• Meta

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

    December 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Nov    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    wearenegroes on Will Hillary Clinton Run Again…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    IB on Why Gun Ownership is Biblical…
    NEW White House Insi… on Hitler and the muslim bro…
    who to write an Essa… on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Why We MUST Build the Border Wall

Here are two articles that illustrate very clearly two of the main reasons why we MUST control our borders, and in this case build a physical barrier whether that be a wall, fences that can’t be climbed or cut through easily, minefields, snipers and machine guns, whatever it takes.

We’ve known this for a long time, but the facts (as generous as they might be) solidly bear this out.  Immigrants, and ESPECIALLY illegal immigrants who SHOULD be denied ANY assistance, are receiving welfare, healthcare, education, and other benefits, all at taxpayer expense.  The CONSERVATIVE, GENEROUS estimates are that this is costing taxpayers around $125 BILLION a year, for about 11 million illegals.  They have been saying “11 million illegals” for nearly two decades now, so we all know it’s probably AT LEAST double that number, and that it’s likely costing us far more than $125 billion each year to keep them here. 

Back when we applied at least SOME sanity to our immigration system, we screened immigrants to admit only those who would benefit and be a net positive to our society. LEGAL immigrants were told that if they couldn’t make their own way, there would be on welfare, and ILLEGAL immigrants simply weren’t tolerated.  Now the idiotic or evil open border crowd wants a welfare state with open borders.  The two simply can’t coexist.

We can’t feed and house all of our own citizens, to include our veterans whom we asked to sacrifice their bodies and lives on our behalf.  So, how in the name of all that is good and Holy are we importing the poverty classes of every nation in this hemisphere, and many nations around the world, before taking care of our own?

Hear this loud and clear.  I don’t care if it’s hungry children and abused mothers banging on the door of our border wall.  If I have only one dollar to give, I will give it to a veteran in need before giving it to the citizen of another country, and our government should do the same.  As long as there is one of our CITIZENS in need, we MUST NOT import any others who will become wards of the state, as the vast majority of immigrants are now allowed to do.  We do not owe these invaders anything.  They have no right to come here, or stay here.  We have no obligation to give them a single penny of taxpayer money.  The obligation our government has to OUR citizens is to protect us from this invasion.  End of story.

Democrats, leftists, communists, socialists, and RINOs (repetitive, I know), hear this.  You are acting as enemies of America, and you are betraying the oath you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  YOU work for US.  Not the other way around.  We are growing weary of your constant betrayal.  Get in line with the Constitution, or resign before we come and throw you out.  That day isn’t too far in the future.



Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

Advertisements

Bad Sign: Muslims Running for Office in Large Numbers

Muslims SHOULD be facing a backlash from citizens and citizen-voters because islam is not compatible with America, our Constitution, or our way of life.

www.apnews.com/62d762b7e25b49bc916d02f8d538a247/Muslim-candidates-running-in-record-numbers-face-backlash

I Support Law Enforcement Except When…

In general, and on principal, I support my police, sheriff, and state troopers.  However, and here’s the big “but,” when they choose to enforce unconstitutional laws that infringe upon our Constitutional rights, I will NOT support them, and think they should step down lest they become an enemy of the citizenry.

Typically if someone has a problem with what the police are doing, rather than get upset with the police they need to get upset with the legislators that wrote the law.  However, when it comes to clearly unconstitutional law, law enforcement officers have a choice.  They face the same choice that military members face when given an unlawful order.  Do they carry out the order and say they were “just following orders” when the crap hits the fan?  Or do they choose not to follow those orders, risking more immediate consequences from their overlords?  If the oath you swore mentions something about the Constitution, then the choice in this case is clear.

These New Jersey officers are CHOOSING to make themselves an enemy of the Constitution, and of the citizenry, by willfully denying 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendment rights, to name a few.  Unless confidence in the legal system is restored, and if these encroachments on our liberties continue, what will logically follow is something no one wants to see.
+



 

NJ State Police Attempt To Confiscate Resident’s Guns without a Warrant

Gun Confiscation Squads
NJ State Police Attempt To Confiscate Resident’s Guns without a Warrant.

Millstone Township, New Jersey –-(Ammoland.com)- An Army veteran father says State Police tried to confiscate his firearms without a court order or warrant just because his son was overheard discussing school shooting news with a classmate.

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Major Brian Polite, a spokesperson for the New Jersey State Police, stated that the troopers that conducted the investigation determined there was no need for the weapons to be seized. He also said he could not comment on whether the incident was related to the new gun laws.

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights.  ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

Cottrell said if the school had contacted him and talked about what had happened instead of going to the police first, “it would have been worked out right then and there.” He said he also would have understood if he’d gotten a call from the State Police to learn more, instead of the late night visit to his home.

Link to article: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/07/nj-state-police-attempt-to-confiscate-resident-guns-without-a-warrant/#axzz5L37Kp0NA

WATERGATE EVERY WEEK: USING THE FBI TO SUPPRESS A POLITICAL REVOLUTION

A new Watergate every week.  A very appropriate analogy to what his happening in our government today.  The author of the article gets this exactly right.  And he also correctly nails the essence of WHY we’re seeing a new Watergate every week.  Here’s the money quote that sums it up.

These are the police state tactics usually used by Communist dictatorships where domestic security agencies accuse the political opposition of treason, spy on them, raid their homes on fake charges and then look for anything that can be used to put them away. Just like in Russia. And for the same reasons.

Russian domestic security agencies, from the KGB to the FSB, used these tactics against political opponents who might pose a threat to their rule. That is exactly what’s happening here.

The democrats are communists.  

Everything the democrats believe and support is not found in the Constitution, but can be found in the Communist Manifesto.

All the people they look up to are Marxists, communists, socialists, and acolytes of them who prescribe how to advance the cause of totalitarian communism.

All of the tactics they employ to destroy their political opponents are those of the communist agitators such as Alinsky.

Everything the democrats stand for directly conflicts with the things America was founded on and for.

We are witnessing a communist revolution, or more accurately a Menshevik revolution right here in America just as took place in Russia.  The history of communism across the world is not one of peace, prosperity, and happiness.  It is a history of totalitarianism, oppression, death, and suffering.  It is important to understand this history to see where the communists in America are taking us.  For the most recent example, look at Venezuela.  It NEVER ends well.

The chances that communism will work THIS time are about as good as surviving a jump from the top of the Empire State Building on the SECOND attempt.  If we don’t stop it here and now, they will destroy America as we know it, and we will be the next Venezuela. 



WATERGATE EVERY WEEK: USING THE FBI TO SUPPRESS A POLITICAL REVOLUTION

From Steele to Mueller, the cost of overturning the 2016 election.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

In the early seventies, political operatives disguised as delivery men broke into a Washington D.C. office. These efforts to spy on the political opposition would culminate in what we know as Watergate.

In the late teens, political operatives disguised as FBI agents, NSA personnel and other employees of the Federal government eavesdropped, harassed and raided the offices of the political opposition.

The raids of Michael Cohen’s hotel room, home and office are just this week’s Watergate.

Political operatives have now seized privileged communications between the President of the United States and his lawyer. Despite fairy tales about a clean process, these communications will be harvested by the counterparts of Peter Strzok, who unlike him are still on the case at the FBI, some of it will appear in the Washington Post and the New York Times, and some will be passed along to other political allies.

That’s what happened at every juncture of Watergate 2.0. And it only follows that it will happen again.

Just like the eavesdropping, the process will be compartmentalized for maximum plausible deniability. The leakers will be protected by their superiors. The media will shrilly focus the public’s attention on the revelations in the documents rather than on the more serious crimes committed in obtaining them.

Nixon couldn’t have even dreamed of doing this in his wildest fantasies. But Obama could and did. Now his operatives throughout the government are continuing the work that they began during his regime.

Attorney-client privilege is just one of those rights we have to give up to protect ourselves from a conspiracy theory invented by the Clinton campaign. (But no amount of dead Americans can ever justify ending immigration from Islamic terror states or deporting illegal alien gang members.)

We are at the latest stage of a process that began when the Clinton campaign funded a dossier alleging foreign ties by her political opponent. It did this using a law firm while lying on its FEC disclosures about payments to that firm. (But unlike Cohen, Hillary’s lawyers will never be raided by the FBI.)

That dossier was then used to justify eavesdropping on Trump associates by political allies in the State Department, the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Council. This wasn’t really breaking new ground. Obama had already been caught using the NSA to spy on members of Congress opposed to his Iran Deal.

The contents of the dossier were rambling nonsense. Its claims about Michael Cohen were easily disproven. But that covert investigation was transformed into an overt one with Mueller. And Mueller’s very public investigation follows the same path as the secret investigation by Obama associates. Both used the dubious claims of the Clinton dossier as the starting point for an endless fishing expedition.

Eavesdrop enough, raid enough, squeeze enough and you will eventually find something. And even if you don’t, you can always manipulate them into denying something and nail them for lying to the FBI.

Keep squeezing and maybe you’ll even find someone willing to lie under oath for you.

Mueller has yet to deliver on Russian collusion. But Susan Rice and Samantha Power couldn’t do it either. Instead they all assembled a vast network of international conspiracy theories whose only purpose is to justify more raids, more eavesdropping and more fishing expeditions.

These are the police state tactics usually used by Communist dictatorships where domestic security agencies accuse the political opposition of treason, spy on them, raid their homes on fake charges and then look for anything that can be used to put them away. Just like in Russia. And for the same reasons.

Russian domestic security agencies, from the KGB to the FSB, used these tactics against political opponents who might pose a threat to their rule. That is exactly what’s happening here.

This isn’t just an ideological war. Washington D.C. is fighting to suppress a political revolution.

Even Obama and Hillary’s political operatives couldn’t have pushed the DOJ and other agencies this far outside their comfort zone under ordinary circumstances. There had been previous abuses of power, under JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Clinton, but there has been nothing like this since the Alien and Sedition Acts or Madison’s Machiavellian scapegoating of the Federalists for the disastrous War of 1812.

To apolitical operatives like Mueller, Strzok and their many allies in the FBI, Trump is an unprecedented threat to the business of the Federal government. They shrug at the economy or tax reform, except where it affects them. And social issues don’t move them either. They are as interested in the ideological left-right battles as the nomenklatura were in the works of Karl Marx.

There are indeed two Americas. One is your country. The other consists of the people who run it. Both have their headquarters in Washington D.C. And they get along pretty well most of the time.

The people are allowed to vote for whomever their party chooses. They can even vote for less respectable choices as long as they understand that those people will never get anywhere. Then the people they select will go to Washington D.C. and be briefed on what they can and can’t do. There they will rent pricey condos, bicker with each other, eat at nice restaurants and, in theory, make laws.

Then the nomenklatura, the bureaucracy that runs the country, will transform laws into policy. The policy will be shaped by judicial rulings and expert opinion. By the time the policy sausage comes out the other end of the Imperial City, it will have very little to do with what the voters might have wanted.

There are plenty of gatekeepers to keep a common sense idea from being implemented. If a congressman proposes that sensible measure you suggest to him, it will never leave the committee or it’ll be watered down. The Senate will neuter it or the president, on the advice of his advisors, will veto.

And then came Trump.

The gates began to collapse. The nomenklatura propped them up. Judicial rulings were used to block everything. The petty bureaucracies within government agencies stalled and sabotaged. Former agency bosses, their internal allies and the media colluded to target Trump’s agency heads with scandals.

The elected head of the government and the unelected heads of the government were at war.

Mueller is the tip of the nomenklatura’s spear. The DOJ is the bluntest weapon in the D.C. arsenal and for the first time it’s been completely unleashed to undo the results of a presidential election.

The same leftists that fought for the civil rights of terrorists and drug dealers, cheer government eavesdropping on the political opposition and the violation of attorney-client privilege because it was never about civil rights, it was about protecting their political allies and punishing their enemies.

Radical movements are inherently totalitarian. And totalitarians view process, whether of elections or criminal justice proceedings, as a train that they ride until they take power and then disembark.

As Roger Nash Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU, wrote, “If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then… it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties… When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever.”

The working class of Washington D.C. has achieved quite a bit of power along with a fortune in overseas bank accounts, mansions, private schools and all the privileges of membership in the ruling class.

But the leftists cheering Mueller’s abuses might pause to consider the consequences.

The Romans broke their republic. Now we’re breaking ours. The pink hat brigade enlisted the Praetorian Guard to bring down Trump. But the Roman lesson is that once you break the republic, it stays broken. Once you use political mercenaries like Mueller to overturn an election for you, they might not stop.

The left likes to believe that it can close Pandora’s Box whenever it pleases. History tells us differently.

The Praetorian Guard didn’t stop. What can be done once, will be done again. When control of the DOJ and FBI matters more than elections, then voters will be irrelevant and the Praetorian of D.C. will rule.

And then a new Watergate really will happen every week.

+

Link to article:  https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269851/watergate-every-week-using-fbi-suppress-political-daniel-greenfield#.WtBQrastOyM.twitter

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.

WINNING!



Trump signs order calling for work requirements in welfare programs

BY BRETT SAMUELS – 

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

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.

BUY A GUN ON THE MONDAY BEFORE ELECTION DAY.

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.

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.”◄
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

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: