On Banning Bump-Fire Stocks…

What do you think, folks? Should we ban bump-fire stocks?

 Or should we ban the blitheringly idiotic, mentally unstable liberals and/or Demoncraps who keep murdering people en masse?
 
Perhaps we should ban the Mudstream Media that continues to poison their brains with worthless crap that simply isn’t true.
 
We could ban Hollywood for giving these mass-murderers the ideas in the first place.
 
Maybe we ought to imprison the communist teachers who FAILED to teach our kids proper, helping them learn things like, “On my honor, I will do my best. To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.”
 
But banning bump-fire stocks? What’s next, guns in general? Knives? Quarter-staffs? Socks full of pennies? Spears? Rocks?
 
I mean, seriously… Are you going to ban ROCKS? Because, as you know, there was a guy who was murdered less than a quarter mile away from where I lived. He was murdered in the parking lot of a sports bar when someone hit him over the head with a ROCK.
 
So, go ahead. Ban rocks. This is, however, the ROCKY Mountains, so it’s going to take you a few hundred (if not tens of thousands) of years to get rid of all the rocks.
 
Until you do, I think I’ll keep my knives, guns, and anything else I damned well please, thank you very much.

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.

Orlando Shooting SHOULD Have Been Stopped

It is highly unlikely the Orlando shooting could have been prevented.  Even though the perpetrator had caught the attention of the FBI, so have tens of thousands of other people.  Out of all of these “possibles,” however, only a tiny fraction are ever moved up to “probables,” and only a small fraction of those ever go on to commit a crime.  Sometimes, the FBI’s hard work pays off, and they stop bad things before they happen, catching, for example, a bomb-maker in the act of making their bomb.
That, however, is the exception, rather than the rule.
In fact, most people who commit shooting sprees have never appeared on the FBI’s radar.  What the FBI cannot do is put the 99%+ of their “possibles” who would never have gone on to commit a crime behind bars.  “But we can deny them guns, right?”  Legally, yes.  Realistically, no.  Furthermore, that act alone may be what sends them over the edge, either from “possible” to “probable,” or worse, from either category to the category perpetrator.
The level of heinous behavior that deprives the innocent (until proven guilty) of their fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, is relegated to totalitarian governments such as existed under Hitler and Stalin.  Not only is fundamentally opposed by freedom-loving people throughout the world, but it flat out does not work.  I, for one, am sick and tired of watching brain-dead idealists impose “solutions” that miss by a mile while depriving honest, law-abiding American citizens their God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights.
Meanwhile, it remains highly doubtful the Orlando shooting could ever have been prevented.  It most certainly could, however, and should have been stopped.
The problem with the Orlando shooting wasn’t that the perpetrator was armed.  That is simply not a viable, achievable objective, and countries which try wind up leaving most of their citizenry in an unarmed, defenseless state.
The problem with the Orlando massacre is that of the more than 300 Americans who were present, NONE of them were armed. If only ONE American citizen attending the event had armed, they could have taken out the mass shooter.  If five had been armed, they almost certainly would have taken out the mass shooter.

This situation has been repeated time and time again throughout all mass shootings, including Orlando, Virginia Tech, Newtown, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Aurora. In every instance, not ONE of the intended victims was armed.  

Being unarmed in the presence of a mass shooter DOES NOT WORK.  Just look what happened in Norway:  One mass shooter.  Seventy-seven dead.  Why?  Because not a single one of the victims and many more people subject to Breivik’s attacks were armed.  They were unarmed.  They were defenseless, and they suffered the worst fate because of it.  

If that’s not a wake-up call, I don’t know what is.  

How many more wake-up calls must we suffer before those in power actually wake up and smell the coffee?  Before they realize that disarming the populace has ALWAYS resulted in a significant increases in violent crime?

Being unarmed DOES NOT WORK, America.

It doesn’t work in America.  It doesn’t work in Norway.  It doesn’t work in Nigeria, Chad, Niger, and northern Cameroon, where Boko Haram have killed 20,000 and displaced 2.3 million from their homes.  It did not work in Nazi Germany, when Hitler largely disarmed the general populace, restricting ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit” i.e. card-carrying members of the Nazi Party.  Disarmament has not worked in the United Kingdom, where violent crime rose 250% after they disarmed the general populace.  Sure, it reduced firearm murders, but what Piers Morgan and the others refuse to tell you is that the overall murder rate increased.

An armed populace, however, does work.  During the last thirty years, firearms laws have been relaxed in nearly every state.  Also during that time, crime has dropped —  a lot — but the drop always followed the relaxation of firearms laws.

The trend in gun control relaxation began in the mid-1980s, but the overall trend in violent crime peaked around 1991, from nearly 800 per 100,000 population to less than 400 per 100,000.  That’s half, a huge reduction, throughout which firearms laws continued to be relaxed.  Put simply, the relaxation of gun control laws resulted in more American citizens being armed.  As a direct result, violent crime is about half of what it is today as compared to thirty years ago.

Being unarmed has never worked.  It never will.  Disarming Americans is a direct violation of our God-given, Constitutionally supported and protected rights.  Our Founding Fathers established the Second Amendment’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” for outstanding reasons, most notably of which is that a well-armed populace is the best deterrent against criminal activity.

Armed American citizens are the solution.  Just look at the attempted Islamic mass shooting at the Mohammed cartoon event in Texas. Result: The two mass shooters were STOPPED.  They were SHOT DEAD, most notably, before they were able to fire into the crowd of attendees. As disquieting as this may sound to some, if they had not been stopped via armed intervention, there were some 200 people attending the event who would have suffered grievous harm if not death.  Many would have been killed.  Many more would have been injured.  All would have been emotionally scarred for life.
Various opinions claiming “armed citizens have never stopped a mass shooting” appear after every mass shooting.  They largely stem from a false claim made on the Mother Jone’s website just after the Newtown massacre.  Their “study” claims that out of 62 of the mass shootings that occurred over the last 30 years (1982-2012), “in not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”
There are two glaring problems with Mother Jones’ “study.”
First, when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before it becomes a mass shooting.  The FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more persons during an event with no cooling-off period between the murders.  A mass shooting, on the other hand, simple involves multiple victims of gun violence.  However, the U.S. Congressional Research Service has adopted the FBI definition for mass murder.
Second, whatever criteria Mother Jones used in their “study” has failed the reality test.  In fact, there have been twelve mass shootings stopped in their tracks by armed U.S. citizens:
1. Pearl High School:  Perpetrator Luke Woodham opened fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others before being stopped by Assistant Principle Joel Myrick with his .45 caliber handgun.  Myrick lost valuable time responding because he was forced to retrieve his firearms from his vehicle due to the school’s “no firearms” policy and standing as a “gun-free zone.”
2. Parker Middle School:  The 14-year-old perpetrator opened fire at a high school dance, killing one teacher, wounding another teacher and two students.  James Strand, the owner of the banquet hall where the dance was being held stopped the shooter when he confronted him with his shotgun.
3. Appalachian School of Law:  The perpetrator killed the dean, a professor, and a fellow student, wounding three others, before being stopped by an armed law student, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, and an off-duty police officer.  All three lost valuable time responding because they were forced to retrieve their firearms from their vehicles due to the school’s “no firearms” policy and standing as a “gun-free zone.”
4. New Life Church:  The perpetrator killed two members of the church, wounding 3, before being stopped by Jeanne Assam with her personal concealed firearm.  The perpetrator fired at her, missing her.  She returned fire, stopping the perp.
5. New York Mills AT&T Store:  The perpetrator fired inside the store.  Donald J. Moore drew his own personal weapon and stopped the gunman, killing him before he could murder the list of employees he planned to kill as he’d written on the list he was carrying with him.  Only one employee was wounded.
6. Sullivan Central High School:  The perpetrator entered the high school, but was stopped at gunpoint by a school resource officer and held for ten minutes.  When the perpetrator started firing, he was shot and killed.  No others were harmed.
7. Freewill Baptist Church:  The perpetrator pulled a shotgun from his truck and approached the church.  Aaron Guyton, the pastor’s grandson, spotted him and locked the doors.  After the perp kicked in the doors, Guyton stopped him, holding him at gunpoint while two members of the church took him to the ground.
8. Clackamas Town Center Mall:  The perpetrator opened fire in the busy food court, killing two people and seriously wounding a third before being stopped by Nick Meli who drew his own firearm on the gunman, when then retreated and killed himself.
9.  Mystic Strip Club:  The perpetrator entered the club and opened fire, wounding one bouncer and a waitress.  The other bouncer stopped the perp by drawing his own handgun and killing him.
10. Austin, Texas Construction Site:  The perpetrator irately opened fire on his co-workers.  The foreman stopped the perp when he opened fire on him.  Only the perp and the foreman were injured.
11. Cache Valley Hospital:  The perpetrator entered the hospital and began making demands while holding two handguns.  When the perp racked the slid on one of his handguns, he was stopped by two corrections officers who shot him dead.
12. Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital:  The perpetrator, a patient at the psychiatric hospital, killed his caseworker and wounded his doctor.  The doctor stopped the shooter by drawing his concealed handgun and shooting the perp dead.
In any given year, armed U.S. citizens stop anywhere between 650,000 and 800,000 crimes.  Many of those are violent crimes.  Some of those involved armed shooters.  We will probably never fully know just how many of those perpetrators would have created another mass shooting had they not been stopped by an armed U.S. citizen.
When well-meaning but idealistic and/or delusional idiots establish so-called “gun-free zones,” those zones become a hotspot for violence and aggression, a favorite target of the criminally insane.  More than three-fourths of all mass shootings this century have occurred in gun-free zones, despite the fact that such zones occupy way less than 10% of the places frequented by the people.
The solution to this madness is clear:  Stop establishing “gun-free zones.”  Even in countries where “everyone is disarmed,” there ain’t no such animal.  The idea that disarmament will keep people safe is repeatedly proven as fiction, and dangerous fiction, at that.
 
Our Founding Fathers wrote “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” into the U.S. Constitution for a REASON, people. It was to keep blithering idiots from stripping Americans of the ability to DEFEND themselves.

Quantico, our Second Amendment, and Reality

In the latest episode of Quantico, a (very) fictitious portrayal of life for new FBI field agent recruits at Quantico, an equally fictitious Senatorial Bitch gave a short speech that is all too real in our nation’s capital: “I’d like to acknowledge the brave men and women who defend our campus today. That includes one of our own, Trainee Perales. Three-hundred and thirty. That’s the number of mass shootings in this country in 2015. An average of almost one per day. I am tired of this. And you should be, too. You are being trained to carry a weapon, to respect the power of a gun, to understand that it is a privilege to be earned, not a right given to anyone who…”
 
The Senatorial Bitch was cut off by a disapproving stare from her son, a member of that class. He knew better.
 
So do we.
 
Our right to keep and bear arms is NOT a “privilege.” If is an ABSOLUTE right, one given by God himself, and reflected in our Bill of Rights as applying universally, without encroachment. That’s the way our Founding Fathers wrote it, and clearly with that specific intent, as they certainly wrote other limitations into both our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
 
But not into our Second Amendment. That “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is absolute.
 
That’s as it should be, for the moment one allows ANY encroachment on the tiniest issue, they tip that slippery slope towards allowing encroachment on all issues until the right no longer exists AT ALL. This is WHY our Founding Fathers rendered this an absolute prohibition in its final form. They knew that some day, power-hungry people who are ignorant of what it takes to maintain freedom, or worse, those who specifically attack it, for whatever reason, would, and rather incessantly, whittle away at our freedoms.
 
As for me, I learned how to shoot when I was nine, at the hands of a Navy officer and a former Army officer. I received additional training from accomplished hunters in my early 20s, and formal training throughout my own career as an Air Force officer beginning in my mid-20s. I qualified at the expert level on every military weapon system on which I trained, including the M-8, the M9, and the M-16.
 
I am the first to tell you that one does NOT have to be in the military to become a firearms expert! All it takes is an appreciation for firearms in general, some self-discipline, and the desire to learn and improve.
 
My point is that the Senatorial Bitch’s idea that only FBI agents and other law enforcement types are qualified to use firearms in an active shooter situation is totally, 100% BOGUS. It’s elitist bullshit, designed to create a class situation separating the haves from the have-nots.
 
DO NOT BELIEVE IT!!!
 
I firmly believe everyone in the U.S. who has NOT demonstrated a clear reason as to why they should not be allowed to keep and bear arms SHOULD be allowed to keep and bear arms, and I fully support Constitutional Carry via either open or concealed means, your choice.
The Reality Is that EVERY U.S. citizen’s right to keep and bear arms is Constitutionally protected.  Sadly, the reality is also that far too many self-appointed watchdogs get this horribly wrong.

Court Rules People Have a “Fundamental Right” to Own Assault Weapons

OUTSTANDING!

From the article…

In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence. 

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state’s prohibition on what the court called “the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens” amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.

Well, almost outstanding.  The judge seriously erred when he said, “In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment — the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”  That’s not quite the “fundamental right” our Founding Fathers penned into the Constitution via our Second Amendment.

Chief Judge William Traxler erred when he limited the scope of understanding to “in defense of hearth and home.”  A “hearth” is the floor in front of a fireplace, where families of old would gather for dinner, usually cooked over that fireplace, and while away the evening hours basking in its warmth, discussing the day, and playing.

Our Second Amendment knows no such bounds, either on location or type and size of arms.

The Constitution states that all ratified amendments become a part of the Constitution.  Thus, the Constitution states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This prohibition against the right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute.  It’s application isn’t limited to a specific government entity.  It applies to everyone.  Furthermore, it’s scope isn’t limited, either.  For example, it’s not limited to “hearth and home,” but rather applies every where a free man may travel.

It’s not even limited to “firearms.”  Our Founding Fathers chose the term, “arms,” even though knew exceedingly well that the term “firearms” was a type of arms that used a rapidly-burning powder to discharge a projectile.  A sword is also a type of arms, as is a club, mace, hatchet, machete, and knife.  They are all “arms.”  Thus, any restriction — infringement — on their size, length, weight, caliber, action, mechanism, or capacity constitutes an infringement, and an un-Constitutional one, at that.

Obama gives Army executive orders to build a weapon that prevents accidental discharge

On January 4, 2016, Obama issued an “executive order” directing the Pentagon to find ways to make not so much more lethal firearms, but safer ones”   “Obama comes along and tells the Army that, in this administration, money is going into small arms to build — not a deadly weapon, not an effective weapon, not a dominant weapon, not a lifesaving weapon, not a technological cutting-edge weapon — but a weapon that prevents accidental discharge.” – Story

Yeah, I know.  Stupid, right?

A White House fact sheet states: “The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.”

I have previously covered the absurdly dangerous idiocy behind so-called “smart guns.”  Suffice it to say that they’re as ridiculously idiotic as so-called “gun free zones.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/05/memorandum-promoting-smart-gun-technology/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/31/obamas-gun-control-executive-order-directs-pentago/

By itself, this would only constitute a misuse of taxpayer dollars.  As most people are well aware by now, however, this is a part of Obama’s plan of issuing more “executive orders” to make such technology mandatory, an action that far, far oversteps the bounds of Presidential authority while simultaneously and directly infringing on the Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Just because Obama says his “executive orders” are legal doesn’t make them legal.  Even if 51% of Congress agreed with him and said they were legal, it would NOT make them legal.  In fact, even if 100% of Congress agreed with Obama, it would STILL not make Obama’s executive orders legal.  They would REMAIN ILLEGAL.

The reason is simple:  Congress can NOT amend the Constitution.  They can only propose an amendment.  Only the States ratify the amendment[SUP]1[/SUP], thereby transforming the proposal into an amendment.

And until such an amendment appears, giving the President authority to issue executive orders, all executive orders are ILLEGAL.

Here’s why:

1.  Our Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Thus, to see whether or not a U.S. President has the Constitutional authority to issue executive orders, we need merely examine the U.S. Constitution.  Therein we find only one instance in which he can issue an order to a civilian.  Article II, Section 2 states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…”

That’s it.

His duties as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States” involve members of the military, not civilians.  He can, however, “Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

His authority to make treaties requires “the Advice and Consent of the Senate … provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

He has the authority to nominate “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,” but no appointment is final without “the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

He can fill up vacancies during Senate recess, but those commissions expire a the end of the next session.

He is authorized to “give to the Congress information of the State of the Union” including his recommendation of measures for their consideration.

On “extraordinary Occasions,” he can convene one, the other, or both houses of Congress.  If he disagrees with their solution during these conventions, all he can do is adjourn them for a while.

He can receive “Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”

THAT IS ALL, people.  Neither Obama nor ANY U.S. President has the power or authority to issue “executive orders” dictating what We the People can and cannot do.  The “supreme Law of the Land” () and its Tenth Amendment are exceeding clear on this point, and that’s all I need to tell Obama to take his executive orders and shove ’em.

[SUP]1[/SUP]Amendment Process:

[B]Two-Thirds Rule[/B]:  Proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution require two-thirds consensus of either both houses of Congress (2/3 of the House AND 2/3 of the Senate) OR two-thirds consensus of the legislatures of the States.

[B]Three-Fourths Rule[/B]:  Ratifying amendments to the U.S. Constitution (making them legal parts of the Constitution) require three-fourth’s consensus of the legislatures or conventions of the States.

Until they are properly ratified, they are NOT amendments.  They are proposals.

His action directing the Army to do the research into a lamer, less effective firearm is entirely within his authority as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”  As a retired military officer, I think it’s insanely stupid, not to mention a waste of valuable military resources, as it is at odds with the military’s mission.

He can even take the results and submit them to Congress for their consideration.

What he can NOT do, however, is to mandate the use of such weapons or restrict the use of civilian firearms to such weapons, as that would be a direct and flagrant violation against the Second Amendment’s prohibition against any infringement on the right of the People to keep and bear arms.  Such a change would require a fundamental change to the Second Amendment itself, and that requires consent of either three-fourths of the state legislatures or a convention of three fourths of the states.

I don’t see that happening.

Until then, all civilian, military, and law-enforcement officers remain bound by their oaths of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,” INCLUDING sitting U.S. Presidents who, for whatever reasons of megalomania, insanity, or criminal activity, think they’re somehow above or beyond the law.

Shall Not Be Infringed

The term “infringement” doesn’t mean “prohibition.” It means “an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.” If I were to move off the sidewalk and walk through my neighbor’s grass, I would be infringing. It does little direct damage, but over time, that section of grass would die. If I then moved over to a fresh strip of grass, that would die, too. When our Founding Fathers penned “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in our Second Amendment, they created an absolute prohibition against any and all infringements, no matter how slight, in order to protect — absolutely — the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms. Furthermore, this prohibition not limited to the federal government. It doesn’t not say, “Congress shall not…” It simply states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This applies to EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, and FOR ALL TIME, WITHOUT CESSATION.  It is an absolute right, to be protected at all costs, without question.