My Grandfather’s .410 Shotgun – In Elementary School – Armed Teachers, Anyone?

Years ago my Grandfather told me about his typical day in school, where he’d walk to school in the snow, barefoot, uphill, both ways…  No, wait… That was Cosby.  Ok.

Seriously, he lived in Iowa, and he really would walk to school barefoot, his shoes around his neck, because shoes were required for school yet were NOT cheap.  He was allowed to wear his shoes, with socks, if it was snowing or below freezing.  He’d walk in them on the grass on the side of the road (dirt road) because the grass wouldn’t wear down the leather nearly as much.  Unless it was wet, of course, as that would wet, then rot the leather, so when the grass was wet, he’d walk on the road.

REGARDLESS, he carried his .410 shotgun to school every day because that’s what he used to hunt rabbits, quail, and other game, which for him was just about anything, as he and his family was both dirt-rich and dirt-poor, meaning they had good farming land, but nothing in terms of money to buy things like shoes and socks for school.

Thing of it is, he and his classmates ALL carried rifles or shotguns to school, beginning around the third, fourth, or fifth grade, depending on when their parents though they were mature enough to handle a firearm.  Even his teachers were armed!  Armed teachers – what a concept.  Interestingly enough, the accidental death rate due to firearm back then was about 1/10th what it is today.  So! Is it an age issue?  No. If it were, it would have occurred far more often back then.  Is it a firearms issue?  Of course not.  ALL statistics, worldwide, have clearly demonstrated a rock-solid INCREASE in crime when a county implements gun control.

So, Is it a training issue?  Yes, largely, but when it comes to crime, no, it’s not a training issue, but it’s certainly a training issue with respect to those who’re formulating public policy.  Botttom line, if they voting anti-gun, they’re without a clue, just whipping off legislation left and right with little if any benefit from reality.  They need to pay far more attention to websites such as NationMaster, which allows us to definitively compare the U.S. with any other country around the world.  Therein, we can obtain a far more true and accurate picture than what the mainstream media is presenting at this time.

I hope they’re listening.  I hope they know that I don’t enjoy poking holes in their massive illogic.  I hope they know the only reason I do so is because America can no longer afford to put up with any of their illogic, that the liberals’ lack of any ability to think things through to their logical conclusion is what’s landed us in this hard spot in the first place.

Back to my grandfather.  He told me they used to stack their weapons in the corner.  Years later, I watched a John Wayne film about a grade-school bunch of kids roped into riding herd on some cattle.  In the movie, they did the same dang thing, which made me realize perhaps Gramps hadn’t been stretching the truth…  I made some calls to a handful of historians and discovered that the practice of bring hunting rifles and shotguns to school was very common 100 years ago, usually beginning at the start of middle school (6th grade), but often starting as early as the third grade, with the permission of the parents, and that yes, it was common practice to have both armed teachers, and for the students to stack their firearms in the corner.

As my grandfather was the youngest of nine kids, he’d had a lot of sibling tutelage at a very young age.  Given all of the above, if he said he was one of the kids who carried his shotgun to school when he was in the third grade, I’d believe him.  At that age I was flying u-control airplanes, building and flying model rockets, and had been slaloming on one ski for two years.  I shot my first firearm the summer after third grade, and taught my son to do the same when he was nine years old, same as myself.

So, liberals.  What the HECK is your freakin’ eyesore?  You’re brain-dead.  Go away.  Stop bothering me and my kin.

Given all of the above, and the rampant lack of school massacres back then, I’m wondering why we’re violently opposed to firearms in schools, provided they’re in the hands of those who pass multiple background checks, when our grandparents carried every single day?

“Times change?”

Yeah, right…  Read any Louis L’Amour novel and tell me I’m wrong.  Most of his stuff was dead on with respect to law and order in the old West.

Supreme Court Injustice Sotomayor

The U.S. Supreme Court, specifically Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has overstepped her lawful authority.  She is subject to our Constitution, not above it, and has no authority to either change the Constitution or ignore it.  Her oath of office states in part:  “I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Our Constitution specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Many previous Supreme Court Decisions have ruled the restriction against preventing the free exercise of religion applies to the every branch of the federal government, including the Supreme Court itself, as well as to the states.  Thus, not only is she violating our Constitution, she is single-handedly ignoring Supreme Court precedence.

With that thought in mind, I would like to share with you the following, and ask you how Justice Sotomayor’s decision to force honest, God-fearing Christians to support murdering unborn children does NOT violate our First Amendment’s restriction against prohibiting the Green’s free exercise of their religion?

I would also like you to consider, and accept the true meaning of the term “civil disobedience:”  It is an act of doing what is right, true, and moral by God, as peaceably as possible, instead of conforming to an evil in this world.

Finally, I would remind you of the provision for Supreme Court Justices given in Article III, Section 1, of our Constitution:  “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”  I would argue, gentlemen, that ignoring the Constitution, ignoring prior Supreme Court precedent, and forcing U.S. citizens to support murder of unborn children against their Constitutionally-respected religious beliefs is very BAD behavior.

Justice Sotomayor’s behavior since she took the bench has been a blight on American integrity.  She has continually sided with the other bad apples on the court who continually vote against the Constitution, and in favor of eroding our individual rights and freedoms while helping to build precisely what our Founding Fathers fought to avoid:  Big, Massive, Government i.e. a Socialist State.

Sotomayor needs to be removed from office.

In closing, I would like to share a link to the website which details the Green’s predicament, their decision, and the massive up-welling of support they have experienced and will continue to experience from the American people:  We must obey God rather than men!

UPDATE:  Only June 27, 2013, the full body of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made the following ruling:

In its opinion, the circuit court held (1) that RFRA applies not only to human beings, but to a corporate entity like Hobby Lobby that is wholly owned and operated by humans who share a religious belief; (2) that this HHS Mandate is a substantial burden on orthodox Christian belief; and (3) that it is not authorized as a measure that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling public interest.

Note:  RFRA:  “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”

I find it very interested they held that it applies to corporate entities, as that’s precisely what the Supreme Court did when it gave personhood rights to corporate entities a couple of years ago.  If the Supreme Court attempts to undermine this application, they will then be forced by the American People to remove the personhood rights of corporations.  You can’t apply a legal concept one way in one situation, then try to apply it in a diametrically opposed manner in another.

 

sotomayor
Honest, God-fearing Christians!

The TRUTH About the Democratic Party and African Americans

African Americans originally came to America unwillingly, having been stolen and sold by Muslim slave-catchers in Africa to Dutch traders journeying to America in 1619.

The Three-Fifths Clause dealt only with representation and not the worth of any individual.

In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights.

african americans
African Americans in WWII

The 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was voted for by 100% of the Republicans in congress and by 23% of the Democrats in congress.

Not one Democrat either in the House or the Senate voted for the 14th amendment declaring that former slaves were full citizens of the state in which they lived and were therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other citizen in that state.

Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for the 15th amendment that granted explicit voting rights to black Americans.

In 1866 Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan to pave the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections.

George Wallace was a Democrat.

Bull Connor was a Democrat.

In the 19th century, Democrats prevented Black Americans from going to public school.

In the 20th and 21st century Democrats prevented Black Americans trapped in failing schools from choosing a better school. In fact Democrats voted against the bill by 99%.

Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, Literacy tests, white only primaries, and physical violence all came from the Democratic Party.

Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 individuals were lynched. 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites. Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and Democrats successfully blocked those bills.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. His father, Daddy King was a Republican.

Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases – not to overlook the fact that the heart of both bills came from the work of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

In the 108th Congress, when Republicans proposed a permanent extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (composed only of Democrats).

Following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass received Presidential appointments from Republican Presidents Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James A. Garfield. Democratic President Grover Cleveland removed Frederick Douglas from office but Republican President Benjamin Harrison reappointed him.

Very few today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. Although slavery still had not been abolished in all the states, things definitely were moving in the right direction.

By 1820, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson’ party (the Democratic Party) had become the majority party in Congress.

In 1789, the Republican controlled Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery in a federal territory. In 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise and reversed that earlier policy, permitting slavery in almost half of the federal territories.

In 1850, Democrats in Congress passed the “Fugitive Slave Law”. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or else pay huge fines.

Because the “Fugitive Slave Law” allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery, this law was disastrous for blacks in the North; and as a consequence of the atrocious provisions of this Democratic law, some 20,000 blacks in the North left the United States and fled to Canada.

The “Underground Railroad” reached the height of its activity during this period, helping thousands of slaves escape from slavery in the South all the way out of the United States and into Canada – simply to escape the reach of the Democrats’ Fugitive Slave Law.

In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery: the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Even though Democrats in Congress had already expanded the federal territories in which slavery was permitted through their passage of the Missouri Compromise, they had retained a ban on slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats repealed those earlier restrictions, thus allowing slavery to be introduced into parts of the new territory where it previously had been forbidden.

Following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, in May of 1854, a number of the anti-slavery Democrats in Congress – along with some anti-slavery members from other political parties, including the Whigs, Free Soilers, and Emancipationists, formed a new political party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans. The name of that party? They called it the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality first set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.

One of the founders of the Republican was U.S. Senator Charles Sumner. In 1856, Sumner gave a two day long speech in the U.S. Senate against slavery. Following that speech, Democratic Representative Preston Brooks from South Carolina came from the House, across the Rotunda of the Capitol, and over to the Senate where he literally clubbed down Sumner on the floor of the Senate, knocked him unconscious, and beat him almost to death. According to the sources of that day, many Democrats thought that Sumner’s clubbing was deserved, and it even amused them. What happened to Democrat Preston Brooks following his vicious attack on Sumner? He was proclaimed a southern hero and easily re-elected to Congress.

In 1856, the Republican Party entered its first Presidential election, running Republican John C. Fremont against Democrat James Buchanan. In that election, the Republican Party issued its first-ever Party platform. It was a short document with only nine planks in the platform, but significantly, six of the nine planks set forth bold declarations of equality and civil rights for African Americans based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

In 1856, the Democratic platform took a position strongly defending slavery and warned: “All efforts of the abolitionists… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people”.

It is worth noting that for over a century and a half, Democrats often have taken a position that some human life is disposable – as they did in the Dred Scott decision. In that instance, a black individual was not a life, it was property; and an individual could do with his property as he wished. Today, Democrats have largely taken that same position on unborn human life – that an unborn human is disposable property to do with as one wishes.

African Americans were the victims of this disposable property ideology a century and a half ago, and still are today. Consider: although 12 percent of the current population is African American, almost 35 percent of all abortions are performed on African Americans. In fact, over the last decade, for every 100 African American live births, there were 53 abortions of African American babies. Democrats have encouraged this; and although black Americans are solidly pro-life with almost two-thirds opposing abortion on demand, a number of recent votes in Congress reveals that Democrats hold exactly the opposite view, with some 80 percent of congressional Democrats being almost rabidly pro-abortion and consistently voting against protections for innocent unborn human life.

Given the countless atrocities against blacks at the hands of the Democratic Party, please explain to me again why ANY African American today is a member?

It’s all in the eyes of our Constitution…

One of the many things I learned from aviation is that we see the best clarity and color directly in front of us, but our eyes our wired to detect motion in the periphery.

If you’d like to read more about the technical aspects, start here, with Transduction and the following sections, as well as another entry on Motion Perception.

So why am I writing about this?  Our brains developed in lock-step with our eyes.  We only see, and understand, what’s going on in the periphery if there’s enough motion in the periphery to cross a certain threshold.

Years ago, I was taught to look to the right of the road when driving at night in order to prevent the bright lights of the oncoming traffic from both killing my night vision as well as distracting me from peripheral vision cues.

The parallels for what’s going on today are astounding.

