Media Incapable of Even Formulating the Gun Problem

Given the fact that “Roughly two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides,” please tell me what percentage of those were committed with the OWNER’S firearm and what percentage were committed with someone ELSE’S firearm? In particular, I would like it broken down thusly:

Suicide committed with the OWNER’S firearm: X%
Suicide committed with someone ELSE’S firearm: Y%
– firearm owned by an IMMEDIATE family member: A%
– firearm owned by an EXTENDED family member: B%
– firearm owned by a friend, acquaintance, or their immediate or extended family: C%
– firearm owned by someone unknown to the suicide victim: D%

Such that: X%+Y%=100%
AND
Such that: A%+B%+C%+D%=Y%

This information is VITAL in determining both IF and WHAT might be done to mitigate the issue.

If you’re incapable of properly formulating the question, you can NOT answer it as a journalist.

Mass Shootings and Random Acts of Violence

I’ve long been a strong advocate of an armed populace as the best means of self-defense. I also believe it is by far the best deterrent and way to stop both mass shootings and terrorist attacks involving firearms.
 
Back when I first became interested in the topic of mass shootings, however, there weren’t as many, and at least here in America. It was largely relegated to the occasional insane person run amok. Aside from 9/11, we did not yet have to worry Muslims conducting their own mass shootings in the name of terrorism.
 
Now we do, and it looks to get a whole lot worse before it ever gets better.
 
Society has several tools available to deter terrorism and mass shootings:
 
– Intelligence (costly, even when highly focused)
– – requirements
– – planning and direction
– – collection
– – processing and exploitation
– – analysis and production
– – dissemination
– Security (the physical deterrence and protection of people 
– – Law enforcement (federal, state, county, and local)
– – Personal protection (planning, training, and weapons)
 
So, should we make it more difficult for people to obtain guns?  Should we reduce magazine capacities?  Increase background checks?  Reduce calibers?  Limit ammunition capability?  Create more “gun-free” zones?  Mandate the use of “smart” guns?  Increase waiting periods?  Ban certain types of firearms based on their appearance or general level of public trepidation?  Put a cop on every street corner?
anti-gun desperation
No.  NONE of these measures has proven effective in either deterring or stopping mass shootings or random acts of violence, and most of them significantly increase the cost of obtaining a firearm to the average law-abiding citizen who seeks protection.
By far the most immediate and most effective deterrent against both mass shootings and random acts of violence, whether the result of insanity or terrorism, is a well-armed general populace comprised of law-abiding U.S. citizens who are both properly armed and well-trained.
 
The greatest threat to our security comes not from the lunatics and terrorists, but rather, from those second-guessers, the Monday-morning armchair quarterbacks who are NOT well-trained (if at all) yet who for whatever blitheringly idiotic reason feel like they’re *somehow* qualified to force their opinions down the throats of an otherwise free and well-trained general populace, usually in the form of ideas that sound good but either do nothing or actually do more harm than the harm they’re supposed to address.
mass shootingsThroughout history, a well-armed/trained populace has always been the most effective deterrent and counter to mass shootings and random acts of violence.

The History of Mass Shootings IS NORMAL, Obama

Obama was WRONG when he said, “This is not normal.  We can’t let it become normal.”  Mass shootings ARE normal.  They have ALWAYS been normal.  The “List of school shootings in the United States” Wikipedia page lists entries for the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.  That’s more than 251 years of NORMAL, Obama.  “The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac’s Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where three men entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed ten children (reports vary). Only one child survived.” (Source:  David, Dixon (2005). Never Come to Peace Again: Pontiac’s Uprising and the Fate of the British Empire in North America. University of Oklahoma Press)

Here’s what’s normal about them:  They are a reflection of the fact that the human race is sinful, and sometimes people go off the deep end.  Prior to the advent of the firearm, we had mass slayings, using bow, sword, knife, spear, and club, dating back to the earliest days of civilization, more than 10,000 years ago, and probably a few millennia before them.  There are words for mass-murderer in many languages, including ancient ones, so YES, Obama, IT IS NORMAL.

The question is, “What should we do about it?”

First, the idea of disarming honest, law-abiding citizens remains the most stupid, blitheringly idiotic, knee-jerk reaction anyone could take.  When bad guys are about, you NEVER disarm the good guys.  That’s unbelievably, pathetically ignorant.  The same goes for limiting magazines and other aspects of firearms, as all you’re doing is limiting the ability of the good guys to fight back.

Second, eliminate gun-free zones.  They’re magnets for the lunatics.  Despite the fact that so-called “gun-free zones” occupy less than 10% of the locations where we are likely to be at any given time, more than 4 out of 5 mass shootings occur in such zones.  If you’re in a gun-free zone, you’re a target.

