Old Soldier

I should find it somewhat strange that the general mindset regarding dangerous animals is almost diametrically opposed to the mindset regarding firearms. I should, but I don’t.

Here’s the article that prompts me…

Pit bull dogs mauled a 63-year old woman jogger to death, yet her husband states, “I do not blame the dogs. I don’t blame pit bulls. I blame people who don’t take responsibility for their animals.” I agree with that statement and I believe most folks probably would as well.

A representative from the National Canine Research Council stated, “If a dog has seriously hurt or killed someone, you have to look to the owner and the owner should be held accountable on some level. There’s no reason we have to tolerate that kind of behavior.”

Fundamentally, the gist of the article is that the owner bears responsibility for the death of the jogger, and the owner in fact, has been charged with murder as well as “negligence of an animal causing death.” This is not the first time pit bull dogs and other “dangerous” dogs have caused the death of a person. In response, a lot of states and communities have passed laws designed to control dangerous dogs and hold owners responsible where applicable.

Let’s compare the response to dangerous dogs to guns.

First, where is the Congressional outrage and demand for dangerous dog control? Where is the demand for federal level laws limiting the number of dangerous dogs a person may possess, or the size of said animals, etc? Where, indeed! For some strange reason, people are able to accept the fact that responsibility cannot be affixed to the dogs. The dogs are incapable of making cognizant moral decisions, such as it is wrong to attack and kill a person. Sound logic, right?

Although pit bull dogs are not inanimate objects, they cannot reason cognitively; so they are not treated the same under law as are people. The owner of dangerous dogs that attack and kill are the ones lawfully held responsible. (I acknowledge the dogs in the article will most likely be destroyed, but not as judicial punishment.)

The telling comment is rendered by the NCRC representative… “There’s no reason we have to tolerate that kind of behavior.” The referenced “behavior” is that of the owner, not the dogs. Yet in the subject of ‘gun control,’ it is the inanimate gun that is the object of disdain and must be controlled – at the federal level, in violation of our constitution – not the behavior of the gun wielding killer. Someone please use Logic 101 and ‘splain that to me…

I am so sick and tired of progressive liberals hijacking the English language and coin terms that suit their agenda; in this case the disarmament of America – the unabashed blatant attack on our nation’s foundational document of law. Does anyone out there truly understand what a constitution is and what it affords? Our constitution guarantees inalienable rights – rights endowed by our Creator. The constitution does not bestow those rights – it guarantees them.

Every person elected to an office swears an oath within which they swear, “…to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic…” They do not swear an oath to protect and defend the citizenry from themselves. The do not swear an oath to viscerally legislate predicated upon an emotional response to a tragedy. In essence, we have traitorous persons willfully violating the very constitution they swore an oath to defend.

Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence has publically stated, “Guns kill over 31,000 Americans each year, including eight children every day. Sixty-two percent of these gun deaths are suicides. Each year there are nearly 80,000 gun-related nonfatal injuries, [and] 337,960 violent crimes are committed with guns,” she added. “Two-thirds of domestic violence murders are committed with guns. Do we have a gun violence problem? You bet we do.”

My dear Ms Barrett, it may come as a dreadful shock, and certainly a blow to your agenda driven rhetoric; but not one of my firearms has ever taken it upon itself to self load, and then shoot some innocent person to death. In fact every one of my firearms stays exactly where I place them when I put them up…

What you so self-servingly refer to as “gun violence” is in fact a violent behavior issue. A firearm is an inanimate object used by a person behaving in a violent manner. If you spent even half your energy trying to understand the base cause for violence as you do trying to unconstitutionally infringe upon my rights, you just might be productive in society. As long as you continue to attack an inanimate object and advocate for the violation of our foundational document of law, you will be ineffectual.

“Sixty-two percent of these gun deaths are suicides”

31,000 minus 62 percent = 11,780. 11,780 divided by 300,000,000 = .00003 percent. 3/100000 percent! You advocate the rights of millions of Americans be sacrificed at the alter of 11,780 homicides at the hands of violent people? Just how many of those 11,780 annual homicides are gang and crime related? (Hint, the answer is in the question.) Not to burst another bubble, but suicide is also a behavioral issue. A firearm is, again, a means to an end.

I cannot fathom people so stupid (I do not know how else to word it) to think that “gun control” will somehow magically quell violent behavior. Get off the kick of attacking the inanimate object and zero in on the real issue – behavior! Unfortunately, that advice does not support the progressive liberal agenda, does it?!

The divide between political ideologies has essentially become a chasm. I do not believe there are any remedies which might be amenable to both sides. Rhetoric has become “my way or the highway” with no consideration for: facts, history, objectivity, common sense, or logic.

‘News’ headlines that I have come across lately read thusly:

PERRY: We can only save ourselves from kidnappers at the NRA

DHS Seeks Millions More Rounds of Ammunition

Palm Beach County sheriff gets $1 million for violence prevention unit amid questions about civil liberties, care for mentally ill

Poll: 29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in Next Few Years

Dave Perry, Aurora Sentinel editor, concludes his anti-NRA vitriolic spew by saying, “If you really stand behind the spirit of the American Constitution, push back against the cancerous threat that seeks to undermine it for the sake of U.S. gun makers.” Every paragraph leading up to Mr. Perry’s summation demonstrates clearly that he has absolutely no idea what the “spirit of the American Constitution” is in reality. If he had even so much as a smidgeon of understanding, he would be able to grasp the concept imbedded in our constitution of personal liberty and a deliberate underlying theme that the government is prohibited from legislating any kind of infringement upon rights bestowed by our Creator. In other words, the government cannot infringe upon rights it has not bestowed. Should the people decide otherwise, there is a provision for the people to gift the government with such control – it is Article V.

Someone explain to me why DHS ‘needs’ a stockpile of ammunition that may exceed the requirements of our uniformed services. Gleaning the latest news… DHS is purchasing ~ 2 billion – that’s 2,000,000,000 – rounds of ammunition. Each of the ~ 196 thousand DHS-associated ‘agents’ will have ~ 10,200 rounds of ammunition available to them; bear in mind that not all of those ‘agents’ carry arms. Training requirements, you say? Training for what, I say.

Couple the DHS ammo grab with the Fairleigh Dickinson University poll and you can see why some people believe our national leadership is not being forthright with us. Do not be so quick to dismiss the 29 percent figure as being insignificant; it rapidly approaches one-third, which is a percentage that must be taken seriously. Those folks responded positively to the statement: “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” Did you pay attention to the wording: “necessary to PROTECT our liberties.” People are beginning to recognize that our government is indeed infringing upon our personal liberties, which is strictly verboten by our constitution.

In total opposition to the notion of personal liberties, privacy in our being, due process, et al, there is a sheriff in FL who is advocating for people to “turn in” their neighbor based upon an unqualified observation. Sheriff Ric Bradshaw has publically stated, “We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him…” It would not surprise me if Sheriff Bradshaw also advocates brown shirts for his deputy’s uniform… Even if Sheriff Bradshaw’s intentions are pure, his proposal flagrantly violates our rights guaranteed by the constitution.

I, for one, abhor the thought of compromising any of my God-given constitutionally-guaranteed rights to promote the perception of increased safety and security. I spent 31 years of my life actively defending the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am still bound by that oath and will unabashedly execute that oath to the utmost of my abilities.

Please read the following linked articles and opinion pieces. You will find some remarkable similarities to what I have written.

Colorado sheriffs plan lawsuit challenging state gun control laws

Why isn’t human nature ever considered when it comes to gun laws?

Fact vs. fiction on background checks and the gun control debate

Survey of law officers finds majority doesn’t agree with Obama’s gun control plan

(Also from the PoliceOne.com survey…)
Cops Don’t Think Guns Too Easy to Obtain

Biden mocks gun skeptics: ‘We’re going to swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America’

Is that right, Joe?

New York Police Confiscating Firearms from People Taking Anti-anxiety Medication

Police Confiscate Man’s Guns Over Son’s Water Pistol Threat

when STUPID people are elected to positions of [governmental] responsibility.

Just what laws were violated? Did the water pistol have a capacity greater than 10 ounces of water? Did it have any “military assault weapon” attributes, like a flash suppressor, detachable reservoir, etc?

Even more alarming is the Gestapo-like actions of the Suffolk County Police. Tell me again that ‘gun control’ has nothing to do with firearms confiscation. The Mayor, Chief of Police, judge (who issued the warrant, if one was issued), and officers involved should all be tarred, feathered and run out of town. The police better take notice that they can be held liable for conducting unlawful activities – to include being shot and killed.

The father, having committed no crime, was subjected to an illegal search and seizure – conducted by law enforcement, no less. …and the police wonder why the public is losing faith in them more every day? Too, his right to keep and bear arms was administratively terminated – that means without due process! Wow, if that is what “safety” looks like, then we are indeed headed in the wrong direction!

I hope John Mayer’s law suit knocks some sense into legislators and law enforcement; although, I am not going to hold my breath.

7-year-old Nabbed on Felony BB Gun Charges

Read it for yourself… It is beyond any logical reasoning to charge a 7-year-old with a felony charge of “discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle.” First and foremost, a BB gun is not a “firearm.” At the outside, it might fit the description for “air gun,” but there is no way it can be classified as a firearm; except perhaps in the minds of gun-haters.

From Merriam-Webster; “firearm” – a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder – usually used of small arms.

From Wiktionary; “firearm” – a personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.

An Old Soldier clarification… modern gun powder is not classified “explosive.” It is, of course, highly flammable; but, not explosive. Black powder, on the other hand, is explosive; but, is not used in modern firearm cartridges as the propellant.

Where is it going to end, folks? When will people stand up and defend constitutionally enumerated “rights” rather than be so willing to throw them under the bus? The premise of a constitutionally enumerated and protected “right” being restricted or otherwise diluted by ‘legislation’ is absolutely dumbfounding.

Please do not suggest that freedom of speech is infringed because it is unlawful to shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater. Indeed, if there actually is a fire, then shouting FIRE for the purpose of evacuating patrons is expected. Shouting “FIRE” when none is present tracks to physically or mortally endangering others – the act of which is unlawful. It has absolutely nothing to do with infringing upon freedom of speech.