By Semperpapa
Gabrielle Giffords made her appearance at a gun violence hearing last Wednesday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The former Arizona Representative opened up the hearing with the expected passionate plea for gun control.
I deeply sympathize with Ms. Giffords for the tragedy that affected her when she was wounded by a crazy gunman couple of years back, and I am happy that, considering the gravity of her wounds, she seems to be slowly recovering.
That said, I find it disturbing that the tragedy Ms Giffords was victim of would be used blatantly to attack the constitutional rights of millions of American citizens.
The culprit? A semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine?
Not in the least!
The culprit was a demented liberal, obsessing for the politician and protected by a politically correct environment that is more interested in keeping someone with very dubious background on the street.
The portion of the statement that caught my attention was this one:
“Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Thank you.”
More specifically the “We must do something” and that something is the infringement on the right of millions of Americans, law abiding Americans, to self defense?
Is the answer to all the evils of America, the ignoring of the Constitution?
I stated this before and will do so again: the moment that the government can 100% guarantee that never, ever any harm will ever come to any member of my family, I may consider some form of gun control. Until then, there is no compromising about the Second Amendment for this American.
The problem is that the moment the American people will place all the aspects of their safety in the hands of the government, than the enemy of the people will be the government.
Any time we tell the government that it must do something, the government is more than happy to oblige, because it increases its power.
When in the 1990s then President Clinton promised to put 100,000 new police officers on the streets of America, everyone cheered as they saw the government responding to the people’s request for “safety” on Main Street.
What we got, was federal funding for many municipalities to pay for all these new cops and also federal guidelines in the selection process.
Racial and gender quotas were secretly enforced according to unwritten federal guidelines placing in uniform, with a badge and a gun, folks who had no business being there. One of the results, years later, was the scandal of the Rampart Div. of the LAPD.
The solution to acts like Newtown or Aurora or Virginia Tech is not to infringe upon the inalienable rights of millions of law abiding citizens. The massacre of Ft. Hood is an example, because the tragedy, as appalling as it was, would have been a lot worst had it not been for the presence of an armed federal police woman, who, although shot twice, brought Hasan down with her weapon. A good guy with a gun!
In Newtown, if any of the adults in the school had been armed, maybe the murderer could have been interdicted sooner and save lives.
In Aurora, similarly, an armed patron in the theater could have saved lives.
I want to emphasize the word “could” in my above statements, because it is not a certainty that an armed good guy could be effective, but it is a certainty that the absence of armed citizens will always result in the attacker being effective.
So yes, something must be done, but attacking law abiding citizens’ rights is not it.
Just my thoughts!
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The Mind Of An Obamadroid
By Semperpapa
Very early this morning I came across a Facebook post that was asking for people to chime in on the question: Do you support President Obama agenda of banning semi-automatic firearms.
The majority of the respondents posted as follows:
"No!"
"Hell no!"
"F___ No!"
And so on.
There were some who expressed a bit more than a monosyllabic answer and there were few who expressed their support for the anti Second Amendment crusade of the Squatter-in-Chief.
One of the few comments that caught my attention was one from an obvious Obamadroid. This alleged woman stated, and I am paraphrasing, that she was emphatically supportive of the ban.
OK, I thought, she has her right to feel that way, but than she had to add a qualifying statement that took the conversation to a whole new illogical level.
She said, again paraphrasing, that even if a criminal should break into your house, if you have a gun and keep it properly stored, you would not have the time to get it and use it, so it is better to leave the use of firearms to those properly trained.
I did not participate into the discussion, mostly because I was getting ready to go to work, but also because when an individual is so stupid to formulate such a thought, there is really nothing anyone of us can do to redeem such a moron.
She was obviously one of those mechanical, brainless Obamadroid, follower of her god in the White House and the demonstration of such ignorance and futility as a person, an American and an alleged member of the Homo Sapient species makes her a typical "unreachable."
There are several 'wrongs' into her so called logic.
She would want each of us to give up our guns because, if we store them "properly", we would not be able to timely access them to do any good. Even if we want to grant the "properly" issue, there are many ways that a firearm can be stored safely and be readily accessible in just few seconds.
It is obvious that this person never had any contact with a firearm or anyone who had one, because her position would have been debunked immediately.
So according to this walking conglomerate of ignorant cells, if one does not have timely access to a firearm for personal protection, than all firearms should be banned. Can anyone explain the correlation here?
Maybe it is in the last sentence: leave the use of firearms to those properly trained.
My question would be, then, who are these persons?
The cops? Well, if you don't have even few seconds to grab your weapon, responding cops five minutes away are not going to do you any good.
The criminal? There she has it right. If you do not have a mean to defend yourself, the criminal will be the only one in the exchange to have "training" in the use of firearm, which does not sound as a viable positive solution of the encounter.
This is the mind of an Obamadroid: follow the sheepish mantra of their messianic leader in a demented religious fashion, voided of any logic and rationality.
It is part of the human nature that we are bound to protect our families and our own lives from any form of potential threat. I have always taken the protection of my wife and my kids very seriously and now that protection has extended to my children's spouses and my grandchildren. I will not, as long as my heart pumps blood in my veins, relent my dedication to such God-given right.
People like this woman really make me sad, more than anything else. In my life I have seen many folks who had been so programmed by people they had subjugated to that their existence was fully controlled by their dictators. That is not a life, but a mere existence. Definitely not for me.
And I sure feel sorry for thar woman's family, because it appears that her attitude is one of surrender and pleading for mercy. Best of luck with that and deeply hope she is never the target of an attack, because she has no hope of survival.
As for me, I rather fight than place my life and especially the lives of my loved ones in the hands of someone else that may or may not be there on time.
What infuriates me, though, is that while I recognize the freedom she has to be a victim, she is willing and ready to negate my freedom of not being one. And that I cannot forgive.
Just my thoughts!
Very early this morning I came across a Facebook post that was asking for people to chime in on the question: Do you support President Obama agenda of banning semi-automatic firearms.
The majority of the respondents posted as follows:
"No!"
"Hell no!"
"F___ No!"
And so on.
There were some who expressed a bit more than a monosyllabic answer and there were few who expressed their support for the anti Second Amendment crusade of the Squatter-in-Chief.
One of the few comments that caught my attention was one from an obvious Obamadroid. This alleged woman stated, and I am paraphrasing, that she was emphatically supportive of the ban.
OK, I thought, she has her right to feel that way, but than she had to add a qualifying statement that took the conversation to a whole new illogical level.
She said, again paraphrasing, that even if a criminal should break into your house, if you have a gun and keep it properly stored, you would not have the time to get it and use it, so it is better to leave the use of firearms to those properly trained.
I did not participate into the discussion, mostly because I was getting ready to go to work, but also because when an individual is so stupid to formulate such a thought, there is really nothing anyone of us can do to redeem such a moron.
She was obviously one of those mechanical, brainless Obamadroid, follower of her god in the White House and the demonstration of such ignorance and futility as a person, an American and an alleged member of the Homo Sapient species makes her a typical "unreachable."
There are several 'wrongs' into her so called logic.
She would want each of us to give up our guns because, if we store them "properly", we would not be able to timely access them to do any good. Even if we want to grant the "properly" issue, there are many ways that a firearm can be stored safely and be readily accessible in just few seconds.
It is obvious that this person never had any contact with a firearm or anyone who had one, because her position would have been debunked immediately.
So according to this walking conglomerate of ignorant cells, if one does not have timely access to a firearm for personal protection, than all firearms should be banned. Can anyone explain the correlation here?
Maybe it is in the last sentence: leave the use of firearms to those properly trained.
My question would be, then, who are these persons?
The cops? Well, if you don't have even few seconds to grab your weapon, responding cops five minutes away are not going to do you any good.
The criminal? There she has it right. If you do not have a mean to defend yourself, the criminal will be the only one in the exchange to have "training" in the use of firearm, which does not sound as a viable positive solution of the encounter.
This is the mind of an Obamadroid: follow the sheepish mantra of their messianic leader in a demented religious fashion, voided of any logic and rationality.
It is part of the human nature that we are bound to protect our families and our own lives from any form of potential threat. I have always taken the protection of my wife and my kids very seriously and now that protection has extended to my children's spouses and my grandchildren. I will not, as long as my heart pumps blood in my veins, relent my dedication to such God-given right.
People like this woman really make me sad, more than anything else. In my life I have seen many folks who had been so programmed by people they had subjugated to that their existence was fully controlled by their dictators. That is not a life, but a mere existence. Definitely not for me.
And I sure feel sorry for thar woman's family, because it appears that her attitude is one of surrender and pleading for mercy. Best of luck with that and deeply hope she is never the target of an attack, because she has no hope of survival.
As for me, I rather fight than place my life and especially the lives of my loved ones in the hands of someone else that may or may not be there on time.
What infuriates me, though, is that while I recognize the freedom she has to be a victim, she is willing and ready to negate my freedom of not being one. And that I cannot forgive.
Just my thoughts!
Monday, January 28, 2013
In The Face Of The American People
By Semperpapa
Probably the worst insult the current regime is throwing at the American people is that its open acts of hypocrisy are clearly designed with an “in your face” approach.
Hypocrisy is one of the most mentioned reasons for Americans to complain against our government, because while politicians are good and convincing about what the moral thing to do is during election campaigns, they are often found behaving in direct opposite ways in their own lives.
The current push on the part of the political establishment and their media lap dogs against the Constitution’s Second Amendment, has revealed an enormous amount of hypocrisy.
Weather it is NY mayor Bloomberg or NY governor Cuomo, or Ca senator Feinstein, these politicians have made a mockery of the massacre of Newtown Connecticut by exploiting the tragedy and advancing their agenda.
These are folks who enjoy a great deal of security provided by people armed with guns and paid by us, and yet they feel that their lives are more important than those of each one of us. Their families’ safety is more valuable than the safety of my family or the family of “common” Americans.
We hear that Obama pawn Media Matter’s founder purchased handguns for his personal security detail and allowed them to carry concealed weapons without permit.
And the famous swine Michael Moore who was guarded by security guards also carrying weapons without proper permits.
Surely the MSM would want to emphasize such blatant breaking of the law, right? No, not really. All the above gets a pass if necessary to advance the design of disarming the American people.
Today the Blaze has an article unveiling the purchase, on the part of the Department of Homeland Security, of 7,000 AR15 assault rifles.
These rifles have been classified as PDW or personal defense weapons by the agency, and they go above and beyond what the liberals call “assault rifles.”
By the way gun-grabbers define assault rifle, these are all weapons that appear to have “scary looking properties” like pistol grips and accessory ready rails and of course accepting of magazines with higher capacity that 10 rounds.
But the weapons ordered by the DHS will have 30 rounds magazine and will be the type with select-fire capability.
For all those who may not know, the way these weapons are described as having the “select-fire” capability is that they will be capable to fire in a semi-automatic mode (one round per pulled trigger) and in automatic mode, most likely a three round burst per trigger pull.
The part of the article that gave me the biggest chuckle and prompted this writing was that the justification for the purchase was that these types of rifles are considered to be the best weapon for close quarter personal defense.
Wait a minute, hold the phone. Haven’t we been accused of NOT needing these kinds of weapons for home defense?
Haven’t we been told we do NOT need more than 10 rounds magazines?
What could be more “close quarter personal defense” than the one we may have to engage in our very own home?
And why would DHS personnel ‘need’ more than 10 rounds to protect themselves?
The picture is abundantly clear for every thinking American: the government is preparing for a major civil crisis, either brought upon us by economic collapse or blatant attempt to remove our constitutional rights.
I want to be positive in thinking that the Feinstein anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment bill will suffer a resounding defeat in the House and in the Senate, but should our will and rights be trampled on, already 2/3 of American gun owners have stated that they will not abide by the law. And the government knows that, which may shed light on the real reason behind the purchase of the weapons and the fact that DHS has purchased close to 1.5 billions rounds of ammunition.
In any case, We the People must always remain vigilant against the enemy of America.
And Washington DC is full of them.
Just my thoughts!
Saturday, January 26, 2013
"What Difference Does It Make"
By Semperpapa
Since the name Hillary Clinton has become a common name in the national political arena, I have always believed that she was a basic typical liberal left winger with incredible ambition.
Just being married to the slick Bill, with all the shenanigans he is famous for, there has never been any reason for developing any crumb of respect for this woman.
The mere fact that she stuck by her horny husband throughout his indiscretions is a real turn off in my book. For all the garbage her party has thrown at Conservatives under the false mantra of 'war on women' it is truly ironic that one of the undeclared leaders of that ideology is one who remained the 'faithful wife' while being degraded by her husband's indiscretions.
Sure, I understand that political ambition is a powerful motivation for enduring scorn and betrayal, and she is a real champion for the cause of strong minded women across our nation...
After watching Clinton's testimony in front of Congressional committees last week on the Benghazi attacks, it all made some sort of twisted sense to me.
She vehemently argued that the circumstances behind the death of four Americans were not relevant to the present situation, finally stating, or more like shrilling, "What difference does it make."
If that is her position in life, it all makes sense.
Husband cheats...what difference does it make.
Middle East on flame...what difference does it make.
American citizens, including a US ambassador, are murdered...what difference does it make.
Huge cover up and betrayal of the American people...what difference does it make.
As long as she remains in power.
And really, she is not wrong. All the bad policies and behavior exhibited by Obama and his administration in the last four years did not make a bit of a difference to a portion of the American people who gave the rest of us another four years of not just the same, but most likely worse.
In the long run, she may be absolutely right. She will probably get into the presidential race in 2016, and when all her shortcomings will be brought up, we will all be labeled sexists. It worked for Obama.
It really does not make any difference. She will escape criticism and with the current spineless opposition the republican party is demonstrating, she will be given a pass.
Meanwhile, all this does make a difference for the rest of us, so we must continue to expose the rotten apples in government.
Just my thoughts!
Since the name Hillary Clinton has become a common name in the national political arena, I have always believed that she was a basic typical liberal left winger with incredible ambition.
Just being married to the slick Bill, with all the shenanigans he is famous for, there has never been any reason for developing any crumb of respect for this woman.
The mere fact that she stuck by her horny husband throughout his indiscretions is a real turn off in my book. For all the garbage her party has thrown at Conservatives under the false mantra of 'war on women' it is truly ironic that one of the undeclared leaders of that ideology is one who remained the 'faithful wife' while being degraded by her husband's indiscretions.
Sure, I understand that political ambition is a powerful motivation for enduring scorn and betrayal, and she is a real champion for the cause of strong minded women across our nation...
After watching Clinton's testimony in front of Congressional committees last week on the Benghazi attacks, it all made some sort of twisted sense to me.
She vehemently argued that the circumstances behind the death of four Americans were not relevant to the present situation, finally stating, or more like shrilling, "What difference does it make."
If that is her position in life, it all makes sense.
Husband cheats...what difference does it make.
Middle East on flame...what difference does it make.
American citizens, including a US ambassador, are murdered...what difference does it make.
Huge cover up and betrayal of the American people...what difference does it make.
As long as she remains in power.
And really, she is not wrong. All the bad policies and behavior exhibited by Obama and his administration in the last four years did not make a bit of a difference to a portion of the American people who gave the rest of us another four years of not just the same, but most likely worse.
In the long run, she may be absolutely right. She will probably get into the presidential race in 2016, and when all her shortcomings will be brought up, we will all be labeled sexists. It worked for Obama.
It really does not make any difference. She will escape criticism and with the current spineless opposition the republican party is demonstrating, she will be given a pass.
Meanwhile, all this does make a difference for the rest of us, so we must continue to expose the rotten apples in government.
Just my thoughts!
Friday, January 18, 2013
Selective Invasion Of Privacy
By Semperpapa
There is a major break down in our society when it comes to invasion of privacy on the part of the government.
We have government databases recording every citizen in the country, both those with a criminal record and those who have never had an encounter with the law in their lives.
Proposals of adding GPS black boxes to automobiles are almost a reality. These devices would allow authorities to not only have positional knowledge of vehicles at any time, but they would also track how many miles driven and driving habits.
The latest national gun registry is another way the regime is advancing the desire to have a database which would give the federal government the ability to know exactly where and who owns guns.
I was under the impression that when I bought my weapons and registered them, such a database was already available. What more information does the government want? And to what purpose?
We are obligated by existing rules and regulations to give a lot of our personal information to government entities and I am still not sure what the real purpose is.
When few months ago I cleaned up my garage, I set aside some scrap metal that had accumulated over the years. Instead of just tossing it, I decided I could get some cash by turning it in at the local scrap yard. According to the state of California, the scrap yard got a picture of my vehicle license plate, a picture of me, a scan of my drivers licence and a fingerprint of my thumb. This is all to turn in some scrap metal (and I am not talking about copper wire or other potentially suspicious items).
We have every bank and financial institution hold all our private information, and we do not have the luxury of refusing to hand them out if we want any service.
But it is all very selective.
We are required to show our photo ID for just about everything we want to do within the realms of our society, except to go vote, where then it becomes racist to require to make sure the person casting the ballot is who they claim to be.
Moreover, it is very selective when it comes to our president, who has been able to drive our country to the brink of disaster without even having to produce his birth certificate or any proof of his alleged academic achievements.
So, I ask, why is the most powerful man in the world allowed to hide his past so openly, but still is allowed to require that a common citizen's personal life be kept on a government database?
I thought that was only a privilege tyrants gave themselves.
Just my thoughts!
There is a major break down in our society when it comes to invasion of privacy on the part of the government.
We have government databases recording every citizen in the country, both those with a criminal record and those who have never had an encounter with the law in their lives.
Proposals of adding GPS black boxes to automobiles are almost a reality. These devices would allow authorities to not only have positional knowledge of vehicles at any time, but they would also track how many miles driven and driving habits.
The latest national gun registry is another way the regime is advancing the desire to have a database which would give the federal government the ability to know exactly where and who owns guns.
I was under the impression that when I bought my weapons and registered them, such a database was already available. What more information does the government want? And to what purpose?
We are obligated by existing rules and regulations to give a lot of our personal information to government entities and I am still not sure what the real purpose is.
When few months ago I cleaned up my garage, I set aside some scrap metal that had accumulated over the years. Instead of just tossing it, I decided I could get some cash by turning it in at the local scrap yard. According to the state of California, the scrap yard got a picture of my vehicle license plate, a picture of me, a scan of my drivers licence and a fingerprint of my thumb. This is all to turn in some scrap metal (and I am not talking about copper wire or other potentially suspicious items).
We have every bank and financial institution hold all our private information, and we do not have the luxury of refusing to hand them out if we want any service.
But it is all very selective.
We are required to show our photo ID for just about everything we want to do within the realms of our society, except to go vote, where then it becomes racist to require to make sure the person casting the ballot is who they claim to be.
Moreover, it is very selective when it comes to our president, who has been able to drive our country to the brink of disaster without even having to produce his birth certificate or any proof of his alleged academic achievements.
So, I ask, why is the most powerful man in the world allowed to hide his past so openly, but still is allowed to require that a common citizen's personal life be kept on a government database?
I thought that was only a privilege tyrants gave themselves.
Just my thoughts!
Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Massacre That Is Ignored
By Semperpapa
In all the talking we have been graced with about mass killings and murders, there is one that is not only ignored, but has been swept under the proverbial carpet hoping that the American people, busy with all the other problems affecting our society, would just forget.
It is another massacre that the current regime has been treating in the most ignominious and despicable way possible: the terror attack at Ft. Hood.
The latest on that particular tragedy are that court proceedings are being held up by Maj. Nidal Hasan's beard. In the meantime, the victims of that shooting, at least those who have not died, are denied the proper recognition, and benefits, they deserve because a corrupted report from the government classified the massacre as "workplace violence."
I will not engage in expressing my disgust and outrage toward the injustice being perpetrated against the victims of Hasan, nor I will go beyond mentioning that while those who were wounded in the attack have physical, enotional and financial wounds that are ignored while Hasan is still receiving his regular Army pay.
What I want to address here is how this attack fits, or better yet does not fit, the regime's narrative on the latest attack against the 2nd Amendment.
The regime, which I qualify as being the consortium of criminal politicians, corrupted media and degenerate Hollywood, is purposely ignoring the 16 people killed and dozen wounded because it is not advantageous to their cause.
If there is a place where the control of firearms is absolute, that place is a military base. Every weapon and round of ammunition is strictly controlled and accounted for. Walking around a military base, one would be inclined to believe that, with the exception of military police, no weapon is anywhere to be found.
Under this premise, and if one wants to believe in the lies spewed by liberal progressive anti-gun zealots, there should be no way possible that an individual could bring multiple pistols on the premises and gun down 16 innocent people.
This reasoning goes along the one addressing the fact that in Chicago, where gun control is strictest, it is impossible that the murder rate in that city is the highest in the country.
And yet, with all the possible restrictions regarding firearms on Ft. Hood's grounds, Hasan was determined to exact his jihad revenge against his enemy. And he succeeded.
There is also another aspect of that tragedy that not only debunks the regime's notion that restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of lawful citizens would curtail any further tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre. This aspect also proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the statement from NRA Wayne LaPierre is absolutely true: the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun.
This was proven by the fact that it was a federal police officer, with her gun, who shot and stopped Hasan from committing further mayhem.
Similarly, one can say that if any of the students at Virginia Tech, or the movie goers in Aurora, or any of the teachers at Sandy Hook would have been allowed to have firearms, maybe fewer people would have been killed.
As for the Ft. Hood massacre, I cannot dismiss my thinking that the fact the victims were mostly Army soldiers and that the murderer is a Muslim are major incentives for the current regime to want to cover the incident and make it disappear.
Indeed, that tragedy seem to debunk everything Obama and his droids are peddling to the American people regarding gun control.
The tragedy in Connecticut was one of the darkest days of our history because it touched the most innocent portion of our society, but the most effective reaction to it should be one of fight, not surrender. Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens surrenders our safety to those elements of our society who are not interested in laws in the first place.
Obama and his droids are basically using the tragedy in Newtown to further the anti-Second Amendment agenda. They are not looking for solutions that could possibly reduce the eventuality of a similar occurrence. I cannot get out of my mind my conviction that all the "proposals" advanced by liberals were delineated in advance and just placed on a shelf waiting for the lucky tragedy to happen.
And in Newtown, luck was on their side.
Just my thoughts!
In all the talking we have been graced with about mass killings and murders, there is one that is not only ignored, but has been swept under the proverbial carpet hoping that the American people, busy with all the other problems affecting our society, would just forget.
It is another massacre that the current regime has been treating in the most ignominious and despicable way possible: the terror attack at Ft. Hood.
The latest on that particular tragedy are that court proceedings are being held up by Maj. Nidal Hasan's beard. In the meantime, the victims of that shooting, at least those who have not died, are denied the proper recognition, and benefits, they deserve because a corrupted report from the government classified the massacre as "workplace violence."
I will not engage in expressing my disgust and outrage toward the injustice being perpetrated against the victims of Hasan, nor I will go beyond mentioning that while those who were wounded in the attack have physical, enotional and financial wounds that are ignored while Hasan is still receiving his regular Army pay.
What I want to address here is how this attack fits, or better yet does not fit, the regime's narrative on the latest attack against the 2nd Amendment.
The regime, which I qualify as being the consortium of criminal politicians, corrupted media and degenerate Hollywood, is purposely ignoring the 16 people killed and dozen wounded because it is not advantageous to their cause.
If there is a place where the control of firearms is absolute, that place is a military base. Every weapon and round of ammunition is strictly controlled and accounted for. Walking around a military base, one would be inclined to believe that, with the exception of military police, no weapon is anywhere to be found.
Under this premise, and if one wants to believe in the lies spewed by liberal progressive anti-gun zealots, there should be no way possible that an individual could bring multiple pistols on the premises and gun down 16 innocent people.
This reasoning goes along the one addressing the fact that in Chicago, where gun control is strictest, it is impossible that the murder rate in that city is the highest in the country.
And yet, with all the possible restrictions regarding firearms on Ft. Hood's grounds, Hasan was determined to exact his jihad revenge against his enemy. And he succeeded.
There is also another aspect of that tragedy that not only debunks the regime's notion that restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of lawful citizens would curtail any further tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre. This aspect also proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the statement from NRA Wayne LaPierre is absolutely true: the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun.
This was proven by the fact that it was a federal police officer, with her gun, who shot and stopped Hasan from committing further mayhem.
Similarly, one can say that if any of the students at Virginia Tech, or the movie goers in Aurora, or any of the teachers at Sandy Hook would have been allowed to have firearms, maybe fewer people would have been killed.
As for the Ft. Hood massacre, I cannot dismiss my thinking that the fact the victims were mostly Army soldiers and that the murderer is a Muslim are major incentives for the current regime to want to cover the incident and make it disappear.
Indeed, that tragedy seem to debunk everything Obama and his droids are peddling to the American people regarding gun control.
- Gun free zones are synonym with killing fields;
- No matter how many laws, you cannot stop determined criminals;
- It is not the tool that kills, but the hand holding it.
The tragedy in Connecticut was one of the darkest days of our history because it touched the most innocent portion of our society, but the most effective reaction to it should be one of fight, not surrender. Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens surrenders our safety to those elements of our society who are not interested in laws in the first place.
Obama and his droids are basically using the tragedy in Newtown to further the anti-Second Amendment agenda. They are not looking for solutions that could possibly reduce the eventuality of a similar occurrence. I cannot get out of my mind my conviction that all the "proposals" advanced by liberals were delineated in advance and just placed on a shelf waiting for the lucky tragedy to happen.
And in Newtown, luck was on their side.
Just my thoughts!
Friday, December 28, 2012
First Step Against Mass Murder
By Semperpapa
Everyone is clamoring for solutions after the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The tragedy of the mass murder of 26 innocent people at the Sandy Hooks Elementary School has deeply touched the entire Nation, especially the reality that 20 of those victims were just babies.
While long term solutions may be entertained and planned, especially in the realm of mental illness, the first target for the progressive movement is the disarmament of the American people.
It i very clear that the tragedy of Newtown is a much welcomed event by the anti-gun nutcases around the country. Long forgotten are the faces of the children and the adults who perished by the hand of a suicidal maniac. In the eyes of the radical left, starting at the very top in the White House, the loss at Sandy Hook is not more than one additional event to be used for the achievement of their anti-constitutional agenda.
America has "evolved" from a country of self relying citizens to a country where individuals look at the government to solve every glitch in their daily existence. And in the case of the 2nd Amendment, there are individuals who are more than willing to relinquish their right and freedom in exchange for a fake, manufactured sense of protection. And the tyrannical government currently in place is more than willing to oblige.
Just hours after the devastating news from Newtown begun to hit the wire, many leftists goons already took the opportunity to spew their venom. At the same time I started to think what steps could be taken to avoid the next Sandy Hook.
Clearly, stopping a deranged murderer is practically impossible if he or she is really bent on such level of destruction. But the reality is that our society must address the need to prepare for such tragic eventualities.
We have armed guards at airports and banks. Why is that? Well, because they are common targets of criminals and terrorists.
High profile individuals have teams of armed guards protecting them. Why is that? Well, because they are in the financial position to employ such 'hired guns' to protect them and their families.
So what makes these people and things more deserving of protection than our children?
Just as the anti-gun rhetoric was hitting its crescendo across the Internet, the thought of a school marshal program similar to that for airlines formed in my mind.
The basic of the program is that every school in the country should have at least one trained, vetted individual who is capable and willing to step up to an active shooter and try to stop the action. Multiple individuals would be even better.
The school defenders could be part of the faculty or staff, on a volunteer basis and under complete anonymity. This approach would be preferable, as the cost of this program would be limited to the background investigation and the training.
But considering the high number of spineless liberals forming the ranks of educators these days, folks who live in the Utopian world of government 'protection' and unicorn pixie dust, the school marshal program could be filled by the employment of Veterans who today find themselves out of uniform and unemployed.
The training requirement of these candidates would be minimal and the cost of their employment could easily be offset by the elimination of some of the high paying administrative, non-classroom position that are abundant in every school district.
The main point of the program would have to be that the school marshal identity would be known only to few staff members and never to the students and parents.
Basically, no difference of a sky marshal. When we board an airplane, we do not know if the passenger next to us is armed and ready to defend the craft from potential terrorists. We also do not know if the pilot or co-pilot are armed. But we board that flight anyway.
For all those who are succumbing to their linguine spines and claim that they would be concerned that their child went to a school with such a program in place I ask: would any of the parents or family members of the 26 killed in Sandy Hook rather feel uncomfortable about knowing there were armed guards at the school if their loved one had gone home that day?
Whether on a university campus in Virginia or a movie theater in Colorado or an Elementary School in Connecticut, the common threads of these events are that in each case someone with a deep mental illness was involved and that the areas where the crime was committed were the so-called "gun free zone" which really only means that in such zones only criminals are armed.
We have to take the first step in protecting our children. We should be more concerned about taking our children to schools where they can become sitting ducks than to schools where we know there are folks who are trained and equipped to safeguard them.
The "elite" make sure they send their children to schools where armed guards protect their precious offspring, but the same elite is rabid set on forbidding you and me from doing the same for our children.
Are their kids more important than ours?
Just my thoughts!
Everyone is clamoring for solutions after the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The tragedy of the mass murder of 26 innocent people at the Sandy Hooks Elementary School has deeply touched the entire Nation, especially the reality that 20 of those victims were just babies.
While long term solutions may be entertained and planned, especially in the realm of mental illness, the first target for the progressive movement is the disarmament of the American people.
It i very clear that the tragedy of Newtown is a much welcomed event by the anti-gun nutcases around the country. Long forgotten are the faces of the children and the adults who perished by the hand of a suicidal maniac. In the eyes of the radical left, starting at the very top in the White House, the loss at Sandy Hook is not more than one additional event to be used for the achievement of their anti-constitutional agenda.
America has "evolved" from a country of self relying citizens to a country where individuals look at the government to solve every glitch in their daily existence. And in the case of the 2nd Amendment, there are individuals who are more than willing to relinquish their right and freedom in exchange for a fake, manufactured sense of protection. And the tyrannical government currently in place is more than willing to oblige.
Just hours after the devastating news from Newtown begun to hit the wire, many leftists goons already took the opportunity to spew their venom. At the same time I started to think what steps could be taken to avoid the next Sandy Hook.
Clearly, stopping a deranged murderer is practically impossible if he or she is really bent on such level of destruction. But the reality is that our society must address the need to prepare for such tragic eventualities.
We have armed guards at airports and banks. Why is that? Well, because they are common targets of criminals and terrorists.
High profile individuals have teams of armed guards protecting them. Why is that? Well, because they are in the financial position to employ such 'hired guns' to protect them and their families.
So what makes these people and things more deserving of protection than our children?
Just as the anti-gun rhetoric was hitting its crescendo across the Internet, the thought of a school marshal program similar to that for airlines formed in my mind.
The basic of the program is that every school in the country should have at least one trained, vetted individual who is capable and willing to step up to an active shooter and try to stop the action. Multiple individuals would be even better.
The school defenders could be part of the faculty or staff, on a volunteer basis and under complete anonymity. This approach would be preferable, as the cost of this program would be limited to the background investigation and the training.
But considering the high number of spineless liberals forming the ranks of educators these days, folks who live in the Utopian world of government 'protection' and unicorn pixie dust, the school marshal program could be filled by the employment of Veterans who today find themselves out of uniform and unemployed.
The training requirement of these candidates would be minimal and the cost of their employment could easily be offset by the elimination of some of the high paying administrative, non-classroom position that are abundant in every school district.
The main point of the program would have to be that the school marshal identity would be known only to few staff members and never to the students and parents.
Basically, no difference of a sky marshal. When we board an airplane, we do not know if the passenger next to us is armed and ready to defend the craft from potential terrorists. We also do not know if the pilot or co-pilot are armed. But we board that flight anyway.
For all those who are succumbing to their linguine spines and claim that they would be concerned that their child went to a school with such a program in place I ask: would any of the parents or family members of the 26 killed in Sandy Hook rather feel uncomfortable about knowing there were armed guards at the school if their loved one had gone home that day?
Whether on a university campus in Virginia or a movie theater in Colorado or an Elementary School in Connecticut, the common threads of these events are that in each case someone with a deep mental illness was involved and that the areas where the crime was committed were the so-called "gun free zone" which really only means that in such zones only criminals are armed.
We have to take the first step in protecting our children. We should be more concerned about taking our children to schools where they can become sitting ducks than to schools where we know there are folks who are trained and equipped to safeguard them.
The "elite" make sure they send their children to schools where armed guards protect their precious offspring, but the same elite is rabid set on forbidding you and me from doing the same for our children.
Are their kids more important than ours?
Just my thoughts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