Charismatic behavior usually instils a sense of “over-focus” in those who hang on their every word.  The term “deer in the headlights” come to mind, where the deer focus on nothing but the the light, to the exclusion of everything else going on in the periphery i.e. the sidelines.  The visual cortex contains by far the most dense path of neuron activity to the brain, and bright lights in that channel of information tend to overload others.  Unless a deer is trained to recognized bright lights as potential threats, it simply stares at them until BAM!

Meanwhile, our visual periphery, as well as the areas of our brain most closely associated with it, are very well attuned to detect changes in the visual environment i.e. motion, but not much else.

So, recap:  Visual cortex (brain focus) sees colors, details, and patterns, while the visual periphery (brain sidelines) sees changes.

Knowing this, knowing how both the brain and the visual system are inextricably intertwined, how might someone who wanted change a society, go about doing so?

First, they’d have to over-illuminate the visual cortex, or at least the portion of the brain which responds to such cues.  Second, they’d have to minimize movement on the sidelines, as that might distract folks from their attempts to blind them, then run them over.

So…

Oh, come on, don’t you get it?  Obama’s headlights, those who can’t differentiate thereof are the victims, and one of two facts remain:  Either they are ignorant, or they’re duped.

The question becomes:  Who do we want representing our country – those who are duped, or those who adhere to the United States of America.  I think, at this time, that is all.  That is enough, that we all adhere to the United States of America.

Christianity and the Constitution

There’s a book I’d like to recommend:  “Christianity and the Constitution – The Faith of our Founding Fathers,” by John Eidsmoe, 1987, Baker Book House Company, ISBN 0-8010-5231-9.

I’d like to share with you an excerpt from the Dedication:

“This book is dedicated, in the words of the Mayflower Compact of 1620, to “the glorie of God and advancemente ye Christian faith.” That Americans may better understand, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” which are the only sure foundation for the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; so that with a “firm dependence on the protection of Divine Providence,” we may, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

When read in context, it is impossible for any rational human being to deny that the United States of America is a Christian nation, founded solidly on Christian principles.  Even its tricameral structure of government is pattered after the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.  The emphasis of the Constitution was to fully respect the rights of the states and of the people, just as God only knocks at the door – he never barges in.

People like this Brit and Obama himself, along with all others who want to eradicate Christianity from our Christian nation do not understand the basic concept of respect.  Thus, they’re barging in.  Atheists, like Muslims, will not stop until they’ve accomplished their goals, what have nothing to do with respect, but with domination and eradication of all who refuse to buy into their rhetoric.

Gun Free Zones – Fact vs Fallacy – A Letter…

gun free zones
What we see; what they see

A few days ago, following the recent tragedy in yet another of America’s many gun free zones, I examined every shooting spree since the end of WW II.  Of the 52 massacres over the last 65 years, ten were rejected because they didn’t fit the typical shooting spree and involved things such as deliberately set fires, bombings, and situations where the public was never in a position to return fire (such as the Kent State Massacre).

gun free zones
There’s only ONE way to stop a shooting spree…

The results with respect to the 42 remaining shooting sprees will astound you.  More than 75% of them occurred in so-called “Gun Free Zones,” which occupy less than 10% of areas frequented by the average citizen on any given day.  Statistically speaking, your average citizen is THREE TIMES more likely to die of a shooting spree in a Gun Free Zone than they are to die of a shooting spree in an area where people are allowed to keep and bear arms.

It’s clear that the whole idea of creating a “Gun Free Zone” does not protect citizens from firearms.  Far from it.  Establishing such “Gun Free Zones” actually triples the danger to the lives of those who must frequent those zones, whether they be children or mall employees.  The following graphic tells story of how the United Kingdom (UK) opened the door wide to violent crime by disarming its citizens.  Click on the graphic to see the details in the full-sized version:

gun free zone

Let’s face it:  The nutcases who conduct these shooting sprees may be insane, but they’re not stupid.  The media itself has clearly revealed the amount of planning that goes into most shooting sprees and the conclusion is inarguable:  Most perpetrators specifically target Gun Free Zones, almost certainly because they believe no one will be shooting back at them.

On a similar note, more than 50% of all shooting sprees are stopped, not by cops, but by law-abiding citizens, two-thirds of whom are armed.

Gun Free ZonesSo again, the question of why we’re disarming law-abiding citizens (less safe) and creating Gun Free Zones (WAY less safe) MUST be called into question at every level.

Nothing highlights the fallacy of gun control more than “Gun Free Zones.”  They’re the epitome of control, yet the most dangerous knee-jerk response by far.  Clearly, more control is not the answer.  Never in the history of America has gun control ever reduced crime.  In fact, Muslimtime and time again we see the same repeating pattern:  When gun control in an area is relaxed, crime drops.  When gun control in an area is increased, crime rises.

Jan 1, 2014 Update:  Ever since a federal court forced Chicago to process concealed carry applications, crime dropped.  In less than six months, it has dropped by more than 30%.  That’s MASSIVE.

These are facts, people.  I’m asking to you remain cognizant of these facts, and to base your decisions upon the facts, rather than siding with a bunch of hysterical, nonsensical, and ignorant rhetoric lifted from the whiny ramblings of a few emotionally-driven special interest groups.

Siding with FACTS will help keep American citizens safe.  Siding with ignorant rhetoric will not.  For the sake and safety of ourselves and our loved ones, let us please stick with the facts.

Thank you.

Addendum:  The following letter from a man in Australia was supposedly debunked by the liberal rag SNOPES, but was confirmed to be true by a friend of mine who was born and raised in Australia and who lives there to this very day.  Like the statistics gleaned from the UK’s disarmament mess, the Australian government has learning the hard way that gun-free zones do not work, and when you try to create one big gun-free zone for your entire country, well, that’s just particularly stupid:

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent …
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent …
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns …’

You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it’s too late!

The Hidden Threat of Genetically Modified Foods

When it comes to food quality, most European countries tend to err on the side of caution.  There are MANY questions, concerns, and controversies over genetically modified foods, the most solid of which is that despite the fact that we’ve mapped genomes, we still have little to no understanding of what many genes do or how they interact with other genes.

genetically modified foods
Just Label It

We we do know is that modifying one gene for a desirable effect will almost certainly affect how other genes behave.  That may involve raising or lowering the threshold of environmental stimuli required to turn the other gene on or off, or turning the other genes on or off completely.

Since we have a poor understanding of what the various genes in a specific plant do, this may introduce toxins into the life-cycle of the plant, toxins which may not harm the plant at all, but which may prove to be either acutely or chronically harmful to humans.  It’s fairly esay to detect any acutely harmful chemicals in trials.  Chronically harmful chemicals, on the other hand, take years to detect, requiring very long-term studies involving tends of thousands of people.

How prevalent is this threat?  According to the American Cancer Society, “Environmental factors (as opposed to hereditary factors) account for an estimated 75%-80% of cancer cases and deaths in the US.” – p. 51, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2012,” American Cancer Society.  We’re aware of some carcinogens, but strongly suspect there are many more low-level carcinogens.  We also suspect that because of their high numbers and widespread use throughout modern society, they are responsible for much, if not most cancer in humans.

Cancer, however, is merely one of many human ailments known to be affected or caused by environmental factors.

genetically modified foods
Say NO to GMO

Our bodies evolved over millions of years to work in harmony with nature, including being resistant to most things in the environment which would have otherwise caused us harm.  When we introduce new environmental factors, whether they be in the form of man-made compounds, increased concentrations of compounds normally found in nature, or genetically modified foods, we have introduced an unknown factor.

The bottom line is this:  Short-term trials do not uncover long-term health concerns.  Only long-term studies will do this, and it’s both premature and irresponsible for any government or scientific body to declare genetically modified foods as “safe” on the basis of short-term trials.

I agree with the graphic.  Just label it.  We’re not asking you to pull genetically modified foods off the shelf.  We do, however, reserve the right to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to eat genetically modified foods.