“Gun Control” Unintended Consequences…

Politicians are one segment of society that benefit from “gun control” laws and schemes because it allows them to seem to “do something” in response to shrill emotionally fueled demands. Unfortunately, what they do is wrong, and has failed consistently for 50 years. For every one of these incremental mistakes, something worse happens.

The ultimate goal of “gun control” is to remove the means of self defense from civilian hands. The SCOTUS has said that they cannot do this, but it doesn’t matter. I heard a gun control oriented lawyer argue the whole mistaken “militia” argument against personal possession of guns only two weeks ago. The individual right is supposedly settled law, but it doesn’t matter to the grabbers.
For example:

  • The downside of the NICS system is the wasteful administrative overhead presented as an unfunded mandate to resource strapped police agencies. They don’t comprehensively report because of the wasteful cost. Compliance is not a priority because they know how criminals, psychopaths and terrorists get guns – they don’t buy them from licensed dealers. This prohibition serves to motivate theft and burglary crimes and fuel sales on the black market.
  • The downside of a “Bump Stock Ban” has been adequately proven. Cosmetic definitions and model designations can never stop crime. We spent 10 years trying to do it with so called “Assault Weapons” which are now being mis-characterized by the press as “Fully Semi-Automatic Weapons”. Who’s to say a Gisselle target trigger or textured hand grip makes a rifle more dangerous?
  • The downside of “Comprehensive Background Checks” can only be actually implemented by registering every firearm in civilian hands in the United States. Central registration of firearms has repeatedly been abused by governments over a long history of such efforts. No background check has ever stopped a crime.
  • Maintenance of “Gun Free Zones’ just attracts criminals, psychopaths and terrorists to places where people cannot defend themselves. The cost of providing armed security is prohibitive and fails when security will not engage active shooters.

All of this is being proposed because emotionally fueled “Gun Grabbers” have the poor judgement to choose not to trust lawful citizens with proven track records. They do this as they support “politically correct” irresponsibility on the part of people responsible for stopping violent behavior when the tendencies are identified. Eliminating the “school to prison” pipeline would not be necessary if parents did their jobs, school administrators and councilors followed through on anti-social violent students, complainants followed through by prosecuting the people they have asked the police to stop and government representatives made the right resources available to treat, stop and hold dangerous people.

We’ve seen where this ultimately leads, and that is to tyranny. The perfect example is what happened in the Wiemar Republic in Germany after WW-I.

In 1919, one of the first laws passed by their government established complete prohibition of civilian ownership of firearms of any type.

When this didn’t work, in 1920, the Wiemar government passed laws authorizing shooting anyone possessing a firearm on sight, and demanded that all citizens turn in guns to police agencies. Realizing the complete folly of this, one government official mused that that put citizens into quite a dilemma. Killed for possessing a firearm, and killed on the way for bringing it to the police station.

They also managed to gleefully shoot and kill ten Red Cross nurses that were armed for personal protection during a period of civil unrest between the Social Democrats in power and Communists. In the process, they established civilian “Freikorps” militias which eventually morphed into the Nazi “Brown Shirt” movement. All unintended consequences of well meaning “do something” political decisions. Gun control that lead to both civil disobedience and government tyranny.

These things come of not trusting and respecting the overwhelming good will and lawful behavior of citizens.

Second open letter to President Trump

President Trump must be getting tired of his job. He may not care about reelection in 2020, or maintaining a majority of Republicans in congress, but his support for more failed gun control schemes is a great disappointment, and destructive to our nation. 

He may have been affected by the emotional fueled assault he has personally endured from the immature students that gun control groups spun up after the Parkland massacre, or think that his tacit support won’t matter in an obstructive congress, but the fact is that he is supporting the wrong “do something” failed “solutions”. 

Even in small steps against targeted populations, prohibition has never worked in a free society, and just created opportunities for crime and violence to flourish. Lawful Americans must be trusted to defend themselves. The government has no duty to protect individuals or groups, and we’ve seen how effective “politically correct” government behavior was in Parkland. 

Background check systems are fatally flawed “feel good” political answers and a waste of resources. The reason the systems are not well supported by police agencies is that police know the administrative overhead that they involve is a waste of time. Money would be much better spent hardening public places like schools and investigating actual crime instead of keeping track of citizens. 

“Comprehensive Background Check” systems can never work unless firearms already in civilian hands are all registered. Criminals, psychopaths and terrorists don’t get their guns from licensed dealers. They just steal them or buy them on the black market. 

The only people that ever benefit from Gun Control schemes are criminals, psychopaths, terrorists and politicians that want to appear to be doing something, even if it’s wrong. 

Here’s the second letter to President Trump: 

I am writing to tell President Trump that, as a law-abiding gun owner, I oppose any of the gun control efforts currently being discussed.

This includes banning bump stocks or any other devices to modify rate of fire, raising the minimum age of any firearms purchases, expansion of any “gun free zones” that continually put our citizens at risk making children more attractive targets for criminals, psychopaths and terrorists, or so-called universal background checks.

If 18 year olds cannot be trusted with firearms, the general age of majority should be increased to 25 where science tells us that late adolescent brains have fully developed.

Legislation or ATF rules that regulate accessories and replacement parts on firearms cannot be sufficiently well defined to eliminate later abuse.

Schools were not historically preferred targets of criminals, psychopaths and terrorists until the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act made them attractive defense-free targets. Support and sign HR34 and eliminate them, allowing qualified parents, staff and teachers with training and concealed carry handgun permits to choose to protect children with firearms.

Universal background checks cannot be implemented without establishing a firearms registry, something that every single government has abused. Make no mistake, this will be the demand when less comprehensive efforts fail.

Finally, the NICS background check system is incomplete and inaccurate, generating huge numbers of false positives. While good “window dressing” allowing politicians to seem to “do something”, it can never effectively stop crime, and never has. Criminals, psychopaths and terrorists simply get their firearms through illegal sources instead of licensed dealers. Eliminate this failed system and, instead, dedicate the money involved to actually investigating and stopping crime.

Thank you for your time.

Repeal the Second Amendment – For the Children?

The inevitable gun grabber calls for repealing the Second Amendment have predictably  started again – “For the Children” of course…

There is no rational justification for taking such an action – it’s purely based upon both emotion and ignorance. The American Bill of Rights came into being for very practical reasons, and the Second Amendment was specifically defined to protect all citizens from repeated examples of tyranny suffered within the lifetime of the framers.

The very thought of setting aside this potent recognition of the right of free citizens to protect themselves by acquiring training and adequate means would have probably puzzled and likely outraged the founders of the United States. But in today’s well ordered world, what relevance could this right possibly have?

Elimination of civilian possession of firearms, and the means to defend themselves is not a new idea, and is unfortunately rather common in the world. This doesn’t of course, eliminate guns, which are plentiful and not particularly novel technology. While the goal of repealing the Second Amendment is to just put them into the hands of government, that cannot, of course, actually happen.

The government’s police, customs officers, border patrol agents, rangers, and military will continue to have firearms with the full knowledge that they have no duty to protect individuals or groups of citizens. These military style organizations are structured to obey orders from the top, when necessary overriding the judgment of individual officers that are sworn to follow orders.

Of course, the criminals, psychopaths and terrorists will continue to have firearms too… and be armed with the knowledge that their civilian victims have been disarmed.

This alone should give anyone in a free society pause.

Let’s look at the affect of Gun Control and elimination of the Second Amendment in a country that has, for years, adopted much of the agenda desired by Gun Grabbers in the United States. In this country:

  • The regulation of guns is categorized as restricted
  • The right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
  • Civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms and handguns
  • Only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
  • Applicants for a gun owner’s license are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, collection, personal protection, security
  • An applicant for a firearm license must pass a background check which considers criminal, mental health, and medical records
  • An understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required for a firearm license
  • Gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm license every five years
  • The law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register
  • Firearm regulations include written specifications for the lawful safe storage of private firearms and ammunition by licensed gun owners
  • Carrying a firearm in plain view in a public place is prohibited, with some exceptions [hunters, security guards, sport shooters]
  • Carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is prohibited, with some exceptions

Obtaining a license in this country often requires either knowing someone of influence or buying that influence through private payment to the right government official. There is no right to defending yourself.

The country’s laws did not stop a determined terrorist organization from acquiring and training in the use of fully automatic military grade rifles. On September 1st, 2004 the terrorists took control of a school, and held over 1,100 people hostage – including 777 school children.

In a mass military assault to free the school three days later, the government stormed the school using tanks and heavy weapons. 334 hostages were killed, including 186 children.

This is not a theoretical scenario. The massacre took place at Beslan School in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation.

Prohibition never works, and only makes problems worse.

 

 

The problem with “Mental Health” criteria…

Many politicians and administrators are now considering using various forms of “Mental Health Criteria” to justify prohibiting individuals from acquiring and possessing firearms.

When used as input to a process that includes due process, where the targeted person is present and has a right to rebut testimony before a neutral judge, this is probably useful and could help identify dangerous individuals.

The problem is that proposals are now floating around Washington and several state capitols that seek to ignore due process. In the past, any number of problems have surfaced by relying on these techniques, and entire classes of lawful and sane individuals have been denied rights.

The first issue relates to the issue of mental health, it’s diagnosis and the changing landscape of what is considered sick and healthy. It is in no way objective, and criteria have changed and been revised through the entire history of psychiatric care. In truth, the judgment of a person’s mental health is based upon opinion.

As long as that opinion is unbiased, rendered without an agenda, neutral and based upon all input, that would seem satisfactory to most people. The problem is that most mental health professionals render opinions so that a treatment regimen can be chosen, a treatment plan rendered and the patient’s health restored. Diagnosis is not generally focused on the welfare of the general public.

What happens when the opinion of mental health professionals starts to include and implement an agenda? Perhaps the desire to personally possess a firearm is, itself, to be considered a mental illness. I’m sure that an appreciable portion of the general public as well as mental health professionals would consider that true. Like all things based solely upon opinion, a single mental health professional’s judgment might just be wrong. Demonstrating the truth of that opinion should be part of taking any action to eliminate someone’s self-defense rights.

Prior restraint is a very tricky approach to making people safe. It can certainly make people feel safe, but embodied in our system is the need to prove the need to take someone’s rights away. That is what “due process” is all about, and we have centuries of experience that proves why it’s necessary.

It’s not just enough for a person to be personally frightening, isolated, unusual or to hold unusual beliefs. By those criteria, anyone that is undesirable becomes a target. A difficulty in one area of life, like handling your personal finances, has nothing to do with a person’s rational ability to protect themselves and not harm others – yet an entire class of veterans was prohibited from protecting themselves for these reasons by the last administration. The same thing has gone for Senior Citizens that rely on others to care for their financial affairs.

Clear criteria need to be established before “mental health” is used to deny an individual or group’s rights. This needs to be based upon a person’s actions, and the fact that they are dangerous to others. Involuntary commitment to mental health facilities and treatment should be part of this criteria. It’s not enough to intervene when a person must be stopped from violent behavior – police need the support that involves pursuing healthcare or prosecution for dangerous and violent individuals. That means following through after incidents, and not dropping things.

By relying on opinions to identify classes of individuals, reacting to unpopular or even disruptive individuals and denying rights without due process is a very dangerous path to follow. Few things can be more abused than opinion when it incorporates an agenda.

The wages of Discrimination and Prejudice

Yesterday, the news broke of several commercial companies deciding to break contractual ties with the National Rifle Association. One has to wonder of these decisions were emotionally based, or resulted from some kind of financial analysis.

Many members of the American media gleefully repeated the facts without even trying to understand what is beind this move. The unvoiced implication is that “everybody knows the NRA is bad, so why investigate further”. They further assume that it is normal for companies to no longer be associated with such a social pariah. This is, of course, utter hogwash.

What does it mean when a First National Bank of Omaha, Alamo Rental Car Company  or MetLife Insurance Company disassociates itself with an organization like the NRA? In their public pronouncements, some indicated that they did it due to “customer feedback”, yet I don’t know of a single person taking advantage of the program that complained about the discount relationship or the branding association.

I could believe that they were getting non-customer feedback from people that don’t like the NRA and that are threatening to prejudically harm their corporate image because of brand association. But what would suddenly motivate this? I sincerely doubt it was independent action, but rather was an orchestrated campaign.

I am a member of the NRA. I teach nationally certified NRA Firearms Safety classes. I know lobbiests from the NRA. I’ve attended NRA conventions. Everyone that I have ever met associated with this organization is partiotic, acts displaying moral character and cares about our nation, law and order. The organization’s origin was in civilian preparadness since it’s founding in 1871. The founding tenants of this organization are without prejudice or discirimination and seek to protect American freedom.

I have never personally products or services because of an NRA brand association with a vendor. I shop around. I’m not a member of the obviously extreme NRA wine club. But I do separately support the organization through direct membersip and contributions.

While I support and am supported by NRA programs, I don’t agree with every action or tactic followed by the organization. I don’t think anyone does. But, to see it routinely criticized, satarized, ridiculed and denegrated is offensive and grossly unfair. These efforts represent an orchestrated attack against an organization of highly principled citizens, and rely on lies, inuendo, group-think and the development of prejudice.

If you don’t believe me, just substitute the hated “group de jour” for “NRA” any time you hear or read one of the media stories. Black, Immigrant, gay… just substitute them for “NRA” in the story,  it doesn’t matter. Listen for the tone of the attack, and how the attack is justified or explained. Listen for the absent facts. If it’s left to your assumption that they are “bad”, or “unworthy” or “subversive” as a group, you’re being fed an agenda and the attack is fueled by prejudice with the objective that you’ll irratinally discriminate too.

And that is just what several companies have done. They don’t want their brand image sullied by an association with an American organization that stands for patriotism, freedom, individual rights, law and order.

At the core of this lie the fruits of a fifty year campaign to convince the public to distrust lawful gun owners and anyone that embraces the right to defend themselves. The ultimate goal of that campaign is proibition of civilian posession of firearms, and reliance on government to protect citizens.

The unfortunate truth is that in the American system, it is not government’s duty or responsibility to protect individual citizens or groups of citizens. The Supreme Court itself settled this in 2005.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

In the United States, you are responsible for your own self defense. Time after time, Americans have also witnessed how inefficiently and ineffectively Government handles things in this area. Witness the failure of every single layer of supposed government “protection” in the Parkland Florida shootings. And lawful citizens should give up the ability to protect themselves? Ridiculous.

Private companies are free to enter into and terminate contracts. Visible brand association is one of the more important decisions a company’s marketing organization makes. Most of these decisions combine emotional and rational judgement. It is, after all, a popularity contest.

I for one would not choose a company’s products or services because of such a brand association or even discount. The NRA probably set up these contracts as a marketing channel offering a discount to members and receiving a percentage fee in return. Termination of these contracts will result in less income for the NRA, and to the extent that it might weaken the organization the gun grabbers are having their way.

The sad thing is that through centuries of Western History, we’ve seen emotion topple reason time and again with disasterous results. You can be rational and right and, in the short term, lose out to emotionally fueled zealots. Witness Wiemar Germany and their toleration of a radical splinter faction that promised them prosperity in exchange for total control. They were popular until, by 1944, the people knew the true cost first hand.

I doubt that cancellation of these marketing contracts will harm the NRA enough to change anything. Many loyal members are already cancelling insurance policies, choosing new Rental Car vendors and moving their banking to new less prejudiced companies, rejecting unfair discrimination against core constiutuional values.

You have the right to defend yourself. You have the duty to defend yourself. You must have the means to defend yourself. You must not be stopped from defending yourself by artificial supposed “Gun Free Zones”.

I can’t imagine why MetLife, Alamo Car Rental, and the First National Bank of Omaha would oppose those principles unless they are looking for a certain type of customer that is emotionally vulnerable, delusional, and unable to think for themselves. Come to think of it, that might just make business easier for them – at least for a little while…

If you don’t have any direct experience with the NRA or it’s education, safety, training, law enforcement or personal protection programs, and the gun grabbers have convinced you to hate them, you’re a victim of gross discrimination and prejudice. Don’t you owe it to yourself, your family and your community to learn the truth before you act on that hate?

Who is Really Behind the Childrens’ Protests

It costs money to organize mass protests. Big money. The cost of leasing chauffeured buses, days of meals, lodging is expensive and most high school students don’t have that kind of money available on a moment’s notice. While parents can raise that kind of money, and may be motivated to do so, most don’t have the organizational skill to put it all together overnight. Certainly high school students don’t.

So, you must ask, how did 3,000 students suddenly turn into “School Shooting Survivors” and organize, lease, reserve and arrange these complex interlocking things overnight?

I expect that the answer is simply that they didn’t.

(Now – two weeks later – the truth confirms my suspicions…

Astroturfing – Student Style…)

Organizing these trips to Tallahassee and Washington this quickly shows all the hallmarks of professional organizers and long term planning. So do the news interviews displaying the post traumatic stress disorder of hundreds of “School Shooting Survivors” that probably were nowhere near the psychopath’s attack and zones of fire. The high school in Parkland, Florida has a very large campus with a large number of separate buildings. The attacks took place at only one area of one building. Several hundred students simply could not have been there.

All this makes it clear that outside forces with organizational experience and deep pockets have to be involved. That means that these cynical opportunists almost instantly swooped down on the traumatized victims and all the other students and staff associated with the school and started their work. But what is their work?

Several organizations with very small membership and very deep pockets want to convince Americans that they will be safer when firearms are prohibited. They have been willing for decades to work in small increments, and hold out that fantasy of safety after the ability to defend yourself has been withdrawn from free citizens. They are deluded, and dangerously so.

A quick look into the IRS 990 (not for profit organization filings) shows hundreds of millions of dollars behind them. Recent surveys show that organizations like “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense In America” only have about 3,000 members nationwide. They are backed by big money and that money is only there for one reason – to buy power.

The “Moms Demand Action” tax free status was recently revoked. They apparently now operate under Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety”.

Moms Demand Action 46-1633180

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/461633180
In 2013, the MDA operation was a million dollar concern. Their exemption was subsequently revoked since only 2013 shows up. The name was changed, and the EIN shows up on a IRS exemption 501C4 revoked list in August 2017:
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/displayRevocation.do;jsessionid=a2FldswvQHPVHZNXXrdjRO2wC7mtikmflGPdfiwF.-?dispatchMethod=displayRevokeInfo&revocationId=729980&ein=461633180
But here is the related umbrella organizations, Everytown for Gun Safety 20-8802884
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/208802884
And their revenues are astounding. $39,331,000 in 2015, $40,773,000 in 2014, $36,030,000 in 2013 and $4,061,000 in 2012. That money is there to buy influence and power. The influence is over American citizens, and the power would be taken from those so influenced.
The Brady Center is another deep pockets organization.
Brady Center 52-1285097
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521285097
Their revenue numbers are also remarkable. $5,205,000 in 2015, $4,593,000 in 2014, $4,577,000 in 2013 $3,820,000 in 2012 and $2,867,000 in 2011.

Again, deep pockets and an investment in influence and power.

History is ripe with cautionary tales about people gathering such power and what happens to a society that responds by becoming subjects instead of citizens. A very similar strategy was used in Wiemar Germany in the early 1930’s when free citizens were traumatized by the depression and post war reparations demanded by the Allies after World War-I. They registered all firearms in 1932 and committed to protect the records from radical influences. By 1938, through stealthy means the most dangerous and radical dictatorship in history had those records, and Hitler’s Germany immediately used those records to disarm undesirables – the Jews of Germany. We all know the result.

You really have to ask yourself, did these traumatized post traumatic stress disorder affected high school students and parents act alone in their shrill calls for “Gun Control”? Have they thought through the real implications of disarming a lawful civilian population of citizens and taking away the ability for them to defend themselves from criminals, psychopaths, terrorists and (in the future) radical governments?

The founders of our nation made the right to bear arms and defend yourself specific because they had just experienced the impact of governments that took these rights away from their subjects. They saw the British take arms away from Protestants and Catholics in the mid 1600’s because they were considered dangerous. Furthermore, the British banned American imports of arms and gunpowder in 1774 and confiscated their subjects arms in 1775, precipitating the American Revolution.

Nazi Germany disarmed the Jews and followed with Kristallnacht in 1938 and their “Final Solution” against this defenseless minority in the ensuing years. Americans disarmed Black citizens in the South during Reconstruction and the early 20th century. Syria disarmed it’s citizens to protect Assad’s corruption. Much of Europe disarmed their subjects and citizens after WW-II and has watched massive lethal terrorist events proceed with the confidence that only a cowering population can provide.

Gun registration and background check systems are dangerous to the liberty of free citizens and ineffective in preventing crime. Only the law abiding comply with these efforts.

The establishment of supposed “Gun Free Zones” has proven ineffective and dangerous because it attracts the criminals, psychopaths and terrorists that would harm our most precious children.

Unable to completely legislate gun prohibition, the grabbers have turned to death by 1,000 cuts. In fact, the sum of “gun control” efforts makes clear that the zealots that would disarm America’s citizens are following a strategy that is corrosive of liberty and extremely dangerous. When hundreds of millions of dollars fund a national organization of only 3,000 the effort is anything but “Grass Roots” and reflects the wishes of elitist power obsessed oligarchs and the delusional impact that they are having on their subject followers.

The emotional reaction of traumatized school children adds salt to their corrosive gun control brew. It’s no wonder that the “Gun Control” movement is quick to exploit them. They found success exploiting other tragic violent incidents, and have had the money and resources to fine tune their strategy.

“Gun Control” efforts work to corrode away the strength of America’s system by slowly taking away an individual citizen’s effective right to defend themselves. Time and again, in hundreds of years of Western history, this has proven ripe for abuse by governments and opened the door to violent cultural attacks from within and outside nations. There is a good reason the Swiss were never attacked by their Northern neighbor Germany during WW-I and WW-II. There is a difference between free citizens and disarmed subjects that can defend themselves, their culture and their nation.

“Gun Control” is a one way street. Once you have corroded a system with it and slowly eliminated the strength of a society, you can never go back. It’s clearly demonstrated every time you have rendered citizens defenseless – whether in small supposed “Gun Free Zones” or across an entire State or the Nation. This is how citizens become subjects. We have already fought a Revolutionary war over this, and it was precipitated by British efforts to disarm Americans.

It’s impossible for the victims of “Gun Control” to protest like the emotionally motivated post traumatic stress victim high school students that the Gun Control zealots are exploiting right now. The problem is that the victims of “Gun Control” are dead. History speaks from their graves a cautionary tale that true American patriots cannot ignore.

There is a solution. Permit staff, administrators and teachers to protect America’s school children. It is not Politically Correct. Of course neither were the Holocaust, the American Revolution, the Syrian war, The Charlie Hebdo massacre, or Oliver Cromwell’s persecution of the subjects of the British Commonwealth with the “wrong” religion during the 17th century. All of these things were perpetrated by leveraging civilian disarmament.

If you listen carefully you’ll hear the whispers of millions of their gun control victims.

Sacrificing America’s Children on the Alter of Political Correctness

America’s children are vulnerable and scared. Many suffer from being raised in one parent homes or from having no limits established on their behavior from an early age. Some have grown up with no sense of responsibility, following their parent’s example.

The emotion fueled knee-jerk reaction to school shooting in Florida is now exposing some serious flaws in today’s American character, and these need to be recognized and dealt with. If we continue on the path we’re on we risk sacrificing America’s children on the alter of irresponsibility and political correctness.

The root causes that contributed to the tragedy in Florida are many, yet one single completely ineffective response is grabbing the public’s attention, and that is repeated calls for more and varied gun control. The government is not here to protect you.

With over 22,000 constitutional infringing laws on the book, attempts at gun control have been anything but effective. We’ve been emotionally justifying passing them for fifty years and they have not worked to stop criminals, psychopaths and terrorists. That is because these dangerous people make rational choices on their way to their crimes. Take away one violent option, and they will just choose the next one. Perform expensive and thorough background checks and people with clean records will still acquire and misuse firearms.

But why are these damaged people free to pursue their crimes with clean records. In many cases, the potential for problems with an individual has been known much of their lives. By their behavior, it’s possible to know that they may be dangerous. By their actions, a responsible society can stop them.

Instead, concepts of political correctness prevent confronting problems when they are still manageable and prevent lawful trained experienced people from protecting vulnerable people. As a society, we stopped disciplining children decades ago, and quit inhibiting their antisocial actions. We limited school administration ability to confront troublemakers at the same time as teachers, administrators and parents effectively chose to stop requiring effective consequences for violent misbehavior. We don’t want to ruin a troubled child’s future, so we choose to age them out of our care and release them on the rest of society.

When the children are in control of families and schools the inmates run the institution. It’s now politically correct to raise children that way, and that’s a serious mistake. When troubled children are finally stopped, parents and school administrators either do everything they can to avoid consequences for these budding criminals, or completely drop prosecution so as not to feed the “school to prison pipeline”. Young psychopaths learn from these consequence free experiences, and develop excellent strategies for avoiding interference with their actions in the future.

We foolishly established supposed “Gun Free Zones” in 1994 with the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act. This is something that can never be effective, and in fact has proven to make problems worse. Criminals, psychopaths and terrorists can predict that nobody on those school campuses can stop or delay their planned violent actions. This makes the schools that hold our most precious children attractive targets for well publicized attacks. It’s needlessly happened time and again since 1994. We have the evidence clearly at hand, yet the one effective thing that would stop them is not considered politically correct.

It’s critically important to pass legislation now that would allow school administrators, teachers and staff effective means of stopping violent attackers. This is not politically correct by today’s cultural standards, but it is the only effective means for protecting America’s children. Disarming lawful responsible people of good will and skill has been a serious mistake. Establishing places where an attacker is assured of easy access and plenty of time unopposed creates “Crime Attraction Zones”. That we places our children in these zones is completely irresponsible.

Trying to single out a type of firearm because of it’s appearance or brand or design is a fool’s errand. It’s like choosing to drive your family around in a 1947 station wagon instead of a modern SUV because the “Woody” is safer with wood trim. When we tried banning rifles based on cosmetic characteristics in 1994, it didn’t make any difference. Violent crime was still committed with other weapons.

As witnessed in other countries where civilian ownership is completely banned, criminals just use other weapons or illegally acquire and use firearms anyway. Bans are a form of “Prohibition” and we’ve repeatedly seen that prohibition never works in a free society. These prohibition efforts have always been politically correct when they were passed into law, but have always proven to make things much worse for society.

Witness prohibition crusades against alcohol, sex, drugs and guns. Using laws to constrict supply does not have any impact on demand. Since these efforts make skirting them profitable, they have given rise to well funded violent organized crime organizations and established lucrative black markets for the prohibited goods and services. Criminals always ignore prohibitions and profit from them. This is why prohibition always fails in a free society.

Now we choose to sacrifice our most precious children on the alter of irresponsibility and political correctness instead of stepping up the the challenge and stopping violent offenders. Elevated fear and emotions, knee jerk proposals and demonstrations all work to dominate reason and the experience of history. Actions taken to satisfy these immature reactions can only hurt our system, society, culture and citizens and politicians embrace them at their peril. Americans know how to vote ineffective posers out of power.

Many things that “feel good” on the surface, are not good. Eat too much ice cream and you get fat. Indulge undisciplined children and you get a life of trouble. Prohibit lawful decisions by mature responsible adults and you embrace more anarchy, disorder and rich effective criminals.

The 1994 GFSZA experiment is a failure, and we need to move on. Return the ability of lawful, trained and willing school staff and parents to effectively defend their children in America’s schools. Re-direct the emotional energy being blasted against guns to calls for greater responsibility in the face of political correctness. Responsibility for raising children, protecting families and stopping those that would harm us.

Passing new law doesn’t solve a single problem, and usually creates several new ones. There are plenty of laws regulating firearms on the books. Instead of routinely ignoring violations and dropping prosecutions, these laws need to be respected and enforced. We don’t have to give up lawful principles like due process in order to do this. We also need to stop giving dangerous people “a pass” every time we’re called to stop them.

Story after story has now surfaced about the missed opportunities to stop the Parkland Florida school attacker. Here’s the most recent:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/apnewsbreak-some-wanted-florida-suspect-committed-in-2016/

An Open Letter to the President

Mr. President,

I’m writing to oppose any action in the very misguided direction of gun control. This includes wasting further money on an ineffective background check system as well as other calls to ban firearms, magazines, accessories or ammunition.

Like all “prohibition” efforts and anything that eliminates due process, these actions always have and always will fail to stop criminals, psychopaths and terrorists. Terror organizations have learned to recruit people with clean backgrounds. Psychopaths and criminals know how to select targets of opportunity that give them time for their crimes. Prohibitions leads to theft and illegal black markets that make organized criminals rich and powerful.

We should take the following actions to effectively stop violent crime: First, pass HR.34, a bill that seeks to eliminate the deeply flawed Gun Free School Zones Act of 1994 – a law that has lead to making our schools targets.

Second, return of power to citizens nationwide for lawful concealed carry of defensive firearms will help stop attackers. States that permit lawful concealed carry at schools have not seen the tragedies that have happened elsewhere. There are more lawful carriers of firearms than there are those that would harm our children – and that includes trained staff.

While emotional, irrational, loud and misguided anti-gun zealots have grabbed much of the attention since last week, their proposals would all take us into more dangerous and unconstitutional conditions. They are scared, and that is understandable.

Making more lawful people defenseless and continuing to permit the supposed “Gun Free Zones” that lead to schools becoming at higher risk for these attacks would be even more irrational and wrong. Propping up a background check system that eliminates due process and only has the appearance of protecting citizens is wasteful. Please veto S.2135 if it’s passed by congress.

Thanks you for your service to the nation.

Stopping school shootings – Responsibility Edition…

The issue is “responsibility”.

While Cruz was the psychopath criminal in this incident, there are a large number of people that didn’t fulfill their “responsibility”.

Time and again (dozens) police were called to stop him. Not one time did anyone insist on prosecuting him for a number of probable crimes. Not once. This is why he had a clean record.

Mental health councilors, social workers and administrators were all satisfied that Cruz signed a pledge to take his medications. They took no responsibility to follow up.

Neighbors that suspected him of burglary and observed him stealing things from the yard didn’t bother to confront this difficult child, leaving the responsibility to deal with him to others.

The school administration kept not confronting an obvious problem for politically correct reasons, eliminating the “school to prison” pipeline. Their prior approach had been to have “zero tolerance” and take away staff judgment rather than allow them to use their experience to do their jobs responsibly. When too many of their undisciplined wards ended up in trouble, they balked.

Why were these children undisciplined? It’s clear that parents shirked their responsibility to set limits and seek help for truly damaged and mentally ill children.

When the parents that took in Cruz after his mother’s death were interviewed, they claimed that they didn’t have a clue that he was dangerous. Their blind generosity apparently didn’t include taking responsibility for their actions. Like many psychopaths, Cruz was apparently charismatic enough to fool those closest to him.

Finally, the one hired armed security “resource officer” responsible to protect his school’s children didn’t enter the building where he heard multiple shots being fired. He shirked his responsibility and did not due his duty. While police and government agencies do not have a duty to protect individuals or groups of citizens, an armed security guard hired for the purpose clearly does.

Cruz is clearly responsible for his crime. Everyone that had an opportunity and reason to stop him before the event failed to do so.

Now we should take away the right to defend yourself from similar psychopaths from law abiding people that do take responsibility for their actions and self-protection? Poppycock.

It’s not the gun. Cruz had one because, in spite of his serious problems,  he had a clean record.  Clearly, these tragic deaths were caused by the perpetrator and everyone that avoided responsibility by not stopping him sooner.

We have more than adequate laws on the books to stop violent crime and the misuse of firearms. Passing more laws will not solve any problems, especially in a world of people that don’t take responsibility for their actions.

Repeal the Second Amendment?

The Twitter Storms are calling for fundamental change in the USA. They forget that the prefix of “Twitter” is “Twit”.

You can expect numerous emotionally driven short sighted draconian efforts to stop lawful gun possession and self defense in the United States. One strategy will surely be to repeal the Second Amendment to make it easier to be “like Australia” and “like Great Britian” and “like the rest of Western Civilization” – all places that the Liberal Progressives don’t really understand and would never move to or the problem here would be solved.

Power motivated politicians will be seeking every advantage to stay in power, something that tends to make backbones slightly bent in practice. Don’t expect them to stand straight and refute the lies, assumptions, false statistics and fake agendas of the gun grabbers. They represent votes, and if enough of them impress Politicians, they will vote for things that will eventually destroy our culture and system of Democracy.

Many people would prefer to be subjects free of responsibility rather than be citizens. Unfortunately, by the time they start suffering defenseless and government dependent lives, it will be too late to ever go back.

The founding fathers suffered a revolution and war to establish the freedoms we’re founded upon. People here have both the freedom to excel and the possibility to fail. That has now devolved in a vast generation of those that would give up freedom in order to be controlled by others that promise easy resources and quick gratification.

Forget history at your peril. What they need is to viscerally understand the position of disarmed victims of governments. There are numerous and ample examples in history and in today’s world.

Perhaps we need video games depicting first person participation as “The Rohingya Experience” “The Krystallnacht German Jewish Experience” or “The Guernica Experience with Franco and the Condor Legion”… These young and impressionable minds might get the picture of what it’s like to be a victim disarmed by your government. As awful as they are, these supposed “Gun Free Zone” targeted shootings pale in comparison.