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.

The U.S. Supreme Court Has NO Authority Over Same-Sex Marriage Issues – So Says Our Constitution

The United States Supreme Court does NOT have authority over same-sex marriage issues. Our Constitution says so, specifically, in Article III, Section 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all ConstitutionCases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
In case someone missed it, let’s break this down. The judicial power of the Supreme Court covers “all cases in law and equity,” but is LIMITED to cases “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made or which shall be made, under their Authority.”
Our Founding Fathers embedded three restrictions in the latter clause.
The first restriction is to cases “arising under this Constitution.”  If the case arises outside the bounds of the Constitution, such as all cases involving “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,” as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment, then the case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The second restriction is to Laws of the United States.  This does not include state law.  Our Constitution mentions the word “law” 36 times, but the most salient mention addresses this claim head-on in Article VI:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
By “Laws of the United States,” the framers are clearly referring to laws made “in Pursuance thereof.”  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “pursuance” as “a carrying out or into effect.”  Put simply, they’re talking about laws made by the federal government i.e. proposed by Congress and signed into law by the President.  The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over those laws, as those laws are the “Laws of the United States.”
The third restriction is to treaties, either made or in the process of being made.  For clear examples of how restrictive the Constitution is towards treaties, please read this, as well as this.
Put simply, if the issue is neither specified in the Constitution nor expressly granted by the Constitution to the federal government, Bill of Rightsthen under the Tenth Amendment, “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.”
That’s it.  The Constitution specifically and expressly limited the Supreme Court’s authority to only those powers given by the Constitution to the United States aka the federal government.  All powers not delegated to the feds nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States are reserved to the States or to the people, and are NOT subject to judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As marriage issues were never among the few and limited powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, the U.S. partisan SCOTUSSupreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to decide marriage issues.  The U.S. Supreme Court VIOLATED the scope of their Constitutionally-derived authority, and their decision in these matters is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Supreme Court is NOT the final authority in the United States of America.  WE are.  We the People are the final authority.  This noble concept of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is clearly embedded throughout the Constitution, and was additionally reflected verbatim 100 years after the founding of our nation by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address.
Thus, we’ve clearly established the fact the Supreme Court had absolutely zero business even hearing this case, much less rendering an opinion.  As if this weren’t enough, however, let’s dig a little further, where we find additional restrictions on the types of cases our Constitution allows them to hear:
1. “all Cases affecting Ambassadors” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
2. “other public Ministers and Consuls” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
3. “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
4. “Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. States issue marriage licenses only to the citizens within that state. The federal government is not a party to that dispute.
5. “Controversies between two or more States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
6. “between a State and Citizens of another State.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
7. “between Citizens of different States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
8. “between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
9. “between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court make a decision on an issue that falls outside of its legal authority and jurisdiction, it also made a decision that failed to meet ANY of the circumstances in which our Constitution gives them any authority.

Double Whammy!

The U.S. Supreme Court FAILED the American People by overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction and the legal limits of their authority.
Interesting enough, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, and rightly so, that neither citizens nor law enforcement officers are under any obligation whatsoever to follow or enforce un-Constitutional laws. Ergo, when SCOTUS goofed and rendered a decision that violates “the supreme Law of the Land,” neither citizens nor law enforcement officers are under any obligation whatsoever to follow or enforce that decision, either.
Summary Findings:
Since the State of Kentucky does not recognize same-sex marriages within state law, and…
Since the State of Kentucky further has in place statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages…
same-sex marriageKim Davis, the Rowan County court clerk was FULLY within her authority to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses under the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Kentucky, and the laws of the State of Kentucky.
Additional Findings:
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction does NOT extend to matters not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and…
Since marriage issues are NOT among such matters, and…
Since the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that an “unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.  An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed…”

Ergo, the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is null and void.  It is NOT to be followed, considered, or given any credence whatsoever in the matter of same-sex marriages in

same-sex marriage
Unsuccessful Kentucky Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jack Conway concedes his race to Republican Rand Paul during a speech in Louisville, Ky., Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010. (AP Photo/Garry Jones)

particular, or marriage in general.  Those who do, including Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, are VIOLATING Kim Davis’ Constitutional rights to do her job correctly and properly within the scope of both Kentucky state law as well as the Constitution.

And in an interesting turn of events, Jack Conway is running for governor in the 2015 gubernatorial election to be held on November 3.  Isn’t that special?  That and the fact that he’s a member of the…  *GASP!* Demoncrap Party should give everyone a proper understanding of the context in which he would threaten to prosecute someone like Kim Davis for…  FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION.
The LAST thing either Kentucky or America needs are peanut-brittle-brained politicians like Jack Conway who have zero qualms about throwing good, solid, moral citizens like Kim Davis under the bus.

Here’s a thought, Kentucky:  VOTE FOR MATT BEVIN!  A vote for Bevin is a vote FOR your Constitutional rights, instead of Conway’s clearly demonstrated ANTI-Constitutional behavior.

Additional Perspective:

I came across the following tidbit and found it to be dead-on accurate.  Thus, this isn’t merely a double-whammy, but a triple whammy:
By Jana Jobe
I was in favor of Kim Davis being jailed last week in Ky because I believed the media when they said she was violating the law by refusing to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. But, I heard a comment from Mike Huckabee that made me wonder if it was true. So I did a little reading.
Remember in Civics class where we learned that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets them? Ok, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into Federal law stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. There was no Federal Law concerning marriage prior to that, so DOMA became THE Federal statute pertaining to marriage.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that PART of DOMA was unconstitutional and some states voted to allow same sex marriage. However, they were in conflict with the remaining articles of DOMA.
The way Federal Laws work is that state law can be MORE restrictive but it cannot be less restrictive than Federal law. So, some states, who voted to recognize same sex marriage were in conflict with Federal Law. Which is the reason the Supreme Court heard the issue again this year. We all know their decision.
But, what we apparently forgot is that since they can’t make law, their decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional resulted in there being NO federal law concerning marriage. Which means, jurisdiction falls to the state. And what that means boys and girls is that Kim Davis IS NOT in violation of ANY law by refusing to issue marriage licenses after the SCOTUS ruling. In fact, if she had issued a license to a same sex couple, she would have been in violation of the state laws of Kentucky, which had voted no on the issue.
Congress failed to be prepared to handle the situation resulting from SCOTUS striking down DOMA by writing a new Federal Law so we are left with the issue being handled at a state level. In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected.
Jana Jobe is correct. In fact, hers is the third of three rock-solid reasons why the actions of Kim Davis are entirely consistent with both Kentucky State Law as well as the Constitution.  None of them have anything to do with her lawyer’s insistence that she be given a “religious exclusion.”  Without bringing religion into the matter at all, Kim Davis has a rock-solid, three-legged defense, one that will stand on any one of its three legs.
Thus, I do not understand why her lawyer is leading with the fourth issue, a weak one, at best. In fact, if he’s successful, he will set the stage for all Muslims (and other religions) to refuse to do anything at work that violates their religious convictions while retaining immunity from being fired. That’s definitely not the right approach!  Companies need to be able to fire employees for non-performance, particularly when tasks like serving alcohol to airline passengers is clearly stated in the employment contract. 
It would be far better for Kim Davis and her attorney to knock this one out of the park from three different angles, all based on rock-solid Constitutional, Federal, and State law, rather than attempt the religious exclusion approach.