Third, ensure that you are not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  Our Founding Fathers weren’t stupes.  They certainly weren’t like some of the blithering idiots we have in Congress today.  They knew what makes people tick, and established an extraordinarily successful framework — including the right to keep and bear arms — designed to give the good guys the best possible chance of success against evil, corruption, bad guys, and yes, mass shooters.  Infringing on the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t slow down the bad guys one bit, and for one simple reason:  They’re criminals.  They don’t care about following the law.

Fourth, allow people in key positions to be armed.

Security Degree Hub came up with an outstanding graphic highlighting some key facts about mass shootings in America.

  1. Out of 67 shooters in the last 30 years, 65 had mental health issues.
  2. As far as locations are concerned, 4.5% occur in religious settings, 17.9% in schools (gun-free zones), 28.9% in the workplace (gun-free zones), and 47.8% in other public places (about two-thirds of which occur in gun-free zones, such as malls).
  3. As far as the types of weapons uses, nearly two-thirds of all mass shootings were accomplished using pistols, while only a quarter used rifles.

What does all this mean?

Quite simply, it means that the tried and true solution to the problem is the best solution to the problem.  If you see a mass shooter in action, pull your own firearm and stop them.

When We the People are armed, that’s an easy thing to do.

When We the People are disarmed, stopping mass shooters becomes impossible.

Scientists Botch Gun Control Debate

In answer to the question, “Where does science fall on the gun control debate?” the answer is “In the trash.”

Their approach, commonly known as Delphi or wideband Delphi, only works when you’re employing subject matter experts (SME) on the issue. The title of “scientist” does NOT automatically render SME status on an issue. Furthermore, most scientists are not only less likely to be familiar with the statistics surrounding America’s use of firearms, but they’re also more likely to be members of academia, a group well-known for its heavy bias against traditional issues involving Constitutional freedoms.

I am a scientist. I do not, however, share the typical anti-gun bias of most scientists. I’ve examined this issue for six straight years, including a 30-year database of all mass shootings in the U.S., as well as all available crime and accident statistics involving firearms over the last three decades.  The results are sprinkled throughout this blog.

“My” findings do not belong to me. They belong to the realm objective reality as clearly evidenced by the facts. Those facts stand in stark, raving opposition to the scientists’ opinions in the article.

Again, if you’re going to use Delphi, you’re must start with subject matter experts. The scientists who were polled were clearly not SMEs. If they were, they never would have agreed to this approach in the first place, as they would already have known about the massive volume of facts which tell a completely different story.

Sorry, guys, but you just racked up a big, fat “F” on that one.

Washington State’s I-594 is A Universal Handgun Registration Scheme

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” – Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Any law which violates the Constitution is NOT law. It’s a blight against our governmental system, a violation of our Constitutional I-594rights and freedoms. No U.S. citizen or law enforcement officer at any level is under any obligation to either follow or enforce an un-Constitutional law. In fact, is it our duty to ignore it, if not stand firm against it and toss the Constitution-violating legislators out of office.

State and Federal legislators take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution in order to PREVENT this from ever I-594happening. They are NOT authorized to “do it anyway” and let the courts legislate from the bench. That’s a heinous dereliction of their duty, and no matter what other good they may have done or might be doing, it’s completely undermined by their bad.

Allowing them to remain in office is like allowing a horribly abusive spouse to remain in the home because “he/she only beats me to a pulp every once in a while.” GET RID OF THEM!

Washing State’s I-594 bill regulate transfers, not just sales, of all firearms in the Evergreen State. It’s a universal handgun registration scheme, an INFRINGEMENT on the right to keep and bear arms. Those legislators who voted for it are VIOLATORS of our Constitution. Get rid of them!

Law enforcement officers not only swore to protect the Constitution, but put their lives on the line every day.  They oppose I-594.  They’re smart enough to know how dramatically this violates the rights of the people.  They’re also experienced enough to know that it will do NOTHING to keep the criminals in check.

So who did this to the people of the State of Washington?  The people themselves.  They’re the ones who elected the Constitution-violating traitors into office.  They’re the ones who refuse to vote them out.  They’re the ones who, 7 out of 10 support universal background checks.

They’re the blithering idiots who allowed this to happen.

UN Arms Trade Treaty

A lot of fear-mongers are claiming the UN Arms Trade Treaty “takes effect” today (Christmas Eve).  In fact, this “treaty” has UN Arms Trade Treatyabsolutely zero effect on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here’s why:

1.  Our Constitution mandates treaties adhere to a simple yet rigorous legislative and governmental process.  No matter who in our government signs a treaty, if the treaty didn’t go through the appropriate review and approval process, it is NOT binding in any way shape, fashion, or form.

2.  Our nation remains sovereign.  No treaty may usurp any portion of our Constitution without a Constitutional amendment to that effect.  Thus, even if a treaty were to go through the appropriate review and approval process, if that treaty violates the Constitution, the treaty remains null and void.

