid protection from confiscation, I will never register my firearm. And there can not be trustworthy protection, if the 2nd amendment part, "shall not be infringed" is ready to be thrown out today, by many in our government!
But what is wrong with the laws we have? There are about 22,000 gun laws across the country, so why don't they work? Let's look at just a few things that need to be addressed.
In a recent news article, I read that a New York City Police Officer was shot, and the assailant, who was killed in the exchange of gun fire while in a subway train, was learned to have been a "convicted felon", with five prior convictions, and he was in possession of an unlawful gun.
Let's look at what little we do know on this case. This "felon" could NOT have have legally possessed a firearm, as a start; could not legally purchased a firearm; obtaining the firearm was likely done unlawfully by theft or by a straw-purchase; and the felon was carrying an unlicensed loaded handgun, on a mass transit. So, from what little we know on the surface, this FELON committed a number of felonies, prior to shooting the Police Officer. (If anyone reading this is a NYC LEO, jump in with other gun laws known to be broken.)
But do they try to follow the gun? How many other laws were broken? How many others were involved? The gun was stolen, so was it registered? If so, then laws were broken AFTER it was lawfully owned by a lawful person.
BTW - Some years ago when I was a LEO, a gun store was broken into and many guns were stolen. Many years later, only ONE gun turned up, bought at a garage sale, by a Police Officer! And while we tried to follow the gun back, it had been sold between lawful citizens, unknowing it was stolen, but we could not establish ownership past a few persons. Most the others were believed, by Feds, to have been taken to Mexico.
Then, here is another BIG element to such crimes. Judges have discretion to tailor punishment in most cases. What crimes and punishment did this felon have prior to the shooting? How short were his sentences? How long could he have been in jail, and not on the street?
In another case, a man tried to rob a business with a gun, and during the attempt, an off-duty officer managed to stop the robbery. The robber was part of a known robbery gang, and the gun was found to have been "stolen" from "North Carolina". That gun was stolen in the month prior.
How did a "stolen gun" from "North Carolina", get "across state lines", into "New York" and into the hands of a "New York City" "violent gang" with know "felonies" and "robbery crimes"? Who stole the gun? Who passed it on, illegally, to another person? Who illegally "transported" to New York? How did it end up in the hands of a known felon?
These are the questions that need to be answered. Those involved, are the ones to be targeted for punishment, NOT legal gun owners.
By the way, in New York
Possessing a loaded firearm without permit, outside of person's home or place of business: class C felony, classified as violent felony offense, punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum of 3.5 years.
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.01, 265.03, 265.20
Do other such felons see that kind of sentencing? I can tell you from past experience, that judges fall for all kinds of stupid appeals from defense attorneys, and the lowest of sentences are given all the time. Yet, there are those who want to eliminate MY 2nd amendment right, as well as my property rights, because they can't manage the evil-doers!
Every Cop I know, can tell you about a felon who got NO sentence, or a LIGHT sentence, only to go back on the streets and commit new felonies! And of those, many have been in unlawful possession of a weapon!
Follow the guns. Follow those involved. ENFORCE those laws we have now. Punish THEM. Take THEIR rights away. Do NOT punish ME, for the illegal acts of others.
By the way, of the 300 million+ firearms, legally owned by about 80 MILLION+ law abiding citizens, many of those would be classified as "assault weapons", and those ARE NOT an issue!
Many people, even some gun owners, might be in favor of "gun registration". I am not. Throughout history, we have seen governments go against its citizens, and the first thing they do is it to confiscate the firearms. Registration is the road map to who has the otherwise legal firearms. Without solid protection from confiscation, I will never register my firearm. And there can not be trustworthy protection, if the 2nd amendment part, "shall not be infringed" is ready to be thrown out today, by many in our government!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)