Okay, at the risk of offending some of my gun owning brethren, I'll delve into this anyway.
To be clear, I do not support any gun laws that keep lawful citizens from buying and owning currently legal firearms and/or accessories. PERIOD. True "assault weapons", those like our military use, are already heavily regulated, and no change is needed.
I am also totally against firearms "registration". Registration, i.e. registering a gun and owner with a governmental agency. In my view, that IS a required first step to confiscation, and I do not trust ANY administration from taking that step. Any time we "trust" some government to not do that, we open up any government from doing just that!
I AM for instant checks, as we see that with all dealer sales. And I COULD be in favor of extending that to private sales, and I believe I can describe how that could work.
But before I go there, I will say this - I am an ex-Cop. With that past profession, I can tell you that of the many gun thefts cases I've seen, one fact existed - most all of them end up somewhere other than in the hands of a lawful gun owner! I recall one store in particular that was broken into, and over 25 guns were stolen. Years later, only one gun turned up. An out-of-state off-duty Cop bought a handgun at a garage sale. When he later checked it against NCIC, he found it had been stolen from the store in our town. That gun had been gone for more than 4 years! And with that, it is believed to have changed hands many times over. The trail could not be followed backward for very far.
As for me, I have never sold one of my own firearms to anyone without knowing who I sold it to. One guy was unwilling to provide any ID or divulge who he was, so I didn't sell it to him. I did explain to him that I would only share his information with authorities, IF a crime was committed with it. I had bought it new, so MY name was connected to it. And if a crime was committed with that gun, I would want to point the authorities to the next in line of ownership. I later sold it to him, after he thought it over and came back. I recommend everyone KNOW who you sell to, who you buy from, and document that date and to/from whom, in the event a crime is committed with that gun.
As a responsible citizen, I would hate to have a gun I had owned, used in a crime. And if it was, then I want to point Law Enforcement to the next person in line of that ownership, so the end user could be more easily found. I want laws enforced, and bad guys to go to jail. And I don't mind in the least to help law enforcement out, if a crime was committed. Remember, for a crime to be committed, means there was at least ONE victim. Who wouldn't want to help a victim out, by providing good information.
But to my point of "instant checks". As it is, manufacturers list each firearm made, then where and to what supplier. Those records are then kept as to which dealer they go to. The dealer sells the firearm, following the law and running an "instant check", and that firearm sale is documented as to what it was, and who bought it. Unless that firearm is sold or pawned to a federal firearms license holder, the documentation stops with the last person to be on a yellow form.
To those not familiar with such sales, the federal government can NOT keep records of gun buyers (acknowledging that some may be doing that in violation already). THAT would be registration. Those yellow forms, and even the "instant checks" are not, BY LAW, to be maintained by anyone other than the dealer. BUT - Law Enforcement can trace the firearm back from the manufacturer, to the end dealer. From there, they can find the buyer from that dealer. At that point, it is on the buyer as to what happens with that firearm.
It is MY opinion, that even with a private sale, a firearm buyer could be required to get a form signed by local law enforcement, that shows an "instant check" was done, on the same day as the sale (or reasonable time of the check). I would feel very good about having that form in my hand, when I sold my gun. And, like I have in the past, I'd keep that info along with my own firearm inventory information. I believe THAT is a responsible thing to do, and would be an added protection for a prior gun owner, should that gun be used in a crime later on.
Each state could adopt a "Shall check", so local agencies would be required to provide, with reasonable fees, an "Instant Check". No form, no sale. Who would want to risk selling a gun that would later be used in a crime?
In the end, if a gun is found at a crime scene, that gun could be traced to the end dealer, and to the last person listed as a buyer. It would be up to that buyer, upon a "search warrant" (unless volunteered), to provide the name of whom bought that gun, and so on down the line.
A word about extended magazines - A magazine is NOTHING without a gun to shoot with. Control the guns from getting in CRIMINAL hands, and let the rest take care of itself. Leave our mags alone!Its a worthless argument in my opinion, and I've written about it before (see my blog post, TIC-TOC TIC-TOC).
Bottom line for me - Protect ALL my rights, while not impeding law enforcement from investigating gun crimes. NO registration should be involved, and only requiring gun owners to take responsibility in the chain of possession, should law enforcement need to track a gun crime weapon.
If we are to combat confiscation by the government, we need to take our own measures to help curb the tide of illegal weapons, some of which could be coming from our own unknowing sale to a bad-guy or straw purchaser.
Meanwhile, I will keep and enjoy shooting my AR, semi-auto handguns, extended mags, and what ever else I choose that is legal today. And I will not forfeit ANY of those. And I will continue to cover my own ass, by documenting who I buy from, as well as who I sell to.
I'll close by asking this one question: If you family member was killed with a gun, and the suspect with prior felonies was found with that gun, wouldn't you want to know how he/she got it?
Friday, February 15, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
The So-Called "Assault Weapon"
Let's clear the air about the so-called "Assault Weapons".
To most anyone who has ever served in the military, particularly in an Infantry related role, as well as many Law Enforcement Officers, an "Assault Rifle" would refer mostly to a military rifle, capable of firing in a full-auto mode. That is, a single pull of the trigger will fire all the ammo in a magazine or belt, until the trigger is released, or the magazine or belt is empty.
In the civilian market today, as it has for the past few decades, civilians have been able to buy similar looking civilian versions of those military rifles. But they fire in a semi-auto mode only. That is, they can only fire one bullet at a time, with each pull of the trigger. While some can be modified to fire full-auto, it is VERY illegal to do so, and even then, it takes more than a novice to do so.
WHY would civilians even want a military "looking" weapon? Well, for me, I love the added features of them. The military weapons endure weather conditions far better than a typical "hunting" rifle. The pistol grip, while Nancy Pelosi wants them banned, provides for better control. And, I simply like having the same type weapon platform that I used when I served in the ARMY. Oh ... and the availability of add-on accessories is far better than average weapons!
A hunting rifle will most often have a bright/dark blue metal finish, and most often be bedded in a nice walnut (or other hardwood) stock. Both those features, while very enjoyable to look at and hold, are very susceptible to the outdoor elements that would cause rust and damage to the wood. I own a couple of these also, and one in particular is a real beauty.
Another feature, is AMMO. While the military is required (under the international rules of war - the Geneva Convention) to use only full-metal jacketed bullets. Civilians can use the same ammo for many sporting/competitive uses, and the military ammo is often cheaper because it is so widely available all over the country. So having a firearm that shoots the same ammo as a military weapon, opens the availability of ammo to purchase, often cheaper than non-military (or NATO) ammo.
But back to the so-called "Assault Weapon" - Most non-shooters don't know the difference between such referenced firearm, and a commonly available firearm of similar abilities and operation.
I am providing a photo of two such rifles to compare. One is an AR-15 type rifle, which is a copy of the military M-16. The other is a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. Take a look at the photos, read the descriptions of each, then tell me - Which is more deadly? Then tell me, what would banning the AR-15 really accomplish?
Lastly, an every day available rifle, that in my opinion is far deadly than either of the above, would be a common deer rifle, like this Remington 700 bolt-action rifle. This type rifle fires any one of the many types of hunting bullets, all of which would easily pass through a bullet-proof vest, car door, windshield, house door, wall, etc. A skilled deer or varmint hunter, can fire this type rifle with a great degree of accuracy for hundreds of yards, well out of range of many police holstered weapons. (BTW - The average Police Officer practices shooting far less than the average hunter!)
Oh, just to add a point here, here is a firearm, that straight out of the box can hold as many as 19-26 rounds of ammo! It can't really even be modified to accept less than 19, so a 10 rd. limit wouldn't work for this rifle. This - an "assault rifle"? Hardly.
This is a Marlin Model 39 .22 Caliber Lever Action Rifle. It's as accurate as most any, and can put bullets on man-size targets at over 400 yards. It was first designed in 1891!
Lastly, while the magazine capacity argument goes on, I wrote an earlier post about such matters. See http://american1st.blogspot.com/2012/08/tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc.html I proved that a man with multiple magazines of 7 rounds each, can cause a LOT of damage IN A SHORT TIME!
To most anyone who has ever served in the military, particularly in an Infantry related role, as well as many Law Enforcement Officers, an "Assault Rifle" would refer mostly to a military rifle, capable of firing in a full-auto mode. That is, a single pull of the trigger will fire all the ammo in a magazine or belt, until the trigger is released, or the magazine or belt is empty.
In the civilian market today, as it has for the past few decades, civilians have been able to buy similar looking civilian versions of those military rifles. But they fire in a semi-auto mode only. That is, they can only fire one bullet at a time, with each pull of the trigger. While some can be modified to fire full-auto, it is VERY illegal to do so, and even then, it takes more than a novice to do so.
WHY would civilians even want a military "looking" weapon? Well, for me, I love the added features of them. The military weapons endure weather conditions far better than a typical "hunting" rifle. The pistol grip, while Nancy Pelosi wants them banned, provides for better control. And, I simply like having the same type weapon platform that I used when I served in the ARMY. Oh ... and the availability of add-on accessories is far better than average weapons!
A hunting rifle will most often have a bright/dark blue metal finish, and most often be bedded in a nice walnut (or other hardwood) stock. Both those features, while very enjoyable to look at and hold, are very susceptible to the outdoor elements that would cause rust and damage to the wood. I own a couple of these also, and one in particular is a real beauty.
Another feature, is AMMO. While the military is required (under the international rules of war - the Geneva Convention) to use only full-metal jacketed bullets. Civilians can use the same ammo for many sporting/competitive uses, and the military ammo is often cheaper because it is so widely available all over the country. So having a firearm that shoots the same ammo as a military weapon, opens the availability of ammo to purchase, often cheaper than non-military (or NATO) ammo.
But back to the so-called "Assault Weapon" - Most non-shooters don't know the difference between such referenced firearm, and a commonly available firearm of similar abilities and operation.
I am providing a photo of two such rifles to compare. One is an AR-15 type rifle, which is a copy of the military M-16. The other is a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. Take a look at the photos, read the descriptions of each, then tell me - Which is more deadly? Then tell me, what would banning the AR-15 really accomplish?
Lastly, an every day available rifle, that in my opinion is far deadly than either of the above, would be a common deer rifle, like this Remington 700 bolt-action rifle. This type rifle fires any one of the many types of hunting bullets, all of which would easily pass through a bullet-proof vest, car door, windshield, house door, wall, etc. A skilled deer or varmint hunter, can fire this type rifle with a great degree of accuracy for hundreds of yards, well out of range of many police holstered weapons. (BTW - The average Police Officer practices shooting far less than the average hunter!)
Lastly, while the magazine capacity argument goes on, I wrote an earlier post about such matters. See http://american1st.blogspot.com/2012/08/tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc.html I proved that a man with multiple magazines of 7 rounds each, can cause a LOT of damage IN A SHORT TIME!
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Stay On Course, Patriots
I was reading some quotes today, and found myself identifying with much of what I found. Read these, and see if you can't find some common ground with them:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight. Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is a lie if we tell ourselves that the police can protect us everywhere at all times. Firearms restrictions are bad enough, but now a woman can't even carry Mace in her purse?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Go ahead, take everything I own; take my dignity. Feel good as you grow fat and rich at my expense; sucking my tax dollars and property."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.
It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being.
I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle, (person's name) I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, (person's name). Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between a few people who feel much as I do, and myself, is the way some may deal or have dealt with their angst. Some people HATE the government. That HATE has been an excuse for a few people to do terrible things, and used that HATE of what some in government have done to justify some actions. There is NO justification for blowing up our buildings and murdering innocent people. If so, Bill Ayers (1960s-70s Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization) can be forgiven! But some, like Bill Ayers, will disregard the lives of innocent people, to cause destruction to buildings and people, just to get at the heart of their angst.
We need to temper our own angst with the actions some in our government are taking. Temper our actions, and pin-point our actions to correct the political paths we see are wrong. All the while, stay prepared to defend our nation against actual attack. Not against perceived attacks, or purely political attacks, but actual attacks where armed defense is warranted.
We need to be cautious of letting our angst, lead us into believing that ALL government is bad. We need government, to perform those functions that were intended. But that government needs to be in line with our founding designs, and our Constitution. Our actions need to support those who will help put us back in line with that.
Otherwise, we may start believing we should take extreme and unwarranted actions, disregarding the life and property of innocent people and officials. Stay on course friends, or some could fall into a perverted sense of duty, like that of Tim McVeigh, who's quotes are listed above. In my view, McVeigh wasn't wrong about his fears of the direction our country could go. But he was absolutely dead wrong in his perverted response to those fears, and became the domestic terrorist and murderer who all know. Let's stay focused on the political changes we need to make, and fight politically against every mis-direction those in office try to take.
Don't lose sight of who we are my American Patriot friends! Stay on course.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight. Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is a lie if we tell ourselves that the police can protect us everywhere at all times. Firearms restrictions are bad enough, but now a woman can't even carry Mace in her purse?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Go ahead, take everything I own; take my dignity. Feel good as you grow fat and rich at my expense; sucking my tax dollars and property."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.
It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being.
I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle, (person's name) I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, (person's name). Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between a few people who feel much as I do, and myself, is the way some may deal or have dealt with their angst. Some people HATE the government. That HATE has been an excuse for a few people to do terrible things, and used that HATE of what some in government have done to justify some actions. There is NO justification for blowing up our buildings and murdering innocent people. If so, Bill Ayers (1960s-70s Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization) can be forgiven! But some, like Bill Ayers, will disregard the lives of innocent people, to cause destruction to buildings and people, just to get at the heart of their angst.
We need to temper our own angst with the actions some in our government are taking. Temper our actions, and pin-point our actions to correct the political paths we see are wrong. All the while, stay prepared to defend our nation against actual attack. Not against perceived attacks, or purely political attacks, but actual attacks where armed defense is warranted.
We need to be cautious of letting our angst, lead us into believing that ALL government is bad. We need government, to perform those functions that were intended. But that government needs to be in line with our founding designs, and our Constitution. Our actions need to support those who will help put us back in line with that.
Otherwise, we may start believing we should take extreme and unwarranted actions, disregarding the life and property of innocent people and officials. Stay on course friends, or some could fall into a perverted sense of duty, like that of Tim McVeigh, who's quotes are listed above. In my view, McVeigh wasn't wrong about his fears of the direction our country could go. But he was absolutely dead wrong in his perverted response to those fears, and became the domestic terrorist and murderer who all know. Let's stay focused on the political changes we need to make, and fight politically against every mis-direction those in office try to take.
Don't lose sight of who we are my American Patriot friends! Stay on course.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Gun Control
A lot of renewed talk going on lately, about various aspects of proposed new GUN CONTROL laws. There's the so-called Assault Weapons ban; Magazine Capacity limitations/ban; Firearms Registration; Ban of Firearms between private citizens; Banning Gun Shows; etc.
As a former Law Enforcement Officer, let me make very clear, I am all for keeping firearms out of the hands of bad people. I am also for preventing firearm accidents in our homes. NO responsible gun owner feels any different. Any suggestion that we, or the NRA, do not care about kids or the safety of our communities, is nothing more than irresponsible rhetoric.
I've written before about most of those gun control law attempts, in one way or another. And in one way or another, people can find some grounds to agree on parts of many of those. But there are two points I will address here.
1. Is the primary reason our Founders wrote into the 2nd Amendment, was for a guarantee for "the people" to have firearms to protect against government tyranny? (our soldiers swear an oath, to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The "and domestic" is there for a reason!)
2. Does "gun registration" pose any real threat to our 2nd Amendment rights? Some would say is does not, and can't understand why many of us resist that.
(1) To me, and my understanding of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment was so written, to be a mechanism for "the people" to be able to rise up and defend against a government that grew outside it's design, and would become a tyrant in its control over the "the people". An armed citizenry would not be easily be "ruled". I believe this is basically true, and say that in order for "the people" to have such protection FROM such a government, having access to weapons sufficient enough to defend against such a government, goes with that. Having limits to guns other than what many would say are "traditional" hunting firearms, misses the whole point. I will retain my AR-15, to stay armed in the manner I feel is necessary, but hope I will never need for the designed purpose of the 2nd Amendment. (If anyone wants to jump in about "machine guns and tanks", do so. I welcome that debate!)
(2) I am flatly opposed to "gun registration". That is to say, "registration" of what I own, registered with a government. Do I find the idea completely wrong? No. But unless someone can ABSOLUTELY guarantee that such registry can never be used by a wayward government to "confiscate" our legal weapons, then I don't want the government to know what I own. NO ONE can guarantee that this, or that any future elected official won't take such a step for what ever reason they chose to justify it. THAT is why I will always resist registering my lawful firearms.
This whole debate is multi-faceted, and we can debate lots of particulars. I'll address more of those as I go.
Disagree? Jump in. As long as any response is civil, I don't otherwise reject responses.
As a former Law Enforcement Officer, let me make very clear, I am all for keeping firearms out of the hands of bad people. I am also for preventing firearm accidents in our homes. NO responsible gun owner feels any different. Any suggestion that we, or the NRA, do not care about kids or the safety of our communities, is nothing more than irresponsible rhetoric.
I've written before about most of those gun control law attempts, in one way or another. And in one way or another, people can find some grounds to agree on parts of many of those. But there are two points I will address here.
1. Is the primary reason our Founders wrote into the 2nd Amendment, was for a guarantee for "the people" to have firearms to protect against government tyranny? (our soldiers swear an oath, to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The "and domestic" is there for a reason!)
2. Does "gun registration" pose any real threat to our 2nd Amendment rights? Some would say is does not, and can't understand why many of us resist that.
(1) To me, and my understanding of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment was so written, to be a mechanism for "the people" to be able to rise up and defend against a government that grew outside it's design, and would become a tyrant in its control over the "the people". An armed citizenry would not be easily be "ruled". I believe this is basically true, and say that in order for "the people" to have such protection FROM such a government, having access to weapons sufficient enough to defend against such a government, goes with that. Having limits to guns other than what many would say are "traditional" hunting firearms, misses the whole point. I will retain my AR-15, to stay armed in the manner I feel is necessary, but hope I will never need for the designed purpose of the 2nd Amendment. (If anyone wants to jump in about "machine guns and tanks", do so. I welcome that debate!)
(2) I am flatly opposed to "gun registration". That is to say, "registration" of what I own, registered with a government. Do I find the idea completely wrong? No. But unless someone can ABSOLUTELY guarantee that such registry can never be used by a wayward government to "confiscate" our legal weapons, then I don't want the government to know what I own. NO ONE can guarantee that this, or that any future elected official won't take such a step for what ever reason they chose to justify it. THAT is why I will always resist registering my lawful firearms.
This whole debate is multi-faceted, and we can debate lots of particulars. I'll address more of those as I go.
Disagree? Jump in. As long as any response is civil, I don't otherwise reject responses.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Caught In The Moment
This morning I was watering some of our plants out in front of our house. As I was standing there, hose in hand, watering away, when it sort of dawned on me there was a sound over my head. There was this slight fluttering noise. As I was looking down at the plants, the sun was causing a shadow down on the ground before me. The shadow was in a rhythmic waving that went with the fluttering sound. As I looked up, there she was. And there she was, my American Stars and Stripes, fluttering in the gentle breeze upon my small flag pole.
Its not that I didn't know she was there. I have her there every day. I see her every day. She waves every day. But at that moment, hearing the fluttering sound she made, seeing her rhythmic shadow, and then seeing her bright colors, was just one of those moments that struck me. It moved me, with pride and love of country.
I love America. I have always loved my country. With all her glory, and in spite of all our misgivings at times, I still love all she truly stands for. She doesn't stand for any President. Nor does she stand for all our country has ever done (by way of wayward leaders or citizens). But she, our American Flag, has stood as a shining example of Liberty and Freedom to the world.
Today, in MY view, she is being tested. Tested, not so much from forces abroad, but tested by forces within her own boundaries. There are actually those who think she has outlived her purpose, her design. Outlived the promise of Freedom and Liberty, in light of growing government controlled Freedoms and limited Liberties. Almost unimaginable, some even think she represents some kind of oppression, or outdated ideals of our Founders too long ago to matter in today's world. I worry each day about how long some will let Her last.
But this morning, I was so struck by the sound of her fluttering and the sight of those stars and stripes, that anyone passing may have wondered what I was smiling so big about. I was smiling, because I was standing under her greatness. And for that, I am Blessed. I am Blessed to be an American, and to have our wonder Stars and Stripes to live under.
God Bless America, land of the Free, and home of the Brave.
Its not that I didn't know she was there. I have her there every day. I see her every day. She waves every day. But at that moment, hearing the fluttering sound she made, seeing her rhythmic shadow, and then seeing her bright colors, was just one of those moments that struck me. It moved me, with pride and love of country.
I love America. I have always loved my country. With all her glory, and in spite of all our misgivings at times, I still love all she truly stands for. She doesn't stand for any President. Nor does she stand for all our country has ever done (by way of wayward leaders or citizens). But she, our American Flag, has stood as a shining example of Liberty and Freedom to the world.
Today, in MY view, she is being tested. Tested, not so much from forces abroad, but tested by forces within her own boundaries. There are actually those who think she has outlived her purpose, her design. Outlived the promise of Freedom and Liberty, in light of growing government controlled Freedoms and limited Liberties. Almost unimaginable, some even think she represents some kind of oppression, or outdated ideals of our Founders too long ago to matter in today's world. I worry each day about how long some will let Her last.
But this morning, I was so struck by the sound of her fluttering and the sight of those stars and stripes, that anyone passing may have wondered what I was smiling so big about. I was smiling, because I was standing under her greatness. And for that, I am Blessed. I am Blessed to be an American, and to have our wonder Stars and Stripes to live under.
God Bless America, land of the Free, and home of the Brave.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Manufactured to Kill?
While perfectly legal, these US manufactured pieces of metal and composite are made for one purpose - to break the law - and with that, the potential to KILL!
In the US alone, more than 12,000 deaths each year are a result of what such things can do. Yet, we see NO limit of the production, and they can be bought in every state. Even across state lines, these things can be sold, traded, and even stolen! Yet, we see little concern by one association/organization to curtail the manufacturing and sale of these "killers".
Today, it seems most every different such manufacturer, makes some version of these. Some are made to achieve a much higher rate of velocity than others, but all of them have the great potential for death. But, it is a FACT they are made for ONE purpose, and that is to exceed all the laws to govern such, and the threat is to every one of us when we leave our homes.
Rest assured, ANY talk about curtailing the production and ownership of these, will be met full on by more than one group, but in particularly their BIGGEST lobbying group, and because of their large paying membership (millions of members), holds a huge strangle hold on many politicians. Don't expect any changes to come soon, no matter how many people are killed each year by these and similar!
Of the THOUSANDS of deaths each year, nearly 31% are from the results of such volatile projectiles alone! Yet, no one wants to talk about them, in fear of upsetting a small fraction of those who hold a LOT of power in DC.
It's time to get serious. Time to clamp down. Time to say ENOUGH! Time to STOP the manufacturing of these killing machines! We already have acceptable limits with the use of similar machines, but these are made to surpass such limits, therefore presenting a danger to all of us. (51% or so of people who own such, stand to be the first victim in their use, with THOUSANDS of children killed with their parent's!)
Oh...I bet some of you thought I was referring to the so-called "assault weapons"? But NO! I'm talking about FAST CARS and SPEED, and the annual traffic deaths cause by speeding.
So let's do this! Let's tell the AFL-CIO to shut up! Let's tell auto makers to stop building cars that can exceed the speed limits by 2, 3, and 4 or more times! Let's also tell banks to stop making loans to build any automobile that can exceed by more than 20% of the maximum posted speed limits. Let's ban excessively fast cars from the streets of America. Like the Corvette, as just one example, that can go as fast at 205 MPH, let's BAN them! SPEED kills! So WHY DOES ANYONE NEED A CORVETTE? There are so many cars that can easily exceed the current speed limits of 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, & even 80 mph. So WHY does anyone need a car that can go 205 MPH? They are made, to BREAK THE LAW! Anyone buying such a vehicle, must be intent on using it to the fullest, and no where else but on our streets and highways! (I saw one yesterday and had to pull over, because I was so scared of what might happen to me.)
Over 32,000 traffic deaths a year occur on our nations streets and highways. And about 31% are attributed to SPEED.
But the AFL-CIO would challenge anyone, any politician, who dared suggest automakers couldn't build cars, like the All American Corvette. They would say that it's up to the buyer/driver to drive it responsibly. They'd say, it's the driver, not the car(s) that cause accidents. They'd say that power alone is not wrong, but using such powerful auto to violate the laws are. It's the DRIVER'S responsibility, and we should hold DRIVERS responsible.
While I write this as an obvious ruse to make a point. Can my point really be that wrong? Personal responsibility rests with all of us. For those who abuse ANY "right", or the use of otherwise legal property, those few should be held accountable.
So enjoy that Corvette, or AR-15, and use them responsibly. For those who would abuse them, let's punish THEM. Otherwise, take fast cars off the streets, because they are MADE so they can break the law.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
War Is HELL!
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)