Finding evidence which supports these claims is both simple and straightforward.  In fact, we need look no further than the Constitution itself.

The Treaty Review and Ratification Process

Article. II. Section 2. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which the President can make a treaty:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

Did the President seek and obtain both the advice and the consent of the Senate?  Did two-thirds of the Senate concur?  Both of UN Arms Trade Treatythese requirements must be present before the President or his designee can legally sign a treaty.  On the day John Kerry signed this treaty, the Senate had been consulted, and their advice was a big fat “NO,” with a majority voting in opposition to the treaty.  Thus, neither Kerry nor Obama had obtained the consent of the Senate.  Furthermore, not only did two-thirds of the Senators present not concur, the majority of the Senators vehemently opposed the treaty.

In addition, there is serious doubt among Constitutional scholars that the President can appoint anyone to sign a treaty on his UN Arms Trade Treatybehalf without express, written authorization to do so.  General Douglas MacArthur had such authorization.  On September 2, 1945, MacArthur accepted the formal Japanese surrender aboard the battleship USS Missouri, thus ending hostilities in World War II.  John Kerry most certainly did not have any such authorization.

Regardless, neither Obama nor Kerry had either the consent or the a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate.  Therefore, Kerry’s signature on the treaty is invalid, null and void, and without any lawful authority or substance.

The Amendment Proposal and Ratification Process

Article. V. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which Amendments are proposed and ratified:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Put simply, this clause requires the following for all Amendments to the Constitution:

1.  Two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress (or two-thirds of the state legislatures)

2.  Ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures (or three-quarters of a Constitutional Convention).

3.  All Amendments are valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution.

Thus, even if Obama and Kerry had the advice and consent, along with a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate, the treaty would still be invalid simply because it violates our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  As the Second Amendment clearly states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The UN Arms Trade Treaty infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  It is therefore Constitutionally null and void.

The key thing to remember here is to never allow anyone to tell you otherwise.  When the entire populace of the United States of America knows its Constitution and the rights and freedoms respected and protected therein, no amount of government chicanery can take that away from them.

Know your rights!  Stand up for them, not merely often, but always!

It’s called FREEDOM, people, and it is very, very good.

Do You Know Ed Mezvinsky?

He was born January 17, 1937, but you’re probably saying, “Who is Ed Mezvinsky?” and “Why should I care?”

Bear with me for a minute, as the answer has to do with Hillary Clinton’s run for the 2016 elections, and a great deal more.  The “more” part will boggle your mind.

Ed Mezvinsky is a former Democrat congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional district in the United States Ed MezvinskyHouse of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977.  He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon.

He was outspoken saying that Nixon was a crook and a disgrace to politics and the nation and should be impeached.

He and the Clintons were friends and very politically intertwined for many years.

Ed Mezvinsky had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie Sue Margolies and later married her after his wife divorced him.

In 1993, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat in Congress, cast the deciding vote that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through the House of Representatives.

In March 2001, Ed Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.  He had embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a Ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams (yes, he’s “that guy”).  He was found guilty and sentenced to 80 months in federal prison.

After serving less than three-quarters of that time, he was released in April 2008.  He remains on federal probation.  To this day, he still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

About now you are saying, “So what!”

Well, this is Marc and Chelsea Mezvinsky.  Ed Mezvinsky is Chelsea Clinton’s father-in law.  Chelsea married his son.

Marc and Chelsea are in their early thirties and purchased a 10.5Chelsea Clinton million dollar NYC apartment (after being married in George Soros’ mansion).

Has anyone heard any mention of any of this in any of the media?  No?

Gee…  I wonder why…

If this guy was Jenna or Barbara Bush’s, or better yet, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s father-in-law, the news would be an everyday headline and every detail would be reported over and over.  The liberal rags, however, are owned by the same corrupted cabal to which the Clintons, the Mezvinskys, and Soros belongs.

People are already talking about Hillary as our next President, and there is a distinct possibly Chelsea will run in the future.  The Hillary Clintonheadlines are already proclaiming, “How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms.”

Apparently, the cycle of the rich and corrupt never ends.

The Democrat’s ongoing scheme is simple:  Promise anything to the masses in order to keep being reelected, then abuse the power of their office to line their own pockets, the pockets of their friends, and the pockets of people and companies who funded their campaigns — at your expense.

Lying and corruption seem to make Democrat candidates more popular, yet Democrats who are repeatedly suckered into voting for them keep wondering when they’re going to get their slice of the pie.

The answer is, “Never, so long as you keep allowing yourself to be suckered in to voting for Democrats.”  If the Democrats have you on a hook, and want to keep you on that hook, the only only solution is to get off the hook.  Stop voting Democrat.

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln