My Thoughts on Gun Control

There are my own thoughts on the subject of gun control.
When people say "gun control" it means different things to different people.  To some it means you want to take away their guns.  To others it means proper sale of and handling of guns.  And yet others, it means they really want to take your guns away.
I seldom hear politicians say what law they think needs to be passed when they speak on gun control.  They tend to speak in generalities such as "common sense gun regulations".  Please be specific.
We have many gun laws on the books already, but some people just don't seem to understand, and are led to believe America is still the wild, wild west.
If gun laws worked to prevent crimes, then why are so many people killed with guns in Chicago, Paris, Brussels, or 'fill in the blank'?  France has very strict gun laws, and even their police were not carrying weapons before the most recent attacks.  During the month of May 2016 there were over 400 shootings in Chicago.  400! In one month!  Talk about mass shooting!  What did those gun control advocates have to say about Chicago in spring time?  Yeah, still waiting for that comment.
Prisons are full of law breakers.  Why do you think more gun laws will stop gun violence?  Laws don't stop criminals.  Rather laws make it possible to charge, try and convict them of those crimes.
President Obama's administration is responsible for allowing thousands of guns into the hands of drug cartels.  Why do you suppose someone so opposed to gun violence would do that?  I think so he could then say how bad the problem is and force the legislation through congress.
We protect our banks with guns.  Politicians and celebrities with guns.  Judges and courtrooms with guns.  But then we put up signs that say "Gun Free Zone" where are children go to school.
Since 1950 all but three scenes of mass shootings were in gun free zones.  The Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter passed up other theaters that were not designated as such to get to one that was gun free.  Why?  Because shooters don't want potential victims shooting back at them.  Simple.
People generally agree on the horrors of gun violence.  But the violence is a result of what is in the heart of the shooter, not the weapon.
Then you hear about only certain types of guns, which mostly includes semi-automatic weapons.  Are you any less wounded or dead if your shot with a shotgun or handgun?
We often hear that "If it saves even one life, we should ban ...".  But they don't say that when discussing hammers, knives, cars, fireworks, or swimming pools, or space heaters, or countless other devices that kill people.
People who settled America came here to be free of tyranny, both religious and political.  They wrote a great document detailing the freedoms we all have that come from our creator, not from a king, or some government official.  That includes the right to bear arms.  Arms not for hunting and sport, but for protection from all sorts of evil.
A right is something you have that does not come at some cost to another.  You do not have a right to free tuition because that would come at the cost of others.  The same with health insurance.  But your right to defend yourself with arms does not cost anyone else anything.
There are millions of law abiding gun owners who never shoot anyone.  There are also many victims of crime who fought back and killed their assailants with guns.  The FBI statistics show from 2008 to 2012 there were 1108 such justified shootings of felons during the commission of a crime by the intended victim. (Source: Violence Policy Center)
Evil people are creative.  Who would have thought of using a rental truck and fertilizer to blow up a building?  Guns are a weapon, or a tool, like a truck and fertilizer.
The reason we have a right to bear arms is because our creator wants us to be free from said tyranny.  Since the Constitution was written there are several examples of tyrannical governments taking away weapons from the citizens, thus enslaving them.  Russia, Germany, China, Venezuela and North Korea all come to mind.  Which of those countries would you choose to live in today if you left the USA?
We are free men and women.  Free to choose to follow the rule of law or not.  Suffer the consequences of your choices.  But be free.
You are not free if you cannot defend yourself and your loved ones.

Take It A Step Further Please

Elitist Arrogance Part II


    Dr. Williams, in this article, tells us the elitists who proclaim the need for a $15 minimum wage know better than everyone, when it comes to what to pay for labor.  As we know, labor is a cost of doing business.  Like paying the utility company, rent, buying materials, and more, labor has a price.
    Williams explains how the business might change their normal operations to economize so as to remain profitable.  But those advocating higher wages never seem to understand how a business must remain profitable and will adjust to a changing business environment.
    No one seems to misunderstand how a business reacts to competition.  The owner will work harder to improve quality and efficiency, offer special price promotions, change hours of operations, or reduce costs so he can offer a better deal to customers who would then choose doing business with him instead of the competition.  The same options apply to rising labor costs.   
    Proponents of $15/hour minimum wage also say it is not possible to raise a family on less.  I say you should not have a family if you make minimum wages.  Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs by design.  They are to be a way for low skilled, uneducated workers to gain experience working, developing a work history, so the worker can begin to progress upward in skills and wages.
    If raising the price of unskilled labor is the correct thing to do, then raising the prices of gasoline, milk, bread, shoes and eye glasses, etc., would be even better, would it not?

The Thin Blue Line

    This line refers to the police standing between criminals and law abiding citizens.  Investigating crimes, standing guard against criminals, and general protecting and serving the general peace of society.  As we have seen in recent years this line is being erased by politicians, mayors, governors, President Obama, and many others.
    Let's go back to the Ferguson riots following the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Wilson.  Protestors quickly escalated their actions into lawlessness: damaging cars and buildings, burning and looting businesses, stopping traffic on highways, and much more.  The governor of Missouri failed his state by not quickly and forcefully calling out the national guard to quell such lawlessness.  Statements by politicians that implied, or outright stated, that police were to blame for the riots.  And the media repeatedly called the rioters protestors.
    In the case of Cambridge, MA professor William Gates, who was arrested without identification trying to break into his home after locking himself out, President Obama said the police acted stupidly.  Mind you, Gates could not identify himself as the owner of the home he was obviously breaking into.
    More recently, the Mayor of San Jose, CA said the lack of police action during riots against Donald Trump supporters following a political rally, was commendable.
    Is it any wonder we have anyone wishing to become a police officer at all anymore?  Especially in light of what transpired in Baltimore, MD, after the arrest of 6 officers following the death of a suspect in their custody?  I am speaking of the riots which followed, lasting for days following the orders from the mayor for police to give them room to riot.
    If police are to do their jobs maintaining order and taking criminals off of the streets, they must have the support of the elected political class.  This does not mean all cops are always good guys.  It does not mean some cops don't behave badly or criminally, or make mistakes in actions or judgments.  But it should mean that in general our politicians and society support police in their duty to society.  Making broad brush statements condemning police departments does not serve the peaceful coexistence of citizens.  Rather it makes people distrust police and emboldens criminals to commit more crimes or more violent and costly crimes.
    Giving lip service to police is not enough either.  We must support police with active encouragement and not assuming the worst in a group when one goes awry.  Sending administration officials to the funeral of criminals and ignoring funerals of police killed in the line of duty sends a terrible message to both police and community.
    We want people to trust police, feel safe going to police, and follow the orders of police in carrying out their sworn duty to protect and serve.

The Tolerant Left?

Recent campaign events for Donald Trump have become more violent and less protestation than ever.  In San Jose this week a woman was pelted with eggs, spat upon, and otherwise threatened.  The people doing these things to her were 'protesting' in opposition to Donald Trump, candidate for the office of President of the United States.


As Trump is a Republican, and those protestors supporters of Bernie Sanders, Democrat, it seems obvious the political left is becoming less and less tolerant of the right.


In recent years the left has been less tolerant of police, Christians, whites, and heterosexuals.  They like to state how we must be more tolerant, and yet they are less so.


I am amazed that protestors who throw rocks and bottles at police, eggs at lone women, burn cars, break into store fronts, and yell threats at citizens attending political rallies, are still called protestors and not rioters.


Those demanding more tolerance from others must believe they live on a one-way street.

Obama, Trump and Ignorance

Obama Commencement Speech to Rutgers

President Obama told the Rutgers graduates that "ignorance is not a virtue", which was directed at Donald Trump.  Obama was implying that Donald Trump is ignorant, mostly because he is a republican running to succeed Obama in the White House, and because he disagrees with many positions taken by the candidate.

Taking a position different from a candidate is perfectly legitimate and President Obama has his own opinions.  But to lecture people on anti-intellectualism is quite dishonest as Obama applied the test.

The president has taken many positions which have been proven incorrect over time, such as:

• Giving hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to green energy companies such as  Solyndra
• Attempting to validate the nearly $1T stimulus package as actually helping turn the economy around
• Shovel ready jobs which were not so shovel ready, and laughing about it
• Monthly overestimating jobs created, leading to restating actual jobs a month later
• Telling Americans they can keep their doctor and their insurance plan if they like it
• The climate change science is a settled matter
• Sending administration officials to the funeral of Michael Brown, who we later learned actually assaulted the police officer who shot back in self-defense
• Calling Cambridge, MA. police stupid for arresting a man without identification breaking into a home
• Campaigning in all 57 states
• Claiming ISIS is the JV team, yet unable to defeat them, while claiming we are defeating them
• Not understanding basic math by spending trillions more then the government collects in taxes, doubling the national debt
• Accepting tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria despite the inability to adequately screen out the terrorists among them 
• Unconstitutionally changing laws passed by congress, and losing cases in the Supreme Court for doing so

So I ask, who is being intellectually dishonest?

Joe to Replace Hillary - How This Will Work

How Joe Biden Gets Democrat Nomination

A while ago I wrote the above blog entry, predicting Joe Biden will be the actual democrat nominee for President of the United States.  Some have asked me to explain how that could come to be.  Here is the language of the democrat party that will allow for this.

Democrat National Committee By-Laws

Article 3., Section 1. c. reads:

The Democratic National Committee shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of this Charter and to the resolutions or other actions of the National Convention. This responsibility shall include:
c.  filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President;

So, once Hillary Clinton is nominated at the convention and the convention closes, the committee can step in.  Following an indictment of Mrs. Clinton for her mishandling of top secret email messages, a violation of law, she will have no choice but to step down as the nominee.  Then the committee can nominate any person of their choosing.

The committee will nominate Vice-President Joe Biden and President Obama will pardon Mrs. Clinton to spare the country the ordeal of a trial, just as Ford pardoned Nixon.

Illegal Immigration on the Rise

KRGV News: Consistent Surge of People Crossing Illegally

If you do not see illegal immigration in large numbers as a problem, you are not in favor of the United States of America continuing to exist as we know it.  Maybe that is by design.  Maybe It is a case of indifference.  Either way, it is dangerous.

Some politicians want you to think this is normal, or acceptable, or not real.  Some even think is it a good thing that is necessary.  Most are simply misguided or have ulterior motives.

Legal immigration can be good if laws are created to meet the needs of America and Americans.  But illegal immigration is not only wrong, but a violation of laws.

Building a wall may or may not be a solution, but something needs to be done.