• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    June 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « May    
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Orville on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Desi Chinese on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Oto ekspertiz Kaç li… on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    esgort on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Democrat Crybabies Walk Out of Speech About Guns, Continue Childish Track Record

Note: This post is from March 2018, but was inadvertently placed in draft rather than being published.

Democrats got up and walked out rather than face facts and truth about gun control being presented by Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas. This is a pattern of behavior for democrats stretching back years. Rather than stand like adults and engage in civil debate, and then cast their votes, these cowards take their ball and go home if they can’t get their way. To their credit, they do fight like crazed animals for what their base wants, and to gain/maintain power, unlike the spineless GOP who can’t pass up an opportunity to fold like a cheap lawn chair. But HOW democrats fight starts out as childish and immature, then moves to illegal, unethical, unconstitutional, un-American, and downright despicable. That’s just who the democrats are. Marxist socialists who believe that the end justifies the means, no matter how out of bounds those means are, and how despicable the end they seek.

Remember 2003 in Texas? The Republicans were about to pass a redistricting plan, and the democrats couldn’t come close to stopping it with votes, so what did they do? They ran away. LITERALLY. They LEFT THE STATE, fleeing to Oklahoma to prevent the legislature, which requires 100 of the 150 representatives be present, from doing any business.

How about 2011 in Wisconsin? The Republicans had a sure victory on a budget measure, so rather than just stay and vote their conscience, what did the democrats do? Again, they ran away like the cowards they are. Just like in Texas, they ran and hid like little children to prevent the legislature from doing what it was elected to do.

At about the same time, democrats in Indiana fled the state rather than cast their votes on anti-union legislation. Again, like cowardly children.

Since November 2016, you are seeing this behavior by democrats increasing, getting worse, and more irrational. The non-collusion collusion scandal that even democrats are beginning to admit is a joke, shutting down the government to benefit ILLEGAL aliens while throwing American CITIZENS whom they are sworn to serve under the bus, and the irrational, screeching response to another tragic school shooting. Not only is their demand for more gun control irrational, they lie about what their true intentions are. Democrats said repeatedly that they had no intention of banning our guns, right up until they introduced a bill to ban basically all semi-automatic rifles and pistols. Make no mistake, they care nothing about the children in the Broward County, FL high school, or any other school for that matter. EVERY time one of these tragedies happens, the bodies are still warm as the democrats begin using the tragedy to advance their POLITICAL agenda. Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? They want full on gun confiscation but know they can’t get it in one fell swoop. They won’t stop incrementally working towards that goal, because until the populace no longer has the means to resist, they can’t cement the power they are so desperate to achieve. How desperate? Just look at their track record of outlandish, childish, illegal behavior, and ask that question again.

WATCH: Speech on Guns by Virginia Senate Candidate Causes Democrat Walk-Out, Goes Massively Viral Online

A Speech by Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas, the liberty-minded conservative who is challenging Senator Tim Kaine, discussing the importance of the Second Amendment has been viewed over five million times in the past 24 hours.
Friday’s speech by Freitas before the Virginia House of Delegates lead to many Democrats actually walking out and demanding a recess so that they could calm down because they were so outraged.

The Washington Post reports that after Democrats settled down, Del. Joseph Lindsey (D-Norfolk) told the House that “today, I have been offended as I can never recall since being a part of this body. And I have seen many of my colleagues emotionally shaken and bothered by either a lack of concern for facts or just simply playing to the cameras, I don’t know which.”

In the speech, Freitas discussed societal issues that may have lead to an uptick in mass shootings.

“So, over the last several days, Mr. Speaker, there’s been a lot of discussion about an open and honest debate with respect to school shootings, gun violence, gun control, etc…and an open and honest debate as I understand it, is one that would rely on data, facts, evidence, analysis, reason, logic, etcetera, etcetera… and I’m certainly willing to have that deate,” Freitas began. “I think if we were going to look seriously at school shootings and gun control, we would analyze things like: Why do all mass shootings seem to take place in gun free zones? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones have actually achieved what they’re intended intent is?”

Freitas brought up the fact that most mass shooters come from broken homes — and pointed out some of the government policies that have encouraged the breakdown of traditional families.

“We would start to look at…most of the shooters come from broken homes. What sort of government policies have actually encouraged broken homes? You can look at Left-leaning think tanks like the Brookings Institute, that will actually say that some of it can be attributed to various cultural change that happened in the 60’s to include the abortion industry,” Freitas said. “You can look at a more conservative-leaning organizations that will say that the welfare state contributes significantly to dismantling the family as families became more and more dependent upon the government than they were mothers and fathers in the home raising children.”

The senate candidate also discussed how areas like Chicago, New York and Washington, DC have strict gun laws, and yet, the gun violence hasn’t stopped.

Freitas also laid into the Democrats for claiming they only want to get rid of bump stocks and impose background checks.

“If you’re wanting the other reason why we can’t have an honest debate about this one is because, quite frankly, I don’t think any of us, on this side of the aisle, believe you when you say that’s all you want to do. It will be bump stocks, it will be background checks, it will be a different kind of background checks that register the guns… Then, after that, it will be ‘We need to ban assault weapons.’ ‘What’s an assault weapon?’ ‘Something that looks scary,’” Freitas asserted. “Then after that it will be semi-automatic rifles, then it will be semi-automatic hand guns. Then it will be revolvers, shotguns… because when the policies fail to produce the results you were promising your constituents, you will be back with more reasons for why we’ve got to infringe on Second Amendment rights.”

Freitas point was that the Democrats refuse to consider other options to end societal violence that do not consist of “tearing apart or gutting the Second Amendment.”

Freitas served with the 82nd Airborne Division and 25th Light Infantry Division as an Infantryman. Following the terror attack on September 11 2001, Nick volunteered for US Army Special Forces (Green Berets) and eventually served 2 tours in Iraq as a Special Forces Weapons Sergeant and Special Forces Intelligence Sergeant.

After being honorably discharged in 2009, Freitas became the Director of Operations for a disabled veteran owned company that provides direct support to our service men and women conducting counter insurgency and counter IED operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I’ve proven both on the battlefield overseas and on the battlefield of ideas, I am willing to stand by what I believe in and fight for it,” Freitas previously told the Gateway Pundit.

More information about Freitas’ campaign can be found on his website, Facebook and Twitter. He is constantly updating his social media with videos and information about where he stands on specific issues.

Link to article:  http://thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/watch-speech-guns-virginia-senate-candidate-causes-democrat-walk-goes-massively-viral-online/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=thegatewaypundit.com&utm_term=68810&utm_content=1


Trump signs order calling for work requirements in welfare programs

It doesn’t take a genius to see that paying people NOT to work is not a strategy for success.  This action by President Trump is just one step down a long road toward getting government out of the welfare business, where it has no business being in the first place.


Trump signs order calling for work requirements in welfare programs


President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order calling for federal agencies to establish or strengthen existing work requirements for certain individuals who benefit from federal welfare programs.

The White House issued a memo that argued those who rely on welfare would have an easier time achieving economic mobility through strengthened work requirements where they already exist, and the creation of new ones where applicable.

“The Federal Government should do everything within its authority to empower individuals by providing opportunities for work, including by investing in Federal programs that are effective at moving people into the workforce and out of poverty,” the executive order states.

The new requirements would apply to those who are able to work, according to the memo.

The order does not detail which specific programs will be subject to such requirements.

Instead, Trump’s executive order calls on the heads of the departments of Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Education to review public assistance programs within their agencies.

Those department heads are expected to submit a report within 90 days with a list of recommended changes to achieve Trump’s goals, according to the executive order.

The order also says the federal government will streamline services, review existing services and consolidate or eliminate programs that are ineffective or overlap in services.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families embraced the executive order and said it will allow the agency to take “aggressive action” toward enforcing work requirements.

“Strengthening work requirements for welfare recipients is a critical element of moving welfare recipients from dependency to self-sufficiency,” Steven Wagner, the acting assistant secretary for the organization, said in a statement.

Some GOP lawmakers have advocated for stronger work requirements to eliminate a perceived dependence on welfare.

The Trump administration last month approved Arkansas’s request to impose work requirements on certain Medicaid beneficiaries.

Link to article:  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/382557-trump-signs-order-calling-for-work-requirements-in-welfare-programs#.Ws4kf35EaMA.twitter

Mark “Napoleon” Zuckerberg Used Booster Seat During Testimony

Zuckerberg in booster seat

To soothe his little-guy syndrome, Zuckerberg used a booster seat to make himself not appear quite so small as he was placed under the public and congressional microscope yesterday.  While nothing substantive came from the hearing, and only a few meaningful questions were asked, and even fewer actually answered, we got to see a little man on a power trip.  He has enough money to buy the world, can influence elections, has a near monopoly on social media, and knows he can buy off nearly every politician on Capitol Hill to get out of this mess, and probably already has.  If there are any governmental regulations that come from this mess, they will likely have the effect of LIMITING competition with Facebook rather than encouraging it by erecting regulatory barriers to entry.  That’s EXACTLY what Zuckerberg wants.

Business Insider:  Mark Zuckerberg gave his grueling, 5-hour testimony to Congress from a 4-inch booster seat

Paul Ryan Not Running for Reelection

Good news to start the day off right.  Paul Ryan just announced he will not seek reelection in November.  Hopefully we can get a REAL conservative to replace him, both in his seat, and as Speaker of the House.

He says he doesn’t want his kids to know him only as a “weekend dad,” and that he’s changing priorities in his life.  I’m so glad that it’s such an easy decision for you, Paul, especially since you’ll have a nice, fat government pension to lean on and won’t have any financial worries, unlike the American taxpayers you have been screwing for so long.

Paul, my disgust for you and your dishonesty knows no bounds, and I only wish we would have found a way to FIRE you rather than watch you ride off into the sunset, taking even MORE of our tax dollars with you.

National “Buy a Gun Day”: How We Counter the Movement to Destroy the 2nd Amendment

Perhaps you’ve been watching the marches calling for gun control and confiscation, the leftist politicians calling for gun control and confiscation, and been watching the Republican politicians cowering in fear instead of standing up for our rights.  Many conservatives say that we should be countering the leftist protests with protests of our own.  Sadly, that will likely never happen, mostly because most conservative defenders of the 2nd Amendment have these things called “jobs,” and they must show up to work to pay the bills.

But I heard an idea that will send a message more loudly, and more clearly than ANY protest rally.

Think about how much it costs each protester to drive or fly to one of these protests.  Think about how much it costs in food and lodging for probably at least two nights and 3 days.  Add those amounts together, and how much do you think they spend?  Probably anywhere from $500 to $2,000.  Since we don’t have time to travel to these protests, I submit a more constructive way to spend that money.


Whether you buy a shotgun, a small pistol, a bolt action rifle, or a high-end custom AR, BUY A GUN on the Monday before election day, Monday, November 5th

What kind of message do you think it will send to the linguine-spine politicians when MILLIONS of Americans literally crash the NICS system buying guns?  Do you think they will understand that we will not stand for them infringing on our rights?  I think it will send a message more loudly, and more clearly than anything a couple of Marxist teenagers can say.

Start saving up, and spread this to anyone you can.

“Scary” Guns vs. Abortion Tools

Rifles vs Abortion Tools

Lt Col Ralph Peters Goes Full Retard on Gun Control

Lt Col Peters, I have agreed with you on so much in the past, but here is where we part company. You are now attacking my fundamental rights, which I can not stand by and allow you to do without response.

You attempt to give yourself absolute moral authority and “unimpeachable” qualifications by stating “I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs.” How does that qualify you to opine about limiting or ELIMINATING MY RIGHTS? It does not. I’ve written lots of checks. Does that give me the authority to tell someone else that they can’t have or write checks? Obviously not. I’ve eaten lots of food, most of which I purchase at grocery stores. Does that give me the authority or tell someone they can’t either shop at a grocery store or grow their own food if they choose? Again, obviously not. However, that’s the faulty logic you use in an attempt to establish your authority.

You then display your actual ignorance on this topic when you say “These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting.” Yes, the AR-15, AK47 and similar weapons were originally designed as military weapons. No one denies that, but to deny the FACTS that these guns also have peaceful uses is ignorant, dishonest, or both. When you say ARs, and even AKs, are not used for hunting, that is patently and absolutely false. They are rapidly becoming the most popular weapons for that use. AR pattern rifles chambered in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO and similar calibers are ideally suited for varmint hunting and small to medium game. AR pattern rifles in larger calibers such as .308 Win/7.62 NATO are ideal for larger game like deer, elk, etc. There are bolt action and other type rifles used for similar purposes chambered in these EXACT SAME calibers. Being a “scary looking” military-style gun does not limit the usefulness of a gun for LAW ABIDING purpose. Then you say “They’re lousy for target shooting,” which shows the exact same type and level of ignorance or malice on your part. These weapons are used recreationally by millions of people for target shooting and competition ALL THE TIME. Where are you getting your so-called facts?

The next asinine statement you make is “The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun.” Really? With any shotgun common to bird hunting today, such as a Remington 1100 or Beretta pump or semi-automatic, Nikolas Cruz could have easily killed and wounded just as many, and perhaps more people than he did. Using buckshot, he could potentially have hit more than one target at once. Have you ever seen what a deer slug fired from a shotgun can do? It’s a lot more gruesome than the damage a .223 can inflict, and at close range it would probably go through more than one body, potentially killing more than one person with each shot. Your ignorance continues unabated…

Next, you say “The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms.” Seriously? If the Las Vegas shooter actually slowed down to aim rather than using the spray-and-pray method, which is about all you can do with a bump-stock equipped weapon, he could have EASILY and PRECISELY killed just as many or more with a bolt action rifle. From his vantage point, he was shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, sir, you go full left retard with this quote. “That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” You can’t honestly be this ignorant of the founding fathers intent. You are a college graduate, and former commissioned officer in the United States military. I would expect more from you. You apply the MODERN, often intentionally misunderstood meaning of “well regulated.” Let me clear things up for you.

►To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term “well regulated” as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to “raise and support.”

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”◄

In other words, “well regulated” means REGULAR as in similar in makeup. Citizens were to be armed with weapons similar to those in use by the military SPECIFICALLY to serve as a check and balance to government. Hunting was not mentioned as that was an assumed part of normal life. Have you not figured out that EVERYTHING in our form of government was designed to serve as a check and balance to EVERYTHING ELSE in our government? When those checks and balances are eroded or ignored, what then? When a benevolent government is freed from the constraints placed upon it, it has almost always throughout history become MALEVOLENT and oppressive towards the citizens it is supposed to serve. Our founders were painfully aware of this, and expressly included a provision in our Constitution to act as a final failsafe to return our government to its constitutional reservation should it stray. Are you honestly that ignorant of history?

To add insult to injury, you then personally attack the character and patriotism of EVERY American who has not served in the military or as a member of law enforcement. You say, “As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.” I know many people who have never served in either capacity who would willingly lay down their life for this country should that be required. You have abandoned sound logic, and resorted to the emotional attacks of a COWARD, sir.

Again, you attempt to establish some form of absolute moral authority when you say, “As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming.” I, too, swore the very same oath you did, as have many thousands of others, and will uphold it until my last breath. Apparently, I and many others under that oath seem to more fully understand what it means than you do.

Nearing the end of your painfully ignorant piece, which I am becoming convinced is also intentionally deceitful, you posit the following: “Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?” My question to you, sir, is do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that any of our founding fathers, or “geniuses” as you snarkily refer to them, would have intended for the law-abiding citizenry to be disarmed and unable to defend themselves should someone decide to employ their weapon illegally and with malice? Do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that the founding fathers intended for the citizenry to sit back and await the arrival of law enforcement to save them from a hostile person intent on killing them? You can’t possibly be this ignorant, can you?

Moving on to your next emotional, ignorant question, “We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?” I have some questions for you, Mr. Peters. Where have ALL of these mass shootings taken place? ANSWER: In “gun-free” zones where LAW-ABIDING citizens could not carry firearms to defend themselves and stop an attacker before it turned into a “mass” killing. Where are the places in America where the most people are murdered with firearms? ANSWER: In cities that already have the strictest gun control laws in the country. Do criminals obey laws? ANSWER: If I have to answer this for you, you need to ensure you never appear on television, write an article, or open your mouth in public ever again. But as for pure numbers of children murdered, why don’t I hear you decrying the slaughter of MILLIONS of children via abortion? There are more children murdered in this country EVERY. SINGLE. DAY by abortion than ALL PEOPLE OF ANY AGE who are killed by rifles of ALL types in an ENTIRE YEAR. Where’s your indignation about that?

Your next question, “How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?” That’s a great question. Let’s look at a few facts to help establish what “common sense” on this issue really is, shall we? Most mass shootings are over before law enforcement arrives. Either the murderer has left the scene, or has killed a large number of people before SOMEONE WITH A GUN shows up to stop him. As we previously established, ALL of these shootings were CHOSEN by the murderer largely because they were soft targets full of unarmed people. In all cases, when the murderer was confronted by a good-guy with a gun, the killing stopped. With that in mind, it would be COMMON SENSE and the most decent thing to do to have MORE good-guys with guns to counter any bad guys with guns, and more importantly to serve as a DETERRENT to those who intend harm to others. You continue by saying “As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.” ALL the evidence and actual historic facts DO NOT back up your assertion. Is it possible that some might be hit by friendly fire as you assert when you say ““Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger?” Yes, it is. But, again, what you are attempting to pass off as logic is flawed. Do I only eat raw meat because there’s a chance I’ll be burned on a stove or campfire? Do I refrain from using pens and pencils because I might write a misspelled word? Do we ban all cars because there are a few drunk drivers? As a military officer, and supposedly a leader in the military, you should understand the concept of “calculated risk.” It’s a SURE BET that many will die if the murderer is allowed to shoot at will, without opposition. There’s a VERY HIGH probability that the shooter will cease targeting innocent people when confronted by someone with a gun because they now have to defend themselves. There is also a HIGH PROBABILITY that even with friendly fire casualties, fewer will die than if you allow the shooter to remain unopposed. You just haven’t thought this out, have you?

Your emotional diatribe is completely void of sound reasoning or fact. Based on your history debating and discussing other issues, this surprises and disappoints me. I’m sure in your lengthy military career you must have heard the saying “One ‘aw sh**’ wipes out a hundred ‘atta-boys.’” In one article, you have managed to do exactly that, sir.

I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

Guns and I go back a long way.

My father was a champion skeet shooter. A picture of him aiming his favorite pump skyward has pride of place in our living room. He owned fine rifles and shotguns, and he valued them.

My first experience with pulling a trigger came late, by family standards. I was already 7 or 8 when my dad and “Uncle” George took me out back of Old Lily’s house and handed me a sawed-off shotgun (illegal then and now) kept handy for woodchucks and rattlesnakes. The recoil didn’t knock me off my feet, but my shoulder ached for weeks.

I’m blessed to have few material regrets, but I still feel a sting when I recall how, after my father’s bankruptcy, we had to sell his guns to put food on the table. Those arms were important to him and, thus, to me.

I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs. (Let’s not talk about dud-grenade disposal . . .)

And I’m a gun owner. As I write these lines, there’s an 1858 Tower musket behind me and a Colt on my desk.

But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.

The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.

The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster.

These are cop-killer weapons, too.

The standard argument deployed in reply to demands that military-grade weapons be banned or mildly restricted from public sale cites the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Well, here’s what the Second Amendment actually says:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” Did any of the recent shooters belong to a “well regulated militia”? As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.

As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming. Our standing army numbered in the hundreds.

Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?

How can members of our Congress or state legislators put their re-election campaigns above the lives of children? How can they do that? We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?

How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?

The demagogues who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day.

As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.

When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.

Again, I support gun ownership. Always have, always will. But if anyone feels irresistibly compelled to fire automatic weapons or their surrogates, I have a deal for them: Join the US Army or the Marines as a combat infantryman. You’ll even get paid to pull triggers.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.

Link to article:  https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/



%d bloggers like this: